What’s not being said is that while this very handily lets them off the P&A and advance money hook, and while it props up the festivals, it does nothing positive for the filmmakers. Nothing. Th filmmakers lose out on advance money that they desperately need and deserve, press, (because let’s face it, festival press is mostly industry oriented and often doesn’t reach a wider audience), and the simple time that lets small films build an audience. Companies like ___ and ___ pay very low advances for VOD titles, refuse to guarantee DVD releases on most of their titles (but demand the rights), and refuse to have transparency with their revenue figures.

But the biggest issue is that most of these titles, without having the theatrical and critical push behind them, will just be names and one-line synopses that the average viewer will not know anything about - and that’s IN the households who have the cable access in the first place, as Kevin points out. I don’t know about you, but my DVR is already full of free shows that I tape but don’t have time to watch. Why should I pony up $7 for a movie I’ve never heard of? I won’t. That’s basically two netflix, and on there at least I can read a longer synopsis and reviews.

This is a bad move for filmmakers. Of course, nobody really know what the download figures on these VOD titles is. Why is there no transparency?

If your film has an audience and you know how to reach them, try to carve out a theatrical window. If you have to do a very limited theatrical yourself, it’s probably worth it. But in that case the distributor should recognize the investment and adjust back-end splits as a result. But will they?

In the example above, I can see where IFC and SXSW benefit. But can anyone tell me how the filmmaker benefits?