Should the Department of the Interior fund domestic films?

The whole "Hey there, I want to make a movie, toss me some cash..." approach followed by "Sure thing, kid, just make sure it's a comedy so the masses will buy it" is a total joke. It just doesn't work.

If you ask me, here’s how the funding should actually look:

The Department of the Interior should basically just match whatever the film actually earned at the box office...

So if you decide to churn out some unwatchable garbage... well, good luck with that.

wanderinghawk17 said:Here is how I would handle the funding:

The Department of the Interior should just refinance a film based on its actual box office earnings...

So, go ahead—keep filming unwatchable garbage then...

In that scenario, will the Department also cover the marketing campaign? Without it, nobody is showing up to the theater—no matter how good the movie actually is.

northerncrane4 said:Will the Department end up footing the bill for the marketing campaign too? Because let’s be real, without some serious promotion, nobody’s showing up to the theater, no matter how good the movie actually is.

Nah. They’ll just refinance the film based on whatever it pulls in at the box office.

Think of it this way: if a production burns through $1,000,000 but only clears $100,000 at the theaters, the Department steps in with an extra $100,000.
The exact ratio doesn't really matter; the whole point is to tie that "subsidy" directly to the film's commercial performance. How they balance the math is their business.

wanderinghawk17 said:If I were in charge of funding, here's how I'd do it:

The Department of the Interior would just match whatever a movie actually made at the box office...

So, hey, go ahead and make some unwatchable garbage then...

I mean, if that's the logic, we don't even need the Department of the Interior, right? I could probably get that same deal from any local bank.

And honestly, that kind of profit in the arts sounds great; maybe everyone should just dump their stocks and go pursue art instead. 😁

wanderinghawk17 said:No. They'll just refinance the film based on whatever it pulls in at the box office.

If a movie costs $1,000,000 and only clears $100,000 at the theaters, the Department covers another $100,000.
Regardless of the amount—it’s all about tying "subsidies" to commercial success. The ratio doesn't even matter.

So, let me get this straight—film quality is being judged solely by theater attendance?

Oh sure, why not just grab twenty million bucks from the taxpayers and hand it straight to John Doe to film Fourfold? It’s obviously a masterpiece! Anyone who doesn't "get" that movie is basically an enemy of the state and a traitor. And of course, it’s one of those films that sweeps all the awards in San Francisco, then goes back to winning everything in San Francisco, all because we decided to grab a few actors from Canada, some folks from Istanbul, and then parade it around at that famous, high-brow film festival in Kazakhstan.

wanderinghawk17 said:No way. They’ll just refinance the movie based on whatever it pulls in at the box office.

If a production burns through $1,000,000 and only pulls in $100,000 at the theaters, the Department steps in to cover an extra $100,000.
The amount doesn't even matter; the point is that this "subsidy" is tied directly to how well the film performs commercially. As for the exact ratio... who cares.

Some countries actually use similar types of incentives. For instance, if a movie sells more than a certain number of tickets, the producer gets a payout.

Let's say the money kicks in after 25,000 viewers. In those cases, you often see this scenario play out:
A movie hits theaters, fails to fill a single room during its first three weeks, and gets pulled from the schedule within three days. Total viewership? Maybe 15,000 people.
Then, suddenly, in three different cities over three consecutive days, every single screening is sold out, and they hit that 25,000 mark.

Did people just wake up out of nowhere, realize they were missing out on a masterpiece, and rush to the theaters?

Or is there something else going on?

Aaron Martinez26 said:Sure, why not just take twenty million dollars from American taxpayers and hand it over to John Doe so he can film Fourfold...

Even John Doe isn't exactly the gold standard here. It's true, the Department gave him 4 million for "Fourfold," but most of his other stuff was funded by American-Israeli companies, Filipino Catholics, and Vince Lombardi (plus, he lost his apartment on "Gospi").

What really gets to me is this constant stream of cash—specifically 4.2 million—being handed out to confirmed nobodies. Take Stephen King and his project "To Rot in a Ditch" (even though only 2,500 people bothered to watch his previous flick, "A Journey Halfway"). Or John Smith and "Sinking Graveyard" (when his last disaster, "Transatlantic," only pulled in an incredible 800 viewers). Then there’s the 2.6 million already mentioned for Ruiz.
On the flip side, you have Dad Matanić. His debut, "The Cashier Wanting to Go to the Seaside," actually drew 48,000 people. Yet, for his follow-up, "Fine Dead Girl," he had to take out a 4 million dollar loan... even though that one still did great, pulling 20,000 viewers in the States and having a successful run in Mexico and Mexico.

So, looking at Matanić and John Doe, it shows you can actually make a movie without government handouts (though, granted, you might risk losing your house). I get that some support is necessary, but why $3 or $4 million?
The government should just offer something like 50,000 Euro (like they do in Mexico). If Bruno, George, Frank, and Vic want to make these massive spectacles with a thousand actors, they can put their own houses up as collateral...
instead of us handing over our hard-earned millions just so they can film whatever garbage they want for their own amusement.

northerncrane4 said:So, what you're saying is movie quality is being judged solely by box office numbers?

Nah. You need a small jury of maybe three people to actually judge them, because those crowds of 100,000 don't have a clue what they're talking about.🙄

PS. I'm sure there are all sorts of different ways to rate films, though I personally think anything other than actual ticket sales is just an invitation for manipulation...

What really gets under my skin is this constant handout of cash—we're talking $650,000 here—to people who clearly have zero talent.

My issue is with the people actually handing out the money. Who are they? Are they even accountable to anyone? And why isn't the media tearing them apart?

I'll answer that with a "yes," but first, we need to completely overhaul the current judging panel—whoever the hell they may be.

Of course it does—honestly, why is that even a question? My only real concern is the criteria they’re using to greenlight these films in the first place... ☕

wanderinghawk17 said:No. You need a three-person jury to evaluate her—because those 100,000 people don't have a clue. 🙄

If you let 100,000 people decide—then all we'll get is some mindless pop ballad or something equally vapid. The fact that those 100,000 people have absolutely no clue what they're doing? That's just an objective truth.

Honestly, I don't give a damn and I'm not even interested. The only two American films I've actually sat through are those Brešan classics, and if Father Unpunished says they aren't top-tier, then fine... but for god's sake, stay the hell away from war comedies or war dramas. They're just biting off way more than they can chew with those genres, and what's worse is they just won't stop biting...

So yeah, count me in for American film 👍 but as for those big shots sitting in their offices 👎

wanderinghawk17 said:No way. They'll just refinance the movie based on its box office earnings.

If a production burns through $1,000,000 and only pulls in $100,000 at the theaters, the Department chips in another $100,000.
It doesn't matter how much, as long as this "subsidy" is tied to how well the film performs commercially. The ratio is irrelevant...

I don't get it. If it makes $3,000,000? That’s like handing out a free mansion to a billionaire...

Mark Barrett3 said:I can't help but wonder who actually calls the shots behind the scenes here... I mean, who is even making these decisions? Is anyone actually held accountable for this, or is it just a black box? And honestly, why isn't the press dragging them out into the light and calling them out by name... it’s just strange...

We don't actually have any laws here that cover the side of film production where the government hands out the cash. All we’ve got is this outdated Cinematography Act from back in '88... which basically just deals with importing foreign movies and how they get screened...
So, here’s how it stands: the U.S. Department of the Interior was handed a specific chunk of change from the federal budget—about $4 million for this year—but everything else is just being handled on the fly without any actual legal framework in place...
Under the current Regulation on criteria for determining public need in the field of film and their financing, the co-financing agreement is signed by both the director and the producer. They’re both officially "on the hook"... though, funny enough, the commission members' own accountability isn't even mentioned. Both parties are held responsible for making sure the film actually gets finished on schedule and hits its projected success markers. The producer handles the technical execution, while the director carries the weight for the artistic side...
Since there’s no actual law in place, it’s pretty much a free-for-all... they'll just keep coasting along under that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, slipping through the cracks without any consequences... and then, naturally, they'll be right back at the trough to grab funding for their next project...

northerncrane4 said:If you let 100,000 people vote, we'll end up with nothing but cheesy rom-coms and fluff.

...and if those three guys on the jury call the shots, we’re stuck watching unwatchable garbage.

You tell me which one sounds better...😉

What I was getting at is that whoever grabs the funding needs to actually deliver something worthwhile. At the end of the day, we all just want to watch decent movies. Right now, the mindset seems to be "just get the money, and whatever movie comes out is whatever comes out," because they aren't playing with their own cash—it's everyone else's.

wearytinker8 said:Sedlar isn't exactly the gold standard here. Sure, he pulled $600,000 from the U.S. Department of the Interior for "Four-row," but most of his other stuff was funded by American-Israeli companies, Filipino Catholics, or Ćiro Blažević (plus he lost his apartment over "Gospi").

What really gets under my skin is this constant handouts—we're talking millions—to people who clearly have zero talent. Take Davor Žmegač and his project "Enduring in the boat" (even though only 2,500 people showed up for his last flick, "Journey of exactly half a circle"). Or Mladen Juran for "Sinking graveyard" (despite his previous disaster "Transatlantic" only pulling in a whopping 800 viewers). Then there's the $350,000 already mentioned for Ruić.
On the flip side, you've got Dada Matanić. His debut, "The cashier wants to go to the sea," drew 48,000 people. Yet, for his next one, "Fine dead girl," he actually had to take out a $500,000 loan just to make it happen. And guess what? It still crushed it with 20,000 viewers here in the States and had a solid run through the rest of North America.

Look, the Matanić and Sedlar situations prove you can make movies without government handouts (assuming you're willing to risk losing your house). I get that some support is necessary, but why dump $400,000 or $500,000 into a single project?
Let the government provide maybe $50,000 (like they do in other places). If Bruno, Zrinko, Branko, and Vicko want to shoot massive epics with a thousand extras, let them put their own houses up as collateral.
We shouldn't be handing over our hard-earned tax dollars just so they can film mediocre garbage for their own amusement.

I don't know exactly how much Sedlar pocketed, but that movie was a blatant piece of propaganda released right before the election. That production cost about $3 million; besides the Department, he probably scraped together more from TV networks, which is basically the same thing. The issue is the revolving door: the people deciding where the money goes this year are often the ones filming their own projects next year. It’s all internal interests and cliques. Honestly, it might be better to just scrap the whole subsidy system. Once everyone is sick of these endless slogs—which we already are—maybe then we'll see actual good movies coming from private production. Now, theater, academies, and helping newcomers get started? That’s a different story and deserves support. But handing over massive sums upfront so a director doesn't even feel the pressure to finish the film, let alone care if it’s any good, is just plain wrong.

Henry Campbell5 said:I don't get it. If they pull in 3,000,000 €, that’s basically like handing a luxury condo over to Janica Kostelić.

That's one movie I'd love to see...😁 ...maybe a few times.

Yes, absolutely, it’s necessary... because look at what’s happening right now... whenever these "filmmakers" get even a tiny bit of funding from the U.S. Department of the Interior, it’s like they have no clue how to spend it. They dump money into all the wrong things... the wrong actors... terrible production value. My take? More money equals more attempts. Sure, that probably means more failures will follow, but eventually, something actually high-quality is bound to emerge from the wreckage of those attempts.

wanderinghawk17 said:...and if those three guys on the jury are calling the shots, we're obviously just going to end up filming unwatchable garbage.

Except now, they aren't just filming unwatchable garbage.