Jumplion said:
To be honest, I don't really know exactly how the distribution system quite works in Hollywood (which isn't great, since I'm planning on getting into Hollywood as a career later in life), mind giving a rundown for me?
Someone asking for MY expertise? I'd never pass that up. Basically, I know very little myself, but a lot of what I do know comes from the making of documentaries on DVDs, many of which are attached to Kevin Smith films (and are often better than the movies themselves). The Clerks blu ray/ Clerks X dvd set has a really sharp one in particular. There's also a great history of films retrospective TCM did called "Moguls & Movie Stars: A History of Hollywood" that covers just about everything business-wise from 1900 to 1970. Another good one is The Kid Stays in the Picture, all about former actor Robert Evans elbowing his way into an executive position in the 70s and 80s.
The way it USED to work was that the major studios owned everything from the production down to the theaters. That's why you occasionally see a theater called The Paramount. RKO movies went to RKO theaters, MGM movies were only at MGM theaters, etc. This system was broken up because it was a monopoly, but the distribution line still exists. Big companies, like Warner Bros produce their own movies and distribute their own movies. The distribution end consists of everything from advertising the movie, negotiating with exhibitors to show the movie, literally manufacturing the prints of the film, shipping them to theaters, and collecting the ticket revenue. Really big guys like Warner can even force the exhibitors to buy and play crappy movies, in order to get the right to exhibit the good ones. It costs a theater a good chunk of change to lease a print of a film, too.
In the case of independent film, the model is a bit different. Lately (and the trend is dying out) it's been a pseudo-studio system, where indie films get bought up by the big studios under the label of a smaller branch. Brands likes Paramount Vantage (defunct), Miramax (Disney owned, also defunct), Fox Searchlight, Fox Atomic (no longer exists) etc. put out stuff like There Will Be Blood, 28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire, Little Miss Sunshine, and Juno. These movies have fairly big stars and budgets in them, too, so they really don't look like REAL indie films at the end of the day. But with studios so ready and willing to buy up movies with famous actors in them (at film festivals like Sundance and Cannes), it's not that big of a risk for independent financiers to put money behind it.
In the meantime, studios generally stick with the safest possible bets when producing their own flicks. Kids movies, PG-13 horror movies, superhero movies, romantic comedies... and generally don't put too much of their own money into stuff that could be controversial or (more likely) unprofitable. Really, the more you learn about this stuff, the less you want to get into it yourself. It's a big 'ol confusing mess with astronomically unfavorable odds. Smith's own origin story is ridiculous in the amounts of ways he could have failed.
Edit: However, most independent movies don't end up with major distributers. These go with smaller companies who get brief theatrical runs, movies ondemand on cable, movies into premium channel programming, or direct to DVD. All of which falls under the category of "distribution." Also, all of those forms of distribution can be broken up contractually, so different companies can put out a movie in different ways in different countries. A movie could come out on DVD only in the US, but play theatrically in Canada, such as the case with Louis CK's latest standup concert movie. Or stream HD to theaters which is a really weird new way of doing things that I've yet to witness firsthand, but I seen it advertised for stuff like Operas (or again, the Louis CK movie).
