The story behind Greelistu

Audiences have no influence on film selection
Reaching audiences is an important goal when selecting projects for production and distribution. But still the audiences are frequently the last to know which films and series are in the making. Productions are commonly executed behind closed doors and the finished films and series reach the audiences first after the fact. The audience, who are able to get engaged and have an influence on what kind of films are made, are actively kept out.  

Film financing is built on “guestimates”
In the current marketplace, decisions for funding are based on estimates of each project’s commercial potential depending on story, cast, talent and budget. The results are notoriously unreliable, which make the financial risks very high. These estimates determine financing from official bodies, private investors and distributors. To a large degree it is money put up against future income. So, films and series start off with a huge debt, very unsure results from the onset and the route to towards break-even is a long one.

Institutional and political demands
The various funding institutions are ruled by politically motivated regulations, using support to filmmaking as means to reach goals of value to politicians, rather than filmmakers. The support comes with requirements for distribution and demands on the content that often force the filmmakers to bend over backwards to be eligible, and many loose both creative control and their rights in the process.

Audiences willing to pay ignored
Traditional film distribution models follow a set pattern of days gone by, in spite of the global nature of internet and digital streaming facilities. Distribution and exhibition are still split into locked geographical areas, with long holdback periods between the various screening windows. The film industry has been exceptionally slow in adapting to the digital landscape, alienating the large audience willing to pay for an early screening, at a time and on a screen of their own choice.

The struggle of David and Goliath 
The ways of the huge Hollywood Studios have set a standard for financing, production and distribution on a global level. Notwithstanding that the Hollywood model is not really applicable anywhere else, all are kept busy trying to make it on the same terms.This is a harsh environment for the smaller independent production companies. It forces them to excessive risk taking, keeps them last in line for a share of profits and effectively prohibits them from a creating a sustainable business. 

So what? Life is a bitch 
The average timeline to get a project into production is eight years. Ten, twelve and fifteen years are not uncommon. Five years is a flash of lightning. The only period of cashflow in filmmaking is during shooting and postproduction. The initial financial and creative risks of development is borne by the filmmakers themselves. Distribution revenues seldom cover more than the cinema fees and distributors marketing costs. The most obvious effect is that financiers and distributors try to cut their losses and go for safe choices, the successes of yesterday. That's to be expected. But this is a detrimental environment for the independent filmmakers trying to make a living. 

Sure, life is a bitch. This is not about exasperation or complaining over hard work, long hours, creative and logistic difficulties or the challenges of development and production, those come with the territory. 

But altogether, this is ample reason for filmmakers to take matter into their own hands and find new ways of going about their business.