Are The Studios Leaving Festivals Behind?

Studio Films Nowhere To Be Seen!

As noted in the below linked Hollywood Reporter article, "there is not a single studio-backed movie among the more than 200 films screening at this year’s Berlinale (Feb. 12-22). And its not just Berlin," with the exception of the latest Mission Impossible premiering at Cannes, which is not really a festival but a market. Why? The article really only notes the issue, without much speculation, aside from studios being nervous "about having reviews come out very long before the launch of a film, [and not] being able to control the way those films are launched."

If you follow my posts, I very explicitly tell you that major studios have historically never done festivals where they don't have some “in” with programmers and/or juries for their particular film. The point being to ensure an advantageous time slot and venue, and at least some assurance of good word of mouth by the festival itself. This is part of the business calculus of doing festivals, and smart independents have followed suit. Only a rank amateur leaves the initial marketing of a multi-million dollar product to chance, or thinks anyone else does. So for studios, this is not new. I was the program director for the Hollywood Film Look, a monthly festival run in Hollywood in the early 2000s, and we had to operate the same way. A no-name film draws no one to a festival. A film with some name attached, or backed by some marketing power, does. So of course, film festivals are an industry-community partnership. As professional filmmakers, we ignore that reality at our peril.

Tellingly, the HR writer observes that "...for many a studio-backed auteur... the festival route remains the go-to." This is important for one's understanding of what might actually be happening. "Studio-backed" in my books actually means studio film - I think that's an obvious truth. And the studios have historically co-opted "independent" producers during the periods where audiences prefer independent films. This is one of those periods.

IMO, the studios are removing their product from a less predictable marketing environment to the more controlled P&A world for simple control of message. It's a smart move. And of course they have a lock on theatrical distribution, so that ensures word of mouth in an environment they have more control over. By leaving the so-called "independent" films that they themselves are backing to the risky festival environment, they get the best of both worlds. As studio-backed films, these "independents" get preferential festival placement over actual independent films, and the marketing buzz that comes with that. Where one of them tanks at the festivals, the studios can say that it wasn't their film, but an independent film. They did this in the 70s, the 80s, and 90's cycles to argue that people should prefer studios titles because, well, they're just better.

What are your thoughts?

Article:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/why-are-studios-ghosting-film-festivals-1236503724/

March 6 - Open Panel On Generative AI In Film

The IPG and Stage And Screen Innovations will have an open panel discussion on March 6, 2026, via Google Meet. Time TBA - watch this space and the websites at SSI and IPG for registration particulars. The panel will be attend by donation (but no donation required). Advances in generative AI - both audio and video - are being made daily. Some are hailing that the barriers to entry have come down, others that the bar has been raised. Copyright, creative control, production processes, disruption to the industry - concerns over all all these and more are made to me daily. But generative AI is here to stay. How should you, as a creative in an industry in flux, going to move forward? What issues are there that you haven’t even thought of yet? Come find out with us March 6. We also want to hear your voice in this discussion!

A candid word:

First, I want to make it very plain that I appreciate the members of the IPG, and the support and encouragement they have given over the years. You are invaluable, your fees help defray IPG expenses, and your mindset helps others to know they can affect the industry for the better. You are a force for positive change. Having said that, and with the aggressive direction set for the IPG this year, I feel it is time to make some clear.

I have been working on building the IPG for many years. My vision for it has always been, and remains, to be a professional organization that serves the independent creator; to create programs and structures which provide guidance and encouragement to those creatives who have the mindset and courage to work in this very challenging industry. I cannot help amateurs or hobbyists. I can provide great value to the aspiring and mid-career producer. I have wanted to make the IPG into an organization which will carry on with that work.

This has been a very, very thankless task. Supporters come and go. Some beg to be involved and when given the chance promptly lose interest. Some try to take advantage. Some just want free services and don’t care about anyone else. Anyone who has worked in any entrepreneurial capacity will not be surprised. I have not been surprised. I have never done this for recognition or for money or for validation.

However, there comes a time when the effort is not worth the results. The IPG is envisioned as an organization that helps people carve out a path for themselves. Such organizations have existed, and such are always founded and controlled by people who want to change the world for the better, not just carve out their own paths.

The IPG says, this is your industry, take control. I have repeatedly invited our members to be involved, to take control of something in this organization which they might care about. Those who do that, will affect the world. I count on one hand the number of people who have accepted that offer over the years. I can count on two fingers the number who have followed through in a serious way for longer than a month or two. I can count on ONE finger the number of IPG members who have taken advantage of the proposed services listings, where they can list their own services to other members and the film industry at large. I have given out dozens of professional referrals to IPG members. I have been contacted exactly once over the years by someone who was referred to me by an IPG member.

If you want to affect the world, whether it’s through the IPG or your own projects, you must actually do something. People complain about society, about politicians, about corporations, about unions and studios and AI… but democracy, society and industry are participatory sports. Get involved, or take only what someone else gives you. Getting involved is what the IPG is about.

We have set some big goals for 2026. It is already half way through February. I called out for people to be involved. No one new has answered, and people who formerly expressed desire to be involved, are silent.

Reality cannot be ignored. I will be moving forward with IPG programs, as scheduled. I will invite your participation and support, as I have before. But your window to affect the organization’s direction is closing rapidly. A number of changes in programs will be announced shortly, the new membership drive among them. Member access to FilmPod among them. Member access to the PUNC program among them. IPG memebr access will always remain preferential, but I am restructuring so that the valuable work of the IPG and SSI can sustain and expand.

In the meantime, I am embarking on very important projects of my own this year. My time to assist YOU on a personal basis will imminently become very limited.

So I announce three very important things here:

1. THIS IS YOUR INDUSTRY, TAKE CONTROL. Your participation in it is required, if you want to progress your career. Your participation in the IPG is required, if you want to affect the organization and the industry through it. Your financial support for SSI’s programs is required if you want to help us give skills to talented new creators. Your actual involvement in SSI is required if you want to be a mentor for early-career producers. Your moral encouragement is appreciated. Your involvement is meaningful and affects others.

2. I remain available to IPG members for consults and commentary on specific circumstances. However, I can no longer afford to provide free services, as I have. As you know, I can provide professional budgeting, development, scheduling etc., direction (on certain productions) and of course production supervision. My availability to you for these services is closing soon, forever. If you need these services now or might soon, take advantage of my time now. Fees are IPG member-friendly. If I can help, contact me directly. I want you to succeed.

3. SSI did work valued by the IRS approaching $400k in 2025, mostly by volunteer time and in-kind donations by myself, Diamond Monique Washington and some PUNC members. We had only about $3400 in cash donations in total over the year. As you know, 2025 was a no-go for grants for most organizations, SSI included. 2026 appears to be shaping up to be different. SSI is on a trajectory to create an important impact on the industry, and we already had people receive career opportunities! However, we need your support. If you think you can help, with mentoring, administration, marketing, donor acquisition, instruction - anything at all - we need you and you are invited. If you have supported SSI financially in the past, or are considering it now, we need your support and you are invited. See https://stagescreen.org/support-arts to make donations, contact me direct to explore anything else about SSI.