IndieWire’s Future of Filmmaking Summit Celebrated Those Who Adapt Without Compromising What Matters

When IndieWire Editor-in-Chief Dana Harris-Bridson took the stage to open IndieWire’s inaugural Future of Filmmaking summit, she quoted a George Bernard Shaw passage that could have easily been written about this specific moment in film history: “Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”

Fortunately, the timeless quote did not describe any of the summit attendees, who filled the room at Nya West in Los Angeles on a Saturday morning to learn where the entertainment industry might go next. From pitching with AI to replicating the theatrical experience in digital formats, the day was filled with conversations about new filmmaking developments that would have seemed unthinkable even a decade ago. The rich discussion and boundless enthusiasm for movies that filled the room made one thing clear: the road ahead might be uncertain, but the film industry contains more than enough human passion to light the way.

IndieWire began its exploration of the future by looking towards its own past, inviting IndieWire veteran-turned-Pixar veteran Mike Jones to sit down with Harris-Bridson for a wide-ranging discussion about his journey from struggling indie screenwriter to Pixar guru.

As an aspiring artist working in the New York independent film scene of the 1990s, he never expected to end up in animation — much less write hits like “Soul” and create the upcoming “Inside Out” spinoff series “Dream Productions.” But as he looked back on his journey, he shared one of the most important lessons of his career: Only write what you’re passionate about. Jones explained that his early efforts to water down his artistic voice in order to make himself more marketable proved futile, and that he only achieved mainstream success from ideas in which he was unapologetically himself. The takeaway was clear: Trends come and go, but the need for personal storytelling with distinct voice is one of the film industry’s true constants.

“None of those scripts were ever getting made, or even that good,” Jones said of his attempts to write commercial fare that didn’t interest him. “And yet the other scripts that I was writing, the smaller indie movies, the smaller art films I was writing, those were good. And those would get me the Hollywood work. And I, for some reason early on in my career, couldn’t make the connection that what they want is that… I figured out the things that I write well can be put into things that makes me excited to write them, and that makes the audience excited to watch them.”

Dana Harris-Bridson and Mike Jones Rich Polk

Jones’ tales of his early days of trying to move mountains to get projects off the ground likely resonated with many of the aspiring filmmakers in the room. Fortunately, it’s easier than ever for artists to translate an idea into a visual pitch. Reby Silverman, Global Brand Partnerships Lead for Canva, joined writer/director Jeremie Cander, producer Jonas Agin, director Greg Barker, and producer and founder of All Night Diner Nick Moceri for a conversation moderated by IndieWire’s Alison Foreman about the current state of pitching presented by Canva. 

“At Canva, we started partnering with the entertainment industry almost two years ago to empower emerging and established filmmakers and entertainment professionals to visualize their ideas, bring their next TV and film projects to life,” Silverman said. “And Canva’s mission more broadly is to empower the world to design.”

Barker explained that pitch decks are often the first opportunity that filmmakers have to present their vision to potentially interested parties. Taking the time to select the right images can be the differentiating factor that pushes a pitch over the edge and convinces an investor to read your script.

“When pitch decks started becoming in vogue maybe 10, 15 years ago, I said, ‘Oh my gosh, why do we have to do this? It’s such a pain,’” Barker said. “But actually, now I feel like it is the first step in the creative process beyond the script. The first step in conveying a visual vision, a tone, a feel of the project for a financier or an actor.”

Agin, who now has an overall production deal with Disney, cited his experience as a studio executive when asked about what makes a good pitch. He made it clear that specificity is key, encouraging filmmakers to put as much effort into their pitch decks as they would into their finished films.

“What everybody’s talking about first, in terms of fundamentals, is tone and voice,” Agin said when the conversation turned to effective pitch imagery. “There could be a coldness to a lot of pictures, which is imagery that tells a story. But if it doesn’t tell a story with a real feeling and personality, it doesn’t matter.”

Cander echoed those sentiments, explaining that the internet affords filmmakers access to almost every image ever created. In other words, there’s no excuse not to find the perfect pictures that capture the tone of your potential project.

“My favorite part is finding the images. I feel like sometimes I spend too much time on it, but you can really just go down a rabbit hole of just all these engaging images out there,” Cander said. “When you find the ones that truly speak to your story, and even if you don’t find specifically, you can still use it as a talking point of, ‘It’s going to look like this, but then we’ll do it this way.’”

Ali Foreman, Greg Barker, Nick Moceri, Jonas Agin, Jeremie Cander, and Reby Silverman Rich Polk

Moceri added that the impact of a good pitch deck can continue long after a deal is closed. By circulating a set of visual inspirations to all of the involved parties during pre-production, filmmakers are able to ensure that their project maintains a consistent tone throughout the production chaos that’s bound to follow.

“I think the deck is such an important tool to make sure that everyone’s making the same movie,” Moceri said. “Making movies and TV series are so hard and if you’re not all rowing in the same direction, you’re just going to tire yourselves out.”

Once you’ve successfully pitched your movie and wrapped production, the next challenge is finding distribution. The classic model of premiering an independent film at a big festival and selling it to a distributor or streamer is increasingly out of reach for many filmmakers, which has forced artists to get creative to get their films seen.

Fortunately, several experts were on hand to share their thoughts on the future of film distribution. For the next panel, Harris-Bridson was joined by Sub-Genre principal Brian Newman, Tubi senior VP, content acquisition and partnerships Sam Harowitz, and Keri Putnam, a Sundance and Miramax veteran who recently authored the groundbreaking Independent Film Audience & Landscape Study. The spirited debate featured some bold assertions about the state of distribution — along with some even bolder predictions for the new paths filmmakers might forge for themselves.

Dana Harris-Bridson, Sam Harowitz, Brian Newman, and Keri PutnamRich Polk

Through Sub-Genre, Newman often partners with brands such as REI that aren’t normally associated with entertainment but want to put their stamp on narrative films that reflect their values. He stressed that filmmakers need to realize that brand-funded cinema doesn’t always devolve into advertising — it can be an alternative source of funding for passion projects that comes with the built-in advantage of partnering with savvy marketers.

“Everyone in the independent world seems to think if you build it, they will come, and that just doesn’t work. And that’s one of the reasons I work with brands, is because they understand marketing and they can drive traffic to something,“ Newman said. “We don’t even like to call it brand content. We say it’s “brand-funded film” or “brand-funded television,” whichever one they’re doing. Because they’re not looking for product placement, it’s not an advertisement. What they actually want is more values alignment.”

Putnam seemed to agree, saying that in a world where it often feels increasingly easy to make an independent film but harder than ever to get one seen, filmmakers need to be smart about partnering with backers who know how to market their projects.

“I think it’s absolutely fair and quite important that people start thinking that way,” Putnam said when asked about brand collaborations becoming an acceptable avenue for narrative filmmaking. “Not just because of the film financing, but also because of the marketing reach that a brand has. And just bringing it back to the audience thing, and really thinking about and saying, ‘You should talk about this.'”

The discussion of brand-funded film spoke to a larger lesson that every filmmaker would be wise to internalize: There are more paths than ever to making films, and keeping an open mind can present new avenues of getting your projects made.

“That’s what is so fun about working at a place like Tubi, is there is no one-size-fits-all approach,” Harowitz said. “Depending on your film, the audience that you’ve targeted, maybe you have financing from a brand, maybe you’ve sourced financing elsewhere, you can come to Tubi and explore a direct partnership, whether it be through a exclusive or original programming pitch.”

While it’s clear that there’s no one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of distribution, the founders of KINO are convinced that it offers a compelling option to independent filmmakers. The startup lets filmmakers host live virtual screenings of film and TV shows, allowing audiences to watch alongside actors and directors and engage in conversation with them in real time.

Dana Harris-Bridson, Daril Fannin, Brit MacRae, and Austin Worrell Rich Polk

The company was the centerpiece of a panel moderated by Harris-Bridson, who was joined by KINO CEO Daril Fannin, COO Austin Worrell, and Chief Marketing Officer Britt MacRae. The executives made it clear that they see KINO as an opportunity to recreate the communal experience and scarcity of theatrical distribution in a home viewing setting. But most importantly, they view KINO as another arrow in the quiver of filmmakers looking to cut through the noise and get their movies noticed.

“If you have the budget of Barbenheimer, okay, you’re great. You have $100 million P&A spend. You’re going to be able to make the world aware of your film,” Macrae said. “But what if it’s a $2 million poor indie film, right? It’s like, ‘Oh, you’re competing against cat videos and the endless scroll of TikTok,’ so it’s like how are you supposed to make people aware of your film?”

Fannin explained that KINO’s live viewings can close that gap and offer independent filmmakers a chance to garner additional attention and compensation, even if they’re not working with traditional distributors.

“Awareness and revenue are the two things that I felt like independent filmmakers were not really given the opportunity to do in an equitable way,” Fannin said. “So we came up with an idea. What if you could watch the film with the cast and crew? What if you could interact in really fun ways? So if it’s on the smart TV and it’s on your phone and you can ask questions and do live Q&A’s and get giveaways and actually tangibly interact with the cast. So it’s almost like the Sundance experience from the comfort of your own living room.”

Ultimately, KINO represents a potential solution to the paradox facing every filmmaker looking to distribute their own work in 2024: it’s easier than ever to access potential audiences, but harder and harder to get anyone’s attention. The team hopes that their product can be another piece in the puzzle of getting great work seen.

“We want to ensure that every film and TV creator can find your community,” Worrell said. “There are 4.3 billion people on the internet. It should not be difficult. You should have the tools to empower you.”

Of course, no conversation about the future of filmmaking would be complete without a discussion of the topic on everyone’s mind: AI. New developments in generative AI have sparked existential dread in many film professionals, who fear that their jobs could someday be rendered obsolete. But to ignore the field altogether would mean turning a blind eye to one of the fastest growing sectors of the film industry.

To discuss the topic of how filmmakers are — and aren’t — using AI, IndieWire VP of Features Strategy Chris O’Falt convened a panel of experts that included Kinetic Energy Entertainment CEO Diana Williams, Framestore Creative Technology Director Brian Solomon, ETC Director, Adaptive Production Erik Weaver, and longtime AI expert Dave Clark. While all panelists acknowledged that the possibilities surrounding generative AI are endless, they stressed that much of its current utility lies in its ability to facilitate human production, not replace it. 

Chris O’Falt, Erik Weaver, Dave Clark, and Diana Williams.Rich Polk

“When we’re looking and thinking about AI, and there’s so much different stuff that’s underneath that, but what AI is enabling right now for people to say ‘If it’s in your head, you have the ability to then get it out of your head,” Williams said, explaining that generative AI is frequently used to provide visual aids for pitches that eventually lead to human-led productions.

“When you’re trying to sell your vision as a filmmaker, we all know it’s very hard,” Clark added. “Directors have been using YouTube trailers and things to create rip-o-matics to try to sell their idea. And what I’ve been doing is actually been using generative AI to create these concept pitches for films that otherwise probably wouldn’t even get me a meeting.”

Solomon noted that the same thing is true at Framestore, which makes special effects for many of the biggest blockbusters in Hollywood. In a line of work that often revolves around making the impossible possible, he explained that generative AI often acts as an early stress test that determines whether it’s worth investing human hours in an idea.

“We pre-visualize every single shot in every single film,” Solomon said. “There’s rarely a deck that doesn’t come through the door that has at least one generated AI image. And it’s because they’re trying to convey as quick as they can, is my idea possible? And the time in which you can give them an answer is the make or break of that production even happening sometimes.”

The takeaway from the AI panel was that innovative technologies are still reliant on human ingenuity — and it’s hard to think of a film franchise that embodies that ethos better than Disney’s “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” series. The reboot of the classic franchise has consistently pushed the boundaries of motion capture technology, beginning with Andy Serkis’ legendary performance as Cesar the ape in the first three films and continuing through this year’s dialogue-filled fourth entry, “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.”

To celebrate that fusion of timeless storytelling and cutting edge innovation, O’Falt was joined by “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” director Wes Ball, visual effects supervisor Erik Winquist, and motion capture Kevin Durand for a panel about the film. And while everyone was eager to discuss the technological improvements that made the film possible, they stressed that the tools only worked because of the humans who put in the work.

Kevin Durand, Erik Winquist, and Wes BallRich Polk

Ball explained that all of the actors playing apes spend months working with instructors to internalize the primates’ mannerisms in a training dubbed “Ape Camp.”

“Ape Camp is a really important thing,” Ball said. “Eight weeks or so, we put all the guys through this training with one of our Cirque du Soleil expert, essentially, that really helps these guys figure out how to be these apes. You can’t play an ape. That’s something Andy Serkis told us very early on. You can’t just go in and pretend to be one. You have to really, it sounds strange, but internalize this ape thing so it becomes second nature.”

Once the actors lay the foundation with their training, Winquist and his team use technology to turn them into photorealistic apes. The VFX guru explained that the fourth film utilized an innovative approach involving multiple cameras that gave animators more flexibility in post-production.

“There was the actor’s cameras that was actually seeing their face, but then we also had an extra pair of machine-vision cameras that we actually strapped to the motion picture rigs,” Winquist said. “That extra perspective gave us a view into what was going on in front of the camera in a way we’ve never had before.”

The fusion of art and science came together to create something truly magical on screen. Still, Duran stressed that even with all of the gadgets, his experience as an actor connecting with his character and co-stars wasn’t dramatically different from working on more traditional sets.

“I thought it would’ve been a lot more different than it actually turned out to be,” Durans said. “We initially thought, ‘Oh my gosh, this helmet with the camera and these Lycra suits with all these bulbs, this is going to be a real problem.’ You think, ‘This is so different’ and then within five minutes, you’re just connecting with your fellow actors.”

Ali Foreman, Yolanda Macias, and Brandon HillRich Polk

The topic soon shifted from state-of-the-art digital effects to good old-fashioned practical effects, as Foreman returned to the stage to moderate a discussion about the gore-filled cultural phenomenon that is the “Terrifier” franchise. Damien Leone’s ongoing saga about the sadistic murderer Art the Clown continues to defy expectations by raking in huge box-office receipts on small budgets, with much of the success coming from the series’ reputation for nauseating practical effects.

After “Terrifier 3” opened as the #1 movie in America, Cineverse executive director of acquisitions Brandon Hill and Chief Content Officer Yolanda Macias sat down to discuss the series’ ever-expanding appeal and the factors that led them to bet on Art the Clown in the first place.

“I am not a horror fan, but I completely appreciate a filmmaker’s vision,” Macias said when asked about her initial impressions of the property. “And when they really know who their fans are, and they’re not going to compromise, and even if they have a small budget, they’re going to squeeze as much out of it as possible, to bring it to the screen. That’s what I could see, and I could see that passion come through.”

Leone’s artistry and originality is vital to the ongoing success of the “Terrifier” series, but the films still benefit from some of the oldest tricks in the horror marketing playbook. Hill recalled his glee when reports began to circulate about audience members throwing up after watching “Terrifier 2,” which only made certain horror fans more determined to prove their worth by sitting through the film. The phenomenon demonstrates that while filmmaking evolves, human nature remains the same — and that filmmakers and companies can create lucrative new franchises by tapping into the same primal emotions that powered films like “The Exorcist” to box-office glory.

“We didn’t send out someone to go vomit,” Hill said with a laugh. “It was very much organic. But yeah, we love it.”

Chris O’Falt, Scott Budnick, Paul Audley, and Sarah Westman-Liu.Rich Polk

Filmmaking in the 2020s is an increasingly global endeavor, as many filmmakers rely on tax credits from every corner of the earth to fund their projects. That trend has led to an increasing amount of productions shooting outside California, something the state recently tried to rectify with a new proposal to expand production tax credits. But increased competition from Europe, Canada, and other U.S. states ensures that producers will have to weigh creative and financial decisions about shooting locations for the foreseeable future.

To discuss the complicated topic, O’Falt was joined by FilmLA president Paul Audley, Entertainment Partners’ Sarah Westman-Liu, and 1Community CEO Scott Budnick for a panel presented by United for Business.

“This is not something that has happened overnight,” Westman-Liu said, emphasizing that years of other states outpacing California on tax credits has created an extremely competitive environment. “It’s not something that can be easily reversed either.”

Audley explained that throughout his 16-year tenure at the helm of FilmLA, he has observed a tension between the industry’s heavy business presence in LA and its willingness to shoot projects in other places.

“When I arrived in 2008, one of the first things I observed was this sense that the state of California felt that the film industry couldn’t leave because it was headquartered here,” Audley said. “But just because of the executives are based here, it doesn’t mean you have to produce here.”

While tax credits are a major part of the equation, they’re not everything. Budnick, a veteran producer who produced many of Todd Phillips’ early comedies, offered his own unique insight into the process of choosing locations. He explained that sometimes a film’s story necessitates filming in a specific state — “The Hangover” could only be filmed in Vegas. But other times, favorable exchange rates and cheaper international labor can significantly reduce a film’s planned budget to the point where it would be irresponsible not to consider shooting internationally.

“There’s a Netflix production shooting in Columbia, an action movie,” Budnick said. “And the director’s people gave him two budgets. They budgeted to shoot in the United States, and it was like a $23 million or $24 million budget. And they budgeted to shoot in Columbia, and it was a $4.5 million budget. For the same movie! The same amount of action.”

The Future of Filmmaking summit was an invigorating day filled with informative discussion, spirited debate, and the kind of inside baseball that you can only get from the people actively shaping the industry. To cap it off,Harris-Bridson was joined by “Anora” director Sean Baker for tbe Future of Filmmaking keynote chat. Their career-spanning conversation covered his early days as a film-obsessed NYU student, his commitment to telling authentic stories about sex workers, his 2024 Palme d’Or win, his repeat collaborators, and his endless belief in the power and appeal of theatrical distribution.

Baker has been on the cutting edge of cinema throughout his career, ushering in an era of iPhone filmmaking with “Tangerine” and continuing to be one of the most provocative voices in the realm of independent film. But after a day of conversations about the technologies that can change the art form as we know it, Baker left the audience with a reminder that cinema will always be fueled by the human capacity to empathize and find beauty that belongs on the big screen.

“I do feel that you can find beauty everywhere, and sometimes you just might have to train your eye or train your lens to find that,” Baker said. “But why not? Usually my films are about people, human beings. Yes, some locations are a character themselves. But when it comes down to it, it’s about people in these locales. And everybody is beautiful. Everybody’s story is beautiful. So it’s hard not to find beauty, that’s how I see it.”  

Special thanks to our Future of Filmmaking Summit partners: Canva, Kino, SAGindie, The American Pavilion, United for Business, and The Walt Disney Studios.