WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.200 Welcome back to another deep dive. I'm so glad 00:00:02.200 --> 00:00:04.059 you're joining us today. Yeah, thanks for tuning 00:00:04.059 --> 00:00:05.919 in everyone. We have a really fascinating one 00:00:05.919 --> 00:00:10.419 for you. We really do. So I want you to imagine 00:00:10.419 --> 00:00:13.859 trying to shoot a globetrotting financial thriller. 00:00:14.900 --> 00:00:18.539 Like we're talking sets in the towering skyscrapers 00:00:18.539 --> 00:00:21.359 of New York, right? Right. The neon lit streets 00:00:21.359 --> 00:00:24.239 of Hong Kong and then the massive, just sprawling 00:00:24.239 --> 00:00:28.530 casinos of Macau. all of which are notoriously 00:00:28.530 --> 00:00:30.949 cheap places to film. Yeah, exactly. Just bargain 00:00:30.949 --> 00:00:34.030 bin locations. And you have this sprawling script 00:00:34.030 --> 00:00:38.289 dealing with complex corporate espionage. Plus, 00:00:38.429 --> 00:00:40.850 you've managed to get a cast that includes recognizable, 00:00:41.009 --> 00:00:43.689 established Hollywood actors. It's huge. It's 00:00:43.689 --> 00:00:46.679 massive. Yeah. But here's the kicker. Your total 00:00:46.679 --> 00:00:49.020 budget to pull all of this off for the entire 00:00:49.020 --> 00:00:52.579 production, $500 ,000. Which, just to put that 00:00:52.579 --> 00:00:54.479 number into perspective for the film industry, 00:00:54.740 --> 00:00:58.520 $500 ,000 is roughly the catering budget for 00:00:58.520 --> 00:01:01.619 a mid -size studio action movie. Wow. Literally 00:01:01.619 --> 00:01:03.939 just the snacks. Yeah, basically. It is practically 00:01:03.939 --> 00:01:05.879 a rounding error for a traditional Hollywood 00:01:05.879 --> 00:01:10.079 production. Right. If you were building a skyscraper, 00:01:10.359 --> 00:01:12.379 you don't show up to the empty lot with just 00:01:12.379 --> 00:01:14.180 a hammer and a piggy bank? No, you definitely 00:01:14.180 --> 00:01:15.939 don't. But in the world of independent cinema, 00:01:16.019 --> 00:01:20.400 that kind of logical math just gets thrown entirely 00:01:20.400 --> 00:01:24.260 out the window. Totally. So today, our mission 00:01:24.260 --> 00:01:26.920 for you, the learner listening right now, is 00:01:26.920 --> 00:01:31.780 to unpack the anatomy of an ambitious, yet commercially 00:01:31.780 --> 00:01:36.000 doomed, independent film. Doomed, but really 00:01:36.000 --> 00:01:39.430 fascinating. Exactly. Whether you are prepping 00:01:39.430 --> 00:01:41.310 to launch your own startup, maybe trying to get 00:01:41.310 --> 00:01:43.629 a creative project off the ground, or you just 00:01:43.629 --> 00:01:45.569 want to understand the hidden mechanics of how 00:01:45.569 --> 00:01:48.370 media actually gets made and sold, you are going 00:01:48.370 --> 00:01:50.469 to hear this. Oh, absolutely. There are so many 00:01:50.469 --> 00:01:53.530 lessons here. So we are looking at a 2012 American 00:01:53.530 --> 00:01:56.969 Hong Kong financial thriller called Super Capitalist. 00:01:57.370 --> 00:01:59.569 And for the record, that is Super Capitalist 00:01:59.569 --> 00:02:01.989 spelled with a dollar sign instead of an S. Yes. 00:02:02.189 --> 00:02:04.189 Which, I mean, that immediately sets a very specific 00:02:04.189 --> 00:02:06.790 tone, right? Yeah, it's slightly satirical. It 00:02:06.790 --> 00:02:08.889 tells you exactly what kind of ride the filmmakers 00:02:08.889 --> 00:02:11.490 wanted to take you on. It definitely plants a 00:02:11.490 --> 00:02:13.949 flag right from the title. So let me lay out 00:02:13.949 --> 00:02:16.449 the core facts we are working with from our sources 00:02:16.449 --> 00:02:18.509 today. Right, go for it. OK, so it's a cross 00:02:18.509 --> 00:02:21.110 -continental thriller. It was written by Derek 00:02:21.110 --> 00:02:23.449 Ting, who, by the way, also produced it. And 00:02:23.449 --> 00:02:25.849 he actually starred in the lead role, too. Right, 00:02:25.969 --> 00:02:28.490 just doing absolutely everything. It was directed 00:02:28.490 --> 00:02:32.199 by Simon Yen. And despite being this micro -budget 00:02:32.199 --> 00:02:34.840 indie, it managed to pull in some serious acting 00:02:34.840 --> 00:02:37.479 talent. Yeah, people like Linus Roach. Exactly, 00:02:37.520 --> 00:02:39.699 who you've definitely seen in major studio films 00:02:39.699 --> 00:02:42.379 and television. Alongside Kenneth Tsang, who 00:02:42.379 --> 00:02:45.259 is just a legendary figure in Hong Kong cinema. 00:02:45.500 --> 00:02:48.210 A total icon. Plus you have actors like Richard 00:02:48.210 --> 00:02:51.650 Aang, Michael Park, Cathy Union, and Darren E. 00:02:51.689 --> 00:02:55.110 Scott. And the film itself blends English and 00:02:55.110 --> 00:02:57.889 Cantonese dialogue, and it has this massive geographical 00:02:57.889 --> 00:03:00.669 footprint. It really spans the globe. OK, let's 00:03:00.669 --> 00:03:03.330 unpack this. How does a movie with such a sweeping 00:03:03.330 --> 00:03:07.669 global scope get made for just $500 ,000, only 00:03:07.669 --> 00:03:11.590 to gross a total of $15 ,919 at the box office? 00:03:12.050 --> 00:03:16.289 Wow. Yeah, that gap, that massive chasm between 00:03:16.289 --> 00:03:20.409 a half million dollar investment and a $16 ,000 00:03:20.409 --> 00:03:23.430 theatrical return, that is where the real story 00:03:23.430 --> 00:03:26.789 lives. It's just wild. It is a perfect case study 00:03:26.789 --> 00:03:29.449 in the harsh realities of film economics. Well, 00:03:29.449 --> 00:03:31.969 I want to start by looking at the sheer physical 00:03:31.969 --> 00:03:35.009 reality of making this thing, because the logistics 00:03:35.009 --> 00:03:38.409 described in our sources just, they do not compute 00:03:38.409 --> 00:03:40.900 for me at all. The math is definitely hard to 00:03:40.900 --> 00:03:42.879 wrap your head around. Right, like 500 grand 00:03:42.879 --> 00:03:45.830 across three continents. I've seen indie films 00:03:45.830 --> 00:03:47.949 shot entirely in a single living room that cost 00:03:47.949 --> 00:03:50.330 more than that. Oh, for sure. Single location 00:03:50.330 --> 00:03:52.590 indies run a million bucks all the time. So how 00:03:52.590 --> 00:03:55.030 is that physically possible without compromising 00:03:55.030 --> 00:03:57.110 the entire production? You can't just sneak a 00:03:57.110 --> 00:04:00.050 giant film camera into a Macau casino or, you 00:04:00.050 --> 00:04:01.810 know, onto Wall Street without someone asking 00:04:01.810 --> 00:04:04.030 for a permit. No, you really can't. And this 00:04:04.030 --> 00:04:05.870 is where you have to understand the mechanics 00:04:05.870 --> 00:04:08.509 of what actually costs money in filmmaking. OK, 00:04:08.590 --> 00:04:10.150 break that down for us. Well, the cameras and 00:04:10.150 --> 00:04:12.050 the lights are expensive, sure. But the real 00:04:12.050 --> 00:04:16.529 cost is humans and geography. Ah, right. Moving 00:04:16.529 --> 00:04:19.610 people around. Exactly. If you shoot in New York 00:04:19.610 --> 00:04:21.810 and Hong Kong, you are dealing with two of the 00:04:21.810 --> 00:04:24.209 most expensive real estate markets on the planet. 00:04:24.310 --> 00:04:26.829 Good point. You have to feed a crew, house a 00:04:26.829 --> 00:04:29.509 crew, transport a crew, and pay for city permits. 00:04:30.170 --> 00:04:32.649 To bypass the millions of dollars that usually 00:04:32.649 --> 00:04:35.250 takes, you have to radically consolidate roles. 00:04:35.269 --> 00:04:37.930 Just wear every hat possible. Yeah, and rely 00:04:37.930 --> 00:04:40.490 on immense personal hustle. Which explains the 00:04:40.490 --> 00:04:43.089 credits we just talked about. You have this massive 00:04:43.089 --> 00:04:45.790 cast. But at the center of the logistical tornado 00:04:45.790 --> 00:04:49.350 is Derek Ting. Holding a writing credit, a producing 00:04:49.350 --> 00:04:51.970 credit, and playing the starring role of Connor 00:04:51.970 --> 00:04:54.110 Lee. Now, I have to push back on that approach 00:04:54.110 --> 00:04:56.569 for a second. OK, let's hear it. If I'm producing, 00:04:57.189 --> 00:05:00.870 my brain is completely consumed by whether the 00:05:00.870 --> 00:05:03.730 caterer showed up or if the location permit expires 00:05:03.730 --> 00:05:05.810 in 10 minutes. Yeah, the logistical nightmares. 00:05:05.970 --> 00:05:09.269 Yeah. But if I'm acting, I need to be entirely 00:05:09.269 --> 00:05:11.839 focused on my scene partner. I have to be in 00:05:11.839 --> 00:05:13.800 the moment. It's a totally different headspace. 00:05:14.300 --> 00:05:16.519 Exactly. Isn't wearing all three of those hats 00:05:16.519 --> 00:05:19.519 on a multi -continent shoot just guaranteeing 00:05:19.519 --> 00:05:21.480 that you can't deliver on the promise of the 00:05:21.480 --> 00:05:23.459 genre? It sounds like a massive vulnerability. 00:05:23.720 --> 00:05:26.680 Oh, it is an incredible risk. The mental bandwidth 00:05:26.680 --> 00:05:29.699 required to negotiate a location fee in Cantonese 00:05:29.699 --> 00:05:33.579 and then step right in front of the lens to deliver 00:05:33.579 --> 00:05:36.699 an emotional monologue in English. It's staggering. 00:05:36.720 --> 00:05:39.100 I would just shut down. I couldn't do it. Most 00:05:39.100 --> 00:05:41.610 people couldn't. But for a movie like this, it 00:05:41.610 --> 00:05:45.269 is also a mechanical necessity. Every hat that 00:05:45.269 --> 00:05:47.910 one person wears is a salary you don't have to 00:05:47.910 --> 00:05:49.990 pay to someone else. That makes sense. Survival 00:05:49.990 --> 00:05:53.110 mode. Exactly. But what's fascinating here is 00:05:53.110 --> 00:05:55.589 how the production footprint itself actually 00:05:55.589 --> 00:05:57.490 mirrored the narrative they were trying to capture. 00:05:57.709 --> 00:05:59.470 Oh, how do you mean? Like, the behind the scenes 00:05:59.470 --> 00:06:02.269 matched the script? Precisely. The film bridges 00:06:02.269 --> 00:06:05.149 Eastern and Western cinema. Structurally, not 00:06:05.149 --> 00:06:08.509 just conceptually. It was put together by American 00:06:08.509 --> 00:06:10.810 and Hong Kong production entities. Right. The 00:06:10.810 --> 00:06:12.550 sources mentioned a company called Random Art 00:06:12.550 --> 00:06:16.449 Workshop. Yes. So the filmmakers were quite literally 00:06:16.449 --> 00:06:19.350 living the cross -cultural high stakes hustle 00:06:19.350 --> 00:06:22.329 that their characters were experiencing on screen. 00:06:22.430 --> 00:06:24.589 Oh, wow. That's a really cool parallel. They 00:06:24.589 --> 00:06:27.829 embodied the exact same globalism they were exploring 00:06:27.829 --> 00:06:30.649 in the script. They were moving capital and resources 00:06:30.649 --> 00:06:33.389 across borders just to get the film in the can. 00:06:33.689 --> 00:06:37.329 Shooting a globetrotting financial thriller on 00:06:37.329 --> 00:06:42.149 500K is like trying to host a billionaire's gala 00:06:42.149 --> 00:06:44.589 on a fast food budget. That is a great way to 00:06:44.589 --> 00:06:47.029 put it. You have the vision, but every penny 00:06:47.029 --> 00:06:50.550 has to stretch across oceans. But that brings 00:06:50.550 --> 00:06:53.149 up a huge question for me. What's that? So they 00:06:53.149 --> 00:06:56.250 somehow will this logistical miracle into existence, 00:06:56.449 --> 00:06:58.509 right? Against all odds, yeah. But the very thing 00:06:58.509 --> 00:07:00.959 that made it a miracle... That massive scale 00:07:00.959 --> 00:07:03.259 and a microscopic budget means there had to be 00:07:03.259 --> 00:07:05.879 an intense passion driving the project. You don't 00:07:05.879 --> 00:07:07.360 put yourself through that kind of stress for 00:07:07.360 --> 00:07:09.480 no reason. Exactly. They weren't just making 00:07:09.480 --> 00:07:11.360 a generic action movie to make a quick buck. 00:07:11.819 --> 00:07:13.899 They were trying to see something very specific. 00:07:14.079 --> 00:07:16.000 And what they were trying to say was arguably 00:07:16.000 --> 00:07:19.079 even more ambitious and much more risky than 00:07:19.079 --> 00:07:22.040 how they were shooting it. Seriously, let's look 00:07:22.040 --> 00:07:24.160 at the titles of the articles referenced in our 00:07:24.160 --> 00:07:26.560 sources. These are very telling. You have a piece 00:07:26.560 --> 00:07:28.519 from the New York Times by Christia Freeland. 00:07:28.779 --> 00:07:32.279 And the headline is literally, quote, film tackles 00:07:32.279 --> 00:07:35.360 capitalism and identity. Heavy stuff for an indie 00:07:35.360 --> 00:07:37.839 thriller. Right. And then you have a Forbes article 00:07:37.839 --> 00:07:40.860 by Martin Fritz entitled Believe It or Not. In 00:07:40.860 --> 00:07:43.019 this movie, the hedge fund manager is the hero. 00:07:43.759 --> 00:07:47.000 That Forbes headline captures the exact friction 00:07:47.000 --> 00:07:49.480 of the movie perfectly. It really does, because 00:07:49.480 --> 00:07:51.680 it highlights an incredibly contrarian choice. 00:07:51.699 --> 00:07:53.839 Yeah. I mean, put yourself in the timeline of 00:07:53.839 --> 00:07:57.529 when this was released. 2012. Yeah, 2012. We 00:07:57.529 --> 00:08:00.589 are barely out of the shadow of the 2008 global 00:08:00.589 --> 00:08:03.730 financial crisis. Occupy Wall Street had just 00:08:03.730 --> 00:08:06.329 been dominating the news cycle. People were angry. 00:08:06.930 --> 00:08:09.550 The general public was absolutely furious at 00:08:09.550 --> 00:08:13.050 high finance. So pitching a heroic head fund 00:08:13.050 --> 00:08:16.170 manager to a 2012 audience is like trying to 00:08:16.170 --> 00:08:18.829 sell a luxury cruise to someone who just survived 00:08:18.829 --> 00:08:21.480 a shipwreck. That's exactly what it felt like. 00:08:21.779 --> 00:08:23.899 Why make the guy that everyone hates the hero 00:08:23.899 --> 00:08:26.339 of your movie? Imagine trying to pitch that to 00:08:26.339 --> 00:08:28.199 an audience. It's an uphill battle, right? It's 00:08:28.199 --> 00:08:30.480 a massive uphill battle, but because of that 00:08:30.480 --> 00:08:32.980 friction, that is exactly where the dramatic 00:08:32.980 --> 00:08:35.419 tension lies. Okay, tell me more about that. 00:08:35.600 --> 00:08:37.659 Well, if we connect this to the bigger picture, 00:08:37.960 --> 00:08:40.120 the filmmakers weren't just mounting a simplistic 00:08:40.120 --> 00:08:42.679 defense of Wall Street. Right. As the New York 00:08:42.679 --> 00:08:45.889 Times piece points out, The core theme is the 00:08:45.889 --> 00:08:48.809 intersection of capitalism and identity. The 00:08:48.809 --> 00:08:51.190 film is specifically categorized as being about 00:08:51.190 --> 00:08:54.009 Chinese Americans. So it's a lot more nuanced 00:08:54.009 --> 00:08:57.570 than just greed is good. Way more nuanced. It 00:08:57.570 --> 00:09:01.820 is exploring how an outsider A Chinese -American 00:09:01.820 --> 00:09:05.960 financial whiz navigates these massive, historically 00:09:05.960 --> 00:09:09.039 entrenched, and entirely ruthless global financial 00:09:09.039 --> 00:09:10.980 systems. Right. It's about trying to find your 00:09:10.980 --> 00:09:13.200 soul in a machine that is explicitly designed 00:09:13.200 --> 00:09:16.720 to only care about profit. Exactly. And I want 00:09:16.720 --> 00:09:18.820 to pause here for a second just to be crystal 00:09:18.820 --> 00:09:20.179 clear with you listening. Yeah, let's make sure 00:09:20.179 --> 00:09:23.120 we clarify this. We are taking a stance on the 00:09:23.120 --> 00:09:25.120 morality of capitalism or whether hedge funds 00:09:25.120 --> 00:09:27.899 are inherently good or bad. Absolutely not. We're 00:09:27.899 --> 00:09:30.000 not picking a side on the politics of it. We 00:09:30.000 --> 00:09:32.159 are purely looking at this from the perspective 00:09:32.159 --> 00:09:35.419 of storytelling mechanics and risk. We're just 00:09:35.419 --> 00:09:38.559 impartially reporting on the highly unusual creative 00:09:38.559 --> 00:09:40.899 choices these filmmakers made. Right. Just offering 00:09:40.899 --> 00:09:43.440 a neutral lens on how they navigated a polarizing 00:09:43.440 --> 00:09:46.460 topic. Exactly. And from a strictly neutral market 00:09:46.460 --> 00:09:49.240 analysis point of view, making a pro -finance 00:09:49.240 --> 00:09:53.039 movie in 2012 is a massive risk. It is a profound 00:09:53.039 --> 00:09:55.779 creative risk. You are asking an audience to 00:09:55.779 --> 00:09:58.899 emotionally invest in a protagonist who represents 00:09:58.899 --> 00:10:01.419 a system they might actively distrust. Which 00:10:01.419 --> 00:10:03.960 makes selling the movie almost impossible. Exactly. 00:10:04.019 --> 00:10:06.259 When you walk into a traditional Hollywood studio 00:10:06.259 --> 00:10:09.580 and pitch a contrarian, nuanced story about global 00:10:09.580 --> 00:10:12.220 finance and identity, and you have no proven 00:10:12.220 --> 00:10:14.899 track record of making blockbusters, the gatekeepers 00:10:14.899 --> 00:10:16.559 are going to pass. Yeah, they want safe bets. 00:10:16.620 --> 00:10:18.620 They want superheroes. They want guaranteed returns. 00:10:18.740 --> 00:10:21.639 Which forces our filmmakers into a corner. So 00:10:21.639 --> 00:10:24.200 let's look at the timeline. They've managed to 00:10:24.200 --> 00:10:27.679 shoot this bilingual transcontinental thriller 00:10:27.679 --> 00:10:30.399 for half a million dollars. A miracle in itself. 00:10:30.700 --> 00:10:32.240 Right. They have it sitting on a hard drive. 00:10:32.820 --> 00:10:34.600 But having a movie doesn't mean anyone is actually 00:10:34.600 --> 00:10:37.139 going to watch it. Not at all. If the traditional 00:10:37.139 --> 00:10:39.200 gatekeepers aren't going to put it in thousands 00:10:39.200 --> 00:10:41.960 of theaters across the country, how do they bypass 00:10:41.960 --> 00:10:44.919 the studios? Well, they essentially had to hack 00:10:44.919 --> 00:10:47.379 the distribution model. Oh, here's where it gets 00:10:47.379 --> 00:10:50.080 really interesting. It does. So in August of 00:10:50.080 --> 00:10:52.480 2012, when the film was officially released, 00:10:52.919 --> 00:10:56.340 they utilized a strategy called a day and date 00:10:56.340 --> 00:10:59.879 release. Okay, hold on. A day and date release. 00:11:00.919 --> 00:11:03.519 Meaning, making it available on internet, video 00:11:03.519 --> 00:11:06.659 on demand, on the exact same day it hits physical 00:11:06.659 --> 00:11:09.220 theaters. Yep, simultaneously. Doesn't that completely 00:11:09.220 --> 00:11:11.600 cannibalize the box office? I mean, if I can 00:11:11.600 --> 00:11:13.919 click a button on my remote to rent a movie for 00:11:13.919 --> 00:11:15.960 a few bucks in my living room... Why would I 00:11:15.960 --> 00:11:18.139 ever drive to a theater, buy a ticket, and pay 00:11:18.139 --> 00:11:20.519 for overpriced popcorn? You probably wouldn't. 00:11:20.679 --> 00:11:24.379 So why would any filmmaker actively sabotage 00:11:24.379 --> 00:11:26.919 their own ticket sales like that? It seems crazy. 00:11:27.000 --> 00:11:29.159 It seems crazy until you understand the hidden 00:11:29.159 --> 00:11:31.759 mechanics of film distribution. Okay, school 00:11:31.759 --> 00:11:34.740 me on this. You have to understand what a traditional 00:11:34.740 --> 00:11:38.299 theatrical release actually requires. It is not 00:11:38.299 --> 00:11:41.299 just about sending a film print to a local theater. 00:11:41.360 --> 00:11:45.500 Right. It is a marketing war. Studios spend tens 00:11:45.500 --> 00:11:47.940 of millions of dollars on what they call P &A, 00:11:47.960 --> 00:11:50.779 prints, and advertising. OK, the billboards and 00:11:50.779 --> 00:11:53.580 stuff. Exactly. Billboards in Times Square, television 00:11:53.580 --> 00:11:56.940 commotions during prime time, massive press junkets. 00:11:57.340 --> 00:12:00.159 The goal is to buy enough awareness to drive 00:12:00.159 --> 00:12:03.139 massive foot traffic on opening weekend. Right. 00:12:03.139 --> 00:12:05.559 And a production that scraped together 500 grand 00:12:05.559 --> 00:12:07.860 just to film the movie certainly does not have 00:12:07.860 --> 00:12:10.240 $20 million lying around for a marketing campaign. 00:12:10.519 --> 00:12:12.879 Exactly. They have zero marketing muscle. So 00:12:12.879 --> 00:12:15.210 without that, if you just put them in a few select 00:12:15.210 --> 00:12:17.389 theaters, nobody knows it is playing. It's just 00:12:17.389 --> 00:12:20.029 playing to empty rooms. Right. The only buzz 00:12:20.029 --> 00:12:22.429 the filmmakers had was from their premiere at 00:12:22.429 --> 00:12:24.970 the Asian -American International Film Festival. 00:12:25.009 --> 00:12:28.870 OK. And, you know, a few articles in places like 00:12:28.870 --> 00:12:32.389 the New York Times and Forbes. But buzz is incredibly 00:12:32.389 --> 00:12:34.789 fragile. It evaporates in a matter of days. Oh, 00:12:34.789 --> 00:12:36.769 I see. It's an accessibility problem. Who has 00:12:36.769 --> 00:12:39.009 so? Well, if someone reads that New York Times 00:12:39.009 --> 00:12:41.769 article on a Tuesday, and they live in Chicago, 00:12:42.120 --> 00:12:43.820 But the movie's only playing in two theaters 00:12:43.820 --> 00:12:46.059 in Los Angeles. They can't go see it. Right. 00:12:46.580 --> 00:12:48.639 And by the time it eventually comes out on DVD 00:12:48.639 --> 00:12:51.059 or streaming months later, they've completely 00:12:51.059 --> 00:12:53.720 forgotten about it. The buzz is dead. Precisely. 00:12:53.980 --> 00:12:56.059 That is the exact mechanism they were trying 00:12:56.059 --> 00:12:59.340 to circumvent. The day -in -date model was a 00:12:59.340 --> 00:13:03.200 decent experimental strategy back in 2012 to 00:13:03.200 --> 00:13:06.179 solve this exact bottleneck. So by putting it 00:13:06.179 --> 00:13:08.899 on VOD instantly. Right. By partnering with Warner 00:13:08.899 --> 00:13:12.279 Bros. Digital and Gravitas, which was a major 00:13:12.279 --> 00:13:15.000 aggregator for indie films, they ensured that 00:13:15.000 --> 00:13:17.799 the movie was instantly available on cable and 00:13:17.799 --> 00:13:20.639 internet VOD everywhere. It's like launching 00:13:20.639 --> 00:13:22.820 a brand new restaurant, but instead of spending 00:13:22.820 --> 00:13:24.580 millions trying to convince people to walk through 00:13:24.580 --> 00:13:26.740 your front doors on opening night, you just park 00:13:26.740 --> 00:13:29.139 a food truck in their driveway. Yes. You sacrifice 00:13:29.139 --> 00:13:31.559 the prestige of the traditional dining room to 00:13:31.559 --> 00:13:34.220 guarantee that they actually taste the food while 00:13:34.220 --> 00:13:36.440 they are still curious about it. That is a perfect 00:13:36.440 --> 00:13:39.639 analogy. You are capturing that immediate impulse 00:13:39.639 --> 00:13:42.600 by demand. That's brilliant. It is. And the theaters 00:13:42.600 --> 00:13:45.200 actually serve a different mechanical purpose 00:13:45.200 --> 00:13:48.000 in this model. Oh, really? Like what? Playing 00:13:48.000 --> 00:13:50.379 in a physical theater, even just a few of them, 00:13:50.519 --> 00:13:53.580 gives the film legitimacy. Ah, I see. It is what 00:13:53.580 --> 00:13:55.820 prompts the New York Times to review it in the 00:13:55.820 --> 00:13:59.100 first place. You use the theatrical release to 00:13:59.100 --> 00:14:01.820 generate the press, but you use the simultaneous 00:14:01.820 --> 00:14:04.720 VOD release to actually monetize the audience's 00:14:04.720 --> 00:14:08.409 attention. That is incredibly clever. But having 00:14:08.409 --> 00:14:10.669 a clever strategy and actually succeeding in 00:14:10.669 --> 00:14:12.809 the market are two very different things. Yes, 00:14:12.809 --> 00:14:15.529 they are. Which brings us to the raw data of 00:14:15.529 --> 00:14:19.389 this grand experiment. So what does this all 00:14:19.389 --> 00:14:22.490 mean when the dust finally settles? It's time 00:14:22.490 --> 00:14:24.629 to look at the harsh math. Let's do it. We know 00:14:24.629 --> 00:14:27.429 the budget was tightly capped at $500 ,000. And 00:14:27.429 --> 00:14:29.490 according to our sources, the final theatrical 00:14:29.490 --> 00:14:35.200 box office return was $15 ,919. A financially 00:14:35.200 --> 00:14:37.440 devastating ratio, if you only look at that one 00:14:37.440 --> 00:14:39.899 metric. Let's actually visualize that for a second. 00:14:40.360 --> 00:14:42.700 If an average movie ticket in 2012 is around 00:14:42.700 --> 00:14:47.679 $10, you're talking about roughly 1 ,500 human 00:14:47.679 --> 00:14:50.679 beings buying a ticket to sit in a physical theater 00:14:50.679 --> 00:14:53.379 to watch this movie. Across its entire run. That's 00:14:53.379 --> 00:14:55.860 it. And the critical reception was just as tough. 00:14:56.080 --> 00:14:58.600 The sources note the film was mostly poorly received, 00:14:59.100 --> 00:15:02.019 holding an 18 % approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes 00:15:02.019 --> 00:15:06.179 based on 11 reviews. Ouch, yeah. So how do we 00:15:06.179 --> 00:15:09.279 evaluate this? Is this just a complete unmitigated 00:15:09.279 --> 00:15:12.799 disaster, or is there a missing piece to this 00:15:12.799 --> 00:15:15.539 puzzle? This raises an important question, and 00:15:15.539 --> 00:15:17.639 there is absolutely a missing piece. It highlights 00:15:17.639 --> 00:15:20.620 the massive blind spot in how we measure success 00:15:20.620 --> 00:15:22.700 in the digital age. OK, what are we missing? 00:15:22.879 --> 00:15:25.000 We only have the theatrical box office number. 00:15:25.120 --> 00:15:26.980 We do not have the VOD number. Oh, right. The 00:15:26.980 --> 00:15:30.039 video on demand sales. Exactly. And in 2012, 00:15:30.399 --> 00:15:32.360 those digital rental numbers were essentially 00:15:32.360 --> 00:15:35.000 a black box. The platforms didn't publish them 00:15:35.000 --> 00:15:37.919 publicly. So for all we know, tens of thousands 00:15:37.919 --> 00:15:39.759 of people could have rented it on their cable 00:15:39.759 --> 00:15:42.360 boxes after reading that Forbes article, and 00:15:42.360 --> 00:15:44.940 it wouldn't show up in that $15 ,000 figure at 00:15:44.940 --> 00:15:47.080 all. Not a single cent of it would show up there. 00:15:47.159 --> 00:15:51.539 Wow. OK, that changes things. It does. But beyond 00:15:51.539 --> 00:15:53.879 the hidden financial metrics, it really forces 00:15:53.879 --> 00:15:56.679 us to define what a successful endeavor actually 00:15:56.679 --> 00:15:59.500 is. Right. If you strictly use the traditional 00:15:59.500 --> 00:16:02.360 gatekeeper metrics, an 18 % Rotten Tomatoes score, 00:16:02.419 --> 00:16:05.320 and a microscopic box office, it looks like the 00:16:05.320 --> 00:16:07.960 market entirely rejected the product. A total 00:16:07.960 --> 00:16:10.639 flop on paper. Right. But think about the mechanical 00:16:10.639 --> 00:16:13.919 reality of what Derek Tang, Simon Yin, and their 00:16:13.919 --> 00:16:16.580 team actually accomplished. They bypassed the 00:16:16.580 --> 00:16:19.259 gatekeepers entirely. They did. They managed 00:16:19.259 --> 00:16:22.299 to shoot a transcontinental, bilingual thriller 00:16:22.299 --> 00:16:25.580 in New York, Hong Kong, and Macau. On a $500 00:16:25.580 --> 00:16:28.940 ,000 budget. Right. They navigated the insanely 00:16:28.940 --> 00:16:31.539 complex logistics of international production. 00:16:31.740 --> 00:16:34.799 They secured a highly respected cast. Yeah. And 00:16:34.799 --> 00:16:37.580 they successfully negotiated distribution through 00:16:37.580 --> 00:16:40.919 major digital pipelines like Warner Bros, Digital, 00:16:41.019 --> 00:16:43.340 and Gravitas to get their contrarian story into 00:16:43.340 --> 00:16:46.549 living rooms. That's no small feat. In the independent 00:16:46.549 --> 00:16:49.710 film world, simply willing a project of that 00:16:49.710 --> 00:16:52.870 sheer logistical magnitude into existence without 00:16:52.870 --> 00:16:56.029 the backing of a major studio is a monumental 00:16:56.029 --> 00:16:59.509 testament to human willpower. Seriously, just 00:16:59.509 --> 00:17:02.190 crossing the finish line with a completed, distributed 00:17:02.190 --> 00:17:06.190 movie is a victory that 99 % of aspiring filmmakers 00:17:06.190 --> 00:17:09.269 never achieve. Precisely. The finished product 00:17:09.269 --> 00:17:11.069 might not have resonated with the film critics, 00:17:11.210 --> 00:17:13.430 but the act of creating and distributing it is 00:17:13.430 --> 00:17:16.170 an undeniable operational success. The proof 00:17:16.170 --> 00:17:18.650 of concept. Exactly. It proves that the tools 00:17:18.650 --> 00:17:20.990 of production had finally become accessible enough 00:17:20.990 --> 00:17:23.609 for a small team to execute a massive global 00:17:23.609 --> 00:17:27.450 vision. Man, what a journey. So, to recap this 00:17:27.450 --> 00:17:29.769 wild cross -continental ride for you listening, 00:17:30.109 --> 00:17:32.390 we've tracked Super Capitalist from its inception 00:17:32.390 --> 00:17:36.390 as a staggeringly ambitious $500 ,000 shoot that 00:17:36.390 --> 00:17:39.019 stretched from New York to Macau. The ultimate 00:17:39.019 --> 00:17:42.519 indie hustle. Truly. We've explored the immense 00:17:42.519 --> 00:17:45.039 narrative risk of pitching a heroic hedge fund 00:17:45.039 --> 00:17:48.359 manager in a post -financial crisis world, tackling 00:17:48.359 --> 00:17:51.559 deep themes of capitalism and Chinese American 00:17:51.559 --> 00:17:54.519 identity. Really leaning into the friction. We've 00:17:54.519 --> 00:17:56.480 broken down the mechanics of how they hacked 00:17:56.480 --> 00:17:59.599 the 2012 distribution model with a day and date 00:17:59.599 --> 00:18:02.019 release to bypass Hollywood's marketing machine. 00:18:02.160 --> 00:18:04.779 and we've analyzed the harsh realities of its 00:18:04.779 --> 00:18:07.319 critical and theatrical reception. It serves 00:18:07.319 --> 00:18:11.720 as a complete, transparent life cycle of an independent, 00:18:12.039 --> 00:18:14.440 contrarian endeavor. And here's why this deeply 00:18:14.440 --> 00:18:16.920 matters to you, whether you're writing a novel, 00:18:17.220 --> 00:18:19.859 designing an app, or trying to carve out a new 00:18:19.859 --> 00:18:21.839 path in your industry. Yeah, this applies to 00:18:21.839 --> 00:18:25.259 everything. The story of this film is a masterclass 00:18:25.259 --> 00:18:28.259 in the democratization of production versus the 00:18:28.259 --> 00:18:30.470 democratization of attention. That's the real 00:18:30.470 --> 00:18:32.950 tension right there. Yes. Technology has made 00:18:32.950 --> 00:18:35.970 it possible to build incredible things on a shoestring 00:18:35.970 --> 00:18:38.670 budget. You could shoot a global thriller for 00:18:38.670 --> 00:18:40.490 the cost of a studio's catering budget. Which 00:18:40.490 --> 00:18:43.369 is amazing. It is. But just because you can build 00:18:43.369 --> 00:18:45.190 it doesn't mean you can force people to look 00:18:45.190 --> 00:18:47.450 at it. You still have to figure out the mechanics 00:18:47.450 --> 00:18:50.309 of distribution and navigate a market that might 00:18:50.309 --> 00:18:53.220 not be ready for your specific vision. And that 00:18:53.220 --> 00:18:56.279 leads to one final fascinating thought to consider. 00:18:57.140 --> 00:18:59.140 Leodons. So we've been talking about the specific 00:18:59.140 --> 00:19:02.240 distribution challenges of 2012. But imagine 00:19:02.240 --> 00:19:04.779 if the creators of Supercapitalist tried to release 00:19:04.779 --> 00:19:08.700 this exact same contrarian film today. We now 00:19:08.700 --> 00:19:11.680 live in an era where streaming algorithms, rather 00:19:11.680 --> 00:19:15.619 than human gatekeepers, dictate almost exactly 00:19:15.619 --> 00:19:17.779 what gets put in front of our eyes. Right. The 00:19:17.779 --> 00:19:20.470 algorithm is king. So it makes you wonder. In 00:19:20.470 --> 00:19:22.869 a movie titled Super Capitalist about the high 00:19:22.869 --> 00:19:25.470 -stakes world of global finance and heroic hedge 00:19:25.470 --> 00:19:28.130 fund managers, the ultimate irony is that the 00:19:28.130 --> 00:19:30.650 film itself fell victim to the absolute most 00:19:30.650 --> 00:19:33.410 ruthless force in capitalism, the free market. 00:19:33.490 --> 00:19:36.430 Oh wow. Right. If you make art that challenges 00:19:36.430 --> 00:19:39.089 the prevailing cultural sentiment today, would 00:19:39.089 --> 00:19:41.710 a modern algorithm even let it reach that free 00:19:41.710 --> 00:19:44.849 market? Or would the code quietly bury it before 00:19:44.849 --> 00:19:46.849 the audience ever had a chance to judge it for 00:19:46.849 --> 00:19:49.779 themselves? Does the system judge the art even 00:19:49.779 --> 00:19:52.059 more harshly when the art is about the system? 00:19:52.400 --> 00:19:54.980 That is an incredible point to mull over. We 00:19:54.980 --> 00:19:57.220 solved the problem of getting the film onto the 00:19:57.220 --> 00:19:59.559 platform, but now the platform itself decides 00:19:59.559 --> 00:20:01.380 if we're allowed to see it. It's a whole new 00:20:01.380 --> 00:20:04.000 kind of gatekeeper. It really is. Thank you so 00:20:04.000 --> 00:20:06.579 much for joining us on this Deep Dive. Keep exploring, 00:20:06.880 --> 00:20:08.980 keep questioning the mechanics of the world around 00:20:08.980 --> 00:20:11.180 you, and keep learning. We'll catch you next 00:20:11.180 --> 00:20:11.359 time.