Josh Spector of Grindstone | Lionsgate on the Death of Day-and-Date — and the New Math Indie Films Have to Survive
- Gato Scatena
- Jan 23
- 11 min read
There’s an old indie film playbook that a lot of filmmakers are still following.
And then there’s what the acquisition side has actually been forced to do over the last couple years: pivot away from the “small day-and-date” model and into a higher-budget, more theatrical-forward world where fewer films qualify — and the ones that do have to play.
That was the spine of my conversation with my pal Joshua Spector, Vice President of Acquisitions & Production at Grindstone | Lionsgate. And he didn’t sugarcoat it.
“The problem is that business is all for all intents and purposes over now,” Josh said, talking about the day-and-date model that so many distributors (and filmmakers) were built around. “That means that the entire business model that these companies are founded off of is no longer sustainable and you have to change with the market.”
If you only read one section of this article, read this next part carefully — because it explains why filmmakers keep hearing “great movie, tough market,” and why buyers who used to do volume are suddenly “not the right fit.”
Day-and-Date Still Exists… But It’s Not a Business Model Anymore
Josh laid it out from a decade+ view, starting with MGM and Orion:
“I’ve been in the day and date space for now 10 plus years… we even turned the Orion pictures label that MGM owns into a day and date releasing entity… and it was a very very lucrative business.”
But then came the line that matters. “The problem is that business is for all all intents and purposes over now.”
He noted there’s still an ability to be profitable on small day-and-dates — but the ceiling is brutal: “My guess is somewhere between three and 400k. If you pay more than that, you’re probably going to get hurt and aren’t going to be profitable.”
So what replaces it?
The “Theatrical-Peak Hybrid” Era (Translation: Bigger Releases, Increased Risk)
Josh described the shift as theatrical — but not “studio wide.”
He’s talking about a middle path:
“This is the theatrical peak hybrid model as I like to call it. So think like roughly a thousand screens and low seven figures of PNA. It’s truly a theatrical model where you do need to drive box office…”
Why? Because the entire point is to over-index downstream and land large Pay-1 deals.
“And that is how you get the good… potentially get a good Pay-1 sale. And that’s really the ball game; getting that Pay-1 sale.”
Here’s the key reason day-and-date got kneecapped:
“…the streamers, those who control the pay one window, just are not prioritizing day and date films. there’s very limited marketing behind them and they just don’t want them when they are [are making offers on them].”
And the pricing impact? “[Pay-1] numbers are at 50% 25% 10% of what they used to be and it’s just not a sustainable model.”
That’s not philosophy. That’s math.
The New Requirement: The Films Have to Play
This was one of the most important distinctions Josh made. Day-and-date films need a “good marketing essence.” But theatrical requires a different level of filmmaking execution: “For a theatrical release, they have to review well… there has to be good word of mouth… But the films have to play.”
Then he got more specific about what “play” means. “They have to have good filmmaking teams behind them. Good directors, good producers who can execute on a budget, the right type of cast that is something that feels theatrical, something that people will need to see on a big screen.”
And the kicker: “those films are fewer and harder to find.”
That’s the part that should scare filmmakers — and clarify why fewer projects are being chased, and why “mid-budget genre” is increasingly a minefield unless it’s built like a weapon.
Screen Count Targets and the Box Office Threshold
I asked Josh point blank what the “lowest theatrical” looks like, and he acknowledged the floor. “You could do 250 screens… that is a robust enough theatrical to be considered a theatrical.”
But then he immediately clarified that’s not the strategy: “We’re really aiming for over 800 screens, over 900, you know, really approaching a thousand plus screens because that’s the footprint you really need in order to drive the box office that you need to be successful.”
Then I asked what box office actually moves Pay-1. He gave a clean target.
“I would say a target would be $3,000,000 [domestic box office] as a minimum. If you’re at 3 million, 4 million, 5 million, you’re in pretty good shape.”
And on P&A for that kind of footprint, his personal view: “My personal take is you probably want to spend two to three [million] minimum… I think you’d want two, three, four.”
The Pay-1 Number That Makes the Model Worth It
If you’ve ever wondered what “acceptable” looks like in the Pay-1 window when you’ve cleared the box office threshold, Josh didn’t dance around it: “I would say you wouldn’t want less than 1.5 million.”
All of these numbers are important to digest for filmmakers. They’re a clear outline of the expense budgets associated with releases of this ilk. The distributor is not just recouping the minimum guarantee and nominal expenses [circa 5 years ago]. They’re having to recoup the MG, obligatory expenses, in addition to 7-figure P&A spends vis-a-vis a low 1.5MM net Box Office (after exhibitor splits) and minimum Pay 1 licenses of 1.5MM. So the large asking prices of 10MM advances on movies that are projected to net 3MM combined DBO and Pay 1 alongside a low 7-figure TVOD translates to difficult math that doesn’t add up.