Disclaimer: This post will include references to both Corrado and A Lonely Place For Dying. I use these two films as examples because, thanks to the tremendous generosity of the makers of those films, the members of the DVXUser community have a high level of familiarity with their production. I am extremely grateful to Justin and Adam (as well as others involved in the production of their films) for sharing their experiences here on these boards. This thread is in no way intended as an attack or to question the decisions of the makers of those films.
It's well known that a film will have a better chance of success if the cast includes a known actor. This is true for every level of film making, and it's why the A-Listers make as much money as they do. People will see something because of who is in it as much as what it's about.
Some may argue that for a horror film or an action film name recognition isn't important to the film making money and I say BS, give me any horror or action film with a no name cast and I'm confident the film makes even more money if you put a recognized name above the title (Blair Witch Project being a notable exception because of its marketing premise).
Names sell movies, and smart film makers use that, even on an indie level. For a couple of grand each, Justin got James Cromwell and Michael Wincott on the set of ALPFD for a day. Adam pulled Tom Sizemore (among others) in much the same way. And both of those movies will be more succesful because of it.
None of what I just wrote is new information. Sorry for putting you all through three paragraphs of back story, but here's where the musing comes in. You raise $300, $400, $500,000 or whatever to do an indie feature. None of that money comes easy and you bust your balls to put as much of it on the screen as you can. So if you're going to raise a couple thousand dollars to get Michael Wincott on your set for one day and see a return on that investment, would it not make as much or more sense from a financial standpoint to instead raise another $100,000 (or whatever) to get that same kind of name for your lead?
Let's be clear, I've never directed or produced a feature and this whole post is BS speculation... which is the point. Someone poke holes in my argument, or at least show me where its flaws are. Please!
It just seems to me that (simplified generalization coming up) if you raise $300k and make a film that's going to (if everything goes perfectly) make $X, would raising an additional amount ($Y) specifically to pay for a name lead(s) increase the revenue of your film by at least the amount of the difference ($X + $Y), if not significantly more?
Let's say hypothetically (and again I apologize to Justin for using him as an example) ALPFD makes $1 million. How much more would it have cost to have Wincott as the lead instead of a cameo, and how much more than that hypothetical $1M would the film make if he does so?
This isn't about ALPFD or Justin's choices, so please don't take the wrong thing out of this post... it's about math. Numbers. Percentage ROI. If an indie film maker working at this level invests a significant portion of his budget (25% or more) into one or two very recognizable actors, how much more revenue can that film expect to generate?
Because I'm thinking that if I have to raise an additional $100G to snag a name lead, but the film makes an additional $1M because I did so, it was well worth the investment.
Again, this is a very, very simplified commentary on a complicated process, but I know that for me I'm much more likely to watch something if an actor I know and like is starring in it. I'll see Nobel Son because of Alan Rickman (for his acting) and Eliza Dushku (in case she finally gets naked) even though it looks like it may very well suck.
So, am I wrong? Would it not be worth it (the extra money)? Why? Why not?
Discuss... :P
It's well known that a film will have a better chance of success if the cast includes a known actor. This is true for every level of film making, and it's why the A-Listers make as much money as they do. People will see something because of who is in it as much as what it's about.
Some may argue that for a horror film or an action film name recognition isn't important to the film making money and I say BS, give me any horror or action film with a no name cast and I'm confident the film makes even more money if you put a recognized name above the title (Blair Witch Project being a notable exception because of its marketing premise).
Names sell movies, and smart film makers use that, even on an indie level. For a couple of grand each, Justin got James Cromwell and Michael Wincott on the set of ALPFD for a day. Adam pulled Tom Sizemore (among others) in much the same way. And both of those movies will be more succesful because of it.
None of what I just wrote is new information. Sorry for putting you all through three paragraphs of back story, but here's where the musing comes in. You raise $300, $400, $500,000 or whatever to do an indie feature. None of that money comes easy and you bust your balls to put as much of it on the screen as you can. So if you're going to raise a couple thousand dollars to get Michael Wincott on your set for one day and see a return on that investment, would it not make as much or more sense from a financial standpoint to instead raise another $100,000 (or whatever) to get that same kind of name for your lead?
Let's be clear, I've never directed or produced a feature and this whole post is BS speculation... which is the point. Someone poke holes in my argument, or at least show me where its flaws are. Please!
It just seems to me that (simplified generalization coming up) if you raise $300k and make a film that's going to (if everything goes perfectly) make $X, would raising an additional amount ($Y) specifically to pay for a name lead(s) increase the revenue of your film by at least the amount of the difference ($X + $Y), if not significantly more?
Let's say hypothetically (and again I apologize to Justin for using him as an example) ALPFD makes $1 million. How much more would it have cost to have Wincott as the lead instead of a cameo, and how much more than that hypothetical $1M would the film make if he does so?
This isn't about ALPFD or Justin's choices, so please don't take the wrong thing out of this post... it's about math. Numbers. Percentage ROI. If an indie film maker working at this level invests a significant portion of his budget (25% or more) into one or two very recognizable actors, how much more revenue can that film expect to generate?
Because I'm thinking that if I have to raise an additional $100G to snag a name lead, but the film makes an additional $1M because I did so, it was well worth the investment.
Again, this is a very, very simplified commentary on a complicated process, but I know that for me I'm much more likely to watch something if an actor I know and like is starring in it. I'll see Nobel Son because of Alan Rickman (for his acting) and Eliza Dushku (in case she finally gets naked) even though it looks like it may very well suck.
So, am I wrong? Would it not be worth it (the extra money)? Why? Why not?
Discuss... :P
Comment