How much did you get paid for your Distribution Deal?

jls4

jls4

Veteran
Anyone out there willing to share their distribution deal with the rest of us. It really helps to know the type of deals that people are receiving. This aids with budgeting and strategies on working your way up the ladder.

I've heard such amounts as

$40K - Low Budget comedy (miniDV)
$60K - Mid Range comedy (16mm)
$250K - Mid Range Drama (Beta)
$25K - Drama (miniDV)

$2 million - for indies as well.

I'm mainly interested in those who have sold Horror Films (since that is what I'm doing next) It's be cool if people admitted some of the issues they had: bad audio, dark scenes, grainy, etc along with the sell price.

I think it'd be cool for everyone to get a perspective no matter what type of movie you sold though. If you don't feel comfortable, could you please pm me. Thanks

And for those out there. I shot a Drama, myself, bad audio, okay video, 88 minutes, no name actors (many this was their first piece) - Sold $28K

jls4
 
Horror sells the highest, then action / urban , then teen sex/comedy, then maybe drama (which is usually nothing).

I don't like sounding like a broken record but you can sell horror movies to foreign markets. The dialogue doesn't matter in those films so they generally sell well. Plus you don't need to have name actors / actresses on the cover to sell anything. Career wise, though, if you're hoping to direct out of that genre you might be digging yourself a hole that you don't want to be in for quick cash now.


It always depends on the movie, but i've see a good amount of slasher flicks get picked up by Lionsgate from 50 - 350 k. With the DVD market dying, I think the market for films is collapsing a bit too. If you're offered 50k - 70k for domestic DVD today take it and don't look back.

There are many types of distribution deals, and I would recommend hiring at least a consultant if not an entertainment lawyer to make sure that you are getting money out of everything. Working on the other end, I know a lot of people who took serious advantage over filmmakers in these situations.

IF you can, always try to see if you can sell your foreign rights yourself (with horror) or with an agent. That is where independent money has really come from for the last 20 years.

Also try to make sure that you protect your foreign and domestic internet rights.

The film markets that do really well are AFM / AFI, Berlin, and Cannes. SXSW might be opening up their market soon as well.

http://www.ifta-online.org/afm/home.asp

http://www.berlinale.de/en/HomePage.html

https://www.marchedufilm.com/

http://sxsw.com/ - no news yet, but i expect it to be announced this year
 
I was also thinking of directing a horror film first, but I take my filmmaking seriously and it would be a fully professional effort, not Blair Witch Style horror, although I know that did amazingly well, needless to say. But I couldn't make a good movie that meets my expectations for less than $100,000, and that's pushing it, maybe $125K. So I'd have to know I had a solid chance to sell it for more than that.

If it's a tastefully done horror film with a nice story, not just exploitation, I don't think it would damage your long-term career.
 
Yeah, but just remember after the film is done you won't have control over the marketing.

I worked on a movie that has one scene where we find out the kid's best friend and parents grow weed. The whole marketing campaign was 420 related even though it really had nothing to do with the central plot of the film.

But still, i'm not telling you not to make a 28 Days Later or I Love Sarah Jane. Just giving fair warning.
 
Thanks Dasher. That's what I needed to know. I'm planning to try to get a budget around $85K. So I'm trying to make sure I can get the money back. On my first movie, even at 28K I made my money back.
 
If you could get it done and edited by October, you'd hit AFM - which is the biggest buyer of horror films out there.

Also, not to nag, but if you made your last movie for 28k, what is stopping you from making this one for the same?

PS: what was the last movie you did? Link it up, sir. :D
 
For what it's worth, I read that 'The Signal' -- which was shot by a group of Atlanta filmmakers -- sold for $2 million. I have no idea what its budget was, though.
 
if you have a good sales agent and can start a bidding war (thanks to good publicity) you can hit the jackpot. Did you see Foregetting Sarah Marshall by chance? There's a line in it that completely makes fun of this movie.

It was also bought by a Maverick company, Magnolia, that went to sundance hoping to find the next great horror movie. The pool was very dry because Sundance programmers opposed the idea of letting a lot of scary movies rule the fest, so it was def. in their cards.

Look at the numbers it made in the US
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=Signal.htm

If you divide that in half (because the theater makes 50% of all sales) and factor in marketing (which i would guess is almost 100k ) this was a horrible investment for Magnolia.
The sales agent really nabbed a good bargain because the filmmakers were with-holding their sequel rights pretty heavily.

Notice as well that the film was finished almost 2 and a half years ago and the directors still don't have a future project lined up.
 
First off, I've read that DVD rentals/sales, HBO/Showtime, pay cable, pay-per-view, foreign releases -- all that can pull in as much as 10 times the theatrical revenues.

Second, Box Office Mojo and similar site only show theatrical revenues, not any of the other. (DVD rental/sales figures are notoriously hard to find.) So in your example, you wouldn't divide the BOM figure in half -- you'd double it. If it were accurate that DVD sales, etc. only EQUAL revenues from theatrical release.
 
It wildly varies how much DVD sales / rentals factor into the total, I mean for a really huge movie you'll never see DVD sales add up to more than the box office revenue. Like Revenge of the Sith, for instance, $200M+ DVD sales for sure, but almost $400M at the U.S. box office alone.

Then there are other movies, though, that for whatever reason seriously everyone said, "That's a rental" when they saw the marketing campaign, and the DVD sales / rentals are way above the box office revenue, sometimes 2-3 times as much. In the case of Austin Powers, it was made when it went to video / DVD, not in theaters.

I have to admit it's tough for me to imagine making a feature for less than $100K. I refuse to make any work that isn't fully professional grade either, though, I just don't see the point. I want my name as a director to mean something and I want my work to reflect a high standard of quality always. It's hard enough to do that for $100K. The only reason I think I can make a horror film that cheap is because I have access to an unbelievable, never-before-used location for free that would normally be a $10,000 rental minimal, although I frankly doubt anything like this place would rent for less than $25,000 per day, considering The Palms restaurant rents for about $65,000 and that's nothing too special. Also $100K doesn't include the fact that I'd mostly use equipment I own. If I had to rent everything, location, equipment, etc. I don't think I could do it for less than, oh, $350,000. So I'd be curious to see how some people do things. Then again I won't give deferred pay, I'm going to pay everyone fairly at least, even if it's not a ton nobody should be disappointed in their pay because I want professionals on my shoot.
 
IMHO:

If you get a GREAT, original script
If you shoot a beautiful image that can hold up to 35mm printing
If you get good actors and give them enough time to do their thing
If you spend a lot of time getting the SFX to look real

Then you are not in the class of films that you are comparing yourself to.

BUT...

Location is NOT story. So you got a great location, so what? Is that location marketable? Does it in some way enable marketable elements in the story? Will it work as box art?

Did you spend 6 months to a year crafting a really good and original story? When asked can you describe the marketability of the story? The biggest problem with horror is that the best bits can't be shown on a trailer or commercial, so what in your story can be marketed?

The single biggest element to being truly successful in the movie making industry is: Get the great script. In horror you should draw out the suspense and be creative with the ways people get killed (Saw, the original Halloween, Phantasm).

There is only one thing you can do better than the Hollywood machine (which is who you are competing with). You are not going to make a better image, you are not going to land the big name actor, you are not going to have the awesome SFX; you are not going to be able to compete at these levels. What you can do is write a better story (if you have it in you, that is). Story crafting doesn't cost anything other than time, and Hollywood is deathly afraid of veering away from its story formulas, so the opportunity is there...

Bob
 
dasher said:
If you could get it done and edited by October, you'd hit AFM - which is the biggest buyer of horror films out there.

Also, not to nag, but if you made your last movie for 28k, what is stopping you from making this one for the same?

PS: what was the last movie you did? Link it up, sir. :D
Click to expand...

I'm changing out the websites right now. I'll put it up once I get a new site. I've just been trying to finish the editing on my current piece.

The last movie was made for $14K and sold for $28K

The reason I want to upgrade is that the current movie I'm working on, a comedy was for $22K but I had problems with Cast and Crew. So next time I just want to pay them and I also want to upgrade my equipment along with buying new items. I want a real dolly instead of my sisters baby stroller. :laugh:
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
For what it's worth, I read that 'The Signal' -- which was shot by a group of Atlanta filmmakers -- sold for $2 million. I have no idea what its budget was, though.
Click to expand...

Thanks - The Signal - I believe cost somewhere between $50K to $65K. Pop Films who directed/produced the movie are really a great bunch of folks. I've never worked with them, bu ti've admired their work for a long time. I think they are the next group in Atlanta to show themselves as a true production company.

One of the things I'm hoping for is that more strong production companies pop up in the Southeast. N. Carolina is growing in movies as well, along with Louisianna. in the new "LA" (Louisianna) they are giving great benefits to prod companies to shoot there. I think they are trying to rebuild after Katrina. Atlanta adopted about 15 to 20% of their population when New Orleans was underwater.
 
dasher said:
If you divide that in half (because the theater makes 50% of all sales) and factor in marketing (which i would guess is almost 100k ) this was a horrible investment for Magnolia.
The sales agent really nabbed a good bargain because the filmmakers were with-holding their sequel rights pretty heavily.

Notice as well that the film was finished almost 2 and a half years ago and the directors still don't have a future project lined up.
Click to expand...

Pop Films tend to be that way. They are more of great filmmakers than idea people. Unfortunately I think we're loosing a lot of idea people these days. George Lucus is an idea person (Star Wars, Indiana Jones). He's a billionare off of two ideas. Spielburg is really just a good director looking for projects. And thats' what Pop Films seem to be. They're good, but they don't have any ideas.

Lucky for me I've got plenty of ideas. If anyone needs one, let me know. Just hook me up with 2% for the idea. :thumbsup:
 
JonathanLB said:
I have to admit it's tough for me to imagine making a feature for less than $100K. I refuse to make any work that isn't fully professional grade either, though, I just don't see the point. I want my name as a director to mean something and I want my work to reflect a high standard of quality always. It's hard enough to do that for $100K. The only reason I think I can make a horror film that cheap is because I have access to an unbelievable, never-before-used location for free that would normally be a $10,000 rental minimal, although I frankly doubt anything like this place would rent for less than $25,000 per day, considering The Palms restaurant rents for about $65,000 and that's nothing too special. Also $100K doesn't include the fact that I'd mostly use equipment I own. If I had to rent everything, location, equipment, etc. I don't think I could do it for less than, oh, $350,000. So I'd be curious to see how some people do things. Then again I won't give deferred pay, I'm going to pay everyone fairly at least, even if it's not a ton nobody should be disappointed in their pay because I want professionals on my shoot.
Click to expand...

I wish I could be that way. I just don't have that kind of access to "other people's" money. However, making a movie for under $100K isn't difficult. It has more to do with what a person feels a set should "be" vs what a set "is." Also where you are located makes a huge difference as well. Most of "The ATL" (Atlanta) are hungry. There are lots of people in LA that are hungry as well, but the restaurants and community aren't hungry because there is plenty of money for them. In Atlanta, small business let indie's come in all the time for free.

And as far as on set goes. My latest movie "Voices" has pretty good prod quality. We made some mistakes, but for a $22K movie shot with 4 people, many days only 2 of that amount on set. With borrowed time and locations, it rivals the quality of many movies I've seen made for 6 times the budget with people who consider themselves "professionals" in the industry.

I worked on a set that was 95% pros, many who work with Tyler Perry (he is the film top dog here in Atlanta). And the short we did was crap. Bad audio, visuals were just okay, lighting was good but very videoish. The crew were so lazy that they wouldn't even shoot DOF. For them, a project is just getting paid, it's not about being your best. So they would just come and go - everything was more of an experiment than trying to make it look or sound good. It was all too static - we go tthis - we know what to do. There was no love. The best person was the DP but he just kinda stood back and laughed for the most part and I could tell he was only giving maybe 75% of his true talent.

When me and my crew were on "Voices" we were like - We need this! We want this! We need some money for gas! :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Bob Gruen said:
Did you spend 6 months to a year crafting a really good and original story? When asked can you describe the marketability of the story? The biggest problem with horror is that the best bits can't be shown on a trailer or commercial, so what in your story can be marketed?

The single biggest element to being truly successful in the movie making industry is: Get the great script. In horror you should draw out the suspense and be creative with the ways people get killed (Saw, the original Halloween, Phantasm).

There is only one thing you can do better than the Hollywood machine (which is who you are competing with). You are not going to make a better image, you are not going to land the big name actor, you are not going to have the awesome SFX; you are not going to be able to compete at these levels. What you can do is write a better story (if you have it in you, that is). Story crafting doesn't cost anything other than time, and Hollywood is deathly afraid of veering away from its story formulas, so the opportunity is there...

Bob
Click to expand...

All good points. Very good points. I don't have anything to say against them. I just wanted to comment on that I think what you said is right.

I think I have a pretty good story, but who doesn't think their story is good! My philosophy on stories is this - all ideas are both good and bad - but how you tell the story is going to make the difference. Like I said in another post - "4 childlike old people find an evil ring and decide to throw it in a lake of fire while an evil eye watches them." - Sounds like a sucky movie/story but it's basically "part of the plot" for "The Lord of the Rings." All ideas sound both cool and stupid. But it's how the filmmakers craft the final story that matters.

What i'm trying to do right now, is not make some artsy fartsy film. I'm all about the money. And while I'd like to get 1.5 to 2 mill, I'll be happy with $200K. If I go in and make my movie for $90K with half of that for equipment (buy not rent) and the other half to pay off cast and crew. Then sell for $200K with $15 to $20K going for insurance and any other crap the dist company throws at me, then all of my execs walk away with a nice profit and I get a good amount to use for the next movie.

My philosophy (as I'm talking about) here http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=137087

is to build yourself up through a series of movies. Make 3 to 4 back to back. build equipment, experiences and resources. And within 2 to 3 years you may be able to quit your day job (for many of us that work 9 to 5s).

I've seen people do it, and I decided to write about it and talk about what I'm trying to accomplish so maybe it can help somebody else.
:engel017:
 
Hey jls,

Can you give some details on how you went about selling your movie for $28k? I've read on how others have done it w/ name actors, >$200k budgets, etc. I'd like to know from a lower budget perspective.
 
jls4 said:
I wish I could be that way. I just don't have that kind of access to "other people's" money. However, making a movie for under $100K isn't difficult. It has more to do with what a person feels a set should "be" vs what a set "is." Also where you are located makes a huge difference as well. Most of "The ATL" (Atlanta) are hungry. There are lots of people in LA that are hungry as well, but the restaurants and community aren't hungry because there is plenty of money for them. In Atlanta, small business let indie's come in all the time for free.

And as far as on set goes. My latest movie "Voices" has pretty good prod quality. We made some mistakes, but for a $22K movie shot with 4 people, many days only 2 of that amount on set. With borrowed time and locations, it rivals the quality of many movies I've seen made for 6 times the budget with people who consider themselves "professionals" in the industry.

I worked on a set that was 95% pros, many who work with Tyler Perry (he is the film top dog here in Atlanta). And the short we did was crap. Bad audio, visuals were just okay, lighting was good but very videoish. The crew were so lazy that they wouldn't even shoot DOF. For them, a project is just getting paid, it's not about being your best. So they would just come and go - everything was more of an experiment than trying to make it look or sound good. It was all too static - we go tthis - we know what to do. There was no love. The best person was the DP but he just kinda stood back and laughed for the most part and I could tell he was only giving maybe 75% of his true talent.

When me and my crew were on "Voices" we were like - We need this! We want this! We need some money for gas! :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Click to expand...

Hey,

Yeah... well I think it's very important for a director to drum up enthusiasm for his project, make the crew somewhat excited to be there, or if it's corporate work and maybe not the most fun, find a way to make it fun. Joke around with the crew when you can, talk to them, make them care about making you look good, basically. That's what I think anyway.

I wouldn't shoot a feature with smaller than a dozen people on the crew. I think that's super small. I mean I've shot a music video low budget with I think about 15-17 on the crew, it's hard to imagine a smaller crew for a feature! Haha.

I'm sure I could make a feature super cheap but I just wouldn't want to do it, seems like a waste of cash to me. I'd rather spend the money to get it right. I want to have a $100K feature that looks like a $1 million feature, not a $20,000 feature that looks like a $100K feature, lol.
 
Numbers are really not the subject matter.

To be honest, if you want a feature to look like 1M know a good DP and Art Director who are well respected by their co-workers and know how to bargain. Practically become their slave / best friend for at least a year and then let them in on your project idea.

I have 2 DPs that I really owe my life as a producer to. Both have different styles and I would sit in the middle of the road for them. I make sure that they are fed and make sure that I can't do them a favor every time they are on set or with me.
Meeting a set designer / art director who really gets your thought process as well as the director / DP is key too. The first small projects I made we thought we could dress sets ourselves. Without sounding sexist.... we needed a woman's touch..... and ran into our art director at a coffee place that we usually drink at.
 
dlee_ultra said:
Hey jls,

Can you give some details on how you went about selling your movie for $28k? I've read on how others have done it w/ name actors, >$200k budgets, etc. I'd like to know from a lower budget perspective.
Click to expand...

I've been trying to go into detail on - what my concepts are in creating movies sub $100K, even starting at the $10K level and building to a $100+K level over time. I'm only about 10% into the thread, but it's here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=137087

I'll be updating this thread over time with new info that I find.

But basically what i've learned is that all movies can sell. The biggest problem with a sale of a movie has more to do with the movie's budget than anything else. I even asked another member on this board about a Dist Deal that he recieved. I was trying to find out true numbers, but he told me that he got less than me and kept it at that.

That being said, what I encourage is what Dasher said in the second post of this thread. Try to stay in easy to sell genres: "Horror sells the highest, then action / urban , then teen sex/comedy, then maybe drama". I was in one of these genres.

Make the movie as best you can, and don't get caught up (especially on the first feature) in trying to do everything right. Just learn as much as you can, but like Robert Rodriguez says "Make it cheap." My first movie was made for around $14K (now I could have made it for $5K less). So an offer of $25K and above is a great offer for me. If you make it with $100K, you have to sell for at least $115K (because of backend costs). If your $100K movie sucks, and I've seen a lot that sucked, then it'll be more difficult to sell.

The tread above will go into implicit detail on this subject, down almost to the last dollar, tutorial, etc. I'll try to write on it once or twice a week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top