Making Movies Risky - Less than .1% Succeed

[jls4]

Here's an article writen over at "HD for Indies". It's a great article and really underlines what Indies need to think about - especially "shoebox indies" (those with very little money)

Here's the link:
http://provideocoalition.com/index....w_bigger_sometimes_better_definitely_riskier/

Here's the Article:

Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Making Movies Now - bigger, sometimes better, definitely riskier

Why moviemaking is getting bigger, sometimes better, but definitely more dangerous

I opened the LA Times today and the front of the Calendar section was dominated by a picture of Brad Pitt sprawled on a couch with the headline Sparking Curiosity with the subhead “The trailer for ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’ is everything it should be” and talks about the buzz around the movie. The company where I’ve been working the last 3 months provided the cameras, recording system and workflow, same as was done for Zodiac (I mentioned this in Couple bits of awesomeness the other day).
A fun read about how great the trailer looks to be.
Reading the continuation on page E4, that dovetailed into a minor article entitiled “Indie biz needs more discipline” - which discusses the 99.9% chance of failure of a movie budgeted under $10M.
Hmm...what does this imply? Read on.
The LA Times article about the new Ben Button trailer gushes about the intrigue promised by the 2 minute tease:

The trailer promises us a moody, mysterious and bewitchingly bittersweet look at life, lived in an entirely unexpected way. It also offers the tantalizing possibility that Fincher, one of our era’s greatest filmmakers, may have found a way (thanks to an Eric Roth script, adapted from a 1922 F. Scott Fitzgerald short story) to marry his often chilly obsession with serial killers and people in peril to a story with more emotional resonance.

I’m all for it - go watch the trailer and see if you aren’t entranced.
BUT....that is Big Budget filmmaking. That is David Fincher and Brad Pitt working together. That is Tall Dollars.
What about what we might aspire to work on for our own movies? I’m talking to 99.999% of you reading this who probably aren’t Fincher, Pitt, etc.
That next article is where we should really be paying attention - I never would have seen it if not for the Ben Button trailer article. Film Department chief Mark Gill spoke at the LA Film Financing Conference, and had this arresting quote:

“Of the 5,000 films submitted to Sundance each year—generally with budgets under $10 million—maybe 100 of them got a U.S. theatrical release three years ago. And it used to be that 20 of those would make money. Now maybe five do. That’s one-tenth of 1%. Put another way, if you decide to make a movie budgeted under $10 million on your own tomorrow, you have a 99.9% chance of failure.”

Ouch. I’ve been saying that, but not so succinctly (or at least not recently).
Think about that. And maybe think about why you’re making a movie, and think carefully about how much money you’re trying to raise.
On the flip side, man, I am AMAZED at how badly organized some productions are. Being competent, organized, and having planned well with contingencies will put you a long, Long, LONG way ahead of most of the crowd.
He talks about the industry trend: (try to) “Make fewer better.” - that is the current tentpole thinking that the studios are pursuing, but it doesn’t always work - check out Speed Racer or Love Guru box office. They were fewer, they were pricier, but they certainly weren’t better.
For indies, what to do? Gill suggests:

The indie biz is full of people trying to make quality films. What this ignores isn’t just that most films aspiring to quality don’t end up achieving quality but that many quality films don’t make money because their subject matter is too narrow or dark or solipsistic to find a sizable audience.
BINGO. I really enjoyed Hard Candy, but that certainly isn’t a mainstream film. Would I want to watch it again? Probably not, but I admire the effort, and immediately singled out Ellen Page as a Star To Be.
Gill further nails it:

The real problem with the indie business isn’t quality but discipline. We have a generation of filmmakers who feel entitled to make personal films at studio prices.
....
If people in the indie world want to start making money again, they have to start treating their investment like a truly precious natural resource, not like Monopoly money. Discipline is not antithetical to art. The oldest and most consistently successful specialty division, Sony Pictures Classics, keeps making money because it resolutely, sometimes to a fault, never overspends on a film.

Filmmaking is both a business and an art. Which do you want to do? Ideally both, if you want to make more than one. Business models must be sustainable, i.e. profitable, to persist.
When I see movies like Hard Candy - is that a calling card or an honest attempt to make money? Or just pursuing art? And if you are pursuing JUST art, do you know that is your goal? Or are you deceiving yourself as well as your investors?
For everyone who says “I want to express my vision.” - honestly, why should we care? Only if it engages us. And if you want to make more than one, it needs to engage ENOUGH of us to make a profit on the endeavor - be it theatrically, on DVD, on cable, iTunes movie rentals, combo, whatever. Rather than expressing My Own Private Vision, think about your audience, AN audience, and how many there are. Do you want to express your vision? Fine, go for it, just realize who you are doing it for. Want to make movies in general? Find an audience to tell your story to. Think about genres that you can connect with, specialty markets - and then scale your efforts to fit. (And THAT is where consultants can come in handy, thankyouverymuch).
OK, rambling, close this up:
In closing, Gill said:

The indie film business isn’t going to get any better until filmmakers and studio executives stop their spending sprees and start making indie movies for a true indie price.

Amen, brother.
Suddenly, I feel better about working in this business again.
-mike

 

[Paunch]

oh thats terrible news, i guess i'll stop making movies all together. As the old sayin goes, he who never tries never fails...

 

[Richard J. Johnson]

Great article. I find it encouraging actually. For every success there are a million failures. No matter what the percentages dictate, not one of us here will stop making movies because of them. We may stop for dozens of other reasons, but not because of our odds. We knew we they were not great when we started making movies.
The artistic vision vs. the Profit margin can be argued all day and has been already in numerous posts. But I just finished a feature length film and I will sell it ,so I did a movie more for a wider audience than to satisfy my desire to "express my vision" why, because the audience may find my vision to be less than entertaining. And since the project was fully funded by me, I could not justify sinking thousands of dollars into a project that would only cater to a small segment the people I am trying to grasp. Not saying the movie I shot will be success either, but it is definately more "commercial" than the original subject matter I was about to tackle.
Again, there are a 100 ways to counter my take on it and the even more to counter the article above, but in the end I will not stop until I get to where I need to be. Hell, most of us own all of the equipment anyway so the only people that can stop us is us. we just need to band together and start a cable channel geared to nothing but DVXUSER members. and ultra low budget films. : )

 

[jls4]

To me it's both good and bad. Bad from the aspect of putting a bad taste in distributors mouths, but good in the aspect of setting yorusel foff from the crowd.

As an indie myself, I'm not worried at all. I'm working on nothign but commercial types of films. I plan on doing them until I have made a name for myself and put some money in the bank. After that I can get artsy and distribute on the Internet for free if I want to.

I've had several people here in the ATL (Atlanta) that have approached me about working with them. And the first thing out of my mouth is basically "are we taking a commercial movie or an artistic idea". If it's artistic, and 90% of the time it is, then I tell them that I'll advise them all day, but I can't work on the project. My goal for movies is to say what I want - like any other artist. But my encouragement is for indies to first MAKE SOME MONEY - then work your artistic movie.

 

[Richard J. Johnson]

my encouragement is for indies to first MAKE SOME MONEY - then work your artistic movie.

I agree with that.
(but I really have not done enough to offer real advice on this)

It is possible to do both your first time out. I wish i could think of some examples of first time director's "artsy" films that have had commercial success.
but even sucess is relative. If a film cost 10 grand to make and generates 200 grand at the box office that's a success to me.

I just hope some more seasoned filmakers chime in here to offer their opinions.

 

[sean90291]

Nothing has changed. The only difference between 10 years ago and today is 10 years ago a lot of bad filmmakers said they were gonna make a film but couldn't actually get anyone to give them the money to do it, while today a lot of bad filmmakers don't need anyone's money to make their bad movie. The upside today is that there are a few good filmmakers (they're always rare, right?) who will make films that they'd never have made if not for the modern technologies, because they live in Minnesota or Bangladesh. Good films will succeed. How many times do you go to the video store or Netflix's new releases only to leave empty handed. I have $10 burning a hole in my pocket for a film that is not on the shelf.

 

[jls4]

I agree with that.
(but I really have not done enough to offer real advice on this)

It is possible to do both your first time out. I wish i could think of some examples of first time director's "artsy" films that have had commercial success.
but even sucess is relative. If a film cost 10 grand to make and generates 200 grand at the box office that's a success to me.

"The Signal" made here in the ATL, sold at Sundance for $2 Million, but made less than $400K at the Box Office. While it was a success to the filmmakers, not so much of one for the Distribution Company. The movie however is good and not too much on the artsy side.

that being said, I do they could have made a more mainstream film. But also noted in another thread - I forget which - when you make a film, you should think about a commercial made from it. to give something for an editor to piece into a 2 minute movie spoiler. Otherwise your artsy or commercial or excellent film will never be seen because it doesn't look interesting in the trailer.

Also I havent' seen too many artsy films that do well at the box Office. I know I rarely go see them, sorry but I don't find most of them all that interesting. I think when you make an artsy film, you should make it for yourself and have an attitude that "I don't care" but when you do that be ready to self distribute. I have at least 2 ideas that once I have enough money, i'll put 2 million into each one and just pu tthe whole thing on the Internet for anyone to download and not worry about getting the money back. Because when it's true art, it's not about money.rogar-Love(DBG):

 

[jls4]

The upside today is that there are a few good filmmakers (they're always rare, right?) who will make films that they'd never have made if not for the modern technologies, because they live in Minnesota or Bangladesh. Good films will succeed.

I know that's true about me! rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

But honestly, I do agree to your statements. I'm just hoping a few filmmakers save their parents a good amount of money as they work towards an artistic masterpiece.:nads:

 

[Texanite]

“Of the 5,000 films submitted to Sundance each year—generally with budgets under $10 million—maybe 100 of them got a U.S. theatrical release three years ago. And it used to be that 20 of those would make money. Now maybe five do. That’s one-tenth of 1%. Put another way, if you decide to make a movie budgeted under $10 million on your own tomorrow, you have a 99.9% chance of failure.”

A huge number of those 5000 films are shorts which are almost guaranteed (no matter HOW good) to NOT get a theatrical release. It's like saying there's a 99.9% chance that my dog will fail to lift my SUV this year.

 

[Huy Vu]

Not to mention "success" is defined as getting a theatrical release, which the vast majority of films do not ever get. The majority of indie films shoot to recovery its money and make a profit through DVD distribution.

 

[filmman]

Studio pictures, yes. They don't pick up films made under $10 million because they have to spend $25 million to market the movie, so it doesn't make sense to pick up a movie with actors who aren't charging at least $10 million per picture. The success of a studio picture depends on marketing.

The whole discussion of under $10 million isn't relevant to this forum. Sorry, I don't mean to be mean but we're talking about making movies digitally and that allows us to get into a project with little or no money (if one has the equipment).

But the discussion is interesting nevertheless because it opens up the window to how movie makers can make the process cost effective.

If you have a distributor who will advance you $25,000 on a movie, make one for half the price, about a subject that you like. I don't believe in making "commercial" movies so that later I can make "artsy" movies. A lot of people have done that and have fallen into the trap. I'm sure you know many examples but let me suggest the most obvious one, Roger Corman. After he made a message movie with William Shatner that bombed (60s), he swore he'd never make another art movie, and he hasn't. He's earned the title of Schlockmeister, but he's the most successful one. Read his book, "How I made a Hundred Movies and Never Lost a Dime."

Once you get used to your lifestyle and your family depends on you, you won't be able to go back to art. There are exceptions that prove the rule.

If you don't have a distributor who's ready to advance you the money, then go out and make a movie by the skin of your teeth and see if you can market it or exhibit it and make money with it.

Or, if you're experienced and disciplined, write or find a great script, package the movie (get some marketable stars) and then approach distributors with the package. You'll need money to get star to give you letters of intent (typically ten percent of their going rate), but if you have a friend or a friend of a friend contact with one of the star that will give you a letter of intent, maybe you might get lucky. I say maybe because agents won't let them sign. It's a catch 22 situation to be sure.

Adam seems to have cracked this nut with Corrado, but he had his own money. And he's come out and said it, it's not for everyone. We can all hope to have Adam's hutzpah but frankly it's rare that anyone's been able to do it like that.

I know a lot of people who try to make SAG movies with name talent but never come up with the budget to do it. Some of them spend ten years raising the money and putting the packages together, and a very few succeed. You know them, Forrest Gump, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Rocky, etc.

Anything between no-budget and $15,000,000 is dangerous filmmaking, because there's no market for movies in between. Even at $500,000 budget, who's going to advance you $500,000 on delivery of a well-made movie?

It's feast or famine. Make movie for pocket change if you can make them or play the big game and develop big projects that the studios or major distributors find interesting and will give you a contract for.

Thanks for sharing and good luck.

 

[David W. Richardson]

"The Signal" made here in the ATL, sold at Sundance for $2 Million, but made less than $400K at the Box Office. While it was a success to the filmmakers, not so much of one for the Distribution Company. The movie however is good and not too much on the artsy side.

that being said, I do they could have made a more mainstream film. But also noted in another thread - I forget which - when you make a film, you should think about a commercial made from it. to give something for an editor to piece into a 2 minute movie spoiler. Otherwise your artsy or commercial or excellent film will never be seen because it doesn't look interesting in the trailer.

Also I havent' seen too many artsy films that do well at the box Office. I know I rarely go see them, sorry but I don't find most of them all that interesting. I think when you make an artsy film, you should make it for yourself and have an attitude that "I don't care" but when you do that be ready to self distribute. I have at least 2 ideas that once I have enough money, i'll put 2 million into each one and just pu tthe whole thing on the Internet for anyone to download and not worry about getting the money back. Because when it's true art, it's not about money.rogar-Love(DBG):

But nobody knows what the take was for 'The Signal' on home video, HBO/Showtime, pay cable, pay per view, etc. Those numbers seem to be closely guarded secrets. The consensus, though, is that most movies -- especially indies like 'The Signal' -- make most of their money from those home video sources, not from the theatrical box office. So it still may be profitable for the distributor.

 

[Richard J. Johnson]

Not to mention "success" is defined as getting a theatrical release, which the vast majority of films do not ever get. The majority of indie films shoot to recovery its money and make a profit through DVD distribution.

And that is all I hope to do at this point. If I made the signal and got 2 million I would think It was a sucess to. I wish I had $20 at this point. Making No budget movies is expensive. wait...that does make sense right?

 

[JonathanLB]

Great article. I find it encouraging actually. For every success there are a million failures. No matter what the percentages dictate, not one of us here will stop making movies because of them. We may stop for dozens of other reasons, but not because of our odds. We knew we they were not great when we started making movies.
The artistic vision vs. the Profit margin can be argued all day and has been already in numerous posts. But I just finished a feature length film and I will sell it ,so I did a movie more for a wider audience than to satisfy my desire to "express my vision" why, because the audience may find my vision to be less than entertaining. And since the project was fully funded by me, I could not justify sinking thousands of dollars into a project that would only cater to a small segment the people I am trying to grasp. Not saying the movie I shot will be success either, but it is definately more "commercial" than the original subject matter I was about to tackle.
Again, there are a 100 ways to counter my take on it and the even more to counter the article above, but in the end I will not stop until I get to where I need to be. Hell, most of us own all of the equipment anyway so the only people that can stop us is us. we just need to band together and start a cable channel geared to nothing but DVXUSER members. and ultra low budget films. : )

That's how I feel. The first feature I want to shoot is a horror film where I have access to an amazing location, one of the top houses in the Pacific Northwest (about a $10 million mansion), and I have what I think is a potentially strong, marketable idea with a solid niche audience. Horror movie fans, and I know many of them but consider myself a bit of a fringe fan (I'm not into all of the trends, more into old-school horror films from back in the day, but I try to keep up), are eager for new content, and honestly every horror fan I know sees so many movies they KNOW are going to be lousy. It's weird. Obviously my goal is to make a really good, enjoyable, high quality horror film. I am hoping to at least have a B-lister who dies first, lol, just so I have a tiny bit of star appeal, and I do want to keep my costs relatively low, which should be possible not only because I own the means of production from start to finish, besides a few things I want to rent (aerial establishing shots, maybe 3 hours tops, and a technocrane for more establishing shots for one day, and a few days worth of heavy-duty lighting for exteriors), but because the location is free as well and shooting all in one location should keep the shooting schedule and logistics down.

Horror is not my passion, although I am really excited to shoot my first feature one day, but the other kinds of movies I can think of making I don't know if they have the audience that would make them commercial enough to return my investment. For the time being it's not worth finding out. No matter how good, I can't just sink money into something with no commercial potential. If I can spend $100,000 on a movie, though, maybe $125,000, at least I have a better shot at getting my money back anyway. I'd say if you make a quality horror feature you're not going to do worse than $50,000 back, anyway, so you'd still take a loss but not as hideous as if you can't sell your feature whatsoever and it sits in the closet.

I have a lot of more philosophical ideas that I'm passionate about but I have to value commerce over art for now, because I want to keep making movies. Not to mention a few of the more commercial, still philosophical ideas I have wouldn't be cheap enough to make myself anyway, too big of a risk. If I tried, they'd turn out decent, at best, potentially poor, because of lack of funding, no star power, etc.

That is a sobering statistic, though. I don't know if I believe that only 1 in 1,000 features makes a profit, though. I really don't believe that. I think a lot of indie features at least break even, they just have extremely low budgets and sell for extremely low amounts.

 

[finklefilms]

Great article! I just completed my second film. It's a 30 minute short. Now I am left feeling like "What to do now?"

The response for the film was great considering it was shot in Taiwan, in Mandarin and English by people from Canada and the U.S.! We showed the film in two "private" screenings summing up to 1000 people. That covered some of the costs of the film as I was afforded the opportunity to have all the equipment supplied for me, but what to do now?

The audience definitely lies in the "indie" scene and I would never expect it to make money. My hope now is it gets into a festival or two.

But what should I do if I want to get into the industry and work for a larger production company on commercial and/or non commercial films? My goal now as an aspiring filmmaker is to get a job in the industry. But how? I have a bundle of experience now and I am extremely driven. How do I get my foot in the door to work on commercial type films? How do I show the people who make the hiring decisions that I am eager and talented enough to work for them in any facet?

I'm really happy jls4 posted the article as there appears to be some great discussion going on here. I really must thank the members of this site for a lot of guidance over the past year. Please feel free to check out the trailer to my film at:

www.theglassboxmovie.com

 

[Richard J. Johnson]

We all do it because we love it. I am sure no one on this site dropped 5 to 10 Grand on equipment to not make movies with it. It is a tough business for sure and I know I am not good enough to direct a major motion picture, but with time and practice I could be. Hell, all I did was read every book on editing, shooting, lighting, audio, framing etc. i could find, Bought all of the equipment on the same day. and just starting shooting videos. The way I did it could be the problem with indie or It could be the answer. Don't Know. I wish I went to film school but I graduated, walked across that stage, And I did not want to go back to school and become more in debt. There are A lot of bad film makers but with practice they may not stay that way.

 

[JonathanLB]

Yeah film school isn't really the solution anyway. I think that for learning anything you can't learn in the real world much better, film school is totally useless. It doesn't offer up anything you can't get for cheaper and better just doing it yourself, reading books, getting your own equipment, etc. BUT for contacts and job opportunities film school can have its perks. It just depends. I know friends who came out of film school and haven't had any luck finding even the most pathetic jobs, like PA work or decently well paid assistant editing work (not even $100+/day), and I know a few others who came out of film school and are having no problems finding at least solid employment, nothing too glamorous, but in the $200/day range and other career-advancing opportunities, because of connections they made in film school or somehow along the way before they got into the industry in a pro capacity.

I think features are a ridiculous crapshoot. I also think that people's expectations should be somewhat measured when it comes to, well, almost anything in the film industry. I have now spent very nearly $100,000 on pro equipment and I'm still not totally happy with that, because of course I'm shooting with a few HVX200s and not the RED One, for instance, which is what I want to be shooting with. That being said, the clients I deal with on a practical level (not for personal projects) are not interested in paying, say, an extra $750/day for me to shoot with a RED One and then a bunch of additional money on top of that to pay for the extended workflow of 4K footage, etc. So it makes no sense business-wise, even though for myself as a hobby filmmaker as well, someone who wants to make a short film every now and then, of course I wish I had the RED.

The issue is everyone expects that their project or their "unique talent" is going to land them, I don't know, in the Oscars, or at least making big budget features. I try to keep my expectations really low in the short term so that I stick with this for as long as it takes to get anywhere. If I make a short, I'm just expecting to make a good movie and whatever I spend on it will be a sunken cost. It may, it's true, help my career in the future. It may get into enough film festivals that it enhances my resume. The right person may see it. Maybe, against all odds, it might get purchased for some use I hadn't imagined and make back maybe 20% of what it cost to make, as highly unlikely as that is. But I fully know and expect that I'm going to lose 100% of whatever I put into that film and that it may do little for my career except give me valuable experience, a better reel that may or may not help me in the future, etc. That doesn't bother me, though, so if I can take enjoyment out of just the quality of the short and be happy I made it, then anything else is gravy.

Then again, that's my attitude because I'm not looking to narrative work to make a living right now. I'm looking to corporate work, hopefully commercial work in the future, and music videos if I'm really lucky to make me money. For now I'm pretty much convinced the highest source of income for me will be corporate work, which is of course (this is life) the least fun work, but it's filmmaking nonetheless and sure beats anything else I'd be doing. Plus, if I can work with companies that will pay me fairly for my time and equipment, then I will make the money to finance my pet projects anyway, including features, so I can take risks.

As a businessman I don't want to make a feature that won't make its money back because that's just stupid. But as a person, as a filmmaker, if I can make a really entertaining, high quality feature that stands up to any other professional work out there, that looks Hollywood-style at least if not Hollywood budget, then I've accomplished a life goal that alone would make that $125,000 well spent. Would I be annoyed if I lost every dime of that? Sure, yeah I wouldn't be real happy about that and it would probably stress me out a bit. But it's a worthy risk.

Also as far as what was said above, about it being bad to start doing commercial work and then plan to do artistic work, I disagree. That's also because I have no interest in the whole "family path," though, my marriage is to my career and I believe that if you really take this industry seriously and want to make it then nothing, and I mean nothing, can come between you and your work. You know the odds. You can't tell me that someone who has family obligations, kids, and a million other problems to deal with can effectively compete against someone who has twice as much time per week to give and simply has the greater drive.

If you want success you have to make sacrifices. [Then again, I don't consider that a sacrifice, because since what I want is a career in filmmaking, anything that slows that or prevents that would be the sacrifice].

 

[Richard J. Johnson]

Also as far as what was said above, about it being bad to start doing commercial work and then plan to do artistic work, I disagree. That's also because I have no interest in the whole "family path," though, my marriage is to my career and I believe that if you really take this industry seriously and want to make it then nothing, and I mean nothing, can come between you and your work. You know the odds. You can't tell me that someone who has family obligations, kids, and a million other problems to deal with can effectively compete against someone who has twice as much time per week to give and simply has the greater drive.

Well put my friend. Commercial work is good way to get started anyway. Timur (can't spell his last name) Director of Daywatch ,Night watch and Wanted. begain shooting commercials. As well as Several other directors. And many directors jump into commercials as well. Michael Bay-Victorias secret, Chevy, and Chris Robinson-Cingular, Boost Mobile etc. Commercial Work Pays quite nicely.

I have a family as well so I understand where you are coming from. It is hard to spend every waking moment editing, color correcting, scoring etc. when you have 2 in diapers; One is crying the other pooped themselves. Mortage, car notes, BGE, Cable, it makes everything that much harder.

I only have about 6k invested in my equipment and I have made that back already. And my feature "film" cost me about $1500.00 combined cost. And I will pop the trunk and sell them to make that back. My expectations are not too high right now because I need to learn a lot more before I take my self seriously as film maker. I am still trying to figure my wife out.

 

[jls4]

And my feature "film" cost me about $1500.00 combined cost. And I will pop the trunk and sell them to make that back. My expectations are not too high right now because I need to learn a lot more before I take my self seriously as film maker.

My first movie was shot with $300 - I used it to learn

My second (the one I sometimes say was my first, cost me $14,000) - But I sold it

The one I'm working on now cost so far $22,000.

I'm hoping to put close to $90,000 into the next one.

I'm a big believer in doing it. If the movie is followable, you can see and hear the actors and there's somekind of story - trust me you can sell it.

Every movie can be sold, however every movie may not make money. The lower your budget, the more likely you are to sell your movie for a profit. The whole 10 Mill thing is an eye opener for a lot of people, but keeping the movie cheap provides a much lower "good" offer.

 

[Sean Smith]

I have a family as well so I understand where you are coming from. It is hard to spend every waking moment editing, color correcting, scoring etc. when you have 2 in diapers; One is crying the other pooped themselves. Mortage, car notes, BGE, Cable, it makes everything that much harder.

I think it is much harder (more pressure) being married with children. BGE are raising their rates even more. I have to create on a smaller scale due to the needs of my primary investors... the family. Even though I am on a smaller financial scale for the work by night projects, I do find having this type of overhead keeps me so much more focused where failure is not an option. You would be surprised what you can accomplish when you remove failure from the equation.

It's corporate by day and creative self interests by night so I find myself burning the candle at both ends a lot after the wife and kids go to bed. Thank God for passion.