Anyone Made A $250,000 Film?

[jls4]

I'm sure if you were in L.A., we could be working on stuff! It's sometimes hard to find a group of filmmakers out here who would be interested in working on each other's projects and helping one another out without it being all a cash exchange. I mean, I have tons of equipment, and I'd be happy to lend it to other people's shoots if they would trade their skills to one of my shoots, because I wouldn't mind helping on someone else's project just for the experience and whatnot. But that's tough, a lot of people are very busy and don't have as much time to do their own stuff, in between assistant editing gigs, grip work, etc. Even if they really want to be directing.

The benefit of being in a smaller movie city (and not the movie HUB) is that you get to interact with people who are trying to make it. So groups are easier to be formed. The downside is that you don't have many people to work with. I've finally run into 2 or 3 people that I think may be beneficial for me in Atlanta. But we'll see how that works overtime. I've had to "cut off" anyone that is not interested in a commercial narrative feature with good production quality in the genres of comedy/action/horror because I don't have time to waste. I'm not getting any younger and features take 7 to 12 months to complete - especially on the indie level.

Also, though, I really was hoping to buy some of the stuff that isn't even out yet, so if I had the camera now that wouldn't be an option. I would love a set of the RED primes if they get those done and they are good. At $20,000, it's a ton of money, but compared to some other primes it's a bargain.

Great thing about the RED is they can use DSLR lenses. Someone already proved the DSLR Ziess are sharper than the Cinema for one-fourth the cost! I like the idea of the DSLR because I what I want to do is buy 2 REDs and 4 - EX3s. (When I get my big money )

I'll use the EX3s/SGPro/Letus35 for productions I'm producing, but not directing. I'll use the REDs for my productions that I'm a serious part of, but I can always use the EX3s for a nice cut away shot in an action sequence. My hope is to do action/fantasy films. I find myself more drawn to them than anything else, but I plan to do a horror film or two, to raise money.

 

[JonathanLB]

haha, that's funny, maybe we are brothers separated at birth, only somehow I ended up a pale white guy lol.

Star Wars is also what inspired me to become a filmmaker! It was kind of a roundabout story, because it wasn't that I grew up watching Star Wars a million times and collecting the toys, so that made me want to do film. In fact, I did exactly that, watched ROTJ sometimes two times a week with friends, and I bought the toys, etc. But I never considered myself a Star Wars "fan," I honestly didn't even know when I was 10 that you could be a "fan" of a movie franchise, because I wasn't really aware of how that worked yet. I became a fan, in my estimation, on February 1, 1997, the night I saw Star Wars: Special Edition in theaters. We went at 2 p.m. to get tickets for that night, and it was sold out until 10:30 p.m. at a theater that isn't even busy in Portland (one of the downtown theaters). I went there with my family and there were all of these people dressed in costume, and before the movie started people were cheering and there was this electricity in the theater that I had never felt before (I was 14 at the time by then). I got these tingles just thinking about it, my god, this MOVIE has inspired all of these people to be so passionate about a cause and unite in fandom. That is when I became a Star Wars fan, and realized that movies have a power that is truly fantastic. When people from all over the world can gather at a Star Wars Celebration (I have been to all four of the Celebrations; the last was two blocks from me since I live near the Staples Center / LA Convention Center, haha) from countries worldwide, and all share a common interest and enthusiasm, and all feel like they are friends without knowing each other, that is where I see the influence of film.

I have a lot of drive and ambition, but I owe a lot of my life path to Star Wars. It not only made me want to pursue filmmaking, but I also became a professional writer because of Star Wars. I started getting into doing freelance movie editorials and essays for online sources, then started a review site, and then wrote my first book, Anticipation: The Real Life Story of Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. I got a literary agent in New York City who represents Leonard Maltin and a number of other major authors before I graduated high school! That relationship never worked out as far as getting the book a publisher, but it gave me a ton of confidence in my writing and what I was able to do. I later wrote Revenge: The Real Life Story of Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, published last year. I also contributed an essay to Finding the Force of the Star Wars Franchise: Fans, Merchandise, & Critics. So Star Wars really set me on my way in several career paths / hobbies that have impacted my life, and I've made a lot of friends through the franchise. Not only all of that, but of course they have given me some of my fondest memories.

My mom (passed away 2006) and I went to the first three Celebrations together, and we had a really great time at each one, they were fond memories I have of her, and with my friend Erik, who waited in line with me for the prequels. On the final one, we waited 24 hours, had a blast, talked in line, etc. Now he's flying down for The Clone Wars and we're going to wait at one of the big Hollywood theaters, an experience I always wanted to have.

So for me, Star Wars showed the power of filmmaking and really gave me direction in a career path.

Waking Life is a really good film, but I majored in philosophy, most normal people would be bored to tears by that film I think. It's a weird movie, very deep but also random and not a typical film.

 

[jls4]

Well the tread has been officially Hijacked. I guess after 7 or 8 posts, you can say that it is. But there's good info for everybody.

I agree with everything that you have said about Star Wars. Although, I have never been to a Con (even though I want to go) and I love the pure love that people get when a group of movies/books/tv shows just grabs them. I like to look up cosplay and it's so interesting seeing people dressed up in everything fron Naruto to Transformers (some can even transform). And my hope is that one day I can inspire people like that.

For me it is especially importaint, because of my 13% status. People like Spike Lee / John Singleton / F. Gary Gray are great directors, but they don't inspire me to do anything. They haven't changed my life - although I'm sure they've changed others. But, I want my kids (when I have them) to go to a con and dress up like an African-Amercian hero that even white people admire. All we have is Blade, Storm (X-Men), Mace Windu (Our one Jedi). It sucks.

I want to make movies that make kids dream about the future. Whoppi Goldburg talks all the time about Star Trek and how it changed her life. She saw a black woman (remember when Whoopi grew up like 30 years ago) on television and she wasn't a maid and was respected - even thought of as attractive. She decided that she wanted to be an actress and was thrilled to be a part of Star Trek: Next Generation. That show - that fandom - changed her. What have many of these other movies done? Informing is cool, but there's only so much of that anyone can take. I at least applaud Will Smith in his efforts. So for me as much as people talk this and that about "the black community" - there's not much hope or inspiration.

And the thing I like about my ideas is that they are multi-race ideas - many of them in Sci-fi/Fantasy. In This genre, when the stroy is good - it's awesome. Unfortunately when it bad, it's real bad.

Another off-topic tidbit. If you look at the top movies of all time - Most of them are in Fantasy/Sci-Fi. There's something about escapting to another world that we all love.

Here's the List - World Wide Distribution
Titanic (1.8 Billion | Romantic/Action)
Lord of The Rings: The Return of the King (1.1 Billion | Fantasy)
Pirates of the Carrabean: Dead Man's Chest (1.06 Billion | Fantasy)
Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone (.97 Billion | Fantasy)
Pirates of the Carrabean: At World's End (.96 Billion | Fantasy)
Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix (.94 Billion | Fantasy)
Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (.92 Billion | Sci-Fi/Fantasy)
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (.92 Billion | Fantasy)
Jarrasic Park (.92 Billion | Sci-Fi)
Harry Potter and the Gobblet of Fire (.89 Billion | Fantasy)

All Harry Potters in top 50
All Star Wars in top 50
All Lord of the Rings in top 50

Sci-Fi is using a scientific fact to create a sceneario of what could or couldn't happen.
Fantasy is a totally different world that doesn't exist or a piece of that world incorporated with our world to create something that didn't or doesn't exist.

 

[jls4]

Once I get my company fully going - I may have to see if I can recruit you out to Atlanta and join the new Filmmaking Revolution outside of LA!

 

[filmman]

It's good that I got some shut eye and didn't tangle with you guys. LOL

So you're also movie enthusiasts, that's good.

You guys are confusing $120,000,000 movies Hollywood makes with indie movies. What you agree on a lot are "movies that suck."

That's not a genre

I can agree with your feelings. We all love movies otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them here; but let's get back to the topic of this thread.

It's ok to make formula movies, sequels and "genre" movies. But without distribution, it's financially dangerous to spend substantial amounts of money on a movie, especially when it's shot on digital.

But the second point is a matter of debate now. Let me just say, film is film and video is video, and leave it at that.

However, my main concern with this thread is the amount of an indie budget. What you have to remember about Hollywood movies is that Hollywood studios have marketing and the major studios have clout, they can distribute any movie they please -- any movie. And they can afford to lose money. In fact, their business strategy has been for years to make their money on 20% of the movies they market. They never know which are the 80% of the movies that lose money, otherwise they would never make them.

Indie movies, regardless of how good or bad they are, need to recoup their money, because the investors (which are usually the indie filmmakers themselves and their relatives) don't have a studio marketing machine behind them.

 

[Kevin McCallister]

A $250,000 movie is next to impossible to recoup the money on.

I couldn't (respectfully) disagree more. An independent film with a semi-marketable "star" (aka, b-lister) will routinely sell for $200k to $700k at AFM and Cannes, not to mention sales of foreign territories. Adam from "Corrado" will corroborate this fact.

 

[jls4]

It's good that I got some shut eye and didn't tangle with you guys. LOL

So you're also movie enthusiasts, that's good.

You guys are confusing $120,000,000 movies Hollywood makes with indie movies. What you agree on a lot are "movies that suck."

That's not a genre .

Hey filmman. I was wondering if you were going to chime in. No one is confusing anything. A movie can be bad no matter what the budget is. My feeling is that if you don't have a good script, you don't have a movie. You wouldn't start building a house in quicksand? If someone said they were building a skyscraper and had only a quick version of the blue prints - one without all the proper calculations - do you think it would stand?

It's ok to make formula movies, sequels and "genre" movies. But without distribution, it's financially dangerous to spend substantial amounts of money on a movie, especially when it's shot on digital.

But the second point is a matter of debate now. Let me just say, film is film and video is video, and leave it at that.

I think we all understand the dangers of making a movie. But at an indie level it's almost impossible to have a "deal" before you have the movie. What I encouage is a first movie of $15K to 20K and second of $35K to 40K and then with the third go to $150K or higher.

If you've never made a movie, you don't know how to make one. You can know everything about shorts, music videos, wedding videos, camera equipment, but it's not the same. I can teach my cousin how to drive in my living room, but when she gets into a car - everything is different.

As for Film is Film and Video is Video. Who cares. They both a recording mediums. Video doesn't look like it did 5 years ago. It has as much dynamic range as film. So who gives a flip. It's like when people get mad when somebody shoots digital video and then says "A John Doe film" Film is a generic term like Xerox. If I say go make me a Xerox, does it mean you can't make it on a Brother Copier? Xerox at one time was synonimus with copy. Film just means feature or movie.

And don't judge digital video/HD based on the bad stuff you've seen. I've seen 35mm look horrid. And I've seen Digital HD that would take your breath away. The problem is not the recording device, it's the person using the device. Once you get to 1920x1080 24p 422 (Sony EX1/EX3) in little compression, the average person will pay more attention to your movie than if it was shot digital or not. And with the RED it shoots 2K (2048 x 1156 24p 444 [Along with 3.2K]). All movies are now shown in 2K Resolution. Hollywood shoots 35mm and then transfers the print to a 444 2K HD Digital master then edits. Afterward they put it back onto 35mm for distribution. And if not every movie, then a whole lot. I know all the Matrix Series were like that, Star Wars (The Attack of the Clones) was shot exclusively on Digital, along with Wanted (Angelina Jolie)

However, my main concern with this thread is the amount of an indie budget. What you have to remember about Hollywood movies is that Hollywood studios have marketing and the major studios have clout, they can distribute any movie they please -- any movie. And they can afford to lose money. In fact, their business strategy has been for years to make their money on 20% of the movies they market. They never know which are the 80% of the movies that lose money, otherwise they would never make them.

Indie movies, regardless of how good or bad they are, need to recoup their money, because the investors (which are usually the indie filmmakers themselves and their relatives) don't have a studio marketing machine behind them.

I agree that the budget is a concern and like I said in another thread Marketing is a huge factor. But none of these reasons are large enough to say no to an experienced filmmaker. Unfortunately $125K can proove fatal for everyone, especially someone who has difficulty creating an "easy to sell" movie/film/feature. That's why I encouage a small project first.

I started to write a column a while back on this site, but I abandoned it. The purpose was to talk about common mistakes indie's make (I know cause I made them) and show people there's a huge world of "straight-to-video" that they are overlooking. There are also small niches like the Gay and Lesbian community that are starving for movies and Logo (the new Gay and Lesbian channel) that need quality movies. It may be hard to put your pride aside, but if your goal is to make movies, then you have to have a strategy. Above, I said that I really want to do Sci-Fi/Fantasy but right now I'm focusing on comedy and horror because they are easy sells at the indie level.

I also buy equipment and I don't rent. I rent my equipment to other indie's who don't have enough equipment for their projects. This allows me to make more money for my projects, so all the money doesn't come out of my pocket. I network for locations and music. I constantly study industry trends, production quality, camera resolution vs film resolution, etc.

If you want to make it, you can't just be a "filmmaker" you have to be a "super filmmaker" and your whole being has to be about making great projects.

 

[jls4]

I couldn't (respectfully) disagree more. An independent film with a semi-marketable "star" (aka, b-lister) will routinely sell for $200k to $700k at AFM and Cannes, not to mention sales of foreign territories. Adam from "Corrado" will corroborate this fact.

Kevin - I'm upcoming myself.

I'm interested, do you guys have any examples of movies and what they sold for. I could really use the basic info. I've been trying to figure out a good budget for myself on the next feature and you Corrado Folks are like the Guru - Celebrities around DVXuser.

 

[filmman]

The success of Corrado is predicated on distribution. That's the main point I'm trying to make. If anybody thinks they can do what Adam did, all I can say is, "break a leg".

However, my advice to indie filmmakers is: keep the budget as low as you can if you don't have distribution. How low? How much can you afford to lose? Or let me put it in SEC language, how much can you lose before it affects your lifestyle?

We're talking about investor money when we're talking about a $250,000 movie, right? If it's your own money, why, go ahead, break both legs. LOL

 

[Barry_Green]

An independent film with a semi-marketable "star" (aka, b-lister) will routinely sell for $200k to $700k at AFM and Cannes, not to mention sales of foreign territories.

Not at the last market, nobody was buying anything.

Adam from "Corrado" will corroborate this fact.

Corrado hasn't sold yet. We're all on pins and needles awaiting the closure of that story.

 

[taormina]

You and me both, Barry. ;-)

 

[Barry_Green]

Okay, well, Adam is probably a little more pins 'n' needles than the rest of us! :thumbsup:

 

[taormina]

yeah no kidding! with two weeks or so left of post I can't wait to go sell this thing. Estimates of what it will sell for have been so varied, so wildly different that there is no point in even speaking of it.

I do know this though - 'Ol Corrado will pay for himself. Of this I am certain.

 

[JonathanLB]

The success of Corrado is predicated on distribution. That's the main point I'm trying to make. If anybody thinks they can do what Adam did, all I can say is, "break a leg".

However, my advice to indie filmmakers is: keep the budget as low as you can if you don't have distribution. How low? How much can you afford to lose? Or let me put it in SEC language, how much can you lose before it affects your lifestyle?

We're talking about investor money when we're talking about a $250,000 movie, right? If it's your own money, why, go ahead, break both legs. LOL

I totally agree that you don't want to risk more than you can lose. With such a risky proposition, I honestly can't say I support anyone who says they want to make a feature and put it on their credit cards and put a second mortgage on their house, sell their worldly possessions, etc. While I certainly appreciate their drive and ambition, I don't think that's a wise move...

Just as jsl said, though, I make money in the industry on other, more boring projects that I can put into a feature, which is really my dream anyway. And I wouldn't risk more than I can afford. I can afford to lose $125,000 without it affecting my lifestyle whatsoever. There would just be some numbers missing in an account, which I admit would be incredibly annoying and I'd wish I had them in stocks or something, but that account would replenish in due time and I would at least know that I took the plunge, I made a feature, and I don't have to worry about being among those who just say they're going to do something.

Actually, the first feature-length project I'm making is ongoing now, but it's a "How To" DVD with a cost under $20,000, so we'll see how that works out. Honestly of the cost of this project, most of it would have been spent anyway on my reel, so the actual cost will be around $5,000 tops. That means if I sold it myself, and had no distribution, I would still have a good shot at making my money back. But my first narrative feature, I need the money to do it right. I want to go the Corrado path, basically. Not saying I can achieve that level of success but it's the way I want to make my film.

Also, the idea that you're going to be discriminated against because you shot on digital is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I'm sure that in 2000 when you said that, it was 100% true, because you were talking to people using an XL-1 or whatever to shoot a feature and trying to distribute it in theaters, even though that camera really isn't built for that. But when you're talking about the RED, that camera is in many respects better than 35mm film. The Epic is better than 35mm, in every respect. Wanted was shot with the RED, and I guarantee of the 10 friends I have who saw that movie, nobody even knew that. They don't care what camera it was shot on, and if you told them it was shot with a digital cinema camera, they'd just be like, "Wow, that's cool...." The last two Star Wars prequels were only shot in 1080p, still looked better than many film prints I've seen. I saw ROTS in a digital theater and it was amazing, much clearer than film, and I didn't have to endure constant grain and dirt on the film print because there is no film print, thank god. Your odds of selling a movie have nothing to do with whether it's film or digital; how good it looks may affect your chances, but that's independent of the medium you shot on.

 

[slimchrisp]

Wanted was shot with the RED, and I guarantee of the 10 friends I have who saw that movie, nobody even knew that.

just a note, actually it wasn't.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15572

i was stoked to check it out just because red had it on their site last year as shot on red, but that ended up not being the case. several movies are coming though.

 

[JonathanLB]

Ah, good to know, thanks for the post.

The point remains, though, just replace Wanted and RED with Attack of the Clones and Sony F900 or Revenge of the Sith and Sony F950. Honestly most people wouldn't know that those films were shot using digital cinema cameras. Not even 2K or 4K, just 1080p. Heck the F900 isn't even 4:4:4, I think it's 4:2:2 actually.

You know what I was surprised about? No, what I am still surprised about. I can't believe that 28 Days Later was shot with the XL-2 (I believe it was that, or XL-1s?) using the P+S Techniks I think, but I thought it looked so good in theaters, and I just don't see how they made it look that good. I was surprised. Because Full Frontal, shot with the XL-1 or 2, was horrible looking.

 

[jls4]

You know what I was surprised about? No, what I am still surprised about. I can't believe that 28 Days Later was shot with the XL-2 (I believe it was that, or XL-1s?) using the P+S Techniks I think, but I thought it looked so good in theaters, and I just don't see how they made it look that good. I was surprised. Because Full Frontal, shot with the XL-1 or 2, was horrible looking.

Unfortunately I think many times Hollywood gets facinated with the whole "new look thing" so in 28 Days Later they wanted to maximize the XL-1s and in Full Frontal he wanted it to look more like a "basic indie" did it.

But also I wanted to remind everyone that Cloverfield was digital shot on the new $150+K Sony Cam. Some of the scenes were even lit by tungsen street lights! Over 170 Million Movie Go-er dollars says digital is okay!

 

[Kevin McCallister]

Corrado hasn't sold yet. We're all on pins and needles awaiting the closure of that story.

I guess what I meant was Adam has spoken to a lot of sales agents in the same manner I had during "Plasterhead." Without getting bogged down in numbers, the general consensus that I heard, for an independent horror film, was $50k advance for no stars straight to DVD, $500k advance for b-list stars, with potential to go to On Demand before going to DVD. Of course, in this industry, there is a large quantity of smoke blown, so it's always good to deduct hearty amounts from those numbers. Even if you were to get those numbers, you have to remember that the sales agent will take a percentage, your lawyer will take a percentage, etc. However, those are just domestic numbers, and once you start selling foreign territories, the market opens up for you quite a bit.

Not at the last market, nobody was buying anything.

This is scary to hear. It really is starting to feel like we're in a transitional phase, with DVD sales dropping immensely the past couple years, rental chains closing, and everyone trying to figure out the internet. It's somewhat depressing to envision a day when you won't have a hard copy of your final work sitting on a store shelf somewhere. Can you elaborate any more as to why things weren't selling? Was it any specific genres?

 

[capitalP]

This is scary to hear. It really is starting to feel like we're in a transitional phase, with DVD sales dropping immensely the past couple years, rental chains closing, and everyone trying to figure out the internet. It's somewhat depressing to envision a day when you won't have a hard copy of your final work sitting on a store shelf somewhere. Can you elaborate any more as to why things weren't selling? Was it any specific genres?

Kevin, this Article might help you understand a little. http://www.indiewire.com/biz/2008/06/irst_person_fil.html

 

[Kevin McCallister]

Kevin, this Article might help you understand a little. http://www.indiewire.com/biz/2008/06/irst_person_fil.html

That article, while good, deals exclusively with independent films trying to achieve theatrical release. It says nothing about the direct-to-DVD market. Honestly, from the sounds of the article, it sounds like you're probably much better off making a film with the intention of going direct-to-DVD. Between DVD sales, On Demand, rentals, streaming online content, etc., there's still plenty of money to be made outside the theater.

Here's a good article about how studios are turning to direct-to-DVD releases and finding them more profitable than some of their theatrical releases: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/business/media/28dvd.html?fta=y