How are you financing your films?

I funded the majority of my first short with some of the equity from a house we sold. my wife agreed to $5000. i ended using about $3500. our producer put in about $1500. pretty much everyone (except the actors and grips) worked for free.

going to try to get another short under my belt and will probably be funding it myself again, though i've used up most of my favors. this time, though, i am incorporating - a big, but important expense. we'll see how it goes.
 
Rubbersquare said:
I funded the majority of my first short with some of the equity from a house we sold. my wife agreed to $5000. i ended using about $3500. our producer put in about $1500. pretty much everyone (except the actors and grips) worked for free.

going to try to get another short under my belt and will probably be funding it myself again, though i've used up most of my favors. this time, though, i am incorporating - a big, but important expense. we'll see how it goes.
Click to expand...

How long was your shooting schedule? And what did you spend your money on?
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
How long was your shooting schedule? And what did you spend your money on?
Click to expand...

we shot over three weekends (2 prep days and 1 shoot day per weekend).
the majority of the money went to building/dressing sets. no labor, just materials, paint, furniture, etc. 20 flats that got reused and repainted for each of the three sets.
then paying the cast (3 actors, $350/each + gas) and grips. wardrobe, food and props, and the little dollar here, five there stuff.
 
Any overtime from the day job goes towards filmmaking stuff. Plus anything earned through shooting (corporates or film fest prizes) gets pumped back in.

For my feature currently in post, I did those things plus, as I've been an avid comic-book collector for more than 25 years, I put big chunks of my collection up on Ebay to bring in more cash.
 
I used to be in a band with a couple of my good friends. We had $10,000+ in equipment in a basement that was flooded with sewage... so we used the insurance money to pay for more than half of our first short. We paid the rest out of pocket.
The strength of that short is what helped us find financing for our first feature. And in theory, if you have a track record of making money, it's easier to find more money.
 
I have a money tree. It's helpfull, I wake up in the morning, go around back and take what I need for the day. The money ripens once every month or so so I try and spread it out. Last week I harvested about 4 grand....And then I woke up.

In short, I do everything with no budget at all. All my gear was bought with credit... and boy did I learn my lesson fast.
 
crzybrain said:
A great way to get money is from your family, friends, and fans.
Click to expand...

Were do you find such families... and how can you be adopted into such a family...

In many families that I'm familiar with, the 'artist' of the family is often dismissed out of hand whenever the 'artist' starts talking about 'plans'... especially in families that have some means...
 
M. Night Shyamalan has indirectly funded Sabi's last three films. specifically, we make a ridiculous amount of money creating content for his DVDs/BluRays for half the year, then spend the other six months on our own projects.
 
Zak Forsman said:
M. Night Shyamalan has indirectly funded Sabi's last three films. specifically, we make a ridiculous amount of money creating content for his DVDs/BluRays for half the year, then spend the other six months on our own projects.
Click to expand...


He is, ironically, funding his competition!

Although to say you are competition for shyamalan would be almost an inslut to you... I liked your short 100 times more than any recent crap M. Night Shyamalan has produced... (don't tell him i said that :p ).
 
note to self: dvd extras help filmmakers in more ways than learning.
didn't know you guys worked on the extras. not that i've seen any dvds of his films after "unbreakable." after "signs," i gave up on his dvds and after "the village" i gave up on him.

question: which ones did you do? if other than "the sixth sense" or "unbreakable," i'll check out the others. not the films, just the extras.
 
egyptianboxer104 said:
He is, ironically, funding his competition!

Although to say you are competition for shyamalan would be almost an inslut to you... I liked your short 100 times more than any recent crap M. Night Shyamalan has produced... (don't tell him i said that :p ).
Click to expand...

Most filmmakers I've met believe this, but I fundamentally disagree. We are not in competition with each other.

I minored in economics and one of the things I studied was business models within the film industry. The film industry, much like videogames and music, is unlike most other business models in one sense...each project is a micro-monopoly.

Art can't become a commodity and therefore doesn't compete with other art. When films fail it is because they are perceived to be undesireable, not because the marketplace is overwhelmed with quality productions and the audience knows all movies are equally good. Even if one movie dominates the marketplace for 2-3 weeks another movie will begin exhibition and, if it is perceived to be worthwhile, gain dominance in the marketplace.

I'm certain someone will come along and say "Oh yeah, well I loved X movie and it got its butt kicked by Y film." No, it didn't. If anything proves this to be untrue look at both Sex & The City and Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull.

Both had built in audiences. Both opened a week apart from each other. But, they were both micro-monopolies. They didn't compete with each other. Different types of people went to each film. They have different core audiences.

Some went to both. I have a 62 year old aunt who LOVES SATC but also went to Indiana Jones because she remembered taking her son to the original Raiders in the 80's and "it was such a fun time." I went to both because I love Indiana Jones and my wife loves SATC.

One of the truly stupid Hollywood beliefs is that "the general public" is one, unified audience that would see any movie if it was merely designed to have "broad enough appeal." They don't understand the term "micro-monopoly." The micro indicates that it can never dominate an entire industry, but it is a monopoly in the classic economic sense of the word because the product does not compete with any other.

No one takes the time to break down the numbers. Star Wars is the best example.

When the original Star Wars was released we know it was an immediate box office smash. But, how many people actually saw it in the theatre?

Let's round off it's original box office gross to 300 million (that's close, but Lucasfilm did several immediate re-releases which distorted that number. The 1997 rerelease truly distorts the number.) Please note that is 300 million in 1977 dollars.

The average evening ticket price was about $3.50 in 1977. That means less than 100 million tickets were purchased. Many of those viewers were repeat viewers. I think it is safe to say at least half were repeat viewers. That reduces the number of individuals who saw the film to 50 million.

The US population in 1977 was about 215 million (which is the median of the 1970 and 1980 census'.)

That means less than 25% of the US population saw Star Wars in the theatre.

That's hard for us to imagine because we worship film and if we were living back then most of us worshiped Star Wars. I sure did. Everyone I knew saw the film. It felt like EVERYONE saw Star Wars.

But, the math doesn't lie. Only 25% saw the film. If one of the highest grossing films in history was only seen by 25% of the populace how many people actually see any movie in the theatre? More importantly is the why.

Why did only 25% of America see Star Wars? Because the other 75% weren't interested. Does that mean they don't like movies? Hell no, they just don't like popcorn sci-fi flicks. Many of us here love ALL movies, but there are plenty of viewers that resented Star Wars and preferred seeing an arthouse film instead. Someone else is a hardcore sports fan and only goes to see sports flicks. Someone else only likes romance films and wasn't convinced there'd be enough romance in Star Wars for the film to be worth their time.

No movie will ever achieve 100% market dominance. No movie will ever achieve 80% market dominance. Movies are islands unto themselves.

What this demonstrates is that a movie can make a mountain of money and be a monopoly unto itself without ever dominating the marketplace. Two great films can be released almost simultaneously and not cut into each other's box office.

Pulp Fiction, The Shawshank Redemption & Forrest Gump were all released the same year. I saw all three. I saw them several times. I saw Pulp Fiction the same weekend I saw Forrest Gump at a second-run theatre. I didn't say "I only have enough room in my mind for one great film at a time."

I still remember when "The American President" and "Goldeneye" were released on the same weekend. My friends and I wanted to see both films. So, we saw both movies the same night.

Studios don't do that often. That's a game of chicken that scares the hell out of them. But, it proved something to me. I see EVERY MOVIE THAT APPEALS TO ME. And so do most people.

Why don't they see more movies? Because they don't appeal to them! The perception is the movies aren't worth their money.

But, movies are less expensive today than they were thirty years ago (adjusted for inflation.) I believe when most people say "I don't go to the movies much. I wait for DVD. Going to the movies is too expensive." They really mean "I've been burned so many times in the last ten years as Hollywood has lost it's way and consistently made crap that I'm very picky about wasting my money and time. I'll wait until DVD because if a movie sucks at least I didn't spend very much. And, besides, there are other ways to consume movies now."

We could all work together if we wanted. We're not in competition. If Zak makes a great feature film and I make a great feature film there is room for both of our films in the marketplace. The fear that someone else's success comes at my expense is a myth.

Look at studios' annual marketshare. It swings wildly from year to year. Why? Because it is entirely project-dependent. If Disney releases three awesome movies in a year their marketshare goes up, speculators on Wall Street (the idiots) say "wow! They control the marketplace!" and drive their shares up. However, if the next year they make crappy movies and Warner makes several films that resonate with the audience their marketshare goes up...and Wall Street chases them.

In any other industry marketshare does not fluctuate as wildly. They make widgets that are eventually commoditized. What differentiates their products are minor differences in quality, distribution chain, customer service and efficient business operations.

Therefore, if I manufacture cardboard boxes I am in direct competition with other cardboard box manufacturers. Our products are far too similar for the customer base to buy from both of us.

Movies don't fit into that mold. Movies are unique. If one year ten great films are made (and well marketed) then ten films will have high grosses. If the next only two great films are made then they'll have the highest grosses and the overall industry will gross far less.
 
Last edited:
indiegogo.com ? wow! They collect the money and give it to you? Has this ever happened? I'd be really interested if this were on the level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top