Cost to film a feature ? (what did u spend?)
- Thread starter Randall_Oelerich
- Start date
Randall_Oelerich
Veteran
So you are selling foreign distribution rights for $100k-$200k, plus looking to sell North American distr. rights for more on top of foreign, all from a $50k budget indie feature? That is pretty inspirational and motivating to those of us (me and others) looking at you from back in the starting gates.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
I see lots of nickel&dimming here which is ok since we are talking about low budget filmmaking but people here should remember that unwise cuts will really cost you cold hard cash in the end:
-- on one shoot the production didn't want to spend $400/day for the hotel accommodations for the crew and instead decided to ferry them (1.5 hour one way) to the set (3 hour total) so on a $3000/day production where each hour cost about $300 the production was loosing 3 hours ($900 total) each day when the crew was sitting in the van doing nothing being driven to the set. In other words the tangible $400 "saved" on the hotel actually cost the production $500/day.
-- on another set the production wanted to save $100/day by not parking the grip truck in a paid lot. The truck gets towed (twice!) and costs the production $800 each time to get it back.
-- yet another production, trying to save on "non-essentials" the production hired $75/day (instead of normal $200-250/day for a pro) sound guy who recorded the sound way too hot with the same levels on both channels. They had to ADR whole 15 minute short.
-- and still another example. The director was wearing way too many hats when we did a turn around on lighting intensive scene he realized that there is one more big scene to be shot in the opposite direction (a few hour delay on a production that was already way behind the schedule).
Just a few examples from my own experience and i'm sure many here have more to add. What i'm getting at is that"shi_t cost money" and at some point by cutting, cutting, cutting you are doing yourself more harm then good.
-- on one shoot the production didn't want to spend $400/day for the hotel accommodations for the crew and instead decided to ferry them (1.5 hour one way) to the set (3 hour total) so on a $3000/day production where each hour cost about $300 the production was loosing 3 hours ($900 total) each day when the crew was sitting in the van doing nothing being driven to the set. In other words the tangible $400 "saved" on the hotel actually cost the production $500/day.
-- on another set the production wanted to save $100/day by not parking the grip truck in a paid lot. The truck gets towed (twice!) and costs the production $800 each time to get it back.
-- yet another production, trying to save on "non-essentials" the production hired $75/day (instead of normal $200-250/day for a pro) sound guy who recorded the sound way too hot with the same levels on both channels. They had to ADR whole 15 minute short.
-- and still another example. The director was wearing way too many hats when we did a turn around on lighting intensive scene he realized that there is one more big scene to be shot in the opposite direction (a few hour delay on a production that was already way behind the schedule).
Just a few examples from my own experience and i'm sure many here have more to add. What i'm getting at is that"shi_t cost money" and at some point by cutting, cutting, cutting you are doing yourself more harm then good.
Last edited:
tying production costs to distribution revenues is a smart way to go; but without distribution already lined up, what's the use?
talk to a distributor before your roll cameras
Your not going to get a distributor to pay you a dime before they see your movie unless your Speilberg or a top director / producer.
It's a catch 22 for indie's.
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
That's totally true... unless you have already had a successful film they won't promise anything... it is a catch 22..
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
next year. I'm only attending AFM this year to learn the ins and outs of licensing content to foreign territories. but unlike most, I want to retain all north american rights. those are not being sold. i don't care if your magnolia pictures.
and look to your left, i'm right next to you in the starting gate, brother.
dougspice
Veteran
Patryk has some wise advice... carefully consider all of the cuts you make. I saw the advice given to go without an AD, and that for instance is something I would never ever do in a million years. I will work without an AD on single-day shoots, never under any other circumstances. Why is a good AD so important? They are the sergeant of your production. They are there to give answers to stupid questions, to keep tabs on everyone, and to generally kick ass. That includes kicking your (the director's ass), which I assure you you will need. You may think you really need that intricate jib shot that takes 3 hours to set up and 20 minutes to reset each time, and if no one is there to check that kind of thinking in your mind you'll soon discover you've wasted so much time that you can't finish entire scenes. Now you've got a beautiful shot, but no movie. ALWAYS let someone be there to tell you "no".
Even then it's not very likely, I have several friends with good track records 5+ successfull films in the $4-$12 million range and the distributors still don't pay them a dime or make any promisses until they see the movies. Hollywood is trending back to the studio's developing thier own movies where they buy a script and develope it themselfs from the ground up, produce it then distribute it. It gives them more profit and eliminates amateur mistakes.
Now in Brandon's case the niche market for low budget faith based movies with budgets around $100k or less is a little different, there are not 10,000+ of those movies laying around and there is a huge demand for them.
Last edited:
taormina
Hates to Rent
Agreed. I seem to be in the same boat.
Anything made apart from a studio means you raise your own cash, get your people, and make a film and worry about selling it.......after.
craigbowman
Veteran
Thus proving once again the old adage, "Capital doesn't like risk".
It's getting tough out there, remember years ago when distributors bought eveything from Sundance and the other festivals. I think only one movie was picked up last year from Sundance.
If you can make a good movie cheap and get it done you have a chance. Thats it, just a chance.
Make a bad movie and forget about it...
If you can make a good movie cheap and get it done you have a chance. Thats it, just a chance.
Make a bad movie and forget about it...
Last edited:
filmman
Veteran
it depends on whether you're talking as a distributor or filmmaker
if you're a distributor, yeah, give me a movie with a couple of name actors, lots of action and I'll distribute the movie and give you 65% of net -- oh and I don't want the movie unless your budget is over $1.5 mill
if you're a filmmaker, make the movie for $50,000 with a couple of b-name actors and say you made it for $2.5 mill (including deferments) then you have a chance in the foreign market
if you're a filmmaker you know what I'm talking about, no?
if you're a distributor, yeah, give me a movie with a couple of name actors, lots of action and I'll distribute the movie and give you 65% of net -- oh and I don't want the movie unless your budget is over $1.5 mill
if you're a filmmaker, make the movie for $50,000 with a couple of b-name actors and say you made it for $2.5 mill (including deferments) then you have a chance in the foreign market
if you're a filmmaker you know what I'm talking about, no?
filmman
Veteran
I was only trying to point out the disparity between what the distributors want and what the filmmakers have to offer. I've actually been on both ends, and it's a problem that has really bothered me and caused me a lot of pain.
However, I'm optimistic now that we have the digital cameras and the Internet as a way to distribute our movies regardless of whether or not we find a distributor.
We are fortunate in this forum to have two examples of movies that should find distribution, namely Corrado and ALPFD. In my opinion both movies have been made with foreign market potential. In the hands of an honest distributor, Corrado should sell for the limit of AFM projections usually published by the Hollywood Reporter and Variety in their market issues.
So both movies should recover their budgets in the foreign market alone. US domestic sales will be gravy. Of course, theatrical runs will help DVD sales.
In this thread the original poster asks what are the budgets of feature films so he can decide how much to spend on his first feature. To me Justin and Adam are really the exceptions. What they did cannot be done by a first time filmmaker. It's very odd that we have two such movies in this one forum. It's rare to have such good fortune.
I think Corrado should not be given to a distributor without at least a million dollar guarantee; but this is none of my business. There are investors involved; I have no right to say anything beyond expressing my opinion.
In the case of ALPFD, the filmmaker is at the AFM making his own sales. So he can control the sale of his movie, and the movie should do well -- if the buyers are buying. And it sounds like the market is going to be better this year. What I don't know is if the movie is ready for delivery. If it looks like it is finished then the sales could be made, but if it isn't quite finished then the sales will be tentative. Again this is my opinion.
Having said all this, I would never (at this time in my career) make a movie for the AFM for more than $50,000. Of course, that means NON-UNION all the way. I'd rather take a chance on not finding a distributor and selling DVDs on the Internet, rather than spending $500,000 and putting myself at the mercy of distributors.
I can give you case histories of more than fifty movies that sold in the foreign market -- how much they made and how much they lost, and how they should have been made and how they should have been sold -- for how much they should have been sold per territor and for how much they shouldn't have been sold per territory. I know distributors; I know filmmakers. I know a lot; but as the Chinese proverb goes: experience is a golden comb that nature gives to men when they are bald. LOL
However, I'm optimistic now that we have the digital cameras and the Internet as a way to distribute our movies regardless of whether or not we find a distributor.
We are fortunate in this forum to have two examples of movies that should find distribution, namely Corrado and ALPFD. In my opinion both movies have been made with foreign market potential. In the hands of an honest distributor, Corrado should sell for the limit of AFM projections usually published by the Hollywood Reporter and Variety in their market issues.
So both movies should recover their budgets in the foreign market alone. US domestic sales will be gravy. Of course, theatrical runs will help DVD sales.
In this thread the original poster asks what are the budgets of feature films so he can decide how much to spend on his first feature. To me Justin and Adam are really the exceptions. What they did cannot be done by a first time filmmaker. It's very odd that we have two such movies in this one forum. It's rare to have such good fortune.
I think Corrado should not be given to a distributor without at least a million dollar guarantee; but this is none of my business. There are investors involved; I have no right to say anything beyond expressing my opinion.
In the case of ALPFD, the filmmaker is at the AFM making his own sales. So he can control the sale of his movie, and the movie should do well -- if the buyers are buying. And it sounds like the market is going to be better this year. What I don't know is if the movie is ready for delivery. If it looks like it is finished then the sales could be made, but if it isn't quite finished then the sales will be tentative. Again this is my opinion.
Having said all this, I would never (at this time in my career) make a movie for the AFM for more than $50,000. Of course, that means NON-UNION all the way. I'd rather take a chance on not finding a distributor and selling DVDs on the Internet, rather than spending $500,000 and putting myself at the mercy of distributors.
I can give you case histories of more than fifty movies that sold in the foreign market -- how much they made and how much they lost, and how they should have been made and how they should have been sold -- for how much they should have been sold per territor and for how much they shouldn't have been sold per territory. I know distributors; I know filmmakers. I know a lot; but as the Chinese proverb goes: experience is a golden comb that nature gives to men when they are bald. LOL
Filmman,
Thanks for saying what needs to be said.
Please PM me with this distributor that pays 65% net, I'll take him for everything he has by 9:30 am tomorrow.
Chip
filmman
Veteran
65% of net is supposed to be a good deal for filmmakers?
Net is the percentage paid to filmmakers after distribution costs, distributor advances, market expenses, posters, trailers, parties, and 35% distributor share have been deducted.
It takes 18 months before the filmmaker sees anything -- if anything.
Unless you're talking about something else?
Net is the percentage paid to filmmakers after distribution costs, distributor advances, market expenses, posters, trailers, parties, and 35% distributor share have been deducted.
It takes 18 months before the filmmaker sees anything -- if anything.
Unless you're talking about something else?
filmman
Veteran
A filmmaker who has a distributor selling his movie at the AFM for example is going to make some money. If there is an advance, that's even better, because then the distributor has shown some goodwill. If no advance was paid then a guarantee should be in the contract, lets say $100,000 by the end of the market, etc. This is the best that I can hope for in the case of ultra low budget movies.
If someone tells me this is unacceptable, I can understand that. If someone says that's great, that's understandable too. There are filmmakers just trying to get their movies out into distribution so they have a name in the marketplace. I don't want this now, but in the past it kind of made sense. I would do it all different if I had to do it all over again today.
And then there is the Internet and DVD sales too, so it's not all hopeless.
I'm going to turn in now It was nice chatting.
If someone tells me this is unacceptable, I can understand that. If someone says that's great, that's understandable too. There are filmmakers just trying to get their movies out into distribution so they have a name in the marketplace. I don't want this now, but in the past it kind of made sense. I would do it all different if I had to do it all over again today.
And then there is the Internet and DVD sales too, so it's not all hopeless.
I'm going to turn in now
It was nice chatting.
jls4
Veteran
Randall,
I think the responses that you have received are all good advice. But what you need to do, is examine what each person is saying in relation to:
1. The way they personally work and what they assume your workflow will be like
2. The budgets they've had in the past and their experience
3. Their independence/dependence on the knowledge or discipline of others (crew, producers, etc)
4. The unique and complex challenges that you can forsee yourself facing.
All of us can only give you our experiences and our experiences are always correct. They are correct for us. When I started writing the "24 Diary" I was really starting it for two reasons, one because a few people had asked me to comment on some of the things I know about movies AND most importaintly I wrote it for myself to motivate and remind myself of what I felt I needed to do. I probably read it more than anyone else.
The reason I bring this up is that we are all different. If I could have had a full crew/post production I would have done it. But when I went in without an AD, it wasn't a problem for me because I'm part Director but part Producer. I rarely wanted an "extra shot" my DP and I argued because I was ready to move on and HE wanted the extra shot. It's easy for me to stay on schedule, although for some it's more difficult. The same goes for lighting. When I was shooting, I did 90% of the Lighting work. I would work the lighting, while the actors went over the scene by themselves to work out their own rhythm. Once the light was 80% we'd set up for the first shot and I'd review the scene once or twice with them, giving preference to who was in the first shot (usually a close). I would tweak the scene after every take, by the time we got to the wide (usually the last shot we took) the scene was perfect. Now I can do Lighting AND Direct and they don't overlap each other. And while I'm the first to admit, the quality of the movie was good when at least 3 of the 4 of us were present, we were able to finish and have a decent product, but this was because I spent time learning about every aspect of filmmaking and testing audio, lights and camera about as much as I've heard others do. And I came up with solutions like "Don't Walk and Talk" to get around situations like not having an AC (Assistand Camera) on set. A good director to me is one that comes up with solutions to problems, not one that needs everything. I respect Speilburg because with JAWS the robot/puppet shark didn't work well, it kept messing up. But he didn't panic, he used what he could to tell the story. when you hear the producers of JAWS talk about the movie, they dubbed it "FLAWS" because of all the problems they had. But through the problems, Speilburg pulled a movie out. And that's what makes him great. You give almost anybody a 100 Million dollar budget, perfect actors, screenplay and crew and they will look like an awesome director. What makes you good in my eyes is when you can make an awesome movie with next to nothing.
You have to figure out the workflow for yourself. Everybody like I said is giving you THEIR Workflow. But you have to figure out YOUR workflow.
I think the responses that you have received are all good advice. But what you need to do, is examine what each person is saying in relation to:
1. The way they personally work and what they assume your workflow will be like
2. The budgets they've had in the past and their experience
3. Their independence/dependence on the knowledge or discipline of others (crew, producers, etc)
4. The unique and complex challenges that you can forsee yourself facing.
All of us can only give you our experiences and our experiences are always correct. They are correct for us. When I started writing the "24 Diary" I was really starting it for two reasons, one because a few people had asked me to comment on some of the things I know about movies AND most importaintly I wrote it for myself to motivate and remind myself of what I felt I needed to do. I probably read it more than anyone else.
The reason I bring this up is that we are all different. If I could have had a full crew/post production I would have done it. But when I went in without an AD, it wasn't a problem for me because I'm part Director but part Producer. I rarely wanted an "extra shot" my DP and I argued because I was ready to move on and HE wanted the extra shot. It's easy for me to stay on schedule, although for some it's more difficult. The same goes for lighting. When I was shooting, I did 90% of the Lighting work. I would work the lighting, while the actors went over the scene by themselves to work out their own rhythm. Once the light was 80% we'd set up for the first shot and I'd review the scene once or twice with them, giving preference to who was in the first shot (usually a close). I would tweak the scene after every take, by the time we got to the wide (usually the last shot we took) the scene was perfect. Now I can do Lighting AND Direct and they don't overlap each other. And while I'm the first to admit, the quality of the movie was good when at least 3 of the 4 of us were present, we were able to finish and have a decent product, but this was because I spent time learning about every aspect of filmmaking and testing audio, lights and camera about as much as I've heard others do. And I came up with solutions like "Don't Walk and Talk" to get around situations like not having an AC (Assistand Camera) on set. A good director to me is one that comes up with solutions to problems, not one that needs everything. I respect Speilburg because with JAWS the robot/puppet shark didn't work well, it kept messing up. But he didn't panic, he used what he could to tell the story. when you hear the producers of JAWS talk about the movie, they dubbed it "FLAWS" because of all the problems they had. But through the problems, Speilburg pulled a movie out. And that's what makes him great. You give almost anybody a 100 Million dollar budget, perfect actors, screenplay and crew and they will look like an awesome director. What makes you good in my eyes is when you can make an awesome movie with next to nothing.
You have to figure out the workflow for yourself. Everybody like I said is giving you THEIR Workflow. But you have to figure out YOUR workflow.