Anyone Here do business with Maverick Entertainment?

[Nathyn]

Shoot a "watchable," saleable feature length film for $5K?

That's something I'd like to see.

http://wagesofsinmovie.blogspot.com/

Nate I will say that is a very helpful post and an awesome plan. For people like me who are about to shoot their first feature.

See this is why you should be watching the Divinity thread. :beer: Actually Divinity will cost more than $5000 but less than originally though. I learned all this by doing and listening to what I was being told over and over and figuring out how much was perceived and how much was true. I made some choices I regretted because they weren't profitable, but now see they were indeed the right choices. Now I'm going to take all that and apply it to a bigger budget to make a better movie that will appeal to more buyers. I talk about a lot of this in my "Action Filmmaking" book (on Amazon by the way) but I'll be going more in depth in my upcoming book which I'm sure you'll hear about when we start shooting.

But for the question at hand, if you want to shoot cheap you have to restrict your main cast to a certain number and use only locations you know you can get for cheap or free. You need to know this BEFORE you write the script. The 4th Beast had only 5 main characters and was basically shot on and around my Alma Matta and their dorms. My first film was shot for $800 and got distribution. Wasn't a great flick but people did like the story. Everyone wanted to know what the film would be like on a bigger budget. This is why I'm doing Divinity which is essentially the same story but expanded and from a different POV.

My second film was shot for $5000 (a little under). Six main characters, one was a producer. We shot this mainly in the school's theater building. They even loaned us the knives in the fight scene. (They have an expansive stage combat department). Not only that but I could've gotten a name for this one, but I felt the manager was too shady based on past actions. As suspected the manager isn't managing this talent anymore. My problem was Distributors wanted the film but because it wasn't in HD they said it would be hard sale because of all the HD stuff (just like the horror market). York wanted the film but I turned them down for reasons discussed here. I'd rather let people see it for free from my site (which I am doing now which results in sales of both DVDs and book but mainly books).

The key to this has always been film students and honesty. I let people know who will get paid upfront. Simple as that. I don't give anyone "differed" pay. We have two big film school in the city and a third (Flashpoint Academy) just opened not too long ago. Everyone wants to do an action or horror film. They come to me. I say "Hey guys, you want to work on the set of a low budget action film, eat free junk food and get an IMDB credit? Well, I can get that for you all you have to do is show up." It's summer, school's out and the students love it. I get several camera ops and they switch off when one has to work or something. I would've loved something like this in film school but it just wasn't available. And no one, puts the whole film on their reel, only the action scenes, which is why people sign on. Pay your main actors what you can and set the price up front. Pay them what you say you will and pay them at the end of the day. They'll come back every time. Simple. The next solution is call your friends with talent.

For action I rely on the fact a lot guys would love to be in a martial arts or action film. You can get the young canon fodder fighters free if you feed them. Feed them chicken, pizza, Chinese food and energy drinks. Do what you say, this keeps them coming back. Pepper in some older actors. Make the production look good, have your lights all set up, have mats to fall on, food on the table and have someone interview them while their waiting. Most of all respect their time. If a person has to go at a certain time shoot their stuff first.

Shoot the fights first and the stuff leading to the fight last if you can. The fight will be the big deal. Also the more people you get who know martial arts the better. One of our best fights was shot in a day. The Warehouse set piece took two days and the best fight in that was done in three hours. Martial artist and a lot of stunt fighters have the moves. We did choreo right on set and where done in a flash. Don't spend too much time teaching people things on set, they're there because they're supposed to know how to do XYZ.

My big trick is using my name when it counts. People see I'm involved and know I'm for real. They can see my IMDB and google me. Chicago's film community is small for a big city, so if you get known for not completing films here no one will do jack for you without money. Why should they? They come out with no credits on top of no money. You're seen as a waste of time. And try to pay who you can especially the people you know are really going to rock.

Get hungry actresses. B-movies are filled with hot chicks. Many people cast based on looks. Get the ones who can act for lead roles. My ladies came in and nailed their scenes in two hours then went home. It was two PM when we left. THREE HOURS EARLY. You'll know the talented people from the people who are just trying to be actors. Now in the day of Youtube I do a lot of video auditioning. This saves so much time. You do live auditions for the people you haven't cast.

My next film has talent signed. The name talent will cost about $4000 altogether. Our main guy is doing one day in a hallway. Then some shots in front of a greenscreen. We get some promo shots for WENN and and then we pack him up and ship him back to Hollywood because he's a working actor and doesn't have time to mess around. (He does stage too and gets paid for it). Our scream queen will get one full day in front of a green screen including a promo photoshoot and then she's back on her way to Lala land also.

On this film the crew will cost about $5000 consisting mainly of a camera op, a boom op and two interns one of which is one of my actors. She simply loves acting and wants to be in movies and on a film set so she's acting and interning. In return I have to teach her how to use the camera. Good deal. What makes this work so well - she's a good actress. My DP will do lighting and I'll direct do any special lighting that's needed. We might get one gaffer as to not work our interns to death. LOL.

-Nate

 

[lawriejaffa]

Not to be a gimp and i mean no disrespect but i think almost all of what you say there about how you make micro-budget movies isn't anything most of us didn't already know.

The point is that inevitably it fails to produce films that are decent, of course there is the exception (I mean take Five Eyes Across, though that was produced for more than 5000 bucks I think.)

So hungry actors and film students are hardly indicators for a quality film (and of course there hardly indicators for a poor film either to be fare) but the likelihood does rest against it.

There is also one VITAL economic factor being ignored here and that is 'time'.

For emphasis I shall say again...

TIME

All that time being spent costs $$$ and thats why i always cringe when i hear someone say - I made that movie for just 5k$ etc, im always keen to ask - ok, but how long did that movie take to make, now divide your hours and tell me... how much you got paid? It also more than likely leads to film production being elongated due to the costs of peoples 'free time availability' and your OWN while you have to do work for the 'man' in order to pay bills.

Of course thats what distribution is for... but i doubt seriously that one can profit consistently from producing films in this manner. Neither can the same brave volanteers simply work for free (repeatedly) feature after feature.

Of those who do produce films as micro-budgets or micro micro budgets even hehe - its out of a necessity (a grim one) otherwise no film would be produced - it certainly is not some kind of business revelation.

I also doubt that many agents are keen to see 'real' market talent sign on for movies that are micro budget...

Again there are no absolutes but im just not quite convinced by the rosy picture here hehe.

Incidentally ill be starting production of a v. low budget film in the 25 - 30k$ range (just for the films production/post budget and i know ill be stretching $$$ with that too!)

 

[taormina]

I just got off the phone today with a guy who shoots 3 films a year, each one is $70K budget max. He makes about 220K on each one. I don't know how he can even shoot a film for 70K much less 5K.

 

[Macville]

I've got a feature that I produced for under $5k that I am going to submit to maverick. It's won a few awards at festivals and audiences seem to like it, so maybe it has a chance. If they pay me $5k-$10k for it, I'd be thrilled.

Matthew

 

[lawriejaffa]

Hrmph its all a matter of circumstance i guess, i know a chap that puts out 3 films a year two - similar budgets you cite too. He profits from them as well (kudos to him and his production company.)

That budget im saving for will be for my er debut feature (my background is in corporate) - but with mere pennies the biggest cost i always think is time (and in most cases quality.)

I mean I take my hat off to those who have made micro budgets that cost a pittance and made substantial profits (at least) i just don't think spending more than 9 months say, producing and editing a 5k$ movie is a sane business model hehe.

Not that we have too many sane options hehe... personally i liked yours Taormina though its a bit too scary for me! (Im financing our feature from saving up portions of company profit) *yey*

 

[Erik Olson]

Yep, Maverick's founder used to work for York back when one of my friend's movies came out. Maverick will pay but you if they take your film.





Your best bet with York is to do what I did, shoot the best film you can for under $3000 (as cheap as possible actually, I spent $800). Make it action or horror and it doesn't hurt if there's a lot of Blacks or Latinos and hip hop music in it. Get a name actor and you might actually get paid.

Do the same for Maverick, drop in a name and I'm almost sure you'll walk away with some money. Maverick doesn't pay much but will pay. If you can turn out several $3000 - $5000 halfway decent action or horror movies a year with a name actor in them you can possibly make a decent living.

Shoot for $5000, use $3000 to get names, then use the other $2000 and as many tricks as possible to shoot a watchable movie and you may get a $20,000 offer each time. Three $20,000 offers a year equals $60,000, four equals $80,000. There's all kinds of tricks you can do provided you have the money, time and imagination. What you have to understand is these movies are shot in 12 to 21 days and chopped and scored in month or so time.

There's twelve months in a year and you need to crank out a movie every three to four months. (There are ways to do this and keep some of your project's integrity). If you start off with $20,000 shoot four films and submit them to Maverick around the end of the year. (I would send one every two weeks to a month) By the next year, if your stuff is any good and they like the name actor, you should have at least $40,000 worth of offers. The others you can shop around.

-Nate

Criminy. It sounds like you're talking about television. Except one-hour in any flavor pays better and takes less time to plan, produce and post.

e

 

[Nathyn]

Well, yes, you're right. The idea is to do it quick and dirty and make the money.

Not to be a gimp and i mean no disrespect but i think almost all of what you say there about how you make micro-budget movies isn't anything most of us didn't already know.

The point is that inevitably it fails to produce films that are decent, of course there is the exception (I mean take Five Eyes Across, though that was produced for more than 5000 bucks I think.)

Not true. Decent films come about based on the people putting them together. On person with vision can make a good product if they have what they need. Basically someone has to decide how much will it be about the money and how much for love of the film.

All that time being spent costs $$$ and thats why i always cringe when i hear someone say - I made that movie for just 5k$ etc, im always keen to ask - ok, but how long did that movie take to make, now divide your hours and tell me... how much you got paid? It also more than likely leads to film production being elongated due to the costs of peoples 'free time availability' and your OWN while you have to do work for the 'man' in order to pay bills.

Keep in mind we're talking about films that sale so these people wouldn't be working "for the man" they'd be selling films.

Of course thats what distribution is for... but i doubt seriously that one can profit consistently from producing films in this manner. Neither can the same brave volanteers simply work for free (repeatedly) feature after feature.

Some people do it. And you don't use the same actors over unless they're friends and you pay some of the actors.

I also doubt that many agents are keen to see 'real' market talent sign on for movies that are micro budget...

Who cares what an agent thinks. If a big actors does a microbudget film the agent would be a fool to drop them if they're still bankable.

Incidentally ill be starting production of a v. low budget film in the 25 - 30k$ range (just for the films production/post budget and i know ill be stretching $$$ with that too!)

$25k - $30k is a good range. If it's action, horror or sci-fi I can hook you up with some bankable names if you have a script ready and atleast $$3000 - $5000.

-Nate

 

[Nathyn]

I've got a feature that I produced for under $5k that I am going to submit to maverick. It's won a few awards at festivals and audiences seem to like it, so maybe it has a chance. If they pay me $5k-$10k for it, I'd be thrilled.

Is it action, horror, faithbased, urban, erotic or thriller or a mix of two of the above - think action/sci-fi, erotic/thriller, Urban/Faithbased (my film falls into all of these minus the "erotic")? Have you looked at their site? This is what they want. I'll be shopping my next film to them, York, Echobridge who distributed what I like to call "The Fake Wages of Sin" (the one I didn't do), Faithfilms (a division of "The Asylum" if you can believe that) and if possible Lionsgate. I'll also try to hit up some bigger names if possible.

Also for future reference every low-budget filmmaker should send a film to York. If they want the film it means they think they can sale it. If they think they can, then maybe you can.

-Nate

 

[lawriejaffa]

Nathyn....

Not true.

Hehe why do people use such a phrase - a short phrase at that with a dramatic full stop after just two words hehe. You follow those words with the typical idealistic gumpf about how one can make an amazing film by realising their dreams and the looove of cinema etc. Blurgh.

That said, i did say there are exceptions to the unfortunate reality that most utterly micro budget films suck, and some of those exceptions are certainly because despite their budgets the directors passion/ideas etc were good too. But lets keep it real...

Keep in mind we're talking about films that sale so these people wouldn't be working "for the man" they'd be selling films.

Yep think you may misunderstand what i meant here. Its simply that saying you made a film that cost 5k say, but took say 2 months (if you rushed it) most micros can take anywhere up to a year! Now Anyway just because your capital budget was that - doesnt mean your movie was cheap, it just means your equating no financial value to those and yourself working for free.

Because unless its just a hobby then all that free time your throwing to a product (it could be any product not just a film) needs to be recouped. So how i cringe when some guy goes 'yey' i made 7000 back on my 4000 movie that took me ages to make... My mentioning the 'man' as an expression, was to refer to the fact that people need to earn money to live - meaning they can only give their 'free' time towards a film (since you can't pay them.) This creates all sorts of problems and effects end quality.

Some people do it. And you don't use the same actors over unless they're friends and you pay some of the actors.

Some might have too if every film just fails and their back to the drawing board (or should i say storyboard.) Nobody would do this as a business strategy however unless it was forced on them by circumstance.

Who cares what an agent thinks.

Ususally their actors!!!

$25k - $30k is a good range. If it's action, horror or sci-fi I can hook you up with some bankable names if you have a script ready and atleast $$3000 - $5000.

Hehe - wow some bankable names already?! BANKABLE names? Even A Listers can't guarantee that. Don't get me wrong im not trying to embarass you if is say that - that seems rather silly, but thats peanuts. Its less than even a prosumer camera cost.

However its true that actors like the rest of us and even name recognisable actors (to some extent) are feeling the pinch and moneys - money after all.

So what does my 3 - 5k get me - you can pm me for discretion regarding names

- Overall Nathyn (and i know this will make me sound like a gimp) i think you come across as somewhat idealistic in what you can achieve with such meagre resources but i accept (i have too!) that some do achieve incredible things with such resources. Its just to me those are mostly their breakthrough films - its just not a sustainable business plan for producing say repeated under 10k micros.

 

[RallyMonkey]

I've never understood why people are so willing to put in so much time and effort after the film is completed in order to guarantee they can make a film for whatever money they have.

I'd much rather spend that same time and effort making more money before I start shooting, so I can make a movie with much better chances of distribution, than making the movie with whatever I have and spending all of my time afterward trying to make that small sum back.

 

[BillBoss]

I've never understood why people are so willing to put in so much time and effort after the film is completed in order to guarantee they can make a film for whatever money they have.

I'd much rather spend that same time and effort making more money before I start shooting, so I can make a movie with much better chances of distribution, than making the movie with whatever I have and spending all of my time afterward trying to make that small sum back.

It's because some people don't want to sit around and wait for years to finally make their film. They take a building block effect and work their way up the ladder. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Chris Santucci]

I've never understood why people are so willing to put in so much time and effort after the film is completed in order to guarantee they can make a film for whatever money they have.

I'd much rather spend that same time and effort making more money before I start shooting, so I can make a movie with much better chances of distribution, than making the movie with whatever I have and spending all of my time afterward trying to make that small sum back.

Good point. I think there's a lot of misplaced passion on the part of filmmakers that make them spend inordinate amounts of time turd polishing and promoting a film that could have benefitted more from the same time and energy spent on more prep and obtaining a bigger budget.

I'm not a fan of no-budget films and I'm not really sure why some filmmakers insist upon trying to prove they can produce a feature on a miniscule budget. Is that something to brag about? Will it impress anyone? Will it matter to potential viewers?

I don't think so.

I worked on a feature that had its budget slashed considerably during prep and I know for a fact that the filmmakers spent like 3 or more years self-distributing the film. I don't think I would ever spend that kind of time on self-distribution. Ever. I think you're always better off spending the time BEFORE production to ensure you can make something that will have legs of its own.

.

 

[Nathyn]

The reality is most people don't have a million bucks. If you do then if you make a suck film you're just a doofus. But if you succeed at making money from a low budget film you can use the money and attention for your next feature. If you do make a film for $5000 and make $20,000 then you can save $10,000 and make your next film for $10,000. It's not a plan for everyone but it can be done, that's all I'm saying. Some people will wait and wait and wait until someone gives them an opportunity, some people say "Screw it, I'm going to go do it." It's up in the air who will win but in the end if you have the time, talent and will, you don't have to make a turd, simply make a film.

- Overall Nathyn (and i know this will make me sound like a gimp) i think you come across as somewhat idealistic in what you can achieve with such meagre resources but i accept (i have too!) that some do achieve incredible things with such resources. Its just to me those are mostly their breakthrough films - its just not a sustainable business plan for producing say repeated under 10k micros.

Not at all. Whole companies exist on nothing but putting out cheap films until they get to the point where they're making $50,000 - $250,000 films.

Hehe why do people use such a phrase - a short phrase at that with a dramatic full stop after just two words hehe. You follow those words with the typical idealistic gumpf about how one can make an amazing film by realising their dreams and the looove of cinema etc. Blurgh.

I just broke down how money is made in the industry. Nothing's a sure thing.

However its true that actors like the rest of us and even name recognisable actors (to some extent) are feeling the pinch and moneys - money after all.

So what does my 3 - 5k get me - you can pm me for discretion regarding names

You want names now? My idealism must be rubbing off on you.

-Nate

 

[jls4]

Shoot a "watchable," saleable feature length film for $5K?

That's something I'd like to see.

.

I can do it. ;-)

If I went and used all my equipment so I didn't have to buy anything. I could shoot a movie for $500 and it be watchable. ;-)

It's all about how you precieve the money.

Yep, Maverick's founder used to work for York back when one of my friend's movies came out. Maverick will pay but you if they take your film.

Your best bet with York is to do what I did, shoot the best film you can for under $3000 (as cheap as possible actually, I spent $800). Make it action or horror and it doesn't hurt if there's a lot of Blacks or Latinos and hip hop music in it. Get a name actor and you might actually get paid.

Do the same for Maverick, drop in a name and I'm almost sure you'll walk away with some money. Maverick doesn't pay much but will pay. If you can turn out several $3000 - $5000 halfway decent action or horror movies a year with a name actor in them you can possibly make a decent living.

Shoot for $5000, use $3000 to get names, then use the other $2000 and as many tricks as possible to shoot a watchable movie and you may get a $20,000 offer each time. Three $20,000 offers a year equals $60,000, four equals $80,000. There's all kinds of tricks you can do provided you have the money, time and imagination. What you have to understand is these movies are shot in 12 to 21 days and chopped and scored in month or so time.

There's twelve months in a year and you need to crank out a movie every three to four months. (There are ways to do this and keep some of your project's integrity). If you start off with $20,000 shoot four films and submit them to Maverick around the end of the year. (I would send one every two weeks to a month) By the next year, if your stuff is any good and they like the name actor, you should have at least $40,000 worth of offers. The others you can shop around.

-Nate

This is actually the 24 diary Plan. Make 3 movies, keep prices low, quick sales, and build up revenue. Much more difficult to do though. I encourage making 3 movies over 24 months, avg 8 months a movie. You need to time to perfect the craft so you can one day move beyond Mav/Yo
Only problem I have with some of your theories Nate, is that I paid 2 actors who were in a current TV show. Both of them cost me $2,500 for 1 day! I don't see how you can get any actor who is marketable in themsevles for less than $2,500 unless you know th eperson personally. for my next feature I plan on laying out 25 to 30% of the budget just for NAMED Actors.

 

[jls4]

Good point. I think there's a lot of misplaced passion on the part of filmmakers that make them spend inordinate amounts of time turd polishing and promoting a film that could have benefitted more from the same time and energy spent on more prep and obtaining a bigger budget.

I'm not a fan of no-budget films and I'm not really sure why some filmmakers insist upon trying to prove they can produce a feature on a miniscule budget. Is that something to brag about? Will it impress anyone? Will it matter to potential viewers?

I don't think so.

I worked on a feature that had its budget slashed considerably during prep and I know for a fact that the filmmakers spent like 3 or more years self-distributing the film. I don't think I would ever spend that kind of time on self-distribution. Ever. I think you're always better off spending the time BEFORE production to ensure you can make something that will have legs of its own.

.

I'm not into Self-distribution. Taking 1 to 2 years to push a movie, is not my idea of a good time. So I agree with you. Stairstepping to me is a much better way to go.

Make a movie for $5K try to sell for $20K
Use the $20K in anohter movie and hopefully sell for $50K
Get investors plus your $50K and make a movie for $200K and sell for $500K+

 

[jls4]

The point is that inevitably it fails to produce films that are decent, of course there is the exception (I mean take Five Eyes Across, though that was produced for more than 5000 bucks I think.)

I agree with Nate here, it's not about the money - direct money that is, more so it's about the ability to get things you need - locations, actors, etc for free AND the crew's technical expertise.

TIME
All that time being spent costs $$$ and thats why i always cringe when i hear someone say - I made that movie for just 5k$ etc, im always keen to ask - ok, but how long did that movie take to make, now divide your hours and tell me... how much you got paid? It also more than likely leads to film production being elongated due to the costs of peoples 'free time availability' and your OWN while you have to do work for the 'man' in order to pay bills.

Of course thats what distribution is for... but i doubt seriously that one can profit consistently from producing films in this manner. Neither can the same brave volanteers simply work for free (repeatedly) feature after feature.

Of those who do produce films as micro-budgets or micro micro budgets even hehe - its out of a necessity (a grim one) otherwise no film would be produced - it certainly is not some kind of business revelation.

I also doubt that many agents are keen to see 'real' market talent sign on for movies that are micro budget...

Again there are no absolutes but im just not quite convinced by the rosy picture here hehe.

Incidentally ill be starting production of a v. low budget film in the 25 - 30k$ range (just for the films production/post budget and i know ill be stretching $$$ with that too!)

I agree with the slow process of micro-budget movies, I've been caught up in that myself - twice. However the amount of money spent on a feature is based on your persepective, plan and needs.

For instance, if my new feature sold for say $70K, many people working with me wouldn't be happy, but my investors would be happy and I'd be happy - Not only did I shell out for half the budget ($28K) but I also have the added benefit of owning the equipment.

I think most filmmakers can't see "working for free" even if it is their own project - especially if they have any technical background and/or were making a living at one time doing something technical.

I mean I've already spent over 25 Days * 8 Hours (shooting) + 30 Days * 6 Hours (Editing) + preproduction time - maybe about 100 hours or so. Which is 480 Hours. One guy a videographer friend of mine balked at that amount of time with the "hope" of making money. He told me he generally makes an average of $60 a hour so even if he only gave me 200 hours he'd be at $12,000. Since I couldn't gurantee that amount paid to him on a sale, he said he couldn't do it.

When most of us say a budget of XYZ it doesn't include anything but the materials needed to make the movie - people aren't one of those things. If you take my current movie and paid everyone what they were worth the price tag would be over $125K, but I'm getting the $100K for free because we are waiting in hopes for a good sell. I didn't pay anyone up front. I only spent money on Equipment, Food, Software, etc. I didn't pay anyone. One actress refused to do my movie because she said "Generally Deferred Pay, means no-pay." I didn't mnd looking her, but I think it proves what you're trying to say lawriejaffa, but there are those that will help you because they see the bigger picture.

 

[Nathyn]

I can do it. ;-)

If I went and used all my equipment so I didn't have to buy anything. I could shoot a movie for $500 and it be watchable. ;-)

Isn't having your own equipment awesome.

It's all about how you preceive the money.

Very true. I thought I would need a certain amount of money for my upcoming film that I just didn't need. I couldn't shake the figure. "I need XYZ dollars".

This is actually the 24 diary Plan. Make 3 movies, keep prices low, quick sales, and build up revenue. Much more difficult to do though. I encourage making 3 movies over 24 months, avg 8 months a movie. You need to time to perfect the craft so you can one day move beyond Mav/Yo

This is indeed a better plan but the pros knock these things out left and right. Some of it's good some if it sucks.

Only problem I have with some of your theories Nate, is that I paid 2 actors who were in a current TV show. Both of them cost me $2,500 for 1 day! I don't see how you can get any actor who is marketable in themsevles for less than $2,500 unless you know th eperson personally. for my next feature I plan on laying out 25 to 30% of the budget just for NAMED Actors.

There are actors out there that are loved and they are specifically considered B movie actors/stars. You have to ask around. They will want to be flown in, fed and probably housed unless they know someone, and will probably want a per diem so add about $600 to what they're asking (you know this already). It's no sure thing but it is a name to sale on.

I'm not into Self-distribution. Taking 1 to 2 years to push a movie, is not my idea of a good time. So I agree with you. Stairstepping to me is a much better way to go.

Yes, it takes way too much time and you only get money back if you know how to drive traffic to your site and have the right connections. Or if you've started a following already.

Make a movie for $5K try to sell for $20K
Use the $20K in anohter movie and hopefully sell for $50K
Get investors plus your $50K and make a movie for $200K and sell for $500K+

This is the best way. Now you can save $10,000 and make a film with the other $10,000 and try to get a better deal. With $10,000 you're golden if you use it right. My problem is I've just now started taking my own advice. LOL. It's a learning process that's not cheap and film school won't teach it to you. God-forbid it changes in midstream. How many horror films are out there waiting to be sold on the promise "everyone buys horror".

When most of us say a budget of XYZ it doesn't include anything but the materials needed to make the movie - people aren't one of those things. If you take my current movie and paid everyone what they were worth the price tag would be over $125K, but I'm getting the $100K for free because we are waiting in hopes for a good sell. I didn't pay anyone up front. I only spent money on Equipment, Food, Software, etc. I didn't pay anyone. One actress refused to do my movie because she said "Generally Deferred Pay, means no-pay." I didn't mnd looking her, but I think it proves what you're trying to say lawriejaffa, but there are those that will help you because they see the bigger picture.

This is the trick. In my forum I've been talking about using "well" what you have. I was going to pay a camera person to use my equipment. My producer said why not just use their equipment. Turns out the camera person had ALL the equipment we needed. That's $11,000 we don't need to spend. Wait look at that again $11,000. Someone said every bit you don't have to spend is as good as money made. The less you spend the more chance you have to profit.

Think about this, most of us do one camera shoots. What about two camera shoots with the two chip Canons? How much would that save. It's still HD and the buyers don't ask what camera you used, they only ask is it HD? If they want an HD master (depending on what they're paying) master to HD. Plays in HD on an HD TV right?

-Nate

 

[jls4]

Isn't having your own equipment awesome.

This is the key. "Facing the Giants" was supposedly made for $10K - yeah right? The guy had access to over $200K worth of equipment and got lots of people to work for free. The key is not paying anyone up front.

This is indeed a better plan but the pros knock these things out left and right. Some of it's good some if it sucks.

whatdoyoumean/ some of it sucks! Hey that's my plan!

There are actors out there that are loved and they are specifically considered B movie actors/stars. You have to ask around. They will want to be flown in, fed and probably housed unless they know someone, and will probably want a per diem so add about $600 to what they're asking (you know this already). It's no sure thing but it is a name to sale on.

I'll definately take a look when I get around to pre-production, but I want somebody everyone knows. I don't want to fight with a Dist company I want them fighting over the movie. I've done my 3 movie time (i.e. like Jail time - get the joke.) I'm ready for a movie to sell big time.

My problem is I've just now started taking my own advice. LOL. It's a learning process that's not cheap and film school won't teach it to you. God-forbid it changes in midstream. How many horror films are out there waiting to be sold on the promise "everyone buys horror".

This was what it was like for me with the 24 Diary. I've read it myself over 10 times. I keeps me motivated and pushing in the right direction.

This is the trick. In my forum I've been talking about using "well" what you have. I was going to pay a camera person to use my equipment. My producer said why not just use their equipment. Turns out the camera person had ALL the equipment we needed. That's $11,000 we don't need to spend.

Here's where I still stick to my guns. I've heard horror stories of directors working with crew that owned equipment. One day the crew member is happy, the next their mad that you ordered pizza instead of chinesse food and they are out the door. I can't afford for my equipment to walk away because of the attachment to a disgruntled crew member. Not saying what you're saying is wrong - actually it's smart if it works out - for me I just don't want to take the chance. I mean I know a guy with a RED who's itching to make a movie, but he does weekend work all the time. Last thing I need is fo rhim to call me up 30 minutes before the shoot telling me he's got a paid gig so the RED won't be there.

Think about this, most of us do one camera shoots. What about two camera shoots with the two chip Canons? How much would that save. It's still HD and the buyers don't ask what camera you used, they only ask is it HD? If they want an HD master (depending on what they're paying) master to HD. Plays in HD on an HD TV right?

You'll definately save a little time, I wouldn't think much though. Maybe 15% to 25%. You should look over at Convergent Design's XDR Recoder. It records 100MBit 4:2:2 from the HDMI port. This will up your quality and make for easier grading in post. I hope to upgrade to at least an Ex1 and the recoder for my next feature.

 

[KNIGHTBLAZE]

That's the thing people WAIT and WAIT years for someone to come along and offer them a million+ for to make their film and in the meantime it never gets made and that dream is dashed out the window. Trust me I've experienced it as I'm sure others have well until a sharp dose of REALITY smacked me in the face. WAKE UP. JUST DO IT. So with a couple of DV cameras in the summer of 2003 ABOUT 3,000 me and my friend shot
Our first horror film which has attracted interest from some good distributors. I am not going to reveal anything now cause at this point everything is still at the negotiations stages.
My next film an action/drama called THE MISFITS is a somewhat higher budget basically because we had someone who helped on our film had a friend who was an investor and such. After a meeting they were impressed with our work and are financing this one. They haven't set a solid figure but estimate it is in the range of 30-40,000. They wanted to go higher but a deal they were working on fell through so they have to go what they have available.

 

[Nathyn]

This is the key. "Facing the Giants" was supposedly made for $10K - yeah right? The guy had access to over $200K worth of equipment and got lots of people to work for free. The key is not paying anyone up front.

Yep, this is called using well what you have.

whatdoyoumean/ some of it sucks! Hey that's my plan!

LOL. Some of the stuff I've seen is just bad. One distributor's (I won't say names) own billing person won't view their in house films. They're that bad. But they sold enough to make three two sequels. I'm sure you'll make some good stuff. People know I tell a good story now it's making everything else fall into place that will make or break things.

I'll definately take a look when I get around to pre-production, but I want somebody everyone knows. I don't want to fight with a Dist company I want them fighting over the movie. I've done my 3 movie time (i.e. like Jail time - get the joke.) I'm ready for a movie to sell big time.

Look on the blockbuster shelves, see whose in the movies. Get IMDB pro or call your friend who has it (I do) and look at those ratings over a months time. See what people are saying about them and how many movies they've been in. (I'm in the process of writing another book so I have to be up on every move). Ironically the one film that I was doing that fell though, had people calling me saying "when can I see a trailer" based on the name talent that was in it. And these are people everyone knows but they don't come up in everyday conversation. You've seen them before but maybe don't know the name. What a shock, they're famous in the UK or in India, who knows. My poster wasn't even good for that film. LOL. But it had the checklist:

Muscular guy with guns √ (*Extra credit hero is a black guy/ethinic.)
Cute Asian Chick √ (*Chick is extremely cute and a name)
Name talent √
Action/Martial arts√ (action sales)

Let's see the formula:
Martial arts + Black guy/urban/hip-hop + cute Asian girl + action + names = Asian sales + UK Sales + Emerging markets, even some domestic = $$$$$

This particular formula doesn't vary much. Asian action has gotten a hard push in America so now we're basically emulating them as they emulate us. Listen to John Woo and so many of his influences were American films. Now we're trying emulate him. LOL. Everything comes full circle.

Here's where I still stick to my guns. I've heard horror stories of directors working with crew that owned equipment. One day the crew member is happy, the next their mad that you ordered pizza instead of chinesse food and they are out the door. I can't afford for my equipment to walk away because of the attachment to a disgruntled crew member. Not saying what you're saying is wrong - actually it's smart if it works out - for me I just don't want to take the chance. I mean I know a guy with a RED who's itching to make a movie, but he does weekend work all the time. Last thing I need is fo rhim to call me up 30 minutes before the shoot telling me he's got a paid gig so the RED won't be there.

We are paying the camera person and they're a perfect match so far. I'll say Divine intervention has been helping a lot. This person really wanted to shoot this kind of project for more reasons than one. The story is one that a lot of people are interested in. Even the prop guy gave me a great deal based on simply "wanting" to build the props. We even got an offer from a guy in LA to shoot on a Red. I was shocked.

You'll definately save a little time, I wouldn't think much though. Maybe 15% to 25%. You should look over at Convergent Design's XDR Recoder. It records 100MBit 4:2:2 from the HDMI port. This will up your quality and make for easier grading in post. I hope to upgrade to at least an Ex1 and the recoder for my next feature.

I may just do that. I'm going to check out the XH-A1 workflows. I may also have to invest in a new machine. I'm on a 1gig machine so I'll be buying a new machine soon. I'm looking at one of those Open computers. Apple will probably shut the company down soon but we're talking Apple's max speed at half the price and running the Mac OS, plus tech support.

-Nate