Anyone Here do business with Maverick Entertainment?

[jls4]

Some people here simply don't see it that way.

-Nate

I don't think they "don't" see it at all, just they can't wrap their heads around people working for free or for residuals. Like I said, I had over 5 people walk away from "Voices" because they weren't getting paid upfront.

One guy was a friend of mine who said he had interest in learning about making movies. When he found out the chances of making a buck from the indie film, he was gone. The funny thing was that he was quick to do work on a few people's projects that he thought had money and or clout. So even though he was working for free, he believed that those projects would make money.

It's all about perception. Since many movies don't make money (usually those made by people who don't really understand the movie business) people get screwed. They do work and don't get paid. So they say "I want my money now." If 50 people want $600 to help you with your movie, then now you have to find $30,000. If 50 people will work for $0.00 then you have to find $0.

This is the difference between no-budget and having a budget.

 

[Nathyn]

Good point. I try to promote it as they'll be working for a well known indy director. They type my name in and see all the info and that kind of helps. I've been pretty blessed to get people who simply "just want to do it" (usually film students and up and theater actors moving into film) but who have had some training. Some people work for free others I paid. On the first film everyone worked for free.

-Nate

 

[lawriejaffa]

I think that sounds fairly valid Decadence - id certainly think in 'industry' circles a competed feature (of whatever budget) for a newbie Director is of huge value to getting production finance from actual studios.

Certainly its a matter of cruel circumstance hehe that most feature directors have to work on making their debuts with such limited resources.

For private investors and or production company mulah i think a good short can pay better dividends for those seeking pennies for their actual first feature.

(enough pennies for even a micro budget feature.)

 

[lawriejaffa]

So, if the choice is between a guy with a crappy feature that got distributed and made its money back and a small return for the investors vs. a guy who has a nice looking short but who hasn't made any money off of it, the investor might well pick the guy with the crappy feature.

Yeah but only in the world of microbudget indy filmmakers can such a comment seem credible - but honestly the point is that 99% if not arguably a 100% of the time, the crappy feature WILL NOT HAVE made a profit.

We have to be sure of the reality of profit too. Im sorry but if you've made 5k or even 10k gross... mere gross profit, after about 9 months, or even 6 months, and had to utilise volanteers to do so then thats a crap return for any investor (given the risks associated with film) and the extremely dodgy practice of having a director utilising free folk for a supposed 'product.'

We keep saying as if cynically its true that all crappy features make profit. We say it because we see them in a video store or cos we watch a film we think is crap on TV or whatever cable etc.

9 out of 10 films DO NOT make a profit. Do you think however that is because 9 out of 10 films dont make it into a video store... or get on tv... or cos they dont get on pay per view? No of course not - many get all these things and still don't profit.

And its just stupid to think an investor will take seriously a guy who spent more than half a year - and HAD to utilise a whole bunch of volanteers just to make a measly profit.

A crappy feature is just that a crappy feature. If it made a 'real' profit - above the estimated production value for example of the film (if everyone had been paid) then that would impress an investor.

//

We must also make a distinction between the investors and the role a short film has in proving credibility. Short films are more for production companies and studios - and 'can' be used for private investors. However as decadence said, as the idea of the micro budget feature calling card spreads around then that too may impress the same folks that a short would.

For private investors its a completely different ball game - indeed they may be more assured that you have at least made a feature before, but there are so many variables with private investors (individuals) that will relate to personality and charisma even that its almost impossible to qualify.

The toughest by far is getting businesss ie. trade to invest capitol in you film outwith the 'film industry'.

-

Careerists will pursue the short film/ and or feature route and use them to impress studios and production companies into funding features.

Those directors who want/have their own production companies that will produce features have a different ballgame to consider when seeking pennies.

 

[lawriejaffa]

Hey Ryan,

Yep i know 99 shorts out of a hundred probably don't make a profit (but my point regarding crappy features has nothing to do with shorts and their profitability.) Point is saying a crappy feature would make a 'relevant' profit is contradictory on terms - especially in impressing any investor.

Its a myth to imagine there is an easy peasy pump out feature that can be crap and will have made a profit - so why even use such an impossibility in a comparison. Which again has nothing to do with the profitability of shorts.

-

Lets use my classic ROI example.

So, you go to work as a male prostitute in a sauna orientated brothel. It costs 1 cent to get in. You get used and abused a hundred times and make a whoooole dollar! You leave, a little wobbly on the legs, clutching your walking stick. In the end you have made a whopping 100% ROI. How impressive is that ROI now...

Such is the comical meaningless of ROI - the relevance of profit is accrued not from playful percentages but circumstance, capitol, time and profit not anything derived from a trendy abbreviation!

-

I don't think that, but a crappy feature has more of a chance of making a profit than a good short.

I know I know I know, we've all read the same line haven't we - from the Guerilla Guide to Filmmaking to just about filmmaking bible imaginable. However they are not comparable are they - what producer would make a short anyway with intention of sales and capitol profit?

A shrewd producer will find plenty to do with a great short over a crappy feature. Um hard part of course is finding a great short anyway (though there are more of those than low/micro features.)

-

Yeah i mean i partly agree with you regarding the costs of features and their relation to profitability. Stacey Parks website about film distribution (www.filmspecific.com) talks about why higher budget indies arent really working (but we're talking above the 75k mark here.)

We must remember that a 75k budget will have bought a much better film than an uberly overwhelming amount of films produced from the same script for 5k (unless 5k expert Nate is directing.) Of course we always factor ourselves as the exception to the rule - that weee would be the genius to produce a masterpiece with 10 cents etc.

-

Also, I'm not saying you're wrong. Making shorts is a valid option.

Yep well i mean i only produce shorts to experiment with techniques, styles, storytelling and training etc.

I run a production company, we are developing features inhouse - funded via our commercial work. If someone came to me wanting money for a feature film and they had a crap feature that i couldnt sit through - and then claimed they made a profit (in which case if it was terrible id probably credit their distributer's marketing more than their filmmakers skill) id probably go myself with the uber genius who presents me with some award winning short.

Its indie directors that crap their pants about shorts and features. 'Oh no ill never make money making a short!!!' and so the panic sets in and off they go leaving their arty friends in the dust (who are busy shooting black and white piano set art dramas) while they self confidently produce a zombie epic for $5 that is plain unwatchable.

Yey!

Chances are, 99% of the time, neither the guy who makes features or the guy who makes shorts is ever going to get anywhere regardless of which path he chooses.

Now that I agree with - but true talent and true passion i think shines through on its own merit. I have been helped by peers who saw something in me or my work and ive done the same for others.

 

[Nathyn]

lawriejaffa's argument seems to be you can't make a good film on $5k. I wasn't telling people to make bad films, I was simply saying to go shoot a film and use all you know to make the movie. If I sat back and made shorts I simply wouldn't know what I know today. It's impossible to know how to make a feature unless you make one. There's so much that's different. And again I wouldn't spend big money on a first film. First films are normally bad. You're still in the learning stage.

After Divinity is done I'm going to make another film. Even if I have to shoot on 5k or less considering I know what I can do on what budgets.

-Nate

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

There is no one perfect approach. Different strokes for different folks.

Remember Ruairi?

He made an Oscar nominated short, shot some Caveman Milk ads and then put about 15000 Euro into THIS short.
It was that short (Silent City) that finally got him an agent (his words) and a ticket to the big show.

He is now listed to direct the live-action version of Akira for Warner Brothers.

It really depends on what you want and how much you want it. Of course, being talented helps.

MAH

 

[filmman]

After all this discussion, I'm still with Nate on this. If you're serious about becoming a feature film maker, start making feature length movies.

When the film business began, the first films were one reelers, in other words, 2,000 ft or about 20 minutes.

Then movies were two reelers, 40 minutes.

Then they were three reelers, 60 minutes.

Then they were four reelers, 80 minutes.

Finally they were five reelers, 100 minutes -- 10,000 ft approx.

This is where it still stands. I remember vaguely that either D. W. Griffith or John Ford made the first five reeler.

You can have a 90 minute movie or a 100 minute plus movie, it's still put on five 2000 ft reels. Two cases, one with 2 reels, one with 3 reels. If you're walking up and down the Croissette in Cannes with two cases of films, you can start by carrying the three reeler in your right hand and the two reeler in your left hand, then switch. LOL

You can make a 6 reeler too, but that's too long. Five reeler is still the optimum length for a movie.

What's my point in going to all this explanation? Do you want to be a filmmaker? It's five reels.

 

[lawriejaffa]

Hey guys hehe,

Its not really a case of agreeing with anyone that a 5k movie can be good, or that you should make one or not?

My personal point of view (so one can debate with that - than my purported views hehe

If you've made a decent effort during the pre-production phase of your film you should be able to raise at least $10k less than that appears to be laziness. However, if you have 5k or less, and thats the best you could get then i personally would still produce my feature.

I think the comparison of shorts and features for actual selling is somewhat mute - the advantages of shorts like in other realms. I believe learning from a feature though is vital and that shorts can give a hint, but can't fully prepare anyone for the full complexities of such a big production.

After all this discussion, I'm still with Nate on this. If you're serious about becoming a feature film maker, start making feature length movies.

Yeah i know i know, its the indy mantra we read in books - but its a little more complex than that - if your wanting to make money to live on, support people, pay people and remain in the game after the first or two movies burn out the favours you can get... then you'll need a little more than a buzz line.

I mean i am also of the mind that one can make a better film of any budget than another depending on the audience taste - and the merit of film, so money is relative. Bearing in mind how folks inflate their budgets its not suprising that a supposed 75k indy may look like 10k or less was spent on it.

lawriejaffa's argument seems to be you can't make a good film on $5k.

Yep its not really an argument, i haven't written a thesis on the theory of this great revelation. Its somewhat more of an observation - take from any genre 10 films that cost less than 5k and 10 that cost quite a bit more, and with the exception of genius you will find the micros suffering the worst of the fare.

There is no black and white - and there are exceptions. Even trying to be a succesful filmmaker is an 'exception' to the fate that awaits most seeking (well consistent employment or profit) in the 'industry'. So I'm certainly not saying you can't - my point is that it makes no sense to present the production of x3 5k features a year with a matter of fact attitude as if it were a credible business plan. So my criticism was somewhat more specific to that than a supposed sweeping condemnation of micros (i mean heck my first feature will be a micro too!)

 

[filmman]

Well, indeed, we're all over the place in this debate.

Everything remaining equal the same filmmaker can do a better job with $15,000 than with $5,000.

This is one issue, but there is the issue of borrowing money from strangers who have their own expectations and motivations.... It's better not to borrow money and do a short, because a short has no clear market -- yet.

I like the concept of doing work for other professionals or studios, such as you've done, Lawrie! This is good, and you're saving some of the profits to make a feature film with your own money.

But as a business strategy for a new filmmaker it's not easy and in my opinion, and it seems to me according to Nate as well. I've seen too many commercial directors in Hollywood trying to transition to feature film production; it's harder than someone right out of high school to just go out and make a feature length movie.

Although this seems hard to imagine, but not everyone can go out and form a production company and systematically plan and excute a feature film. Some people are more intuitive (not muddled) and more unstructured in their thinking (not ignorant) and more creative (not delusional), so they go out and make a long, involved movie like Wages of Sin.

Wages of Sin is a terrific effort. It's one of the best of its kind. There are few filmmakers who start out who have so much going for them as Nate, and if this weren't the case, so many comments wouldn't have been added to all his postings. What Nate says rings true.

I know many people can't make a movie like Wages of Sin their first time out.

There is another example of a different sort, more like what you're trying to do, Lawrie -- Corrado!

Adam went out and devised a strategy based on years of experience of other indie filmmakers making B-Movies, and he came up with a breakthrough the likes of which there are few in this business.

Adam's approach is one that many a filmmaker dreams about, but very few can duplicate. For me it's impossible to do what Adam did. He has a set of skills which are phenomenal. I won't go in them because you can read the original Corrado thread and it's all there -- especially in the early part; later we've gone into too many tangents, like technical discussions and daydreaming while Adam was negotiating for a sale. All interesting but the core of what Adam did is manage to secure name talent, find an investor who believed in him, and make a movie that passes muster with B-Movie distributors -- phenomenal for a first time feature film director.

Nate's approach is very different but just as effective -- not financially perhaps, but a lot safer. If Adam had failed, he might never again dare (or be allowed by his better half) to try again.

But Nate? Yes, a lot safer. Just go out and do it, man. Take your camera out and find some like minded people and make a movie. It's so much easier in Hollywood, where actors are literally crawling the streets. LOL

 

[Nathyn]

And I want to go to Holly so bad just to shoot a film. Seriously the talent pool is so huge. And you're right, my way is definitely safer for the beginner, especially if you're doing genre you have a chance to make something with a feature even if it's not great. If any movie you do makes a decent profit you're seen as viable. I've seen some indie stuff that made it to the theater and played in heavy rotation that wasn't as good as what I done, and I've seen films like "El Mariachi" that blows some of the Hollywood stuff away simply in story and action.

As for Adam's film, if I had the money Adam had I would've still shot for less ($50 - $60k with three name talents costing about 10k in all) and with a different approach, but keep in mind that's simply because I have a few celeb contacts (one being a TV talent and old school B movie talent) I could immediately grab for a certain amount and put under the SAG ultra low budget agreement and still have certain freedoms. I would've went to AFM with the rest. After post I would've signed some of the talent on for a second film at a lower rate and shot their parts while they were here in the city. After they leave I'd shoot the second film for around 10k and drop the scenes I've shot into that film so I'd have two sellable products by AFM time or at least on saleable feature and a good rough cut of another.

Once you have one celeb contact, that celeb will know other celebs and next thing you know you're contacting several name actors. And I think Adam did some smart casting. Sizemore seems to have been used very well judging from the trailer. Also Adam seemed to have a talented crew which is where a lot of my money would go between that and locations.

One thing about me is I've come to except the rough look of indies and the polished look of Hollywood. In the 80s and 90s people were more like me where they would watch a lot of cable and see many different styles of film. People without cable only know what polished work looks like and are almost offended if your film doesn't meet that standard.

Your current crop of viewers are like this because of the fact cable doesn't play as many low budget action or horror films as they used to unless it's softcore porn. Back in the day you could get a Billy Blanks film quite easily simply by turning on Showtime after ten o'clock. "Maniac Cop" and other films like that became extremely popular because of heavy rotation on cable.

The new filmmaker has to be able to not only make but market a product. So many doors are now closed but many others have also opened. To be honest we lost money on "Wages" because it wasn't HD and didn't have a name. But no one ever said "Your film sucks we can't sell it." Not only that but I can still use it as marketing. People see the film and buy my books. The trick is getting people to the site. So you're pushing many things at once, your film, your site and whatever else. I haven't been selling a ton of anything, but we do sale a few copies of "Action Filmmaking" and "The Action Filmmaking Workbook" each month and since we don't have to pay anything for that it's just money coming in and it helps. Soon there will be more sales as people get used seeing the book on the market. People are buying my book along with others now including "Rebel without a Crew" and Stu's "DV Rebel" book.

-Nate

 

[lawriejaffa]

Well I filmman I get what you are saying. Your right what i have done is by no means the way most folk would seek to develop their own films. For me it is a strategy based on aquiring the means of production and being to exploit financially the resources of a company to pursue the dream of producing films rather than investors (to whom id owe money) or the limited resources of me - a sole individual.

You can see the logic in that - but would I advocate that as a plan for every filmmaker? Even most? Of course not - not every director is cut out to be a business man (in fact thats why we have producers right?

Im not suprised your with Nate as it were, i mean heck who wouldn't be (in general principle.) Its a pep talk akin to Rodriguez, its saying lets follow our dreams - to hell with money and lets blag what we can - cos you know what - we can still turn out a profit - and make the movie Maverick wants and hey - you could even live doing what you love hehe.

I love the positivism - I REALLY do i just dont see it as part of a business plan.

Its the kind of thing directors think of and do who are themselves artistic, and ambitious, or just really motivated. I've gone through the trial of fire of presenting business plans to banks, to clients, and all that kind of stuff where the numbers are scrutinised.

But Nate? Yes, a lot safer. Just go out and do it, man. Take your camera out and find some like minded people and make a movie.

Thats the spirit, but no success can be reaped without investing that energy into the most mundane elements of financial reality as well. Unless you put two fingers up and say to hell ill make the movie however and whatever way i can. Thats great - works of genius have been made that way - but that is the vaaaaast minority compared to those well planned.

//

Nate talks a good game - full of matter of fact statements but im not totally convinced of the ethos that seems to be expressed here.

Grab a cheap celeb, offer actors food... all that kinda jazz. Its a bit misleading to the compromises that trully cost films their overall quality.

However that makes me come across like Mr. 'Oh a film can't be made unless it costs thousands and thousands' *ahem* admittedly a long name! Indeed I am not.

I am cautious (Adam was a poker champion hehe) and those approaches didn't include anything too dellusional.

//

To summarise somewhat i think a micro budget filmmaker should create a work of the greatest artistic merit be it genre or arty, and take the time offered by the magically cheap pre-production phase (your script) to come up with something amazing. I would recommend playing to the cult edge of your chosen genre, respecting your audience - no cheap tricks.

Doing your best to make the best movie you can, with the best resources at your disposal (that is TIME so no churning out x3 a year for 5k each lol.)

I have seen films 'breakthrough' in genre and art fields by those directors who made films that people, critics nodded and agreed were great.

Its an easy myth to imagine theres a dumbed down - patronise the genre audience market just waiting to be milked.

Thats what i rail against - nothing else

//

Just want to add - that I also respect you Nate for what you are doing and what all the indies are trying to achieve. We're fighting the mediocre mainstream you know and we're all on the same side even if i can sound especially and beautifully sardonic - indeed that is a natural genetic gift of being so British.

 

[taormina]

I don't think I could have done Corrado any cheaper. I honestly don't think it could be done. I did most of the crucial jobs for free. Feeding a crew, locations, and insurance wound up costing $10K per day. There was no appreciable way to reduce this amount by cutting; we were down to the bone.

It's easy to talk about making a cheap feature, it's quite another to actually make one with all the pro elements. I already had some actors whining about not having a trailer, etc.

You simply can't attract great talent without the support system required to host it which includes a pro crew, real food, trailers, etc.

 

[Nathyn]

I don't think I could have done Corrado any cheaper. I honestly don't think it could be done. I did most of the crucial jobs for free. Feeding a crew, locations, and insurance wound up costing $10K per day. There was no appreciable way to reduce this amount by cutting; we were down to the bone.

But you had a lot of hardcore Hollywood talent in your film. I know a few people who would've jumped on board without all the luxuries so it would've been different. The question is would they do it now though. The only problem I would've had was dealing with SAG. But the person I wanted was willing to do it.

-Nate

 

[lawriejaffa]

Well Ryan i mean good luck with that - i dont think its difficult to make 3 features in year for even $0 each. I just think think its hard if not impossible to make x3 decent features in 12 months that would be genuinely profitable and or watcheable and of some artistic and entertainment value!

But good luck my man!

But you had a lot of hardcore Hollywood talent in your film. I know a few people who would've jumped on board without all the luxuries so it would've been different.

Yeah but were they comparable to the cast Adam got for his flick?

 

[Sean Smith]

Also, I have a baby due in April, so that adds some pressure to the situation, too (and my wife and I have a daughter who will turn two in April, as well).

You might want to reconsider this and talk to your wife first. I have two kids in that age area and I remember the high level of stress while with having my 2nd child due, my largest yearly project due (14-16 hr days) and flying out of town and gutting my basement due to flooding all in the matter of 3 weeks to complete everything. I'm not saying it can't be done, just a real world word of caution that is all. The 2nd baby is more than twice the job. Good luck though, I look forward to seeing it turn out.

 

[Nathyn]

Yeah but were they comparable to the cast Adam got for his flick?

Yes, we had inquiries from sales agents before the film even started shooting. On Adam's budget we would've went SAG ULB and got all the people that we needed. My instincts about the person I wanted to get was right, as they are now on a national television show and we still have access to them

As of December 31, 2009, I will have completed three films of at least 80 minutes each on a budget of no more than $5,000 each. I already own some equipment (XH-A1, Nikon D60, Mac, FCP, AE, Photoshop, lights, sound equipment), my use of which will not be included in the budget calculations, nor will my time or the time of anyone who is not paid at the time of production. The budget will include only cash outlays and no "in-kind" contributions or any deferred payments, should any be negotiated.

Oh, I know.
If I have to make a choice, obviously the movie part is going to lose out, but I'm pretty sure I can work it out. If not, then the challenge is over

Wow dude! I would suggest doing something genre just to increase chances of profit. You still have thriller, action and sci-fi as options even if you don't want to do horror. Try to get a name or two in there if you can.

Okay, I will commit to at least be in preproduction on my next film by September 2009 (because I planned on doing another film right after Divinity but this will give me reason to now) since I won't even be starting to shoot this current film until this summer. My goal will be to have three films done by December 2010.

I won't put a budget limit on them because I am trying to raise my budgets, but one of films will cost $5,000 or below. And all of them will be action, horror, sci-fi, a thriller or a mix of two or more genres.

-Nate

 

[lawriejaffa]

Yes, especially now. We had inquiries from sales agents before the film even started shooting

Well i don't mean to be cheeky but i mean Tom Sizemore has name recognition - i mean you've not listed folk comparable to him (in terms of name recognition imo.) Its a bit of a different league isn't it (probably due to the fact Tom could be paid by Adam!)

 

[Nathyn]

I just edited that to explain it better. When we were doing the film that fell through we had several names that were known both here an abroad. We still have access to them. Joe was one, Laurene Landon from Maniac Cop was one and Robert Z'Dar, the maniac Cop himself, were our major names.

But we had one person I won't name now but they had a fan base from several popular low budget films they had been in and an appearance on a Sci-Fi action show. They were going to star in the film. I was contacted by press about them as well as several sales agents about the film. They would contact me consistently every few weeks until we all realized the film wasn't getting made. I figured this person would become very popular and they did. We can still get this person if we do a SAG film. (And have the money).

This person wasn't someone who had been in blockbuster movies but someone who had a fan base that was enough to move the film without even trying too hard.

-Nate

 

[Nathyn]

Ah, okay. Makes sense. I have something you can shoot if you're good at green screening and special effects. It's got vampires, zombies, martial arts and explosions. LOL.

-Nate