indies-- chances of success?

Randall_Oelerich

Randall_Oelerich

Veteran
Realistically, (and please be realistic, don't hold back) what are the odds of breaking even making an indie feature (after all the croupiers take their take -- theaters, distributors, lawyers, actors, everybody on the budget sheet), assuming the indie is a K.I.S.S. project, great script? I read material like this on the net:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2008/06/the-sky-is-fall.html
and wonder why even bother? 99.9% chance of failure financially? :crybaby: 1 in 1000 chance of breaking even and maybe making a profit? Mind you I do not mean to come off negative against filmmaking (I am not a troll, look at my other posts). I have waffled for over a year now whether to go down the filmmaking path or just stick to writing (low risk financially, costs only time). The wisenheimer answer would be to just tell me to forget about filmmaking, but I do like it as an art form, and hey if I was financially independent or had financial backers the decision would be easy-- I would plunge ahead with full force making films; but making films costs money, and times are tough in case anybody has not noticed. The information on breaking even on an indie film seems so conflicting, nebulous from various sources, I would be interested in success -or- failure stories by filmmakers here.

I figure if I were to make an indie feature, the best odds (which might be horrible anyways) would be to wait until I wrote the perfect K.I.S.S. screenplay, have a story that could be filmed fast and cheap, single or very few locations, actors working free for credits or back-end etc. Recent films like Asylum and Catch and Release come to mind as great KISS type films, probably the only way to stand a good chance.

Just trying to get a better understanding of it all, make an informed decision on whether to pursue filmmaking in addition to the screenwriting which I really love. At this point though I have to say one of the best pieces of advice I got here on dvxuser not too long ago, which I was resistant to take, was to just jump in and make a feature, not dwindle too long on shorts. Because shorts cost money and have no revenue potential whatsoever. Anyhow, looking for thoughts, feedback, advice, stories of success or failure, to help understand it all.
~randall
 
Im sorry we don't have any magic balls here hehe to predict anyones chances of success. It really depends on so many factors that are beyond even the most cognisant mind (what a typo there *ahem*)

A lot of low budget filmmakers - most in fact - pursue their artform, their passion, with a sense of compulsion rather than reason imo. If it were for the financial reasons primarily, or even remotely lol there are so many professions out there that would produce more revenue.

Living on the beach making necklaces out of sea-shells and selling them to people who hate crustations (another typo- apolagies) would probably make more money.

We go on regardless of course because we may be that minority which succeeds or because of circumstances or obsessions that allow us or drive us on regardless.

In fact the only vocation less likely to produce revenue than film directing is probably writing! So your screwed anyway! Try acting!
 
Yep. What he said. Come on over to the Maverick thread. I'm sure you'll love it there. What say you Lawriejaffa? We're talking about this right now. Click be low and you can see the film I'm doing. I believe it will be successful.

-Nate
 
Actually I find the odds of success for (at least my) screenwriting quite good-- but then that could be my parallel dimension world equivalent of filmmakers believe in their film being 'the one'. :beer:

lawriejaffa said:
Im sorry we don't have any magic balls here hehe to predict anyones chances of success. ....In fact the only vocation less likely to produce revenue than film directing is probably writing! So your screwed anyway! Try acting!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Checked out the Maverick thread. At least that is a ray of hope, and I mean that sincerely. I mean, if a filmmaker can make a feature for $10k-$20k and then sell it for $20k to Maverick, at least you break even. Might not be a great feature in terms of acting and quality for $20k, but of course that depends on how far the casting net is tossed and all, people brought on board, but hey at least breaking even lets a filmmaker make a film, see a passion come to life, maybe get noticed, do better financially on the next film.

Nathyn said:
Yep. What he said. Come on over to the Maverick thread. I'm sure you'll love it there. What say you Lawriejaffa? We're talking about this right now. Click be low and you can see the film I'm doing. I believe it will be successful.

-Nate
Click to expand...
 
Not looking so much for predictions as much as the past or current-- what are indie filmmakers actually making, what percent are failing ($, not artistically), succeeding?
 
This could become an epic-long post, but I'll keep my thoughts/opinions as brief as possible.

When done right, filmmaking is a collaborative art. People like to kick around "filmmaker" as a title of some kind, but in my experience (large-scale commercial advertising shoots and small-scale documentary stuff), you have to understand and embrace (for now) what you're good at.

For example, you're obviously passionate about writing. From your posts it seems to be an all-consuming passion. Why take what will likely be months away (and lots of dollars) from your development as a writer to engage in making a film? There are so many people out there (many on these very boards) who are talented directors, DPs, composers, editors and actors. When you have a script/idea that you truly believe in, why not reach out to and partner with some of them to make a film?

If you do write a script that again you feel could be a great film, why try to shoot it on the quick and cheap? You'll likely not do the script/idea justice and while you may value the experience, the film that results may not live up to the script/idea. I know there have been indie/no-budget success stories and I won't debate the possibilities. But I would say if you really want to make a film, take the time to try and build/raise a budget that will do justice to the idea you have. Look at "Deuce of Spades" for example. She is the "auteur" behind that film, but her budget has certainly grown over time, and (I believe) most or all of it out of her own pocket. But her idea is one that is very personal to her, and her film and the effort she's putting into it reflects that passion. You say you "like the art form" but do you have this passion? If not, stick to the writing, for now at least.

There are writers (and actors and DPs and editors among others) who transition to being directors/"filmmakers" in time. In some cases it's a natural outgrowth based on their experience within the industry and the shift in their passions over time. In others it's an overreach based on ego. But it seems in all the cases where these people have been successful, they've essentially reached a "pinnacle" of their initial craft before moving on.

Now, there's nothing wrong with writing a truly engaging script and partnering with others whose talents equal yours in other filmmaking disciplines. But I would suggest to "perfect" the craft of writing first. Then partner with others whose talents can make one of your scripts come to life. Then, finally, if you feel the absolute burning fire of passion to be a "filmmaker" (auteur, director or whatever), then do it.
 
Nice post, words of wisdom. :dankk2:
Just making a short short film this past autumn really sucked up my time from writing like an angry black hole; I really did not care for the time the filming took away from writing, quite a distraction to be honest. And that concerns me for future filmmaking. I think what you said about doing what I love, the writing, the partnering with others skilled in the other areas is likely the best way to give a screenplay the best chance at being realized in its best artistry. I love films so much-- I seem them as much more than entertainment, I listen to film soundtracks when I write, I just think how great it would be to see a story of mine come to life with actors, locations, music soundtrack (huge imho); so I think to myself I need to do the filmmaking to see that happen, but that may not in fact be the case. Could also be a part of me that wants to control the project, the film, but I know realistically film is a collaborative medium, except of course the director directs, makes lots of decisions that control the ultimate fate of the film. Well, there is wisdom in your post, I see that to really have one's screenplay come to life in film might mean to just make it the damn best script it can be, then find those that also think so and partner up, or find a buyer to dole out the cash t buy the script, and the bigger the film's budget the more the writer gets and the better the film will be because of all the other elements in the budget.
:beer:
~randall
 
Thanks for reading (and absorbing) my post.

I don't mean to discourage anyone from believing in themselves, their talent or what they can achieve. But even in a creative field like filmmaking, there are choices to be made about where your talents are best applied. If you want to make movies, and make a career out of making movies, you'll likely have to make that choice at some point. Are you a writer? Are you a director? Are you a cinematographer?

In almost every case, a truly great film comes from a singular idea and vision, but that film is the result of many talented creative people sharing and delivering on that vision. You may come up with that idea or inspire that vision, but the final product is one of collaboration, and every one of them is a "filmmaker."

Now there's nothing wrong with making small (not short) films, with the understanding that it's part of an ongoing film education. But be enthusiastically realistic about what your talents are and where they can take you. Spending time and money to make a film that may not showcase your best talents is (in my opinion) a waste of all three.
 
I have about 8 short scripts (writing third feature), would love to make short films for the sake of art and to work with actors, but as I look realistically at the cost of making some of them ($1000-2000) it just seems like too much for projects that generate no revenue; like I said, and everybody knows, times are tough. Now a few of them could be made on the cheap. But the longer a film, the more pages, the more days of paying a boompole operator, paying for a location, food/snacks; of course like a said a few simpler shorts with easy free locations have much lower costs. But it strikes me as you have said that perhaps I had best partner with someone, even local, maybe someone looking to get experience as a Director, DP, Editor, etc., people looking for hats to wear who would be willing to be Producers and thus also pony up $ for production costs; thus I could see my scripts get made into film, even if others wear the hats that I thought i would have to wear all at once. Or of course I might just sell my scripts on inktip.com and let someone deal with all the production headaches. But I am starting to realize it has to be collaborative, too much stress AND cost to do it all oneself.

stephenmick said:
...Spending time and money to make a film that may not showcase your best talents is (in my opinion) a waste of all three.
Click to expand...
 
I do believe there is value in short films, it just may not be financial. A great short can showcase a director's ability to elicit nuanced and powerful performances from talent. They can allow an editor to shine in a format that demands the most of every cut and frame. A short that wins awards could get noticed at a festival and create new connections that lead who knows where.
 
Filmmaking is something you have to do because you love it and are willing to deal with the failures and frustrations.

One of my old clients did an indie documentary that did really well among the specific group it appealed to and it earned a good distro deal. However, he only made around $4000 back after all of the money he put into making it (around 10k or so) while the distro company reaped more of the benefits.
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
I have about 8 short scripts (writing third feature), would love to make short films for the sake of art and to work with actors, but as I look realistically at the cost of making some of them ($1000-2000) it just seems like too much for projects that generate no revenue; like I said, and everybody knows, times are tough. Now a few of them could be made on the cheap. But the longer a film, the more pages, the more days of paying a boompole operator, paying for a location, food/snacks; of course like a said a few simpler shorts with easy free locations have much lower costs. But it strikes me as you have said that perhaps I had best partner with someone, even local, maybe someone looking to get experience as a Director, DP, Editor, etc., people looking for hats to wear who would be willing to be Producers and thus also pony up $ for production costs; thus I could see my scripts get made into film, even if others wear the hats that I thought i would have to wear all at once. Or of course I might just sell my scripts on inktip.com and let someone deal with all the production headaches. But I am starting to realize it has to be collaborative, too much stress AND cost to do it all oneself.
Click to expand...

The kind of money people talk about making things for, it's another world for me, I don't understand it at all. I mean, I'm about to do my first professional short, I'm trying to keep the cost around $8,000 -- that's extremely low in my mind. It's not that $8,000 is nothing to me, it's a heck of a lot of money, it IS very significant, but for what we're doing, filmmaking? It's nothing. That's about $1,000 a minute, that'd be a feature film at $120,000 even if it was two hours long. That is not substantial or significant for filmmaking. And my concept / story is a comedy, it's very simple and low budget, if I were actually not trying my hardest to come up with a story that was cheap to shoot, I'd need $30,000 to make a short film properly. That's $8K with owning all of the equipment we'll use to shoot it and one location completely free, another discounted. So for me, I think, wow this is a good deal, we'll do this fairly cheap. And only two filming days.

So when people talk about making a short for like $1,000, I think what kind of short is this? I made a 12-minute short for $600 once, in film school, with free labor and being total n00bs at it. The film sucked. I've seen very few good shorts that weren't expensive, serious endeavors. The only way to do that is to be in a film school where your insurance is covered by the school, equipment is mostly free (discounted film stock if you're shooting with it), and actors work really cheap or free, then you have tons of talented free labor. But even paying pretty low wages, and keeping crew minimal, still it costs a ton of money. The reason I think of my short as being quite low budget is because I spent $10,000 on a one-day shoot for a music video, and we saved a TON of money on that, should have been more like $20K, so the idea of doing a short film at $8K for two days of filming, $4K per day, actually seems quite good to me, much lower budget than the music video.

The idea someone could shoot a feature for $20K is astonishing, I'd love to see what that looks like and how it was done, like learn more about how it was made, etc. It's just, for me, about as hard to believe as big foot ;)

And I agree it really has to be a passion thing, because this short film, for instance, is it a good investment? How should I know?! I think so, because I don't have any narrative work on my reel and I need at least something. Not to mention I'm going to have the opportunity to work with "real" actors, working SAG actors who have been in shows everyone has seen. To me, that's amazing, that's awesome. It's already like a dream come true. I mean, at least if I quit film and had to work a lousy job doing something else, I would always know that I did something like that, and I wasn't just someone dreaming about it, I really did it! So sure, it would be "failure" in some respects, not getting to do it for a living, but it'd be success in the sense that I got to do something really neat that nobody could take away from me. And I have to believe that while it's true that a short film makes no money usually, and that most likely it won't "get me" anywhere, one thing is also true besides that -- NOT having any reel work will DEFINITELY not get you anywhere. Having a great reel may still get you nowhere, you may not make the right connections, you may not beat out the countless other talented directors, but at least you have to make a reel and TRY to know. There's only one certainty in life and that's that if you don't try at all, you will never succeed.

People talk about the odds, and how this or that is unlikely. What is likely in life that is any good at all? Everything desirable is unlikely, and the odds are against it. The odds of making it in the NBA suck, in the MLB, they suck, in any sport, they suck. Yet people try, and some people succeed. In film, they suck. The only slam dunks are the absolute crap of the world, like if you want to be a janitor at McDonalds you will definitely succeed. So if you base your life and your actions on whatever seems most likely, you will end up a complete tool, mediocre in every respect.

To me, though, people who try and fail at something like film are still winners. I don't see them as losers. I see them as courageous, people who didn't just talk about something, they tried to do it, and followed their dreams. In my mind, they are already winners, and people I want to get to know better. They weren't timid or scared, they were adventurers. So I get really annoyed, I have to admit, when people make fun of all of the actors and actresses who move to Los Angeles to make it, like somehow they are lesser people or they are just pathetic. No way, those people are to be respected, they have often given up so much (families back home, friends, more steady income) to do what they really love, and to me that makes Los Angeles one of the greatest cities in the world. Other people see it different, I look out here and I see a city of winners, people who didn't give up on their dreams and who believe in themselves and work every day to get where they really want to be. But that's just my perspective.
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
But it strikes me as you have said that perhaps I had best partner with someone, even local, maybe someone looking to get experience as a Director, DP, Editor, etc., people looking for hats to wear who would be willing to be Producers and thus also pony up $ for production costs; thus I could see my scripts get made into film, even if others wear the hats that I thought i would have to wear all at once. Or of course I might just sell my scripts on inktip.com and let someone deal with all the production headaches. But I am starting to realize it has to be collaborative, too much stress AND cost to do it all oneself.
Click to expand...

Remember you CAN partner with people on DVXuser. I know I'm looking for scripts. :) And even writers to pen out scripts that I'm either working on, or to partner with me in the writing. You don't have to be "local" I mean we're on the Internet. My composer lives in Spokane Washington, I live in Atlanta, GA. We're on opposite sides of the US, yet we're working together on a project. I have another screenwriter I've been working with in the United Kingdom. The only people you need local are those doing the filmming. Heck I even talked to a guy in LA that does editing. Now you don't have to talk with me, if you don't like, but there are others who'd love to have a screenplay.

Anyway - yes you can be a success. But like the Maverick Thread, you have to be smart. Smarter than most who will just go out and spend money. You have to work out points / deals / freebies from pros to get your movie made.

As for Jonathan, you need to check the Maverick Thread. The consensus is that there is no such thing as a $20K movie, it's really a $250K movie where most of the people aren't getting paid upfront. "Facing the Giants" was a $10K (?) movie that made several million dollars, but it was only $10K because the pros involved didn't take direct pay. But they got paid when it sold.
 
jls4 said:
Anyway - yes you can be a success. But like the Maverick Thread, you have to be smart. Smarter than most who will just go out and spend money. You have to work out points / deals / freebies from pros to get your movie made. If I can't pay I can't pay and you chose to do the film or not.
Click to expand...

jls4 said:
As for Jonathan, you need to check the Maverick Thread. The consensus is that there is no such thing as a $20K movie, it's really a $250K movie where most of the people aren't getting paid upfront. "Facing the Giants" was a $10K (?) movie that made several million dollars, but it was only $10K because the pros involved didn't take direct pay. But they got paid when it sold.
Click to expand...

This really is the secret right here. Personally I don't like doing deferred because if something doesn't sale then those people don't get paid. I wouldn't want to work like that. It's upfront and honest. Some people will get paid, some simply won't. That's nature of microbudget. On our first film NO ONE got squat (including me) on the next we paid the main actors. On this one I'll be paying the DP, boom op, interns and the actors.

Also I get access to a lot of things that would cost me a lot of money. My producer has a lot of equipment we both purchased plus I have access to my college so I have access to all the little nook and cranny locations. The stairwell I hide the money in "Wages" was at the college. Also many time actors will gladly donate their apartment for a film they're in as long as you don't break anything.

The biggest secret to doing a small film is asking. Ask before you volunteer to pay a dime for a location unless it's so special. We need a graveyard for this film. We'll see if we can shoot for free then see if they want us to pay something. Some places allow us to shoot all the time as long as we don't disturb business.

Arby's let us shoot downstairs for hours. Our location fell through, so walked down the street, walked in and asked. They said yes. The owner got a free copy and he wasn't even expecting that. I just walked in one day and handed it to him as I bought some curly fries. It was a Customflix DVD, slick, nicely wrapped and professional. The irony with locations is even when paying people drop out. A guy offered his apartment for a set amount. We showed, he didn't. Luckily we had a back up. She let us shoot all day then we paid her and left. No fuss.

I've cut my budget a lot by making common sense changes that won't affect the quality of the film but are background changes. I only bring food. My DP will bring the equipment. I can ride the bus now versus a taxi. Simple change but saves $20 a day. $20 x 20 days = $400. 30 day bus pass = $86. Big difference.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
Nathyn said:
This really is the secret right here. Personally I don't like doing deferred because if something doesn't sale then those people don't get paid. I wouldn't want to work like that. It's upfront and honest. Some people will get paid, some simply won't. That's nature of microbudget. On our first film NO ONE got squat (including me) on the next we paid the main actors. On this one I'll be paying the DP, boom op, interns and the actors.

The biggest secret to doing a small film is asking.
Click to expand...

I definately agree to this Nate, but it all about your current status and where you're going. I've personally talked to my whole cast and crew and told them they need to think about the long haul. Don't focus on the current movie as "My breakthrough" or what I used to pay my rent. Instead focus on it to open new doors, pay the "production company's" bills and to purchase new and better equipment and maybe even pay for a few names the next go round. I've encouaged everyone to look at this as a 2 to 3 year process, not a quick fix.

My lead actor called me the other day and he was complaining about how some other producers / writers / directors that he was working with were constantly saying "I'm about to be big / blow up" and he was upset because now for some of them they have been saying that for 5 to 7 years. And then I told him, notice how we we started I didn't say that. I said, "I have a plan that maybe in a few years we can quit our day jobs." And I reminded him of what our production company (he's a big part of it) is trying to do. But to be patient and to make steps forward one and a time.

However there are those with money that someone can take a chance on. I took a chance on several people - unfortuntely nothing happened. But if you working with someone big, like I'll be in a few years :) you can take that chance.
 
I keep erasing all my posts. I just hit backspace and erased a whole page of comments. LOL

Oh, well, I was just going to say to Randall that chances are you will lose all the money you invest in your first movie.

Making a movie is like marriage. I love to use metaphors. LOL

If you are an eligible bachelor and your family has prestige and money, they will arrange for you to marry a beautiful girl and you will go on to live a great life. That's like getting a studio to give you a shot at directing a movie. LOL

But if you don't have the backing of a great family, you have to go out into the streets and hussle. LOL Chances of a great marriage are slim indeed, but it's fun trying.... LOL

Whatever you do, don't do shorts.... It's like ... LOL ... I can't say it in a public forum.

I really like Nate's approach. It's really the most satisfying way to become a filmmaker. You really don't lose, and the experience you gain is invaluable; it's worth it's weight in gold.

Nate has a great book on filmmaking on Amazon. I think it's called Action Filmmaking.

I have a film book on Amazon also, it's called FILMMAKING A TO Z.

My book is about 35mm filmmaking, but there is a lot of good stuff in it that applies to digital movie making also.
 
In film schools students are asked to do shorts, I agree. You have to.

But if you're not going to film school and are beginning to make movies, and you want to become a feature film director or filmmaker, then it's best to shoot a feature film.

Best example on this user group is Nate. Study the way he thinks and works.

Even Adam, went for the feature. It's true, he made a short of two but he decided not to show them to anyone. You can be good or bad at doing shorts, but doing shorts won't help most people how to make a feature film.

I'm talking from an ideal filmmaker growth perspective. One of the most difficult transitions is from directing commercials to directing features. Few survive it.

Anyway, it's a long discussion, so I'll just say, imo...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top