Anyone Here do business with Maverick Entertainment?

Depends. We shot "Wages" In three months. This could've been shot in one month but because of lack of money and other things we had to shoot on weekends and some weekdays versus just shooting through the week. This was about a 21 day shoot spread out. Took me a month to finish post but that was because I was already doing post work and my producer was doing his music. I did a lot of music myself using garage band just to see if I could it. The problem with this is while the majority of people don't have Macs, some of the people who do recognize the beats and get mad that you used garage band and give you a lot of flak. So this time it's up in the air because once I hand it over to the musician I don't know how long that will take. It also depends on how much music you have. We normally don't have a ton of it.

Some of the non-mac users ask about the opening hard rock-hop song because they really like it. I never tell them it's simply me yelling and rapping over Garageband beats. I formed a virtual band called "Riot Gear" composed of myself, a rock singer named Tony Tip and a Country Singer named Cowboy Bill Barton. (All me just sounding different with different voice altering effects). I found teenage girls liked the love song and rockers liked the rock song and ironically no really cared too much for the title track. LOL. The songs were up on myspace for awhile. Riot Gear was credited for part of the soundtrack on Wages. If you go on IMDB it's their only credit. (Until my next film :)).

The film I do after this will be shot on a lot less. I don't want too much time to rest and get lazy. While they're doing the music I'll be planning another shoot. Once the music comes back I'll dupe the music track, do my M&E track then do my screener DVD and call up my contacts at Maverick and York (whoever they may be this time around) and let them know I have new product. I'll also try to get with few others as well as those who're contacting me asking for screeners (I'm sure someone will at least want to see it). Then I'll start pre-production on my fourth feature.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
Nathyn said:
It shouldn't take a year to make a film unless you simply don't have the money or time. I rarely have either and it doesn't take me a year. If you're doing the Matrix I can see it but I agree four months is time enough.
Click to expand...

lawriejaffa said:
Yeah thats hilarious. I guess we should have a poll for those who made films they spent their hearts and souls on producing... and whether most were made around 4 months or even 6 months... or if in fact they took about a year.

A good film in a year, with a micro budget is a challenge because guess what, you have a micro budget.
Click to expand...
taormina said:
Corrado will have taken 1 year next month (on Feb 2) to go from prepro to distribution.
Click to expand...

Voices has so far takes 13 months and it looks very close to 15 before it's all said and done. That's not to say you can't finish in 4 to 6 months, you can. In the 24 Diary I urge people to push for 7 to 9 months. I took longer because I have the desire not only to understand more aspects of filmmaking, but also make the best movies as I go along. Voices has been the equiv of about 15 short films. We started shooting and shot off and on for 5 months, then took a break and came back to shoot pickups about a month later. then two months after that we shot another scene, then we decided 3 months later to shoot a whole new series of scenes 5 in all, finally tying in most of the problems that we had with plot and celebrities. I'm glad I took the extra time - it was worth it for the knowledge.

But if your goal is just to direct or just to produce, you can throw out movies much faster ALSO of you have more money. My crew of 4 had our hands full - and in post production it was like 2 of us and the composer. LOL
 
When I plan on making my first feature it will take me some time to pull it off.
There's finalizing the script, acquiring locations, actors, props, gear, etc....
The script for me is the most important part and it will take some time.

Shooting it will take no time. I plan on taking a week off and shooting it every day for 7 days.
Pickups can be done the odd weekends that follow.

After that I'll be editing like a mad man for the next few months. Then on to sound design and scoring. A few tweaks after that and I'll be finished.

It will most likely take me at least 6 months on a very low budget.
I just plan on feeding the crew, paying for gear, etc....

MAH
 
The problem is it takes a lot more time to write a decent feature length story that is filmable because you are constantly stepping back and asking how difficult is this to film as an independent filmmaker on a micro budget?

Independent filmmakers often set out with a number of shoot days in mind, a number of locations to not exceed and even a number of cast members not to exceed and they start writing with the budget in mind as well and hit all these walls. It's harder to let the story flow, so the writing process can take longer than expected, you may even switch stories a few times.

Plus with filming you have to ask yourself how many pages you plan on clearing in a day. If it's a 90 page script and you want to film it in 7 days, that's around 13 pages a day. If you've ever done a short that had around that many pages it kind of puts it into perspective. Some people spend a lot longer than 1 day to do a 13 page short, some can do it in a day. Obviously it depends on what it is you are filming as well.

There are a lot of pitfalls but you learn them as you go.

Wish you the best Ryan. :D
 
Not telling you all anything you probably already know, but besides great pre-production, the key to a no-budget is minimum number of lead roles (2-3) and minimum number of locations (2-3). "How to Rob a Bank" is a good example. I'm just finishing shooting (for another writer/director) a no-budget that's taken over 8 months to wrap, primarily because it has over 30 speaking roles and over 40 locations. Because of that, we've gone through 3 cycles of crew members and barely kept our lead actors. It'll be a great movie, but there were days that nearly became disasters because it took so long to complete... when no one is getting paid. Key is too respect everyone's time with great pre-planning.
 
FrankC said:
Not telling you all anything you probably already know, but besides great pre-production, the key to a no-budget is minimum number of lead roles (2-3) and minimum number of locations (2-3). "How to Rob a Bank" is a good example. I'm just finishing shooting (for another writer/director) a no-budget that's taken over 8 months to wrap, primarily because it has over 30 speaking roles and over 40 locations. Because of that, we've gone through 3 cycles of crew members and barely kept our lead actors. It'll be a great movie, but there were days that nearly became disasters because it took so long to complete... when no one is getting paid. Key is too respect everyone's time with great pre-planning.
Click to expand...

Good advice, but even then sometimes things can fall through. My actors at times while dedicated, couldn't make it for reasons such as family emergency, car accident, etc. Crews are much harder to stay dedicated because for many of them, they can get "paid" work in their respected fields, many actors can't. But both things need to be respected as Frank said, but sometimes a million hours of pre-planning will not save you.

What I've learned and what's my new theory is that "When everything goes wrong and the S**t is hitting the fan, that's when great Directors are made."
 
FrankC said:
...a no-budget that's taken over 8 months to wrap, primarily because it has over 30 speaking roles and over 40 locations. Because of that, we've gone through 3 cycles of crew members and barely kept our lead actors...
Click to expand...

This is a tough situation. I'm trying to help someone finish a feature now that has gone through a couple cycles of crew as well. The cast is pretty intact but even there are some issues with some of the supporting players.

Definitely a challenge to get it complete.

Good advice in terms of what to consider before getting a micro-budget feature rolling.

-M
 
jls4 said:
What I've learned and what's my new theory is that "When everything goes wrong and the S**t is hitting the fan, that's when great Directors are made."
Click to expand...

Well, I'd not necessarily pass them an award for greatness if they're able to come out of those situations. I'll give them credit for their "will" and dedication, etc. (all good stuff) However, it doesn't necessarily mean they're any greater than someone who didn't face the same challenges.

In the indie world there are plenty of us Rocky Balboa types...doesn't mean we'll all beat Apollo Creed for the title...but we can all say that we didn't quit (of course just those of us who actually "didn't" quit and blame flaky actors, selfish crew, etc.).

I totally respect your methods and approach as I share a lot of the same views but being strong-minded (or stubborn) warriors doesn't mean we'll be "great", but it will give us a chance to be.

-M
 
Martay said:
In the indie world there are plenty of us Rocky Balboa types...doesn't mean we'll all beat Apollo Creed for the title...but we can all say that we didn't quit (of course just those of us who actually "didn't" quit and blame flaky actors, selfish crew, etc.).

I totally respect your methods and approach as I share a lot of the same views but being strong-minded (or stubborn) warriors doesn't mean we'll be "great", but it will give us a chance to be.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the concept stems around making a great or at least good product. That to me is a given. So yes, pushing like a bull through the mud, yet only creating a bad movie is not going to do any good. The question is, when everything is going wrong - can you still push out a good movie.

When Steven Speilburg directed Jaws, the crew nicknamed the movie "flaws" because of all of the problems they had. Yet Steven pulled it out and made one of the first "real" blockbusters in history. Robert Townsend of Five Heartbeats Fame talked about how he ran out of money in the middle of the shoot, but needed a transitional scene - so he used a regular still camera to make a montage of images - which looked when viewed deliberate and artistic. Robert Rodriguez when plagued with only a small amount of money for 16mm film, decided to only shoot one take of everything, but move the camera, so that it seemed as though he was working for days, on things that actually took him minutes.

My point is a director that falls apart when bad things happen, isn't a good director at all. A director must be level headed and have understanding of how to reshape the film inorder to make it work. On a set, even multimillion dollar sets, things will go wrong. So a director can't start running around like a chicken with his head cut off. Being a good director is more than understanding the technical, it's more than working with actors, its more than having a vision for a project - it's fully embodying the creation of the actual "life" of the project.
 
FrankC said:
Not telling you all anything you probably already know, but besides great pre-production, the key to a no-budget is minimum number of lead roles (2-3) and minimum number of locations (2-3). "How to Rob a Bank" is a good example.
Click to expand...

Considering that I use my old College a lot this does wonders for budget. A few apartments and the school normally is about all it takes. The school is an old building so it looks really good. Plus because of construction the place looks different and some areas which means completely different locations. :) Several major locations are indeed there. Plus the large classrooms can become great greenscreen rooms.

The beauty of having a lot of money is thing like travel become simple. And when you pay money actors are more likely to take some days off to shoot your piece. We were shooting on Thursdays and Saturdays and some Wednesdays.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
JLS:
Being a good director is more than understanding the technical, it's more than working with actors, its more than having a vision for a project - it's fully embodying the creation of the actual "life" of the project.
Click to expand...
That's a good way to put it, but I like the following better: LOL
JLS4:
pushing like a bull through the mud
Click to expand...

I'm going to take my movies to the International markets myself. All this is a lot of work to just recover the budget....
 
BTW... I love this thread. One might not want to confuse "pushing like a bull" with the better quality of Persistance. That is Spielberg's great character point... he is laser focused... He will find a way. He may do it softly, not like a bull. He will do it cleverly, creatively... That's a great director.
 
Don't forget that a lot of the moments in JAWS was created in the editing room with Verna Fields - herself a longtime accomplished editor working with the footage that was shot (Jaws was her last feature film as she passed away at the age of 62, seven years later). It was her approach to minimize the amount of time the shark was seen - one reason was because the shark looked fake in much of the footage - and secondly, the fact that the fear factor went up as she left the moments up the imagination.

You often see studios pairing promising young directors with established editors because of what they can bring to the story with so many years of experience. One of the best quotes I heard recently from a super talented editor friend of mine who cuts spots in NY was this impossible turn around time on a large national ad campaign to which the the client was blown away - and the client asked: "how long did it take you to put that together?" To which my friend replied: "25 years." Meaning that it took every bit of his talent and knowledge from all his years of editing to make the spot the best it could be.

And once a director finds an editor(s) to which there is synergy, it is like a good marriage - they stick with them for all their films - Martin Scorsese, Clint Eastwood, Alexander Payne, Ron Howard, etc. etc.

Michael
 
Cool thread, questions...

1) On Maverick's site, they have the submission form for distribution inquiries, I'm wondering what's the average turn around time one would hear back from them (whether it's good news or bad) once you send the info and dvd to them.

2) A year or so ago, my friend basically gave his movie to York Entertainment. The release date came and we rushed to the video store first thing in the morning to check it out and celebrate. (yes, we're corny) To our surprise the movie never got put in video stores, and to this day is only available for sale on Amazon and other websites online.

Since this has happened, I've heard quite a few horror stories about York and the way they do things, most of which have backed up in this thread. Last I heard, York had only sold a little over 1,000 copies of his movie. Is a deal like that even worth it? To me, it sure didn't seem like it. But maybe there's a bigger picture I'm not seeing... On the other hand, the movie was pretty horrible.

3) I've heard that when asked about your budget, you can and should inflate it so you don't get low balled. My question is, since the people in the distribution department are hopefully somewhat savy when it comes to being able to know what goes into a movie, aren't they going to be able to get a general idea just from watching the movie? I mean like if I make a movie for $10,000 and I tell them I made it for 30,000 in hopes of getting a better offer, won't they just be like "Dude, we watched the movie, who are you trying to fool?"

4) So places like York and Maverick have the "Submit your film today" link on their websites. That's cool but I'm wondering how hard is it to actually get some of the other companies to actually sit down and watch your movie, or even to accept your movie and not just throw it in the trash when it arrives in the mail. (AnchorBay, Lionsgate, Warner Bros, Sony, etc...)

5) How much does it help your distribution chances if you get accepted or win festivals? NOT the big fests, but minor ones.
 
drunknbear said:
Since this has happened, I've heard quite a few horror stories about York and the way they do things, most of which have backed up in this thread. Last I heard, York had only sold a little over 1,000 copies of his movie. Is a deal like that even worth it? To me, it sure didn't seem like it. But maybe there's a bigger picture I'm not seeing... On the other hand, the movie was pretty horrible.
Click to expand...

Blockbuster normally carries the York films with names attached. You may end up in places like Walgreens and such (my first film did). Netflix will probably pick it up too just to have a few copies. Also, did your friend give them an M&E track for the foreign markets?

And in all honesty you may never really know how many copies of the film actually sales. Do some research on how some of these companies mask their finances.

-Nate
 
taormina said:
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.
Click to expand...


I shot a large scale zombie horror film for $6,000 using 520 extras, starring Jim Krut the Helicopter ZOmbie from the original DAWN of the DEAD, Blocked roads, used a real SWAT team, a biotech company, and police cars. Set the whole thing about being people being trapped inside a 10 theater movie cineplex the night the dead come back to life.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=158035

Not hard to shoot under 10K films. My first film was 10K, almost 11K, this one I did on for half the cost of the first one. It justtakes a lot of planning an patience.
 
DJFunk,

Did you start WetandWildRadio Films the Distribution company? It seems through the imdb and everything else I found that your dist company and prod company are connected. Can you give us some insight on the dist process you went through and any other ideas. Feel free to elaborate and talk WAY too much. I like to read long paragraphs full of info.
 
Budget meaningless in distributors eyes

Budget meaningless in distributors eyes

Ryan put it well. :thumbup: You can't put an accurate price tag on a real independent film budget. Too many variables, especially in post production costs. I know other filmmakers myself included that have over paid in post and it did not add to production value in any way. I've also found a great editor that was hungry and worked for a fraction of the cost adding a lot to production value.

At this level of filmmaking a distributor that caters to indie films honestly does not care about what you spent on your movie. They have a place to put in a budget # when you submit your movie, but it won't influence them. What determines how good of a deal you get is what names if any you have, if it's entertaining, if they can sell it, and it fits a niche they need to fill at that point in time. I sold my first movie because a distributor needed a urban crime drama. I had sent a screener a week before AFM. They did not contact me offering a deal until AFM. That tells me they showed to their potential buyers before committing. Right place, right time.

I don't like to play games. When asked over the phone after a deal was done how big was the budget. I told them the true budget. They thought I made it for about 100K more than I spent. My advance didn't go down because I told them the real budget. What they want to see is what's on the screen. A name actor(s), quality sound/picture, and a entertaining movie.

A producer's rep is good to have. I work with one, but he is clear that he can only do so much. At the end of the day it comes down to how marketable a movie is.
 
DjfunkmasterG said:
I shot a large scale zombie horror film for $6,000 using 520 extras, starring Jim Krut the Helicopter ZOmbie from the original DAWN of the DEAD, Blocked roads, used a real SWAT team, a biotech company, and police cars. Set the whole thing about being people being trapped inside a 10 theater movie cineplex the night the dead come back to life.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=158035

Not hard to shoot under 10K films. My first film was 10K, almost 11K, this one I did on for half the cost of the first one. It justtakes a lot of planning an patience.
Click to expand...
DJ Funkmaster G...a toast to you for pulling that off man. I am going to check out your movie Deadlands for sure. 520 extras is cool. How did you feed them all? You made what sounds like a kick ass flick for $6,000.

Production insurance before cameras rolled for my last movie cost $2000 alone, that's a 3rd of your entire budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top