Anyone Here do business with Maverick Entertainment?

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.
Click to expand...

Yah well we're agreed there - i mean the principle of increasing and improving the quality of subsequent films does inevitably lead to that point. I mean nobody would question that :)

To be honest i think my point more specifically is that as a business plan - one can't churn out films of the same micro micro budget of say $5k and not eventually go bust. (or at least have to work another job...) That is based on the presumption that such films would fail to see 'enough' profit. Even 10k profit on each 5k film would only yield 5k gross, and taking into account the cost of time spent making it - would represent a net loss. Easily!

Another chap said something along the lines of 'my time is free because its my movie etc' - thats all very well isn't it... untill *drumroll*

BILLS!!!! Yep those nasty envelopes pop in the door!! Or even worse - when your volanteers exhausted from being used for free... move onto paid work or other paid work. The base of free talent one can have is never going to compete (90% of the time hehe) with 'chosen' paid talent. But biggest prob is that you do have to 'live' - and folk seeing you scraping a living from film profits won't keep working for free.

Think of it like this - if you were to take this idea and present it to a bank manager... or lets be fairer - a funding production company they would just go 'nooo...'

I know it - ive seen it - i've heard it.

----

Its like another chap said here hehe - that there is nothing to brag about making films on miniscule budgets - their a matter of tragic circumstance but by god because we love our art we will do it regardless - and thats fine - thats what i would do too in similar circumstances.

//

We know our micros try to offset costs - the buying of prosumer equipment, volanteers - paying as little upfront as possible. But I can tell you this from my experience - and im sure someone will pep in a little here. If you put together a decent and realistic package - its,

'easier to make money than save money'

Because often what your saving is a miserable fraction of a tiny micro budget (oh no, can we buy discount burgers instead of regular) etc...

So this gung ho jolly attiitude of 'we can do it with nothing' is fine - its good - its great even. Its vital to get a movie with no resources made!!! But its painful to see anyone dellude themselves into thinking it makes 'business' sense for a company. Its not the way to make a sustained series of products.

However, as a debut film for a director, or for the first step (leading to a higher budget film) its the tried and true method for us indies - if only because its one of the only options available... and certainly not because someone's just realised its the 'golden path' to making films...
 
Last edited:
Anyway let me contribute something a little more constructive to this debate than simple naysaying ;)

I like most of you am an indy filmmaker faced with the difficult prospect of producing a feature film - and developing either a career or in my case a company that regularly does so - and profits from doing so.

I must admit my ideas were completely different to say pumping out a genre feature for (in my currency £2500!!!)

My plan was to start a production company, compete for commercial work, invest in equipment and training best suited for the purpose of filmmaking - till such a stage where we could invest from our own company in a debut feature film.

I set it up in my last year at university (im aged 27 and returned late) - did it as a part time / hobby affair for first 6 months. We scraped together got an hvx200 and started cutting my teeth on shorts.

Then in the following year worked full time more or less, - and now i can work full time (with two part timers working in the company.) All fairly modest wages especially because we've invested in gear (HPX500, another hvx, track, jib, lights you name it - probably about 80k$ worth of gear and post production computers and stuff.)

With everything just about paid off, and with a business that gets work fairly okay - we can now invest directly in our own feature films with profits in and around the commercial work done.

Its not ideal of course but the way i played it in my head, was that if i wasnt working for my own company id have to work somewhere to pay the bills whilst developing a movie. Im sure others have totally different experiences!

We do some free lance work with companies based in Pinewood Studios (mild FX etc) and have a respectable position in the business community (we won vid company of the year where we're from.)

The downside is that during that period all i could do was scrape time to write scripts, and so im dying myself to get started on a feature. If i hadnt done all this perhaps id have made a feature already (on peanuts with just a borrowed prosumer - and maybe it would be a breakthrough hit!) But never won to gamble i wanted a company as a good fallback to help fund the next movie (and my er life) as well.

Ive spoken to companies who would quite honestly laugh at you for proposing a feature costing less than $30k. Of course we know it can be - must be - and is done! But im sure they know something our all so certain idealists don't ;)

My companies strategy is to produce innovative genre films (whose isn't) 2 - 3 features a year too, first feature starting in the Summer 2009 :)
 
lawriejaffa said:
My plan was to start a production company, compete for commercial work, invest in equipment and training best suited for the purpose of filmmaking - till such a stage where we could invest from our own company in a debut feature film.
Click to expand...

This is a good plan but you have to continue to plan. There's a way to create time for a shoot even if it's only four hours a day or after hours. And yes you still have to pay bills. I'll still be working while I'm shooting but I'll admit this is indeed the perfect job for me (teaching college in the morning). It starts at 7:45 am and goes until 9:00 am. I can start shooting at 10:00 am and go until 6:00 pm and many of my locations are around my job. (Plus I'll be using locations on the job - :)) You have to force this all to fit. Like what I talk about in my books. Write movies around locations you can easily get - it helps if they're nearby. This is a huge secret to getting it done.

-Nate
 
Yep well overall it started with my company doing just 100% promo type stuff, then onto the first corporate vids - and now we're diverting to half corporate half creative industry work for example - post effect solutions, creative/education/drama stuff for local government, organisations and so on.

Thats great cos not only is the creative industry work rewarding but its also inhouse on the job training for skill advancement - which is directly related to the kind of stories we want to tell with our features.

Anyway this business transition i intend - to eventually comprise 50 - 50 feature film/ creative industry commercial work - and depending on the success of the features will eventually comprise all our work.

Its a grim and hard business model - its not for everyone but for me i saw it as the best chance to create a sustainable business that can fund features inhouse or in liason with a minority % of investors or co producing partners.

I applaud you for what your doing Nathyn, but its not really a plan its just what every dedicated micro budget guy has to do!

Work his day job and film whatever he can around it - but massive respect to you because thats what will get your films made. Im not convinced though its the most efficient (god knows if my method is either!)

I think Taormina probably has the biggest balls here with his method ;)
 
Speaking of which we just signed our second "name" talent. Check out the Divinity thread. Also keep in mind much of the info on this thread was based around working with companies like Maverick and York. There's is a formula to it then you move up in the world unless they offer more money which they do sometimes if they're making good money from your videos.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
how much return can you expect from selling a decent film to a company like maverick? a friend of mine used to work for them and had nothing but negative things to say about the quality of movies they buy.
 
Depends on the film and whose in it. Look at it like this, I know people who've made money from York through certain circumstances but they're far and few in between. Maverick is actually more reputable and do pay.

-Nate
 
I know a woman who is pretty happy with a deal she made with Maverick a few years ago. She says that she likes how they work with her.
 
My friend made a good chunk of change on his flick, one of the first low budget "urban" films. A cop drama. It never came out until later on but I believe he got in the low six figures (if there is such a thing) when it was all over, but this was back when York and Maverick were one company which was quite some time ago. His movie was shot on film ends and all his actors were unknowns. Go figure. The effects were great. He recut it and may try to sale it again now he has the rights back.

Both companies wanted his to take over their urban divisions but he declined. York seems to be a revolving door when it comes to acquisitions, I only know one person who I've spoken too over a long span of time, after that most people seem to be in and out. Can't speak for Maverick. I know how they operate but that's about it.

-Nate
 
from what I've read. York gives more money, but you may never actually "see" any of it.
Maverick gives pennies on the dollar - enough to pay for your equipment and the cost of the movie - so you can do another one.

from my experience, I had no problems with Maverick. I did distribute with them. I read about "Chocolate City" created by Rainforest Productions ("This Christmas", "Stomp the Yard") their first film sold for only $30K not to Maverick, but to another company. They used that to launch a campaign to raise $200K that they used to shoot "Trois" which made over 1.1 Mill at the box office and the rest is history.

Maverick is just a company to use to get to the next level. Back to the 24 diary -

Stage 1 - make movie for $7K - sell for $15K to a Maverick Type Company
Stage 2 - make movie for $15 to 20K sell to Maverick Type Company for $40K
Stage 3 - go find investors and try to raise addaitonal $160K plus the $40K - you have a track record now fo two features, plus you've learned how to properly make a movie.
 
Nathyn said:
Speaking of which we just signed our second "name" talent. Check out the Divinity thread. Also keep in mind much of the info on this thread was based around working with companies like Maverick and York. There's is a formula to it then you move up in the world unless they offer more money which they do sometimes if they're making good money from your videos.

-Nate
Click to expand...

Not to doubt you Nate - really I'm trying to prove my own ignorrance. I looked in your thread and decided to post here because I didn't want to seem negative. but I've never heard or seen Joe Estevez . I looked through his list of films and the only one I'd even heard of was "I Got the Hook Up", although I've never seen it. So my question is: How big is he? Does he do lots of HBO? Is he popular on the West Coast? The Blockbusters near me do not have many of those movies, or I haven't "noticed" them.
 
I think Nat is just a little enthusiastic is all! About everything - god knows it'll help him get his feautre made. I didn't want to sound negative but i think in general the business view, ideas of 'name' and the all 'too easy' idea of how it all works highlights a few grim lessons to come muhaha.

Not that i haven't got a few on the way either - but that boundless enthusiasm is vital its what fuels us to keep on going!
 
lawriejaffa said:
I think Nat is just a little enthusiastic is all! About everything - god knows it'll help him get his feautre made. I didn't want to sound negative but i think in general the business view, ideas of 'name' and the all 'too easy' idea of how it all works highlights a few grim lessons to come muhaha.

Not that i haven't got a few on the way either - but that boundless enthusiasm is vital its what fuels us to keep on going!
Click to expand...

Mickey Munday said:
i think the term "name actor" is being used loosely here.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe. I just didn't want to be missing anything. A "name" to me is someone who, if I go and ask 100 people on the street in the demographic that the person is in, 80 to 90 of them will know who I'm talking about.

Names to me are:
Taraji P. Henson (new, but is in Benjamin Button, Hustle and Flow, and numerous Black Films)
Michelle Lynn Monaghan (MI3, Eagle Eye) Again they she's easy to miss, but she's been with some heavy hitters - I know I didn't recognize her in Eagle Eye.

But in the B-movie world maybe these people Nate is talking with are importaint, and that's what I'm trying to figure out. Many of my actors I've worked with have been involved in larger projects, my lead was just in Soul Men with Bernie Mac. But I also didn't know who "The Rock" was for a long time since I don't watch wrestling. And if someone pulled a baseball player for their film - again I would be like "who?"
 
jls4 said:
Not to doubt you Nate - really I'm trying to prove my own ignorrance. I looked in your thread and decided to post here because I didn't want to seem negative. but I've never heard or seen Joe Estevez . I looked through his list of films and the only one I'd even heard of was "I Got the Hook Up", although I've never seen it. So my question is: How big is he? Does he do lots of HBO? Is he popular on the West Coast? The Blockbusters near me do not have many of those movies, or I haven't "noticed" them.
Click to expand...

Joe Estevez is kinda like Brinke Stevens for Horror movies.

He's been in tons of movies. If you had spent a ton of time in Blockbusters or Hollywood Video about 4-5 years back and just constantly roamed the isle of all the Direct to DVD movies, he'd usually have about 3 - 4 on the new release section every month.

That said, I've probably not seen any of the films myself (or at least don't recall) which is likely why he never hit your radar.

Kudos to Nat because he is known by many folks and fans of Genre Direct to DVD.

In Crime and Action, Joe Estevez has been in many flicks.

-M
 
Martay said:
Joe Estevez is kinda like Brinke Stevens for Horror movies.

He's been in tons of movies. If you had spent a ton of time in Blockbusters or Hollywood Video about 4-5 years back and just constantly roamed the isle of all the Direct to DVD movies, he'd usually have about 3 - 4 on the new release section every month.
Click to expand...

Thanks Martin - I can always count on you! You're like a big brother I never had. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Funny thing though - I've never heard of Brinke Stevens either. Go fig. I guess I just don't watch a lot of Straight-to-DVD/HBO/Cinemax After Dark movies. Maybe I need to start. How much do some of these actors cost? What would be the benefit?

I mean we've heard Rumored through several posts that Cromwell cost Justin $18K for one day. In my experience, I've run into people with names (even asked a few people did they know the person) that cost around $1500 to $2000 a day. So if you have a budget of $30K or more for actors, why not get a couple A-list not-working much stars as cameos and fill the rest with awesome actors who may work for differed or extremely low pay.

I would assume that most people keep up with more A-listers than B-listers - why limit if the budget is approx the same.

I'm not knocking you Nate, or anyone else. I'm a super supporter. I just want to know. I've gone back and forth with this whole B-list thing since I've come out to DVXuser. My hopes are to move beyond into the A-list world so I don't really understand the marketability of the B-list especially since the emergence of so many indie films. It seems that people are favoring the indies over the b-list. but maybe I'm looking though biast eyes. Please somebody kindly and polietly put me in my place.
 
jls4 said:
Funny thing though - I've never heard of Brinke Stevens either.
Click to expand...

What!?! Why I oughta...

jls4 said:
I'm not knocking you Nate, or anyone else. I'm a super supporter. I just want to know. I've gone back and forth with this whole B-list thing since I've come out to DVXuser. My hopes are to move beyond into the A-list world so I don't really understand the marketability of the B-list especially since the emergence of so many indie films. It seems that people are favoring the indies over the b-list. but maybe I'm looking though biast eyes. Please somebody kindly and polietly put me in my place.
Click to expand...

Moving from B to A? You want that big screen appeal do you? You have to start somewhere. First think about this: in some places B films are indeed A films. In Asia the DVD is probably more popular than going to the movies. Bootlegging is huge and films get around.

Then ask what a "name" is, I'll give you and example. Anyone remotely famous is a name. Have you ever seen Maniac Cop 1,2, or 3? Neither have I. But I know of it and know for a fact it was always in heavy rotation on either Showtime or Cinemax (one of those). Robert Z'Dar played the maniac cop. He's loved by all those people who saw the film back in the day, so is Laurene Landon and Bruce Campbell goes without say from his Evil Dead films. (Don't even tell me you don't know Bruce Campbell, LOL).

I proposed a film with Z'Dar, Estevez and Landon in it. My film was rated something like 7,000 or something on IMDB so people were paying attention to it. What the name does is guide people who buy films based on names to your movie. They will ask upfront to see a copy of your film when it's done and in some cases continue to check on it. This is when a great poster comes in handy too (did anyone see Rubbersquare's poster for "Detox"? OMG it was a grabber). When I did this movie WENN immediately contacted me to hunt down certain cast members for an interview. I had also cast Julia Ling (whose on the TV show Chuck now) because I could see she was going to be huge. She's super cute and can do martial arts plus has so many different looks. But the financing fell through because we never got to even pitch it as planned. I could've done it myself but some of the cast was SAG and there was no ultra low budget agreement then. (I may try for this again in the future because everyone liked the script).

Some people think once you have a name that's all you need, but you have to still make a good film. (You don't have to but you should try). Also keep in mind your poster/DVD cover art is what sales your film many times if no one has heard of it.

jls4 said:
I would assume that most people keep up with more A-listers than B-listers - why limit if the budget is approx the same.
Click to expand...

Whose an A-lister? Van Damme? Seagal? Snipes? All A-listers right? Until "whatever" happened and now they're B-listers. Expensive B-listers but B-list still. (These actors can command millions even now). TV actors are also considered B-list. Keep in mind this is more of an American thing. Other countries just like to see a famous person. The only "real" A-listers you can't afford (or maybe you can and just aren't telling us, LOL). Whose A-List? Tom Cruise, Will Smith, The cast of "Burn After Reading" and any of Clooney's Ocean 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 buddies and any big rapper who wants to act (Emeniem, 50 Cent, etc).

Keep in mind to these films are point of purchase items. It's not about when you go to the store to buy "Hollywood's next big movie" it's about that martial arts film with that actor you'd like to see more of or that action film that simply looks like it may be good. Or maybe even the film you saw advertised on the other DVD from the same distributor. (Maverick was notorious for making DVDs that you can't skip the trailers). Think about how you shop for DVDs. I go for one thing and end up buying that Steven Segal/Wesley Snipes/JCVD movie I haven't seen "thinking maybe he'll do more martial arts in this one." A lot of stuff is sold that way. Also a great cover with a plot will sale a film too.

jls4 said:
I don't really understand the marketability of the B-list especially since the emergence of so many indie films. It seems that people are favoring the indies over the b-list. but maybe I'm looking though biast eyes. Please somebody kindly and polietly put me in my place.
Click to expand...

Indies use "The B-list" all the time. Most of these films are indies. And when it comes to marketing it's it not always about "names." Sometimes it's about audience. Black guy/chick walks into a video store and see a vampire film/horror film with a black cast, that's a sale. Hispanic guy/chick sees an action film with an all Hispanic cast, that's a sale. This of course is very general, but many people buy things this way. Don't believe it? How many copies of Vampyrz did Blockbuster really need? (Quite a few apparently) and I know the hated "Zombiez" got around. (Note the mispellings and the addition of the "z" to make it more urban, LOL). People have specific buying habits and once you can figure them out you can sale to them.

Take a look at the cast of Chicago Overcoat which just wrapped. This cast is thick with B-list "names". Stacy Keach is in this thing. This is one of my favs from the eighties he played detective "Mike Hammer". The movie will also have Dominic Capone, Al Capone's nephew (or cousin or something). He's played Al Capone for the History channel and is a name that pops up in many low budget films shot in Chicago). He's in four films slated for 2009. Armand Assante, c'mon, they love Armand Assante. Katherine Narducci who played Charmaine Bucco on the The Sopranos. Someone with IMDB Pro see what this film is rated. Robert Z'Dar is in this too (he lives here in Chicagoland somewhere). Tonee Dang (from my film "Wages of Sin") is in this too though he's not a "name" yet, I think he will be.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
This is where the confusion of the "lists" evolves.

First of all, Joe Estevez is most famous for being Martin Sheen's brother. And I suppose Emilio Estevez' uncle. That's firstly what he's most famous for. He's been in a ton of movies solely because of this fact. Any name value he might have also hinges solely on this fact.

Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are other "celebrities" who have entire careers built out of this. I used Frank Stallone - same exact thing. There is also Josh Alba who is at my agency, and William Mapother (Tom Cruise's brother) that I can think of as well.

These people are really Cs and Ds, because they never had a career in their own right - not ever.

Just so you guys know, the definition of an A list actor is this: An A list actor is a person who regularly has starring roles in studio films.

Examples: Matt McConaughey, Tom Cruise, Will Smith, Tom Hanks, George Clooney....etc.

By the same token, B list actors regularly have supporting roles in studio films.

Examples: Ed Harris, Peter Sarsgaard, Jeff Bridges, etc.

Sometimes, B listers will star in smaller films. This doesn't make them A listers. Sometimes, a bunch of A listers will make an ensemble film. This doesn't reduce their status.

Any of these people can sink down a notch due to career failings. Examples: Cuba Gooding Jr. and Val Kilmer are now B listers. Potentially C+ depending on the day. They just aren't as popular as they were, and are taking roles in tons of $3-5M indie flicks.

Here's another example. Tom Sizemore, by this metric, is really a C lister. There was a time when he did star inhis own studio pics. He even had many, many supporting roles in studio pics. Then he fell out of favor because of his lifestyle and sank further down.

By the same metric, Joe Estevez is like a D minus since he was never at the A or B list level.

Where does that leave TV Stars????? Really nowhere. Only the biggest TV stars even make a blip on the distribution radar. There are a few who have done features as well (Lawrence Fishburne is now on CSI, Hugh Laurie on House MD) that are pretty well known. The rest are crap names for any kind of distribution.

Think of making a TV person the star of a studio feature film. It never happens. When it does, they are usually failures. Avoid TV at all costs, unless it's minor supporting roles.

Honestly, some of the minor names I hear are in smaller films aren't even "listers" at all. They are more like celebrities.

I can tell you that on Corrado, most of the smaller actors who had many, many roles in their careers, and ALL of my TV people were given short shrift from distributors.
 
Last edited:
jls4 said:
I mean we've heard Rumored through several posts that Cromwell cost Justin $18K for one day. In my experience, I've run into people with names (even asked a few people did they know the person) that cost around $1500 to $2000 a day. So if you have a budget of $30K or more for actors, why not get a couple A-list not-working much stars as cameos and fill the rest with awesome actors who may work for differed or extremely low pay.
Cromwell didn't cost that much to my knowledge. I'd say half of that. You can't afford a couple A list whatevers for 30K even for one day.

A and B listers who find themselves out of work will not risk their careers on ultra micro mini budget stuff for fear of sinking lower.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top