Anyone Here do business with Maverick Entertainment?

[lawriejaffa]

You assume that it's all or nothing and I don't know why.

Um I don't actually - you really must stop erecting straw man versions of what i say hehe - im actually talking in shades of grey - im not making wild black or white assertions.

However, to live subsistantly on meagre profits, paying virtually nobody and having to pump out 3 micros a year - all genre exploitation to make ends meet is just a bit silly isn't it Nate

That is what i think - im not telling anyone how to make their movie, but im taking that silly idea to town.

You just need better time management.

Yah thats whats i was thinking hehe I get the rodriguez angle Nate - I understand where your coming from, just that this idealistic method of micro budget production was done due to the man's circumstantial poverty. Never as a plan of production based on repeating the process with anticipated revenues. Thats the kicker - thats the point.

I've made plenty of ambitious productions on miniscule budgets, but the boast is always on the end quality never to boast how much it cost. If anything i always think its insanity to do this - why devalue your product - only very very few films have ever been effectively marketed this way - another point altogether but still.

I'm also sure your a very good teacher (so long its not business!) and i do check your films thread with the others - looking forward to it.

 

[jls4]

Sure you can shoot a film for $5000.. but 99% of the time it won't be anything I would spend my time watching... and I think that speaks for most people..

...

Nathyn you use your film 'Wages of Sin' as an example of what can be accomplished on a micro budget... when I watch it all I see is what isn't there... what could have been with more money.. and that is what a lot of these 5K features end up like... they could have been so much more.

I really do think making a $5k feature is waste of just about everyone's time. You can spend that $5k on making a really nice short film. Something that you can be proud of, and not cringe when you watch it and realize you didn't have enough money. Also these films tend to have really awful scripts to begin with.. so they start out being terrible from the start.

And short films can be used to get you the money you need to make something bigger.

depends on who's shooting it. there's more up and coming and/or bad filmmakers out there than there are good ones.

i dont agree with the $5k feature method either, but i also don't believe you should sit on your ass waiting for someone to give an unproven filmmaker thousands and thousands of dollars when you probably won't be able to give them any return on their investment (and when i say 'you" i'm not talking about "you" literally - just to be clear)

i have a friend who's a filmmaker, hasn't really done much, and has spent the past 3 years looking for investors....while other people are actually creating a product whether it be good or bad.

Loki,

Everything is based on filmmaker not on direct capitol. While I agree with you and Mickey when it comes to $5K, to me the lowest should be more like $15K. But when I say that number, I'm referencing the fact that I'll be spending at least 50% of it on equipment, if not 90%. But again it goes back to the filmmaker.

Personally, I'm skilled enough to perform all lighting tasks, all grip tasks, and even almost all audio tasks for any movie under $1 mill. I'd be more than confident. That being said, if say Loki you asked me to come and work for you, my personal worth on your set would be $300 to $500 a day x approx 30 days = $9,000 to $15,000 just for me to be on set and make sure your lighting and audio are top notch. If I were to bring my equipment, I'd rent it to you for maybe $4K for one month, adding to the balance.

Now if I worked for free/deferred pay and let you use my equipment for no charge then you'd have saved $13K to $19K right off the mark. But the challenge is to convince people to do this when you don't have much going for you. I mean why would I work for you OR Nate OR Lawrie OR Mickey? What's in it for me? And that's the challenge. "Voices" is worth way more than the money I put into it directly, and that's what I think Nate is saying.

However I do agree that time should be taken to learn and to get better. If we watch a scene from Nate's next project and it "looks" and "sounds" like the average scene from "Wages of Sin" then he's going around in circles. I personally can watch almost anything, but I've noticed my own family can't. They couldn't muster through my first feature, but they made it through my second. So I agree with the quality issue, but I disagree with the whole - you'll get money just do a good short. "Pop Films" of Atlanta is one of the best production companies we have ("The Last Goodbye", "The Signal") they spent a year trying to find money for "The last Goodbye" although they had great shorts. (Only though luck did they find a million to shoot, they started planning for $20K) Spike Lee talked about how hard it was to find money after he made his "perfect short" because investors kept telling him "it wasn't a feature". And I've personally seen so many bad "first directors" that if I was a multi-millionaire and you came to me with a short and asked me for money for your first feature, I'd probably turn you down. Shorts and Features are different - like Short Stories and Novels - like College and Pro Football.

I also agree with Mickey in the fact that less than 5% of filmmakers are good anyway. So whether you're looking at Hollywood or your back yard, 95% of the movies you watch aren't going to be good. Hollywood has more checks and balances to "fix" many of the problems before they get to the screen, but the fact that Cable Networks will show movies from 20 years ago, even though Hollywood makes over 150 movies a year (150 x 20 = 3000) proves that very few of them, people want to see again, i.e. are any good to rewatch.

 

[Chris Santucci]

I've made plenty of ambitious productions on miniscule budgets, but the boast is always on the end quality never to boast how much it cost.

That's what I'M saying. Someone, please point out an ultra-low budget film (under $5K) that made money or even was any good. I'd really like to see such a thing. I was once signed on to shoot a no budget feature that the filmmaker was sure was going to be a hit, but as soon as I realized it was going to suck, I backed out. He went on to get a distribution deal with Lion's Gate but the film is in the bottom 100 on IMDb, and I'm sure he only got a service deal with Lion's Gate and saw zero dollars anyway.

He thought he had a selling point in the fact that he'd make a film with an almost non-existent budget.

It didn't help. Nobody cares, and in almost all cases all a viewer sees is a crappy looking film, NOT the supposed ingenuity of a resourceful filmmaker (which they don't care about anyway).

.

 

[lawriejaffa]

Yep i think boasting and utilising how low budget ones film was is a disservice to the effort people put in - especially volanteers - whose donation of time certainly isn't worthless.

Neither does the assertion put your audience in a positive frame of mind - at worst it makes the directors appear like smug amatuers.

 

[jls4]

He thought he had a selling point in the fact that he'd make a film with an almost non-existent budget.

It didn't help. Nobody cares, and in almost all cases all a viewer sees is a crappy looking film, NOT the supposed ingenuity of a resourceful filmmaker.

Yep i think boasting and utilising how low budget ones film was is a disservice to the effort people put in - especially volanteers - whose donation of time certainly isn't worthless.

Neither does the assertion put your audience in a positive frame of mind - at worst it makes the directors appear like smug amatuers.

What I've learned is that mentioning a "true budget" may not be a good idea, no matter what the budget is, but especially if the budget is under $1 million. Because of the attitude of most people in the industry, they don't wrap in all of the "freebees". So a movie made for $5K could really mean - $50K or even $500K. But as one is trying to recruit people to the project or even selling the proejct, it may work better not to mention the "out of pocket cash" because truly it is irrelavent.

During Production: Trying to add an actor or crew member that you've already negotiated a price - do they really need to know who your paying and what you are paying them?

During Distribution: Your goal is the most money possible, not all distributors are going to give you a price based on the "out of pocket" cost of your movie. So you could possibly sell a $150K movie for $1 million or a $1 million movie for $150K. The distributor only cares about how much money they think they will recieve from the movie, not really how much you put into it. Places like Mav ask those questions so they can low-ball a price.

I've decided to weigh the approx amount of worth to what I "say" a project costs. As soon as I attach myself to a project - it's automatically worth over $50K because of all the things I know how to do. By the time I add equipment and the other crew members of my team, we're already to $140K. If I had a budget would this not be the out-of-pocket cost? Why degrade yourself? On DVXuser we're just trying to help each other with values, but in the real world, why mention it?

It makes since to use this formula when you;ve experienced (like I have) movies that cost way above $700K that look as though they cost less than $150K. It's not about the direct price, but the knowledge of the individuals getting paid.

 

[lawriejaffa]

Yep well its the old distinction isn't it between what we would refer to as the Production Budget and the 'Production Value'

If someone offers you a bar of gold for nothing its not worthless just because you got it for free.

 

[filmman]

I know where you're coming from, JLS.

distributors ask:

1) Who's in it?

If you don't have name talent, you will have to talk about how good the movie is.

If you have name talent, you mention it. And then the distributor will ask the second question.

2) what's the budget?

If you have name talent, you should quote double what you expect to be advanced.

If you don't have name talent, you should say quote triple the amount of money you actually spent.

If an investor is interested in investing in your movie or if you're approaching friends and family, you should say who you're interested in getting into your movie.

If you're an indie filmmaker, you won't be able to get past the agents and get a bankable star. There are no exceptions to this rule. But you may be able to get an actor who will inspire an investor to invest in your movie.

If you have such an actor, and I'm talking about B-names, then you can say your budget is $500,000. If you can find a distributor who will guarantee the budget, then you can proceed with the production.

If you don't want to wait to make the movie (for whatever reason), then raise just enough money to get the film in the can. This is the most dangerous way to make a movie, but it's feasible. It's dangerous because you have to allow for marketing funds in order to sell any movie.

There are many exceptions to this, especially if you can do grass roots marketing like Darryl. Marketing is key for indie films.

 

[Loki]

Loki,

Everything is based on filmmaker not on direct capitol. While I agree with you and Mickey when it comes to $5K, to me the lowest should be more like $15K. But when I say that number, I'm referencing the fact that I'll be spending at least 50% of it on equipment, if not 90%. But again it goes back to the filmmaker.

Personally, I'm skilled enough to perform all lighting tasks, all grip tasks, and even almost all audio tasks for any movie under $1 mill. I'd be more than confident. That being said, if say Loki you asked me to come and work for you, my personal worth on your set would be $300 to $500 a day x approx 30 days = $9,000 to $15,000 just for me to be on set and make sure your lighting and audio are top notch. If I were to bring my equipment, I'd rent it to you for maybe $4K for one month, adding to the balance.

Now if I worked for free/deferred pay and let you use my equipment for no charge then you'd have saved $13K to $19K right off the mark. But the challenge is to convince people to do this when you don't have much going for you. I mean why would I work for you OR Nate OR Lawrie OR Mickey? What's in it for me? And that's the challenge. "Voices" is worth way more than the money I put into it directly, and that's what I think Nate is saying.

However I do agree that time should be taken to learn and to get better. If we watch a scene from Nate's next project and it "looks" and "sounds" like the average scene from "Wages of Sin" then he's going around in circles. I personally can watch almost anything, but I've noticed my own family can't. They couldn't muster through my first feature, but they made it through my second. So I agree with the quality issue, but I disagree with the whole - you'll get money just do a good short. "Pop Films" of Atlanta is one of the best production companies we have ("The Last Goodbye", "The Signal") they spent a year trying to find money for "The last Goodbye" although they had great shorts. (Only though luck did they find a million to shoot, they started planning for $20K) Spike Lee talked about how hard it was to find money after he made his "perfect short" because investors kept telling him "it wasn't a feature". And I've personally seen so many bad "first directors" that if I was a multi-millionaire and you came to me with a short and asked me for money for your first feature, I'd probably turn you down. Shorts and Features are different - like Short Stories and Novels - like College and Pro Football.

I also agree with Mickey in the fact that less than 5% of filmmakers are good anyway. So whether you're looking at Hollywood or your back yard, 95% of the movies you watch aren't going to be good. Hollywood has more checks and balances to "fix" many of the problems before they get to the screen, but the fact that Cable Networks will show movies from 20 years ago, even though Hollywood makes over 150 movies a year (150 x 20 = 3000) proves that very few of them, people want to see again, i.e. are any good to rewatch.

I agree with a lot of what you said. I don't expect everyone thats made a great short to suddenly have money bestowed upon them. But in reality, if someone had made a great short film, versus the other dude that made a POS feature film.. and both were competing for investors.. who would come across as more of a pro?

My point is, the odds are so stacked against you for making a good feature film with no money, that you might as well use that money to make a great short film, cause in the end you'll have something that will represent your talent far better.

There are people that will take the chance and just go do it.. more power to em.. but 99% of them fail to make anything worth watching.. and the ones that do.. well.. they were probably going to succeed no matter what they did.

Then again.. the old saying 'Do what makes you happy' comes to mind.

 

[Nathyn]

But in reality, if someone had made a great short film, versus the other dude that made a POS feature film.. and both were competing for investors.. who would come across as more of a pro?

The guy who made the most money.

-Nate

 

[Loki]

The guy who made the most money.

-Nate

That makes no sense for what I said...

 

[Nathyn]

If your movie has made money (is profitable) people will pay attention to that. Investors want returns so they pay attention to what has earned money back. If you're film is a piece of crap but has made money, people are more likely to through money at you than a person with even an awesome short. How do you think "Disaster Movie" got made.

-Nate

 

[lawriejaffa]

Oh its a bit more subjective than that - i have attended meetings with investors for documentary films (from local government, organisations and private businesses) and likewise i have had meetings with production companies (for speculative investment or co-production) in the feature i want to produce this year.

Now there is a kind of half truth i think to what Nathyn is referring in so much as the 'profits' of any project - though rather than profits - i would say the numbers. They want to see the numbers - and having produced a feature that profited that can certainly assuage some investor concerns.

However, if the feature film is crap it will not really have made enough profit anyway. Disaster Movie - do we know the gross takings and original budget for that film. Be it great marketing or in fact a very clever production for its intended audience - one couldnt call it crap if it made a decent profit.

However, most investors will simply be unconvinced by a rubbish feature and may doubt any credibility associated with purported profits for such a film.

A wonderful short film is something i as a producer would feel far more confident taking to prospective investors.

Let's be clear about this - there is no real security in the anticipated profit or revenue for any movie - so certainly one can pitch that their crap exploitation films will likely have a market - but thats not really true now, and those that do are produced with evil sophistication.

 

[Loki]

If your movie has made money (is profitable) people will pay attention to that. Investors want returns so they pay attention to what has earned money back. If you're film is a piece of crap but has made money, people are more likely to through money at you than a person with even an awesome short. How do you think "Disaster Movie" got made.

-Nate

Again though that isn't the point.. if you are already making money.. and using your previous work to get more money, that doesn't really fall into line with what we are discussing.. ie: getting started, and using a micro budget film to do so.

Disaster Movie got made because of marketing and pitching an idea to a studio. Didn't hurt that "Two of the writers of Scary Movie" was thrown around like it mattered.

My point was two people.. one with shi*ty feature.. the other with a great short film.. the guy with the short looks more talented. Just because you can pick up a camera and go shoot a feature doesn't mean you have any clue what to do on a real set.

Disclaimer: 'You' is general. not 'you' as in Nathyn.

 

[Nathyn]

LOL, I knew what you meant, but thanks for making sure.

-Nate

 

[jls4]

My point is, the odds are so stacked against you for making a good feature film with no money, that you might as well use that money to make a great short film, cause in the end you'll have something that will represent your talent far better.

There are people that will take the chance and just go do it.. more power to em.. but 99% of them fail to make anything worth watching.. and the ones that do.. well.. they were probably going to succeed no matter what they did.

Overall I agree with what you've said. I'm so far down the path, finishing up my 3rd feature that it's a moot point for me anyway. ;-) I do believe those that are starting out should

• Go into pre-production on a feature - a very long preproduction
• During that preproduction time, try to do at least 1, if not 2 shorts, plus work on other people's shorts to learn from them
• Work and Finish a feature
• Wait 2 months - reanalyze that feature to see if you can go for a quick sale and make your money back
• Then start the process over, with your money not with investor's money.
• Once your second movie is finished hit up investors other than close family and friends - for a chance at your third feature.

I don't think you'll get money from any "real" investor until you've not only proven yourself as a filmmaker, but also mastered many of the skills required, especially Audio, Lighting, Camera, Set / Production Design, Makeup

 

[jls4]

However, most investors will simply be unconvinced by a rubbish feature and may doubt any credibility associated with purported profits for such a film.

A wonderful short film is something i as a producer would feel far more confident taking to prospective investors.

My point was two people.. one with shi*ty feature.. the other with a great short film.. the guy with the short looks more talented. Just because you can pick up a camera and go shoot a feature doesn't mean you have any clue what to do on a real set.

I agree with both of you about someone starting out and making a great short vs a crappy feature. But then it goes back to making a "great short." I've personally seen less than maybe 30 good shorts in my small lifetime. not to be "devil's advocate" but it's true. The core of production in acting, audio, lighting, etc is the same in both a feature and a short. Shorts just have quicker turn arounds and smaller price tags.

Many of the people I've seen that can make a decent short, generally DO have the ability to make a decent feature and vice versa. However, it seems assumed that if one spends say $5K in a short that it will come out great or at least good. I personally worked on a set where the guy had $8K to shoot his short and it was worse than shorts I've seen short for $500. I saw several shorts that cost less than $1K that would make the $8K short cry tears.

My point is, that no matter short/feature the most importaint things are the filmmakers themselves. We assume that with a larger budget things like production value/qualtity will be resolved so we can focus more on the acting and the story. But a young producer with $1 mill can still pick the "wrong" crew and end up with something that looks like it cost $100K. I've seen "bad picks" with my own eyes.

So no matter feature or short, large budget or small, the buck still stops with what the filmmaker (producer/director) knows and what they are able to produce. And experience and knowledge is the key. That's why I encouage everyone to jump on out there - with knowledge of distributors like Mav. This way you can learn, but by no means do I believe one should starting talking to "real investors" until you have a "real movie" to show.

 

[Nathyn]

So no matter feature or short, large budget or small, the buck still stops with what the filmmaker (producer/director) knows and what they are able to produce. And experience and knowledge is the key. That's why I encouage everyone to jump on out there - with knowledge of distributors like Mav. This way you can learn, but by no means do I believe one should starting talking to "real investors" until you have a "real movie" to show.

This is what I've been telling people too. It's actually easier to get your name out there than one might thing if you have the right formula. You may not make money from it but you can get a fan base. Do something people want to see, that's all it takes. I've learned a lot, who will be receptive to my press releases and why, what small actors are liked overseas, how to get a film on IMDB (we're talking about that in another thread and I talk about this in my book too).

I wouldn't spend a lot of money on a first feature. The $800 I spent on my feature was worth it. I learned a ton. I went to film school but never shot anything over 5 minutes. My Tech 2 teacher liked my stuff and simply said "You need to go make a film." As a matter of fact I wrote him out of the blue one day just to catch up. He's moved to another city and is doing production work.

My third film is going to be the kick @$$ movie I want to see made. There's going to be a lot of good stuff in it. My core audience will love it and I think other will too. Then I'll move on to the next project and quicker this time. I'm not waiting around, for jack. Even if I can only spare 1k or 2k I'm making something new while the other film makes it's rounds. I have enough knowledge to know what I can and can't do on a small budget as well as how fast I would have to shoot, etc. I plan to be a lot more productive.

-Nate

 

[Loki]

Overall I agree with what you've said. I'm so far down the path, finishing up my 3rd feature that it's a moot point for me anyway. ;-) I do believe those that are starting out should

• Work on your craft in short films, music videos, commercials
• Acquire funding sources.
• Go into pre-production on a feature - a very long preproduction.
• During that preproduction time, focus on your feature.
• Shoot the film.
• Post.
• Take film to festivals or film markets in an attempt to get it purchased. Or Seek alternative routes to get distributed, failing that, self distribution or web distribution.
• Then start the process over; using somebody else's money.
• Once your second movie is finished you'll know if lightning struck twice, or if film #1 was a good indicator of your talent / success.

If you are skilled at marketing yourself and your skill, you'll have a much better chance of getting more money to keep the process going.

Fixed. rogar-Evil(DBG):

 

[DecadenceFilms]

• Work on your craft in short films, music videos, commercials
• Acquire funding sources.
• Go into pre-production on a feature - a very long preproduction.
• During that preproduction time, focus on your feature.
• Shoot the film.
• Post.
• Take film to festivals or film markets in an attempt to get it purchased. Or Seek alternative routes to get distributed, failing that, self distribution or web distribution.
• Then start the process over; using somebody else's money.
• Once your second movie is finished you'll know if lightning struck twice, or if film #1 was a good indicator of your talent / success.

Pretty good advice, although I'd also stick a point in the middle that says you should be looking to raise a bit of noise amongst distributors before the film is finished, or even before it's entered production.

Trying to sell the film AFTER it's complete may be your only option, but it should be on your mind to be stirring the point and hyping it up as an ongoing process.

One other thing that adds to the discussion; I have heard some fairly big (on a UK scale) Producers say that shorts have lost a lot of their appeal as calling cards for features, although paradoxically they are now worth more as product.

The theory going that features are so cheap to make, that it is almost expected that you can make a decent feature with just a few thousand e.g London to Brighton (£16,000). This theory is based, I suppose, on the idea that a talented filmmaker (talented enough to warrant substantial investment) should be able to demonstrate their key skills at any level of budget eg shot selection, pacing, editing, lighting, blocking, strong dialogue, eye for casting/directing actors, story etc

See also Aronofsky with Pi.

 

[Nathyn]

The theory going that features are so cheap to make, that it is almost expected that you can make a decent feature with just a few thousand e.g London to Brighton (£16,000). This theory is based, I suppose, on the idea that a talented filmmaker (talented enough to warrant substantial investment) should be able to demonstrate their key skills at any level of budget eg shot selection, pacing, editing, lighting, blocking, strong dialogue, eye for casting/directing actors, story etc

See also Aronofsky with Pi.

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

-Nate