Is making a feature rewarding?

FilmMakerr

FilmMakerr

Veteran
Does anyone know what the chances of having you're film actually bought is? I mean, if I do go through with it, its gonna be a micro budget shoot, but I would put 100% into it, and make it watchable.

Anyone have any experience with this ?
 
Well, from what i hear the chances are slim.

I would have thought you, as the film maker, would put 100% into it anyway, if not, what's the point?

I'm working on my first feature right now, because i want to make a feature, i want people to sit with the beverage of choice and watch a 90 minute piece of entertainment made by me. No one does that with a short film, you can't make a night out of a 10 minute film. lol

Of course i'm gonna try and get distrobution, but that's not why i'm making the film.

Just my opinion. :)
 
Last edited:
hehe

hehe

I make a night of a 10 minute film. It's something like drink, stall a bit, start the short, pause after 45 seconds so I can refill the drink, get distracted by a phone call, watch again for maybe 2 minutes, drink some more, fall asleep, wake back up, watch another 2 minutes, drink some more, etc. ;)

Haha, j/k

I think for me it would only be rewarding if my film turned out good, at least. It doesn't have to turn out great, like, "Wow if I do say so myself this is up there with Blade Runner and Citizen Kane," uhh no. But if I could say, "You know, that's a nice film, it's completely professional, it's entertaining, it's fun, it's very solid work," then I would be very pleased with myself. But at the same time, if all of that is true, yet I can't find a distributor, even direct-to-DVD, there's something immensely unsatisfying about that. Not because of the money, but because it doesn't feel like a real movie without real distribution, to me. But I'd be perfectly happy with straight-to-DVD and breaking even, it's not like I would expect a theatrical release and a big payday.
 
I think you can make a no-budget and sell it and get the fulfillment you desire. But it's all about what you put into it and what you expect. The likely hood that you make a movie and sell it for high dollar/euro/pound/etc amounts is slim to none. The likely hood you sell and make some money is pretty high.

The biggest thing about making movies is understanding the market and distribution systems. Albeit I don't understand everything, in fact I doubt anyone truly does. But there are ways to push yourself, if you are smart.

Most indie's fail because of a few solid points:
1. The movie isn't commercial enough
2. The movie cost too much and can't sell for a cheap enough price
3. The production quality/acting is horrible
4. The movie doesn't tell a true easy to follow story
5. The movie is just plain bad

These are the bases that you will struggle with. Generally the more hard-headed you are about not studying and not getting "good" advice, the more likely you are to fail these simple points.

Say for instance you make a movie but we can barely hear the actors. - You've failed. Say you make a super artsy movie - unless you've got major hollywood pull - you've failed. Say you make a $500K movie with no major actors or support - 99 times out of 100 you've failed. So there are lots of ways to fail, but many ways to succeed.

I'd encouage a simple comedy or horror film with 7 to 12 actors, hopefully 5 who really can act. I'd encourage you to understand audio, lighting and camera before you start shooting. And that you do a script read, several script reads before you start shooting. And maybe send your script to a few people who you know tend to hate everything. See if they at least half way like your script. At least that way you're on the right track.

just my .02
 
I've had experience at succeeding as well as failing to reach distribution (still trying to put that fail into a pass column at some point if possible).

It is about managing expectations and of course giving your all. However, you have to have more than 1 person doing this in order to increase the chances of success.

Technical competency is a must. Be sure you realize what that is too. Something good enough to entertain on Youtube for < 10 min. may not be good enough for a feature aimed at direct to DVD release. Compress online entertainment has a much lower threshold of necessary quality as a genuine DVD release. So recruiting the most competent, DP, Sound, and Lighting personnell is a must. Secondarily, set design and wardrobe & make-up should follow closely behind those elements to shore up technical proficiency. Or else, you get a project tailored to "cover" the aspects where you lack. For instance, Mockumentary (though not very marketable) or Horror in the woods (where set design takes care of itself).

Of course it must be marketable if you expect it to be released. I mean, the whole idea of a film being released is that there are folks who are wanting to "view" it and willing to pay for that service (whether rental or purchase). So, it must have some marketablility to some form of audience other than the cast & crew and their families (unless you've got a cast & crew of several thousand to justify that).

Acting and Editing need to be superior if possible...but certainly not bad or noticably amateurish. When something is marketable, it's usually professional, thus the acting and editing need to be as good as your other technical aspects, if they're better, then you're on the right track. A compelling performance will elevate material of similarly competently produced movies.

Script should be solid and shootable. A great action script will do you no good if you can't afford the stunts to do justice to the scenes, etc.

If you can do all of the above above average, then you will likely find a way to have the film released. The return may vary wildly from your expenditure as it is overwhelmingly a buyer's market in this business. So do it as cost-effeciently as possible or else spend money on "elements" that will set your film above the fray. Like KNOWN name talent, etc.

As far as if making a feature is rewarding?

Yeah, in some sense there is a sense of accomplishment whether or not the other success factors are met as long as it comes out close to what you set out to do. Sometimes even when it lives up to your expectations, it may not find a release easily.

I will say that the sense of accomplishment goes away after a while though especially if you decide to stay in the game and keep on making movies.

It should become second nature that you'll be able to get films done, and each time you should improve something about the project that lacked on the previous one. (That's straight from JLS4's book)

However, before you decide that you're solid on all of the above, like JLS says...you better ask somebody other than your friends...different and objective perspective is very valuable when undertaking something as arduous and serious as a feature film project.

Good luck,

Martin
 
If you've never made a feature film before, there are two ways to go.
Go to a good film school and get a degree in film.
Or buy a MiniDV camera from eBay for $100 and go out with a bunch of actors and shoot a movie. Make up a story as you go, taking advantage of whatever comes your way to make the movie entertaining.
When you're done editing this movie and scoring it, you will have learned how well you can make a movie. Then screen the movie and decide whether you will continue learning as you go or get some sort of formal training -- whether in school or from professionals.

Good luck.
 
I don't think any sort of formal training in film makes sense or is useful at all. It is all learned best by doing it. Even if you go learn formally, most of your learning will occur on your own, unless you somehow think that in a classroom is the best way to learn how to make a movie. That's like saying you learn martial arts by reading books about it. That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. You get good at martial arts by actually doing it. You get good at fighting by fighting, albeit in controlled situations but nonetheless. You don't read about how to kick an opponent, you just start kicking and see what works and what doesn't. It's very simple, really.

Filmmaking isn't rocket science, especially if you're a director / producer. You should just be hiring the best people you can find around you anyway, and if you have the right equipment and the right people, you're already going to have a technically professional film. So then it falls to you to make sure the acting and the story are great.

And add to jls4's list of failures -- no names in your film. You can't sell a film for much of anything without a single name. Just think about how many name actors are out there, and you don't have one of them. Why would someone watch that film? They'd really have to take a leap of faith. At least if it has SOMEONE they might recognize or have heard of, it seems more like a "real" movie to viewers.
 
The Fall 2008 issue of Filmmaker magazine has a pretty telling article from an indie distributor's point of view. Basically they say the only movies making any money (and peanuts, at that) are the >$3,000 movies, because there is just a glut of product out there. There are plenty of filmmakers willing to give away their films just for name recognition, and cites filmmakers who make $100k films to just break even, willing to live off nothing. Pretty grim stuff.

Since I'm not inclined to become some director-for-hire (thus, simply making a calling-card feature), I've been having a hard time rationalizing making a feature film now that I have the ability to do so. I find it hard to ask friends, strangers, and family to invest their hard-earned money, time, and energy on a product that (even moreso than in the past, when successful films were still the exception) will almost certainly fail to return a dividend.

Unfortunately, being paradoxically pragmatic in a field of dreams, I'm thinking my odds better at launching a career through screenwriting (again, fantastic odds), allowing others to shoulder the financial, time, and energy pitfalls while hoping for some name recognition through their (hopeful) distribution.
 
That's not too bad of an idea, honestly. In my opinion as a director, I think my odds of success in some ways would be stronger by being a great screenwriter. If I could write a few great screenplays, perhaps win some competitions, and get those things in the hands of the right people, then with my directing reel I think I could negotiate being able to direct, too. Sure, it's a longshot, but it's ALL a longshot and at least with a great script you have something, it's one way in.

I would be happy to make a $200,000 film and break even personally, that'd be excellent, because I wouldn't be doing it for the money. I just would be a bit sick if I spent $200K and lost all of it, or sold the film for $30,000. Ouch. I'd think if I could get one decent name, though, I wouldn't do worse than losing 50% of the money, which is bad but not disastrously so.
 
sounds like you are wanting percentages so I'll offer an optomistic 1% chance.

However, if you don't go for it... it's a 0 percent chance with garanteed bitterness should you grow old. Don't embark on this based on percentages so much as what you were meant to do. Sense is the last thing this has to make.
 
grinner said:
sounds like you are wanting percentages so I'll offer an optomistic 1% chance.

However, if you don't go for it... it's a 0 percent chance with garanteed bitterness should you grow old. Don't embark on this based on percentages so much as what you were meant to do. Sense is the last thing this has to make.
Click to expand...

haha, well said, I think. Sure, the odds may be only 1%, but guess what they are if you don't make a feature? A big fat NOTHING, haha. Plus when I'm 80 I don't want to say, gee, sure would have been fun to make a feature, too bad I was too much of a pansy and basically just never even tried. No, I would rather be 80 and say, yeah, I made a feature, it didn't do great, it wasn't a big success, but all be damned if I didn't do it!
 
I should probably add, the distributors throwing out the $3k number were probably being a bit facetious. But not by much.

I agree it would completely suck to be on one's death bed with regrets about not making a movie. However, when does making said movie become more of a legit business prospect (recouping investment and advancing your career) and less of one's own vanity project?

I'm not trying to short anyone's dream. These are just questions I find myself struggling with right now, like many others. Ultimately we will all have to weigh the pros and cons and proceed accordingly.
 
What about documentaries? I mean, I've seen a lot of filmmakers break through this way, documentaries seem to get more attention now a days? any experience?
 
Depends on the doc and the festival, really. They of course are easier and cheaper to make because you document, not create. In the end, it's not at all easy to tell a good story with a documentary and it's these story-telling capabilities that people purchase after a festival screening.
Bottom line is do what your are passionate about and the money will always follow.
 
shutterspeedfilms said:
I should probably add, the distributors throwing out the $3k number were probably being a bit facetious. But not by much.

I agree it would completely suck to be on one's death bed with regrets about not making a movie. However, when does making said movie become more of a legit business prospect (recouping investment and advancing your career) and less of one's own vanity project?

I'm not trying to short anyone's dream. These are just questions I find myself struggling with right now, like many others. Ultimately we will all have to weigh the pros and cons and proceed accordingly.
Click to expand...

That's true. It's very hard to decide on that one... I mean, if I had $200,000 extra lying around, do I really want to make a feature with it or would I rather save it for a rainy day? It's kind of nerve-racking that you could just throw away cash like that, never to return again, all so you can have a movie. It better be a good movie for that, I mean not something you have boxes full of DVDs in your basement and your mom has seen it, but that's about it, haha.

To me there would be little satisfaction in directing a feature unless it was somehow on the map, even if it's at the very corner in the tiniest part and it's not labeled ;) I mean if I had someone in my film, a TV star from the past, a washed up film star, anyone who is or has been a name, AND my film turns out legitimately good, enjoyable, well crafted, not perfect, not brilliant, but good entertainment and something completely professional in sound, lighting, cinematography, acting, etc., then I have to say I would be pretty pleased. Just saying I directed a feature, though, that doesn't do it for me. I've directed maybe like 10 shorts total, being generous, only 5 shorts where even the smallest effort was expended, and they all sucked hardcore. Like SUCKED. Ok, maybe a few people think the last few were "alright," but I think that's pretty generous. I would say they blew. But they were also all made for about $500, with no professionals. I'd rather say I've never directed a short, than to say I have directed one, frankly, because it's meaningless if the films blow (I'm finally doing my first pro short in 6 days now, with real SAG actors and all!).

The same is true with a feature. I know it's a VERY hard thing to do a feature, even if it turned out to suck, and I have no doubt about that, but I'm not happy with just doing something, it has to meet my standards or I don't care about it. That's why I'm still so nervous with my short. I mean yeah, I've spent maybe 200 hours planning it, writing the script, putting together every last detail, and it's going to cost me $8,000, but if it turns out crappy when all is said and done then who cares? Should I get a pat on the back for trying really hard? No, I'm sorry, it doesn't matter how hard I tried, my 200 hours were wasted and the $8,000 was flushed down the drain. The only thing that justifies that much expense of time and money is a great product. Like taking a 3 at the buzzer if you're a bench player, your team is down by 2, if you make it you are a hero, but if you miss it you're an idiot, why didn't you pass it to a better player?! haha. The ends justify the means in many cases.

I'm not scared of spending the $8,000, or having spent 200 hours on the short, that's all fine, I'm scared of spending the time and money and THEN having nothing to show for it. Same would be true for a feature. I know a lot of filmmakers really are proud they did a feature, and they talk about it like just doing a feature makes them special, like you don't have a right to comment on their feature if you've never made one, but that attitude isn't really understandable to me. I'd be embarrassed if I made such bad work. And there's no real excuse for it in my mind. "Well we didn't have enough money to rent any lighting equipment," or "Well we wanted professional actors but it just wasn't in the budget." Then you need to rethink what you're doing here, I mean seriously, save more money or find investors and shoot when you can actually produce a professional project. If your film doesn't look at least as good as a TV movie you're doing something wrong. You can certainly get that level of talent on a project for not a lot of money. If I had directed a music video that I didn't think was better than 50% of what I see on MTV, I would be ashamed to show it to anyone.
 
Some good advice on here.

I'd like to back up and expand on what others have said.

If you are looking to get some money out of it, stick to genre films. They're easily marketable and people understand them. There are not that many people who make good genre films.

One of the things I've noticed in my short time on the festival scene, is that 90% of the people trying to make films are terrible. So there's only really 10% of people that you are competing against if you can get your quality up.

This is further reduced by the fact that a lot of the very best filmmakers don't make commercial films. This is actually pleasing. They make intense dramas, or deeply philosophical films that may be great, but don't have an audience.

So really, you're down to only say 5% of filmmakers to compete against.

If you think of it like that the odds are more favourable.

The industry is hard to break into, unless you're good, but if you're good with a marketable concept, then it's very possible. That's the way I see it anyway, although my theory is yet to be proven. At the moment I'm still making shorts to improve my level to a point where I feel it's something that I would personally pay to see and not be disappointed. At that juncture I'll look for serious investment and pitch my commercial ideas.
 
It's from a couple of months ago but here is a Mike Curtis blog in line w/this thread. I think Grinner is being generous w/his 1% chance of success, but that's no reason not to do it. I mean, where's the excitement if there's very little chance of failure?:beer:


-A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top