Is there honestly any money in making indie films?

arniepix said:
Levi Strauss made money in the 1849 gold rush by making pants for miners, not by panning for gold. As a colorist who's worked on several indie features & docs, I suspect that I've made more money from my fee than most of them have made back for their owners.

If you want to make money in indie films, sell a product or service to indie film makers.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I rent cameras, trucks, lights grip, generators etc... I have made far more money doing this than on any indie project I have done myself.
 
We're talking about two completely different topics. Although offering a service is definitely a way to make money, it's still on the subject of "how do micro/nano-budgets translate into profits."

There are clearly examples of how, from Martay to Faith. It's just a matter of actually having a product that someone wants. It's simple, but perhaps not easy.
 
Arnie and PhudsonTX are correct. The folks making money off indie films are the people who get paid no matter what the film does, or even how well it comes across.

However, I assume the point of the original post was about how somebody can realistically make money making movies.

And, again, it's not unrealistic...it's just often more work than folks are willing to put into it.

Faith was willing to put TONS and TONS of work into her movie and she had a very smart strategy about marketing her movie to a particular market at first. Those Hod-Rod enthusiasts were very supportive and I imagine they have the kind of disposable income to buy movies if they're out there restoring cars from the 20s - 60s...I mean what's 19 bucks to someone who's paying thousands on their hobby already.

Azmyth mentioned genres...a lot of people have a disdain for low budget genre films...so, they put themselves behind the 8-ball (or Behind the Nine available on Netflix btw) attempting to pull off a film that doesn't have a built in audience.

I know many folks who've sold fairly bad movies and made money. They weren't trying to make bad movies but at least they made them in genres that were marketable.

So, if the question is, "Why can't I make an existential drama for 20K and get it distributed in a meaningful way (and I have been involved with films like this too)?" The answer is that these kind of films are typically star driven vehicles if they hit the mainstream and even if they're festival darlings, often those films don't get distribution. If you want to get a reality check: Download the Sundance Program from any Year and find out how many of those films you can rent. And that is SUNDANCE y'all! I've been dreaming of getting a movie to Sundance for 20 years and am no closer to that than I was back then. However, I have made movies that get released. And yes, I've made money after having been screwed out of it earlier in my career. It's not a living yet. But it can be if I can keep up the momentum.

-M
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
We're talking about two completely different topics. Although offering a service is definitely a way to make money, it's still on the subject of "how do micro/nano-budgets translate into profits."

There are clearly examples of how, from Martay to Faith. It's just a matter of actually having a product that someone wants. It's simple, but perhaps not easy.
Click to expand...

Thanks for saying it more succinctly than me.

-Martin
 
Martay thats pretty much the point I was trying to make. It may seem shallow, but I want to be "mainstream' because there's more of an audience for that. Like Faith did, you have to cater to whoever your audience is. If your goal is only to make it to Sundance, you know what crowd you have to impress. Like you said though, getting to Sundance doesn't = money maker. It just means you made it into Sundance lol. Like you stated, there's alot of "bad" movies out there being sold and making money. Its just like music, there's alot of terrible (to me anyway) music being sold every day and marketed. Its not about how good your movie is anymore, its just like anything else.. Does it catch someone's attention? Even if its negative attention (think rebecca black) People want to be entertained, and they don't really care HOW they are entertained, or how much money you spend in trying to do it. If its entertaining to them, they will spend their money on it. Remember the zombie movie that got all the press for being low budget and making it to cannes? Its on netflix now.. wonder how much money it made and how many "Regular" people have seen it.. Thats my audience, average Joes.. the ones who will be buying my stuff. Its cool to impress film folks.. but what good is that if they aren't going to invest any money into you, or your movie so the regular guys will then want to buy it?
 
OldCorpse said:
Well, what about this little movie, made for zero money, with a 5D, and it made $200,000 pure profit? And hey, it's not even one of those "hot" genres - it's a romance flick! See, the old saying about the industry, "nobody knows anything", is still true:http://m.gizmodo.com/5823692/no-budget-indie-film-has-grossed-200k-in-itunes-sales
Click to expand...

This isn't a good example. Doesn't fit the model we've been discussing. Except to the point about keeping costs down. Then every dollar is profit.

These guys have had mad press over the years since their debut in Twin Falls Idaho...they've got a following and so does the actress. Again, if you have a built in audience and can produce a feature for cheap, you will make a lot of money. I don't think anyone suggests otherwise in this thread. The point is how do you do so BEFORE you've built an audience/fanbase. Plus, let's imagine they could've done a STUDIO film in the time they took to shoot this one (for them it's not out of the question), if you look at it like that $200,000 doesn't even cover their up front deal.

I don't have a twitter account...probably should get one since I now have a phone that can help me keep it. Also, I might get 100 followers if I'm lucky. The folks in this example have many, many more followers that were able to spread the word.

-Martin
 
Last edited:
phudsontx said:
OK, and divide this by how many 5D and 7D movies were made in the last two years...?
Click to expand...

This statement implies that all of those 5D and 7D movies that were made in the last two years were as good as what The Polish Brothers did. Leaving out the facts that Martay's already posted.

That implication is very optimistic, and seems to paint a rosy picture that "all media is created equal". It isn't. And, that's the filmmaker's problem, not an issue of the business economy of selling films. If you do not have a product that an audience wants to pay for then it's not the fault of distribution, etc.
 
Okay, hold on -- I didn't even realize the $200k film was from the freakin' Polish Brothers. No wonder Stana Katic agreed to do it, for nothing. Those guys have mad skills and a great resume. This isn't a case of some newbie with a DSLR. These guys are used to $5m to $10m budgets, and working with Oscar and Emmy winners and nominees and major stars like Bruce Dern and Winona Ryder and Billy Bob Thornton and James Woods and Nick Nolte and Peter Coyote and more.

So -- yeah, start over and reboot the whole conversation. This is major established supersuccessful indie filmmakers with massive talent and the connections and abilities to make it all happen, going out and having fun seeing what they could accomplish on zero dollars.
 
That's what I was sayin' in the other thread: those weren't "no namers" that wandered onto a great script bla bla blah. These dudes are on BIG SUR right now.
 
Look, I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings or insult. I just want to tell people what to expect in the real world of independent film making. If you are just looking for positive affirmation to your posts put it on Facebook if you want the truth post it on a professional forum. If this offends please accept my sincere apologies.
 
If you do not have a product that an audience wants to pay for then it's not the fault of distribution, etc.
Click to expand...

I think you are being very one sided here. People only know of what distributers allow people to see. There are only so many films that can go through the system, and those system films are usually with talent attached because people don't take risks. That was the point I am trying to make. I think saying that all other films must be crap is a pretty sad look on an entire field.
 
Last edited:
Mattykins said:
People only know of what distributers allow people to see. There are only so many films that can go through the system, and those system films are usually with talent attached because people don't take risks. That was the point I am trying to make. I think saying that all other films must be crap is a pretty sad look on an entire field.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

As for "crap," that's not the least of the issues with the current likelihood that a low budget Indie will ever be seen by more than a few hundred people. The Indie filmmaker's success pipe dream is dead in my opinion. New distribution models have developed and continue to develop, but the numbers of filmmakers that make profit on their films is astronomically small as far as I can tell and when you factor in the amount of time spent on "getting there," I think the math shows *bagging groceries for a living* to be as profitable and far less stressful.

If anyone can point to an Indie success that had no names in it, I think it's safe to say that there were literally thousands of other Indie efforts made in the same year that were ignored.

People who watch movies don't care if you're an unrecognized genius filmmaker, as they're not going to shell out 20 or 30 bucks to see a low budget Indie on a weekend that has no names in it (or even download it for free) when they can spend the same amount of money and see Will Smith in film that cost a thousand times more. And that's where distribution starts - when saleability is determined.

I really think the goal of a good Indie should be to just get the filmmaker noticed, not make money. Getting into a top festival(s) means *success* and it gets you access to better talent, maybe money, etc., in the future. If you make money, even break even, that's a bonus in my opinion.

The main goal of any unestablished Indie filmmaker in my opinion should be to just-make-a-great-film. Period.
 
Chris Santucci said:
People who watch movies don't care if you're an unrecognized genius filmmaker, as they're not going to shell out 20 or 30 bucks to see a low budget Indie on a weekend that has no names in it (or even download it for free) when they can spend the same amount of money and see Will Smith in film that cost a thousand times more. And that's where distribution starts - when saleability is determined.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's a way this disagrees with what I've said already, I just need to find it. Otherwise, it's pretty much what I mean when I say having something an audience will pay for.
 
I can remember years ago when a little Macintosh computer and a copy of PageMaker could put someone into the Ad Agency business. "Desktop Publishers" sprung up all over the place, and for the most part you could spot a "Mac Ad" a mile off. Most of the people had no clue what they were doing, and most of them went out of business pretty quickly. Then along came the Amiga/Video Toaster combo and "Desktop Video" businesses sprung up like weeds everywhere you looked. Again -- most people had no clue, and you could usually spot a "Toaster Job" about ten seconds into the project. A ton of PageMaker and Toaster systems were sold, most buyers probably did not make any real money. It's like -- everybody has a pencil, not everybody is a writer. Eventually, natural selection did it's work, the weaker of the species died off. Now we have DSLR's....
I believe that there are too many wild cards in play right now for anyone to predict the future of whatever this new indie film movement will be called. For one thing, I believe OTT and direct-to-mobile are going to open some markets that nobody really understands. In the past, when new distribution avenues opened up, distributors just went to their vaults for content. I think the new avenues will demand a style of short-form entertainment that is not sitting on shelves anywhere.
In time, I predict that (like so many really good garage bands) most of the 'indie' shooters experimenting now will fade to black. As was posted above -- talent will not be the only factor. Business skills, connections, and just plain luck will all play a factor. This is an interesting conversation, and I'm glad it is up. I suspect, however, that indie film will go like everything else -- it will find a way, it will eventually become routine, and it will leave a lot of starving artists in its wake....
 
Oh man, I remember all that, but for me it was digital photography that turned art directors and in-house graphic designers into photographers.

And then DV that turned everyone into a filmmaker (including me).

And yeah, I'd be willing to bet there will be thousands of used DSLR's for sale in the coming few years, but also, I'm thinking that Indie "success" in terms of profit will occur on a much smaller scale than mainstream films. Make a nice little film for 5 or 10 grand, market and promote your azz off and maybe if you're lucky (and smart), double your money(?)
 
I've been both filmmaker and for 20 years president of LEO Films, an indy distribution company that released over 80 features in the U.S. Admittedly a lot of what we put out was dreadful, but it usually had some hook we could exploit in the art work to get some leverage. On occasion I'd find a little gem that I would put out despite the expectation that it wouldn't make any money. The hundreds of features that were sent in that I didn't put out fall somewhere in between. I sent them on to Gitmo for use in enhanced interrogations. There's no Blockbuster anymore, (they'd buy 10s of 1000s) no Hollywood Video, Netflix rarely buys the smaller films now, foreign has dried up for all but the name filled specific genres for prime time tv time. So where will the money come from. Not VOD yet. Redbox only has 40-50 titles in it. What's left?
 
NVentive said:
I can remember years ago when a little Macintosh computer and a copy of PageMaker could put someone into the Ad Agency business. "Desktop Publishers" sprung up all over the place, and for the most part you could spot a "Mac Ad" a mile off. Most of the people had no clue what they were doing, and most of them went out of business pretty quickly. Then along came the Amiga/Video Toaster combo and "Desktop Video" businesses sprung up like weeds everywhere you looked. Again -- most people had no clue, and you could usually spot a "Toaster Job" about ten seconds into the project. A ton of PageMaker and Toaster systems were sold, most buyers probably did not make any real money. It's like -- everybody has a pencil, not everybody is a writer. Eventually, natural selection did it's work, the weaker of the species died off. Now we have DSLR's....
I believe that there are too many wild cards in play right now for anyone to predict the future of whatever this new indie film movement will be called. For one thing, I believe OTT and direct-to-mobile are going to open some markets that nobody really understands. In the past, when new distribution avenues opened up, distributors just went to their vaults for content. I think the new avenues will demand a style of short-form entertainment that is not sitting on shelves anywhere.
In time, I predict that (like so many really good garage bands) most of the 'indie' shooters experimenting now will fade to black. As was posted above -- talent will not be the only factor. Business skills, connections, and just plain luck will all play a factor. This is an interesting conversation, and I'm glad it is up. I suspect, however, that indie film will go like everything else -- it will find a way, it will eventually become routine, and it will leave a lot of starving artists in its wake....
Click to expand...

A good point that is already showing to be true in the advertising/marketing video business. At first it was all the rage to hire anyone and everyone with a DSLR to shoot as much as possible. Now I am seeing clients returning to shooting more thought out, bigger budget projects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top