Successful films under $5 million?

Lance Weiler's The Last Broadcast, made for $900 bucks in 1998 and has since grossed millions.
 
Last edited:
Well here's the thing. Acquisitions are down this year at festivals. Most of the time they are seeing less than 2 million on the acquisition. Don't know about the back end of those deals. I would imagine there would be a point split on the adjusted gross revenue.

Depends on what you want to do though. If you want to self-distribute...online marketing might not cost too much money. Most likely a 5 - 10 k for targeted adverts on multiple websites. Taking out magazine ads and whatnot. Hiring people to manage the myspace, the twitter, the facebook.

Printing one-sheets and holding screenings can get costly. Studios spend millions on advertising and marketing.

2 Mil is a good number to get a decent B-list cast on board and a great crew. ((Spend disproportionately on the DoP and Production Designer))

Basically the below 2mil mark has to do with your ROI. Anything higher than that, it gets riskier to get anything back. And what you do get back will go to funders.

I'm in development right now for a feature with a projected budget of 1.5 - 1.9 mil. I probably could make it with 750,000 - 1mil if I really tried.

PS. The first SAW was made on a 1mil budget.

Always save money for the post end of things. You can easily spend 500,000 on post alone, then keep money for marketing.


Mickey Munday said:
you know i read that somewhere before, maybe it was here, but why is that? or what's the reasoning of staying under the $2 million dollar mark for an indie?

let's say i had a budget of $2 million right now. should my film be that much with marketing included also? or just $2 million for production at the most?
Click to expand...
 
I think advertising and promotion is probably the most important thing about a budget, second to having "name" actors, of course. If you can create a media machine around your movie, you can literally hypnotize people into renting what you make.

Obviously Director, DP, scriptwriter, etc are the most important thing about having a good product, but I believe they should be invested in the flick just like you (the producer). They should work on the cheap on the front end and earn their points (like a commissioned employee) on the back end.

The promotion and the star power are what make for a good investment. Don't look to Kevin Smith or Tarantino for indie inspiration. Listen for a moment how Smith even got into the public eye -- he had TWO screenings at a crap theatre (the only two screenings Clerks was going to have), and no one showed up except for one guy who just so happened to be in a position to get the film into the right hands. Without that one guy deciding to go to that one theatre on THAT DAY, no one would ever know about Kevin Smith, and even he admits that.

Get all the money you can get, dump it into name actors and promotion. That's business -- creating your own luck.
 
You know, I was thinking with HD projectors at a quality level closer to film, why doesn't somebody start a chain of small 50 seat theaters with video projectors that screen independent films without distribution? Charge 2-3 bucks a ticket to make it worthwhile for people to be adventurous. Leverage the web, and things like Twitter for marketing. The theaters could be wired to the net so films can be downloaded at little cost. Maybe even skip the popcorn and allow people to bring their own food to keep operating costs low. Am I crazy, or is this a good idea? It seems like there are so many digital features these days it would provide a public forum for films that wouldn't otherwise see a theater. And filmmakers could interface directly with the theater for profit rather than going through a middle man. The few arthouse theatres left these days are multiplexes that cater to films with traditional distribution.
 
Mattykins said:
Well here's the thing. Acquisitions are down this year at festivals. Most of the time they are seeing less than 2 million on the acquisition. Don't know about the back end of those deals. I would imagine there would be a point split on the adjusted gross revenue.

Depends on what you want to do though. If you want to self-distribute...online marketing might not cost too much money. Most likely a 5 - 10 k for targeted adverts on multiple websites. Taking out magazine ads and whatnot. Hiring people to manage the myspace, the twitter, the facebook.

Printing one-sheets and holding screenings can get costly. Studios spend millions on advertising and marketing.

2 Mil is a good number to get a decent B-list cast on board and a great crew. ((Spend disproportionately on the DoP and Production Designer))

Basically the below 2mil mark has to do with your ROI. Anything higher than that, it gets riskier to get anything back. And what you do get back will go to funders.

I'm in development right now for a feature with a projected budget of 1.5 - 1.9 mil. I probably could make it with 750,000 - 1mil if I really tried.

PS. The first SAW was made on a 1mil budget.

Always save money for the post end of things. You can easily spend 500,000 on post alone, then keep money for marketing.
Click to expand...

mattykins does your $1.5-$1.9 budget for the film your in development with include marketing and promotions? or is that straight production budget?
 
i made a 20 minute movie once, and i had $0 invested, as all the equipment was borrowed, and it was filmed between breakfast and lunch, so i didn't have to feed anyone. simple vhs ---> vhs transfer for post, and i delivered that day. since it's 1993 opening, it has grossed about 9 bucks. not bad for a kid from New Jersey.
 
yea but everybody's not balling like you skinny! i'm trying to be realistic here dude. your budget is way to high to obtain in todays economy.
 
well to add to your point, noone has ever in my life asked me for financial advice. i used to wonder why, but i don't anymore. continue the thread, as i tend to inject humor at the worst time. i'll refrain.
 
As for recent movie shot for 5 million or less:

I'm sure there are much more,
but I know that "Winter's Bone" had a budget of about $2 million or so.

That was very successful, what with the Best picture / Screenplay + Actor oscar nominations and Sundance Win, etc.


Also much cheaper was "Another Earth", though I wasn't a big fan after seeing it, it was successful I'd say.

And there's a current movie out "Pariah", I dont know much about but remember reading in a filmmaker magazine that it was only 1 million-ish budget.
 
Margin Call was around $3 million and came out in 2011. Not sure how they managed with that incredible cast: Kevin Spacey, Demi Moore, Paul Bettany, Stanley Tucci, Zachary Quinto, Jeremy Irons... I know it wasn't a huge hit, but it's surely made it's budget back by now--plus, it was a great movie and from a first time writer/director.
 
Garden State was shot for 2.5 million and made 36 million box office. A lot of that has to do with Zach Braff being writer/director/actor/producer. He apparently went on a big marketing road trip that lead to a huge amount of word-of-mouth publicity. So not an overnight success story, but still well done.
 
I think you'd have to define what successful really means...is it successful for the director, or cinematographer? or is it a sucky movie, but made a lot of money? A great movie made in 1992 was The Laws of Gravity by Nick Gomez...its nothing fancy, just a gritty tale of a few guys growing up in Brooklyn, who devise a plan to make a few bucks running some guns. It was made for under $40,000 in 12 days. Now take a look at the Italian film Gomorrah (one of my favorites). This was made for just over $6 million, but you could re-write a script like that..take out the few big name actors (big in Italy at least) and save a bundle. When it comes down to it all you need is an awesome script, a cinematographer who has some decent equipment and a plan to market it. Look at Shawshank Redemption..it DID cost a bundle to make, but didn't make much at the box office..pretty much just broke even...but it made a killing years later on the DVD market.
 
Any notable dramas in the last 7 yrs. that were shot for 5 million or less?
Click to expand...

'Emile', Canadian film starring Ian MacKellen was a solid drama reminiscent of Bergman's 'Wild Strawberries'. If I remember right budget was around $1 million.
 
Another $1million marvel is 'Handsome Harry' (2010)
Acting, story, soundtrack equally outstanding; worth studying by any indie wanna-be.
Without giving any spoiler I'd say final confrontation scene rivals Brando & Steiger's taxi conversation in "On the Waterfront'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top