What are set fees: Producer or Executive Producer

Zak, out of curiosity why would you want 5 mil make look like 50 mill if your target audience doesn't care about explosions, effects and what-not?
 
Thanks for your post Zac. Very concise, accurate and helpful as usual. Those states are at the top of the list for incentives.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Zak, out of curiosity why would you want 5 mil make look like 50 mill if your target audience doesn't care about explosions, effects and what-not?
Click to expand...

Indie dramas are my first-love. But they're also a nearly impossible uphill battle in terms of discovery and distribution. No one wakes up in the morning thinking, "today I'd like to see a movie with no stars about abandonment and abortion issues." ***and if you do, please visit sabipictures.com :) ***

I don't expect HEART OF NOW to make the sort of cash that would sustain a career. But it has gotten me in the good graces of Magnolia Pictures and Sony Pictures Classics, and some new sources of investment (keeping their IDs private for now) point to it as the reason why they have the confidence in us that they do.

So, in addition to the authenticity of story and character I've become "known" for (whatever that means), my next picture will have explosions, effects and what-not... as you say.

I'm developing a slate of genre pictures and the strategy is that after producing 3 or 4, we'll have garnered the kind of praise, respect and success that will afford us the opportunity to experiment once again. I look to someone like Soderbergh who moves freely between more commercial pictures and more challenging, experimental work. He works with great casts and has the career i want for myself. So he's the model in many ways. But we'll definitely have our own signature to the pictures we produce. And when I say we're doing a genre film, we're talking about executing with a level of intelligence you get from Michael Mann, not the schlock you get from Uwe Boll. Although there is certainly a place in my heart for schlock when it's fun.
 
Zak,
I've been told by a wealthy person that if you are trying to raise $100k with possible return of, say, %20 ($20k) then noone who has $100k to spare will want to invest because ultimately they would be making pittance (considering that those people have tons of $$$ in the first place) thus it's not even worth their risk or effort.

On the other hand, if you make a slate of films that break even (even if each only cost $100k) then if one of those strikes big then the real money starts floating in.

I was wondering what's you take on this. Is the idea "we" in your post (I assume a bunch of directors - a collective in a sense) working along the same idea of "if one of us strikes rich..."
 
Yeah, that seems to be the case. Investment on anything that would use the SAG Ultra Low budget Agreement (a $200,000 or lower production budget) isn't particularly enticing because the ROI is generally very low, even on the most successful of them (lottery winners like Paranormal Activity aside). Not something I state from experience, but that is the sentiment that's been shared with me.

A "win the lottery" strategy is not a business plan I'd be comfortable with. Each film will be designed for success, using our expertise to hire the right stars, the right key dept heads, pre-visualizing the entire film as a form of re-write, and using my own experience cutting studio level trailers and marketing materials. One of our partners has done a tremendous amount of research into a reasonable expectation for box office given the number of screens it opens on. Key to giving these films the support they need to succeed is that 20% of the budget will go to marketing their release.

So yeah, "We" = the potential for the team at Sabi to partner with some others (to be announced when all is official) under a different banner and if all goes according to plan, will be the foundation of building a mini-major one film at a time, starting with action films, horror films, thrillers, maybe even a teen comedy.

Won't be just a bunch of directors, but a collective, yes -- a core team of producers, directors, writers, and editors... and an extended team of actors, composers, sound designers, VFX supervisors and more.
 
Zblock said:
I don't understand that a film of that scope could lose the money mathematically. I mean shouldn't ANY sale or distribution deal be willing to cover something of that value. One oversea's deal or television channel pickup and you'd be into positive numbers.

Patryk you shouldn't respond so defensively and matter of factly. I agree with Jonathan on a few points. I see professional filmmakers working for $100/day all the time. More now than ever because things are so slow. Am I talking A listers here? .... No but a lot of people get around in this business. I've worked right next to people that have worked on Men In Black, Planet of the Apes.... so on and so on and they're working for whatever because the jobs just aren't there these days.

I agree with you on the paying yourself part. Gotta put food on the plate so don't short change yourself. Be fair to the budget but be realistic as well. Leave enough in the coffers to get the film made the right way.

Plus, Look at all the garbage/lowbudget movies out there that have been picked up for distribution. Films with no names and very little production value. Not sure of the actual budgets but here's a list of some.

http://www.rankopedia.com/256/Favorite-Low-Budget-Movie-%28$100,000-US-or-Less%29/Step1/13209.htm

I've seen a LOT of low budget movies so they got my money. A good number were on this list.

But you asked for examples of HOW those films get the money back. Oversea's sales is about the only one I know of. However I do know of 3 films that I've worked on that got these types of deals based on a roughly $20k budget.
Click to expand...

This may be late of a contribution but I managed to get hold of a crew member for my "delayed" film who worked in the new Robin Hood, Prince of Persia, Green Zone, Quantum of Solace and many other blockbuster films just on expenses only. No daily wages etc, just a promise of the finished DVD and his expenses paid for.

It's matter of timing and luck.
 
Thanks Zak again! I wonder how the budget crisis (political landscape) in many states is changing what they are allowing into their incentive programs? Michigan seems to be cracking down on non-studio horror that in the past had been allowed into their program. Machete in Texas has a bunch of political posturing surrounding it. Except NM it might be a crapshoot for small budget producers to get their films state incentives.
 
How is Michigan cracking down?
Michigan wouldn't allow the follow up to "The Offspring" (shot in Michigan under the incentive program) "The Woman" to use the program citing the scenes of cannibalism in the first film.
They've approved about half of the films that apply (I have no idea the exact reasons).
"Is it still the best state to shoot a feature in? "
Depends on your budget and many factors. Its still a great program to shoot under and you'd want to look at Michigan for sure. If you have a 20k budget and live in New Mexico that program might be a better choice. These state programs are maturing and facing more scrutiny about the content of the films they are partially financing. These programs have always had some amount of opposition in every state legislature. They probably feel the need to subsidize/allow incentives for films that have the least objectionable content to help them to stay in business.
 
"I'd bet Michigan pulls the plug on their incentives as other states have after fraud." I wouldn't bet against you on that one. Iowa is a prime example as they gear up to prosecute some producers for alleged fraud. The first time I saw Iowas half price filmaking campaign I thought they were joking and would be opening themselves up for the possibility of massive fraud unless they were really on top of it. I was thinking that objectionable content would sink or radically change Michigan and other state programs but as you pointed out ChipG it probably will be fraud.
 
Zak Forsman said:
most filmmakers cannot expect to make over $30,000 in a year on iTunes, hulu, Netflix, etc. So either you make your films for half that, or you step it up to $1mm
Click to expand...

What about the films existing in that grey area (the $100k - $900k range), such as Corrado and No Greater Love? Rice has stated that NGL made the filmmakers enough money to live on. Are only a select few of these productions recouping costs?
 
shutterspeedfilms said:
What about the films existing in that grey area (the $100k - $900k range), such as Corrado and No Greater Love? Rice has stated that NGL made the filmmakers enough money to live on. Are only a select few of these productions recouping costs?
Click to expand...

Yep, mainly 'Faith Based' films in that price range. Most all of those recoup and make the dist a nice profit.

I keep seeing a trend of filmmakers committing financial suicide by putting their films in nexflix to early, they cost themselves a $10 dvd sale for everyone who rents it for free (or the $5.99 monthly membership fee). Netflix is only a good revenue stream 6-12 months after it has been on the retail store shelfs or online dvd sales and after pay per view, iTunes etc.
 
that's conventional distribution predicated on having stars to drive sales (corrado) or a strong niche like the christian market (NGL) or horror movies. but most independent films do not get the distribution offer, even the good ones. remember what the biggest sale at park city was in january? a thriller... starring ryan reynolds.

so i would pose that if you aren't incorporating marketable elements (genre and/or bankable cast) the chance of getting distribution is akin to winning the lottery. at an absolute minimum a good film with no recognizable names in the cast and no genre hooks could expect to make about $30,000 on digital platforms in its first year of release, tapering down from there.

btw, my number of $1mm is arbitrary. when i say step it up, i mean step it up to a budget level that would allow you to cast stars and have a budget for marketing.
 
ChipG said:
Yep, mainly 'Faith Based' films in that price range. Most all of those recoup and make the dist a nice profit.

I keep seeing a trend of filmmakers committing financial suicide by putting their films in nexflix to early, they cost themselves a $10 dvd sale for everyone who rents it for free (or the $5.99 monthly membership fee). Netflix is only a good revenue stream 6-12 months after it has been on the retail store shelfs or online dvd sales and after pay per view, iTunes etc.
Click to expand...

Netflix, Watch Instantly and ad-supported (like Hulu) should be your dead last release window.

iTunes is doing terrible business (for indies). they've even removed their "independent" category from the iTunes store.
 
Zak Forsman said:
Netflix, Watch Instantly and ad-supported (like Hulu) should be your dead last release window.

iTunes is doing terrible business (for indies). they've even removed their "independent" category from the iTunes store.
Click to expand...

I'm glad, now they need to get all the crap apps out of the app store, 250K apps now & 247K are crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top