What's in it for the Producer?

Macphilia

Macphilia

Well-known member
Hey Folks. I will be making my first feature film this year. I'm currently rewriting the script and a good acquaintance I trust wants to produce (it's her first time). We will be meeting next week and one of the issues we will discuss is her compensation/ownership.

I've only made shorts on my own and have never had someone produce. Here are some details:

1) I will be financing the entire thing, though we may go for a modest campaign on a crowdfunding site, like Kickstarter. She is not expected to raise money nor contribute money.

2) I have written the script and will direct. I invariably will be producing a bit - it seems inevitable.

3) The production is more like a very simply short film in scope. Meaning, there are very few actors, one primary location and probably 5-6 days of shooting. There are no special effects, rare set design requirements or props. It's very, very straightforward. (I intentionally wrote it that way).

So what do you think I should propose to her?

She will definitely get producer credit. What else? A flat rate and no share? No up front and a share? And if a share, then I need to recoup my investment first, right?

I know it can get very complicated and I realize this is my first film and most likely will not see profit; however, I want to approach it as best as I can. Maybe this is too big a question for a thread???

Thanks,
Christopher
 
Sounds like you're talking about hiring her as a line producer, not as a full Producer. The Producer is the businessperson who owns the film, hires the director, arranges the financing, and owns and sells the film. The producer is the one who hires the director, buys the script or hires the screenwriter, etc.

The line producer is the task supervisor that makes sure everything gets done. Line producer reports to the producer.
 
The producer does not always own the film, no, and the top position is executive producer on many projects, mainly in TV, but in features as well the executive producer is often the money guy at least who gets things together and has ownership rights over the film. Especially in the indie world, that's often the case, EP is top dog, producers work for the EP, director is hired by them, on down the list.

You may or may not be looking for a line producer. I was not sure what I wanted when I just went through this similar process Mac, I was right where you are now just 6 weeks ago or so. If you do just want a line producer to deal with the budgeting details and securing some locations and doing a lot of the day-to-day work like that, you might consider just some sort of a flat rate with a few points on the back end.

What I ended up doing is partnering with another production company, similar situation to you I am the writer-director and contributing all funds, and this company has two producers, one who serves more as producer, the other more line producer / budgeting, but basically they work together as a team for all producer-related duties on films they do. One of them has a lot of experience with post audio, for instance, so between them they can do everything. We setup a joint LLC for the film, and that LLC owns the script, the film, etc. I have a majority ownership in that company, the controlling share, and as an investor I get my money back before there are any profits counted, so it's basically like me loaning money to the film company for the purposes of making this film. They also get a modest guaranteed payment for producing, and I get a modest guaranteed fee for directing, with a deferred payment as the screenwriter. That is pretty standard stuff if you want to go that route.

You may go the option of just getting a line producer and holding onto almost all of your profits, but at the same time sometimes it's worth going with a partnership if your project has the potential to go places and they have the connections to make it happen, both from a filming perspective and distribution. I just don't know what you hope or expect to get out of the project.
 
Wow, sorry for the late reply, guys! I thought I subscribed to the thread, but I didn't. I'm glad I checked....

Thanks for the replies!

I now have a producer and what we basically did was exactly in the middle of what you both suggested. It's going pretty well, but in the future, the teaming up with a production company sounds like a good option too!

Thanks Again,
Christopher
 
Jonathan's route of using an experienced production company is a wise choice. Surrounding yourself with talented professionals particularly when it comes to production management is worth its weight in diamonds!
 
It has been excellent Craig, I couldn't be happier! I was really fortunate to find these guys, and the way everything has come together is really amazing. With this kind of stuff, especially because we have people attached but without firm contracts at this moment, I don't want to give too many details but we have a great crew aboard and it looks like we're going to have a pretty sweet cast with a few names and great up-and-comers.

The best thing is that I'm surrounded by highly experienced people, people who usually work for 4-5 times what we can afford to pay on our film, but people who will make sure that the film is on schedule and on budget and looks and sounds fantastic. Sometimes you just get really fortunate in the connections you make, and this was a big break for me to meet producers who haven't messed around with a film as low budget as mine in years, and are in development on films between $5 million and $20 million, having just come off a $10 million film that's going to hit about 1,000 theaters (initially) this year. So to be working with guys like that is pretty special and I've already learned so much more about the business in the process as well.
 
Macphilia said:
....

So what do you think I should propose to her?

She will definitely get producer credit. What else? A flat rate and no share? No up front and a share? And if a share, then I need to recoup my investment first, right?

...
Click to expand...

Why should you expect to recoupe your investment before people who work FOR you get paid, even if their pay IS based on a share of the revenues? It's my opinion that recouping your costs is the LAST thing that revenues should go to, not the first. You stand to make the majority of the profit if the project is a hit, right? Then the majority of the risk for loss if things don't work out should fall on your head as well. IMHO you ethically can't have one without the other. To say she get's paid only after you recover your investment is, IMHO, not the right or fair thing to do. First your producer and the rest of the cast and crew should get paid, then your investors, if any, recover their piece of the pie along with their profits, and finally you get to keep what's left. Hopefully that will be a pile of money, or at least enough to recover what you put in out of pocket. If not, better luck with the next one. To be worthy of the glory of victory you must be willing to accept the agony of defeat.
 
This is right on the money.

This is right on the money.

Barry_Green said:
Sounds like you're talking about hiring her as a line producer, not as a full Producer. The Producer is the businessperson who owns the film, hires the director, arranges the financing, and owns and sells the film. The producer is the one who hires the director, buys the script or hires the screenwriter, etc.

The line producer is the task supervisor that makes sure everything gets done. Line producer reports to the producer.
Click to expand...

What you're looking for, Christopher, is a line producer. Of course, you can make her the producer if you wish, as this is your first film and you want to direct (you're also the writer), so you'll be able to concentrate on the creative stuff.

There may be other options? ... :love4:

Good luck with your movie.
 
Steve that's not necessarily true. If a producer really believes in the project, they will accept a larger ownership in the film and very little if any upfront money. You are assuming the risk together in that case, only for instance with my film, I am the investor so I assume all of the cash investment, but I'm paid back completely before there is money given out on the above-the-line level. Sure, you could find a situation where you retain a lot more percentage of the profits and pay someone upfront, but sometimes the best thing to do is partner with another company and jointly assume the risk as far as time goes, at least, so that you're not paying a bunch of the budget upfront to a producer.
 
JonathanLB said:
Steve that's not necessarily true. If a producer really believes in the project, they will accept a larger ownership in the film and very little if any upfront money. You are assuming the risk together in that case, only for instance with my film, I am the investor so I assume all of the cash investment, but I'm paid back completely before there is money given out on the above-the-line level. Sure, you could find a situation where you retain a lot more percentage of the profits and pay someone upfront, but sometimes the best thing to do is partner with another company and jointly assume the risk as far as time goes, at least, so that you're not paying a bunch of the budget upfront to a producer.
Click to expand...

I was speaking more to what I consider proper practices. IMHO, since it's your project, you ought to be the last one to be paid, not the first, and "being paid" includes recovering your own out-of-pocket investment. Your employees, and that includes everyone you have hired or who has aided you, all come ahead of you. That would mean your producer's share should come from gross revenues (less operating and distribution costs), not the net after recovering your personal investment. After they're taken care of, if anything is left, it can cover your costs. After that, if anything is still left, there's the first profit YOU see. You are trying to shield yourself from risk and pass it on to others when you word the agreements so you recover your own investment first. Perhaps that does make good business sense, especially in today's business world where the bottom line is the only thing that counts, but ethically it makes me uncomfortable. Since it's your project, you should assume the majority of the risk and not transfer it to others. Since you're the one who stands to gain the most from a successful project, you should also be the one who stands to lose the most if it's not successful, minimizing the risk born by the other people who are involved.
 
Last edited:
The hierarchy of producers (especially vis-a-vis their relationship to directors, and their functions in the production, etc.) is a very different thing between TV and film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top