When the stars are not aligned

Paramount paid $300K for rights and and additional$25M (if I remember that one correctly) for marketing. Not cheap to play tailers in primetime on television across the country. Still a great bargain, but not a $15K total investment. Also smart to release DVD so soon, so they can take advantage of the marketing still in people's minds who have not yet seen it in the theaters.

Unknown is how much work was done to prep for the theatrical release. El Mariachi had an estimated $1M at the time to get it ready, sound mix, etc.

Michael
 
MichaelP said:
Paramount paid $300K for rights and and additional$25M (if I remember that one correctly) for marketing. Not cheap to play tailers in primetime on television across the country. Still a great bargain, but not a $15K total investment. Also smart to release DVD so soon, so they can take advantage of the marketing still in people's minds who have not yet seen it in the theaters.

Unknown is how much work was done to prep for the theatrical release. El Mariachi had an estimated $1M at the time to get it ready, sound mix, etc.

Michael
Click to expand...

Well, first off let me correct my math as I forgot a zero in there.

TOP TEN MOVIES OF ALL TIME: 700% profit

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY: 71,820% profit

We're not including the marketing of those top ten movies or DVD sales or T-shirts or whatever.

Budget vs budget according to every single account listed. If we add in additional budgeting for all the things not listed in the budget for PA we'd then have to do the same for every other movie ever made. Budget to budget these are the numbers. I did the favor of giving 10 million to PA's marketing (where did you ever hear 25???) and gave NONE to the top TEN highest grossing films of ALL TIME COMBINED and PA still crushed them.

My whole point was that percentage-wise, these low budget indie flicks (and even PA aside), year after year, decade after decade, destroy Hollywood movies.

I'd much rather bet 50K against 1 million rather than 1 million against 2 million. The big budgets have little to do with the actual cost of doing business and everything about people lining their friends' and business associates' pockets with so-called "production costs", not to mention the big companies trying to keep Uncle Sam away from their cash.

Bottom line, smart investing is about percentages, not size of investment. You'd have a much better chance of yielding a higher percentage of revenue if you purchased 10 rental properties at 100K each rather than one property for 1 million at a stop. Especially with today's self-distro models, investing in film holds a similar logic. Except that in film (unlike real estate), you could just happen to strike gold with one of your 100K features.

(and speaking of real estate!!! Just got some preliminary paper work back and if all goes well this week I might be picking up a choice 4 unit property -bank owned- for 450K that was just listed three months ago by the owner at 890K. But then it's a heck of a lot easier to finance a couple hundred thousand on property than it is on a film -- unfortunately!!)
 
Last edited:
I agree that spreading the risk across 10 @ $100K versus 1 @ $1M makes more sense, but I would still take the $25M in marketing to back any one of those up! :)

Michael
 
Andrew McCarrick said:
$20k is pretty cheap for an actor, especially for a name. 60 days at 800 bucks a day on a SAG film they're making almost $50k. So 20k for how many days?
Click to expand...

Well it depends what your time frame is. 60 days is a LONG shoot, very long. The last Star Wars film only shot 57 days, and that's a film with a ton of green screen work, many locations, many sets, great complexity, stunts, etc. I'm shooting my indie film in 15 days. I've heard of indie films being shot in 8-12 days, it just depends what the script is like.

Then also, if you're getting name talent, you may not have them as your leads. I know I don't. My leads need to be there every day, but I have supporting roles that we can shoot out in between 1 and let's say 4-5 days, and I could afford name talent for less than $20K easily for that. Not talking about an A-lister but there are lots of names out there, you just have to find them. I'm surprised at the prices people are getting good, name actors for. If you only need them for a few days it's a very small commitment for them.
 
JonathanLB said:
Well it depends what your time frame is. 60 days is a LONG shoot, very long. The last Star Wars film only shot 57 days, and that's a film with a ton of green screen work, many locations, many sets, great complexity, stunts, etc. I'm shooting my indie film in 15 days. I've heard of indie films being shot in 8-12 days, it just depends what the script is like.

Then also, if you're getting name talent, you may not have them as your leads. I know I don't. My leads need to be there every day, but I have supporting roles that we can shoot out in between 1 and let's say 4-5 days, and I could afford name talent for less than $20K easily for that. Not talking about an A-lister but there are lots of names out there, you just have to find them. I'm surprised at the prices people are getting good, name actors for. If you only need them for a few days it's a very small commitment for them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, seems like location is key, though -- and that's where the living in New York, California or even Chicago helps.

On Angel of Death they brought in Lucy Lawless for a single day, and their budget was nothing. She had two scenes in which she had to perform, and for a few over-shoulder/back type shots they used a stand-in.

I don't know what kind of indie production would need to hire name talent for 2 months. Maybe if you were shooting an indie LOTR. lol
 
Does a name sell a movie? You better believe it.

Does a great story sell a movie? Yes.

Add the two together and you have something that's probably Oscar-worthy.


People gravitate towards what's familiar to them. Like a baby to its mother. People know Tom Cruise. They know Steven Spielberg. They know James Cameron. They know movies that have unknown talent/crew if it's heavily promoted enough...because when they go out on Friday/Saturday night with their honey looking to catch a flick they are going to remember the name from the TV if they liked what they saw on the ad.

Ask yourself this question...how do you sell yourself? What is on your resume? On mine I list my college (which locals are familiar with), relevant work experience and projects that show names people know. "If NBC hired him, he must be OK!" If my demo reel is as good as someone elses' but that someone else doesn't have credentials, who are they more likely to hire? Me...the guy with a familiar name backing up his work.

People usually don't give entertainment choices deep thought.
 
subtleinspiration said:
And Paranormal Activity did not just cost 15k. I'm sure there's at least some millions in there for post work and marketing.
Click to expand...

Indeed...backend money for sure for the actors, crew, etc. If everybody was working on deferred pay I hope they all reaped the rewards!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top