Top Tips: Profiting From A Feature Film

[NickSoares]

Top Tips For New Filmmakers

I figured I would start a thread that would really sum up some important TIPS for new filmmakers that they can find as much as possible in one post - So Feel free to add your tips to this thread (No Links Please) and hopefully over time new filmmakers can use this post as a guideline to come back to during pre-production, production, post, or distribution. If someone posts something that is important, then I will edit it to the top for easy access to the filmmaker.

I am sure some people will want to post articles, but please leave links out of this thread, as it is easy to click on them and if there are like me they will forget to read the rest.

Top Tips: Profiting From A Feature Film

I will start out with "Know Your Genre/Money Ratio" - Which means, know your budget and what genre you can produce from that budget to make a profit. I have tried to tell many many filmmakers in the past NOT to do a drama for $25K-30K (Drama's with a budget of 25K are very difficult to make, and very hard to sell if there is no NAME talent. So you have)

A low budget Horror/Action would be much more suitable to do for a 25K budget and will have better odds on profiting.

25K Budget for a "Comedy" is actually harder then doing a "Drama" for 25K - It is hard to make everyone laugh other then friends and family. - Now, once your budgets start to reach 7 figures, then that's a new ball game.

So know your "Genre/Money Ratio"

-------

Why is a comedy harder to make with zero/no budget? Yeah, you can't pay big talents but why is this a problem?

Because most people aren't as funny as they think and when it comes to writing screenplays comedies are very hard to pull off. Additionally, comedic timing is hard for amateur actors, which is why certain actors are very successful and others sink.

Budget = Money - And if you dont have the $$ then it is hard to accomplish the "Comedy" aspect of a comedy. Plus, Budget = Better sound, camera, editing etc...



This thread is specific to "profiting" - As a filmmaker, you should make what ever you want.

When tips like this come around, for some reason people get offended because they are making a comedy or drama as they are reading this, but that is not how these tips should be looked at (FindersKeepers, im talking in general here, just FYI). I personally have wanted to make a Drama since I have started in this industry but I have held off so I can continue to make money and do filmmaking rather then say "My passion is a drama, so with $40,000 im going to do a drama" - Instead I went were the money (horror-action-thriller) was so I can support my family and live off the profits from my films. So to answer your question, you should do what you want to do so long as your happy. For me it was making films and making money so some day achieve my goal of doing the drama film I wanted. Now I have royalties coming in, I own a distribution company, and I am almost ready to do my Drama I have been waiting for 10 years later..

-----------

A movie should definitely be as long as it needs to be, especially in this day and age. Trying to fit a movie that only has sixty minutes of worthwhile content into an eighty plus format is a quick way to not get a good distribution deal. Despite what's preferred by distributors (Who aren't going to give you much, anyway).

And, like 2001 said, if you are looking for a distribution deal and your feature's only sixty minutes then you probably should've chosen a different project to begin with.

Even then, it's possible that a really good feature film in the sixty to seventy minute range will still get you to a lot of great places. Hate to reach for a very top shelf example here but Christopher Nolan's FOLLOWING (his first feature, before he got to Memento) was only sixty six minutes I believe. It wasn't a major financial success, but it was something that got him far along.

And, a more extreme example, Winnie the Pooh's last feature was a total of 63 minutes in running length. Yes, a kids movie, but still, a major motion picture release. Or animated feature release.

On the topic of utilizing today's benefits to distribute your own feature, it isn't as cut and dry. IF you don't have a SERIOUSLY GOOD MOVIE (not one that you, your family, and your friends think is good), then you HAVE to have either a hyper-niche, still have a name, you're marketing a feature film that has a fair amount of solid production value, or a ton of money to market because you won't have word of mouth from releasing a "good" movie.

One or some of those.

It's easy to say "let's just do it ourselves!", well, cool. There are some great ways to do that and profitable, as long as you're okay with profit meaning a few thousand dollars over the span of three years (If you don't have one or more of those things mentioned above.)

Post your top tips below and I can add them in this Original Post.

 

[Kholi]

In filmmaking, EVERYTHING is subjective. I don't think any one genre is any more or less difficult. If horror were so easy, then why is the vast majority of it so bad (indie and Hollywood alike)?

I think low budget horror has a better chance of financial success largely because of audience expectations. For whatever reason, fans of that genre tend to be more forgiving, and may often have a fun time watching comparatively lower production values.

Agreed. I'll turn on a horror that I know from the get-go's going to be bad before I turn on a drama with names. Horror is pretty easy to satisfy just by doing something, but most are just flat-out disappointing to the core.

 

[JoshL]

Great point the horror audience is so much more forgiving! My theory is because a bad horror film turns into a comedy like Plan 9 From Outer Space http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052077/
But bad comedy or drama just turns into boredom. I admit renting a few low budget horror films in the past just to laugh. But that was the grand ole days of video stores and VHS.

This, exactly, and a thousand times over! I'm more likely to watch a horror film than an actual comedy. Most of them don't make me laugh (there are, of course, exceptions) and if you take that away, there often isn't much more to the movie. And those old VHS days have transitioned into Netflix streaming days (they've recently added one of my favorites, Jack Frost. Killer snowman. Fantastic.)

 

[gibbo]

I have to agree that usually the problem with low budget film is bad writing and bad acting.

And sound! When sound is bad it throws everything off and makes an amateur production 10 times more amateur IMO.

With the bad writing you'd have to think that a decent director might be able to salvage at least some of it and change it up when necessary.

About the bad acting: I've noticed that they tend to "over act" a lot, are they trying to over compensate? There's nothing wrong with naturalistic acting like the Neo Realism type films that used Typage casting, so you'd have to think that a decent director would be able to fix this too by maybe cutting down actual dialogue on the people that can't pull it off and replace it with "show don't tell" stuff?


And just a general observation I have about the Horror and Comedy genres:

Comedy and Horror are the most subjective Genres in my opinion, that's not to say they others are not, I just think that they are more than the rest. Horror even more so, and the success of Paranormal Activity proves this to some extent: Some people HATE Paranormal Activity and some people love it, I loved it. I loved it for two reasons:

1) It didn't show the beast. To quote Hitchcock, “There is no terror in a bang, only in the anticipation of it” - that explains that.

2) It played directly to my personal fears. We are so vunerable when we are asleep, I've always been fearful of something to me while I'm asleep and I can't protect myself. All those scenes of stuff happening in the house while they are asleep scared the crap out of me. Not necessarily the demon spirit, just the idea of being asleep and not being aware of ones surroundings. Likewise with Cujo, I would imagine people who are scared of dogs would really be terrified by that movie, I was not.

I remember seeing an interview with Fritz Kiersch, Director of the first Children of the Corn movie (1984) who said he remembers that one person approached him on one occassion and congratulated him on one of the scariest movies he'd ever seen. He told Fritz that he lived right in front of a huge cornfield and couldn't sleep for weeks after seeing the film.

What I took from that is to make the world in the film relatable, believable and accessible by the audience... but that type of discussion is something different entirely.

(Of course, all my opinions)

Great thread, thankfully my first planned feature is a Thriller with horror elements!

In for more tips!

 

[finderskeepers]

That's why everyone's scared watching Psycho We all have showers. Hopefully.

And sound! When sound is bad it throws everything off and makes an amateur production 10 times more amateur IMO.

With the bad writing you'd have to think that a decent director might be able to salvage at least some of it and change it up when necessary.

About the bad acting: I've noticed that they tend to "over act" a lot, are they trying to over compensate? There's nothing wrong with naturalistic acting like the Neo Realism type films that used Typage casting, so you'd have to think that a decent director would be able to fix this too by maybe cutting down actual dialogue on the people that can't pull it off and replace it with "show don't tell" stuff?


And just a general observation I have about the Horror and Comedy genres:

Comedy and Horror are the most subjective Genres in my opinion, that's not to say they others are not, I just think that they are more than the rest. Horror even more so, and the success of Paranormal Activity proves this to some extent: Some people HATE Paranormal Activity and some people love it, I loved it. I loved it for two reasons:

1) It didn't show the beast. To quote Hitchcock, “There is no terror in a bang, only in the anticipation of it” - that explains that.

2) It played directly to my personal fears. We are so vunerable when we are asleep, I've always been fearful of something to me while I'm asleep and I can't protect myself. All those scenes of stuff happening in the house while they are asleep scared the crap out of me. Not necessarily the demon spirit, just the idea of being asleep and not being aware of ones surroundings. Likewise with Cujo, I would imagine people who are scared of dogs would really be terrified by that movie, I was not.

I remember seeing an interview with Fritz Kiersch, Director of the first Children of the Corn movie (1984) who said he remembers that one person approached him on one occassion and congratulated him on one of the scariest movies he'd ever seen. He told Fritz that he lived right in front of a huge cornfield and couldn't sleep for weeks after seeing the film.

What I took from that is to make the world in the film relatable, believable and accessible by the audience... but that type of discussion is something different entirely.

(Of course, all my opinions)

Great thread, thankfully my first planned feature is a Thriller with horror elements!

In for more tips!

 

[gibbo]

That's why everyone's scared watching Psycho We all have showers. Hopefully.

haha, what about people who take baths? What do they have to be affraid of? Open Water or Jaws or something....

 

[DeJager]

haha, what about people who take baths? What do they have to be affraid of? Open Water or Jaws or something....

You should watch Nightmare on Elm Street...

Nancy ... bath tub... freddy kruger glove ...

 

[Leister]

Because it was mentioned in another thread, here is a tip:

Make the movie as long as it needs to be. If you have a story that can be told in 60 minutes, don't stretch it to the usual 90 minutes. It will bore your audience until they dream a dream in a dream in another dream.

 

[finderskeepers]

I was told technically 84 minutes + is feature length. I believe around 75 minutes is accepted.
If your feature has 60 minutes of story then it needs re-written well before you film it!

Because it was mentioned in another thread, here is a tip:

Make the movie as long as it needs to be. If you have a story that can be told in 60 minutes, don't stretch it to the usual 90 minutes. It will bore your audience until they dream a dream in a dream in another dream.

 

[2001 Productions]

If your feature has 60 minutes of story then it needs re-written well before you film it!

Harkening to the other thread about film festivals, I recently watched a post-apocalyptic indie feature that had less plot than Gonzo's 25-minute post-apocalyptic short, The Island. There was basically an hour of the lead character wandering through a desolate landscape, occasionally flashing back to the way things used to be.

They spent $100,000 on it and it's getting award after award at film festivals.

 

[finderskeepers]

Sounds like a "snore-fest." Next time I go to a festival I'll remember to bring a nook or iPod to give me something to do while the boring films are playing. Or I could bring a pillow and take a nap

Harkening to the other thread about film festivals, I recently watched a post-apocalyptic indie feature that had less plot than Gonzo's 25-minute post-apocalyptic short, The Island. There was basically an hour of the lead character wandering through a desolate landscape, occasionally flashing back to the way things used to be.

They spent $100,000 on it and it's getting award after award at film festivals.

 

[Leister]

I was told technically 84 minutes + is feature length. I believe around 75 minutes is accepted.
If your feature has 60 minutes of story then it needs re-written well before you film it!

I understand that this is some kind of "rule" to the movie business, but WE ARE INDIES.

I always thought indies are INDEPENDENT and try to MAKE NEW RULES, instead of succumbing to the old fashioned hollywood crap.

Maybe that's a rule: Be brave. Or with the words of Steve Jobs: "Stay hungry, stay foolish". Because that's what being indie is about.

 

[2001 Productions]

I understand that this is some kind of "rule" to the movie business

No, it's what distributors want. If you don't care about distribution, by all means break the rules!

Or make a movie that is so incredibly, unbelievably, astonishingly amazing that distributors fall all over themselves to attach themselves to it, despite its disregard for their marketing criteria. And good luck with that.

 

[Leister]

No, it's what distributors want. If you don't care about distribution, by all means break the rules!

Or make a movie that is so incredibly, unbelievably, astonishingly amazing that distributors fall all over themselves to attach themselves to it, despite its disregard for their marketing criteria. And good luck with that.

I don't think the old distribution model is a good option for indies. And with indies I mean REAL indies. Not the guys with budgets of > 1.000.000 Dollars.

We have DSLRs with stunning video capabilities. We have internet tutorials for almost EVERY special effect imaginable. There are dozens of insightful making of's and behind the scenes documentaries. We have message boards like this one to connect to each other. There are sites like Netflix. We have crowdfunding and social networks.

It's good to learn from the old hollywood big budget ways of filmmaking, but I think we need to use all these tools to our advantage. 20 years before you made a movie and got a distribution deal if you were lucky. You had no other opportunity to get your film to the audience (or well, not that many of them).

I don't say that it is easier to make a movie AND distribute it in todays times. It is still a lot of work. I think it's even harder to do, because you have to do so many things by yourself. But if you can pull it off, the reward is much higher.

Sorry for starting a discussion, instead of giving useful tips. I just don't think indies should copy the big boys.

 

[NickSoares]

I don't think the old distribution model is a good option for indies. And with indies I mean REAL indies. Not the guys with budgets of > 1.000.000 Dollars.

We have DSLRs with stunning video capabilities. We have internet tutorials for almost EVERY special effect imaginable. There are dozens of insightful making of's and behind the scenes documentaries. We have message boards like this one to connect to each other. There are sites like Netflix. We have crowdfunding and social networks.

It's good to learn from the old hollywood big budget ways of filmmaking, but I think we need to use all these tools to our advantage. 20 years before you made a movie and got a distribution deal if you were lucky. You had no other opportunity to get your film to the audience (or well, not that many of them).

I don't say that it is easier to make a movie AND distribute it in todays times. It is still a lot of work. I think it's even harder to do, because you have to do so many things by yourself. But if you can pull it off, the reward is much higher.

Sorry for starting a discussion, instead of giving useful tips. I just don't think indies should copy the big boys.

Leister,

Its always good to share your thoughts

Having a certain amount of time isn't following studio models, it is a fact of satisfying the audience. Many people dont want to rent or pay for a film that is only 47 minutes long. Its just a standard and is what people are used to. If a film was 7 hours long, people would be upset that they had to sit in a theater that long, etc...

Many low-budget distribution companies require a minimum of 72 minutes, but it is recommended to do 82-90 minutes to fully satisfy the customers.

 

[Kholi]

A movie should definitely be as long as it needs to be, especially in this day and age. Trying to fit a movie that only has sixty minutes of worthwhile content into an eighty plus format is a quick way to not get a good distribution deal. Despite what's preferred by distributors (Who aren't going to give you much, anyway).

And, like 2001 said, if you are looking for a distribution deal and your feature's only sixty minutes then you probably should've chosen a different project to begin with.

Even then, it's possible that a really good feature film in the sixty to seventy minute range will still get you to a lot of great places. Hate to reach for a very top shelf example here but Christopher Nolan's FOLLOWING (his first feature, before he got to Memento) was only sixty six minutes I believe. It wasn't a major financial success, but it was something that got him far along.

And, a more extreme example, Winnie the Pooh's last feature was a total of 63 minutes in running length. Yes, a kids movie, but still, a major motion picture release. Or animated feature release.

On the topic of utilizing today's benefits to distribute your own feature, it isn't as cut and dry. IF you don't have a SERIOUSLY GOOD MOVIE (not one that you, your family, and your friends think is good), then you HAVE to have either a hyper-niche, still have a name, you're marketing a feature film that has a fair amount of solid production value, or a ton of money to market because you won't have word of mouth from releasing a "good" movie.

One or some of those.

It's easy to say "let's just do it ourselves!", well, cool. There are some great ways to do that and profitable, as long as you're okay with profit meaning a few thousand dollars over the span of three years (If you don't have one or more of those things mentioned above.)

 

[Leister]

Well I can only speak for myself... I wouldn't mind a 60 minute feature film if it was much cheaper than the full length movies.

Here in Germany you pay 9 to 10 Euro (that's about 13 Dollars!) to watch a movie. Buy some popcorn, 2 or 3 beers for yourself and a coke for your girl and you already spent a fortune!

But I can understand why it has to be that expensive. Studios need to get their 300 billion dollars they spent on their newest cgi crapfest back and unbelievably talented actors like Ms Stewart need to earn their money...

 

[Leister]

Oh and I don't think "Following" was unsuccessful:

Box office / business for
Following (1998)

Budget
$6,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend
$1,636 (USA) (4 April 1999) (1 Screen)

Gross
$43,188 (USA) (8 August 1999)
$8,060 (USA) (11 April 1999)
$1,636 (USA) (4 April 1999)

Admissions
3,843 (Netherlands) (31 December 1999)

That's more than 7 times the amount he spent on the movie?! Even if the estimated budget is wrong I think this actually is a success.

 

[Scoopicman]

I just don't think indies should copy the big boys.

Distributors want your movie to be in the same line up as the big boys, whether you are trying to be different or not. That said, my very first feature was 70 minutes (69 actually) and the distributor put 90 minutes as the running time, on the box cover.

I actually long for the days of old, where some movies were just an hour long and you watched a double feature.

 

[Leister]

I actually long for the days of old, where some movies were just an hour long and you watched a double feature.

Well, that's one thing I'd really like to see today. Sometimes the old times actually WERE better

 

[JoshL]

I actually long for the days of old, where some movies were just an hour long and you watched a double feature.

And according to El Wiki, greater than 40 qualifies it for an Acadamy Award as a feature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_length

Music is the same way. Albums used to be around 40 minutes. Try to find a new release less than an hour these days. For some artists/styles, that's fine. Others load up on filler. However, that's what the market wants (as much as they complain about it).

I think a nice 60 minute feature would be excellent. And marketing it as a double feature might be possible, sort of like Grindhouse, but shorter. You'd have to build a market for it though; maybe find some likeminded filmmakers, some classic shorter features, etc.

One of my favorite films I've seen in the past year or so clocks in at 44 minutes: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1483385/ The sequel is 72 minutes, but not as good. Hmmm.

So back to the thread topic: shorter film, not a road to profit now, but maybe in a few years if you work to build a market.