Do you consider $2 million little or a lot?

[NatalieOshea]

When it comes to a budget for a movie, an independent movie at that, do you consider $2,000,000 to be a small budget or a lot?

I mean, sure, $2,000,000 is a lot of money in general and big budget studio films typically go for about $10,000,000 bottoms. But like I said, $2,000,000 is a lot of money, and I think I'm going to shoot for that amount to make my feature film.

I mean, there are certain companies I want to turn to as far as equipment goes and I don't want my indie film to... well... LOOK like an indie film. Plus, although I don't care about having HUGE name actors in my film, I do want to use actors who have been in other films and have prior acting experience, but I don't mind using first-timers.

 

[Sage Pictures]

Natalie, you'll do fine.
Stack your team with talent; you'll have a great time

 

[nefilmgroup]

Just curious, do you have the resoures to get $2 million for this project?

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

According to him the industry is changing and basically anything between $4 million and $150 million is a no-mans-land as far as financing goes.

I've heard the same thing, but with the low end of the budget being as far down as $500k. Whatever the number though, what this really is about is marketing - the problem being that successfully marketing a film, of any budget, on a wide scale has become a multi-million dollar affair (at minimum). When you get into the $100 million+ range you're talking about films that will have multiple A-list stars attached with box office history that can be used to justify the $30+ million necessary to market the film. In the sub-$10 million range you usually end up with a film that is essentially an unknown quantity and it's difficult to find someone willing to spend 2-4x the film's budget on marketing.

At the very low end (up to a million or so) there is the possibility of generating enough of a return from a niche audience to actually make the film profitable - but doing so will still likely require a marketing budget on par with the actual budget of the film. So if you're looking at a $2 million budget you may be better off with half that going to production and the other half being reserved for marketing, as it's probably going to be difficult to find a distributor for the film willing to put that kind of money into the marketing.

Which brings us around to what is really the key component in making a film in that budget range successful - the audience. If you can't identify and quantify the likely (not just potential) audience for your film before you go into production you're really taking a gamble on it's ultimate success, and it's going to be very difficult to find investors willing to take a gamble with long (or unknown) odds. You really need to be thinking in terms of a business plan, no different than if you were seeking investors for a start-up. If you're not up to that kind of thing, have no experience with it or no interest in that part of the business, the first thing you need to do is find a good producer to partner with who is experienced with the process and can put that business plan together. That, as much as anything else, will ultimately determine what a realistic budget is for your project.

 

[rayw]

At the very low end (up to a million or so) there is the possibility of generating enough of a return from a niche audience to actually make the film profitable - but doing so will still likely require a marketing budget on par with the actual budget of the film.

Bingo.

Thus...

 

[Sweetie]

What makes you say that?

Sales agents are usually the ones that sell your independent film. If the sales agent falls down on the ground laughing uncontrollably, it may be a strong indicator that they also think your plan is a bad one.

If you're talking about your reading skills, your response is what makes me say that.

At the very low end (up to a million or so) there is the possibility of generating enough of a return from a niche audience to actually make the film profitable

At that rate of investment, you still need a marketable name (or more than one) involved, especially with the decline of the DVD market and the VOD market still in its infancy. MG's are continually getting reduced and unless you've got a miraculous run away success, you're unlikely to see future earnings from distributors after the earnings are eaten up by their cut and marketing costs. MG's are usually tied to marketable talent. If you have none, the question really becomes, it it that smart to spend so much money?

 

[Confluence Productions]

Natalie, IMDb Bad Hurt. It was made for well under one million and had Hollywood stars and produced by the people who produced Wolf of Wall Street and Dos Dudes. We were fortunate enough to do the Behind-the-Scenes on this and it is amazing. so, no, two million is not a lot of money to make a feature film.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I could guarantee image and sound will be of top quality...
You will be able to achieve the highest quality possible without needing to turn to the highest end ($$$) companies that Hollywood uses.

I'm extremely curious as to how you can make this guarantee? "Top quality" image and sound without top quality equipment or personnel, how exactly are you going to get even mediocre sound without a commercial dub stage for example?

G

 

[mlesemann]

From Confluence Productions:

Natalie, IMDb Bad Hurt.

Great cast indeed! The casting director - Caroline Sinclair - is terrific. I worked with her on my first feature (Surviving Family) & am working with her again on my new project, Detours.

 

[NatalieOshea]

Natalie, IMDb Bad Hurt. It was made for well under one million and had Hollywood stars and produced by the people who produced Wolf of Wall Street and Dos Dudes. We were fortunate enough to do the Behind-the-Scenes on this and it is amazing. so, no, two million is not a lot of money to make a feature film.

I went and looked it up. Was there something particularly you wanted me to see? The film is in post-production so not much information was available at the time I looked it up.

Sales agents are usually the ones that sell your independent film. If the sales agent falls down on the ground laughing uncontrollably, it may be a strong indicator that they also think your plan is a bad one.

Well like you just said, they think it's a bad plan but that may not mean it is. It'll just be a matter of finding a sales agent who doesn't think that at all, and when my film turns out to be a success I'll be the one with the final laugh!

If you're talking about your reading skills, your response is what makes me say that.

I disagree. Without an A list star, with a sports drama, I think you're in for a world of hurt.... but I digress... what do I know. Find someone who has experience in successful sports dramas in that budget range and ask them. I'd love nothing more than for you to prove me wrong and have a run away success on your hands.

Well, gee. Thank you VERY VERY much for pointing out that I made a simple little error by misreading your post instead of questioning my reading skills. I appreciate it so very much!

But I still disagree. Ever heard of the movie Streetballers? That movie turned out to be a success and had no A-listers. Hell, the entire cast consisted of pretty much nobodies! Maybe my film will follow suit, though I do want to use some name actors in my film.

Just curious, do you have the resoures to get $2 million for this project?

No. I'm saying I WANT $2 million for this film, primarily because of the certain companies i want to use and to use name actors, etc. but maybe I won't need $2 million to accomplish everything I want to do in and with this film.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I disagree. Without an A list star, with a sports drama, I think you're in for a world of hurt...

At that rate of investment, you still need a marketable name (or more than one) involved, especially with the decline of the DVD market and the VOD market still in its infancy.

My point was that you might be able to make it work in a niche market - where an A-list star might not really be important. The point of having a star like that is to make the film attractive to a broad audience who might not otherwise pay attention or be aware of the film at all; the point of targeting a niche audience is to tailor your film to take advantage of an existing interest on the part of the audience.

With something like a sports drama the sport itself may be the star, and the actors names may be of secondary importance. Getting a recognizable athlete from the sport attached might be the key to selling to that audience - despite the fact that they're not even a z-list actor. If the sport is baseball, or football, it's probably going to be a challenge - but if the sport is new & growing, or just outside of the mainstream, it may be an underserved market in which you'll have little competition and an audience hungry for content that reflects their interests. If you're personally involved in the sport you may be able to craft a film that speaks to that audience in a way that feels more authentic to them than a more mainstream film would.

The key though is that an audience like that is quantifiable. There are generally good statistics on the size, both in terms of people and market, and rate of growth. You can identify competition, or lack thereof, and make reasonable estimates of what your sales numbers will be and what it will cost to achieve them. All of that will be fundamental to determining what the realistic upper limits of your budget (for both production & marketing) will be; from there you can judge whether the film is doable within those limits.

 

[Sweetie]

You're entirely correct Don. If you target a niche you can sometimes remove the star power requirement. The 2 mil part is the tough part.

If their plan is to get an investor to put money in, it's a pie in the sky idea until you can present numbers to show that the idea has a decent chance of success.

Ever heard of the movie Streetballers? That movie turned out to be a success and had no A-listers. Hell, the entire cast consisted of pretty much nobodies! Maybe my film will follow suit, though I do want to use some name actors in my film.

No I haven't heard of Streetballers. Lets say I'm a potential investor and I ask, "What was the budget of that film and what return did it give to its investors?" "Is that a typical result of the film you're making?" What would your answers be?

Well like you just said, they think it's a bad plan but that may not mean it is. It'll just be a matter of finding a sales agent who doesn't think that at all, and when my film turns out to be a success I'll be the one with the final laugh!

Oh boy, it's not the sales agents belief, its what the distributors are buying. As I said, I hope you prove me wrong. There are plenty of examples where you're right. Unfortunately, there are way more examples where you're wrong. The problem is you don't hear of the loser stories, only the success stories.

I'm suggesting that you get your budget way lower so it's more in line with what you're likely to be able to recoup through likely sales. Then again, what do I know? Don't let me stop you from chasing your dreams.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Well like you just said, they think it's a bad plan but that may not mean it is. It'll just be a matter of finding a sales agent who doesn't think that at all, and when my film turns out to be a success I'll be the one with the final laugh!

Ever heard of the movie Streetballers? That movie turned out to be a success ...

Did it? The only figures I can find is that it cost $950,000 ($1.5m inc. deferred payments), made $28,000 at the box office and Matt Kranz has never made another film, is that your idea of success?

I don't want to rain on your parade Natalie but no investors are going to give you $2m. Investing in indie films is a very risky type of investment, even with a highly experienced producer, let alone with someone who wants to be a producer but has never actually produced anything and even worse, someone who's never produced anything and think they know more than professional sales agents. It is of course possible that you are capable of producing a $2m film, it's even possible you could beat the astronomical odds as a first-timer and make a profitable film, the problem is, investors are not interested in astronomical odds. So, unless you encounter a miracle or have a rich relative, you're not going to get the chance to even attempt to prove you can beat the astronomical odds.

The advice some of the others responders have given you is good. First write a sublime script and on the back of that get an experienced producer on board with an established track record of profitable $million+ films. At that stage you stand a chance of raising the budget your film will require and have taken the first step towards making a successful film. Alternatively, shelve your idea for now, make some shorts, PA and then AP on some commercial productions to gain experience and contacts and approach your film with a long term view.

I have the feeling you might have to learn the hard way though and will get discouraged and give up once you realise the miracle is not going to happen. A more realistic approach will be much more likely to see you at sometime in the future, IMHO.

G