How many of you self-fund your first feature?

[Kholi]

i asked a question because i didn't understand something. I'm just looking for answers. yes kholi I've been told by filmmakers who aren't getting anything done themselves but also from people who have made somewhat of a career out of it. i just wanted a better understanding of how that is done.

To be honest, you do it by figuring out how to get someone to pay for it. Someone doesn't always mean the audience, either. Even better, just make sure you're doing stuff that either lives up to your name (if you have one) or you do work that people/niche want to pay for.

If someone's made a career out of it then that's proof that it can be done, right? Sorry, I don't mean to come off rude.. it's definitely a touchy subject.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

My plan, such as it is...

Build SOMETHING of a reputation (still working on it).
Have a percentage of the money myself (say 10% to 20% of a $100K to $150K budget)
Pitch a film with a defined audience and at least potential for profits.

 

[harmonica44]

Wow that's a lot. I would be like 50 by the time I got 100K budget, even if it was from others maybe. I hope to spend maybe 50K, and work around a lot of factors. How do a lot of filmmakers start out young on features, when it takes so long to get that much money?

 

[Kholi]

Wow that's a lot. I would be like 50 by the time I got 100K budget, even if it was from others maybe. I hope to spend maybe 50K, and work around a lot of factors. How do a lot of filmmakers start out young on features, when it takes so long to get that much money?

Don't wait until you have that much money?

And, most well-known filmmakers came from money to begin with, not like it was hard to find a decent number to start with.

 

[Cracker Funk]

And, most well-known filmmakers came from money to begin with, not like it was hard to find a decent number to start with.

Interesting, I'd never considered that. My intuition tells me that what you're saying is generally true.

Ponty, filmmaking is a risky venture, for all parties involved, at all levels of filmmaking, amateur and pro. Yes, funding your own first feature is an incredibly risky use of money. So, too, would it be incredibly risky for an investor to fund a filmmaker's second feature. Such is the nature of the business.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Don't forget that every now and then, one of those foolhardy risk-takers breaks through that barrier and makes it big. It won't happen for most people, but it does happen.

 

[Kholi]

Interesting, I'd never considered that. My intuition tells me that what you're saying is generally true.

Google all the people that filmmakers quote as greats: just about every one of them came from money. The gutter kids typically don't make it to that level, because to do so you really have to spend every waking moment living and breathing this stuff.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Don't forget that every now and then, one of those foolhardy risk-takers breaks through that barrier and makes it big. It won't happen for most people, but it does happen.

Sense has been made.

 

[Ponty301]

Okay, thanks for the responses guys. Kholi, Cracker, you made it easier to understand. And Gonzo, great plan, I'm going to have to borrow it
While most successful American film makers came from money, a good amount didn't. Off the top of my mind Tarantino, Rodriguez, even Kubrick didn't come from money.

"Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Don't forget that every now and then, one of those foolhardy risk-takers breaks through that barrier and makes it big. It won't happen for most people, but it does happen."

Very true, sir.

 

[harmonica44]

I think Tarantino must have had some big money since he was able to get well known actors such as Harvey Keitel for his debut.

Wondering how much money I should use. Would you rather spend 50K on your first by age 30 or wait till age 40 or 50 and spend 100k or plus, to make it a possibly better movie cause of more money spent?

 

[Kholi]

Theres generally no big difference in spending 50K to 100K you're gonna basically produce the same movie. You start seeing differences at 200-500, then 750-1.5M. 2M - 3M.

You should create based on your ability to produce, and always ALWAYS remember that one persons 50K is another's 500K.

As fa as Tarantino, Rodriguez, Kubrick. That's three. Out of how many? By it's still three and it's proof out of the old school model that you can male a career out of it if you figure it out.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

I think there could be a huge difference between 50K and 100K. If expenses are pretty static, say $3K a production day, it's the difference between trying to shoot a feature in 14 days and 25 or 28 days or the difference between 6 pages a day and 3 pages day. That could have an exponential effect on the finished product.

However, I'm also a believer in the theory that between about 150K and $1 million is a no mans land as far profitability goes. a $100K and a $500K film both have virtually zero chance of getting major distribution. However with a $100K film it's such a shorter road to profit you actually have a chance of seeing the black, on a $500K film it's much harder.

 

[JoshL]

Lots of "rags to riches" style careers start with more money than they'd like you to believe. Technically, Microsoft was started in Bill Gates' parents garage. It's just that garage is bigger than most of our houses.

There are plenty of well known artists who aren't the best of their generation; just started with the biggest leg-up. But there are just as many rich kids who, despite great gear and awesome connections, fail miserably.

So, yeah, lots of people fund their own feature. From an "investment" standpoint, a feature is a saleable product. If you can make one, maybe make back a little money, an investor is going to be thousands of times more likely to foot the bill for your next one.

 

[Kholi]

I think there could be a huge difference between 50K and 100K. If expenses are pretty static, say $3K a production day, it's the difference between trying to shoot a feature in 14 days and 25 or 28 days or the difference between 6 pages a day and 3 pages day. That could have an exponential effect on the finished product.

From experience: it probably won't have any serious effect on the end product. You definitely should not spend 25 days trying to shoot a feature under 500K; any feature. The same project on 50K and 100K, what should change is amount of crew, location quality, the scale of certain scenes and most important of all post and delivery.

If your 50K budget had 20-25K going to post (not counting festival submission fees etc) then your 100K budget should be 30-40K depending on which aspect of a finished feature you value more. For example score or soundtrack.

However, I'm also a believer in the theory that between about 150K and $1 million is a no mans land as far profitability goes. a $100K and a $500K film both have virtually zero chance of getting major distribution. However with a $100K film it's such a shorter road to profit you actually have a chance of seeing the black, on a $500K film it's much harder.

there's almost no chance for the filmmaker to make money, but larger distros bank on 500K to 1.5M pictures all of the time. If you are willing to basically lose 500K and make good friends with distro companies who will pre-buy your next feature in the millions (as long as you have recognizable talent) youll be at big budgets in no time.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

I work for a company that has an independent distributor arm. They pick up a few (maybe 6 to 10) films a year. I get to see a LOT of films in the budget ranges we are talking about. The difference in quality between a $50K film and a $150K film is pretty huge. The difference in quality between a $150K film and a $650K film, not so much. Maybe a slightly better grade of B/C list actor. The big difference is probably the pay scale of the people who worked on it which may or may not have much effect on the finished product.

All in general of course, always exceptions.

 

[harmonica44]

What differences specifically between the two budget ranges are we talking about here? Better acting performances, better sound recorded on set, all of it, etc?

 

[Dreadylocks]

I work for a company that has an independent distributor arm. They pick up a few (maybe 6 to 10) films a year. I get to see a LOT of films in the budget ranges we are talking about. The difference in quality between a $50K film and a $150K film is pretty huge. The difference in quality between a $150K film and a $650K film, not so much. Maybe a slightly better grade of B/C list actor. The big difference is probably the pay scale of the people who worked on it which may or may not have much effect on the finished product.

All in general of course, always exceptions.

Yeah but isn't it common practice to lie about your budget? Those 50k budgets could very well have been 10k and the 150k could be 75k. And there is a big difference between 10k and 75k.

 

[harmonica44]

Another thing is, couldn't I just show distributors my movie, and not tell them how much it cost to make, and they can judge it on directing, acting, and the script, rather than the budget number?

 

[Kholi]

I work for a company that has an independent distributor arm. They pick up a few (maybe 6 to 10) films a year. I get to see a LOT of films in the budget ranges we are talking about. The difference in quality between a $50K film and a $150K film is pretty huge. The difference in quality between a $150K film and a $650K film, not so much. Maybe a slightly better grade of B/C list actor. The big difference is probably the pay scale of the people who worked on it which may or may not have much effect on the finished product.

All in general of course, always exceptions.

Although I do not work for a company, I have really close friends that do work for major distributors (theatrical) that have shingles acquiring and producing content with b/c list talent and no names at all. That's where I get my information from. Although, I can see how a small boutique could differ.

And, of course, there's the issue of eyes, and how my eyes perceive quality in comparison to others. I don't see a major difference between 50K and 100K features, and typically I only see it happen at 200K.

I also see a big difference between GH2 Hack footage, non hacked, and an incredible IQ leap from the Gh2 over the 5D (> Purposely teasing you) but others may not see it.

Either way, it's important to know that none of it matters if you aren't creating something someone wants to actually buy.

I'd much sooner invest in a crappy horror movie that looks awesome versus a really good indie movie that looks awesome.

Yeah but isn't it common practice to lie about your budget? Those 50k budgets could very well have been 10k and the 150k could be 75k. And there is a big difference between 10k and 75k.

Absolutely. And more than likely that's what's happened.

What differences specifically between the two budget ranges are we talking about here? Better acting performances, better sound recorded on set, all of it, etc?

Another thing is, couldn't I just show distributors my movie, and not tell them how much it cost to make, and they can judge it on directing, acting, and the script, rather than the budget number?

1. It depends on what's important to you. in my case, if I had an extra 50K then it'd be better locations, better score/soundtrack, and better VFX.

2. No.

 

[JoshL]

Yeah but isn't it common practice to lie about your budget? Those 50k budgets could very well have been 10k and the 150k could be 75k. And there is a big difference between 10k and 75k.

Why would you lie in that direction? Wouldn't it be more advantageous to sell the "we made this movie on $50 and a pack of gum!" direction, despite having spent more?

Not doubting that you are correct, just don't understand it

 

[Kholi]

Why would you lie in that direction? Wouldn't it be more advantageous to sell the "we made this movie on $50 and a pack of gum!" direction, despite having spent more?

Not doubting that you are correct, just don't understand it

You lie up if you want to try to maximize your returns when dealing with distros, or you want to hide money.

You lie down if you want to increase your street cred and profile, get more press one way or another.

Neither matter if you already have more work in progress and you're forging your career on more than one product.

 

[DeJager]

Josh,

You'd want to fib and say you spent more money than you actually did.