good point.
How many of you self-fund your first feature?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
good point.
Wouldn't distributors think that low budget shooting is a good thing, cause then they'll be thinking "hey, this guy can shoot a movie for only 10k! Let's give him grants on another project since he can get it done for cheaper, than others". Isn't it more likely they'll give you more, if you don't spend as much?
No, they are more interested in "They spent some money on this, it's probably worth my time to look at it".
If they think you made it on the cheap they'll go in with a preconceived notion it's crap.
Why don't they watch it, before they start asking technical and production questions? In this case I better lie for sure.
Crazy talk.
Only thing that's important is that you make money, not the effort ,not how you did it so on and so forth.
If you do a 10K feature and you net 200K in self distro, now you've got a case.
Do a 10K feature and nobody watches it, nobody cares.
Because they have plenty of others with better value and bigger names to watch.
Me thinks your not in the right mindset to make a feature film yet with anybody's money, never mind yours.
You've got to spend as much time MARKETING your feature as you spent making it. If you're not up to doing the marketing, you and everyone else who invested in your film will most certainly get nothing.
Good luck though.
Indie filmmaking is a hobby, like buying a boat, or collecting stamps. The pleasure is in
the "doing". On your films, only spend what you can afford to lose. My wife and I have
made EIGHT feature films as "a hobby"...spending about $2500.00 each of our own money...and
we will continue to do so as long as we have money to put into it...as a hobby.
Don't expect anyone to fund your projects, because it's not going to happen. Indie films
will never make money, and once you realize that, you won't be able to look an "investor"
in the face and ask him for money...he's not INVESTING, he's "giving" you the money. Once
you've made the film, the money's gone.
Sorry, but it's the truth. I'm 60 years old and have been doing this for a long time...
http://etheridgeproductions.scriptmania.com
the "doing". On your films, only spend what you can afford to lose. My wife and I have
made EIGHT feature films as "a hobby"...spending about $2500.00 each of our own money...and
we will continue to do so as long as we have money to put into it...as a hobby.
Don't expect anyone to fund your projects, because it's not going to happen. Indie films
will never make money, and once you realize that, you won't be able to look an "investor"
in the face and ask him for money...he's not INVESTING, he's "giving" you the money. Once
you've made the film, the money's gone.
Sorry, but it's the truth. I'm 60 years old and have been doing this for a long time...
http://etheridgeproductions.scriptmania.com
If you treat it as a hobby then expect to get the results of a hobbyist. If you treat it as an investment and a business then you're setting yourself up for the chance at making some money. Go big or go home! I do agree with you though that if you are spending your own money then make sure it's money you are okay losing... because the odds are against you. However, there is always a chance and that's what keeps filmmakers making movies.
The most profitable film of all time (as judged by ROI) was made for $15K. Every single year, there are a few low-budget indies that make it big. Last year's darling was "Tiny Furniture", and that was made for $25K. None of us are denying how incredibly high-risk an investment in an indie movie is, but high-risk and impossible are not the same thing. Some indie movies turn a profit, and I think that's the goal of almost all indie filmmakers (and it's worth noting that you don't have to have a theatrical run to turn a profit).
If you're truly just doing it for fun, with no intent of turning a profit, then I guess you're a hobbyist. Many of us in this forum do not fit that description.
And that's plenty cool with me and would like to join the ranks.Ray: not all of us subscribe to your resignation. I want to make profit off mine... and we do have members here who do so.
I may be goofy, but you don't really see me goofin' off and not paying attention around here.
But, please indulge me for a few moments to hear my not-so-shabby reasoning:
When I goto Hobby Lobby and see the aisles and aisles of knick-knacks, dust catchers and f@rts&cr@ps supplies, and I see all the ladies in line with odds&ends by the arm load or cart full, then consider how many of these warehouse sized stores there are across America I can't help but think most of this shhhhstuff is going to end up in a landfill in two generations.
Someone's grand kids are gonna clean out grandma's garage when she dies or goes off to the nursing home. Landfill, here we come.
I pretty much think most of the fishing and hunting supplies at WalMart are never going to contribute to someone's financially successful future.
So when I see all the rubbish generally on youtube trying to be... something, all the feature length "content" for free on youtube, the 10,471 free features on IMDB, and then there's the piles of secondhand DVDs in bins at Walgreen's pharmacies and at Dollar General and at gas stations and I think... even at $3.99 I still don't wanna watch these studio made features - I kinda get the idea that I'm not likely to make anything more than a few grins off some people, maybe a guffaw on a good day.
A lot of folks are filmmaker hobbyists and I'm okay with that.
I'll help when I can just like if we was painting or fishing.
I'll make semi-snarky comments for amusement when I can.
Maybe I'll shaddup when I should sometimes.
Maybe.
It could happen.
Making a living off of fine art is hard.
Making a living off of bass fishing is hard.
Making a living off of filmmaking is also hard.
I respect that.
Last edited:
rayw, I think Knightly's comments were directed towards Rayandmigdalia.
I'll respond to this, though:
I think there's an important distinction to be made, in respect to intent. According to your logic, then a med-student is a hobbyist. Many law students never pass the bar exam, so according to you, they are hobbyists. I have musician friends who treat their music like a job. They put in just as much time working at their art as they do their actual job. They don't make any money off of it, but they sure do want to. According to your logic, they are hobbyists.
I just don't see it that way. I think there is a pretty clear distinction between the guitar player who fools around for a couple hours a week, and the guitar player who practices, on his own, for 20 hours a week, rehearses with his bandmates for 10 hours a week, and schedules his entire life, job included, around the few gigs he is able to get. That's no hobbyist, that's a starving artist. An aspiring musician, if you will.
I'm not just doing this for fun. It is fun, but I have a very clear intent of where I want it to go, and pretty much my entire life revolves around that goal. This ain't no hobby. I think the term "aspiring filmmaker" is much more appropriate.
This is merely semantics, but sometimes semantics matter.
We've had a similar conversation, a couple of different times, regarding the use of the term "filmmaker". I used to refuse to call myself that, because I've never used film. I used the term "videographer". I ended up switching to calling myself a filmmaker for the simple fact that I found it easier to communicate with people.
When I told people I was a videographer, they either got a confused look on their face, or they thought I shot weddings. When I started telling people I was a filmmaker, they immediately got it.
Likewise, I think the term "aspiring filmmaker" instantly communicates exactly what it is I'm doing. When you say that to people, they get it -- they know that it means I have a "day job" to pay rent, but am actively working towards turning filmmaking into a career. "Hobbyist" doesn't communicate the same thing.
I'll respond to this, though:
I think there's an important distinction to be made, in respect to intent. According to your logic, then a med-student is a hobbyist. Many law students never pass the bar exam, so according to you, they are hobbyists. I have musician friends who treat their music like a job. They put in just as much time working at their art as they do their actual job. They don't make any money off of it, but they sure do want to. According to your logic, they are hobbyists.
I just don't see it that way. I think there is a pretty clear distinction between the guitar player who fools around for a couple hours a week, and the guitar player who practices, on his own, for 20 hours a week, rehearses with his bandmates for 10 hours a week, and schedules his entire life, job included, around the few gigs he is able to get. That's no hobbyist, that's a starving artist. An aspiring musician, if you will.
I'm not just doing this for fun. It is fun, but I have a very clear intent of where I want it to go, and pretty much my entire life revolves around that goal. This ain't no hobby. I think the term "aspiring filmmaker" is much more appropriate.
This is merely semantics, but sometimes semantics matter.
We've had a similar conversation, a couple of different times, regarding the use of the term "filmmaker". I used to refuse to call myself that, because I've never used film. I used the term "videographer". I ended up switching to calling myself a filmmaker for the simple fact that I found it easier to communicate with people.
When I told people I was a videographer, they either got a confused look on their face, or they thought I shot weddings. When I started telling people I was a filmmaker, they immediately got it.
Likewise, I think the term "aspiring filmmaker" instantly communicates exactly what it is I'm doing. When you say that to people, they get it -- they know that it means I have a "day job" to pay rent, but am actively working towards turning filmmaking into a career. "Hobbyist" doesn't communicate the same thing.
Last edited:
See what I mean?
Yeah...
You can make money of a feature of almost any budget. It has to be great though. It needs to look as good, sound as good, entertain as well and be acted as well as a Hollywood release. That's not impossible on a $50k budget. It's a longer shot and everything has to go right, but with the right people and a lot of late-evening elbow grease on your part in post polishing it, even a $20k budget feature can look, sound, and be acted that well. Then it's up to you to market it like crazy. Hit festivals, hang posters, spam the internet, generate interest. Give it enough time and a great movie will be profitably distributed one way or another.
You might (but probably won't) make money off of an okay feature. If you're really lacking in any department, it makes it harder but there are plenty of success stories out there who's first feature was 'meh, not great but not terrible." Knowing the right people really helps here.
You can't make money off a piece of crap. You might have a long-shot hope in a niche market or something, but if you can't make a movie that's enjoyable, looks good, sounds good, well acted, etc then you're SOL.
If I spent $2500 (not sure how, but still) making a feature, I'm pretty sure that I could bring in $5k from a few nights of local ticket sales alone, after renting the theater and passing out some flyers.
Certain budgets have a better chance than others, true.
Finally, your "baby" project that you've been nursing for the past few years is probably not a feature that will make you money. Shoot something people buy. Slashers have been popular and can be fairly cheap. So can romantic comedies and the market seems to never get enough of those haha. Again, when you point at success stories, look at what they did. Nolan did studio projects before he tackled his "baby" Inception, Rodriguez made Spy Kids.
One of the keys to make money in filmmaking is to look at it as a business first and an art second. DaVinici and Michelangelo did commission pieces in-between their pet projects. Famous directors do commercials now too. Shoot to make money first (business) then once it's profitable you can focus on the fun/creative stuff (art). Find the right projects and maybe you can do a little of both.
Disclaimer: I haven't shot a feature yet. Worked on some (that were profitable) but I've been spending time building a team and honing skills so that when we do shoot a feature (relatively soon) it will have a much better chance at landing somewhere between okay and great, rather than crap and meh (most independent features).
You can make money of a feature of almost any budget. It has to be great though. It needs to look as good, sound as good, entertain as well and be acted as well as a Hollywood release. That's not impossible on a $50k budget. It's a longer shot and everything has to go right, but with the right people and a lot of late-evening elbow grease on your part in post polishing it, even a $20k budget feature can look, sound, and be acted that well. Then it's up to you to market it like crazy. Hit festivals, hang posters, spam the internet, generate interest. Give it enough time and a great movie will be profitably distributed one way or another.
You might (but probably won't) make money off of an okay feature. If you're really lacking in any department, it makes it harder but there are plenty of success stories out there who's first feature was 'meh, not great but not terrible." Knowing the right people really helps here.
You can't make money off a piece of crap. You might have a long-shot hope in a niche market or something, but if you can't make a movie that's enjoyable, looks good, sounds good, well acted, etc then you're SOL.
If I spent $2500 (not sure how, but still) making a feature, I'm pretty sure that I could bring in $5k from a few nights of local ticket sales alone, after renting the theater and passing out some flyers.
Certain budgets have a better chance than others, true.
Finally, your "baby" project that you've been nursing for the past few years is probably not a feature that will make you money. Shoot something people buy. Slashers have been popular and can be fairly cheap. So can romantic comedies and the market seems to never get enough of those haha. Again, when you point at success stories, look at what they did. Nolan did studio projects before he tackled his "baby" Inception, Rodriguez made Spy Kids.
One of the keys to make money in filmmaking is to look at it as a business first and an art second. DaVinici and Michelangelo did commission pieces in-between their pet projects. Famous directors do commercials now too. Shoot to make money first (business) then once it's profitable you can focus on the fun/creative stuff (art). Find the right projects and maybe you can do a little of both.
Disclaimer: I haven't shot a feature yet. Worked on some (that were profitable) but I've been spending time building a team and honing skills so that when we do shoot a feature (relatively soon) it will have a much better chance at landing somewhere between okay and great, rather than crap and meh (most independent features).
Last edited:
Ah. I see what happened. My mistake.
Rayandmigdalia
Ray: not all of us subscribe to your resignation. I want to make profit off mine... and we do have members here who do so.
Yeah, I'm not quite all the way into the NEVER camp.
But I can easily see it from where I'm standing.
Can darn near toss a pine cone in it.
Again, I respect the hard work that goes into producing a financially successful indie film.
I guess I honestly respect the fun that goes into goofing off for self entertainment, as well.
Last edited:
So are you saying I should do what's been done before though? All of my ideas which I consider, having a chance, are not slashers or romantic comedies. I suppose I could turn my thriller story which I feel is my best, into a slasher, but... well sometimes the behavior of the characters in slashers can be kind of... well stupid. I wouldn't want the violence and chase sequences to play out the same way at all. Plus slashers have been done to death, to the point where I can't even stand to watch one anymore. Are audiences still wanting to see those for like the 200th time? Not that I have anything against them. I like wine too, but if I had 200 glasses forced down my throat by a market, I might be get tired of it.
Last edited:
You missed the main point of that post. In summary all I really said was that if you want to make money, offer a well made (not lacking in any area), in-demand product.
Sorry harmonica44 if that was confusing, that wasn't specifically aimed at you, rather the "absolutely impossible to make money crowd" and readers in general. I really have no idea what your pet project is about, and even if I did I'm not a market analyst that could properly answer your questions.