How many of you self-fund your first feature?

knightly said:
MN hasn't remained competitive with their "Snowbate" (I didn't name it, don't laugh at me) film rebate program amongst the states. There have been many films shot here over the years, it's just not as fiscally attractive here as it once was. Our old Gov' didn't seem to see the value in bringing "Gig" jobs into the state (with the associated income to local business it provided - food, shelter, office space, location rental, etc...).

The programs work thusly:
1) make a film
2) spend money wherever you make it
3) whatever money you spend on local resources (people, lodging, food, equipment, etc) you can get an xx% refund after you're done because it brings money directly into the local economy.

MN's xx% is lower (lower ROI for the production) than other states that have similar looks to them, so even films set in MN are shot elsewhere now. Almost every state has these programs.

As I'm looking at this endeavor as a business rather than a one off film, the state refund program becomes a side note that helps with my ROI as I can then claim the full budget of each production and the refund (if granted by the state board) gets us closer to our return/profit case faster. Since all of our work will be in state, we have a much higher amount of our budget that will qualify for the refunds (the funds are limited though due to the cutbacks over the past dozen years).

If I were a typical producer and looking at all of the possibilities for locations in the world, I'd want to go specifically where the rebate benefitted me the most and the initial prices were the lowest (lowering my upfront costs and increasing my return on that investment)... so many productions are done in Canada and a few of the other midwest states to our East. Over time, fewer and fewer productions have come here and many of the local resources had to shut their doors - lowering my business competition here.
Click to expand...


Forgive me if I am wrong, but why does your explanations of how film industry in MN works, and why is collapsed, sounds so much like premises on which car industry in Detroit was set up on (and look what happened to it), or Dubai's moguls ideas about how to make Dubai a skiing mecca?

In the language of New Age:

Its not sustainable!

To me that's clear sign that industry as such dosn't really exist but is rather a "Potemkin's Village" :(

You are basically describing MN film industry like a outsourcing center (within the same country) for bellow the line production, sub-contractor for the same thing that could have been done in California but because of tax incentives, political decisions based on questionable agendas, and similar socio-economical programs, is moved to MN where producers could save few bucks if they shoot in MN.
That's like Communist concept of economy and industry!!!!???!!?!?!!?
Completely unsustainable.
Something that depends purely on the personal view of the few.
Speculation.


The reason that Saudi Arabia is the biggest producer of oil in the world is because they have plenty of oil under their soil making it a REAL industry and profitable one too!
Now, their Sheicks could spend billions of dollars in buying snow making mashines so that they can create Alaskan chilly-full clima in order to attract tourists from neighboring heat-boiling countries, and create a whole tourist "industry" out of it, but that will last until Sheiks decide that it was enough, because they already spent too much money for snowmashines compared to profits that they gained.

Real industries don't rely on politicians and decision makers to make bills and laws in their favor.
REAL industries roll on their own strength!
They don't need a help from the side to keep them alive!


And you know when MN will have a real filmmaking industry?!

WHEN people from MN start telling their life stories and start narrating their drams, and how their catalyze. articulate, perceive, and artistically express their artistic and life experience!

WHEN MN folks start making movies about Paul Bunyan rather than wait for Hollywood studios to tell that story!
When they become the main CREATIVE force and not just physical labor nad guns -or-hire only if Hollywood studios need cheaper alternative to Californian workforce and original scenery and sets!


Because that's what people wanna see, and will pay for it to see!

It's 21st century!

People are tired of seeing how Holywood sees the world! We all already know that perspective. Thats why nobody goes to movie theaters anymore. They already seen that movie :)










JoshL said:
Some clarifications here:



Do you realize what radio was in the 30s? Do you realize that Welles was a household name? A better comparison than Bon Jovi (who is not in a narrative art form, whereas Welles WAS) would be someone who is big in television....which oddly enough is where a lot of directors DO come from.



This is just flat out wrong. Blade Runner was in 82. Alien was in 79 and made 80 million. The Duelists was in 77; Box Office Mojo doesn't list it, but it did star Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel. It was his debut, but had far more high profile actors than a debut by you or I would. Why? Because he had been directing television since 1965. Ridley Scott was not a nobody. He had been working for nearly 20 years and had one BIG hit. Incidentally, Alien was made for 11 million. You don't give 11 million to a nobody, not today, and certainly not in 1979.

All of this is you doing exactly what you said you didn't want to do...you're comparing apples to oranges here. Now, I'm not saying one is LIKELY to make money on an indie picture...or a hollywood film or what have you.
Click to expand...




You are absolutely RIGHT about Riddley Scot!
MY BIG MISTAKE! My appologies for ignorance and selective memory, and laziness to double-check the facts.
RADIO and Orson Welles notions could be a questionable debate which I will not get into, but since neither is important to the reasons why I asked questions 1/ 2 / 3 so I will not reply to your replies but rather give my own answers to my questions because I belive it's important that I demonstrate to you that I am not talking about apples and oranges because I am not
COMPARING DIRECTLY the two, bath rather trying to learn about one from the knowledge I have of the other:


My Answers

Questiion 3:
Up until early 2000s, Coppola has filed for his 7th bankruptcy!

Question 2:
Spielberg used money he made in early successful movies as a capital to start making a profit through REAL ESTATE biz in NY and D.C. area…


Question 1:
3 mutual point for these movies are:

-All of them are GREAT MOVIES that regardless of the people's taste and opinion about them, can be considered as artifacts of human spirit and civilization, their life progress or regressions and ultimately proofs of human existence, meaning they are -ART pieces!

-All of them were considered financial failure to the point that their own producers tried to sabotage them

-All of them are still making serious money on the market, despite free downloads, torrents, rapidshares, cheap illegal DVIX copies sold on the street etc…. People still gladly buy DVDs of those movies, rent them on netflix or even better, go to movie theater to see them (last screening of Brazil that I attended was saturday's midnight theater screening and it was SOLD OUT). Now try to find any product that is commercially exploitable 20/30/70 years after it's production! Not even german cars can d that :)
The only product that can do that is -ART!

ART is the ultimate commercial product!!!

Or to quote somebody who said it before me:
"ARTIST is the ultimate businessman because he is actually manages to sell you things for big money that you don't even need! "



In other words, if you wanna be commercially successful, you best bet is trying to crate art!




JoshL said:
if you're making the movie that you want to make, your odds are much slimmer than if you actually study the market you are aiming for and make something that THEY want to see, and market it to them.
Click to expand...


If you really wanna be studious and analyze market, human's taste, what people like or dislike, you will find that actually they have no problem spending money on ART but do not want to spend money on the movie that is made "by the rules" of many instructional books ("from reel to deal" and such) in order to please them!

People wanna be moved, they wanna be surprised, they wanna be engaged, they wanna be educated, they wanna be intrigued… they want -ART!


Why all of this is important?!

Because you're all talking about he movies like they are stocks and bonds rather than - ART pieces!

I can understand that Hollywood Studio executives talk about movies in that regard because after all, non of them went to artschool nor filmschool but rather Yale/Harward biz school, but at least you, who are filmmakers with or without schools it doesn't matter, should have more self-respect and dignity towards what you do, and start treating movies like a "live being" rather than plain fact in the stats of stockbrockers! Like a ART!


Why is this so important?!

Because you will never have problems finding investors if you know what is that you do, if you honestly tell them why do you need money and especially if you manage to explain them that what you do is not biz/industry/trade specultions but rather ART madness!






Cracker Funk said:
I read your posts, in full, and found them to be rather negative. Not sure how you think they are anything otherwise. I'm not trying to get into a flame-war with you. I just wanted to temper your negativity with a little hopefullness. You did, after all, write this:



I didn't read anything wrong, or take it out of context. You stated, quite clearly, that you think I'm doing it wrong. I'm telling you that what you think is "right" doesn't work for me, on many levels. I'm not interested in doing what you think is "right", I'm perfectly capable of choosing the path that is best for me, and I'm not embarrassed to admit that it is the path of a dreamer. :)
Click to expand...


No worries I am not accusing you for anything, I am just wondering am I too cofusing for others to read because of my elaborate writing....

It's funny what you say, because I consider myself to be a dreamer!?

OK, I get the point that my comments might be more on a negative side, but even if that's the case, it's not me who is negative:

I am just accurately interpreting the situation on the field! Situation is negative!

If experts are saying that 5 out of 6 movies in Hollywood is actually loosing money (and hope for a big successful smash hit to recoup the investments for the losers), why blaming ME for negativity?!

Why not instead be open enough and say to yourself:
Yeah, it sucks! I better stop dreaming about it the way Idid so far because one day I might find myself on elm street and the day will be friday 13th.

I am sorry, but I can not and don't want to nourish anybody's insecurity of their vanity not warm up the false hopes of neither my fellow filmmakers nor film investors just so that fragile ad sensitive souls of fellow filmmakers don't find my behavior be to be too discouraging for their goals!



Quite contrary:

I am trying to help everybody reach their dreams by pointing out the fact that if they dream of big money in indie movies biz, and especially if they talk their investor into those dream, the only dreams that that will come through are their own - NIGHTMARES!


If I say that indie movies is not money making biz and that lying to your investors based on the premise that it is, how exactly am I becoming partypooper?




Huh, this is getting too implicated and it seems that other people take my writing more on a personal level…I guess I will have to reset and start from the beginning, since otherwise we might end up in dead end street of mutual accusations!


Hmmm….
Nobody finds it useful to answer the questions under numbers 4/ 5 / 6 / 7/ 8 ?
 
You realize you're picking directors and situations that you think are proving your point but ignoring people that do make a film product for profit.

Many people don't like Michael Bay movies because they consider them to be the opposite of art. I like many of them, but regardless, he's pushing a money making/movie making formula that generates a lot of money for him and everyone involved.

There are lots of people making money making films an carrying films that turn a profit. You quoted me earlier and stuck your words after it making it sound like I agree with you. I don't. You do need to make a GREAT film on the independent level to turn a profit, any most that do independent film don't do it at that level for one reason or another. I actually think you're better off making a product than a piece of art.

Another example that's just the opposite of what you're saying, Rodriguez made Spy Kids. It's not exactly an art masterpiece, but it had a specific audience, could be made on a small budget and he did well off of it.

By the way, the reason people think your remarks are personal is because when you quote someone and add "are you serious!!!???!!!???" and a list of soapbox arguments on why that response is wrong in your eyes, it's a personal comment.

I respect your viewpoint. I actually agree that you'll never make a $ on a feature. I will though. I'm hitting it from a business side first, making money on shorts and developing the team for an indie feature and learning and polishing and refining along the way. Others can too.
 
I also never said I wanted to make huge Hollywood profits... I just want to make my mortgage payments. I pursue my craft for the same reason people whittle... but whittling is cheap, just need a knife and some wood from the backyard...

Filmmaking is expensive and I want to continue doing it. I can't move for various reasons and have tons of resources here. I have a perfect place to start a small business. Building films that people are willing to purchase and turning a small profit to push the company forward. I don't need to be universal, I'm happy to sell through direct to DVD markets and make small targeted films that people would buy. I don't need to make art, nor have I ever pretended that I did. Read through many of my old posts...

I'm a craftsman... If I do my job really well, the audience will tell me whether they think it is art. I HATE being forced to watch ART.

I like movies that are purely escapist entertainment... so do lots of other viewers, those people speak with their wallets and are the reason that the big summer blockbusters make larger profits than the smaller work of love pieces. I don't believe that the level of depth you're proposing is necessary. I think the raw numbers show that to be true. If I were going for laurels, it would be a different story, but again, I'm more concerned with sustainability in the small scale rather than the large scale fame and fortune model.

If I succeed in that model, the audience will tell me with their pocket books and I'll accidentally hit the bug fame and fortune model, but making it not necessary to success is the trick to the sustainability in this endeavor. Smaller investment levels, reducing risk and building self-sustaining investments in the company. After 4 or 5 small profits, the profit can be reapplied to the next film. If we target our audience well, we should be to the point where we don't need to bring money in anymore making the company jump forward with each not having to pay back investors from that point forward.

smaller scale that you seem to assume. I don't want to replace hollywood here in MN, that's impossible - we don't have the year round weather for it... but a 5-6 month shooting cycle with the rest being or pre and post would allow us to do enough projects to get to our "go" line faster... in under 5 years, so we can hit our sustainability within 10.

The difference with us is that I don't care what our next project is, so long as it meets an audience need. I'm passionate about making films. I think that comes through in my work - I don't necessarily need be connected to the content the way that artists making important films do. For me, it's about telling the story in the best way I can. I've never written a script and don't have any plans to do so.
 
That's pretty cool. I still feel I want to do my script, but am open to reading others and see if I can find one that is more 'escapist' or 'passable' to the audiences that like microbudget films. So what are some movies you guys have made for profit then?

There's something I am trying to understand about the target horror audience. I haven't seen a lot of microbudget horrors, but from the ones I have seen there is a lot of gore. A rather unnecessary amount to the point where it gives the movie an exploitative feel, rather than relying on deeper scares. If I do a horror or slasher, do I have to have gore nowadays for that audience, or can it be like the original Halloween and have almost none?
 
Last edited:
My group is just moving into that part of our journey/plan. I'll gladly keep you up on the progress :) We're in post on our 2 most recent projects as we shake out our new crew (many from our last crew graduated college and moved away) and figure out the logistics for larger projects that are not for time constrained competitions. The results are very promising :) I'm excited to show you the results there. Our new crew is wonderful and full of great input. They are passionate about the work and all pushing forward toward the common goal of doing this for a living.
 
Saying right off the bat, I'm not taking any of this personally, nor is anything I say a personal attack. I'm enjoying this conversation a lot, particularly as a mental exercise. There's a lot to think about here, so to that:

Indigo said:
You are absolutely RIGHT about Riddley Scot!
MY BIG MISTAKE! My appologies for ignorance and selective memory, and laziness to double-check the facts.
RADIO and Orson Welles notions could be a questionable debate which I will not get into, but since neither is important to the reasons why I asked questions 1/ 2 / 3 so I will not reply to your replies but rather give my own answers to my questions because I belive it's important that I demonstrate to you that I am not talking about apples and oranges because I am not
COMPARING DIRECTLY the two, bath rather trying to learn about one from the knowledge I have of the other:
Click to expand...

And let me divert back to that. You have people who climbed the ladder, making a name for themselves, THEN made a film people consider "artistic" that the studios didn't understand, so screwed over, and the audiences for the most part didn't understand, so they weren't profitable. Yes, people are still going to see Brazil in limited screenings. But after 20 years it hasn't made a FRACTION of what, say, the latest twilight film has. And we're talking profit, not overall ticket/dvd/licencing/etc sales. But that's not my point. My point is this:

People knew who they were. They made an artsy film. People STILL didn't go to see it.

As an indie filmmaker NO ONE KNOWS WHO YOU ARE. You are just another voice in an ever increasing din. If you make a film that you consider to be art (also bear in mind how VERY expensive those movies you mentioned were for the time), few people will watch it and you are correct, you will not make money. Look how many videos are on youtube. Do you have time to watch them all to find the next great filmmaker?

I posit that the point of a "first film" shouldn't be to establish yourself as an artistic force. It should be to make some cash to fuel your NEXT film. Do your artsy project a few down the road, after you learn to make money, because filmmaking is expensive. Furthermore, the project you really care about, your Brazil or Blade Runner (though you could argue Blade Runner was trying to be a popcorn film based on a book by well known author, it was just ahead of its' time and far more intelligent than audiences were expecting), will be better off for having a few projects under your belt. You will be BETTER at what you do.

Financials of Hollywood studios/producers/directors/busboys are irrelevant. You may want to read up on things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

I do like your "art is the ultimate consumer product" philosophy, but sadly it's not true. Open an art history book. Find out how many artists died broke or in debt. Art is NOT the way to make a living. Though, on the other side of things, look at the artists that DID live off their work. They had sponsors, or frequent commissions. They made stuff they didn't care about (not that it was bad because there's no reason not to be the best you can) for money, in order to fund the stuff they DID.

Let's take a look at last year: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011&p=.htm
Top 100. Any art films there?

So if you aren't already independently wealthy, making art will not make you so. And if you're not, odds are no one will ever hear of you. Heartbreaking, but true.

You are right in thinking that some people would want to invest money on an "artist" (see aformentioned sponsors). However, you really need to sell yourself. Why would they give money to YOU rather than, say, Terry Gilliam (and watch "Lost in La Mancha" to see how easy it is for HIM to get money)? It's a lot more difficult to get funding for art than something people actually want to watch. If you know the secret to getting artistic investment, by all means share, we'd love to learn from you. But I think it'd be easier to take 50k and turn into 100k and turn THAT into 250k than it is to get people to give you money for free because they like you (which is what donation/sponsorship is all about).

Also, both of these career paths CAN BE DONE. One is just more likely, though neither are easy. I think knightly has a great plan; make solid movies that can do well, and be able to make a living at it. He doesn't want to work a dayjob; he wants to make movies, so did the research, learned how to be able to do that (not make millions, but make a solid living) and is executing his plan.

I want you to succeed. I want knightly to succeed. I want harmonica to, and everybody on this board. The fact of the matter is I don't want to work a dayjob either. I make music, and over the years I've done plenty of "artistic" music, and still do music that resonates with myself. But that's a one in a million chance that I could do it full time, as awesome as I think my work is and always has been. MY plan is to pursue a career in film scores (while keeping my other music as a hobby, rather than working in an office and doing music as a hobby). I love doing film scores (I love every kind of music, really), but it's definitely a "work-for-hire" artistic expression rather than something that comes from me. I want everyone here to do well, and to help that happen so you guys all hire me years down the road! The point of that (besides sharing my perspective) is a large part of the learning I've been doing the past couple of years is similar to knightly's approach. Understand my market (filmmakers), understand their needs (how to do exciting music, or sad music, etc) and develop my craft (so that the music is as good as possible).

The point is treating film as a business and treating it as art do not have to be mutually exclusive. If you learn to do one, you'll have a lot more opportunity to do the other.

harmonica44 said:
There's something I am trying to understand about the target horror audience. I haven't seen a lot of microbudget horrors, but from the ones I have seen there is a lot of gore. A rather unnecessary amount to the point where it gives the movie an exploitative feel, rather than relying on deeper scares. If I do a horror or slasher, do I have to have gore nowadays for that audience, or can it be like the original Halloween and have almost none?
Click to expand...

Short answer is this: there's a difference between the horror crowd and the slasher crowd (though lots of overlap there). The horror crowd is much smaller, and will watch a poorly acted, poorly lit ghost story with no gore if it is interesting. Occasionally, one of those becomes more popular, and hits with a bigger/mainstream audience. Horror fans tend to view slasher films as bottom-of-the-barrel lowest-common-denominator films...and they are, and FAR more popular because of it.

Slashers these days (and in days gone by) tend to be pretty gory. Halloween was an exception. But, again, you need to study the market. Find some horror/slasher focused websites/magazines and read about what people like, and what they don't. The appeal of slashers is that of a roller coaster. It's sex and violence and you don't have to think about it too hard, just watch it.

As in anything, if you know your audience, or what appeals to your audience, you'll have a better chance of drawing them in.
 
Okay thanks. It is hard to believe. For example on artsy thriller that got a lot of popularity was Hard Candy (2005). My friends who saw it really liked it, and other people I've talked to from time to time, mentioned how it was one of their favorite movies as well. But it only grossed 1,000,000. I saw the remake of Black Christmas (2006), and it grossed 16,000,000. Yet my friends who saw it and I, hated that movie and thought it was really really terrible. So I guess you're right people prefer to spend more money on crap, but hate it when it's over.

I guess I should make a lowest common denominator film first, but I cannot write one myself. Everytime I try to think of an idea, I get writer's block, compared to my artsy ideas. However since audiences like sex and violence roller coaster rides, that is what my script is about the serial rapist/killer, but there is a lot more plot in between, but sequences of sex and violence that lasts about a quarter of the movie. Most slashers, the slasher sequences only add up to about a quarter anyway if you time it. Similar to action movies. It's just a bit hard for me to determine what makes mine so different from the genre aside, from having a lot more plot packed in, than most horrors or slashers. I don't really think my ideas are what I would call 'artsy', at least not near to the degree of Brazil. Hard Candy more so.

So I will have to look to other people's scripts to see if I find a worthy feature. How do you tell the difference between a good lowest common denominator movie script, and a bad one though, since they are all pretty routine and don't go outside the box?
 
Last edited:
harmonica44 said:
How do you tell the difference between a good lowest common denominator movie script, and a bad one though, since they are all pretty routine and don't go outside the box?
Click to expand...

Market research. Study the genre (what does well, what doesn't do well). Study the viewers (what they like, what they don't).
 
Okay thanks. Since most of the movies are forgotten about within weeks, I don't know of any that have come out in the past few years, nor do anyone I know, since my friends can only remember the artsier movies. Any examples to learn from?

Do you people who have made lowest common denominator movies send them into film festivals? Cause usually those movies are not picked for any awards, so I am curious if sending them in, would hurt their chances? What if I posted some loglines of some scripts online and asked what movie people would rather spend money on? Are people truthful when it comes to what movies they pay to see when it comes to these audiences? I mean most people for example like I said, say they love Hard Candy, but no one has heard of Black Christmas, even though it made more money.
 
Last edited:
Start with a google search for "slasher film review" or "slasher film forum". With some digging you'll find lists of what's come out, what people think are good, and people discussing said films.

Films like that do not win awards, you are correct, unless they're in genre specific fests (there are TONS of specialty fests geared towards horror, for example). I think the goal there is more to get them in front of possible distributors.
 
Look at Kubrick. He had to make more mainstream films (The Killing, Pathes of Glory, Spatacus) before he could make his more artsy films (Lolita onwards). Though, his early films were shot much more cinematic than most that were coming out at that time.
 
A movie like Silence of the Lambs is a good example of what I can write without getting writer's block. It has the sex and violence (maybe not so much the sex), those fans are looking for, but also has a thinking plot. If the movie had no known actor's would it still be a straight to DVD moneymaker for today, for a newcomer filmmaker? Or is there no audience for it for a newcomer? A History of Violence (2005), had the brutal violence, but also more sex, so would that be a hit, if it was straight to DVD with no known actors?
 
Last edited:
I'm in.

Starting pre-production now. Life long dream. Make a killer movie or buy a harley. Script and characters carry my movie. Using as many free, accessible, and relevant locations available. I'm sole investor and producer. Found a great young team I feel will kick ass on this project. They have so far. Worried and scared that it won't work. Make an awesome business plan of why your doing your movie. Mine will make money. Just not sure how much.:D

and I'm going to try and act in it.:cool:

Great forum. Peace.
 
One of you said before how if my bduget is 50K I should spend no more than 25 days shooting it. I was kind of thinking more like 125. How long should a scene shoot be therefore? So far it's taken me at least 6 hours to shoot a scene, if I hurry and I have ready people.
 
harmonica44 said:
One of you said before how if my bduget is 50K I should spend no more than 25 days shooting it. I was kind of thinking more like 125. How long should a scene shoot be therefore? So far it's taken me at least 6 hours to shoot a scene, if I hurry and I have ready people.
Click to expand...

125 what? You have a budget of $125K or you want to shoot for 125 days on a budget of $50K?

"A scene" is a fairly useless measurement for working out how long something takes to shoot. A two page long scene of dialogue might take half a day. A page long car chase might be almost a week's worth of work for 1st and 2nd units.

What you really need is a 1st Assistant Director, who will be able to break your script down and make an accurate estimate of how long each element will take to shoot based on their experience, and then schedule it according to the availability of cast/crew members, locations, important props, daylight hours etc.
 
TV uses a pace of 5-8 pages / day, Movies (depending on budget and complexity) are more 3-5 pages / day (with low budget films pushing into the TV range). Properly formatted scripts are approximately 1 minute / page. So, for a 30 minute show, you would have a 25-35 page script and stick to about 5 pages / day - so 7 days of shooting.

which is roughly 14 days per hour of screen time. or .23 days / page in the script @ the 5pgs/day pace.
 
You can't really judge how many days you need to spend on a movie until you know what kind of movie you're shooting AND finishing.

Last year, for our first feature, we had about 45K (including what was raised from Kickstarter) to shoot and complete--post, the entire deal. We're still finishing it, VFX with no money takes a lot of time.

But, we shot about 15 days and I still need to go out and do about two more days of shooting. Cast was about 12-15 deep and most of the time there were at least three-to-four people on screen at once.

This year we're going to shoot and complete a feature for 10K, also has VFX involved, but the main cast is half the size.

I'll probably shoot out a 90-105 page script in about 8 days, with two half days for quick pick up shots.

I need to spend no more than 5K on the actual production itself, and then 5K on post.

You're putting the cart before the horse: figure out what you're shooting first, then that informs the rest.
 
Okay thanks. So how do you guys get your actors and crew to show up though? I am having that problem for my first short film, so how do you get it to happen for a feature? Especially if the script takes place in like three days. Then you have to shoot within the seasons. Finding a replacement actor who will show could take months, and by then it's winter, instead of summer, and the footage won't match, and more money to spend.

So what are some of these lowest common denominator movies you guys have made, to make money? I would like to see some to get an idea, of what those audiences like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top