If you have alot of money, can you produce big films?

M

MelonDome

Hypothetically speaking: IF I were to get my hands on a 100k. Could I put my money into a feature film and help produce it?

For example: Let say The Dark Knight was being made, could I contact Legendary Pictures and invest my 100k into the film and become a producer?

Im just using The Dark Knight as an example, im just curious if money can help get your foot into the door.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Not really. While the title of “producer” can sometimes be bought,
for the most part the producer is actually a very skilled,
experienced professional.

If you were to invest 100k in a movie costing a total of 100k then
you could, if you want, be the producer or help the producer in
order to learn and get a credit - thus getting your foot in the
door. That might work for a movie budgeted up to around $750,000.
But certainly not for a movie budgeted in the $100,000,000 range.

Using your hypothetical “big films” question, I don’t think any
studio picture would allow even a 70 to 80% investor with no
experience produce the movie.

But in the low budget, independent world if you were to invest
above 50/60% of the entire budget you might be able to buy
yourself a producer position.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In the mainstream US market you couldn't use money to land a producer's role... however in Europe, you could probably cut a deal to get an executive producer credit, with a further agreement by the Producer to let you shadow them through-out the process.

The importance of a cash stake of $100,000 in Europe is that there is a lot of "soft funding" or in other words state and EU funding which is pretty much always match funding (funding that only comes online when it's matched by equal funding from elsewhere).

So a good producer in the EU can turn $100,000 into about $4M with the right combination of soft funding, pre-sales and inward investment... and in Europe $4M is a good budget.

The biggest problem you'd have at the moment is that the dollar is weak and the Euro is strong... so your $100,000 is worth less now than it was six months ago.

Now, make a couple of good films in Europe as a "Producer" and then you'll find that the mainstream US industry comes to you.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Very interesting. Consider this; I get a masters degree at USC's prestigous starky producing program. I borrow $500,000 from my best friend (hypothetical), in your opinions, would I be able to help produce lower end featured films like "28 days later" .

It is my understanding that executive producers generally invest a great deal of money into a picture. If I was an experenced producer who just came out of film school, a few internships, would I have a greater chance of "getting in"?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This isn't even a hypothetical. You can spent the $500,000 anyway
you want. Even without getting a degree from any school, if you
want to invest $500,000 in a movie and want to attach yourself as
producer or help the producer or watch the producer, you can.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you have money someone will take it. I'm not sure that's how you want to break into the biz, though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ah, I see. When I said film school, I was reffering to, "I would be trained as a producer". I have a hard time imagining anyone with money buying a producer credit. LIke you guys said earlier; they may give you the credit but they still want you to shadow another producer. OTherwise we would have people who have tons of money like paris hilton, with producing credits everywhere.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I understand what you meant. But even if you aren't trained
as a producer and have $500,000 to invest you can do what
every you want on that film. So if you do get a degree and want
to finance a $500,000 film you can be the producer, too.

MelonDome said:
I have a hard time imagining anyone with money buying a producer credit. LIke you guys said earlier; they may give you the credit but they still want you to shadow another producer. OTherwise we would have people who have tons of money like paris hilton, with producing credits everywhere.
Click to expand...
And we do. There are hundreds of people with money and
absolutely no experience who have bought a producer credit. It
has been such an issue in the past that the AMPAS were forced
to change their rules for the Oscar for Best Picture.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik, financially speaking, arent films almost guarenteed good investments? Assuming you help produce a blockbuster with a great director, great script, actors and a solid marketing campagin, you can never go wrong with investing most of your own money because you will break even to the least, if not double your investment; im looking at this in an ignorant stand point, with no knowledge of producing, please correct me if im wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
MelonDome said:
directorik, financially speaking, arent films almost guarenteed good investments?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Films are a major risk and a very, very poor investment.
Fewer than 20% of the movies produced by major studios return a profit.
That number is considerably lower for independent films - I've heard less
than 5% return a profit.

Now "great director" and "great script" are subjective. I'm afraid if I give
examples of colossal failures you will say that director isn't great or you
didn't like the script. But personal taste aside, big budget studio films with
big name directors and actors like Town & Country, Evan Almighty, Sahara,
A Sound of Thunder, Windtalkers, Around the World in 80 Days, Alexander
and Poseidon lost millions. Each of these films had a solid marketing campaign
and name actors.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I can chip in one this one... I did lunch with a UK film finance accountant about three years ago and we were discussing why it is so hard to get money into film. He put it really simply:

"Film is a high risk investment, with no clear outline of potential return... the number one high return investment at the moment (2005) is business property, which pays 20% a year return with a 30% risk... I could get you any number of investors if you could get a better than 20% per annum return and get the risk to the same or less than 30%)"

Now, the problem with film as a product is that each film is a new product... it is unique and therefore there is very little you can do to predict the business it will do. Therefore it's almost impossible to get the figures down to 30% risk... even though the 20% return is very doable.

This is the reason that in the business they talk about "bankable" assets. So, if Sandra's Bullocks last three movies all turned profits, then she's a bankable asset... having her in the movie reduces the risk.

Same with your director... if your director's last three movies all tanked, then she or he is a bad risk... they aren't bankable.

So, a lot of the projects we see come out of Hollywood are formed on the "bankability" of the people involved, not because they are the best people for the project.

OK... now let's scale this down... if you have $500,000 then you can easily become a producer... because what you do is find a script you believe in and then start adding assets to that script... the more and the better the assets you attach the more investment you can draw into the project.

In real terms this is what a producer does... however, most producers play that game with other people's money and not their own.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
clive said:
This is the reason that in the business they talk about "bankable" assets. So, if Sandra's Bullocks last three movies all turned profits, then she's a bankable asset... having her in the movie reduces the risk.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And even then it means nothing.

1993’s Last Action Hero had Schwarzenegger at the top of his
popularity, was directed John Mctiernan who had just come off of
The Hunt for Red October, Die Hard and Predator and written by the
hottest writer of the time, Shane Black. He’s one of the few
screen writers people can name. It cost $85,000,000 (not
including P&A) and returned appx. $90,000,000. It only did about
$50,000,000 in the US.

Take a look at “Evan Almighty” Tom Shadyac had Bruce Almighty,
Liar Liar, The Nutty Professor and Ace Ventura: Pet Detective
under his belt. Steve Oedekerk had written three of those films.
Steve Carell was well know comedy actor after the success of The
40 Year Old Virgin, Little Miss Sunshine and The Office. Add
Morgan Freeman and a solid marketing campaign how could you go
wrong?

Yet it lost $88,000,000.

Now you could argue that you don’t like those movies so they don’t
fit your criteria of great director, great script and solid
marketing campaign. And clearly people didn’t like the movies. But
at the time, those directors and writers (and actors) were at the
top of being a bankable asset.

But people keep investing because every once in a while a Blair
Witch Project” or a Mad Max or a Super Size Me or a Night of the
Living Dead or a Rocky or a Once, or a Napoleon Dynamite comes
along.

So movie do make profits and sometimes they make huge profits. But
they are not an almost guaranteed good investment.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Rik I agree... the whole "who is bankable" approach to film making is like a lot of Hollywood's decision making process designed as a safety net for people who aren't capable of telling a good script from a bad one...

Trust me, this is a subject nobody in their right mind wants to get me on, because I'm feeling a bit ranty at the moment...

:lol:

On the other hand... as a producer I'm trying to build the bests package I can in terms of the right director, right talent, right script... whilst I'm making those decisions I've got to think about what an investor will go for and what they won't... so in many respects I have to always be thinking about what I can successfully pitch.

Now, I happen to love the work of Alex Cox and in fact I was an extra in "Sid and Nancy"... but I also know that his reputation makes him a very, very difficult director to package.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I know ur going to laugh at me directorik, but I do argue that those films that tanked, if I had seen the script alone, I would not invest a cent... thus not allowing me to lose most of my money..

On the other note, great info guys, I learned a lot. So if someone had an eye for seeing great films turn into block busters.. they would really be a very successful producer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm not going to laugh at you.

I am very careful to never get into discussions of what ones personal
taste is - on what is "good" or "bad." I respect that you didn't like those
movies. That isn't my point. My point is someone liked those scripts,
financed them, cast them with bankable stars, hired experienced directors
made them and distributed them. And you didn't like them. Very few
people did. This isn't about what you (or I) like.

Frankly, every producer deeply believes they have an eye for seeing great
films that turn into blockbusters. The fact is not all of them do. And that
reason is because not every one has exactly the same taste in movies. Not
every single person likes the same films.

So if YOU were that someone with an eye for seeing great films turn
that could into block busters and you made a movie that others didn't like
- even if it was an great film - that film would fail. At least at the boxoffice.
And you would lose your money.

So my statement still stands. Films are not almost guaranteed good investments.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top