series If you make a series of films ...

A

Aspiring Mogul

This is a serious question.

Suppose a low-budget film costs $250,000 and can be made in a month. If the Executive Producer gets $1 million, can he make four films in four months? Let's assume that the four films would be in the same setting.

Thanks for your input.
 
I might not get your question.

If a film costs $250k to make and takes 1 month to make it. An Executive Producer can technically make all 4 films sequentially for 1 mil within that 1 month. Seems like simple math to me.
 
Someone told me that there's pre- and post-production, which add to the times. So can I assume that, there will be a period of time for pre-production and a period after for post, but the shooting itself, in my example, can be done in ten months?
 
I think I get your question now.

So your 1 month doesn't include pre production and post production? What you need to do is find out how long pre production and post production will take for your specific production (it's a how long is a piece of string question).

To answer this, you're going to have to do one of 3 things:
  1. You're going to need to gain the experience to schedule and manage these productions.
  2. You're going to hire someone to do this task for you and give you an answer.
  3. You're going to have a guess and hope like hell that you're right.

Here's the problem if the number is wrong:

The%2BQuality%2BTriangle.jpg


If you schedule post production to be completed in 3 weeks (which is nuts, depending on your production) and you get half way through your time but you're maybe 25% through your work, what do you do? Extend the time (ensuring you get a good result) costing you more money, throwing more resources at it (making it faster and way more costly and rarely works out well) or make it faster to keep within budget and schedule and substantially lower your quality.

There's a saying. Every dollar you spend in pre production, you save 2 in production. Of course after a while you're hit with diminishing returns, but you need pre production to take the right amount of time. No more, no less. That time is determined by the production. Just like how many actors you require and how long you need them also depends on the production.

That all being said.

You're shooting 4 movies. If you've got a cast that is in all of them. Is there a reason you haven't considered going into pre-production for all 4 movies at once and consider them one project (like they did with Back to the Future 2 + 3, Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Avatar 2,3 etc). Shoot each of them concurrently over 4 months (which I seriously doubt you'll get to shoot for that long with your budgets) and then move into post production. It's likely that you'll find ways to stretch those dollars better (doubling up on locations, better equipment hire deals, no need to purchase wardrobe/props again, reducing storage etc), which basically means, better production value.

There is a significant down side. There is increased risk. If you make each movie individually and wait to see the outcome, you may come to the conclusion that you're better off ditching the other movies. If you pick the wrong team, hell, even if you pick the right team, you may not know you're holding a steaming pile of manure until it's too late.

You really need someone like rik on your team. I can see your lack of experience causing you to burn through a lot of cash unnecessarily. It's a shame, for your sake, you had a falling out with him. I suspect this level of budgeted projects are in his comfort zone.
 
Hi, Sweetie,

I'm still friends with Rik.

Yes, the four films will be in a series, like the LOTR trilogy or Back to the Future 2 and 3. So the pre- and post- will be for the same four films. I'm not worried about pre- or post- in this example, just the filming. If the post- will take time, that can be good news for me, because it buys time for me to, in this example, prepare a fifth film.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to features it can be handy to have some time between them so certain elements can be lifted/improved in the next part. I remember reading somewhere that they shot extra stuff of Gollum/Smeagul for Return of the King because there appeared to be a demand for it.
On the other hand: shooting back to back can be very efficient. Make sure there is a little break for cast and crew between each part. Nobody survives working for 4 months non-stop :P

Sweetie's triangle is something important.
In Dutch I call them the 3 Gs: Goed (good), Gauw (fast) & Goedkoop (cheap)
Cheap & fast is (almost) never good.
Good & fast is (almost) never cheap.
Good & Cheap is (almost) never fast.

I wrote almost, because there is always a contradicting example somewhere. Just don't expect that example is you.
 
Last edited:
Aspiring Mogul said:
Suppose a low-budget film costs $250,000 and can be made in a month.
Click to expand...

That would be a micro-budget film then. Shot in a month, yes, made in a month, not a chance.

Aspiring Mogul said:
If the post- will take time, that can be good news for me, because it buys time for me to, in this example, prepare a fifth film.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're saying here, are you saying that you'd have no interest or participation in the making of these film/s? BTW, for a commercial feature you'd want to allow roughly 16 weeks or so for post, depending on genre, duration, etc.

I think you're maybe getting ahead of yourself, trying to sprint before you can crawl! Micro-budget films are quite heavily compromised and while it is possible to still make a ROI, it's difficult and the odds are heavily against you. Trying to achieve any sort of commercial success with 4 concurrent micro-budget films, without having the benefit of learning from your mistakes and applying those lessons to the next film, sounds like a recipe for disaster. Yes, there are few examples of blockbuster series made concurrently but it's not exactly a similar comparison. Highly experienced commercial producers/directors backed by major studios, using highly experienced world class crew/staff, a proven franchise/demand.

G
 
AudioPostExpert said:
Give or take, roughly 5% of the total time it takes to make a film.

G
Click to expand...

5%, wow, that's a lot of other work that would be done. OK, I think I've got my answer. My next step is to do a series of short films, to gain experience, and then to work my way up in complexity.

Thanks, everyone, for your help. :)
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
Suppose a low-budget film costs $250,000 and can be made in a month. If the Executive Producer gets $1 million, can he make four films in four months? Let's assume that the four films would be in the same setting.
Click to expand...

If a producer gets a million dollars, it will be to make a specific film.
He can't simply go do whatever he wants with that money, the investors will be very unhappy if you end up making something different with their money.

As for if it could be done, if the green light was given for it..... well, you are underestimating it.

Because a film doesn't just take the one month to film. It takes much longer beforehand in pre production, and ages more in post production and distribution/marketing.
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
5%, wow, that's a lot of other work that would be done.
Click to expand...

When the public think about filmmaking, they immediately think about a film set; lights, camera, actors and a director sitting in a director's chair. The reality is far different. Think about making a cake, you decide what sort of cake you want to make, find a recipe for that cake, then you go to the supermarket and buy all the ingredients, mix them altogether and bake the cake. The difference between making a cake and making a film is that a film is a completely bespoke product, you have to create your own recipe and you can't go to the supermarket and buy all the ingredients, you have to make them all yourself. The shooting (production) phase of filmmaking is where most of the ingredients are created. The post production phase is where those ingredients are measured, mixed and baked and the development and pre-production phases are where the recipe is designed, the ingredients decided and a plan drawn up to manufacture those ingredients.

This is why your focus on just shooting seems a bit bizarre, you appear to be concerned only about manufacturing ingredients and not interested in actually making the cake.

G
 
Last edited:
Good point, IronFilm and APE.

I was asking about making a series of films because I'm trying to predict my cash flow, though that will be a bit premature. I presume that the big cash burn will be, first, building the sound stage (pre-prod) and then when the actual filming is done. I could be wrong, of course.

I want to shoot four films as opposed to one after the other, because I want the same cast, if not crew, in the same universe. I can shoot four films in four years, but, if the actual filming and use of the cast is one month per low-budget, then it may make sense to get enough money to do four in four months, so the cast and crew can do it all at once.

That's my reasoning.

Rik, any thoughts?
 
OK, I'm asking because I was thinking that, instead of getting the money to produce a movie every few years, I should wait until I can do a few movies at the same time. This can save on overhead cost, because the sound stage can be reused, and, if the cast and crew are familiar with the universe, they can do a better job.
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
I presume that the big cash burn will be, first, building the sound stage (pre-prod) and then when the actual filming is done. I could be wrong, of course.
Click to expand...

There's no easy answer to this. As a general rule with low (and upwards) budget films, most of the money goes on the production phase. AFAIK, building the sound stage is really part of production rather than pre-production. You can't really build the set/s until the design and planning of the film has been finalised, which effectively marks the end of pre-production. With a micro-budget film though, the balance of costs/expenditure can be quite different from higher budget films.

Aspiring Mogul said:
I want to shoot four films as opposed to one after the other, because I want the same cast, if not crew, in the same universe. I can shoot four films in four years, but, if the actual filming and use of the cast is one month per low-budget, then it may make sense to get enough money to do four in four months, so the cast and crew can do it all at once. ... That's my reasoning.
Click to expand...

I understand what your reasoning is, I'm questioning whether that reasoning is prudent in practice. Some of the logic behind your reasoning is sound, other parts of it won't make much difference. Your belief in your "universe" is admirable but ultimately it is just your belief and certainly not a market certainty. You gave the example of Back to the Future II and III being made concurrently but that only happened because the first film in the series was highly successful and therefore II and III were a fairly safe bet. Even with TV series, a pilot is made and evaluated first, before the series is green lit. No matter how much of a safe bet you personally think your universe is, if that universe, your style of portraying it or any one of numerous other factors does not grab your audience, you have spent huge amounts of time (and considerable money) making 4 films, none of which are commercially viable!

My advice: Make one film and see how the market responds. Maybe the market won't respond, in which case you've saved yourself the time/cost of the 3 other films and can maybe come up with a new/different/better universe. If the market does respond well, maybe some serious funding will become available to make higher production value sequels, in which case the money/time you've spent making your micro-budget sequels is again wasted! What I would suggest though, is to have scripts ready and a plan for your subsequent films when you premiere the first film. Although success is rare, many of those few filmmakers who do get their 15 minutes of fame can't take advantage of it to "strike when the iron is hot" because they've got nothing to strike with!

G
 
AudioPostExpert said:
There's no easy answer to this. As a general rule with low (and upwards) budget films, most of the money goes on the production phase. AFAIK, building the sound stage is really part of production rather than pre-production. You can't really build the set/s until the design and planning of the film has been finalised, which effectively marks the end of pre-production. With a micro-budget film though, the balance of costs/expenditure can be quite different from higher budget films.



I understand what your reasoning is, I'm questioning whether that reasoning is prudent in practice. Some of the logic behind your reasoning is sound, other parts of it won't make much difference. Your belief in your "universe" is admirable but ultimately it is just your belief and certainly not a market certainty. You gave the example of Back to the Future II and III being made concurrently but that only happened because the first film in the series was highly successful and therefore II and III were a fairly safe bet. Even with TV series, a pilot is made and evaluated first, before the series is green lit. No matter how much of a safe bet you personally think your universe is, if that universe, your style of portraying it or any one of numerous other factors does not grab your audience, you have spent huge amounts of time (and considerable money) making 4 films, none of which are commercially viable!

My advice: Make one film and see how the market responds. Maybe the market won't respond, in which case you've saved yourself the time/cost of the 3 other films and can maybe come up with a new/different/better universe. If the market does respond well, maybe some serious funding will become available to make higher production value sequels, in which case the money/time you've spent making your micro-budget sequels is again wasted! What I would suggest though, is to have scripts ready and a plan for your subsequent films when you premiere the first film. Although success is rare, many of those few filmmakers who do get their 15 minutes of fame can't take advantage of it to "strike when the iron is hot" because they've got nothing to strike with!

G
Click to expand...

Interesting ... let me think about what you've said.
 
I've been thinking about this, so this is how I look at it as of now.

I want to do a sci-fi franchise series, which means, almost by definition, several movies set in the same universe, with the same props and sets. An alternate idea is to do movies set in different settings, because, if one idea doesn't work, another one may.

But, if no one knows anything, then the probability of each film succeeding is the same. It doesn't matter if it's the second film in the same universe or a film in a different universe - the odds of either one making it would be the same. This leads to the issue of why I would rather do a series or several unrelated ones, and it goes back to what Louise Levison told me - filmmakers do it because of their passion. Let's face it, the odds of any one making it are slim, so, if I'm going to do this, I want to do the project that I would be interested in.

I started this thread because I was thinking of filming them with the same actors, so I want them shot in close order, before they get too old. IOW, I would rather wait twenty years to do four films than do one film every five years. And this leads to my business plan - while I get my money together, over many years, I'll be doing short films, to gain experience. And, you never know, one of those short films may go viral, which may start off my career.

Any thoughts? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top