series If you make a series of films ...

[Sweetie]

There are so many elements, so many perspectives to films that this over simplification of the process of a successful film is kind of scary.

I suppose it all depends on what you call a successful film. If your goal is to make a film in 20 years for $250k and turn at least a $1 profit, assuming films haven't been outdated by then, it's entirely possible.

If you're aiming for a blockbuster hit, there are a bunch of important elements you'll need to consider.

Mind you, I'm not saying you cannot do it.

 

[Aspiring Mogul]

There are so many elements, so many perspectives to films that this over simplification of the process of a successful film is kind of scary.

I suppose it all depends on what you call a successful film. If your goal is to make a film in 20 years for $250k and turn at least a $1 profit, assuming films haven't been outdated by then, it's entirely possible.

If you're aiming for a blockbuster hit, there are a bunch of important elements you'll need to consider.

Mind you, I'm not saying you cannot do it.

How true. I'll start with the shorts and see where it goes. But, yes, I'm aiming for a blockbuster - if everything is random, it doesn't matter if I'm aiming to break even or for a blockbuster, so I'll go big.

Thanks, as always.

 

[Sweetie]

If you're aiming at a blockbuster, you'll need to learn a lot about international markets, how international markets interpret stories differently.

Most importantly, you'll need to build up a warchest of moola. In the range of a minimum of $30mil and most likely in the $80-100mil range... and that's just for marketing. Now if we're talking big marketing budget, you'll need marketable talent to make that marketing investment worthwhile. Add tens of millions for them too. Now that A-list talent rarely trusts a director without a track record, so you'll need an A-list director or a major up and commer... and the list continues.

Since we're not talking big money, you'll probably need to learn the politics of show business with China.

If it'll take 20 years to save up that $1mil... The math tells me you'll be ready by the year 4015. Since this isn't a viable option, you'll need to learn film finance.

Also understand, this is horrifically simplified.

 

[Aspiring Mogul]

If you're aiming at a blockbuster, you'll need to learn a lot about international markets, how international markets interpret stories differently.

Most importantly, you'll need to build up a warchest of moola. In the range of a minimum of $30mil and most likely in the $80-100mil range... and that's just for marketing. Now if we're talking big marketing budget, you'll need marketable talent to make that marketing investment worthwhile. Add tens of millions for them too. Now that A-list talent rarely trusts a director without a track record, so you'll need an A-list director or a major up and commer... and the list continues.

Since we're not talking big money, you'll probably need to learn the politics of show business with China.

If it'll take 20 years to save up that $1mil... The math tells me you'll be ready by the year 4015. Since this isn't a viable option, you'll need to learn film finance.

Also understand, this is horrifically simplified.

Well, like I said, film is a lottery. The odds of making it are incredibly slim, but, if one breaks out, then it can be the start of a new franchise.

Several low-budget horror movies have done so in the last few years. If that happens, then the studios and investment firms will come with the money. So the hope is to get enough money to do a series of low-budget sci-fi movies.

But, even if that wasn't so, the passion is still there, so, in the end, maybe that's all the reason that's needed - to indulge in a passion.

 

[Sweetie]

Well, like I said, film is a lottery. The odds of making it are incredibly slim, but, if one breaks out, then it can be the start of a new franchise.

You know, I hear that all the time. I disagree. While what you're saying may be true. It's a lottery for films that are either small, aren't marketable enough, don't target profitable demographics, are poorly made or aren't promoted correctly or don't the resources to do any of the above well.

It doesn't take much to look at the studios slates of block buster films. They've worked most of it out to the point that if a big-budget film flops, it's a big deal in the news. The failure/break even/breakout hit ratio is no longer 6-3-1. From my observations, I'd say it's almost reversed.

I was talking about your goals. They aren't my goals. You were the one stating you were aiming at creating a blockbuster. There is a way to make it happen. In my opinion, the way you're aiming gives you maybe a 1 in 10000 chance (or more) of achieving that aim.

Once again, I don't want to come across as a nay-sayer. I'd attempt to point out the potential issues of trying to win a racing car trophy driving nothing more than a screwdriver.

I do wish you the best of luck.

 

[Aspiring Mogul]

I was talking about your goals. They aren't my goals. You were the one stating you were aiming at creating a blockbuster. There is a way to make it happen. In my opinion, the way you're aiming gives you maybe a 1 in 10000 chance (or more) of achieving that aim.

What is the way to make it happen, in your opinion?

 

[Sweetie]

Making the package viable for investors. Make the money make sense.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

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. ... But, yes, I'm aiming for a blockbuster - if everything is random, it doesn't matter if I'm aiming to break even or for a blockbuster, so I'll go big.

That's false logic. It's not completely random or just a lottery, it only seems that way. If it were really like that then the consistently successful filmmakers and studios would be the luckiest entities in the history of the universe! With little experience and a relatively tiny budget then whatever you do, the odds are heavily stacked against you. Personally though, I'd rather be facing odds of 500-1 against than odds of 10,000,000-1 against! For example, how many micro-budget films have significant levels of commercial success? Let's use sweetie's suggestion of 1 in 10,000 (I've no idea but you should!). How many micro-budget sequels have enjoyed success when the first micro-budget film in the series bombed? I can't think of any examples (maybe there are some I don't know about) but even if there are some, you can probably add a zero or so to your 10,000-1 shot. All of them made at the same time? Add another zero. Making a sci-fi blockbuster with micro-budget resources? Add another zero. Now we're up to the level of lottery odds! It's still possible to succeed, just incredibly unlikely. IMHO, you should be working on increasing your knowledge/skill/contacts/etc., in an attempt to lower your odds, rather than saying "screw it, the odds are against me anyway, I might as well go for the most ridiculous astronomical odds I can possibly think of!".

As I said before, you're trying to sprint before you can crawl! Blow us away with some shorts and maybe then you're ready for a feature. Then, blow us away with a feature and maybe you're ready for a series of features. Until then, you're just dreaming about being a racing driver without ever having driven a racing car or even any real idea of what a racing driver does!

G

 

[Aspiring Mogul]

Making the package viable for investors. Make the money make sense.

I would like that, Sweetie, but, with no track record, I can't get funding for a tent pole, and I wouldn't know how to manage the money anyway. I have spoken to several financiers, and the only way now, is to start small and work up. Then, if and when the time comes, perhaps one low-budget will hit it big.

As I said before, you're trying to sprint before you can crawl! Blow us away with some shorts and maybe then you're ready for a feature. Then, blow us away with a feature and maybe you're ready for a series of features. Until then, you're just dreaming about being a racing driver without ever having driven a racing car or even any real idea of what a racing driver does!

Agreed. And that's why I will start doing shorts and work my way up. My goal, eventually, is to do a series of films set in the same universe, and, if you look at my previous posts, I've given myself decades.


As for the issue of randomness, if the major studios know something, then, yes, the probabilities would not be the same. But, if no one knows anything, to quote Willliam Goldman, then a low-budget film has as much chance as a tent pole - that's standard probability theory. I've asked someone who has a masters degree in statistics, and he confirmed what I said.

If any of you say others know something, what do they know? Rik, care to weigh in?

 

[Sweetie]

I've asked someone who has a masters degree in statistics, and he confirmed what I said.

An expert in statistics and film distribution I assume? If not, are you saying that every indie film has as much of a chance to become a billion dollar hit as does The Avengers? Does that sound right to you? You may need new friends if they're preaching this as gospel.

The deck is stacked. If you truly think that randomness determines the success of a film you're mistaken. When was the last time you went to the cinema and used a random method (like a dice) determine which movie you watched? I know I've never done it like that. Does anyone?

Show business is all about increasing your odds while at the same time employing risk mitigation. Doing anything else isn't show business, it's gamboling. That's a completely different business.

with no track record, I can't get funding for a tent pole

There is a large range of difference between your 250k and a 200mil tentpole. As I said, you need a package that makes sense to investors. The more you can show you'll make, the more you can ask for.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

But, if no one knows anything, to quote Willliam Goldman, then a low-budget film has as much chance as a tent pole - that's standard probability theory.

It would be standard probability theory if the William Goldman quote were true, which it isn't! I'm not sure of the context of the Goldman quote but taking it as an isolated statement, it might be true if it were re-phrased to read "no one knows anything for certain". There is no absolute guarantee that any film will be a success when judged during the development stage. Making a film is a complex undertaking and there's so much that can go wrong, at every stage, with every aspect and any one of countless possible mistakes can cause a disconnect with the audience and result in a financial flop. However, the major studios and the people they employ/fund do know a great deal, albeit not for absolute certain. As Sweetie states, it all comes down again to the odds and having the knowledge to mitigate them. While the average, nano/micro budget, indie filmmaker may be facing odds of say 10,000-1 just to get limited distribution and make a modest profit, the major studios have reduced those odds down to the point that they're actually in the studios' favour, they have positive odds! While the major studios do occasionally suffer a flop, the majority of their films succeed, which of course is entirely logical because if the majority of their films did flop they wouldn't be a viable business and they certainly wouldn't have remained in business for nearly 100 years!

G