Indie film 'Layover' discusses budget, and earnings.

[FantasyFilmProductions]

I found this article today while researching the Vimeo pay to view option.

It is the director of an indie film called 'layover' giving a candid breakdown of
their distribution model, and the actual cost vs profit figures.

Worth a read.

http://www.slashfilm.com/how-much-m...ncial-afterlife-of-a-micro-budget-indie-film/



My question is, has anyone found a way to improve on this?

Also looking down at the last comment someone breaks down a "1% of viewers of the trailers coughed up some coin" scenario so perhaps I am naive but has anyone got information to suggest that perhaps a cheaper price would have bought in more paying viewers? or is that unrealistic?



My own distribution plan to date.

What I am considering at this time, not having released any footage yet is to throw out some free appetizers and charge on the main meal as follows.

My first few videos will be shorts that I put on youtube, and link back to fb, both my studio page, personal, and group pages.
These will be small things like music videos etc that I make to provide practice for myself and provide free content.

I am hoping this will get me at least a small following.

I will then release my first full length film onto youtube to again attempt to gain followers.

I would allow advertising on those youtube vids in an attempt to recoup some cost.

This is where I get stuck though. Do I then follow all of this up by moving to the likes of vimeo with its pay to view, or tip jar option? Or do
I stick with the youtube channel and try to gain enough followers to make that worth my time?

All ideas and thoughts welcome as I am as in the dark as most others.

 

[Sweetie]

has anyone got information to suggest that perhaps a cheaper price would have bought in more paying viewers?

Excellent question. I've debated this topic with people many times. I don't have numbers that relate to this industry, though my experience from other industries is the answer is yes and no. Sometimes, in regards to demand, items are price elastic and others are not. It depends on the product. I'm sure this is the same for movies. It's hard to judge movies as a whole. It's even hard to judge on specific movies. A movie on a particular topic I love will be worth more to me than it'll be of value to you. In that case, selling that movie to me at a discount will cause you to earn less money. If you gain no sales due to that discount, that's a problem. If you gain more sales to not only overcome that difference in income but earn more, that's a good thing. Not sure if that will make any sense to you.

It's all part of the value proposition. If you offer the best value to the customer compared to the cost (combination of money, opportunity & time costs), they buy. This also assumes they're in the market to start with. If they're not in the market, you may need to find the formula that turns it into an impulse purchase. You can find this happening on the Steam platform, where they have specials, people go nuts and buy games they have no intention of ever playing, but since it's super cheap, why not...

Don't forget the cost of acquiring that customer. You don't want to go backwards by charging the customer less than it costs you.

What's the right move? It depends.

What I am considering at this time, not having released any footage yet is to throw out some free appetizers and charge on the main meal as follows.

I've heard a counter-argument to this method. If you spend time building up an audience, and then spend time getting them used to expecting your work for free, what happens when you expect them to pay?

I don't know the answer. I'm not sure if anyone does yet.

 

[mlesemann]

I don't know the answer on pricing either, but I've priced my feature (Surviving Family) starting as low as $2.99 to rent in SD and ranging to a high of $7.99 to buy in HD. The pricing is the same on itunes & Amazong streaming, even though I get a bigger % on iTunes. I figure the low end is less than what a lot of people spend on a Starbucks, so it's a reasonable amount to take as a flyer on a movie where they recognize a few of the actors but don't really "know" the movie.

I haven't recouped my full investment yet but it's doing pretty well - and I've always assumed it would take a long time.

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

Excellent question. I've debated this topic with people many times. I don't have numbers that relate to this industry, though my experience from other industries is the answer is yes and no. Sometimes, in regards to demand, items are price elastic and others are not. It depends on the product. I'm sure this is the same for movies. It's hard to judge movies as a whole. It's even hard to judge on specific movies. A movie on a particular topic I love will be worth more to me than it'll be of value to you. In that case, selling that movie to me at a discount will cause you to earn less money. If you gain no sales due to that discount, that's a problem. If you gain more sales to not only overcome that difference in income but earn more, that's a good thing. Not sure if that will make any sense to you.

It's all part of the value proposition. If you offer the best value to the customer compared to the cost (combination of money, opportunity & time costs), they buy. This also assumes they're in the market to start with. If they're not in the market, you may need to find the formula that turns it into an impulse purchase. You can find this happening on the Steam platform, where they have specials, people go nuts and buy games they have no intention of ever playing, but since it's super cheap, why not...

Don't forget the cost of acquiring that customer. You don't want to go backwards by charging the customer less than it costs you.

What's the right move? It depends.



I've heard a counter-argument to this method. If you spend time building up an audience, and then spend time getting them used to expecting your work for free, what happens when you expect them to pay?

I don't know the answer. I'm not sure if anyone does yet.

Yes it makes complete sense. One film is not like another. Each is individual with its own incentive to purchase and that is very subjective to each individual considering the purchase and what they want. Completely understand.

This is kind of where Hollywood has the advantage. They have a set price that everyone follows and has accepted for a very long time. Cinemas are the same. Here in NZ a ticket to a movie can be upward of $13 dollars NZ. It seems high but it is accepted. People don't question the amount, they just question whether the film they got to see was worth that, but by then, it's done. They might not go and watch the sequel but they will still pay again to watch something else. We though don't have a set and accepted price. If everyone was used to paying for instance $3 to download a no name film and $5 for a film with known names behind it, then it would be simple. But we as Indie film makers need to have that discussion I think or at least all start working off the same page. Then it doesn't come down to price any more, it comes down to content. If it is good they will watch your stuff again, if it is not, they won't.

As it stands though, we must set our own price.
And we must market our work so that the public knows it exists.


Other thoughts I have are....

One could argue that my intention to release my stuff for free de-values everyone else who charges.

There is also the argument that because I value my work at 'FREE' the possible audience can assume it is crap
without watching it.

But at the same time, one could be making the best work on the planet and be completely undiscovered and this could be because of price.



If you give an audience free entertainment, as you say, what happens when you suddenly start charging?

I think I like the idea of releasing my first stuff for free, and then for the main meal, maybe put a 720 definition version on youtube for free and an HD version for sale/rent on different platforms as Mlesemann has done below. But I would wait for maybe a month from putting my work on a platform before putting the lower definition version onto youtube.

Perhaps that is the perfect balance.

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

I don't know the answer on pricing either, but I've priced my feature (Surviving Family) starting as low as $2.99 to rent in SD and ranging to a high of $7.99 to buy in HD. The pricing is the same on itunes & Amazong streaming, even though I get a bigger % on iTunes. I figure the low end is less than what a lot of people spend on a Starbucks, so it's a reasonable amount to take as a flyer on a movie where they recognize a few of the actors but don't really "know" the movie.

I haven't recouped my full investment yet but it's doing pretty well - and I've always assumed it would take a long time.

I like this idea. As I mentioned in my reply above to Sweetie though, I think I would take your model and add to it by putting a lower definition version on youtube for free...perhaps a month or something after I release it on the various platforms at cost.

Out of interest, do you rely on the platforms to market your work or do you do some of your own marketing? If so can you tell me what you do and how affective it has been?

 

[mlesemann]

I promote actively on Facebook, including promoted posts, and use new movies and television roles by the actors (which fortunately are fairly frequent) as reasons for new posts. I use Twitter fairly often, but not paid as yet. I take advantage of every interview opportunity to talk about the movie, and then re-share those too, in as many places as I can come up with (including here).

I've been fairly happy with the results - definitely activity bumps up when our actors are in the public eye . I'm always on the lookout though for other cost-effective p.r. outlets.

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

I promote actively on Facebook, including promoted posts, and use new movies and television roles by the actors (which fortunately are fairly frequent) as reasons for new posts. I use Twitter fairly often, but not paid as yet. I take advantage of every interview opportunity to talk about the movie, and then re-share those too, in as many places as I can come up with (including here).

I've been fairly happy with the results - definitely activity bumps up when our actors are in the public eye . I'm always on the lookout though for other cost-effective p.r. outlets.

Cool. One thing that has caught my attention is the likes of 'V sauce' on youtube. It's one of my favourite youtube channels as they entertain and educate all in one. The reason I bring them up though is that there are 3 of them, all running their own channels under the same V sauce brand, and they are constantly making mention of each others videos and putting links on their videos to their counterparts.

Because of this, traffic is shared between all 3 channels with hundreds of thousands of viewers going between all 3 channels.

I have already made mention here on indietalk on other posts about my thoughts that if others are making material similar to mine in genre and production quality, I would be happy to mention them at the end of my videos and also provide links to others channels. I think this could be another effective way to share viewers and have new viewers sent to each persons channel. My thoughts are that I would even be happy to work under a joint umbrella name..."Indie Films united' for instance while obviously reserving full rights and ownership of my own material, either putting all of my footage onto a shared channel, or running my own channel with the parent channel pointing toward mine and anyone else who wishes to join in. Effectively each person involved would have a say in whether a new producers work meets the criteria to work under the umbrella, which would allow for fair quality control.

But this is just an idea I have at the moment. There is room no doubt to make changes to the idea to allow for other advantages/disadvantages to be considered.

SFoster on Indietalk here has already expressed interest in this idea and I would tentatively say is onboard. Obviously though, he will want to see my work to make sure that he is not directing his viewers to a train wreck. I have seen some of his work and it is very good though so I have no issues directing traffic to him.

To present that fairly though, we have had all of one conversation about it, and have shared email addresses. I think he is more interested in running his own channel with links provided to others. I personally think that's a good idea too because it allows each youtube channel owner to be in control of their own earnings.

Effectively though, the idea is to allow us to share viewers, and as he said to paraphrase, it means that if one us suddenly gets popular, it gives the others a chance to share some of that success.

 

[Sweetie]

If everyone was used to paying for instance $3 to download a no name film and $5 for a film with known names behind it, then it would be simple.

It's not quite that simple, but a variable ticketing price is something that I've been hoping will happen for quite some time.

I think I like the idea of releasing my first stuff for free, and then for the main meal, maybe put a 720 definition version on youtube for free and an HD version for sale/rent on different platforms as Mlesemann has done below.

I think you'll run into trouble, but I could be flat out wrong. There's a saying... "Content is king". Is the content that is free at 720p suddenly worth that much more once it hits 1080p or higher?

I suspect the value comes down to the perceived quality of the content you're making.

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

It's not quite that simple, but a variable ticketing price is something that I've been hoping will happen for quite some time.



I think you'll run into trouble, but I could be flat out wrong. There's a saying... "Content is king". Is the content that is free at 720p suddenly worth that much more once it hits 1080p or higher?

I suspect the value comes down to the perceived quality of the content you're making.

Pricing...yea I know mate, and as it stands a variable price doesn't exist so we have to work with what is there.
I don't have the answer.

Running into trouble...My thought is that the value of purchasing/renting the high deff is two fold. Firstly with any other movie there is the cinema release, then the online and bluray etc options. So people are already used to the idea that those that are happy to pay, get to see it sooner, in a higher definition. Those that can't afford to, or are happy to wait, get to see the same film a month later for free, but in this case in a lower definition. If they then love the movie and want to watch it again, there is the incentive to go and buy the HD version.

So I am attempting to cater for both types of public, and give advantages with the earlier release and the higher deff with the purchase, while still allowing for others to watch later without having to pay, if they wish, or to rent it in HD when it is first released.

Some people don't mind the lower quality, which is why people download pirated cam copies of things...others prefer to wait for a HD version and hate watching cams or low quality.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

My question is, has anyone found a way to improve on this?

Well, yes ... That's why the film and TV industries exist! This might seem like a flippant remark but it's really not, or not intended to be. What stuck out to me in the article was this statement; "First things first: Layover is not a very commercial film.
The realised commercial value of Layover was $4k, which is only poor/bad relative to the amount of resources (time, effort and $6k) it took to make it. In other words, to "improve on this" one would either 1. Have to make a film that is more "commercial" than Layover or 2. Make a film that's as commercial as Layover but for far less.

#2 isn't practical. Not only is it unlikely that one could make a film for say $1k which is as commercial as a film made by "promising" filmmakers for $6k but even then, a $3K profit doesn't get you anywhere near a minimum liveable return unless you can churn out quite a number of equally commercial films per year!

#1 Is the most practical and this is the crux of the issue IMHO for the vast majority of lo/no budget filmmakers. The overwhelming majority of lo/no budget filmmakers make films purely for themselves; for their own entertainment, the achievement of overcoming the challenges and/or as a learning experience because they like writing screenplays, directing actors, using video technology or any number of other facets of filmmaking. Many experienced no/lo budget filmmakers may have commercial dreams and/or may include some elements of what they personally believe are commercial considerations but virtually always these considerations are secondary and/or piecemeal. For the vast majority, the road to profitability requires finding a way to turn a completed personal accomplishment into a commercial product, which is effectively futile (!) as they are essentially competing with films which have been designed and made as a commercial product in the first place! Layover's filmmaker/s have made the film which they wanted to make, they have not made a commercial product.

We though don't have a set and accepted price.

I disagree, the price set by the market is essentially $0! You can increase that price for family, friends or acquaintances but beyond that circle, the price is effectively whatever the going advertising income is for a Youtube view. It seems to me there are currently two basic choices: 1. Dramatically increase your number of acquaintances and then tackle the increasingly difficult issue of converting those acquaintances to paying customers or 2. Actually design and make commercial products.

There is of course a third choice, there's nothing in the least bit wrong or unreasonable about making amateur/non-commercial films for the filmmaker's own personal objectives. It only becomes unreasonable when such a filmmaker attempts to commercialise their non-commercial film.

G

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

Well, yes ... That's why the film and TV industries exist! This might seem like a flippant remark but it's really not, or not intended to be. What stuck out to me in the article was this statement; "First things first: Layover is not a very commercial film.
The realised commercial value of Layover was $4k, which is only poor/bad relative to the amount of resources (time, effort and $6k) it took to make it. In other words, to "improve on this" one would either 1. Have to make a film that is more "commercial" than Layover or 2. Make a film that's as commercial as Layover but for far less....

G

No it's not flippant. I totally get your point there and you are right.

I like your points about how trying to compete with a film designed to be commercial is not easy if for instance my film is not designed to be commercial.

For me though, while I hope my films will be successful, I do not write them based on current trends of what people seem to enjoy. Because of that I fit I think into the team of film makers that make films that they want to make for themselves. But I would still like to profit from that if I can. I realize that "what I would like' has no bearing on the reality of how things work, but what I am looking for is a way for my films that are not designed to be commercial, to still make some money.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps youtube with its advertising is the only way people like me will make some cents back. I could try to write a commercial film but in fairness I would then be joining the millions of others around the world writing those same tired old stories. I'm not sure I could do it because I write things that inspire or excite me, and writing a film based purely on how commercial it could be I think would bore me to death.

 

[Velociraptor451]

Even at a very small cost, virtually no one will pay due to the hassle of transferring the money and the trouble of creating an account to do so. Ads are the best way to go.

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

Even at a very small cost, virtually no one will pay due to the hassle of transferring the money and the trouble of creating an account to do so. Ads are the best way to go.

I assumed that also, mostly because I could not be bothered, but it seems that some people can be bothered, and do so for a film that catches their attention.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I fit I think into the team of film makers that make films that they want to make for themselves. But I would still like to profit from that if I can. ... what I am looking for is a way for my films that are not designed to be commercial, to still make some money.

You're certainly not alone in that desire/approach! And what's more, due to cheaper technology that "team of film makers" is rapidly expanding, I think it's already far too big to call it a "team" anymore. Basic market forces (as applicable to all commerce) dictate/predict that as supply exceeds demand, the price falls. Not only is that "team" already at the point where just earning back the budget is a major achievement but as supply continues to increase, so does the difficulty of that achievement. In other words, not only is "what you are looking for" already very difficult but as time passes it will get closer and closer to being virtually impossible. And, baring in mind the lead time involved in writing and making a film, if you were to start now, it may in effect already be almost impossible! As I see it looking forward, you only have two realistic choices: Put all your effort into making non-commercial films and don't waste your time/effort trying to figure out or enact a plan to make any money beyond a token ad stream OR design and make commercial films.

I could try to write a commercial film but in fairness I would then be joining the millions of others around the world writing those same tired old stories. I'm not sure I could do it because I write things that inspire or excite me, and writing a film based purely on how commercial it could be I think would bore me to death.

I believe this is an incredibly important point!!! There appears to be a strong tendency in the no/lo budget film community to turn the word "commercial" into a polarising or even dirty word, to make it a black and white issue. Hollywood is rather generic and formulaic, Hollywood (or Hollywood style) films are far and away the most commercially successful films, ergo: commercial = formulaic/generic/dumbed-down, which to some filmmakers is not too much of a problem because they enjoy Hollywood films but to others it's a huge problem because all they see is stupid/boring CGI dependent films. My argument here, isn't whether Hollywood makes good or poor films, my argument is with the starting premise; "commercial = formulaic/.." which IMO is a non-sequitur! I don't believe "commercial" is a black and white issue, I don't believe a film with commercial value has to be formulaic and while designing a commercial product does require a change in approach, I don't believe that change of approach requires a total compromise of artistic integrity! By way of example, let's go back to Layover and a quote from the writer/director:

"For Layover, our special sauce is that the film is 95% French language ... By having Simone only speak and understand French, it made her character that much more complex and presented some really great obstacles to her nighttime journey.

I haven't seen Layover but let's assume that the writer/director is correct; Simone only speaking French does indeed add a complexity to the character and interest to the story. IMHO, this demonstrates a typical amateur filmmaking approach though. Subtitling a film drastically reduces it's commercial appeal, so in effect the writer has written a story which is maybe more interesting but more interesting to far fewer people! I'm not saying the writer should have compromised and dumbed-down or intrinsically changed his story, I'm saying stick with the same story but find another way to add complexity to the character which doesn't require simultaneously kicking commercial appeal in the nuts! ... A French language film could have been a good commercial approach, if, for example, before the script was written, the producer already had certain distribution contacts or some other reason to believe he had access to a French speaking demographic, in which case that "special sauce" would have been an inspired "sauce" commercially, rather than solely a special filmmaking "sauce". However, from what the writer/director has said and the fact that the film has only achieved $4.1K of sales, it seems obvious that it was not designed as a commercial "sauce".

This is just one example of one decision, in one aspect of filmmaking (screen-writing), what I'm talking about is the approach to the whole film, all the story-telling and therefore all the film crafts. The common thread amongst the general public is that low budget indies are boring, that nothing much happens. The reality is that a fair bit does usually happen but what does happen is told in an undramatic, uninteresting or un-engaging manner. At the lo/no budget level the majority of the "action" is usually conversations in some completely nondescript apartment/location which is made even more bland by being evenly lit, with two mediocre actors, little or no movement in either the foreground or the background, static camera and camera angles and all delivered and edited together without energy or pace. Beyond the first 1.5 secs after the cut to a scene there's little/no visual interest, little/no aural interest and therefore little/no interest!! You can get away with weaknesses in one or even more than one of these areas but "commercial appeal" requires that you make up for it in the other areas. You can only kick "commercial appeal" in the nuts so many times before it rolls over and dies! So again, I'm not talking about intrinsically compromising your story, say cutting fist fights and gun battles into your gentle drama, I'm talking about shape, pacing and visual and aural interest which are designed to keep the audience stimulated/interested.

All these elements which give a film more "commercial appeal" potentially require a lot more money but they don't have to. Maybe a bit more money might be needed but what they absolutely do require is: A commercially astute producer, consideration of commercial appeal when writing/choosing the story, a far more complex and detailed vision from the director and far more time/effort in the planning and preparation. While having a tiny budget presents a whole raft of severe challenges and restrictions, it also means a more targeted and less generic/dumbed-down product can be potentially viable. In other words, I think the biggest issue lies not specifically with the lack of budget but with: 1. Producers only being budget supervisors, organisers and marketers when the film is already shot or finished, as opposed to actual producers (of a product!) and 2. Directors who skimp on the vision and pre-production to get to the "fun" part of shooting, rather than seeing the production phase as obviously crucial but only one part of the process of engaging an audience.

This commercial approach raises a considerable number of issues and questions, some/many of which may not appear obvious and I'm quite amazed that there aren't loads of threads directly related to this topic here on IT, in fact there are hardly any! Instead, most of the threads are effectively; "what model of band-aid should I use for a severed limb?"!

G

 

[soundslikejoe]

All specifics aside..... I'm always AMAZED (or confused) by the fact that people actually think they can make good/successful feature films for $5000. It's just ridiculous. If someone said $50k I'd not be as critical, but I would still think it would depend on excellent planning and the right script. Even then.... it's very guerilla.

$5000 can make a decent short, if the producer is experienced, frugal, using favors, and has the right script. Making a good/successful feature for $5000? Foolish pipe dreams....

 

[film_autre]

I personally think the film was rubbish.. however to gain back over $4,000 from a $5,000 budget is pretty decent.

again I dont think the film was anything to talk about and thus hasnt gone as far..

everyone makes a film hoping it will make big money but not every film is successful for whatever reason.

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

You're certainly not alone in that desire/approach! And what's more, due to cheaper technology that "team of film makers" is rapidly expanding, I think it's already far too big to call it a "team" anymore......
G

Firstly thanks for writing such a long post. I appreciate the effort there.

I appreciate your points on layover being in French. I have noticed a real rise in French films lately as more and more French films come onto the internet. Some of them seem like they could be very good films, but unfortunately being in French it does put me off even attempting to view them. It is interesting though because the Asian action flicks and some of there other more drama like stories are in their respective languages and with them I actually hate English dubs, I prefer to sit and listen to the Asian vocals with the subtitles going. I am unusual in that respect among my friends who firstly don't like subtitled films and secondly don't enjoy some of the more slow paced films.

For example.
-Spring, Summer,Fall,Winter and Spring (I think this film is Thai)
-Kikujiro (This film is Japanese)

What I personally love about both of these films is their slow pace, and how with both films they really allow the characters within them to just be so human. I completely recommend them.

However, these are not commercial films in the respect that they were made in their respective languages and only dubbed over later as their popularity spread.


On the topic of commercial though, I do see the error in my assumption. I agree that I was thinking very narrowly of commercial films as being generic rewrites of rewrites. But when you say commercial you are effectively saying that they are produced to a very high standard I think, with an eye for the detail not just of what is being focused on but everything around it. And on that basis I would completely agree with you.

I have been thinking about that exact thing just this morning as I will be filming my first small piece of footage in a month or three, and I was thinking about posting it on here when it is ready for constructive criticism. I was thinking about the things that people normally say on here, such as bad lighting, editing pace too fast or slow, sound was wrong etc etc etc, all very valid points. Then It occurred to me that it didn't matter because I should be thinking about all of those things long before I even make the footage. I should have my eye on the ball and a plan of how to make sure that all of these many issues are properly handled long before a single frame of footage is taken.

Bad actors may not be so easy to fix for people within certain towns around the world etc, but anywhere where there is a playhouse, even amateur, people should be able to find at least a couple of good actors. I myself have a few people that have acted in the local theatre shows. I know there is a difference between acting on stage and acting in front of a camera though. For instance, I was always told that on stage one needs to be very expressive because the audience at the back needs to understand what is happening too, whereas with film, because the camera is right there, they can tone it down a bit. My point there would be though, that while your best mate might be keen to be in your film, it doesn't mean that you should say yes to him. I think that happens a lot, or people just grab the first two people that show any interest in being in the film, and that is why we see shoddy acting. It is a failure on the directors part to spend extra time looking for talented talent.

It is also true about the background. I am collecting a shed full of various things. Some fiberglass womens legs, some crutches, new lcd screen tv's that no longer work but look perfect so I can break them...all sorts of odd and interesting items and props that I can have on hand to liven up a scene and help tell more of the story. I too have noticed how monotone and boring some scenes are. The two bad actors on a couch in a white room with clean carpet and nothing but a table lamp for instance, is seen all too often. I am even collecting things like bed sheets of different colours, just so that if for instance there is a couch and it is too boring a colour I can throw a few coloured sheets on it to see what livens the scene up a little. I am collecting lamps of different styles, clothing, hats, wall hangings etc etc etc.

Like you I enjoy the many threads around Indie Talk, and it was one of these threads that really got me thinking the other day. It was the thread where everyone was posting photos of their gear. I loved it of course but it struck me that only one guy showed photos of his props...and I thought...we should all have props, without props, there is no film...hollywood has vast warehouses I'm sure full of various props, and we as film makers should absolutely stockpile props too because without those, our scenes don't work. It wasn't news to me that we needed props of course, and I had already stockpiled a little, but it really struck it home to me that without props, all we have is some tools and a script. All of the juice of the scene is missing, the visual intricacies that we ourselves love so much when watching film is not there without props.

As you say too, it doesn't have to be expensive. I know a guy who goes through all of the University student flats here as a cleaner. When they leave he has to take all the left over junk and take it away. Half of it ends up sitting outside his house in a giant rubbish heap as the tip is out of town so for at least a while it just sits there. I get so many household items and interesting items from that heap, all free, all unwanted junk. The womens legs, the crutches, some assorted vases of different styles...all very useful to help set a scene. Obviously I am very selective because I don't want my shed to look like a junk heap so I take only what I know I can use, or sell, but I also do skip diving sometimes to see if there is anything useful in there too.



You said that "This commercial approach raises a considerable number of issues and questions, some/many of which may not appear obvious and I'm quite amazed that there aren't loads of threads directly related to this topic here on IT, in fact there are hardly any!..."

Could I trouble you to write what questions the commercial approach raises? I often find little gems in such posts that I may have never considered otherwise, and should so your questions are invaluable.

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

All specifics aside..... I'm always AMAZED (or confused) by the fact that people actually think they can make good/successful feature films for $5000. It's just ridiculous. If someone said $50k I'd not be as critical, but I would still think it would depend on excellent planning and the right script. Even then.... it's very guerilla.

$5000 can make a decent short, if the producer is experienced, frugal, using favors, and has the right script. Making a good/successful feature for $5000? Foolish pipe dreams....

I would love to disagree with you there, but I personally know of no film to disprove you. I hope somebody else can show a good film made on a micro budget though because if it cannot be done that is bad news for me

 

[Sweetie]

when you say commercial you are effectively saying that they are produced to a very high standard I think, with an eye for the detail not just of what is being focused on but everything around it.

That's just part of the equation, but it's a really good start.

I should have my eye on the ball and a plan of how to make sure that all of these many issues are properly handled long before a single frame of footage is taken.

Learning film making is a process. There are very few people who are born naturals. Most have to work hard at developing their craft. One thing about Film Schools, while a lot of people bag them, they create an environment where it's safe to experiment, fail and learn.

That being said, I'm going to suggest that you don't postpone your first shoot just to make it perfect. It'll never be perfect.

Bad actors may not be so easy to fix

There are plenty of ways to "Sort of" fix bad acting. Well not quite fix, but there are many ways to lessen the impact or poor acting. Your job as a director (assuming you're the director) is to work out what you should be doing that is appropriate for your film.

I do like that you're thinking a lot about the craft. You're moving in the right direction. Carry on!

 

[Sweetie]

I hope somebody else can show a good film made on a micro budget though because if it cannot be done that is bad news for me

I had a good, long discussion with a producer/director about a week ago on the topic.

The answer comes down to your perspective.

The cost has to be borne from someone. Even if the producer doesn't take the money from their own pocket and they're lucky enough to get the volunteers to fork out the expenses from themselves, that money is still being paid by someone. Are you right to not include that in your budget? Maybe, maybe not. Would that $5k be a realistic representation of the budget?

What about labor? A feature film takes that many work hours to complete any half reasonable job, that even at minimum pay, $5k is a pipe dream. You either need to get people to donate their time, learn the roles you need and do it yourself (and get yourself to donate your time) and so on.

What about equipment rental/costs/depreciation. People who bring equipment to your production needed to pay for it somehow.

Here is where I mean it comes down to your perspective.

So while you may be able to make a quality movie (given lots of favors, freebies from talented people) with only spending 4 figures from your own pocket, the real cost after you take into account everyone around you, will be higher.

I also think audiences are sick and tired of the no budget tagline. A movie made for $2k doesn't inspire me to watch it. I've seen plenty of them. Then again, just because a movie has a large budget doesn't inspire me to watch it either.