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.

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

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.

Fair points. If time and money of all involved are calculated, it is probable that most films cost over 5k.

Yes I don't think the 'no budget' or 'micro budget' self titling is doing anyone any favours. I certainly wouldn't go to my audience and say "ladies and gentlemen I made this on the cheap' because instantly they are going to see any errors that they may have otherwise missed. I was watching a Hollywood film the other day, and because I am looking for these things I started to notice tiny little errors, my partner completely missed them because she was just enjoying the movie for what it was but if she had been told at the beginning that the film was made on $2 and some sticky tape, she would have been looking to see if she could spot where....I see no value in telling an audience how much a film cost to make. It either undersells the film or makes people think the money could have been better spent fixing the worlds ills.

I would tell people here on Indie Talk, and in film maker forums if asked, because I think it has value for us all working on the production of footage, but for the audience, it is pointless. I also do not consider anyone here as a perspective audience. Yes you may well day see some of my stuff once made, and yes you may even like it and want to watch more, but I wouldn't put much effort into trying to promote my footage here in the context of trying to find new fans because everyone here is here mainly because they are looking for help to make their work, not watch mine.

 

[TheWAVLab]

IDK.... I think it's a bad assumption to think that audience won't notice errors if they aren't told the budget (perhaps wishful thinking). It seems to be more common that the lower the budget, the more noticeable ALL of the errors become. It has nothing to do with "looking for it" but it has everything to do with the power of money to overcome the challenges of film making.

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

IDK.... I think it's a bad assumption to think that audience won't notice errors if they aren't told the budget (perhaps wishful thinking). It seems to be more common that the lower the budget, the more noticeable ALL of the errors become. It has nothing to do with "looking for it" but it has everything to do with the power of money to overcome the challenges of film making.

yes and no...certainly the not knowing is not going to polish a turd, sooner or later the audience will realise they are experiencing crap on their screen....but...what I am saying is that we don't generally go looking for errors in a high budget Hollywood film, they do exist, but we are not looking for them. On a budget film we are, because we know its a budget film, so we are expecting to see, and looking for things that point toward the lower budget.

I have seen low budget footage, on here, that looks really good...it doesn't look low budget. What does look low budget is bad lighting, bad acting, cheesy lines, fake looking props or lack of props to help set the tone. Shoddy colour correction. Bad audio. Terrible camera angles...etc etc etc...Some of these do rely on money to fix, but it doesn't have to be a lot of money.

I mean when was the last time on here you saw a post discussing the best way to do someone's make-up under certain lighting??? I haven't seen one, or how to find good props on the cheap? haven't seen one...the list goes on...so many things that go into making a film look good, and we don't even talk about them.

 

[Sweetie]

I have seen low budget footage, on here, that looks really good...it doesn't look low budget. What does look low budget is bad lighting, bad acting, cheesy lines, fake looking props or lack of props to help set the tone. Shoddy colour correction. Bad audio. Terrible camera angles...etc etc etc...Some of these do rely on money to fix, but it doesn't have to be a lot of money.

There's a difference between low/high budget and low/high production value. Those two aren't necessarily linked. They often are, but aren't always. You can have high production values with a low budget and vice versa.

On top of that, you can follow everything on your list and still be let down by poor writing, directing, editing, sound design, production design, wardrobe, dialogue editing, Foley, vfx and so on.

You can have low production value and still have an engaging experience for the audience.

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

There's a difference between low/high budget and low/high production value. Those two aren't necessarily linked. They often are, but aren't always. You can have high production values with a low budget and vice versa.

On top of that, you can follow everything on your list and still be let down by poor writing, directing, editing, sound design, production design, wardrobe, dialogue editing, Foley, vfx and so on.

You can have low production value and still have an engaging experience for the audience.

Yes I agree.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

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.

I think you're maybe mis-interpreting what is being discussed. I'm not, and I don't think anyone else, is talking about making a wide release theatrical feature for a few thousand or even a few tens of thousands. That would be, as you stated, ridiculous. What we're talking about is making a film and at least making it's budget back or better still, a modest profit. A film may have a budget of $6k (as in the OP), so we're discussing how to make more than $6k back and that's incredibly unlikely to involve a wide theatrical release, indeed it may only involve a cinema in terms of a screening at a festival or not at all.

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.

No, that's not what I'm talking about or rather it's not exactly what I'm talking about! You still seem to be confusing "commercial" with some ultimate notion of good/poor or high/low production standard. In fact, you are thinking about it backwards, good/bad is defined by "commercial", not the other way around! Production values can, with skill and experience, be faked but only to a limited extent and it's unrealistic to hope/expect to achieve a "very high standard" without a proportionately high budget. My point though, is that "a very high standard" (or any other "standard") is not a fixed point but is variable and relative. I can hopefully explain more clearly by addressing the next point:

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.

Yes, this is certainly an intrinsic and vital part of the point I was trying to make but it's still only a part. "The things that people normally say on here" and "these many issues" you are talking about "handling" in development/pre-production are relative to what? Relative to a Hollywood (or independent) high budget feature, relative to a low budget (say $2m) theatrical feature, relative to a TV drama, documentary, soap or reality show or at probably the lowest commercial end, relative to say children's TV or special interest DVDs? While there is some overlap and certain things in common*, each of these commercial formats have their own largely independent range of good/poor standards. For example, we have TV dramas with production values which approach commercial theatrical levels (Game of Thrones being an example) but my point is that Game of Thrones is at the very extreme end of TV production values, at the "overlap" and is very much an exception. Average TV dramas have much lower budgets and lower production values and yet are still entirely commercially viable and of course there are many lower than the average TV dramas with even smaller budgets and lower production values which are also still commercially viable.

To go back to Layover again: If I were the producer, I would be looking at the commercial options before even starting pre-production. I would probably research speciality distributors, regional broadcasters, four-walling and other potential commercial options for low budget productions in France, Quebec and any other French speaking regions. I'd research the realistic costs to meet their technical requirements, production value expectations, average/likely price paid for this type of content, etc. This information would then form the basis of whether it's even commercially viable to make Layover in the first place and, if it is viable, this information would also dictate the production values and to what degree "these many issues" (you mentioned) have to be "handled". It's therefore only within this context that one can enter pre-production and "have an eye for the [appropriate] details". This is in stark contrast to the amateur approach of essentially writing and making a film and then trying to find a commercial solution which just happens to fit the film, rather than looking at commercial solutions and then designing/making the film to fit those solutions.

* These "certain things in common" relate to my previous post and those elements of shape, pacing, visual and aural interest designed to keep the audience stimulated/interested. This is intrinsic to all commercial content but the precise level of production value required to achieve stimulation/interest in that target audience varies considerably.

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.

That's not possible because there's an almost infinite number of potential questions! From what I've written above you perhaps now realise that "commercial", "commercial appeal" and "production standards" are not fixed entities, they are all relative to a target audience, viewing format and other variables. I've not really told you anything that you don't already know, all I'm telling you is maybe a different way to think about it! An average TV drama, which you enjoy, will not have production values anywhere near an average wide release commercial theatrical feature and yet you've still enjoyed it and therefore feel it's "good". It might be a medical drama, a crime drama or some other sub-genre/style targeted at your specific demographic and which therefore appeals to you. Along with the fact that it's a TV presentation, you therefore apply a modified judgement of it's quality. We all do this, we all do it according to the various demographic groups we're members of, the genres and formats we enjoy and none of this is static as our tastes and thresholds are constantly evolving. "Commercial" isn't a black and white issue, it's not even a grey area, it's a whole bunch of complex, interwoven grey areas and this raises countless questions about how we apply this information to virtually every aspect of filmmaking! Amateur filmmakers tend to only consider these issues in the very broadest terms, they tend to just aim for the best they can with their resources and tend not to consider the implications of the arbitrary nature of what "best they can" actually means. A commercial approach means identifying a targeted and precise value for "best they can" and then organising and managing the resources to ensure achieving it!

G

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

I think you're maybe....
G

Ok so are you saying that commercial footage ie tv shows, movies etc etc all have certain criteria that must be met in order to meet grade?

And that to make something commercial, a producer would look at what criteria must be met, and then design footage to fit within that criteria? Along with making sure that the target market was there, and that the film would be attractive to that target market? Rather then my thinking of making the footage and then seeing what criteria it fits in to? And what target market to approach?

 

[WalterB]

.....

"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".

..........

That subtitling is bad for business depends on where you are from, I guess.
Here in The Netherlands it is normal to watch subtitles movies. There is no harm in that.
Germans like to dub the movies, but in most countries subtitling is pretty normal.

However, you are correct: another language doesn't make a character more interesting. It just shows she is not at home in LA.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Ok so are you saying that commercial footage ie tv shows, movies etc etc all have certain criteria that must be met in order to meet grade?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. There's basically 3 types of criteria: 1. Legal criteria; clearances, etc. 2. Technical criteria; visual specifications, audio specs and other required deliverables and 3. Aesthetic criteria; appropriate production values, appropriate demographic targeting, interesting/engaging and other subjective and relative quality determinations.

And that to make something commercial, a producer would look at what criteria must be met, and then design footage to fit within that criteria? Along with making sure that the target market was there, and that the film would be attractive to that target market? Rather then my thinking of making the footage and then seeing what criteria it fits in to? And what target market to approach?

Again, yes! Although by "design footage" I presume you mean "design the product" rather than just the footage? In practise, the director is primary responsible for designing the footage, although usually in close consultation/supervision with the producer, to ensure an "appropriate" final product.

Unless ALL THREE basic types of criteria are met, there is zero chance of any kind of established commercial distribution/broadcast. Although I've primarily discussed criteria #3 in this thread, it doesn't matter how well #3 is achieved, if 1 and 2 are not also achieved. In other words, most experienced/serious amateur filmmakers (in my experience) usually have a basic understanding of #1, little understanding of #2 and a very broad/vague understanding of #3 and are therefore largely relying on pure luck to hit all 3. Their chances are therefore already close to zero before they even start to tout for commercial distribution/broadcast/etc!

Although it's a common mistake, there's usually little/no excuse for getting #1 or 2 wrong. #3 is another ball game though, because it's largely relative and subjective.

G

 

[AudioPostExpert]

That subtitling is bad for business depends on where you are from, I guess.
Here in The Netherlands it is normal to watch subtitles movies. There is no harm in that.
Germans like to dub the movies, but in most countries subtitling is pretty normal.

However, you are correct: another language doesn't make a character more interesting. It just shows she is not at home in LA.

This effectively goes to the heart of what I'm talking about and to the heart of the Producer's job. If the director of Layover were Dutch and/or if The Netherlands was a market targeted by the producer then yes, subtitling would be less of a commercial negative, which could/would affect the producer's equation for commercial viability, etc. In the USA though (and some other countries), subtitling does negatively affect a film's commercial viability very significantly.

G

 

[WalterB]

This effectively goes to the heart of what I'm talking about and to the heart of the Producer's job. If the director of Layover were Dutch and/or if The Netherlands was a market targeted by the producer then yes, subtitling would be less of a commercial negative, which could/would affect the producer's equation for commercial viability, etc. In the USA though (and some other countries), subtitling does negatively affect a film's commercial viability very significantly.

G

Actually, I'm suddenly reminded by this of how the Director of 'The Assault' (De Aanslag) a Dutch movie which won the oscar for best foreignmovie long ago. In his speech he said: "Don't let the subtitles scare you from watching this movie."
As a result hardly anyone went to watch.
Next year a Danish movie (with subtitling) won the Oscar and sold over 20 times more tickets.

So this shows indeed that subtitling can harm the commercial pportunities.
(It also shows that it is bad marketing to point attention to something that even the seller mentions as something negative )

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

Thank you Audio. That has cleared things up for me.

On the topic of subtitles, they are almost a swear word here for so many in New Zealand and I think it's similar in Australia. There are always going to be those that don't mind, or even enjoy subtitled films, but in my experience the majority of people really hate being forced to read during a movie because they feel like they are unable to read the dialogue and watch the movie properly.

I am a fast reader so I don't mind.

 

[IronFilm]

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....

$5000 can make a feature, *IF* you already own all the needed gear, plus can get locations and everybody's time for free.... and spend nothing in the way of costumes / art department / etc. Ditto post production.

So yeah, that is one mighty big "IF".