Low-budget movies that hit it big.
- Thread starter Aspiring Mogul
- Start date
Yep, a lot of inspiration on that list!
It is inspirational but don't get too carried away by this rather misleading article. It is possible to make a feature film which "resonates with audiences" for a very few million and it's even possible (though increasingly unlikely) to make one for less than a million but it's not possible to make one for a few thousand. There is precedent however to make a film for a few thousand which then attracts an investor/distributor to supply the additional several hundred thousand or so required to bring the film up to commercial standards and turn it into something which can "resonate with audiences" and has the potential to take millions at the box office.
The author of the linked article has made the extremely common mistake of confusing these two different ways of representing a film's budget. The budgets listed for "The Full Monty", "Lock, Stock", etc., represents the cost of making the film. The budgets listed for "El Mariachi", "Blair Witch", "Paranormal Activity", etc., do NOT represent the cost of making the films but the amount the original filmmakers spent on shooting, IE. The quoted budgets do not include the additional many hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on each of these films to actually make them, while the first group of films listed do (AFAIK) include these costs in the quoted budgets.
In one or two other similar threads when I've pointed this out many indietalkers have become quite upset, for reasons which are not entirely clear to me. I am pointing it out again, so any less experienced filmmaker who stumbles across this thread (and the linked article) are not mislead into believing it's possible to make a theatrically distributable film for just a few thousand or even just a few tens of thousands.
G
It's always good to have a protector on this board. Someone to
point out that it's never good to be inspired by the exception to
the rule. Someone to protect the less experienced filmmaker
from making the mistake of dreaming big. They did it, but YOU
will not.
point out that it's never good to be inspired by the exception to
the rule. Someone to protect the less experienced filmmaker
from making the mistake of dreaming big. They did it, but YOU
will not.
See, I said some indietalkers seem to get upset for no rational reason! Please try reading my post and understanding it before you diss it. And, your last sentence is not just unwarranted but is actually incorrect, because I have dreamed big and I have done it!
If you had read and understood what I posted you would realise that I am not saying one should not dream big and be inspired by an exception to the rule, I am warning against being inspired by something which is marketed as being an exception to the rule when in reality it isn't. It's the difference between being inspired and being deluded! You may not care about whether you are inspired or deluded but I for one (and the vast majority of professionals I know in this business) usually spend quite a bit of time and effort trying to get accurate facts before investing money (even if it's only a few thousand) to give me a better chance of making inspired rather than deluded decisions!
Anyway, I've presented the facts and made what I consider to be a useful contribution to this thread. I'm not going to waste my time getting involved arguing with those who are either deluded or are pushing some hidden agenda.
G
EDIT: OK, in light of what IDOM said, it could be that I've read Direcorik's post as a sarcastic attack when it actually isn't. If this is the case then I offer my most sincere apologies to Directorik.
Last edited:
He wasn't directing that sentence at you, he was paraphrasing you. Your response sort of paraphrased his point. Wild.
I actually have my own issues with stories like this, which I'll bring up later - they absolutely are the exception to the rule, for some reason you're just hyper-focused on the entirely wrong rule. But that's a discussion for another time.
For now, I'll try again to explain why your repeated objections receive so much push back. Wrote a scene about it, like to hear it here it goes:
The scene: a child, TIMMY, is sitting at the breakfast table with FATHER and MOTHER. MOTHER brings out the box of wheaties and he starts getting very excited.
TIMMY:
"Dad, look, it's Runny McRunnerson! He's on the Wheaties box! I love running, I'm really fast and I'm training hard every day, do you think some day it's possible that I too could be on a Wheaties box just like Runny?"
FATHER:
"Look Timmy, I think it's great that you're inspired by him, but it's important to understand that being the fastest runner isn't enough to get you on the Wheaties box. You're going to need a good agent. And agents don't come cheap - if you're not bringing in some decent sponsorship money then you're not going to get a good agent. And even then, once you've got your agent, you need to be at least decent looking. They don't put ugly people on the Wheaties box. Even if you're not too ugly it's going to take a lot of work to make you look good enough. You'll need a stylist, makeup artist, a very good photographer with a lot of expensive equipment, and even then you'll still need a lot of work in photoshop before your photograph is good enough for the box. It's very expensive to make even good looking people good enough for a cereal box. And if you don't have a professionally mixed 5.1 surround track Wheaties won't even look at you."
TIMMY:
"Oh. I just wanted to run, like Runny."
MOTHER:
"Now now dear, you don't need to worry about all of that now, just like Runny McRunnerson didn't have to. You just need to concentrate on becoming a better runner, because if you're not fast enough then none of the rest of that matters. (shoots a withering look at Father) Isn't that right dear?"
FATHER:
"Hey, don't get mad at me - I just don't want the kid growing up under the delusion that it's enough to be a good runner. He should be thinking about this stuff so it doesn't catch him unawares later. I'd hate to have him win a gold medal only to find out he was too ugly for Wheaties, or that they won't take a stereo mix."
MOTHER:
"Timmy, why don't you just go outside and practice your running. Father and I need to have a little discussion."
TIMMY:
"That's ok, I don't really feel like running anymore. I'll be in my room, cutting myself, because it's the only way I can feel anything."
FATHER:
"I certainly hope you're using a straight razor! You want clean cuts, not the raggedy tears you get from the cheap preamps on your average disposable razor blade."
Last edited:
I kind of agree with G here. To imply that Rodriguez spent $7K and that incarnation went on to gross $2MM is completely false.
That doesn't in any way detract from the fact that Rodriguez spent $7K and made a film that attracted enough attention to get the financing needed to produce the film that went on to gross $2MM.
CraigL
That doesn't in any way detract from the fact that Rodriguez spent $7K and made a film that attracted enough attention to get the financing needed to produce the film that went on to gross $2MM.
CraigL
In the UK at the moment we have a problem. We've got a very weak government that appears to be doing everything wrong. But, at the same time, we have an opposition party that is pointing out what they're doing wrong, but seems unable to come up suggestions for how things could be done differently.
This is kind of how I feel about this strain of incessant pessimism on Indietalk. I don't have a couple of million dollars to spend making a feature film that can 'resonate with audiences'. I just don't have the money, and no-one is going to give it to me. I'm not going to have this money any time soon and, if I ever do, I'll probably not still be trying to get advice off an internet forum.
So, given that I don't have $3million, should I give up? Should I not try and make the best film that I possibly can? Should I not take my $10thousand and see what I can cook up with it? Is it not even worth trying to make an ultra low-budget film that resonates with audiences?
I just don't think there's anything productive about answering every question with 'well, you're going to need millions of dollars to make a passable film...'. That's not the environment that should be cultivated in an indie filmmaking forum, or an attitude that should be encouraged in any walk of life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiB9L3dG-Aw
It's always good to have a protector on this board. Someone to
point out that it's never good to be inspired by the exception to
the rule. Someone to protect the less experienced filmmaker
from making the mistake of dreaming big. They did it, but YOU
will not.
Darn! So the only way is to find a few hundred thousand for a low-budget?
IDOM:- Nice story but I can't see how it's analogous or related in anyway to what I'm saying. In your story Timmy is inspired by Runny McRunnerson, a role model who has already achieved what Timmy wants to achieve, there is a precedent and presumably there have been others who've also had their picture on a wheaties box so there are actually quite a few precedents. The chances of Timmy ever getting on a wheaties box are tiny but there is a chance, Timmy's dream might be unrealistic but it's not based on a lie or delusional, if he were my child I'd be encouraging him.
The simple fact is that it costs well into the 6 figures and more probably into the 7 figures to make a theatrically distributable film. There are no exceptions to this rule of which I'm aware, no precedents upon which to base a dream. With no way around this cost, there are only two choices: 1. Find an investor/s willing to put up the the 6 or 7 figures and make your theatrically distributable film or 2. Make you film for a few thousand dollars and then find and investor willing to put up the hundreds of thousands needed to turn it into a theatrically distributable film.
The only pessimism in this thread is the pessimism you yourself are bringing to it. All I am doing is stating the facts, how you choose to view/feel about those facts is up to you. Regardless of what you feel about them, the facts are the facts, learn to live with them and either move forward or give up, your choice.
You asked if you "should give up". Getting away from the facts and turning to my personal opinion instead, you are drastically reducing your chances of being a successful filmmaker with such a pessimistic attitude. So my answer to your question is "probably, yes"!
You don't have the money, fair enough, but why is no one is going to give it to you? There are many, many films made with budgets in the low millions, how do they get funded? Are you just not a good enough filmmaker? If so, then the obvious solution is to improve your filmmaking. If there is some other reason you are unable to raise 6 or 7 figures and you absolutely must make a feature then aim lower, maybe a broadcast TV movie instead of a theatrically distributable one, which could be made for a lot less or you could aim even lower still, a low end DVD distribution deal or one of the VOD distributors for example. Or, why not take your few grand and make a short which so blows potential investors away they'll give you the money to make a feature? There are various alternatives and routes to getting yourself into a position of being able to attract the kind of budgets required for theatrical features but ignoring the facts or pretending they don't exist is not one of them!
G
The simple fact is that it costs well into the 6 figures and more probably into the 7 figures to make a theatrically distributable film. There are no exceptions to this rule of which I'm aware, no precedents upon which to base a dream. With no way around this cost, there are only two choices: 1. Find an investor/s willing to put up the the 6 or 7 figures and make your theatrically distributable film or 2. Make you film for a few thousand dollars and then find and investor willing to put up the hundreds of thousands needed to turn it into a theatrically distributable film.
The only pessimism in this thread is the pessimism you yourself are bringing to it. All I am doing is stating the facts, how you choose to view/feel about those facts is up to you. Regardless of what you feel about them, the facts are the facts, learn to live with them and either move forward or give up, your choice.
You asked if you "should give up". Getting away from the facts and turning to my personal opinion instead, you are drastically reducing your chances of being a successful filmmaker with such a pessimistic attitude. So my answer to your question is "probably, yes"!
You don't have the money, fair enough, but why is no one is going to give it to you? There are many, many films made with budgets in the low millions, how do they get funded? Are you just not a good enough filmmaker? If so, then the obvious solution is to improve your filmmaking. If there is some other reason you are unable to raise 6 or 7 figures and you absolutely must make a feature then aim lower, maybe a broadcast TV movie instead of a theatrically distributable one, which could be made for a lot less or you could aim even lower still, a low end DVD distribution deal or one of the VOD distributors for example. Or, why not take your few grand and make a short which so blows potential investors away they'll give you the money to make a feature? There are various alternatives and routes to getting yourself into a position of being able to attract the kind of budgets required for theatrical features but ignoring the facts or pretending they don't exist is not one of them!
G
Last edited:
The point of my story is that you, like the father, are generally focusing on Timmy getting on the Wheaties box rather than on him becoming a good enough director to win a gold medal, so that someone else will spend the money to make him look good enough for the Wheaties box.
I don't disagree - but another simple fact is that none of the super low budget films that have hit it big were made with the intention of making a theatrically distributable film. They were just made to be good enough to get someone interested in investing in making them ready for theatrical distribution.
Exactly. And for most here, without a track record to raise the money up front, the second option is the only viable one. So I'm not sure why you're arguing over and over for the first one.
Right. Which you do by making films with the resources you've got available. Raising the additional money needed to do a theatrical mix won't get you theatrical distribution if your film isn't good enough, just like hiring a publicist, stylist, and photographer won't get you on the wheaties box if you aren't a fast enough runner. There are many films with budgets in the low millions which don't end up getting theatrical distribution, so clearly the answer isn't just 'raise some more money' - in many cases just makes it even harder to recoup your costs. It seems like a far more reasonable approach to only raise, and spend, that money when it looks like theatrical distribution is a real possibility.
So what you're saying is that if you don't have the funding to make a film that's ready for theatrical distribution, you should go ahead and make it anyway. And then, maybe, if it's good enough, someone will give you more money.
How is that any different than what I (and others) have been saying all along?
What difference does it make if you hope to maybe be lucky enough to get a distributor to fund finishing it for theatrical distribution, or you just hope to be lucky enough to get it distributed on VOD? Either way you make the film you can with the funding you've got.
I don't disagree - but another simple fact is that none of the super low budget films that have hit it big were made with the intention of making a theatrically distributable film. They were just made to be good enough to get someone interested in investing in making them ready for theatrical distribution.
Exactly. And for most here, without a track record to raise the money up front, the second option is the only viable one. So I'm not sure why you're arguing over and over for the first one.
Right. Which you do by making films with the resources you've got available. Raising the additional money needed to do a theatrical mix won't get you theatrical distribution if your film isn't good enough, just like hiring a publicist, stylist, and photographer won't get you on the wheaties box if you aren't a fast enough runner. There are many films with budgets in the low millions which don't end up getting theatrical distribution, so clearly the answer isn't just 'raise some more money' - in many cases just makes it even harder to recoup your costs. It seems like a far more reasonable approach to only raise, and spend, that money when it looks like theatrical distribution is a real possibility.
So what you're saying is that if you don't have the funding to make a film that's ready for theatrical distribution, you should go ahead and make it anyway. And then, maybe, if it's good enough, someone will give you more money.
How is that any different than what I (and others) have been saying all along?
What difference does it make if you hope to maybe be lucky enough to get a distributor to fund finishing it for theatrical distribution, or you just hope to be lucky enough to get it distributed on VOD? Either way you make the film you can with the funding you've got.
Last edited:
First of all, I think IDOM's analogy is spot on.
And APE, although what you say is true, you fail to see that the only reason anyone is annoyed is because you're beating a dead horse, and you can't seem to grasp at the fact that we just don't care (nor do you seem to understand why we don't care).
Let's say that I make a movie for $5K. On that budget, it's acceptable for festivals, but I couldn't afford the post production needed to get it up to par for theatrical distribution. But let's say it's a hit at the festivals, and it's picked up for theatrical distribution. Before it's distributed a great deal of money is going to be put into fixing the audio. Yeah, we know that. But we don't care, because the only money that came out of MY pocket was the initial $5K budget.
All I care about is the money that I have to spend on a movie. Should I be fortunate enough to sell it to a distributor, I don't give a damn how much they spend on it.
Besides, this list leaves off a plethora of tiny-budget movies that had limited theatrical runs, and that led to bigger things for the filmmakers. Chris Nolan's Following, anyone?
And APE, although what you say is true, you fail to see that the only reason anyone is annoyed is because you're beating a dead horse, and you can't seem to grasp at the fact that we just don't care (nor do you seem to understand why we don't care).
Let's say that I make a movie for $5K. On that budget, it's acceptable for festivals, but I couldn't afford the post production needed to get it up to par for theatrical distribution. But let's say it's a hit at the festivals, and it's picked up for theatrical distribution. Before it's distributed a great deal of money is going to be put into fixing the audio. Yeah, we know that. But we don't care, because the only money that came out of MY pocket was the initial $5K budget.
All I care about is the money that I have to spend on a movie. Should I be fortunate enough to sell it to a distributor, I don't give a damn how much they spend on it.
Besides, this list leaves off a plethora of tiny-budget movies that had limited theatrical runs, and that led to bigger things for the filmmakers. Chris Nolan's Following, anyone?
No need to apologize, APE. I was being sarcastic. I was having a
little fun with you - one of the regulars. You and I have sparred
back and forth in the past. I see now I was enjoying it and you
were not. I figured your “many indietalkers have become quite
upset” was directed in part at me so I responded in kind. I see
now you were serious and I should have treated your comment
seriously. It is I who owe an apology.
I was not disrespecting you or your facts. I will no longer respond
to any of your posts. I apologize to you, Greg. It won’t happen again.
little fun with you - one of the regulars. You and I have sparred
back and forth in the past. I see now I was enjoying it and you
were not. I figured your “many indietalkers have become quite
upset” was directed in part at me so I responded in kind. I see
now you were serious and I should have treated your comment
seriously. It is I who owe an apology.
I was not upset. I just have a different point of view than you do.
I was not disrespecting you or your facts. I will no longer respond
to any of your posts. I apologize to you, Greg. It won’t happen again.
Actually, if no one knows anything, then it doesn't matter if an aspiring mogul spend $15 K on a film or $150 million K, because the odds are the same. Even if there were, say, a billion cheapo films and a thousand tent poles, the probabilities are still the same - IOW, in my example, the odds of making it big are a billion and a thousand to one, regardless of whether that film is a cheapo or a tent pole. This is elementary probability theory, and I've checked this with a university lecturer in statistics.
The probabilities could, of course, be different, so the odds of a tent pole could be better than the odds of a cheapo. But, if that's so, then we know SOMETHING, and we'll have to explain what that something is - is it because big-name stars like Johnny Depp was in it, or because of the mega-marketing campaigns? Either one would be reasonable, in which case the probabilities would be different, and Goldman would be wrong.
Over to you, Rik.
The probabilities could, of course, be different, so the odds of a tent pole could be better than the odds of a cheapo. But, if that's so, then we know SOMETHING, and we'll have to explain what that something is - is it because big-name stars like Johnny Depp was in it, or because of the mega-marketing campaigns? Either one would be reasonable, in which case the probabilities would be different, and Goldman would be wrong.
Over to you, Rik.
As I said in my last post, there are various ways of getting yourself into a position of being able to raise the money up front but they take years of dedication and hard work, a great deal of talent and a certain amount of luck. Some go to film school and then work their way up the ranks after interning, some start as runners, others start in the TV industry and work their way across to the theatrical industry, some work their way up in one of the film crafts and then switch to directing and some work their way into their dream of being a film maker by succeeding first in another industry altogether. I worked with a director on a $3m feature who had never directed even a short before.
1. On the one hand you dismiss raising a film budget in the low millions on the basis of the maybe 2 out of 3 (or whatever the exact figures are) which don't get theatrical distribution and instead argue for an option which has a maybe 1 in 50,000 (or whatever the exact figures are) chance of getting theatrical distribution?!
2. No, you're approaching the whole thing backwards and this is the reason why I've posted to this thread! Let me put the question the other way around: Who would invest low millions in a theatrical feature in the first place if it didn't already have theatrical distribution or at least a very real possibility of theatrical distribution?
How is it "far more reasonable" to advocate a course of action which has an astronomically small chance of success over a course of action which has a fair chance of success? It seems to me that what you are really saying is that it's far more easy (rather than "far more reasonable") to make a feature for a few thousand and dream of theatrical distribution than it is to actually make a theatrically distributable film.
I didn't contribute to this thread to advocate one option over another or to suggest anyone should not try and do the best they can. My purpose was simply to state what in reality the two options actually are and to dispel the fake option being peddled; that it's possible to make a theatrically distributable film for a few thousand which takes millions at the box office. The fact is, that a feature made for a few thousand couldn't even be screened in one of the major film festivals, let alone be distributed theatrically. For those who didn't know about this falsehood being peddled maybe what I've posted here will help them make better informed decisions about how to achieve their filmmaking dreams. For those who already know of this falsehood and/or just don't care, it's your choice how you approach fulfilling your filmaking dreams. IMHO though, it's difficult enough to be a successful filmmaker using any and every approach but to limit yourself to a single approach which is statistically about the least likely to succeed seems very strange and amateurish to me.
G
Well, yeah - I think that goes without saying. It's certainly easier, no question there. But I also think it's inaccurate to say that one course of action has an astronomically small chance while the other has a fair chance - that assumes we're just playing a numbers game. I would argue that the primary reason the odds are better for films that raise a few million up front is that the process of raising money simply acts as an early filter against the viability of the project as a theatrical release. Those that are completely ill-suited for that won't attract that level of investment. Does that mean they shouldn't be made though?
You gave the example of making a film for VOD instead - what I don't get is the difference between making a film for VOD, and making the film for VOD with the dream that maybe a distributor will pick it up for theatrical and be willing to invest the additional money necessary for that to happen. Does it matter if that's unlikely? Does it change the way you make the film?
I guess this is ultimately the issue I have with your argument - I haven't seen anyone peddling this 'falsehood' that you are so vehemently trying to dispel. It's a strawman that you alone seem intent on defeating.
Nobody here is in the theatrical distribution business. When these various examples of very low budget films with successful theatrical releases are cited no one is looking to create a ready-to-go film for theatrical release, just like none of the filmmakers who made them did. Every one of them is a real-world example of a filmmaker making a film for an unusually low budget, which then gets picked up and distributed theatrically with someone else footing the bill to prep it for that.
You are arguing the wrong question. The question isn't "is it possible to make a film ready for theatrical release for a few thousand dollars?", it's "is it possible to make a film for a few thousand dollars that eventually has successful theatrical distribution?. And the answer, based on the real world examples repeatedly cited, is "Yes, it's possible, although not very likely". People have done it. A lot more have failed in the attempt. Some people find inspiration in the fact that it's possible to succeed spectacularly where so many others fail, that through some combination of talent, skill and luck it's possible to beat the odds. Sometimes that kind of inspiration is necessary to keep moving forward against the overwhelming odds that all filmmakers face. That's why people keep citing these same examples over and over - it has absolutely nothing to do with perpetrating some myth that it's possible to make a film ready for theatrical distribution for a few thousand dollars.
On the one hand you're using numbers of people who have succeeded (using your preferred option) to justify that your approach and advice is realistic but when the numbers instead prove the opposite, you dismiss them as just a "numbers game"?! The fact that you "think it's inaccurate to say one course of action has an astronomically small chance", is nonsense when all the evidence proves otherwise. Furthermore, this thread and the linked article is all about numbers! A number (16) of low budget films which made significant profits; the number of dollars those films cost to make, the number of people who paid to see those films and therefore the number of dollars the film grossed.
Huh? Of course it means they shouldn't be made! I take it as a basic axiom of any business that making a product "ill-suited" for it's purpose is doomed to failure, although I'm sure there are one or two exceptions in the history of business you could dig out if you tried hard enough. Would you bet your future or your dream on these exceptions? However, if there is some other purpose for making the film, pure filmmaking enjoyment or as a learning experience for example, the filmmaker has to decide if the cost of making the film is worth it to them.
There you go with "unlikely" again, there's a huge difference between "unlikely" and an "astronomically small chance". How have you come to believe in this delusion that it's only "unlikely", from articles and info like the one above? If so then you have the answer as to why I've contributed to this thread and why I'm trying to dispel this falsehood. If I've succeeded in dispelling this falsehood, have I destroyed your dream or helped your dream by inspiring you to think about more realistic ways of achieving it?
Of course, you can make anything and dream about anything else, the two are not related until you try to make something with the intention of fulfilling your dream. For amateur filmmakers, I'm sure this does not change the way they make their films. For those who make a living from filmmaking though it not only changes the way they make their films, it defines the way they make their films!
So now it's "not very likely", OK, it seems to be getting easier!
Anyway, so what you seem to be saying is that you like/need the astronomical odds just the way they are and don't want to balance them more in your favour. I've no problem with that but it seems to me the biggest obstacle to you fulfilling your dream is you yourself. However, there are many, many threads on IT about how to improve those odds, so although you may not be one of them, there are those here looking for info which may lead to some answers. Talking of odds, what do you think has more chance of distribution, a film made for the internet or a film made for say one of the better film festivals? What has more chance of making a ROI, a film made for the internet/VOD or a film made for TV broadcast? G
Last edited: