Low-budget movies that hit it big.

[mus]

I just realized that this was in your first post. Which refutes what I originally said.

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.

I apologize for saying you don't understand that. I forgot what your original statement was before I commented.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Thanks for the apology, it's appreciated.

Oh, I always thought Robert Rodriguez spent $7,000 total. I guess that also includes what Columbia spent too (Hard to think, really...)

This is exactly my point and to be honest the response in this thread is very surprising because it appears to me to be the opposite of what is in the best interests of aspiring indie filmmakers.

Taking the example which you've given: A completely unknown, inexperienced, amateur filmmaker attracted one of the most major film companies on the planet to invest $320,000 (the reputed cost of bringing El Mariachi up to distributable standards) and it went on to gross $2m. Now that is a fantastic filmmaking achievement and should serve as great inspiration to any aspiring filmmaker. Unfortunately, this great achievement was not good enough for the filmmaker, who obviously felt there was more cash to be made from giving the impression that his $7k film grossed $2m. By doing this Rodriguez has not helped the indie film community but has harmed it!!

I see quite a few films with budgets in the low to high tens of thousands which are in the early phase of post-production or have just completed post-production. Some of them are poor or terrible, the majority (by definition) look appropriate for their budget but some of them demonstrate significant filmmaking skill, I've seen several with budgets around the $30k mark which appear to have cost double or triple their actual budgets. Even though these films have weaknesses and are still not theatrically distributable it's still an impressive achievement isn't it? Apparently not because the filmmaking achievement bar has been set which appears to prove that a theatrically distributable film which took $2m at the box office can be made for only $7000. Compared to this, our $30k filmmaker's achievement appears pretty pathetic! Of course the real comparison should be between a $30k film and a $320k film, and now the talent and skill of our $30k filmmaker can receive the full appreciation it deserves.

To some degree, even the extremely limited budget filmmakers here on IT have this marketing hype driven, impossible to match myth hanging over their heads. Instead of the fighting for the truth to be out there, which would put their filmmaking abilities into a better and more realistic perspective, many IT members in this thread seem desperate, to the point of religious fanaticism, to perpetuate this false myth???

G

 

[David.rhsc]

This conversation has happened before, and it will happen again.

<Unknown Filmmaker> Spends $X to make a <Finished Edit>.
<Finished Edit> gets seen by <Industry Person> and they like it for <Reasons>.
<Industry Person> spends $Y to polish the <Finished Edit> into a <Distributable Film>.
<Industry Person> spends $Z to market the <Distributed Film>.
<Distributed Film> goes on to make <Gross Dollars>.

You cannot compare <Gross Dollars> to only X and expect to have a meaningful discussion. You have to consider Y and Z as well, and compare their sum to <Gross Dollars>.

The other thing that always happens in this conversation is that the (inexplicable) human need to counter common sense with an extreme outlier example as though it were the norm comes out in force. It's fine to draw inspiration from the Outlier Success Stories, but its equally important to view them with an empirical eye as well.

 

[Cracker Funk]

David, I haven't seen anyone in this thread, or in any of the others prior, try to make it sound like the "Outlier Success Story" is the norm. No, just the opposite, the reason many people look to those rare examples, is because they're inspiring. They made it, against all odds. There is a big difference between inspiration and expectation.

The rare exception proves that it CAN be done. Your dream fantasy actually CAN be achieved. How do we know this? Because others have done it. Yeah, it's rare, we get that. And that just makes it all the more inspiring.

 

[Jeff Troiano]

With regards to El Mariachi and Robert Rodriguez (maybe I'm slow), I don't seem to understand which side of the argument APE is on? I'm curious if those who argue the point that it wasn't made for $7k, because the studio also put a ton more into it, have read his book?

He clearly states, he made this movie with all intentions of selling to the Spanish home video market. He spent 7k, and hoped he'd sell the movie for 15 or 20k, make a 2nd movie (for same market) and hopefully sell that one (for more then he spent to make it), to help finance a 3rd (for same market). By chance someone saw what he had done, and got it in front of other studio people. He made a movie for his intended audience. Yes it was picked up, and a ton more was spent on it, to bring it to another audience. But the fact remains, he made his movie for 7k (regardless of how much a studio spent).

I'm not upset with APE for pointing out what he's pointed out. I'm just confused over some of the "facts" he's trying to point out. Mostly with regards to RR

I can't speak about some of the other movies, but I feel like RR did indeed make his movie for 7k, and it launched him. Although I believe what happen to him, isn't likely to happen again, in the same way.

 

[CraigL]

But the fact remains, he made his movie for 7k (regardless of how much a studio spent).

Absolutely, that fact remains. And that $7K opened the doors to getting a theatrical release completed.

However, the version of the film that went on to gross $2MM, cost way more than $7K. That's what I take issue with.

I can't speak about some of the other movies, but I feel like RR did indeed make his movie for 7k, and it launched him. Although I believe what happen to him, isn't likely to happen again, in the same way.

Oh, I think (and hope) it can, and will happen, it's just very, very rare.

CraigL

 

[David.rhsc]

David, I haven't seen anyone in this thread, or in any of the others prior, try to make it sound like the "Outlier Success Story" is the norm. No, just the opposite, the reason many people look to those rare examples, is because they're inspiring. They made it, against all odds. There is a big difference between inspiration and expectation.

Perhaps not, but it is used - time and again - to argue against those who would temper their outlook with the reality of the situation. Someone may acknowledge that it is not the norm, but in the same breath will hold it as evidence that people who say things like what I, APE, CraigL and others usually say - that there is more to the story than just the tales told for the sake of marketing.

Logically, one cannot have it both ways. It's either an outlier/anomaly or it is numerically significant evidence. It can't be both.

I mostly just take umbrage at the misapplication of logic when this conversation comes up.

The rare exception proves that it CAN be done. Your dream fantasy actually CAN be achieved. How do we know this? Because others have done it. Yeah, it's rare, we get that. And that just makes it all the more inspiring.

Which is great - inspiration is important, but too often someone will say something loony like "But so-and-so did it like x, y, and z and look at how successful they were!" without really knowing how much work goes on before/during/after the shooting schedule/budget. That's the part that's not constructive.

Also, speaking to El Mariachi, the landscape of the business now is not even remotely the same as when that was filmed. Now every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a few grand and a story to tell can create what I called a <Finished Edit> in my example scenario. Any given filmmaker has to compete with all of those other people who are all after the same - very limited - opportunities to "make it big."

Standing out on your art or your story is - by and large - just not good enough any more and as the business landscape continues to change that is only going to get worse. Look at what is happening at the Julliard. They are teaching business and entrepreneurial courses in pretty much all of their music programs, because without some level of business acumen even the most talented musicians are floundering. It's the indie filmmakers that have an equal command of the business and the craft that will dominate the future.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

It's funny to me, APE, that it seems to me we're actually much more in agreement than you seem to think. I really think it's just a difference in the way we use certain terms.

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.

I think you're taking what I've said way out of context, or else simply misunderstanding my point.

I'm not justifying the low budget approach based on the numbers that have succeeded, only saying that they show it is possible, no matter how unlikely. For some people, that can be a source of inspiration. As long as you're dreaming, it doesn't hurt to dream big.

And I'm not arguing that there's not an astronomically small chance that a micro-budget will get a theatrical release - I'm just saying that the odds don't change that significantly just because you spend more money up front. The truth is the odds of any independent film getting theatrical release are pretty bad. They might be slightly better for a well-funded film, but I think that's generally because the process of raising significant funding acts as a pre-filter for films that aren't likely to be theatrically viable in the first place.

It's like saying your odds of winning the lottery go way up if you buy a million tickets. It's not untrue, but it's also not untrue to say that it's pretty hard to raise a million dollars, and that when you don't win (because the odds are still likely that you won't) you've just lost a million dollars.

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.

I think this is where we're getting some confusion, because I differentiate pretty clearly between 'dreams' and 'goals'. And I think it's a fool's errand to try and to take a dream like "Wouldn't it be great if my first feature got picked up for theatrical distribution just like El Mariachi?" and translate it into something like "I'm going to make my first feature ready for theatrical release so that it will get picked up for theatrical distribution".

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!

There's clearly some confusion here too - I thought we were talking about people who are not yet making a living from filmmaking, but are hoping to. Hence the 'dream' part. If you're already making a living as a filmmaker then you already know exactly what needs to be done because you've been doing it, and this discussion isn't particularly relevant.

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.

Actually no, I'm trying to be realistic, which gets back to the goals vs. dreams aspect of it. Whatever your dream, the first goal has to be to get your film made. That's a massive undertaking for most people. I think burdening that goal up front with something like a six-figure budget for post production to satisfy theatrical requirements (when your odds of getting a release are still incredibly low) goes a long way towards increasing the odds that you'll never even start the film. And if/when you do manage to get it made you've also set a much higher hurdle to cross before you can see a return on that expense.

I think if you're looking to 'balance the odds more in your favor' you're better off making the no-budget film (rather than waiting indefinitely to raise more money) because you'll become a better filmmaker in the process - which will ultimately matter more when it comes time to make the next film, and the next, and so on. And actually making films raises your chance of making money with one of those films significantly over someone who doesn't make any films. You can't become a better filmmaker by raising money, while becoming a better filmmaker will probably help with raising & making money (and of course better films) in the future. Which dovetails nicely in to...

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?

That's simple - a film made for the internet.

If you make a feature for the internet, you can have worldwide distribution the day it's finished.

If it's made for the festivals than you have to wait and hope that it gets accepted into one of the better festivals (against the odds), then wait for it to screen, then hope (against the odds) that a distributor will see it at the festival and be willing to buy it, and hope that they're interested in paying enough that you come out ahead against whatever you spent on it. And then you hope that they actually put some marketing resources behind it, so that it doesn't just die a quiet death in some catalog. That's a whole lot of hoping and dreaming, which seems to be what you're arguing against.

I personally find it strange that so many people still pursue the latter, which is very passive and basically hands the fate of your film over to someone else's whims. I see that as the downside of turning the 'dream' of being discovered into a 'goal'. It drives people to think they have to play a game in which they're so overmatched that they're at the mercy of the big players, begging to be tossed the ball just once so they can take a shot - a shot they're still likely to miss. Going into debt buying better shoes and a nicer uniform thinking that'll get their attention. But still, for the most part, standing on the sidelines watching the game be played without them.

Why keep playing by their rules, in their game? It's no longer the only game in town. In many ways it's not even the biggest game anymore. Take the ball and play your own game. The 'dream' of being discovered doesn't have to go away, but it shifts the dynamic significantly such that if they come and ask you to play in their game you're in a position to take it or leave it because you've already got your own game.

What has more chance of making a ROI, a film made for the internet/VOD or a film made for TV broadcast?

ROI is a much more complicated question, because it requires a balance of several important factors - production budget, marketing budget, genre & potential audience size, etc. Hard to answer your specific question without defining those factors.

So I'd phrase the question differently. All else being equal, which has more chance of making an ROI for the filmmakers - a film that cost $30k to make, or a film that cost $500k to make?

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

Taking the example which you've given: A completely unknown, inexperienced, amateur filmmaker attracted one of the most major film companies on the planet to invest $320,000 (the reputed cost of bringing El Mariachi up to distributable standards) and it went on to gross $2m. Now that is a fantastic filmmaking achievement and should serve as great inspiration to any aspiring filmmaker. Unfortunately, this great achievement was not good enough for the filmmaker, who obviously felt there was more cash to be made from giving the impression that his $7k film grossed $2m. By doing this Rodriguez has not helped the indie film community but has harmed it!!

I think you're misrepresenting the way this is typically presented around here though. Rodriguez wrote a book which details in fairly painful detail how hard it was to get the film made, and what actually went into the final film. He makes it very clear that it wasn't "all you need to spend is $7,000 and you too could gross $2 million!". You really should read the book, you seem to have a very distorted view of the story and I think you'd find the real story pretty interesting.

I've seen several with budgets around the $30k mark which appear to have cost double or triple their actual budgets. Even though these films have weaknesses and are still not theatrically distributable it's still an impressive achievement isn't it? Apparently not because the filmmaking achievement bar has been set which appears to prove that a theatrically distributable film which took $2m at the box office can be made for only $7000. Compared to this, our $30k filmmaker's achievement appears pretty pathetic! Of course the real comparison should be between a $30k film and a $320k film, and now the talent and skill of our $30k filmmaker can receive the full appreciation it deserves.

Again though, you're creating an argument that doesn't actually exist here in the discussion. Nobody is saying if you can't make a film for $7,000 that grosses $2 million it's not impressive. For instance, what are some of the other films that are often cited in these discussions? How about 'Clerks', which had a production budget of $30,000. I couldn't tell you what it grossed theatrically or what the studio spent on it to get it ready for release, but nobody's arguing that Kevin Smith's success was 'pathetic' compared to Robert Rodriguez because Smith's initial budget was 4x as much. "Paranormal Activity" was something like $15k, but hey it grossed almost $200 million theatrically so does that diminish Rodriguez' achievement since his made a pathetic $2 million? Not in the slightest.

It's a ridiculous argument. The 'dream' here that all these films are cited as examples of is simple - make a film for a budget that is within reach of almost anyone, get 'discovered' because of it, then enjoy fame and fortune as a filmmaker. The numbers don't matter. If "El Mariachi" was never released theatrically it would still be exactly the same success story - because Rodriguez signed a 3-picture deal with a major studio long before they released his film. He went from being a struggling amateur to a professional filmmaker on the strength of a $7,000 feature film. That's it.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

Rodriguez wrote a book which details in fairly painful detail how hard it was to get the film made, and what actually went into the final film.

"Rebel Without a Crew" I highly recommend it.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

And I'm not arguing that there's not an astronomically small chance that a micro-budget will get a theatrical release - I'm just saying that the odds don't change that significantly just because you spend more money up front.

What evidence do you have for this assertion? All the evidence (and my personal experience) points to the exact opposite! If a $3m film and a $3k film both have the same chance of theatrical distribution, why would anyone ever invest or make a $3m film instead of a $3k film? It would be an absolutely stupid investment because the only thing you would achieve by investing 1,000 times more money is making it 1,000 times more difficult to reach the break-even/profit point. Those who invest very significant amounts in film making sometimes have a rather blinkered, bean-counter approach but "absolutely stupid" they are most certainly NOT. If I were looking to invest 6 or 7 figures in a theatrical film, I would want as close to a guarantee of theatrical distribution as possible BEFORE I handed over the cash AND, a very well considered fall-back plan should the film not get theatrical distribution. Just spending "more money up front", say going from $3k to $20k, probably will not greatly enhance the chances of theatrical distribution but going from $3k up to a budget which realistically allows for theatrical distribution standards to be met will VERY significantly improve the odds, for a number of reasons. And, not to forget that as theatrical distribution standards are the highest of all commercial distribution standards, a film made to theatrical distribution standards is very easily and cheaply re-versioned for markets other than theatrical distribution.

I'm not justifying the low budget approach based on the numbers that have succeeded, only saying that they show it is possible, no matter how unlikely. As long as you're dreaming, it doesn't hurt to dream big.

As I implied in my previous post, provided you are just dreaming then of course it doesn't matter how big you dream. The problem arises when your actions are dictated by your dream, then it absolutely does hurt to dream big!!

Your approach and the approach of many here seems to be pretty much all or nothing, based on the dream of theatrical distribution. Essentially: "I've got a few $k so I'm going to make a theatrical film, get into some festivals, get distributed and I'm living the dream. I realise there's not much chance but others have done it. The only other option is to give up and not to make films at all, which obviously doesn't get me closer to my dream." - All or nothing! And the problem with an all or nothing approach is that 99.99% of the time what you are left with is nothing, which in filmmaking terms is a film which is only suitable for self distribution on Youtube or DVD.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are a whole range of options between this all or nothing approach, which you are deliberately ignoring because you only seem to want success on your "all or nothing" terms. This is what I meant when I said you seem to actually want the astronomical odds.

Whatever your dream, the first goal has to be to get your film made. That's a massive undertaking for most people. I think burdening that goal up front with something like a six-figure budget for post production to satisfy theatrical requirements ... I think if you're looking to 'balance the odds more in your favor' you're better off making the no-budget film (rather than waiting indefinitely to raise more money) because you'll become a better filmmaker in the process - which will ultimately matter more when it comes time to make the next film, and the next, and so on.

Yes, making a film rather than not making a film is obviously going to improve your odds, as will improving your filmmaking abilities. What I'm saying is, there are more efficient ways to improve your odds still further. Improving your filmmaking abilities will not improve your odds as much as a track record of making profitable films. Rather than trying to raise 6 or 7 figures for a theatrical feature as an unheard of filmmaker or the even rarer likelihood of trying to raise 6 figures or so after you've finished your film, why not try and make something other than a theatrical feature, something with a more realistic chance of financial success?

You say "whatever your dream the first goal is to make your film", I disagree! This is only the first goal for an amateur filmmaker, it is not the first goal of a professional or of an amateur who seriously aspires to being a professional. Rather than taking the amateur approach of seeing how much money you've got and trying to make a theatrical film for that amount, why not take a professional approach, which is largely the opposite way around? Research the market, work out what sort of product to make and what budget you need in order to make that product to the expected standards while giving yourself a realistic chance of ROI. Rather than trying to make a theatrical film for $20k and then dreaming of a 50,000:1 impossibility, why not make a product with say 5:1 odds? While you haven't immediately improved the odds of your dream coming true, you have significantly improved your odds of some ROI and therefore of fulfilling your dream further down the road.

For a fuller explanation, see this post.

All else being equal, which has more chance of making an ROI for the filmmakers - a film that cost $30k to make, or a film that cost $500k to make?

This goes to the heart of what I'm trying to explain. The answer is: It all depends on which market your film is aimed at. For Youtube distribution neither of those budgets are likely to provide an ROI but the $30k has more chance simply because it's a smaller amount to recoup. For DVD/BluRay distribution it depends entirely on the exact nature of the DVD distribution. The $30k budget would stand a far better chance of ROI if aimed at the low quality TV broadcast market, while the $500k budget film would stand a way better chance in the network TV drama market. For theatrical distribution, the $500k film should have orders of magnitude more chance of making an ROI than a $30k film. Ultimately, it needs to be the other way around, what market are you aiming at and what budget provides BOTH the likelihood of meeting expectations AND of making an ROI!

G

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

The point I'm trying to make is that there are a whole range of options between this all or nothing approach, which you are deliberately ignoring because you only seem to want success on your "all or nothing" terms. This is what I meant when I said you seem to actually want the astronomical odds.

Except that I feel like it's pretty clear from my posts that I'm not advocating this all-or-nothing approach at all. That's why I said I think we're a lot more in agreement than you seem to think we are. I'm not sure why you appear to be deliberately ignoring that aspect of my posts. It's as if you feel like you need this straw man of the 'all or nothing' indie film dreamer to validate your position.

What evidence do you have for this assertion? All the evidence (and my personal experience) points to the exact opposite! If a $3m film and a $3k film both have the same chance of theatrical distribution, why would anyone ever invest or make a $3m film instead of a $3k film?

Again, you seem to be deliberately ignoring what I said in order to argue your point. I'll try it again for a third and last time:

The process of raising a significant budget for any given project acts as a pre-filter for projects that are likely to get theatrical distribution. You're not necessarily increasing the odds by raising the money as much as quantifying your odds.

That's fine, and a good strategy if your primary goal is to get theatrical distribution - what I'm arguing is that for many (most, if we're talking odds) independent projects that shouldn't be your primary goal, even if it is a dream. Have the dream, let it inspire you, but plan for the many more likely alternatives. Which seems to be what you're arguing too, except that you don't seem to want to leave room for people to dream beyond their means.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I'll try it again for a third and last time:

The process of raising a significant budget for any given project acts as a pre-filter for projects that are likely to get theatrical distribution. You're not necessarily increasing the odds by raising the money as much as quantifying your odds.

And again for the last time, what evidence do you have for this assertion?

Sure, the process of raising a significant budget acts as a pre-filter, which is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on the film you're trying to make. The question is, what is a significant budget, how and why is the amount of budget set? In very general terms, a budget level is set so that theatrical distribution standards/expectations can at least be met. Distributors attend film festivals looking for products they can distribute, they don't attend film festivals looking for films which require significant investment to turn into products which they can then distribute. It stands to reason therefore that raising the money (and obviously spending it wisely) to produce a product which is distributable is very significantly improving your odds of distribution rather than just quantifying your odds.

I feel like it's pretty clear from my posts that I'm not advocating this all-or-nothing approach at all.

To be honest it's not clear to me. Certainly the vast majority here on IT appear to set their primary goal as making their film "good enough" or "as best as they can" without really identifying what "good enough" or "best as they can" actually means.

I see many quoting the example of "El Mariachi" without really appreciating what it's an example of and therefore not actually applying the principles which this film demonstrates to their own film making.

G

 

[Zensteve]