Popular Short Film cost & gross research

D

DTimesThree

I'm in the process of putting together a business plan for a short film I hope to finance through investors and other financial resources. My business plan will include, among other things, a chart of popular short films' cost and gross. The three films I’m currently obtaining information on are George Lucas in Love , 405: The Movie and Coven . I've managed to find gross profit information on these films, but I’m having trouble finding their COST.

Can anybody help me find how much money was used to make these films? I know the info has got to be around somewhere. Thanks!! :D
 
Jeremy isn't too hard to get ahold of for 405 the Movie...

As a short filmmaker with a moderate level of success for selling to TV, DVD, and other forms of distribution... I do NOT recommend getting investors or even making a short film that costs that much money. There is very little return on investment with a short film UNLESS you shoot it for very little money.

The three movies you listed - all had exceptional amounts of uncontrollable luck involved with their financial success. Especially Coven, as they made a feature film documentary around it's finishing. If they didn't make AMERICAN MOVIE, do you think Mark would have ever sold that many copie sof COVEN? The two guys on 405 the Movie used their work computers to render all the graphics, and they were doing FX for feature films already. George Lucas In Love was a USC film school project, utilizing the film school's equipment to shoot & edit (and locations).

All I'm saying is that with a prospectus and business plan, you may want to consider using those tools for a feature film because even a crappy feature will make more money than a great short film. When dealing with investors, getting them their money back & profit is of at least equal import to the art & craft.

Not to be entirely discouraging, short films are more likely to find financing through grants & arts foundations, as they are more for the art and the experience of learning the craft. There is money to be had for more ambitious short films, but investors might not be the best option because there are less options for ROI.

You can get some very good pointers from people like BIG FILM SHORTS, which is my distribution company for short films, and find out what they can tell you for cost versus return. www.BigFilmShorts.com
 
I totally agree with SonnyBoo. Instead of looking for inverstors, try looking for a DP or Sound Mixer or Editor who would be willing to work on your project for cheap to nothing. Expect to not get a return on your short because most don't. Hope that your short will win some awards at festivals, or get you a job or something like that.
 
All I'm saying is that with a prospectus and business plan, you may want to consider using those tools for a feature film because even a crappy feature will make more money than a great short film.
Click to expand...

I agree with this completely. With precious few exceptions, there just isn't the market for shorts that there is for features. The vast, vast majority of shorts are simply calling cards that lead to professional work. That was the intent, if not the result, of each of the films you mentioned above.

Btw, George Lucas In Love cost about $20,000 to make. I'd be surprised if the dollar cost of 405 was any higher than $50, beyond the cost of the camera of course.
 
Of course, the camera cost for 405 wasn't very high either, since they used a single chip DV camera, which I believe they already owned.. so really the camera cost is negligable. However, the value of the CG is worth much much more..
 
Will Vincent said:
Of course, the camera cost for 405 wasn't very high either, since they used a single chip DV camera, which I believe they already owned.. so really the camera cost is negligable. However, the value of the CG is worth much much more..
Click to expand...

Of course, but they didn't pay for that. So the actual out-of-pocket expense on that film was probably negligable.
 
Ah, I thought you were trying to include the value of the CG in the budget of the film. My bad.

And I didn't even notice that we both used the word "negligable."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top