directing Proof of Concept

I have a question about the success that can be obtained from making a Proof-of-Concept short film / trailer.

My research finds that filmmakers do this in the hopes of a studio financing them to direct their own feature-length film.

Do filmmakers ever make PoC for the purpose of selling the rights so someone else makes it? If so, is this a lucrative path for someone who only wants to make a short PoC film but doesn’t want to direct something big?
 
I have a question about the success that can be obtained from making a Proof-of-Concept short film / trailer.

My research finds that filmmakers do this in the hopes of a studio financing them to direct their own feature-length film.

Do filmmakers ever make PoC for the purpose of selling the rights so someone else makes it? If so, is this a lucrative path for someone who only wants to make a short PoC film but doesn’t want to direct something big?

Never heard of that and I don't think it would work except in very very extreme cases..
Like the guy that made how the grinch stole christmas..... that cartoon 27 minutes aka a short film.
i bet he could have sold the rights to that.

But how many short films end up super famous? thats literally the only one i can even think of in the last 50 years.
statistically It doesn't happen.

Typically if you want to create a proof of concept and sell the rights, then you write a book.
Selling a ton of copies of your book is the proof of concept.
 
Last edited:
A short film would not prove that a feature version would work, so it is not a proof of concept. I really don't like when that term is applied this way. To me, a proof of concept film would be a limited run of the current film that is seeking full distro. It does well in 3 major cities, so you have proven the concept. Sorry, semantics.
 
A short film would not prove that a feature version would work, so it is not a proof of concept. I really don't like when that term is applied this way. To me, a proof of concept film would be a limited run of the current film that is seeking full distro. It does well in 3 major cities, so you have proven the concept. Sorry, semantics.
I don't think the full finished film qualifes as a concept.

Typically, in business, when people say proof of concept they are not referring to a final product ready for sale.
The pipeline order begins with Proof of Concept, then moves to Protoype, Minimal Viable Product, and then Finally an end product.
 
Last edited:
I see it a bit differently. Proving the concept can be four-walling, etc. A short is not the same as a feature. It's like proving the truck can sell based on a moped.
 
I see it a bit differently. Proving the concept can be four-walling, etc. A short is not the same as a feature. It's like proving the truck can sell based on a moped.
Well I said a book was a proof of concept, that people can enjoy the concept of your story.

Short film is more like... proof of director's competence.
 
I see this is about the rights anyway. I mean, that's what writing a screenplay is for. To sell to make a film. If you wanted to "demo" the screenplay with a trailer I see no harm. However if you do not a have a real budget I would not even attempt it. It should be super slick and of the quality of a film. You don't want to say "Hey here's a great script and to prove it to you here's a poo poo student film trailer because we only had so much money."
 
Thank you for the responses.

I’m wanting to provide a high quality visual inspiration to see if someone wants to buy the rights to make a feature film.

The only examples I find online entail that same person directing the bigger film, which I have no interest in.
 
I see nothing wrong with it. I saw it on Shark Tank once. They went in to sell a "not made yet" film and showed a trailer. It's been done. Do it if you want.
 
Thank you for the responses.

I’m wanting to provide a high quality visual inspiration to see if someone wants to buy the rights to make a feature film.

The only examples I find online entail that same person directing the bigger film, which I have no interest in.

As I understand it, the guy that made underworld showed up with a bunch of drawings and pitched the entire film visually like that.
All pre-vis through storyboard art.

He had never made a film but he had such a compelling vision with the storyboards that they let him make the movie.
I think i read that once, im not gonna google to verify
 
Speaking specifically to the sub topic of "fake trailers" used as a POC showcase for would be productions, I run into a lot of people that have this idea. There are a lot of issues with trying to do things that way, and I end up explaining it over and over. People see a lot of trailers, and those trailers are made a certain way. Making one a completely different way will provide much different results, inferior results, and then it will be judged against people that have done it the right way.

A real trailer is made AFTER you get all the money, and make the entire film. At that point, trailer editing specialists and an R&D consulting firm are brought in, and given the finished film. They take 100 million dollars worth of polished footage, and boil it down to a 90 second hook piece. That's what people are used to seeing.

Fake trailers usually present a very low grade version of what could be the final product, typically trying to ape real trailers using recognizable stings and hits in the soundtrack. It's a tough situation for indie filmmakers, because in general, people just see what you show them, rather than potential. I think it's one of the biggest problems we face, because before you find investment, potential is all you've got.

Both the book, and the storyboard ideas are good. Many shows are sold using a "show bible", which is kind of a combination of the two, with some other aspects. Below is a link where you can find several of the Star Trek show bibles, which are what producers took to the networks to get the shows made. It's a rare opportunity to look at the real thing, and see exactly what they brought in to get an 80 million dollar greenlight.

 
I always looked at the idea of making a short to prove the concept for a feature as 'proof of concept'. The two films I know that were financed this way were Planet of the Apes(sort of) and Evil Dead. The story goes that United artist was reluctant to finance Planet of the Apes in 1968 because they were afraid audiences would laugh at actors running around in ape make-ups and the movie would flop, so they gave the producer, Arthur Jacobs, $5,000 to make a short proof of concept film to determine if the idea was plausible.... It was!! .... For Evil Dead, Sam Raimi and the boys made a short 8mm film that they showed investors. I think it might have been called Into the Woods,. From what I read, they had success and that is how they raised the $300,000.00 to make Evil Dead! I made a proof of concept short 16mm film decades ago with the goal of using it to raise money for a feature length version of the story. Ironically, the short film served its purpose in a way we had not considered, it proved that our idea sucked! Hahaha..
 
I think that proof of concept is a great idea, but only to prove the concept to yourself. As a sales technique, it's problematic. One does affect the other though, and if you get a meeting, and you've proven your concept to yourself, you can look them dead in the eye and say "This will absolutely work, we've tested it" and that confidence can really affect your chances. It's a much stronger response than "we think it will work but never bothered to try it".
 
Spending your time and money to convince others that what you believe has merit will only be frustrating. They will always have a reason to say no. Everyone is afraid of 'taking the plunge.' And every movie that has ever been worth a damn is a risk... what if the shark in Jaws looks fake? What if ET looks fake? What if Star Wars is too operatic and dumb? No studio wanted to take those gambles, and the same holds true for your proof of concept. I spent 5 days directing a 20 minute short film in 35mm, and 12 days directing a feature in 4k. I shot so much footage for the 20-minute film, but at the end of the day, was limited in selling it b/c it wasn't a feature. Even a mediocre genre feature can find some level of distribution, at the very least via iTunes or Amazon. I went to the AFM last November and there were people who'd spend $30k shooting a proof of concept, asking for $2 million for a feature. They had been at this for 2 years. At some point, you have to take the plunge, and put all of your resources behind shooting a feature. Force yourself and your comrades to figure it out.
 
Spending your time and money to convince others that what you believe has merit will only be frustrating. They will always have a reason to say no.
That's a very depressing take on the world! :hmm:

Besides, doesn't the whole movie business revolve around convincing various "others" of the merit of one ideas? Sure, you can pay people to help with the technical aspects and "self-publish" to an exent, but you'll still need to convince actors to accept the roles, festivals to accept your entry, distributors, streaming platforms or private cinemas to screen it, and above all, viewers to want to sit down and watch it ...
 
That's a very depressing take on the world! :hmm:

Besides, doesn't the whole movie business revolve around convincing various "others" of the merit of one ideas? Sure, you can pay people to help with the technical aspects and "self-publish" to an exent, but you'll still need to convince actors to accept the roles, festivals to accept your entry, distributors, streaming platforms or private cinemas to screen it, and above all, viewers to want to sit down and watch it ...
Apologies, Celtic Rambler... did not mean to imply that one is ever excused from the need to persuade others. As Producer or Director, you will always need to convey your vision and the project's merits to others, including actors, distributors, film festivals, etc. I was specifically referring to pouring a lot of resources into producing a Proof of Concept, which can be expensive and take months or years to see results, versus pouring those same resources into self-producing a manageable version of the movie you want to make. In the latter case, the benefit is that you have potentially sellable IP at the end of the process.
 
You guys think you're being too dire about the indie filmmakers situation? lol. I've only seen about 20 loners make it across the entire history of film. I think 180 people got struck by lightning last year, vs 20 actual one person projects making it over the last century. There's just more dimensions to the full path than people seem to realize. A great story is like being the best formula 1 driver. You're not even close to winning the race. After you become the best, you'll need a million dollar formula car, then years spent qualifying and integrating into the pro circuits, waiting for race days, dealing with maintenance problems, keeping your skill up one 5,000 dollar tire at a time as you blow through 12 race tires a month on days with no income. Then the grueling final race, as huge corporations try to pile advantages on another driver that isn't as good as you, but has sponsorship deals to sell things for the companies. After you've jumped through a series of hoops so expensive that it would drown any person of normal income, regardless of how hard they worked, you'll still have teams of unimaginative blank eyed people funded and coordinated to make sure you don't have a chance, because that protects the interest of those with entrenched wealth that they don't really have to work or think to accrue. That's the story of every large corporation interacting with an optimistic artist for about the last 30 years. I do think things used to be different, but it's all second hand and conjecture.

Point being, film is a larger scale effort designed from the outset for teams. Social media algorithms and the offense/outrage/polarize echochamber from every political side has turned social cooperation towards shared goals into a nightmarish tower of babel situation. Since a lack of teams and cooperation spells certain doom for anyone that wants to make a film, or build a building, etc, and people now only cooperate when paid to cooperate, we've created a system where the only possible event sequence is a person with disposable wealth handing out huge sums of money to other rich people for trivial tasks such as having a conversation in a room for 20,000 dollars per hour, understanding that they don't actually have to be good at budgeting because they are in a situation so good that every action, regardless of how stupid it is, results in a financial win. I think that film in the market is such a chaotic commodity by nature that even the idea of trying it as a conventional narrow margin business is kind of ludicrous. It only becomes managable at a huge aggregate level, which is what the studios are. Make 100 overpriced films, people really like 3 of them, and they skim by with a "disappointing" 33% revenue growth from a 97% failure rate. Slight exaggeration, but not as much as you'd imagine. Simultaniously, keep in mind that the people inside the system got paid BEFORE any of those films were successful. They could afford lawyers and unions and were in a cash rich environment where an AD on Ishtar likely took home more actual cash than the writer director of the Blair Witch Project took home AFTER the movie sold.

You saw them throw away 90 million dollars a few months ago by canning a finished film? Then they paid a teenager 500k to wear a costume for 22 days, and dropped 25k, so they could play a pop song for 15 seconds. Does that sound like a business model that would work for one of us if we tried it? Basically the bicycle gets easier to pedal as the team grows, and you're pedaling as hard as you can with your best idea, and they are coasting with their worst idea, and society says that their value is thousands of times what ours is as they "earn" more money in a day than a hardworking and ethical person makes in a year. That creates a feedback loop where people can stack advantages. Pretty soon everyone except the nepotism caste can just forget about it, and you're in a legit dystopia.

TLDR - You're totally screwed as a filmmaker if you can't build a team. It's 2022 and every person on earth is the captain of their own team, even if their contribution is "what if the story had a person in it". You can bribe people to form a team and overcome this, using the money you got from making films because your family already had money. If your family does not have lots of spare wealth, you'll need to make a bad film first, and then you'll be labeled as a failure, and that label will be used to deny you the investment you'd need to improve.

It's....... not a great situation in my view.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, the guy that made underworld showed up with a bunch of drawings and pitched the entire film visually like that.
All pre-vis through storyboard art.

He had never made a film but he had such a compelling vision with the storyboards that they let him make the movie.
I think i read that once, im not gonna google to verify
that would imply that he knew someone to pitch it to. if you have zero contacts you will find it very hard to get near anyone in the industry.
 
Back
Top