Raising funds for Small Film

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

"I didn't know you could sell a $15 K film"

To a distributor.. loooooooooong shot. However, with that little invested self distribution, VOD, etc... become possibilities.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

"I didn't know you could sell a $15 K film"

To a distributor.. loooooooooong shot. However, with that little invested self distribution, VOD, etc... become possibilities.

Depends. Selling a $500,000 film to a distributor is also a loooooooong shot.

In a blind test, the $15,000 and $500,000 film have equal parity. If you make your $15k film look like a $500k film, who is to know? As a producer, it is your job to lie about the actual production cost.

I consider $3K to $5K a reasonable budget for a short.

I'm curious. Why would anyone want to spend $5k on a short? How did it become "normal" to spend this kind of money on shorts?

 

[DeJager]

This is SO subjective and varies so much. I consider $3K to $5K a reasonable budget for a short. With only key crew getting paid, not renting any expensive locations, etc... you can make a pretty good short in that budget range. That's the range all my shorts have been in. That being said, MOST (not all, but most) of the short films you see at "top tier" festivals like Sundance cost more like $25K to $50K. My budget for the 15 minute pilot episode of my web series is $3K. I'd MUCH rather have $5K to $6K, but I think I can scrape by on $3K.

I think $0 is a reasonable budget for a short. NO WAY I'd spend more than $1,000 on one. They are a waste of time and money (in my opinion) except for learning and becoming a better filmmaker and storyteller (at the beginning). If you want to spend any money, do so on a feature length so it will at least have some resale.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Depends. Selling a $500,000 film to a distributor is also a loooooooong shot.

In a blind test, the $15,000 and $500,000 film have equal parity. If you make your $15k film look like a $500k film, who is to know? As a producer, it is your job to lie about the actual production cost.



I'm curious. Why would anyone want to spend $5k on a short? How did it become "normal" to spend this kind of money on shorts?

Historically that's cheap. When people made shorts on film, you know 10 years ago, it was common for a short to cost 25K. You had to buy film stock and pay for processing and telecine. It's cheaper now, but still. How many films can you make with enough people to do it "right" where you aren't paying anybody? Not many unless you're a student or somehow in the middle of some really vibrant film scene. I have to pay people. Even if it's slave wages. You pay a DP a $100 a day, and a MUA and an asst editor to dump footage $50 and a 1st AC $75 and rent $150 worth of grip gear and feed people 3 meals plus craft services and etc... etc.... you've spent 3K before you rent a location or buy a prop or costume.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Gonzo, I get the part about making shorts on film - agreed, expensive . . . but why are people making shorts that costs over a couple hundred bucks at all nowadays? There is nothing to gain spending that money. What's the upside to making a short for $3K vs one for zero dollars?

You couldn't get me out of my chair to make a short. I'm too busy working on my next feature. (The only exception, of course is paid gigs.) I just don't get why filmmakers spend a heck of amount of time raising money for a project that is financially dead when completed when other avenues exist.

Sadly, bad features make more money than excellent shorts.

 

[Dreadylocks]

Guerilla, I think the key thing to think about is the #1 rule of producing: Never put your own money into the show!

Gonzo might have mentioned this, but it's true that most of the shorts that get into the big festivals are made for 10k+ The short may be financially dead but those big festivals are great places to shop your feature around.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Well, I didn't go to film school. I didn't make my first film until I was 43. I am a the position where time is more valuable to me than money (to a point). I don't have 10 years to make really small, zero budget films to learn what I'm doing. I feel like I have to spend the money to create an accelerated learning curve. I learned a TON from working with (paid) professional crew. If I had made a feature right out of the gate it would have sucked, bad.

At the end of the day they are resume pieces, building the Gonzo "brand". Will that eventually pay off, who knows, but it's an alternate route to the finish line.

I'm currently writing a treatment for an agent in LA who found me based on one of my short films. Is that likely to pay off, again, probably not, but it does show you CAN get ROI, even if it's not direct monetary return) on a short film.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Guerilla, I think the key thing to think about is the #1 rule of producing: Never put your own money into the show!

Gonzo might have mentioned this, but it's true that most of the shorts that get into the big festivals are made for 10k+ The short may be financially dead but those big festivals are great places to shop your feature around.

Has anyone had actual success getting financing for their feature after exhibiting a $10K short? It would seem to me the odds for this to work is akin to needing to hit two hole-in-ones in a row.

But yeah, you're right, if you are going to make a $15k short, it damn better be with someone else's money.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Well, I didn't go to film school. I didn't make my first film until I was 43. I am a the position where time is more valuable to me than money (to a point). I don't have 10 years to make really small, zero budget films to learn what I'm doing. I feel like I have to spend the money to create an accelerated learning curve. I learned a TON from working with (paid) professional crew. If I had made a feature right out of the gate it would have sucked, bad.

At the end of the day they are resume pieces, building the Gonzo "brand". Will that eventually pay off, who knows, but it's an alternate route to the finish line.

I'm currently writing a treatment for an agent in LA who found me based on one of my short films. Is that likely to pay off, again, probably not, but it does show you CAN get ROI, even if it's not direct monetary return) on a short film.

I never made a short, nor did I go to film school before making my feature. I did have an eye for creating art and did some one-off video projects (including paid gigs) while researching feature filmmaking for a few years before starting the feature.

But yeah, I agree, if you don't want to spend the time or simply don't have the time to learn everything, you'll have to pay for it. Just out of curiosity, wouldn't being part of someone else's feature project do the trick? "Invest" $1k to be the AD or 2nd AD?

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Again, what does a good film school cost, $20K, $50K, I haven't spent that and have learned as much or more. I had the money, and I did it. It may pay off, it may not, just like anything else in life.

 

[rayw]

I think a beginning filmmaker will be much better off spending the equivalent of filmmaking school tuition on 30 - 50 shorts and music videos, (maybe slide in a "no-budget" feature), with the first ten having <$100 budget.

Each and every project has just so many new situations/problems to solve.
And the biggest benefit is when you run across the same situations/problems again, you can use your previous experience to solve it!
Too many film school thesis films look like cr@p.
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...s+film&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&page=2

 

[Duckforceone]

Why do a short on a low to no budget, that you can't sell,
when you can do a feature on a low to no budget, that you can sell.

500.000 dollar movie, sold on VOD for 2 dollars, requires 250.000 people to see it to return a 0 dollar profit.
15.000 dollar movie, sold on VOD for 2 dollars, requires 7.500 people to see it to return a 0 dollar profit
0 dollar movie, sold on VOD for 2 dollars, requires just 1 person to see it, to turn a profit.

So make your early movies for 0 or extremely low budget. That way you will almost certainly reqoup your losses no matter how badly it sells.

now imagine your 0 dollar movie, has 250.000 people willing to see it. You would have 500.000 dollars in profit by then.

 

[directorik]

Unrealistic expectations is not a good way to think about the
business of making a film.

First there is no such thing as a 0 dollar movie. Every movie
costs something. Even if you only shoot one day and feed three
people it cost something. Second people do not pay $2 to watch
a short film with a cast of unknowns made by a filmmaker they
have never heard of. And very few will pay $2 to watch a feature
a cast of unknowns made by a filmmaker they have never heard
of. And a feature cannot cost 0 dollars. There is always a cost
associated with producing a feature.

Very few people making short films are doing it for profit. The vast
majority make short films for the fun of it and most make them
to learn their craft.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Again, to kind of summarize, what I am doing, which is not right for everybody, but was for me...

I was in a position where I had SOME money, good day job. By surrounding myself with professionals I accelerated my learning curve in filmmaking. I was working with several people who taught at places like art institute and some hollywood veterans. I probably learned in 3 films what it may have taken 30 films just bumbling around and working with other people who only half knew what they were doing. It has worked for me. I'm probably $10K in on 3 films, but I have gained a lot not measured in dollars, yet...

 

[Aspiring Mogul]

Again, to kind of summarize, what I am doing, which is not right for everybody, but was for me...

I was in a position where I had SOME money, good day job. By surrounding myself with professionals I accelerated my learning curve in filmmaking. I was working with several people who taught at places like art institute and some hollywood veterans. I probably learned in 3 films what it may have taken 30 films just bumbling around and working with other people who only half knew what they were doing. It has worked for me. I'm probably $10K in on 3 films, but I have gained a lot not measured in dollars, yet...

I'm in a similar position, except I haven't made a short film. I want to be a producer, not a director or other role - I will consider being an actor as well as a producer, but acting is not my main goal. That said, with my business experience, I don't know if shorts would be the way for me to start.

And, yes, you have to surround yourself with the right people, and you also have to make sure you're the right type of person - you have good business sense.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

And very few will pay $2 to watch a feature
a cast of unknowns made by a filmmaker they have never heard of.

Very few will pay $2 to watch a $500k film with b-actors and unknown directors as well. People will pay $2 for anything that has been properly marketed, including crap.

And a feature cannot cost 0 dollars. There is always a cost
associated with producing a feature.

Perhaps so, but likely can be made with whatever many pay to make their shorts.

Very few people making short films are doing it for profit. The vast
majority make short films for the fun of it and most make them
to learn their craft.

Can you honestly say the majority of shorts filmmakers KNOW that they are only making their short for fun and experience or is there another item missing here? Just curious.

 

[Aspiring Mogul]

"If you love this planet" is a short documentary in the 1980's by an anti-nuclear activist, and it was all about politics. Many Vietnam war films make political statements.

It may be hard to divorce politics from film in such situations.

 

[PaulGriffith]

Napoleon Dynamite, Bottlerocket and The Raven (in production) are three films off the top of my head that secured funding for a feature from a studio with a short produced for $5-25k.

I think that most short filmmakers either know it's an experience thing or try hope for a feature deal. More on the experience side though.

I, like most others, would have drowned trying to make a feature off the bat with little support. By making shorts we've built a great team and hammered out so many kinks that would ruin a feature so now when we do walk into a feature we'll be so, so much better off. Well worth the time and money invested.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

"If you love this planet" is a short documentary in the 1980's by an anti-nuclear activist, and it was all about politics. Many Vietnam war films make political statements.

It may be hard to divorce politics from film in such situations.

Making a political statement short is actually a pretty good reason to pay more than a few bucks to make. Unlike fiction, these things have redeeming usefulness that go beyond the satisfaction and experience of making it.

 

[amyuk]

'Everyone' uses Kick starter and Indygogo.... and since 'Everyone' uses it I wouldn't use it myself. - at least not on its own as a sole purpose for funding.

Let me rephrase it: Why would one pay $3,000 to make a short when there is no hope of a financial return when great shorts can be made for a fraction of that amount with the exact same odds for a financial return as a $3,000 short?

to GuerrillaAngel - I've made shorts before without budget and I've learnt a lot but sometimes you have to put a little bit of money into things so that you know how to use a budget when you do have one. I spent £1,000 ($1560) on my new short film - for that I got a good crew, paid for everyone's expenses and food. I now know that with $31,000 I can make a feature film and even pay everyone.

Is it really wasted money when you have a great short film to help promote yourself as a film maker as a result?