This is more for the new people than the old-timers. But, it is a good brain storming session.
By ROI, I mean a Return On Investment.
By ROI, I mean a Return On Investment.
Why Do Independent Films Have Such A Limited ROI?
- Thread starter Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC
- Start date
Biggest two off the top of my head is poor quality and lack of advertisement.
Why should someone pay to see either a bad story, poor production or bad acting when for the same $10 you can see a movie with an actor you generally like and a high quality production. Story may not be good, but still...
Then bad advertising. Nobody is going to see a movie they don't even know exists. Takes a pretty penny or the luckiest guerilla/social media marketing campaign in the world to compete with the big boys who spend hundreds of millions to make sure you hear about it on the radio, see it on TV, trailers before other big budget movies, magazine and print ads, billboards, etc...
Come to think of it, the successful independents might have a similar percentage ROI. A $60 mil movie might gross $600 mil and the $50,000 movie might make $500,000. Then it's a case of the more you put in, the more you get out.
Why should someone pay to see either a bad story, poor production or bad acting when for the same $10 you can see a movie with an actor you generally like and a high quality production. Story may not be good, but still...
Then bad advertising. Nobody is going to see a movie they don't even know exists. Takes a pretty penny or the luckiest guerilla/social media marketing campaign in the world to compete with the big boys who spend hundreds of millions to make sure you hear about it on the radio, see it on TV, trailers before other big budget movies, magazine and print ads, billboards, etc...
Come to think of it, the successful independents might have a similar percentage ROI. A $60 mil movie might gross $600 mil and the $50,000 movie might make $500,000. Then it's a case of the more you put in, the more you get out.
Hmmm well independent films have plenty of ROI, but I think what you mean to say is "micro budget"?
INdependent is just out of the studio circuit, and there are many in theaters that are returning investment and more, that have names etc.
Micro budget? For the reasons that Paul Griffith explained. There just isn't a lot of even half decent material being pushed out by no-names and micro-budgeteers. For the most part, it's unwatchable.
If you can get a name attached, even a bad movie probably has a sell going for it. Thems just the breaks.
INdependent is just out of the studio circuit, and there are many in theaters that are returning investment and more, that have names etc.
Micro budget? For the reasons that Paul Griffith explained. There just isn't a lot of even half decent material being pushed out by no-names and micro-budgeteers. For the most part, it's unwatchable.
If you can get a name attached, even a bad movie probably has a sell going for it. Thems just the breaks.
Meaning this question is more for new posters and not so
much for those of us who have been here for a while?
New posters have the most to get out of this. But, some times someone may come up with something like a new angle of insight that even more experienced posters can appreciate. Brain storming can make it possible.
Fair enough. I'll stay out of it and read.
To make a return the product is going to have to sell.
To sell, the product is going to need marketing.
To market, the product is going to have to have a distributor.
A distributor is going to want a household name or cult leader in the film to market.
Name brand actors and Jim Jones/David Koresh/Rob Zombie is gonna cost the production some Benjis.
Most INdependent films are lo-no budget, can't get C or even D-listers, won't find a distributor, won't be put on >10 theaters, won't have paying patrons, won't have returns on their "investments".
Better write some good sh!t and waggle that bait in front of a actor a distributor can market.
To sell, the product is going to need marketing.
To market, the product is going to have to have a distributor.
A distributor is going to want a household name or cult leader in the film to market.
Name brand actors and Jim Jones/David Koresh/Rob Zombie is gonna cost the production some Benjis.
Most INdependent films are lo-no budget, can't get C or even D-listers, won't find a distributor, won't be put on >10 theaters, won't have paying patrons, won't have returns on their "investments".
Better write some good sh!t and waggle that bait in front of a actor a distributor can market.
Last edited:
I agree with all these points.
But, let me shift the angle here by the argument that there are countries overseas that like American movies. And, why do consumers like me take a chance on import movies like Bloody Mallory and Immortal? Bloody Mallory is from France and dubbed in English. I forget where Immortal comes from. Both movies have unknown actors to an audience over here. And yet, I took a chance on it and I'm sure some others have too.
But, let me shift the angle here by the argument that there are countries overseas that like American movies. And, why do consumers like me take a chance on import movies like Bloody Mallory and Immortal? Bloody Mallory is from France and dubbed in English. I forget where Immortal comes from. Both movies have unknown actors to an audience over here. And yet, I took a chance on it and I'm sure some others have too.
The real issue here is that indie filmmakers think they are competing with each other, but they are in fact competing with hollywood. Every time someone goes to netflix they can choose between your movie with no budget, and a Kevin Spacey or Brad Pitt movie that cost 100 mil, and the rental cost is identical.
There are just so many options available these days, that I can't fathom anyone intentionally picking out something in the bottom 20%.
Why should I watch "I Spit on Your Grave" when I can get the Kubrick box set for 50 bucks?
Also there is the economy of scale, which means that if you do a cheap movie, with cheap actors, you'll get cheap marketing, and therefore loose money. There are a few exceptions, but in general, it's a hard road for all indies.
I think Ray nailed it.
There are just so many options available these days, that I can't fathom anyone intentionally picking out something in the bottom 20%.
Why should I watch "I Spit on Your Grave" when I can get the Kubrick box set for 50 bucks?
Also there is the economy of scale, which means that if you do a cheap movie, with cheap actors, you'll get cheap marketing, and therefore loose money. There are a few exceptions, but in general, it's a hard road for all indies.
I think Ray nailed it.
The company I work for has an "indie" distribution wing that picks up what we would consider B- grade films. They generally have a budget of about 500K and are shot on Red Ones.
THAT'S how far most of us are from even being bait for the bottom feeders in the distribution world. You aren't even "low budget" until you get into the 250K plus range and have a B list actor.
THAT'S how far most of us are from even being bait for the bottom feeders in the distribution world. You aren't even "low budget" until you get into the 250K plus range and have a B list actor.
GREAT info sharing Gonzo! THANK YOU!
Yuuuppppp. That's what I meant by indie vs. Micro Budget.
We're all Micro/Nano/Shoestring, that's not indie, that's just broke.Hahaha.
Even being able to shoot with some of the best gear doesn't change the budget. =T
I think your premise is slightly faulty. Yes, one-off indies only occasionally make money. But there are numerous direct-to-video production companies that basically crank out exploitation films one after another, for which they often secure foreign distribution. It's the modern version of the Corman model.
These kind of of off-label independent studios exist in some form in many countries. If you want to see the US versions in action go to, for example, the American Film Market. This model is typically based on the production of ultra low-budget violent exploration films -- sex is not marketable in many countries because of restrictive censorship laws. And these companies either need to establish some kind of marketing chain, or tap into existing ones.
Lloyd Kaufman of "Toxic Avenger" fame pays his rent this way.
These kind of of off-label independent studios exist in some form in many countries. If you want to see the US versions in action go to, for example, the American Film Market. This model is typically based on the production of ultra low-budget violent exploration films -- sex is not marketable in many countries because of restrictive censorship laws. And these companies either need to establish some kind of marketing chain, or tap into existing ones.
Lloyd Kaufman of "Toxic Avenger" fame pays his rent this way.
As mentioned by several posters so far, the reason for low ROI is lack of effective marketing.
If you're not going to spend as much time marketing your film as you spent making it, then just flush your production money down the toilet -- its good as gone.
If you're not going to spend as much time marketing your film as you spent making it, then just flush your production money down the toilet -- its good as gone.
I just looked up the production budget for "Super Troopers" because I had planned to use it as an example of another low/micro budget film similar to mine that had huge profits. Imagine my surprise when I saw that the budget was 3 million dollars US. So much for that approach. Now I'm trying to figure out what they spent the money on.
Semi truck full of "weed", a dozen cop cars, uniforms, actors, crew, catering, locations (including highways shut down), rentals, I think there was a plane at the end, guns & armorer, school bus and lots lots more. That's just production, not Pre or post.
3 mil sounds about right. Plus, if you're a part of the comedy troupe that did it you want to get paid for the month you're on set.
3 mil sounds about right. Plus, if you're a part of the comedy troupe that did it you want to get paid for the month you're on set.
Another example
"BURIED" had one actor inside of a coffin for 90-minutes...also cost $3-million.
"127-HOURS" (the guy who had to cut his own hand off while rock climbing)...cost $18-million.
Somebody got a new Mercedes out of it...
"BURIED" had one actor inside of a coffin for 90-minutes...also cost $3-million.
"127-HOURS" (the guy who had to cut his own hand off while rock climbing)...cost $18-million.
Somebody got a new Mercedes out of it...
Well, let's see... You have to house and feed 90 people for the duration of the shoot. Oh, you have to pay them too. The cost of renting all the equipment. Permits, fees, insurance, security, costumes, props, locations... Then, of course, is everything associated with post. $3 million is quite reasonable.
How much did it make? The teaser looked awful. An unfunny version of Reno 911.