How do indies get +$200K funding?

[Roberto Lequeux]

Guns!

and/or are looking for a way to get their crazy daughter to do something with her life and/or get off oxycontin.

HAHA!!!

start your own film school.. tell the students it will cost them 10-20 grand.. throw them in a position.. BOOM movie.. and they get on set experience

lol... BOOM, movie!

O/T FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
If you're going to stretch to make your film the 2 positions you should most definitely spend on are Line Producer and First Assistant Director. These 2 jobs are critical beyond belief. If they come highly recommended than pay them what they want - they will more than recoup their salaries in savings to the production. If you use an inexperienced (just starting out) crew be ready to hemorrhage. Inexperienced crews tend to recommend their inexperienced friends so before long you can have a ton of people on set with good intentions but no foresight. Good LPs and ADs will have a slew of quality contacts for all crew positions - their jobs depend on that. In fact be wary of taking on crew recommendations that don't come from either LP/AD. Often times department heads build a little regime that starts to answer to them and not the production - things can quickly get ugly.

Your first AD will make your movie. No joke. Their only job is to make sure everyone on set is doing there job within the time alloted. Not everyone has the tools or courage for the job so don't just put a friend in the post (and never put a producer in that job). First AD's are a special breed of filmmakers who literally never take a break. If your first AD can't wait for the next setup so they can chit chat with the Second or take a cigarette break? Your screwed. He or She must constantly check in with all production heads even when they're on schedule to get status and keep the pressure up. You'd be amazed at how people relax and chill when they think they have time - before long they end up falling behind. You're First, with stopwatch in hand, is the only one who'll keep them running along.

Likewise your LP will treat money like your first AD treats time. Both positions are paramount.

A little off topic, yet completely relevant. This is excellent advise.

 

[Chris Pickle]

What's the old saying... "how do you make a small fortune in the film business? Start with a large fortune"

Okay my thoughts:

Never, ever go union on micro-budget, under 200k. The paperwork will kill you. The distribution paperwork for SAG will kill you. It's just all around a major pain in the ass!

A 200k film is a horrible target and the worst price-point to work with. At 200k you can't raise any dist money through pre-sales.

You'd be better off going for 1 million and up, and actually the formula is quite easy. Not doing it, but the formula for it.

Get a decent script with a decent name talent. Shop the package to the distributors and see who would be interested in said script starring said actor. If no one bites, you have the wrong script or the wrong actor. It's that simple. Truly!

This is THE model for non-studio films. The only other model is raising a bit of private money from friends, family and dentists, but you can't look then in the eye and tell them it will pay off. If you do this, you are a liar. (and in your heart, you know you are) Ok you say you got D star for a few days. Well you'll still lose all your money. Someone will offer you Zero dollars to dist with a revenue share. If they tell you they will do a revenue share with you, they are lying.

Cause, they will first want to pay for their costs, like prints, ads, discs, strippers, lunches, limos, office supplies that they use on other projects. Think how a lawyer bills you and you'll get the idea.

I say if you want to spend 200k, spend 25k instead. Beg borrow and steal. Just get it done. Then when you get a juicy 60k TV deal somewhere, you'll feel great. Imagine if you spent 250k and got a 60k dist deal.

Or you go for 1.5 million, with a decent script, star and then find a producer to shop it. Any good producer knows all of the dist folks and can call them and say..."hey, I got a genre script and so and so has agreed to star in it" The dist will offer some money, then you sell foreign, then maybe some New Mexico tax credits, then you bridge the entire works at a film biz bank.

Sorry if I sound jaded, I'm actually not. I just like embracing the reality. It helps you focus on what you need.

Have fun.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Get a decent script with a decent name talent. Shop the package to the distributors and see who would be interested in said script starring said actor. If no one bites, you have the wrong script or the wrong actor. It's that simple. Truly!

How much in presale money would you expect to get for $1 million dollar movie and name actors? I keep hearing presales are dead and have been for a long time for new filmmakers. Is that not true these days?

 

[jpp]

Or you go for 1.5 million, with a decent script, star and then find a producer to shop it. Any good producer knows all of the dist folks and can call them and say..."hey, I got a genre script and so and so has agreed to star in it" The dist will offer some money, then you sell foreign, then maybe some New Mexico tax credits, then you bridge the entire works at a film biz bank.

Sorry if I sound jaded, I'm actually not. I just like embracing the reality. It helps you focus on what you need.

But what you're describing is a model for a producer, not a filmmaker -- or at least, not a filmmaker with any pretensions. The key phrase above is "genre script".

It's not even clear what "decent script" means, because there's no consensus on that matter -- if there were, people wouldn't have to spend years looking for money even on seemingly commercial projects. Besides, if it gets financed at all, it'll be thanks to the attachments, not the script.

It's hard to rationalize an irrational business, where the true value of [apparent] assets can only be known after they've been expended, when you face the marketplace, or the gatekeepers to the marketplace. Even then, there's nothing inevitable about the outcome. A film which goes unnoticed one year might have been a grand success a few months later, under different circumstances or with better connections.

 

[Chris Pickle]

I've been stuck in development hell for several years. I got very close a couple of times. But I got to see how much of the non-studio biz works. As I see it, it doesn't matter who the filmmaker is. It's all about the producer. The dist folks assume that the producer will hire someone with a pulse at least. You might have to make your case with the name talent as I did during a long phone meeting, just so they know you're not a whack job and can form complete sentences. But overall your job is not to convince a distributor or star, it's to convince a producer, and that's almost always through a decent script.

At 1-2 million you have to factor in tax credits. I think NM has a 25% across the board on all expenses in the state. They also allow you to claim the credit for the out-of-town stars, but you have to file a short-form tax return in the star's name in NM.

So on 1.5 you've can get 375K in tax credits. Then you start making up the difference through a couple of deals. Maybe a bigger US TV deal and some foreign sales. Yes it's very difficult to get dist folks to commit these days. Everyone is running out of money.

But that is the reality. And it's why I say that if you really want to make a film. Forget budget concerns and make something for 25k. I know that sounds crazy, but with the Red cam, a decent script, some cool locations (and genre) you could pull something off.

Just don't get caught up in wanting to raise a bit more money. It's a trap. Don't let someone tell you that if you get to 175K you can use super-talented SAG actors or pull off some neat FX. It's a trap and won't add value to your project. (and I'm a union actor from way back) Nothing against unions, it's just that they were not conceived to be a part of micro-budget filmmaking. Their new low-budget agreements are for poor bigger budget prodcuers, or SAG actors wanting to do something as a collective.

Take what I say with a grain of salt, but I'm convinced it's as bad as I have seen it. A producer recently told me there is only two kinds of films. "Studio films and non-studio films. And non-studio films are invisible". Everyone has been talking about new media and other dist methods, but no one is putting braces on their kid's teeth outside of the "mainstream" biz. We'll always have cool art films and indie films, but they don't make money and are just to help a filmmaker get to a higher level of struggle.

I'm not jaded--honest!

Cheers

 

[jpp]

But that is the reality. And it's why I say that if you really want to make a film. Forget budget concerns and make something for 25k. I know that sounds crazy, but with the Red cam, a decent script, some cool locations (and genre) you could pull something off.

Just don't get caught up in wanting to raise a bit more money. It's a trap. Don't let someone tell you that if you get to 175K you can use super-talented SAG actors or pull off some neat FX. It's a trap and won't add value to your project. (and I'm a union actor from way back) Nothing against unions, it's just that they were not conceived to be a part of micro-budget filmmaking. Their new low-budget agreements are for poor bigger budget prodcuers, or SAG actors wanting to do something as a collective.

No question, there's a lot of truth to that. Most landmark indie films, good and bad, were made for substantially less than $100K, and it's not clear that the extra $175K in your example is enough to buy anything which will actually improve the movie. In any case, people making $200K movies rarely seem to get their money's worth, not in the performances or the production values.

OTOH, something called "Wendy and Lucy", with Michelle Williams, was recently made for a reported $200K, and it's highly regarded (haven't seen it). But this was a filmmaker with a name in indie circles and two prior features. So she probably got closer to $500K worth of access and assistance.

 

[Nick Wolf]

"Then you bridge the entire works at a film biz bank"


Care to develope this thought?

Cheers,

DogDay.


__________

 

[Chris Pickle]

But what you're describing is a model for a producer, not a filmmaker -- or at least, not a filmmaker with any pretensions. The key phrase above is "genre script".
.

Yeah, you're right, it's a different model, but a filmmaker at some point, is only as good as the producer who can help get something together. Exaggerating somewhat of course.... but as soon as a filmmaker decides to raise 200k, then their world changes, and their approach to their craft may as well. You can be an idiot savant and hope a producer will help you or you try to work the biz a bit on your own. Most of the talented filmmaker I've met could easily be producers in their own right.

No question, there's a lot of truth to that. Most landmark indie films, good and bad, were made for substantially less than $100K, and it's not clear that the extra $175K in your example is enough to buy anything which will actually improve the movie. In any case, people making $200K movies rarely seem to get their money's worth, not in the performances or the production values.
......

Exactly. The difference between 25k and 200k on screen is almost always meaningless and just gives you a bigger hurdle to break even. Hell the difference between 25k and 1 million might only be the "name" actor and the quality of craft services. As filmmaker, I think we need to be true to our art, but also try to create the highest level of production value as possible. It's getting easier to make a 25k film look much bigger.

"Then you bridge the entire works at a film biz bank"

Care to develope this thought?

Cheers,

DogDay.
__________

At the 1 million and above level, a producer will often take their few pre-sales commitments, and tax credit estimates to one of the few financial institutes that specializes in financing film projects. They will give you 80-90% of the total deal you've put together. But it's not easy paperwork. You need to be a legit prodcuer with legit dist deals, completion bonds and insurance... etc. But the bond might cost you 50k alone, so it gets very expensive to do.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Joel Kaye]

You can be an idiot savant and hope a producer will help you or you try to work the biz a bit on your own. Most of the talented filmmaker I've met could easily be producers in their own right.

Yeah, most filmmakers I know getting anything done are also pretty good salepeople at minimum. More than likely they are good business people/producers too. That's just this industry.

If a person wants to be a pure artist they could try animation. Or painting. Or songwriting. Or anything you can do without a lot of money, crew and ultimately SALES.

I think the $25K number makes some sense.

 

[jpp]

Yeah, you're right, it's a different model, but a filmmaker at some point, is only as good as the producer who can help get something together.

Which goes a long way to explaining the mediocrity of American indie film. We don't want to overplay the "tormented Artist" bit, but what kind of films do we expect from middle-men and entrepreneurs, when few, if any, have either a proven understanding of the marketplace or a record of consistent high achievement, in quality?

Most of the talented filmmaker I've met could easily be producers in their own right.

That's the trouble. There's no longer much distinction, in indie film, between writers, directors and producers. If you want to kill an art form, just bring in the professional and managerial classes, or their kids.

 

[jpp]

If a person wants to be a pure artist they could try animation. Or painting. Or songwriting. Or anything you can do without a lot of money, crew and ultimately SALES.

In practice, there's no denying the truth of what you're saying here, at least in countries without public film financing. But it also spells doom for the medium.

There's no viable market for a product lots of people can make. We can insist that movies are a business, but in that case there will be no way to get your money back, because there's nothing any business person can offer, that another can't, for less. Outside of Hollywood, it's just a race to the bottom.

 

[Joel Kaye]

but what kind of films do we expect from middle-men and entrepreneurs, none of whom have a proven understanding of the marketplace or a record of consistent achievement?

Turn it around... let the "artists" run Hollywood for a year and make whatever they want.

What would that slate of movies look like?

 

[jpp]

Turn it around... let the "artists" run Hollywood for a year and make whatever they want.

What would that slate of movies look like?

We're not talking about Hollywood here, or at least I thought we weren't. Nobody's suggesting that mass-market entertainment be turned over to the arty types, or the ones who think they're the arty types.

"Indie film" may be too broad to be meaningful, but let's assume there's some measure of artistic pretension here, and that the audience for indie film is looking for same. This is non-Hollywood film, after all.

If you want to make low-rent genre pictures, that's another matter. The rules are different, and you know pretty much what you have to deliver, and at what price.

[EDIT: We're also talking about two separate business models here. On 7 figure production budgets, it's possible to earn a living as a producer, and yet never sell your films. The success of most indie producers rests with their ability to get films made, not sold or marketed.]

 

[Joel Kaye]

let's assume there's some measure of artistic pretension here, and that the audience for indie film is looking for same. This is non-Hollywood film, after all.

I think the trick is trying to connect art film lovers with art filmmakers. Seems like the Internet should offer some hope to do this. The problem is that the phrase "art film" might be too broad to aggregate viewers of similar taste.

Any filmmaker would only need to sell 50,000 copies at $20/each to gross $1 million. Surely there must be a couple million art film lovers out there the art filmmakers could offer their film to directly. Somehow.

 

[jpp]

I think the trick is trying to connect art film lovers with art filmmakers. Seems like the Internet should offer some hope to do this. The problem is that the phrase "art film" might be too broad to aggregate viewers of similar taste.

Any filmmaker would only need to sell 50,000 copies at $20/each to gross $1 million. Surely there must be a couple million art film lovers out there the art filmmakers could offer their film to directly. Somehow.

"Only"? How could anyone ever expect to sell 50,000 copies at $20, when you can see virtually anything for pennies via netflicks, and the top admission at urban art-houses is $10 or $11?

And how get the word out? And how raise enough money to make a good film in the first place, that people will want to see, competing as you are with state-subsidized European, South American, Canadian and Asian art-house cinema which feature their country's best actors and fully professional crews?

 

[Chris Pickle]

I think it doesn't need to be as black and white. The 50,000 copies model has been done very successfully by the religious filmmakers, yet I would argue that's as much a genre play as a horror film. They have uplifting messages, but the prod values are usually lacking.

Yeah, I also think "art" or "indie" are too broad of terms. And I don't think it has to be that rigid or diametricly opposed to "hollywood" flicks. Hard Candy was a horror/thriller that looked and felt like an art film. Then the filmmaker goes on to 30 Days of Night. The Proposition is very genre, but we'd all be proud to make that film. The examples are endless.

Unlike other art forms, films live and die by the audience reception, especially beause of the cost to make them. It will always be hard to separate the response from the artist intent as a function of success. Yes, if we could do a better job of matching art film viewer with maker, then maybe the success could have a different metric, or at least not go up against mainstream auds, where most art films would then be considered a failure.

The great thing about the film biz, is that you can fail forward. That's because the act of even finishing a picture is so hard that it's viewed as a success and often you are asked to do another one. That's why in Hollywood we see a pic fail (seemingly) but the filmmaker gets another shot. The studios figure they have the skills, they just need a different script or star.

This overall debate is well worn, but always interesting. New media, in my view is not the answer necessarily. Cause there is no profit model. A filmmaker will make one indie film for no money, but not two... unless enough years have passed to soften his memories of hardship.

 

[Yannick Hagman]

But how would such a 25k budget look like? It will be hard to get anywhere this number.

 

[jpp]

The great thing about the film biz, is that you can fail forward. That's because the act of even finishing a picture is so hard that it's viewed as a success and often you are asked to do another one. That's why in Hollywood we see a pic fail (seemingly) but the filmmaker gets another shot. The studios figure they have the skills, they just need a different script or star.

That's pretty much the situation in American indie film, though nobody wants to admit it. Prove you can make a coherent feature film for little money, and you may get an opportunity to make a commercial one on a "real" budget. This is the real benefit, it's folly to think you'll get rich selling a low-budget feature to a big distributor.

This mechanism hasn't been great at identifying directing or writing talent, either art-house or commercial, but it remains a way in, for those who don't emerge through music videos and commercials, or thanks to family connections.

 

[Chris Pickle]

But how would such a 25k budget look like? It will be hard to get anywhere this number.

Lots of beg, borrow, steal.... and a few assumptions.

- Like having self or friend with some post gear.

- A borrowed or very cheap camera package. Very, very easy to do.

- Work hard to find some very interesting locations. Remember it's all about the pictures. Just recently saw a short film on DVXuser. "The photographer and the model" I think it was called. They shot with a D90 maybe? Anyway, rooftop scenes in NY... wow. Looked amazing.

- A small group of like minded people.

- time!! In place of money!

- a heartfelt script, but with pragmatic shootable ideas and locations.

BTW - I love my moleskins. I got them stashed everywhere. In car, walking shorts, desk, computer bag....

 

[shashbugu]

haha, you can make excuses or make movies, you cant do both. what you need to do is prove your film is worth $200, 000. it may be a small amount to others but if you never made a film before treat it like you are seeking $20 million.

filmmaking is like home building. anyone can put together a makeshift shack but it takes experience, collaboration, planning, foresight, ad lots of risk taking.

I live in LA, people will give you money to make a film. The first question is what is your film about? how ambitious are you? how passionate are you? are you the director, writer or producer? do you have the ability to bring your visualization to fruition? prove it? do you have the right equipment cast and crew? when do you intend on paying back the money? 6 months, a year? 2 years?. What and who is your audience? What other films similar to yours made for $200,000 have turn a profit in less than 2 years? what compounded interests will you be paying on the loan?