ORIGINAL FILMS

[Christian Edwards]

Saw this film the other day , must say its one of the best films and examples of budget film making I've see...a true inspiration

http://www.monstersthemovie.com/

 

[David Rasberry]

But if you look at their 'shot on Red' section on their red.com website, you won't see any inspiring indy film, even if they are plenty.

Disagree with this. Winter's Bone was a great example of an Indie film shot on Red that managed to break out. Great story told simply and well. Oscar nominated.

The proliferation of relatively low cost high quality digital projection systems may possibly make small film distributors, art house venues and circuits a more viable means of distribution too. If production and distribution costs are low, then there is more potential for modest success with smaller audiences and venues. At least making costs back and enough of a living to do the next one.
There are significant audiences, both old and young, that hunger for new and original works. These are people like me who seldom go see the Hollywood shlock and are totally bored with the lowest common denominator TV shows and repetitive runs of the same old programming on cable and satellite. Corporate media is a wasteland.
The question is how do you reach them and what will truly interest and entertain? I would say that many so called indie films are not really compelling or original enough to be worthy of an audience any more than the Holllywood retreads. Does a jaded audience of hard core film aficionados really want to see yet another low budget zombie movie?

 

[Mark Toia]

Everything we've been doing up here in the True North has been with the aim to make our own films for as little available cash as possible (see below), and let the market decide if they like it (smart marketing helps sell of course).

Epic and Red with the MX have put the tools in our hands, and combined with RPP's and RC-X we can do it...we have some US productions we're prepping as we wait to see if our funding comes through on my passion project (though there are several, but we can only go ahead one at a time), and they will help us feed ourselves as we will inevitably have to defer writer, director and producer fees to make it work.

An interesting thing happened with our cultural agency Telefilm Canada this year...they sponsored a one-day seminar on Online Marketing and Distribution Strategies...in the past several years if you had a project with a budget of $1.5 Million or higher, the requirement at Telefilm was to attach a CDN distributor who provided a papered MG for less than what we could get for say two TV presales to cable...they would basically make us assign all exploitation rights for 25 years to the distrib in exchange for being able to trigger at Telefilm. Major problem, especially when Telefilm only comes in for a max of 49% of the budget (and you give away all exploitation for 35% of profits). Even with various tax credits and somewhere around 4-5% MG there was always a gap, and thus a lot of projects had problems closing their financial structures.

What Telefilm realized was there's a new way of doing things and the filmmaker needs to take more responsibility for raising the awareness of their films and helping identify specific audiences (read online and social media). They know we cannot compete with the big Hollywood blockbusters, but they have said, "show us you know what your audience is, and we'll consider funding you." This is where we are in the current govt. fiscal...

The other program Telefilm has is the Director Driven Low Budget Feature Program...for films under $1.2 Million, but their maximum contribution is $200,000. Sounds great right? Well yes and no. It still costs a lot of money to produce a feature with ACTRA and/or SAG cast. And the CDN government does not allow us to factor in our own equipment as equity -they disallow the expense, which is crazy because one would think they would encourage entrepreneurial spirit as opposed to sucking forever at the teat of government assistance.

In our case we managed to make the budget work at somewhere around 875,000. This requires two pay tv presales, and a 2nd window prebuy from another broadcaster (no small feat to accomplish this). With Provincial and Federal tax credits, we still have a gap of 15% but we can close it if Telefilm participates because of the way the other funding agencies work...But I thought for sure we could -and should- produce the film for 500,000, but it was an impossible exercise when you have to add fringes to actors and crew...everything adds up way too fast, even if your camera, sound and post equipment are zeroed in the budget.

Bottom line -there are great tools now (in large part thanks to RDC) and hopefully we will soon have RedRay Pro to encode and deliver 4K masters...but we still need solid execution and an even better script. Combined with the marketing strategy, more indie projects should break on through.

Jeremy! your a scary MF! but 100% correct in all areas.
There are so many road blocks for the cheap film indie maker, With almost 98% of them doomed to fail or even to pay for hard costs. very sad but true.

Creating hype by spending money on marketing (of your own film) to boost your films awareness in the eyes of the purchasers does help a lot as well.
Having a great product makes a huge huge difference. Art films, don't sell. Simple love stories or drama with no name actors.. don't sell. Sad little stories depicted in a back town of some unknown country or city don't sell. Averagely shot, average directed films don't sell. average actors don't sell. Average finishing, Audio, grading... all this contributes to no sales. Now if you pull off a lot of these points, you have a slim chance of getting your money back at least.
So many films have failed for so many reasons, but mostly from idea and and more importantly execution.

It's so easy to make a film these days. to easy in fact and there lies the problem too. People with hardly any experience in directing, shooting, producing, etc etc etc.. and scab or be given a little bit of money is killing the indie revolution as well. . The markets are full of hundreds if not thousands of feature films, Mostly rubbish films muddying the waters. Making it difficult for films with good content to poke through. It's very very hard to sell it in a would that is full of cheap movies for sale.
Speaking to an influential film buyer last year. He said he goes to all the festivals, offers everybody (with an ok movie) between 5 and 20k for there films. They all tell him to fuck off, 12 months later they call him and sell it to him for 5 to 20k, to which he dribbles around the planet trying to get his money back on his new investment. Now this guy is a grub! but the problem is they are everywhere.

Even though there is 500 channels out there begging for content and they are all wanting to pay pennies for your content. Pre sales may save you, but with pre sales comes pain of being dictated and you loose creative freedom. always a bastard that is.
I've seen some terrible outcomes with quite good little indies. But the truth of the mater is this, sales agents & studio deals will almost every time screw you.

Think hard before you jump into the pool of sharks. You will make way less than the people (supposedly) helping you.
Sorry for the doom and gloom, but it needs to be told. If I save one of you the pain and anguish then I've saved you.

And just to be noted. I'm in the same boat as you indie film makers, and I probably wont listen to my own advice.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Sorry, Alexander, but I disagree. You're 100% right when you say the tools available today to the independent productions and even to film students are the same that big studios are using, and that's mostly because of Red, there's little doubt about that. You could say the same, to a certain extent, for 16mm (or even 2-perf 35mm), but that's another story and this is really not the thread (or even the forum) to discuss that.

However, I believe it's not about the tools, as the list posted by Mark suggests: it's about STORY and ORIGINAL content. You can be a multibillionaire, own a few 65mm cameras and have unlimited budget for everything, from film stock to set design to talent to everything else, but if you don't start with a good story or from original material, there's little you can do with those tools. The same is true for the low-budget independent production.
Just to mention 2 movies released less than a year ago that I happened to like quite a bit: Black Swan and Inception, shot with two formats at the opposite sides of the spectrum, 35mm/65mm and S16mm. Were they good because of the tools they were using, or because of the originality of the stories and their (fantastic, IMHO) approach to storytelling?

I disagree profoundly. I am equally sure you did not understand one bit of what I wrote.

Of course its also possible you don't understand the value of quality gear.

Gear makes a difference, and quality gear matters.

That isn't to say you can't execute a film without the "right" gear, just that you will be compromising somewhere. More time spent on set, lower quality of the final product ... or possibly both.

Now ... both the films you cite had every tool they desired. Black Swan chose 16mm, they could readily have afforded 35mm. They chose to use a 7D ( ... or was it a 5DMK2) for some scenes ... again they could have used any camera in the world. Inception of course was at the other end ... they chose 35mm and everything else.

This is rather different from an indie production, which has no choice but to shoot everything on a DSLR, can not afford ANY dolly for most setups, and can only afford one economy microphone. In that circumstance they shoot DSLR because that is their ONLY choice.

Part of Mark's point on this thread is that the studios play it safe. They may bet big, but its a safe bet. Look closely at Avatar.

If you try and do something really creative with a type of story they've never seen before ... they balk. This is at least in part why the story of Avatar is one we've seen so much its cliche.

The studios interfere. They try to make your movie into a movie they already know and have seen. One they say, "the audience will understand." They try and make sure the film is "marketable." There are all sorts of code at work ... the point is that they start mucking about in your picture and almost inevitably they make it less of a picture in the process.

So ... if you own the means of production, you are free. No studio can tell you what film to make, how to make it, what actors or crew to use, or what shots/scenes you "have to have."

Being completely independent is the only way you can stop others from altering your vision.

THAT is what the Van of Film Making Freedom is all about.

You can start building such a van with cheap gear of course, but that is a compromise on the quality of your productions one way or another.

Build diligently, and eventually you will have a truck with every bit of gear you use regularly at the same quality used on the biggest budget films.

Now, I am only telling half the story.

Once the studios are out of your hair, because they don't hold your production by the gear, you can make the film you want.

Of course that means you have to come up with an original story that is well told and so on- but nobody can help you with that at any price. That part is ALL you.

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

I disagree profoundly. I am equally sure you did not understand one bit of what I wrote.

Thanks for asking. While I disagree with some of what you wrote (while agreeing with other parts), I'd never say you didn't understand what I wrote. English may not be my primary language, but why we cannot agree to disagree without implying that the other person simply "doesn't understand"?

Of course its also possible you don't understand the value of quality gear.

Again, thank you again for your assumptions. I've worked and still work with most film and digital cameras, and I'd like to think I understand the value of high quality gear (camera, lenses, accessories) when I actually use it or when I have a chance to give a humble and personal opinion to someone who asks me for suggestions, and that is based on my direct experience with that gear, not on what I hear or read around. I'm out of here, goodbye.

 

[Vince Doran]

C'mon Mark, you're making me scared....Mad Max is still one of the best bang for buck movies of all time worldwide...I have a plan to make an original film but after reading this thread I'll probably not bother...damn ......so much for dreaming

Mad Max held the Guinness world record for 20yrs for making over $100 million from a $400k project. Don't give up indies, lets see this record shattered

Mel Gibson was a nobody back then, my uncle gave him his first "real movie role" in Summer City. He was paid $400 for that movie and $15 000 for Mad Max

INDY SHOOTER WAS HERE

 

[Kholi Hicks]

C'mon Mark, you're making me scared....Mad Max is still one of the best bang for buck movies of all time worldwide...I have a plan to make an original film but after reading this thread I'll probably not bother...damn ......so much for dreaming

Mad Max held the Guinness world record for 20yrs for making over $100 million from a $400k project. Don't give up indies, lets see this record shattered

Mel Gibson was a nobody back then, my uncle gave him his first "real movie role" in Summer City. He was paid $400 for that movie and $15 000 for Mad Max

INDY SHOOTER WAS HERE

I know that both Mark's and everyone else weren't intentionally trying to discourage anyone. They're just commenting on what they've experienced.

That said... like any other successful "filmmaker" (I actually hate that term, dunno why though)--with all due respect to everyone--you should probably keep doing what you're doing and get your feature film in the can versus letting others experience dictate your method. While they're right in saying that there's a lot of material out there vying for the same audience, the truth is that even decent or competent material is usually "good" in comparison.

In any profession or industry there are always competitors, some not very good, some beyond exceptional... this industry is no different.

Also remember to find out what sort of content creator you are, and then try to find others who are similar and see what their success ratio has been. Look at their material, see if yours can mach or exceed it.

I'm not looking to put out a WINTERS BONE or LIKE CRAZY. Both probably great movies, I am sure of it! I'm also not interested in content like TINY FURNITURE, which did so well that the director's gone on to to bigger work in less than a year.

I look at guys like Gareth Edwards (MONSTERS) on the lower end of the spectrum, and on the higher end Boyle etc. That's what I want to do, that's what I'm interested in. So, when I take the time out to read the many "The Sad State of Independent Cinema" articles and posts anywhere, I make sure to find out what sort of material they pursue before I apply their theories, thoughts, and perspectives to myself.

Most of the time they're doing tiny little dramedies, or sleepy city material. Like Mark Toia said in this thread and Coppola in other places... there's a very very tiny audience for that material, so you should use that to measure the worth of your product.

If I'm going to break my neck and torch favors to get a feature done, you'd better believe I'm going to make sure there's a broad audience domestic and overseas that I can sell it to, or a distributor if we're so lucky.

Shoot it up.

 

[Liam Hall]

Saw this film the other day , must say its one of the best films and examples of budget film making I've see...a true inspiration

http://www.monstersthemovie.com/

Umm... ...Yes, well maybe...

You might notice in Mark's list of shame a certain film titled Monster's II. It won't be directed by the same bloke as he's busy reworking the Godzilla franchise. What does that tell us??

 

[Kholi Hicks]

Umm... ...Yes, well maybe...

You might notice in Mark's list of shame a certain film titled Monster's II. It won't be directed by the same bloke as he's busy reworking the Godzilla franchise. What does that tell us??

What does that tell us? That he's not working on Monsters because he got shifted to a higher profile gig? And, they're going to take Monsters and make a sequel?

 

[Liam Hall]

Mel Gibson was a nobody back then, my uncle gave him his first "real movie role" in Summer City.

Your uncle has a lot to answer for...

 

[Liam Hall]

What does that tell us? That he's not working on Monsters because he got shifted to a higher profile gig? And, they're going to take Monsters and make a sequel?

It tells us, that ultimately it doesn't matter. There will always be indies, some good, many not so good and Hollywood will always be fat and lazy producing films that are sometimes good but usually not so good. That's why they buy the good indie movies and good indie talent - and then make sequels

 

[Kholi Hicks]

It tells us, that ultimately it doesn't matter. There will always be indies, some good, many not so good and Hollywood will always be fat and lazy producing films that are sometimes good but usually not so good. That's why they buy the good indie movies and good indie talent - and then make sequels

Everything but the typical bashing of Hollywood Monster is agreeable. It is what it is, so people should choose whether they want to be a starving artist or an eating content producer.

 

[Tim Hole]

Everything but the typical bashing of Hollywood Monster is agreeable. It is what it is, so people should choose whether they want to be a starving artist or an eating content producer.

My biggest problem is that Hollywood, and from there it falls down the line, is financially out of control. No-one can tell me that it makes sense for a film to cost $100-200mil. I remember Ridley Scott talking about when he got $900k from Paramount to shoot the Duellist which was a period piece (Napoleonic) and shot in three countries. Now the average budget is $44mil, which basically means the cost of films producing has gone up 200% every year for the past 20 years. It is ridiculous.

For the piece of shit big budget action films they vomit out, over a hundred cool, fun, deep, experimental, thrilling, intense...whatever...films could have been made and there is likely that at least half a dozen gems would have come out of it. Not to mention the fact that lets say there are thirty jobs on each production that three thousand jobs. Instead of assistants to assistants of assistants of the....

 

[Kholi Hicks]

My biggest problem is that Hollywood, and from there it falls down the line, is financially out of control. No-one can tell me that it makes sense for a film to cost $100-200mil. I remember Ridley Scott talking about when he got $900k from Paramount to shoot the Duellist which was a period piece (Napoleonic) and shot in three countries. Now the average budget is $44mil, which basically means the cost of films producing has gone up 200% every year for the past 20 years. It is ridiculous.

It depends on what perspective you come from. Outside of the machine, it may look so... but, let's consider that you're a seasoned grip living in Los Angeles, with at least one child and a wife, a mortgage, etc.

Your year living expenses? If you're lucky and really great at budgeting, I'll say 60K. That's probably what your household income needs to be to survive. Average salary/wage a year is about 30 or so, that means you and your wife need to work your tails off to keep it on the up and up.

If you want to remain in the industry, the industry needs to pay you. We don't want you going anywhere, because you're good at what you do and we need guys like you to keep this machine running. I do not know the union rate for a grip, but I'll lowball you: 200/day @ 8/hrs a day, and I need you for 50 Days. That's 10K for almost two months of work. I need you to carve out that time and be dedicated, so I'm also going to feed you a great meal each day. You cost me at least 25.00 to feed.

So now your rate's 225/day.

Your gas stipend's 10/day

You're now 235/day, and I need to pay into your pension and health. It also costs me to do that, because I need Entertainment Partners to run payroll.

Now, you cost me 275/day... and I'm still lowballing you for the amount of physical labor you're about to do. I'm saying I'll give you 13,750.00 to come and bust your ass on a feature film, fifty days, away from your family etc.

Please bring ten of your friends at the same rate, because we need to make sure we can get a total of X amount of shots each day, which means we need man power.

10 x 13,570 = 137,500.

I haven't even hit the rolodex to acquire the rest of the crew, but I'm pretty sure we're going to have a total of 100 people on set on any given day.

Even if we carpooled? 50 Cars... we need to park them. If we're shooting on location and not at a studio, we should probably hit up the local permits office to gain permission (see: pay for) to use a parking lot for these vehicles.

While you're at it, hit up the city and tell them we need to get permits to bring this condor in.

This is a really pretty picture I'm painting, optimistic but... You get where I'm going?

For the piece of shit big budget action films they vomit out, over a hundred cool, fun, deep, experimental, thrilling, intense...whatever...films could have been made and there is likely that at least half a dozen gems would have come out of it. Not to mention the fact that lets say there are thirty jobs on each production that three thousand jobs. Instead of assistants to assistants of assistants of the....

It's very easy to say this from the outside. Let's be realistic: this is a business. There's budget inflation occurring at all sorts of levels, but do remember that it takes human lives in on way or another to complete the big budget vomit... and humans gotta eat. And, which I'm sure you know, the vomit's profits eventually trickle down to the little guy doing feel good independent in some form or fashion.

 

[Tim Hole]

Thanks for painting a nice picture

The reality of all this in big budget filmmaking hit me when I was doing my Master's degree in Film Producing and Business Management, I get it. In fact after the course it almost put me off producing films completely. At the end of the day its all talk because I know the reality of what goes on, but what annoys the living crap out of me is that I would be calmer about all this if they actually spent some of that ridiculous money and actually put some thought into the story and script or at the very least let the director that they hired to do a job, do his/her job and don't interfere. Big odds are the big budget films will be action based films which most people love to watch. Fine. Point is that a good thriller, horror, comedy or drama can be easily made for 1-2mil. and we could make a ton of these for one big blockbuster. I would far prefer to see a host of interestingly or well executed films of this kind then to see one big bad blockbuster that is gone and forgotten in a month. But I get that its business...I get that sequels have a fanbase, as do comic books. They are big and explosive and have lots of pretty lights and pretty girls half naked...I'm just venting...

While I am venting, the state of the UK film industry is ridiculous. It used to be one of the strongest in the world, now we can't keep hold of talent they instantly leave to go to the US. The only films made in the UK are US funded productions (where most of the money goes back stateside so we are not investing in our own industry) or it is gritty realism dramas done by four or give long-term directors like Loach/Leigh with a few quirky comedies here and there. No British film is funded outside of Lottery Funding and some of the lottery funding will go to help fund the US productions in order to recoup some money to then help fund a few other US funded films. Then you have a lot of money going to help fund marginalised productions like Gay/Lesbian, low income background, Ethnic Minority etc... Which is worthy money doubtlessly, however when you put it all together it ends up being a ghost town of an industry. What needs to happen in the UK, which is something that is installed all over Europe, is that every cinema must show at least 15% indigenous films. Which means a 12 screen multiplex would have to have at least one screen showing a wholly British film. Doesn't sound like too much to ask for?!

 

[Kholi Hicks]

Nothing wrong with venting, man. And, at least you've made it a point to note that you're venting and you understand how the cogs all fit together. It irks me mostly when people rip with no real understanding of how it all works.

Yeah, let's employ some more people and do some one to two million dollar pictures! I'm own for that, as well. There's a lot of interesting talent with fresh perspective and voice out there, naturally they need to get the experience to really hone it. A one to two million dollar no-brainer-break-even platform is a great way to do it.

I guess the only issue with THAT would be it still takes a few more million to advertise the proper fashion. Magnet seems to do a good job on smaller advertising budgets, but they also deal with even smaller feature products under the one million hut.

 

[Jeremy Torrie]

And Fast Five just did $83.6 Million this weekend.

...Tim I agree completely with a quota rule -we have it for CDN musicians on CDN radio as well as CDN television broadcaster- but NOT for theatrical exhibition.

This is something producers have talked about for many, many years here but apparently there is some crazy agreement in place that prohibits any type of mandated CDN content quota in CDN cinemas. There have been many ways suggested to incentivize the exhibitors to place and keep CDN films in the theaters but at the end of the day they answer to the almighty dollar...even films that have great opening weekends are gone the next because there's no way CDN distribs can justify the media buys to keep the films around, combined with the fact the more visible fare with multi-million dollar P&A have a stronger hold on the market.

Apparently CDN audiences trend 10-12% of the North American box office...so in our example of Fast Five Canadians paid somewhere between $8 & $10 Million to watch this film this weekend...not at all small potatoes.

 

[Mark Collins]

And Fast Five just did $83.6 Million this weekend.

...Tim I agree completely with a quota rule -we have it for CDN musicians on CDN radio as well as CDN television broadcaster- but NOT for theatrical exhibition.

This is something producers have talked about for many, many years here but apparently there is some crazy agreement in place that prohibits any type of mandated CDN content quota in CDN cinemas. There have been many ways suggested to incentivize the exhibitors to place and keep CDN films in the theaters but at the end of the day they answer to the almighty dollar...even films that have great opening weekends are gone the next because there's no way CDN distribs can justify the media buys to keep the films around, combined with the fact the more visible fare with multi-million dollar P&A have a stronger hold on the market.

Apparently CDN audiences trend 10-12% of the North American box office...so in our example of Fast Five Canadians paid somewhere between $8 & $10 Million to watch this film this weekend...not at all small potatoes.

The main issue with this is that even though there are good Canadian films out there, most of the films are in fact quite terrible. Most are trying to appeal to some theoretical "Canadian" content market. The stories are usually coming of age stories and family drama's, or comedies that play off what the filmmakers think are Canadian jokes...

There's simply not a lot of money in Canada for action movies and big budget blockbusters.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Okay - I like a good franchise as much as the next genre, action loving fool - but what "moves the bar" is an "original, well crafted film" - a fresh story - or a fresh telling of a universal theme/story.

This usually comes from the indie world - as it seems the Hollywood machine just can't come up with anything original these days.

From a business owners point of view - I'd love to rent EPICs and provide 3D tech, crews and support to big budget, studio sequels and remakes - but ... what gets me out of bed in the morning is working on, and or supporting - original films.

Most of the time these are low budget - and hard to grow your business on - but ... they are the future of filmmaking. The artists take the risks. The corporations look at spreadsheets.

This list pretty much shows you where "Hollywood" is at today - rather sad I think.

Please support, and make original films.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/866031/95_movie_sequels_currently_in_the_works.html

yes sad, and we have piracy to thank for that, and all the clueless academics who defend it. Home-video used to buffer a lot of crazy risks, now that market has been decimated.

We also have google to thank, who could easily ban torrent searches, as they banned political content in China, but don't. Google makes a lot of ad sense money off of stealing from all of us, much like (it could be argued exactly like) the Mafia in some cities collects protection money. Just like the mafia, a big part of their bottom line also comes from porn. But hey, they are a "cool" company right? Because they offer free massages to their employees and serve great food at the cafeteria. Well, at organised crime parties the food is also often superb.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

The main issue with this is that even though there are good Canadian films out there, most of the films are in fact quite terrible. Most are trying to appeal to some theoretical "Canadian" content market. The stories are usually coming of age stories and family drama's, or comedies that play off what the filmmakers think are Canadian jokes...

There's simply not a lot of money in Canada for action movies and big budget blockbusters.

I think a big problem is that to get Canadian grant money your film has to be "extra Canadian" and "un-Hollywood". The advantage that Hollywood has over other countries is that the ONLY agenda there is making films that people want to see. there is no added burden of also making something that defines local culture or is "un-Hollywood" (which usually translates into dull). Its' hard enough just to make a good film, you don't need a double-agenda.