The probability of failure

[Mark B.]

I've been thinking about the numbers, and they don't add up. 2000 people with Red1's, 2000 people with movies to push, and only so many conduits to get those movies in front of the general viewing public.

So the odds that I will succeed financially with my own independent movie are very very low. What is everyone else thinking about their probability of success? Am I the only pessimist in the queue?

Any others here, new to the camera business, figured ways to earn money with their camera? I'm looking for something to minimize the financial loss when my movie efforts crash and burn. I know a lot of people talk rentals, but I don't see that as being as lucrative as imagined, what with the huge competition of all the other camera renters out there. Weddings and Events aren't much of an option either, what with only having one camera.

 

[jaadgy akanni]

Well my friend, all that pessimism is already a bad start. Get rid of it. Stop looking ahead with a negative attitude. Just take your camera, start shooting and see where it leads you.
I for one know that if only one among us achieves significant success, that'll be me. I'm a total amateur when it comes to operating cameras and lighting, etc., but I consider myself a great writer, a great storyteller and I'm very confident there. Although the only directing I've done so far has been for music videos, I know I'll do great with actual movie features. I'll probably hire DP's to shoot while I write and direct, but in the mean time I'm learning all I can about camera work and all the technical stuff I can, 'cause I'm sure there'll be scenes so artistically personal to me that I'll have to be the one doing the shooting at times.
BTW, there's never any probability of failure when you're doing what you love. Remember that the fact that you're doing it is success itself.

 

[Joel Kaye]

I've been thinking about the numbers, and they don't add up. 2000 people with Red1's, 2000 people with movies to push, and only so many conduits to get those movies in front of the general viewing public.

I'm pretty skeptical too - but those numbers aren't as pessimistic. Figure 6,000+ features get made one way or another each year (pre - RED). How many of those will be profitable? Not too many. LOTS of movies that get distribution don't return a profit to the filmmaker.

So what do you do if you're not already in a position to get a favorable deal with a distributor before you begin? Spend as little as possible on something as marketable as possible. Imagine you've got to sell your movie yourself and make your money back. Could you do it? If not, what makes you think a distributor will be able to?

OTOH I heard a horror movie coming out called "The Signal" (I think) was made for under $20k on a XLH1 and sold for 2 million. Every year a few people win the movie lottery... but I know a lot more people who've spent well into the six figures and can't make their money back on reasonably well done shows.

You just have to make a superior product. It ain't easy. I'm guessing there are more big league baseball players than profitable filmmakers. Those are the odds. But some will be successful... the best ones. It's very SMART to analyze the business before you decide which movie to make and who to cast (and how much to pay for them).

 

[Paul Hazlett]

it has always been an uphill battle selling movies. for every Blair Witch there are thousands of movies that tank. Jaadgy is right, if you dont believe in the product don't start it.

I am a bad guesser at what other people will pay to see, so If I were to make a film I would really have to believe in the script and my ability to bring it to life.

The number of outlets for films are growing daily and with the advent of superfast broadband you might not need to sell your film to a distributor.

can you say Itunes movies?

 

[David Cubbage]

I agree with Jaadgy; you have to totaly believe in yourself if you want success. We are all newcomers at some point in our lives and most people learn by experience and making mistakes. All the top film makers were once newbies to the industry at some point. It is never too late to learn especially with all the new technology out there to help us.

Yes, it is a lot easier to fail than be successful and yes we all fail sometimes but if you think you are going to fail you have less chance of being a success.

Apart from the necessary talent and skills, and you can learn skills, this business is all about taking chances and a lot of luck. However, taking big chances early on can be risky. Start small, make a few shorts; enter them in small festivals; that way you will get constructive criticism and praise when it's deserved. If your work is worthy it gets shown to an audience. Work on the mistakes and build on your strengths. OK, you don't make any money but it's a great way build a portfolio and your skillset. Before you know it you might get a few small paying customers who have seen your work at some festival and like what they saw.

There is no such thing as overnight success stories. A lot of hard work preceeds success. There are however a lot of self made success stories; people who believed in there own ability to succeed. But don't underestimate the value of teamwork; if you lack the confidence to get there on your own, find a like minded soul or souls and work together on projects; sharing costs and problems. Brain storming is a great tool to use in developing ideas. That's what the industry is all about; groups of talented people coming together on one project. There are so many aspects of making a film; I use the word film as anything regarding recording visuals on any medium for what ever purpose.

I am telling you this because I believe anything is possible if you have self belief and passion. I was once an engineer who dreamed of working in films. At the age of 40 I gave up my job and made armour for re-enactment because reenactment was the nearest thing I could get to the type of films I liked. One day a guy came into my workshop and asked me if I ever thought about making armour for film? To cut a long story short within six months I was working on the film "Gladiator". Since then I worked on most of the big epics making armour and suddenly, at the age of 59 I have sold the business and set up a film production company making my own films. Will it be a success? I don't know, but what the hell, if you don't take chances you'll never get anywhere.

 

[Richard Andrewski]

Failure is only giving up. You can't fail if you don't quit.

You will encounter problems along the way and if you don't have the vision, passion and drive for what you're doing to get through all the issues then you should be doing something else for sure. It's all about vision and keeping your eye on the end goal even when present circumstances don't appear to be going well. You have to be very skeptical about what you see around you sometimes. Almost taking the attitude: "My eyes are deceiving me. I just need to double check that I'm still on course for my vision.

Thomas Edison took 10,000 tries to get the light bulb and when asked why he didn't give up with all those failures; he said he didn't consider them failures--only examples of what not to do.

Read about people like this. George Lucas comes to mind as a particularly more appropriate comparison. Anyone that thinks the original star wars was easy should go back and see one of the docs like "Empire of Dreams" for example. Lots of problems. He was facing a tremendous uphill course.

But vision and keeping eyes on the end goal got him through. And look what he achieved with his passion for storytelling. He didn't really ever let tools be an issue in telling what he wanted either. In fact, he changed our industry in several domains with his vision about making storytelling not so limited as it was before. I'm sure many told him along the way that this or that wasn't possible but he refused to believe it and kept going...

 

[Jaime Vallés]

RED won't make your movie sell, any more than shooting on 35mm will.

On the other hand, a killer screenplay told through compelling imagery and great acting WILL find an audience, REGARDLESS of what you shoot it with.

Bottom line, don't buy a RED camera (or any other camera) if you don't have something good to shoot. I'm actually glad my camera was delayed until December. It will give me time to finish the killer screenplay. :devil:

 

[Shawn Nelson]

I firmly believe that your 'probability of failure' is based on whether you have a model of sustainability or of a one-shot chance. Can you keep making bad movies until you make one that is successful? If so, then you will make it eventually. But, if you are putting all your odds on one glorious attempt, then the odds are severely stacked against you. I am buying Red because all the money put into Red represents the same amount of money that a lot of filmmakers put into their one glorious attempt, only to fail. Whilst I will have the tool (Red) to repeatedly make films until I succeed.

Don't set yourself up for failure, set yourself up to have as many chances as you need to succeed. Like CoolLight's example of Edison needing 10,000 attempts to get the bulb, what if he had not had 10,000 opportunities?

 

[donatello b]

perhaps it is all in how you look at it ..
Sundance film fest must get 1500-2000 movies submitted .. they have approx 160 slots open .. so 160 movies will be chosen .. now out of those 160 i would guess 30 are from mini studio's and might have some distribution in place by the time they screen at Sundance .. every year you hear that maybe 2-6 indie's ( from nobody's) strike a deal ...
so one can look at all this as i don't stand a chance or one could look at it as my chances are pretty good ( or to shorten all this - is the glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full ) .....
now i have never submitted a movie to Sundance .. if i ever do i think my chances are pretty good ...

 

[GlennChan]

Not everyone with a Red will use it for making feature films... see Gibby's posts on EFP (most productions being produced are EFP and not targeted towards cinemas).

 

[Cam Crowley]

"

I've been thinking about the numbers, and they don't add up. 2000 people with Red1's, 2000 people with movies to push, and only so many conduits to get those movies in front of the general viewing public."




At a guess most people with a camera on order WONT be buying the RED to produce their own cinema release movies. If they are banking on the camera to make their directorial dreams come true they need a serious reality check.

Most people (myself included) will be doing what they have always done when they get their RED - using the best tool available to deliver to clients what they are paying for.

So rather than assume we'll be seeing 2000+ RED shot feature films I would bank on seeing a lot more TVCs, Corprates, Music Videos, and all the other stuff that pays most of our wages shot using RED before anything else.

My thoughts anyway!

Cam

 

[I Bloom]

I honestly don't think you should buy a RED unless you have established income already from buying, using and renting cameras. It doesn't make sense to me to put that money upfront if your goal is to write and direct your own movie unless you have a long track record of returns from movie distribution. That's like putting the cart before the horse.

I would suggest spending a fraction of that money on renting a RED during the brief time that you will be shooting, and putting the rest of the money into the rest of your movie. The camera is just one variable, by no means is it responsible for success or failure.

I am buying a RED, but I'm doing so because I'm a cameraman whose carreer is at the level where I am paid to shoot movies, but below the level where productions don't care about whether or not I have a camera. I have targetted a few markets where I know there is interest in renting this gear and my goal upon purchase will be to first and foremost pay back the liability I will incur. I can do this as a DP, or as a AC/DIT who also provides the service that a rental house does.

I strongly encourage you to consider a business plan that allows your RED to pay for itself and then to pay for your movie.

Best of luck,

IBloom

 

[Steven Parker]

I am buying a RED, but I'm doing so because I'm a cameraman whose carreer is at the level where I am paid to shoot movies, but below the level where productions don't care about whether or not I have a camera. I have targetted a few markets where I know there is interest in renting this gear and my goal upon purchase will be to first and foremost pay back the liability I will incur. I can do this as a DP, or as a AC/DIT who also provides the service that a rental house does.

Same here. Even if you get just the most basic package, a RED is a serious investment for any filmmaker. I make my living as a DP so one, my Red should pay for itself; and two, it will hopefully open a few doors that normally would have been closed to me because I've never found a camera worth buying that I could actually afford. You have to look at your finances - if you can swing it, great. But understand that buying a camera may not be the best way to spend your money if you are actually focused on directing.

Having said that, I have to say also that positivity makes a HUGE difference in your success. Run the numbers, write a business plan, look at alternative distribution models... mostly you see an uphill battle to financial and professional success. Work on your script, choreograph some scenes, find the music that will complement your shots... and you will see that you MUST make your film and that it will be important.

It's kinda like Danny Aiello says in 'Jacob's Ladder'

When it's your time to go, if you're not ready, you'll see demons trying to rip you apart. But if you've made your peace, you'll see angels ready to take you to heaven.

Go to heaven, bro!

 

[Joel Kaye]

But understand that buying a camera may not be the best way to spend your money if you are actually focused on directing.

I'm wondering if a whole new breed of director/shooters is coming. There are already a number of established directors that shoot their own stuff. Peter Jackson grabbed one of the RED's for his 10 minute short.

I guess if you're a director that loves to shoot then it could make sense. That's my line of thought anyway - shoot as many jobs as I can to generate income and keep active with an eye towards my own movies. If the depreciation on RED is less than rental fees then it makes sense to own IF you've don't need the money you spent on RED for something else.

Get 4 guys like that together who rotate directing and shooting over 4 movies during a year and you've got 4 movies done with 4 cameras available for each. Hmmm... there's probably a business model in there somewhere.

 

[Priyesh P.]

I'm not fixed on the "magical sucess" story like with blair witch or so.
I'll get the Red for everything I can think of doing, may it be music videos, shorts, commercials, features or anything else. I'll take any chance to shoot just because I love it. Film business is not a gamble to hit the jackpot, in the first place it's a sort of art form, in the second just another type of work and (at least to me) at the last place something to become rich with. Do it if you love it and as long as it doesn't make you poor. Maybe the big money will come, but don't get fixed on that, that's when things get depressing, when dough is everything you're after.
Life is unpredictable but I believe you can control it's direction...

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

i agree with the majority.. Not a great idea if the plans are to break into directing. Great idea if your plans are to break into cinematography.. even if your not established as a dp, Red is a great tool that will last a long time.
I even heard of one guy on here who wants to break into ACTING and is buying a red because he thinks this will be his ticket.. YIKES!


BUT on the otherhand.. BUY A RED NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE... lets get red more business

 

[Mardi_Gras]

Echoing what most of you guys have been saying, I believe one must have a plan as a basic, for whatever endeavor you undertake... moreso in the filmmaking business. If you're buying the camera to "belong" or in other words "break into" the industry, then your priorities are misplaced from the start. Talent, skills and a killer script will get you a place into some film festival or two... take it from there. That's one plan.

 

[Jason Francois]

Get 4 guys like that together who rotate directing and shooting over 4 movies during a year and you've got 4 movies done with 4 cameras available for each. Hmmm... there's probably a business model in there somewhere.

Interesting Joel. Too bad I can't shoot very well, or I'd be in.

Moviemaking is not the best way to make a living. As others have said... very few movies ever see the light of day. That's just a simple fact that will never go away. It's as old as the business itself.

Now, it can be profitable, but there are MUCH better ways to make a more reliable living.

I am one of those people that lost six-figures making a movie that got distribution and never saw a dime. It's taken me years to get back in the game, but if my next low-budget adventure should fail, I'll get back in the game once again...because I have to. It's not always about money and is often driven by the demon's in ones brain.

I would rather try and fail, than fail to try. I'd also rather fail over and over again than ever give up.

I would say to Lowkus, that if it's not passion that drives you to get up every time you're knocked down, then movie making may not be the best place to be.

but as zakaree said,

"BUT on the otherhand.. BUY A RED NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE... lets get red more business"

J.

 

[Sean]

Do more for less, and there might be a better chance on a return on your investment. I find a lot of traditional film budgets spend the bulk of money on hiring people to do things: a cinematographer, an editor, a composer, a production designer. If you have the talent, the digital revolution allows you to do most things yourself, meaning you can make a feature film for $10K (Soderbergh agrees with me here, so I'm in good company). If you have a story to tell, then it wouldn't take much to make back your $10K. Check out "The Puffy Chair." Shot on a shoestring by some very talented guys and their friends. I love that movie. They're clearly really smart and creative. It's on most video store shelves.

Then again, just because everyone has a word-processor doesn't mean everyone will write a novel worth reading (let alone one that makes a lot of money). In fact, very very few people can write a book worth reading. Similarly, now that everyone (for sake of argument) can afford a Red Camera doesn't mean everyone will make something as inspired as "The Puffy Chair." Still, there are a lot of other ways to turn your Red into a profitable enterprise other than long-form dramatic filmmaking. But it's probably a pursuit of passion, with a risk of failure, rather than a pursuit which offers some kind of guaranteed job security and cash flow. If you want the guarantee of cash flow, invest in medical school instead.

 

[Joel Kaye]

I would rather try and fail, than fail to try. I'd also rather fail over and over again than ever give up.

Yeah, I pretty much think if you think you can make a living any other way you probably should. I don't really have any interest in doing anything else - I love being on a set and shooting, I love actors, I love writing. I don't care if I get rich but I'm going to use as much business sense as I can. (other people's money)

Do more for less, and there might be a better chance on a return on your investment. If you have the talent, the digital revolution allows you to do most things yourself, meaning you can make a feature film for $10K (Soderbergh agrees with me here, so I'm in good company).

That idea makes a lot people nervous... most people can't conceive of very many people being talented enough to do that. We'll see. Some types of movies just need a lot of resources - but if the market won't support those budgets perhaps we will just stop making 'em.