Typical Gross Revenues for Indie Films?

[Mark Bonnington]

This problem isn't limited to filmmaking...

 

Movies cost a lot of money to make and a lot of money to advertize and release in theaters. Expensive things tend to need and attract big companies with deep pockets. You might as well be asking when will architects get to design and build skyscrapers without the interference of big companies.

But not all movies cost a lot to make, relatively speaking. Set aside the big names, the cast of thousands, exotic locations, special fx... sure the plot options get limited, but you can still tell a good story without that stuff. The only issue then becomes making the public aware of the movie, giving them a chance to decide for themselves whether they want to see it or not. I hate the idea that there are good films out there that nobody went to see simply because they didn't know the movies even existed.

 

Architects who are unknown, that build good low-budget houses, still get paid for their work. Same with most other professions. So why is it that indie filmmakers rarely get paid for their movies? Why is it an all-or-nothing existence for the low-budget filmmaker?

[David Mullen ASC]

Advertising and distribution methods have high costs. A typical indie movie released in movie theaters in the major cities spends 2 million dollars or so on prints and advertising, whether or not the movie cost $10,000 to make originally. And most don't earn 2 million at the box office, so there is no profit. However, a theatrical release improves rental and sales in the home video market, and allows you to charge more for broadcast rights, because those markets benefit from the awareness generated by the add campaign for the theatrical release. For straight-to-DVD and cable, it's harder to make the general public aware of the movie because there was no theatrical campaign, with the attendent critical response, etc. Most straight-to-DVD stuff sells by the artwork on the cover.

 

This is a big planet with billions of people on it, so it's hard to get a lot of people aware of a movie without spending money on an add campaign.

 

Low-cost housing is rarely an artistic expression of a creative architect.

 

People do earn a living in the film industry, even low-budget feature producers. They have to know their market and they have to be able to survive the flops to make money on the successes, and they spend most of their lives chasing down profits around the world from a little sale here or there.

 

But there are also a lot of people who don't earn a living making movies, for the main reason that the glamour of the profession draws more people than the market can handle or needs (look at how many people graduate from film schools each year, more and more every year), so there is a lot of labor willing to work for free and undercut everyone else. It's like the old joke that ends with the punchline "what, Doctor, and give up show business?"

[Mark Bonnington]

Advertising and distribution methods have high costs. A typical indie movie released in movie theaters in the major cities spends 2 million dollars or so on prints and advertising, whether or not the movie cost $10,000 to make originally. And most don't earn 2 million at the box office, so there is no profit. However, a theatrical release improves rental and sales in the home video market, and allows you to charge more for broadcast rights, because those markets benefit from the awareness generated by the add campaign for the theatrical release. For straight-to-DVD and cable, it's harder to make the general public aware of the movie because there was no theatrical campaign, with the attendent critical response, etc. Most straight-to-DVD stuff sells by the artwork on the cover.

 

This is a big planet with billions of people on it, so it's hard to get a lot of people aware of a movie without spending money on an add campaign.

 

Low-cost housing is rarely an artistic expression of a creative architect.

 

People do earn a living in the film industry, even low-budget feature producers. They have to know their market and they have to be able to survive the flops to make money on the successes, and they spend most of their lives chasing down profits around the world from a little sale here or there.

 

But there are also a lot of people who don't earn a living making movies, for the main reason that the glamour of the profession draws more people than the market can handle or needs (look at how many people graduate from film schools each year, more and more every year), so there is a lot of labor willing to work for free and undercut everyone else. It's like the old joke that ends with the punchline "what, Doctor, and give up show business?"

If I had a million dollars that I put into marketing my $10k movie (queue laughter), is that marketing presence enough to get my movie picked up by major distributors? Would my movie get into movie theaters simply because of the advertising money that I'm throwing around town? How would an independent get into a major cineplex?

[Nate Downes]

And note, "a million dollars" can also represent time and energy. You don't need to spend a million to get a million worth of exposure, and the successful indie producers know this.

[David Mullen ASC]

You'd let the distributor spend the million dollars on advertising.

 

You get a distributor if they see the movie and decide it will make them money.

 

The exhibitors rent prints from the distributors.

[Guest]

On Friday I met with a buyer of a film distribution company. All they do is buy and sell indie movies to other distributors in other territories. They used to make movies, but they got out of that. This guy is on the front lines and in the trenches every day, he screens 1000 movies a year, and goes to every major film festival on the planet.

 

He told me many interesting things. Basically the market is heavily over saturated with direct to DVD titles, the mini DV no budget crowd are to blame for this. Oh well you can't stop them. Any way he did say that as a result of this it was a darn good thing I chose 35mm for my movie because that will count for a lot in territories all over the planet.

 

He also pointed out that if your movie has no big name stars, like mine, you can still make money. However if you spent over 250K on a movie with no name stars your chances of seeing a profit are next to zero. He gave me some prices for territories, the UK for instance they can get 10-15K for a direct to DVD title, that's it. So if you spent over 250K you need a lot of territories just to break even. If your film is good enough for a cable sale you can make a bit more. Germany might pay 20K if you're lucky. There are about 50 territories and a great movie can sell in 30 of them, that's if your movie is "great."

 

Then of course they subtract their sales fees, 20-25%, and their expenses. So out of each sale you might see nothing or just a few dollars. He freely admitted this.

 

To my surprise he was very positive about the Canadian market. He told me that since my film will qualify for 100% Canadian content I should sell it myself to a Canadian cable channel and get 50K-100K all for myself. He actually told me to not sell it to Alliance Atlantis because they'll pay me 25K for Canada then "flip it" right away to a Canadian cable channel and make a huge profit. Good to know!

 

He said the market for torture porn and zombie movies is flat dead. The Japanese buyers are telling him they won't even look at movies in this genre right now. Mystery/thriller is the big seller. Lucky me!! Oh boy!! That's what I made riches are "guaranteed".......not.

 

He told me a lot more stuff I won't get into, but basically you can make money with no name stars if your film gets the coveted "sellable" mark from a distributor. But it has to be good, and your budget very very very low.

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

He told me a lot more stuff I won't get into, but basically you can make money with no name stars if your film gets the coveted "sellable" mark from a distributor. But it has to be good, and your budget very very very low.

 

That's the Catch-22 -- they prefer movies with high production values... but you have to have low production costs to be able to turn a profit.

 

But if you cut too many corners, you lower your production value, but if you spend too much money to get more production value, you cut into your profits. And there's no easy formula to solve this problem. It's also why indie people break their backs trying to get deals to raise production value without spending money, which is great but it's not a long-term business model. You can't do it film after film, so at some point you either have to make the leap up in budget and type of production, or settle for making really cheap stuff. Or you have a separate career, like Richard.

[Guest]

Yeah I probably won't be able to replicate the production model used on Dark Reprieve. But, at least I'll have one in the can, that's better than zero.

 

There's a company in Toronto that turns out horror films, their model is 1 million dollar budget and at least one known star. They have to spend at least 300K on the "star" ie David Caradine, then make the movie on 700K. The director gets 20K to direct and 10K for his script. So he'd have to make three a year just to live. And that never happens.

 

Even with this model they are not getting rich. 1 million is a heck of a lot of cash to recover.

 

No matter how you slice it, film is not a good business to be in, buying and flipping houses would be a 100X better cash making scheme. But hey you only live once and there's no business like show business.

 

R,

[Hal Smith]

It seems that somewhere around a $3-8,000,000 budget is where it becomes possible to make a quality feature. "Little Miss Sunshine" is probably the best recent example. Oh by the way, it had SAG actors. ;-)

[Guest]

3-8 million???????

 

You can do just about any thing with that. I am talking 250K and below. The original poster is talking 15K!!

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

Films of vaguely merchantable quality, which had a theoretical hope of at least breaking even, were being made in the UK, in the mid-90s, for about £250,000. I suspect it's more like 350-400K now.

 

At that level you really need a separate promotional budget of at least as much again, just to do all the festivals.

 

Anything less than that is vanity publishing, really.

 

Phil

[Hal Smith]

3-8 million???????

You can do just about any thing with that. I am talking 250K and below. The original poster is talking 15K!!

I know you can make a pretty good film for $250,000. But do you know of one made in recent years for that level of financing that broke out into the mainstream? I wouldn't count "The Blair Witch Project", that was definitely one that broke the mold.

[Robert Glenn]

I read on myspace forum that you basically end up giving your movie away to distributors if you are starting out. Eff that..

[Guest]

I know you can make a pretty good film for $250,000. But do you know of one made in recent years for that level of financing that broke out into the mainstream? I wouldn't count "The Blair Witch Project", that was definitely one that broke the mold.

 

No not into the mainstream, ie national theatrical release.

 

I am talking here about direct to DVD or cable projects. You don't have to hit the mainstream to make money. We all know there have been hundreds of big budget mainstream flops, too many to list. This inspite of big name stars and millions for marketing.

 

R,

[James Steven Beverly]

Torture porn is considered a market? :blink: I always thought it was considered a felony.

[Brad Grimmett]

I believe Hostel and Hostel II are considered torture porn.

[James Steven Beverly]

Then thank GOD the market's dead 'cause those movies suck. Speaking of torture porn, I heard somewhere, I think it was in a Wes Craven interview, that he was planning a re-make of The Last House on the Left, ala The Hills Have Eyes. I wonder if it will take a cue from Hostel. I HATED what he did with the Hills re-make, gapping plot holes dive me nuts.

 

But back to the subject, I'm glad to have read what Richie was saying, it gives me more confidence becuase it seems like I'm making the right moves here by trying to keep production costs down and and production values high for what I'm trying to do right now. That's the ONE great thing about working in an ecmonically depressed area like El Paso, you can get things dirt cheap. The 250K limit is a good thing to know though, I always thought the average low budget, indy ran around 400 to 500k. B)

[Guest]

Oh well....they had money and marketing power:

 

The Weinstein Co.'s D.O.A.: Dead or Alive lived up to the other meaning of its initials as it opened in 505 theaters with just $260,713 -- or $516 per theater. Not only did it not make the top ten, it ended up in 17th place behind a Hindi film, Jhoom Barabar Jhoom, which opened in only 83 theaters. The movie was not shown in advance to critics. Those who dutifully decided to stand in line with everyone else after it opened said that the movie, based on the video game, was mostly soft porn, or as writer Ken Fox put it in TV Guide: "The action ... is targeted squarely at adolescent boys too young to rent porn and gamers too lazy to yank their own joy sticks."

[Phil Rhodes]

> D.O.A.: Dead or Alive

 

...consoles me on these long, lonely summer evenings...

 

Ooh, Jaime.

 

Phil

[James Steven Beverly]

> D.O.A.: Dead or Alive

 

...consoles me on these long, lonely summer evenings...

 

Ooh, Jaime.

 

Phil

 

DITTO!!! Jamie Pressly, whoa. Terriffic actress too, now I'm sorry the film didn't do well. I

loved her in pretty much everything I've ever seen her in, my favorite being Not Another Teen Movie. Her cheer sequence is classic.

[Alex Ellerman]

i spoke with Director/producer recently who has some theatrical and direct to video experience... he basically espoused the model that Richard Boddington was touting, name actor, under $400k, and he liked HD... it seems like there is a total void of movies in the $500k to $1.5m budget as they are too expensive to recoup direct to video, and not expensive enough to get a theatrical... does that sound right?

 

and last: if you love jamie pressly, see the Poison Ivy movie with her in it... oh my word is she hot!

[Guest]

i spoke with Director/producer recently who has some theatrical and direct to video experience... he basically espoused the model that Richard Boddington was touting, name actor, under $400k, and he liked HD... it seems like there is a total void of movies in the $500k to $1.5m budget as they are too expensive to recoup direct to video, and not expensive enough to get a theatrical... does that sound right?

 

and last: if you love jamie pressly, see the Poison Ivy movie with her in it... oh my word is she hot!

 

If you can get a name actor for under 400K, great, but usually this only happens if you know the actor or he needs bail money. No joke.

 

I would never espouse HD, I would always go for 35mm first. It is a major selling point when your no name cast movie is shot on 35mm. But HD is better than nothing. Problem is there are 516 types of HD, where as there is only one 35mm.

 

I still think you need to stay under 250K for direct to video. If you can make it onto cable or pay TV, the rates can jump up because then you'll still have the DVD market. And playing on cable will be a major boost to DVD sales, it's basically a free ad campaign.

 

Genre choice is still a major issue, romantic comedy, comedy, drama, all tough on a budget.

 

More indie people need to learn how to reverse produce. Use what you have not what you don't have. Have access to a great location, cheap? Tailor your movie to it, instead of the other way around.

 

I'd like to shoot a movie in the desert or by the sea, but I live so far away from both I'd blow my budget. I do live close to an old prison, so I used that. Easy :D

 

R,

[Brad Grimmett]

it seems like there is a total void of movies in the $500k to $1.5m budget as they are too expensive to recoup direct to video, and not expensive enough to get a theatrical... does that sound right?

I know that there are quite a few movies in that range that get shot, so there isn't a complete void, but I don't know whether they make any money or not. I know some that have never been released at all and some that have gotten theatrical releases, so I guess it all depends. But just getting a theatrical release doesn't guarantee a profit.

[James Steven Beverly]

If you can get a name actor for under 400K, great, but usually this only happens if you know the actor or he needs bail money. No joke.

 

I would never espouse HD, I would always go for 35mm first. It is a major selling point when your no name cast movie is shot on 35mm. But HD is better than nothing. Problem is there are 516 types of HD, where as there is only one 35mm.

 

I still think you need to stay under 250K for direct to video. If you can make it onto cable or pay TV, the rates can jump up because then you'll still have the DVD market. And playing on cable will be a major boost to DVD sales, it's basically a free ad campaign.

 

Genre choice is still a major issue, romantic comedy, comedy, drama, all tough on a budget.

 

More indie people need to learn how to reverse produce. Use what you have not what you don't have. Have access to a great location, cheap? Tailor your movie to it, instead of the other way around.

 

I'd like to shoot a movie in the desert or by the sea, but I live so far away from both I'd blow my budget. I do live close to an old prison, so I used that. Easy :D

 

R,

 

 

You could always come down and work with me, Richie, I live right in the middle of the desert although I, personally would prefer living near the lush Grand Teton forests of Wyoming....right up until wintertime. I also taylored my concept to what was alailable (first rule of indy filmmaking), gerna film setin the here and now (well actually july of 2000 when the longest Blood Moon in a thousand years came), set in Mexico to give it a little flare, the use of negative space in the desert to create a sense of being lost in a vast wilderness with nowhere to hide, keeping the cast small to enhance the sense of being alone and on your own, the use of vivid colors and neo-nior lighting design to emphisize style and mood over costly production design. It's nice to know that guys like Rodger Corman did the exact same thing, reusing sets, unused footage from other films, locations that were nearby, pretty much utilizing anything that was laying around to make it happen. There was also an interview with James Cameron where he was discussing the concept for The Terminator and how budget restaints dictated why he made the film the way he did, no stars, urban setting, ect. It goes back to what I've said before, an independent filmmaker HAS to also be a competant businessman with a streak of the mizer in him to be succeesful. B)

Edited June 23, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[AdamBray]

DITTO!!! Jamie Pressly, whoa. Terriffic actress too, now I'm sorry the film didn't do well. I

loved her in pretty much everything I've ever seen her in, my favorite being Not Another Teen Movie. Her cheer sequence is classic.

 

 

What about her makeout scene with that hottie Tiffani Amber Thiesen in the movie Fastlane? :blink: