Typical Gross Revenues for Indie Films?

[James Steven Beverly]

Quick solution as in a solution easily thought up... not necessarily quickly executed.

 

The thing preventing someone from successfully getting a distributor is the lack of having anything to push... micro-buget indies can't afford name actors, fx and the like. Everything I've read so far has indicated that modern distributors won't buy micro-budget because of the lack of those elements, and the distributors won't take the risks they took a decade ago. I have to assume that Blair Witch came along at a time when distributors were a little more risk-friendly.

 

If by some random luck and tremendous effort an indie movie finds an audience, only then will the distributors get interested because they will see tangible attention from the public. But at that point the audience for the movie has already been acquired, and is potentially growing through positive word-of-mouth. Getting the audience seems to be the whole point of a distributor, and with that work already done then a distributor would merely swoop in and take a huge cut of the profits. Wouldn't it make more sense to take that discovered audience, continue to nurse it with the same efforts that got the audience interested in the first place, and then collect 100% of the results? Why struggle so hard to get a distributor's attention when that same effort could be applied directly to consumers?

 

If you're constantly going hungry, do you keep begging the fisherman to catch you a fish or do you try your own hand at fishing? Personally, if the fisherman doesn't want to give me fish, then I'm going to catch my own meal. And if I hook a fish on my line, I'm not going to give the pole over to the fisherman in exchange for a tiny piece of the catch.

Sure, you can sit on the dock with your Pocket Fisherman and can full of night crawlers and hope you can pull a carp out along side the other 200 other guys with poles sitting beside you while the captain of the tuna boat heads out to sea, but doesn't it make more sense to sign on for the voyage and take a slice of the catch until you can buy your own tuna boat? The problem with independent distribution is it takes a buttload of cash up front. Now you can four wall it and go from city to city if you have a few hundred thousand dollars to invest, but it's unlikely that theater owners are gonna play straight up ball with the books even if they do, it'll take a while to recoup your investment and in the mean time you're a distributor, not a filmmaker. Don't get me wrong, it's been done, but most of those guys had money to work with and a lot of experience in the field.

 

If you read the thread, there is another option, straight to video, which doesn't require stars and limits the potential financial damage you might incur. Also there's no law that says you can't approach a star that's on the wain as he steps out of rehab. I saw a dumb little indy Denis Leary did about a guy who was brought out of stasis to have his organs harvested in an apocalyptic future or some thing like that, I hated the movie so I don't really remember it that well, anyway he wasn't out of rehap and was as hot as he is now BUT he did this film anyway and never even actually got paid what he was promised for doing it from what he said jokingly in an interview I saw so it's not impossible to get a star to commit and that will GREATLY increase your potential for raising capital.

 

You know, you can talk yourself out of doing anything if you convince yourself it's impossible, but there are people out there doing this now so it is possible, just maybe not easy. But then again if it was easy, what would be the point of doing it? B)

Edited July 15, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[Mark Bonnington]

Also there's no law that says you can't approach a star that's on the wain as he steps out of rehab.

In order to get that waining actor, doesn't the shoot have to change to SAG? In which case don't certain salaries have to be met and certain rules and positions have to be filled? It seems like whatever budget might have existed would no longer exist. Besides, even a has-been star must expect many thousands to do a role... right? What kind of money does it cost to get one of those people?

Edited July 15, 2007 by Mark Bonnington

[Mark Bonnington]

In order to get that waining actor, doesn't the shoot have to change to SAG? In which case don't certain salaries have to be met and certain rules and positions have to be filled? It seems like whatever budget might have existed would no longer exist. Besides, even a has-been star must expect many thousands to do a role... right? What kind of money does it cost to get one of those people?

My last post is beginning to push off topic... so I'll rephrase it in a separate thread.

[Brian Drysdale]

How much does image quality matter in the sale of a movie? I was hoping to shoot my feature on the RedOne camera, which has a film-like picture quality to it. I think the novelty of using that camera will have worn off by the time my feature is finished (since thousands will have used it by then), but showing a movie at a quality better than the typical DV indie movie... is that going to make a significant difference in the sales that I can get? Will the movie market be begging for HD and 4k movies as more and more people get the hardware to play that resolution? Or will the content (actors, special fx) reign over any kind of image quality?

 

Image quality is good, but audiences don't go to watch the photography. A well scripted and acted Mini DV film with a good/great story will always beat a high image quality film without those qualities.

 

If you've got a good story with the good script and actors a smart producer can put together a package.

[Mark Bonnington]

Image quality is good, but audiences don't go to watch the photography. A well scripted and acted Mini DV film with a good/great story will always beat a high image quality film without those qualities.

 

If you've got a good story with the good script and actors a smart producer can put together a package.

I thought that too, until last night! I went to see Harry Potter 5 (which by the way sucked and was a total departure from the book). They were showing advertisements before the movie, and the ads were slightly blurry (probably DV quality), so out of curiosity I asked the guys on my left and right whether they would see a movie if it was that blurry. They emphatically said "No!", and proceeded to explain that they wouldn't waste their time with anything less than a reasonably sharp picture and would probably ask for their money back if the movie wasn't film-like quality. They go to the movie theater for the big detailed picture, and they don't want to sacrifice their viewing pleasure just so a movie maker can spend less money on video quality.

Edited July 16, 2007 by Mark Bonnington

[Brad Grimmett]

so out of curiosity I asked the guys on my left and right whether they would see a movie if it was that blurry. They emphatically said "No!", and proceeded to explain that they wouldn't waste their time with anything less than a reasonably sharp picture and would probably ask for their money back if the movie wasn't film-like quality. They go to the movie theater for the big detailed picture, and they don't want to sacrifice their viewing pleasure just so a movie maker can spend less money on video quality.

I don't think the average viewer notices picture quality in general. Sure, if you point out that something is blurry people will say they don't like it, but the real question is whether they would notice it on their own to begin with. I've found that most people don't notice, or care, which is sad.

[Brian Drysdale]

I thought that too, until last night! I went to see Harry Potter 5 (which by the way sucked and was a total departure from the book). They were showing advertisements before the movie, and the ads were slightly blurry (probably DV quality), so out of curiosity I asked the guys on my left and right whether they would see a movie if it was that blurry. They emphatically said "No!", and proceeded to explain that they wouldn't waste their time with anything less than a reasonably sharp picture and would probably ask for their money back if the movie wasn't film-like quality. They go to the movie theater for the big detailed picture, and they don't want to sacrifice their viewing pleasure just so a movie maker can spend less money on video quality.

 

Much depends on expectations of a particular film. I've seen poor video transfers on ads and then pretty good DV to 35mm - they still look like video, but if you've got the audience hooked...

 

Unfortunately, the best that most indie films can expect is a limited theatrical distribution in the art house circuit, where the audience will forgive image quality if other aspects of the film are strong. Basically, if shooting on DV make sure you've got strong, well cast performances.

 

Personally, I prefer higher quality images if I'm watching a theatrical feature film.

[Mark Bonnington]

Unfortunately, the best that most indie films can expect is a limited theatrical distribution in the art house circuit, where the audience will forgive image quality if other aspects of the film are strong.

Is the lack of indie films in major theaters tied to the consistently lower DV image quality coming from most indies? Are the theaters saying "I'm not even going to consider playing your movie because it's an indie, and those things never look good on the big screen."? If all the indies are putting out film-quality pictures, would the theaters be more likely to take them seriously?

[Josh Brokenbourgh]

Yeah, but with film making, cheap and fast are synominous, which is why even on the biggest productions, people are constantly hustling to get the work done, so that only leaves cheap and good. Besides, Rodger Corman blew that theory all to Hell. I think the real trick is to make sure every dime ends up on the screen, screw the entourages, screw the enormous crews, screw the 4 star hotels and gourmet caterers, make it ALL about the work and you'll have good fast and cheap, but MOSTLY good. B)

 

I agree with you.

 

I don't know about Roger Corman though...

 

The money:

For those that want to make it- It's like a ladder, job or lone-wolf-mcquade you have keep your ear to the ground and keep going.

 

The movie:

10k ha, if I had 1k I could make something nice, wouldn't know what to do with that much. It would be 5 minutes long for 1k though- but it would be really good, and it would be the last 1k short I would make.

 

Blair Witch is proof that campaigns are useless unless you plan ahead and actually have a good film- sure a flash in the pan.

 

Torture flicks - are dumb.

[Guest]

I don't think the average viewer notices picture quality in general. Sure, if you point out that something is blurry people will say they don't like it, but the real question is whether they would notice it on their own to begin with. I've found that most people don't notice, or care, which is sad.

 

Why doesn't every TV show and movie shoot on single chip Mini DV then?

 

R,

[Brad Grimmett]

Why doesn't every TV show and movie shoot on single chip Mini DV then?

 

R,

Don't be silly Richard. I said most, not all.

[Brian Drysdale]

Is the lack of indie films in major theaters tied to the consistently lower DV image quality coming from most indies? Are the theaters saying "I'm not even going to consider playing your movie because it's an indie, and those things never look good on the big screen."? If all the indies are putting out film-quality pictures, would the theaters be more likely to take them seriously?

 

 

The theatres are interested in films that attract audiences to fill their theatres, if the indie "film quality pictures" don't bring the public in through their doors they won't be interested.

 

It's consistently DV image quality, combined with other factors like underdeveloped scripts and not so hot casting. It'll be the same situation shooting with the RED if the latter two issues are not addressed.

 

The head of British Screen (they used to fund feature film script development) came up with an interesting figure that out of 200 well written scripts only one has that special something.

 

Indies have to be tough on their own project selection and know the audience they're aiming it at.

[Guest]

Don't be silly Richard. I said most, not all.

 

Ok then we're using 35mm for the 1/3 that do appreciate it. Fine.

 

R,

[Brad Grimmett]

Ok then we're using 35mm for the 1/3 that do appreciate it. Fine.

 

R,

Please don't attempt to twist what I said. Regarding picture quality, I said, "I've found that most people don't notice, or care, which is sad." I would also add that I think most people are sheep and too dumb to make any decision (regarding movies or not) on their own.

Just because I think most people are too stupid to notice doesn't mean I would prefer shooting movies on dv (or even HD for the most part). I'm a big fan of film. I'm used to working with it, I like working with it, and I still think the image quality is far superior to anything else.

I think it's a huge advantage for an indie to shoot on film, both aesthetically and financially. But the truth is, most indie filmmakers don't know what they're doing and don't care to learn. They don't want to have to pay anyone, or for anything, or deal with any of the trade unions, or get insurance, or bother to light......and the list goes on. For the most part they want to get rich and famous while doing the least amount of work possible.

There are exceptions to this, and there have been some very nice dv movies made. I think documentaries have really blossomed because of the use of dv. But the smart filmmakers think of the whole process from beginning to end, and make their choices based on that, and they give themselves a real shot at success.

There is a reason that filmmakers do things the way they do....because that way works. There will always be mavericks that buck the system and find success, but the majority of us have to pay attention to the rules of the game in order to have a chance to succeed.

[Guest]

"For the most part they want to get rich and famous while doing the least amount of work possible."

 

That pretty much sums me up :D

 

R,

 

PS: I agree with your post.

[Mark Bonnington]

...But the truth is, most indie filmmakers don't know what they're doing and don't care to learn.

I think most of them are very interested in learning... hence these sorts of websites and all the educational books and stuff like that.

 

...They don't want to have to pay anyone, or for anything, or deal with any of the trade unions, or get insurance, or bother to light......and the list goes on.

Most of them, I think, want to pay their cast and crew. But money is tight for independents, and the trade unions, insurance, lighting equipment, etc., are expenses that have to come under serious scrutiny. Besides, there's a romanticism about the process which is the idea that a few people and a camera are enough to make a great movie. If you introduce legalities, insurance and unions it kind of squelches that romantic atmosphere.

 

...For the most part they want to get rich and famous while doing the least amount of work possible.

I tried it the other way around, getting poor while doing the most work possible... it didn't work out like I'd hoped. So through process of deduction I'm figuring the rich and lazy way is better. But seriously, I don't think any of the independents are lazily floating through their productions, on the contrary I think they probably have things more rough than the professionals.

 

...But the smart filmmakers think of the whole process from beginning to end, and make their choices based on that, and they give themselves a real shot at success.

The smart filmmaker gets value out of their limitations. One of those limitations is time, and at some point (80% completion probably) the return on effort exceeds reasonable proportions - they've gotta cut off the planning stage and just shoot the thing. Anyway, it could be that they don't look deep into the whole process because they know they don't have any leverage to deviate from their drafted plans. There's not much use in designing a castle if you only have enough materials to build a shack.

 

...There is a reason that filmmakers do things the way they do....because that way works.

But the current system doesn't work, at least not for independents, so it makes sense for them to try a different way of getting things done. If they were to do things exactly like the successful filmmakers, then independents would have nothing unique to offer. They would essentially be identical to the major players, except for one little difference; one of them would be able to throw tons of money around and the other would be dirt poor. Guess which one is going to get distribution on that playing field.

[Brad Grimmett]

I think most of them are very interested in learning... hence these sorts of websites and all the educational books and stuff like that.

SOME are, but many think they know everything already, without ever having made a film.

Most of them, I think, want to pay their cast and crew. But money is tight for independents, and the trade unions, insurance, lighting equipment, etc., are expenses that have to come under serious scrutiny. Besides, there's a romanticism about the process which is the idea that a few people and a camera are enough to make a great movie. If you introduce legalities, insurance and unions it kind of squelches that romantic atmosphere.

This is a business, plain and simple. If the business of making movies "squelches that romantic atmosphere", that's too bad. It takes money and hard work to succeed.

One of the expenses in making a movie is the crew. If you can't afford to pay the crew, you can't afford to make a movie. Having to pay for lights and insurance isn't an excuse for not paying the crew. I'm not sure how anyone could think otherwise.

But seriously, I don't think any of the independents are lazily floating through their productions, on the contrary I think they probably have things more rough than the professionals.

Oh, yes, some of them absolutely ARE lazy. I've worked with some of these people. Inides don't necessarily have things tougher than studio movies, it's just that the hardships are based in different areas. Whether you have $100 million or not, making a movie isn't easy.

The smart filmmaker gets value out of their limitations. One of those limitations is time, and at some point (80% completion probably) the return on effort exceeds reasonable proportions - they've gotta cut off the planning stage and just shoot the thing.

You're right, but that will only work if they've done the proper planning. If they don't have the money to make the movie they're not going to be able to do it.

But the current system doesn't work, at least not for independents, so it makes sense for them to try a different way of getting things done. If they were to do things exactly like the successful filmmakers, then independents would have nothing unique to offer. They would essentially be identical to the major players, except for one little difference; one of them would be able to throw tons of money around and the other would be dirt poor. Guess which one is going to get distribution on that playing field.

I'm not sure what your experience is Mark, but I've worked on plenty of indies that got distribution, both theatrical and video. Those productions didn't deviate from the standard way of doing things. So my stance is that the current system does work for indies. Sure, the film itself may be wildly different and original, but the production process was the same. There are plenty of people who have tried to make their films while deviating from the standard production path, and a lot of those films (if not most) are sitting on a shelf somewhere collecting dust.

It's all well and good to want to make a film, but if you want to have creative and financial success you have to properly prepare. Doing things like not paying the crew, or not signing a deal with SAG, or hiring non-actors doesn't make sense. In the real world these things are important, and if you're not prepared to do the important things for your film, then you're not prepared to make a film at all.

[Mark Bonnington]

SOME are, but many think they know everything already, without ever having made a film.

 

This is a business, plain and simple. If the business of making movies "squelches that romantic atmosphere", that's too bad. It takes money and hard work to succeed.

One of the expenses in making a movie is the crew. If you can't afford to pay the crew, you can't afford to make a movie. Having to pay for lights and insurance isn't an excuse for not paying the crew. I'm not sure how anyone could think otherwise.

 

Oh, yes, some of them absolutely ARE lazy. I've worked with some of these people. Inides don't necessarily have things tougher than studio movies, it's just that the hardships are based in different areas. Whether you have $100 million or not, making a movie isn't easy.

 

You're right, but that will only work if they've done the proper planning. If they don't have the money to make the movie they're not going to be able to do it.

 

I'm not sure what your experience is Mark, but I've worked on plenty of indies that got distribution, both theatrical and video. Those productions didn't deviate from the standard way of doing things. So my stance is that the current system does work for indies. Sure, the film itself may be wildly different and original, but the production process was the same. There are plenty of people who have tried to make their films while deviating from the standard production path, and a lot of those films (if not most) are sitting on a shelf somewhere collecting dust.

It's all well and good to want to make a film, but if you want to have creative and financial success you have to properly prepare. Doing things like not paying the crew, or not signing a deal with SAG, or hiring non-actors doesn't make sense. In the real world these things are important, and if you're not prepared to do the important things for your film, then you're not prepared to make a film at all.

Interesting to hear that there are a lot of lazy independents. I suppose that's good though, keeps the competition in a more relaxed position.

 

If you look at making movies as being a business, then wouldn't it make more sense, financially, to avoid actors guilds and the higher-cost employees? If most movies fail financially then wouldn't the only chance of profit depend on keeping expenditures to a minimum, actor and crew salaries included? I'm not saying "don't pay them", I'm just saying that keeping those salaries down to manageable levels makes the most business sense. My own personal choice would be to utilize deferred salaries based on success of the movie.

 

I don't see how SAG has any magic wand that makes their actors better than the average Joe on the street. It's like singing, either someone can hold a tune or they can't. The only benefit the guild has is that they have a bunch of the known actors stuffed in with the rest of the lot. Does an independent NEED those known actors? I don't know. People seem to put a lot of value in those actors, but maybe that's part of the reason why the system doesn't work so well.

 

As for romanticism, I think it needs to be kept and fought for. Its too easy to fall into the trap of believing in the black and white solution of capitalism and business economics. If I walk into a national forest with waterfalls and wildflowers and little fluttering butterflies, I don't want the first thought in my head to be "I wonder how many board-feet of timber I can harvest from this place?" Same deal with making movies - if I walk onto the set and start thinking "gotta check the numbers to see if we've gone over the guild limitations for our designated expenditure size.", then the romanticism is seriously lost in that situation and I might as well quit and go back to work in an office.

 

Regarding my experience, I have very little. I'm mostly utilizing the information I've read in books and on the bulletin boards. The general consensus is that most indies will never see reasonable levels of distribution. I also know, from years of systems analysis work, that if something requires hard work and money to succeed, then there's room for process improvement.

 

Our of curiosity, which films did you have involvement with that were successfully distributed in theaters? Do you know how they went about getting that distribution, did they do well at the film festivals or something?

Edited July 19, 2007 by Mark Bonnington

[Brian Drysdale]

Just remember deferred payments almost all of the time equals not being paid. I've got deferred payment points (based on net) on a feature film that is being picked up for distribution, but I'm not holding my breath. I did it because I wasn't doing anything else at the time, it sounded fun, the writer had scripted a number of award winning productions and there was a pretty strong cast

 

However, you can't earn a living and you can only go so far regarding the size of the production doing that

 

Sean Connery had get his lawyers onto the studios to obtain his profit share.

[Brad Grimmett]

If you look at making movies as being a business, then wouldn't it make more sense, financially, to avoid actors guilds and the higher-cost employees? If most movies fail financially then wouldn't the only chance of profit depend on keeping expenditures to a minimum, actor and crew salaries included? I'm not saying "don't pay them", I'm just saying that keeping those salaries down to manageable levels makes the most business sense. My own personal choice would be to utilize deferred salaries based on success of the movie.

I'm sure you've heard, "You have to spend money to make money", and "You pay for what you get". Well, these things are true. Personally, deferred is a no go for me. What it really means is "free". I just won't work deferred. I think most people making their living in this business would agree.

I don't see how SAG has any magic wand that makes their actors better than the average Joe on the street.

SAG is basically a minimum experience qualification. 99% of all actors that can actually act are members. If you try to cast from outside that pool of people you're seriously limiting yourself and taking an unnecessary risk.

if I walk onto the set and start thinking "gotta check the numbers to see if we've gone over the guild limitations for our designated expenditure size.", then the romanticism is seriously lost in that situation and I might as well quit and go back to work in an office.

I'm not sure what this means....."gotta check the numbers to see if we've gone over the guild limitations for our designated expenditure size", but it seems that it's something that should be handled in pre-production, not on set.

Regarding my experience, I have very little. I'm mostly utilizing the information I've read in books and on the bulletin boards. The general consensus is that most indies will never see reasonable levels of distribution. I also know, from years of systems analysis work, that if something requires hard work and money to succeed, then there's room for process improvement.

Sure, everything can always improve. But there have been many people with very little, or no, experience who thought they could do things their own way and have found out why that's so hard.

I think a good option for you would be to go make a short and get a taste of filmmaking before you risk a lot and try to make a feature.

Our of curiosity, which films did you have involvement with that were successfully distributed in theaters? Do you know how they went about getting that distribution, did they do well at the film festivals or something?

Here are a few that got theatrical: Dirty, Park, The Boys and Girls Guide to Getting Down. I'm not sure how successful they were since I'm not privy to the numbers. And here are a few that are getting theatrical but aren't out yet: Big Stan, Taken, One Part Sugar, Mikey and Dolores.

These were all budgeted between $1 million and $6 million (except Taken, which is listed on IMDB as having a 30,000,000 euro budget (I was never told the budget)). I don't think any had tons of success at festivals except maybe Park, but I'm not sure. And unfortunately I don't know the process of getting distribution that well, and I'm not sure how they each individually did it. But I do know that Dirty and Big Stan are both being distributed by Sony.

I assume you're thinking, "Well, they all had a lot of money." But the truth is, some of these were cutting a lot of corners and barely had enough money to finish. I think it would be extremely tough to get theatrical distribution for a movie with a budget of less than $1 million. Not all of these were IATSE contracted movies, but they were all SAG.

[Brian Drysdale]

If you've never worked in the industry or made short films, you're in serious danger of becoming unstuck on a feature film without that experience. Making movies is as romantic as working on a construction site, the problems are similar - as are the stress levels.