Why LA?

[Landon D. Parks]

A lot of what you concluded is correct Landon, for small indie filmmakers there are a lot of better places around the US and Canada.

 

LA still offers one big advantage, it's the financing centre for large studio films, and if you want to work in that arena, you need to be there to take meetings etc. If you want to direct, write, or produce, such content.

 

Then again, a lot of those people starve in LA as well.

 

R,

 

Yes, no doubt that financing (mainly studio and related financing) is still centered around LA and southern California, though I feel this mostly applies to studio films... Financing for non-studio films is changing at such a rapid rate, that LA is probably not worth the move for unless your goal is studio films.

 

The one huge benefit of working in LA from an outsider's point of view is the ease with which all the film-related toys can be acquired. Pretty much all the exotic anamorphic lenses, lighting tools, studios, technocranes, rain towers, post facilities, etc. that you could ever want can be delivered at the drop of a hat for often surprisingly low prices. There's no shortage of talent or crew. Any location can be had and locked down. The whole city is basically a huge backlot because this is their main industry. Whereas in most other locations, you are often working around the local industries and it's not nearly as easy to get access to locations unless you have tons of money.

 

Now, if you are a run-and-gun no budget filmmaker who can't afford permits, then LA will be worse for you than other locales simply because everyone there understands the industry and what things cost. You can't get away with shooting without permits, or getting locations for free nearly as easily.

 

Yes, no doubt that rental of camera equipment is pretty cheap in LA due to wide local availability and over-demand driving down costs... Though I still question any of it as being truly 'cheap', or a better term, 'inexpensive'. I suppose one person's cheap might be another persons arm-and-a-leg. Personally, I could not afford to pay the money needed to even rent a proper 'professional' production package, even in LA. Instead, I purchased a 12' jib, camera, and support from lesser known India and Chinese companies that have served me well, with little outlay.

 

As for permits, this is one area I have heard horror stories on with LA and the surrounding areas. Precisely because these people know what's involved in filming, and the money needed to make them, permits are expensive and hard to obtain for anyone working on a no budget or very small micro budget in most of LA proper. Here in Ohio, if you even need a permit (many cities don't require them), the permit is usually free or maybe a one-time $25 processing fee (state parks), or in the case of my local metro parks, $100 a year.

 

No one gives you any grief in attaining them, either. Because filmmakers are such a rare thing around here, cities and parks are excited to have their locations featured on a movie - and the influx of even a little cash into their communities is welcome.

 

My feeling of LA is that people KNOW filmmaking because it happens every day. Because it happens every day, they are less in aw of it. This ultimately means that your production, at best would be treated as one of the others, and at worst treated with hostility because of communities filmmaking burn-out.

 

See, that's the great thing about California. All of that stuff is only a few miles away headed north. California does have great lakes, beautiful/picturesque small towns, lots of greenery and one of the countries best cities (San Fransisco). One of the reasons the film industry was stared here IS due to the unlimited possibilities. Next time you come out here, start in the northern part of California, above San Fransisco and head south through the redwood forrest, through san fran, down along the coast past Monterey and San Luis Obispo. If Los Angeles is all you've seen, you've really missed California.

 

 

Right, but lets say you lived in South Carolina or Georgia, which have quite a bit of shooting. Both states tomorrow could say, hey we're done with tax rebates and then you're screwed. Also, you're heavily reliant on smaller jobs. The bigger jobs are mostly booked out of California.

 

 

I agree that California is the place of crushed dreams and people who think they can get into the film industry by simply living here. However, there are really no other guarantee's anywhere else. At least if you live here, you can be on a film set every day from the moment you land as a P.A. If you're smart and get on a syndicated TV show crew, you can probably work your way up the ladder very fast through dedication and long hours. You won't get that anywhere else but CA and NYC. So if you want to live in the frigid North East to get LESS work, be my guest. The other way is to live in CA, get a poop stain apartment for peanuts, learn to ride a motorcycle so you can get around town quickly and start on the ground level. This is what the smart people do and many of them are far more successful then I've been, simply because they were willing to suck up their pride and start as a P.A.

 

 

Where I agree that no/low budget films that one person writes, produces, shoots, edits, directs, are easier to shoot in other places. Where you're confused/mistaken about are the benefits of shooting in Los Angeles. The biggest benefit in my opinion comes from the available talent in both crew and cast. You can get top people for peanuts here in LA because there are so many good people without work. Plus, you can get A- cast if you're shooting here in LA. If you've got a great script and some money, the cast will come. They won't however, fly all over the place and deal with hotels for low money, that rarely happens. So from the point of view of your movie being a success, the #1 thing you need is a decent recognizable cast, which is something you won't get anywhere else but LA and NYC for low money. If you've got millions, it really doesn't matter anymore because you can deal with travel expenses.

 

I also spent some time in the Napa Valley area as well, and found it to be very delightful. I was under the impression though we were referring to the general LA vicinity, which I found extremely dull and uninspired.

 

There is always the chance that these states could remove their incentive programs. Here in Ohio, if you spend $300k or more, you can get 30% of everything you spent in the state back - which is a great deal considering... This might not last, but then again California has little incentives available either - except for a small selection of films which win the lottery. So I don't think most other states reducing or eliminating their incentives would be a huge draw back to CA, unless CA also increases access to their incentives.

 

My biggest complaint with cities like LA (and much of CA), as well as east-coast cities is that the cost of basic living is so expensive, that unless you can snag a really good job - you'll spend all your income on living and have little left to save up to make your movie. Here in Ohio, I live pretty nicely for around $1,400 a month, and can put everything else into a savings to get my movie made... In LA, $1,400 would likely pay only my rent, let alone bills, food, car expenses, etc.

 

So while we might not have the most spectacular year-round weather in the Midwest, I'll happily put up with it for the amount of money I can save.

 

As for getting top people for peanuts, I really cannot see this happening in real life. Top people are general members of a union, and at the very least you'll pay union wages regardless of your budget. Again, I suppose one person's peanuts is another persons arm-and-a-leg. Working on any kind of SAG film will cost you at least $100/day per actor + other charges like taxes and union-related fees (new media excepted, though I find little use for the new media agreement). Members of the local laborers unions such as IATSE and others are also charged at prevailing rates, which are not cheap.

 

Here in Ohio, we might not have the top of the line talent and access to the best crew, but we do have working crew members who are generally not union (due to low # of union jobs here). Having came from a background in Theatre, I also feel very comfortable casting theatre actors if need be.

 

You'd be surprised how cheaply you can get A- cast. I work on low-budget shows all the time and the type of cast these producers and directors can secure because they're here in LA and its easy for the talent, is quite amazing. If your story offers an actor something unique for them and the script is solid, there is a high likelihood you could get them on board. Yes, you've gotta have a good producer, someone who knows people and is personally invested in your project. Outside of that however, the rest is gravy. There are literally hundreds of sub $500k features and shorts with one or a few A- cast members. The key is to nab B+ leads, recognizable names from television. Offer then SAG schedule F flat rate for the movie. Then fill in the bit roles with A- cast. This technique has been used a lot on lower budget shows and it works great. But it doesn't work at all if you're shooting in Colorado. You aren't getting an A- cast member to fly out to Colorado for pa few peanuts.

 

To me, a sub-$500,000 feature is not low budget, which is probably why I'm not really seeing your points about LA. Then again, I'm a poor white boy living in Cincinnati, Ohio who has never even seen $500,000 over his life. I'd be happy to raise $10 to $15k for a feature. The $25k budget we have for our upcoming project is 'big' to me.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Tyler Purcell]

My biggest complaint with cities like LA (and much of CA), as well as east-coast cities is that the cost of basic living is so expensive, that unless you can snag a really good job - you'll spend all your income on living and have little left to save up to make your movie.

It's true, if all you care about is making a movie, no matter what the end result is, then you absolutely want to live as cheaply as possible and make your product off the grid so to speak. Unfortunately, most of us care about life outside of making movies and that's why places like California and the North East are so popular. Now, I've only spent 23 years on the east coast and 14 years on the west coast. But I've lived in varying places up and down the coast, plus I've been across the country by car twice, so I've visited a lot of places. The benefits of living on the coasts are huge, lots of talent, lots of varying locations and most importantly a critical mass of people who can help make your product happen.

 

Here in Ohio, I live pretty nicely for around $1,400 a month, and can put everything else into a savings to get my movie made... In LA, $1,400 would likely pay only my rent, let alone bills, food, car expenses, etc.

It would probably amaze you that I spend $900 on rent every month and if it wasn't for some credit card debt due to an injury I had and starting my school, my monthly nut wouldn't be much more then $1400... probably $1800. I spend $2500 currently and even though I struggle, I have all the equipment necessary to make productions that look good. So it's absolutely possible to live in Los Angeles, if you know the tricks, which include staying single and focusing on your work/business. There are many others, but those appear to be the biggest ones.

 

As for getting top people for peanuts, I really cannot see this happening in real life. Top people are general members of a union, and at the very least you'll pay union wages regardless of your budget. To me, a sub-$500,000 feature is not low budget, which is probably why I'm not really seeing your points about LA. Then again, I'm a poor white boy living in Cincinnati, Ohio who has never even seen $500,000 over his life.

Yea, we're not talking the same thing at all.

 

In the real world of filmmaking, as in movies that get national and international distribution, low budget is anything under 10M. However, with a very clever and tight script, minimal locations, extremely fast crew and dedicated cast, you can make something for $500k that's pretty decent and marketable. In the real world, $500k is the cut-off, much below that is much tricker to get distribution, doesn't matter how much you inflate the numbers.

 

For us, getting a B+ or A- lead actor for $50 - $70k and smaller bit roles for around $30k, is peanuts. Especially considering those same actors could draw hundreds of thousands on other shows. It's also critical to work in A to A+ actors for ONE or TWO day shoots. Maybe the bar tender, maybe the bouncer, maybe the best friend at work, maybe the cop, etc. Those you'd pay $5 - $10k for and you can get quite a bit of interest if they like your script and believe in your project.

 

I'd be happy to raise $10 to $15k for a feature. The $25k budget we have for our upcoming project is 'big' to me.

And when you're done with that $25,000 FEATURE film, what will you do with it? Who is going to buy it? Friends, relatives, maybe Facebook users? Getting your product out there is the most critical part otherwise, you'll just be making the same projects over and over again. It's the old saying, if a tree falls in a forrest and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound? Same thing here, if nobody sees your productions, then how will you grow as a filmmaker?

 

I tell all my film students the same thing... Spend your money making really good short films and things like scripted music video's for decent bands that will be seen by a lot of people. Write non stop, put together shoots weekly and flood facebook, youtube and vimeo with really exceptional content. Have a minimal of three easy to make feature scripts done with story boards, budgets, realistic actors that COULD work with your budget and maybe some deal memo's if you wish to get any traction. Then it's all about finding small investment to make it happen. But without your name being synonymous with something the investor may know, you're never going to move forward as a writer/director.

 

That's my "tip" for today and to make that work, requires living in and around Hollywood, where producers are constantly looking for the next big thing and you may just be it.

 

Ohh and feature docs? Good luck! That's a totally different world and in my view, a waste of time unless you're planning on giving it away. There are so many unbelievably well produced doc's on the market, you'd have to outspend, out edit and out content them to even make sense. I'm always working on feature docs for a myriad of different producers and it always saddens me to realize most of them will never see the light of day. :(

[JD Hartman]

As for getting top people for peanuts, I really cannot see this happening in real life. Top people are general members of a union, and at the very least you'll pay union wages regardless of your budget. Again, I suppose one person's peanuts is another persons arm-and-a-leg. Working on any kind of SAG film will cost you at least $100/day per actor + other charges like taxes and union-related fees (new media excepted, though I find little use for the new media agreement). Members of the local laborers unions such as IATSE and others are also charged at prevailing rates, which are not cheap.

 

A whole $100 a day for a SAG actor? How are they supposed to live on that? And the Union film technicians?? Guess skills aren't worth anything to you either.

[JD Hartman]

And when you're done with that $25,000 FEATURE film, what will you do with it? Who is going to buy it? Friends, relatives, maybe Facebook users? Getting your product out there is the most critical part otherwise, you'll just be making the same projects over and over again. It's the old saying, if a tree falls in a forrest and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound? Same thing here, if nobody sees your productions, then how will you grow as a filmmaker?

 

You'll find that $25k feature being sold on Amazon either streaming of on DVD. Used copies will sell for a penny.

[Tyler Purcell]

You'll find that $25k feature being sold on Amazon either streaming of on DVD. Used copies will sell for a penny.

It still costs quite a bit to press DVD's properly, so maybe they don't even do that... just burn one or two at home? EEK!

[Landon D. Parks]

 

1. In the real world of filmmaking, as in movies that get national and international distribution, low budget is anything under 10M. However, with a very clever and tight script, minimal locations, extremely fast crew and dedicated cast, you can make something for $500k that's pretty decent and marketable. In the real world, $500k is the cut-off, much below that is much tricker to get distribution, doesn't matter how much you inflate the numbers.

 

2. And when you're done with that $25,000 FEATURE film, what will you do with it? Who is going to buy it? Friends, relatives, maybe Facebook users? Getting your product out there is the most critical part otherwise, you'll just be making the same projects over and over again. It's the old saying, if a tree falls in a forrest and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound? Same thing here, if nobody sees your productions, then how will you grow as a filmmaker?

 

3. I tell all my film students the same thing... Spend your money making really good short films and things like scripted music video's for decent bands that will be seen by a lot of people. Write non stop, put together shoots weekly and flood facebook, youtube and vimeo with really exceptional content. Have a minimal of three easy to make feature scripts done with story boards, budgets, realistic actors that COULD work with your budget and maybe some deal memo's if you wish to get any traction. Then it's all about finding small investment to make it happen. But without your name being synonymous with something the investor may know, you're never going to move forward as a writer/director.

 

That's my "tip" for today and to make that work, requires living in and around Hollywood, where producers are constantly looking for the next big thing and you may just be it.

 

4. Ohh and feature docs? Good luck! That's a totally different world and in my view, a waste of time unless you're planning on giving it away. There are so many unbelievably well produced doc's on the market, you'd have to outspend, out edit and out content them to even make sense. I'm always working on feature docs for a myriad of different producers and it always saddens me to realize most of them will never see the light of day. :(

 

 

I have numbered your points and will address them here:

 

1. What exactly is 'international distribution'? If I throw a movie on Youtube and someone from China watches it, has my 'movie' not become international? I take it what you mean is 'major motion picture' from a major studio who can push theatre screens across the world.

 

You seem to be saying a movie made for around $10 million or even less can achieve this. I have not seen to many displays of this recently. The only movies that I would deem 'international' via major distributors are the mega-block buster adaptations. I'd love to see the number of $10 million dollar films that get major international distribution, probably very few.

 

2. It's not a feature. Frankly, I think feature films outside of the major studios are a pointless endeavor. Sure, you might get picked up by a major if you're very lucky (probably along the lines of 1 in 10,000 or even greater). More than likely, your $10 million film will be picked up by York Entertainment or MTI and sent direct to DVD, maybe eventually ending up on Netflix - and eventually sitting next to my little $25k film in the dollar bin.

 

3. This is where I cannot really agree or disagree with you. Your method is ONE method that has worked in the past. However, your method is not the only method, nor is it the one I'd really suggest most filmmakers in modern times start with.

 

For starters, your suggesting short films as a starting point. The problem with this is your spending a lot of money on a film that will never see any kind of return, as it has no monetization path. Second, I don't feel that short films are a good calling card for directors who want to end up in features. why? Because your ability to direct a short film is not telling of your ability to stick it out on a feature length movie.

 

Another issue with this method is that what you're trying to do is sell yourself to others, be it producers or investors. Producers in Hollywood are not hiring filmmakers in mass who directed a few good short films - they hire directors who have proven themselves with award-winning features (when they even hire directors). Investors are not really investing in most films any longer, as they are well aware that the chance of any return is slim - even if you get A-list actors.

 

NO. I'm of the camp that if you want to make feature films, realistically you're going to need to make your own projects - at least to start with. Robert Rodriguez, Kevin Smith, Producers behind Blair Witch, etc. all started this way and proved themselves as capable of making a successful film for little money. These people (and many others currently working in the industry) all started with a breakthrough feature they directed and produced on their own, mostly with their own money.

 

Of course, this is all a moot point in what I consider modern-day filmmaking... Major studios no longer control the game except in theatrical distribution, which short of mega-blockbusters is a dying lottery for indie filmmakers. My opinion is that if you want to make movies in this day and age, your best bet is to create a good web series demo and put it out there.

 

Features at anything less than the mega-budget level will hardly ever see any real audience numbers. I can get a web series seen by thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people with little effort, while getting that same kind of exposure for low budget feature is nearly impossible. So if you're going for exposure, you're much better off showcasing on the internet than you are aiming for theatrical (almost no odds) or DVD (okay odds, but little viewership).

 

So my opinion for filmmakers who want to get discovered is to produce a kick-ass, PROFESSIONAL QUALITY, web series (not a bunch of 5 minute homemade videos). Promote the series and get it seen by a million people. That is more audience than you'll ever get from a feature that gets sent direct to DVD.

 

This is of course my uneducated opinion on it. I'm not a super experienced filmmaker so take it with a grain of salt. However, I will point out that I'm not the only one who thinks this is the best method, even among established filmmakers.

 

4. Documentaries are fine in my opinion, and getting them seen is probably not that hard. I recently watched a very obscure documentary on Youtube that had over 500,000 views.... Probably more views than many low-budget feature films see. But like anything, it depends... The sheer number of doc's is probably due to the fact they are pretty easy to make with a few hundred in equipment and some time on your hands.

 

 

A whole $100 a day for a SAG actor? How are they supposed to live on that? And the Union film technicians?? Guess skills aren't worth anything to you either.

 

Skills are a great thing to have on your productions, yes. However, $100 a day is still a bit of money. You probably couldn't live on that in LA I doubt, but here in Cincinnati I clear about $95 a day and live pretty nicely for a single, late-twenties dude. Also, most of the actors around here are theatre actors use to working for free, so $100 a day would be a huge bonus to them.

 

 

You'll find that $25k feature being sold on Amazon either streaming of on DVD. Used copies will sell for a penny.

 

It's actually not a feature, but is being developed as a series of 10, 22 minute episodes as season 1. I cannot divulge much info yet about the project, but I can say it's destined for either network/broadcast TV, or if that fails, a new media original deal (more likely). It's a series based off a classic fantasy book for children that the name alone has selling power and a built-in fan base to speak.

[JD Hartman]

 

Skills are a great thing to have on your productions, yes. However, $100 a day is still a bit of money. You probably couldn't live on that in LA I doubt, but here in Cincinnati I clear about $95 a day and live pretty nicely for a single, late-twenties dude. Also, most of the actors around here are theatre actors use to working for free, so $100 a day would be a huge bonus to them.

 

 

It's actually not a feature, but is being developed as a series of 10, 22 minute episodes as season 1. I cannot divulge much info yet about the project, but I can say it's destined for either network/broadcast TV, or if that fails, a new media original deal (more likely). It's a series based off a classic fantasy book for children that the name alone has selling power and a built-in fan base to speak.

 

They are used to working for free, so throwing them a bone is like doing them a favor? Very nice of you.

 

Well I hope you own the rights or have procured a licensing agreement to produce the series based on someone else's copywrited work. Also hope that you find a buyer for the first episode before wasting your time shooting the other nine.

Been there, done that. Won't be involved in a similar fiasco again.

[Landon D. Parks]

 

They are used to working for free, so throwing them a bone is like doing them a favor? Very nice of you.

 

Well I hope you own the rights or have procured a licensing agreement to produce the series based on someone else's copywrited work. Also hope that you find a buyer for the first episode before wasting your time shooting the other nine.

Been there, done that. Won't be involved in a similar fiasco again.

 

Well, sorta the same idea.... Paying someone $100 a day who is not use to getting paid anything is a great change. I come from the world of theatre, where 'professional' actor (outside of the major theatre markets) general means being paid a stipend that doesn't even touch the equivalent of $100 a day, let alone the thousands of community and semi-professional actors who do it because they love to act. AEA actors are not that common anywhere other than NY and Chicago, just like trying to find an SAG actor around my parts is like pulling teeth - you only have a few.

 

Now don't get me wrong: We're not paying anyone $100 a day on this production. We are following advice given by an attorney and bringing everyone on-board as LLC members. Because the actors and crew are 'investing' in the product, they are sharing in the same investor-payout as any other investor who invested actual cash into the production. That is how we can pull a series off for $25k. Is it ideal? No. I'd much rather pay everyone $500 a day, but I refuse to wait around hoping someone eventually decides to invest $1,000,000 to make that happen - not when I have a team of people ready to make it happen with what we have now.

 

I actually have a video posted in the 'Filmmaking Quick Tips' thread here on this forum that explains this process in depth.

 

As for licensing, myself and my co-producer, Aaron Pacentine, run a professional, legal company. Trust me when I say: everything is secured via the appropriate rights and insurances well in advance. And our schedule calls for shooting all 10 episodes from the get-go, mostly at our green screen stage but with various location at local parks as well. We plan to have an entire season ready to license if that arises. If not, we are prepared with a marketing campaign for a Youtube release.

 

Look, clearly we are talking about two different kinds of filmmaking here. You and Tyler are talking about the kind that is 100% union and expected to (or already has) national and international distribution in place. I'm talking about projects that are produced on a small scale without union involvement - projects that can actually be profitable without distributors due to the low cost of making them.... It's a different ball game really.

 

So I still stand by my advice several posts up: If you want to make your own stuff - avoid LA. Of course, if you're wanting to get a job working in the traditional Hollywood system - by all means move to LA. I'm not alone in this advice either. I very much grew up in the era of Robert Rodriguez's rise to fame, as well as the same general time as Clerks and other projects made outside the typical system that made it. I'm a huge fan of Troma... Now, does that mean I expect to be the next Rodriguez? No - but I feel I have better chance following in his footsteps than trying to break the door down at Warner Brothers with a couple of short films under my belt. In all honestly, I'll probably never make it outside of Ohio - but you know what, I'm perfectly fine with that. I make films and theatre because I have a story to tell (or have found a great story I'd like to tell), not necessarily to get rich and famous out of it.

 

So take that for whatever it's worth. I'm not telling anyone not to move to LA if you want to get in the business... I am cautioning those who want to though to really THINK about what that means for them. I often think of it like an actor moving to NY because they want to be Broadway - only to find out that the 5 new productions taking place each year see over 10,000 potential cast members, many of whom are more experienced and better than they are. Instead, they end up waiting tables at Applebee's trying to pay their $1,500 a month shared room rental, while being cast in small non-paying jobs that they could have gotten back home.

 

In conclusion, I guess it depends on your goals - but I'd tell anyone considering a move to the east or west coast to really sit down and think out the situation before doing it. It is a lot more expensive to live there, and unless you already know someone or have a calling card in place prior to moving there - you're going to be spending your days as an unpaid PA.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[JD Hartman]

No, I'm not talking strictly Union productions and I don't think Tyler is either. It does sound like you're offering deferred pay which often translates into no-pay for below-the-line crew even if the "product" sells.

[Landon D. Parks]

No, I'm not talking strictly Union productions and I don't think Tyler is either. It does sound like you're offering deferred pay which often translates into no-pay for below-the-line crew even if the "product" sells.

 

Sorry if that was not the case. It just seemed to me that at least Tyler was talking about productions in the $500k range as being what is needed for a feature, which I assume would be fully union at that budget.

 

As for our offering, it's not your typical deferred pay. In a typical deferred pay or 'point' system, all the money made by the production is pooled, and then investors are paid back first - then the production company will 'cover its expenses', which usually leaves $0 for those point payments, even if the production made some money.

 

The cast and crew are not 'hired' on this production, per se. Rather, they are brought on as equivalents to the investors, since they are essentially 'investing' their time to make this happen, we treat it as equivalent to making a monetary investment equal to what their salary might have been if hired. As such, they are not treated as 'after the fact' profit participants, but rather share in 100% of the income of the LLC for the project.

 

Look at it this way: If we end up selling it as a Hulu Original and/or do a self release, most income would be from ad-based sales. If the production company receives $1,000 over a years period for one episode in ad-sales, that $1,000 is evenly split among the production company, investors, actors, and crew. Now, what does this mean for the cast and crew? Well, it means they are almost guaranteed a paycheck of some sort out of it, unlike the traditional 'profit sharing' agreement.

 

As I mentioned in that video earlier mentioned, we also do this to avoid legal issues. Because you cannot defer the pay of W2 employees, and actors and crew are not independent contractors by the law, the only legal way to pull off such a system is for the actors and crew to be treated as LLC partners, who effectively become self-employed. They also receive additional protections by being LLC members - mainly the right to immediately at any time review the accounting books.

 

Hope that explains in better.

 

As a rehash, anyone who wants to view that video can find it here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkhubv4YUw4

Edited March 26, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Tyler Purcell]

1. What exactly is 'international distribution'?

Distribution generally means another company is investing in your film and placing it on the open or regional market, for the purpose of profit. A distributor buys your film, reimbursing you for the cost and puts money into marketing, so they can make money off their investment.

 

You seem to be saying a movie made for around $10 million or even less can achieve this. I have not seen to many displays of this recently. The only movies that I would deem 'international' via major distributors are the mega-block buster adaptations. I'd love to see the number of $10 million dollar films that get major international distribution, probably very few.

Ohh, there are dozens of sub 10M (low budget) films made that get international distribution through major players. They're probably just not on your radar, but trust me they're shown in theaters just like the US blockbusters.

 

2. Frankly, I think feature films outside of the major studios are a pointless endeavor. Sure, you might get picked up by a major if you're very lucky (probably along the lines of 1 in 10,000 or even greater). More than likely, your $10 million film will be picked up by York Entertainment or MTI and sent direct to DVD, maybe eventually ending up on Netflix - and eventually sitting next to my little $25k film in the dollar bin.

Sub 500k, yea you're going to struggle. But anything from 1.5M and up, if you've hit all the nails on the head, crossed your T's and dotted your I's, absolutely you'll get decent distribution. It happens all the time, but in a lot of cases, smaller cities without huge art followings, won't get the film. Distributors will focus on specific regions for their releases, so they don't waste money/time on towns they know won't sell. For instance, one of my clients makes horse movies. He does very well in Texas and the south, but his films aren't shown in the major cities, just small towns. He's made PLENTY of money off those movies and has been churning them out every few years.

 

3. For starters, your suggesting short films as a starting point. The problem with this is your spending a lot of money on a film that will never see any kind of return, as it has no monetization path. Second, I don't feel that short films are a good calling card for directors who want to end up in features. why? Because your ability to direct a short film is not telling of your ability to stick it out on a feature length movie.

Yep, it's called investing in yourself. If you don't invest, you won't succeed. So if that means selling the car and buying a camera so you can make short films because you wish to be a filmmaker, so be it. If you don't constantly practice your craft, you will never be ready for the big leagues. It's true that making a crappy ass short film, like the one's most college students make, really isn't a calling card for the big leagues. Again, this is why you practice your craft and the people who know what they're talking about, can watch a short film and know if you're ready or not. I also suggested music video's because in today's world, a great deal of music video directors get offered bigger shows due to their style.

 

Another issue with this method is that what you're trying to do is sell yourself to others, be it producers or investors. Producers in Hollywood are not hiring filmmakers in mass who directed a few good short films - they hire directors who have proven themselves with award-winning features (when they even hire directors). Investors are not really investing in most films any longer, as they are well aware that the chance of any return is slim - even if you get A-list actors.

There is some truth in the concept that very few will fund a first time feature filmmaker. On the flip side of that, if you follow the directions I laid out and are good at what you do, you can make it happen. I've seen it SO MANY TIMES it's not even funny. Not to cattle prod, but this is one of the perks of living in Los Angeles. You meet other successful filmmakers and get to hear how they made it.

 

Robert Rodriguez, Kevin Smith, Producers behind Blair Witch, etc. all started this way and proved themselves as capable of making a successful film for little money. These people (and many others currently working in the industry) all started with a breakthrough feature they directed and produced on their own, mostly with their own money.

I've met and talked with the Duplass brothers. They are probably the most modern version of the filmmakers you referenced. They have a great deal of talent, but they started with money from their parents. Again, it takes money, to make money. Plus, they did LOTS of shorts prior to their first feature, some of which won awards. They know what audiences want and they deliver just that, banging out project after project for the "GE" general audience. He absolutely agrees with the idea of making short films to refine your craft. He also agree's with the idea that success in the film industry is luck, having what audiences desire at that exact time and being at the right place at the right time.

 

So my opinion for filmmakers who want to get discovered is to produce a kick-ass, PROFESSIONAL QUALITY, web series (not a bunch of 5 minute homemade videos). Promote the series and get it seen by a million people. That is more audience than you'll ever get from a feature that gets sent direct to DVD.

A web series isn't a bad idea, but what is a web series after all? It's just a bunch of short films ain't it? Heck, most television is just a bunch of strung along short films. I've worked with many people on their web series and honestly, the only people who are "successful" as in, millions of hits, were mostly uninteresting crap for mass audience appeal. Point me to something otherwise, something that's just flat-out good and maybe I'll change my mind. But remember this... attracting people to your series cost money, lots and lots of money. On average, one click through costs one dollar. So lets say you have a budget of $100 per week for advertising and you get 100 click throughs. How many will watch? Maybe 5%? Out of those 5%, how many will share with their friends? Maybe .5%? So for your 100 click throughs, you may get HALF a watcher. I've done the math, you need to have 10M + watchers per video + own the content outright, to ever make it happen. That not only requires substantial dedication, but a lot of money. I know people who went into 100k + worth of debt to get their web series going and weren't successful.

4. Documentaries are fine in my opinion, and getting them seen is probably not that hard. I recently watched a very obscure documentary on Youtube that had over 500,000 views.... Probably more views than many low-budget feature films see. But like anything, it depends... The sheer number of doc's is probably due to the fact they are pretty easy to make with a few hundred in equipment and some time on your hands.

Yea, but with 500,000 views, you'll most likely not be making much money. After fee's and taxes, the content maker will receive around $1000 for every million views. So if you aren't getting a few million views per video, you really aren't making much. Plus as I said above, it's very expensive to get those hits, that's the real game and the expensive part. Launching a channel and marketing it is easy, getting qualified users who will keep coming back, that's hard.

 

Skills are a great thing to have on your productions, yes. However, $100 a day is still a bit of money. You probably couldn't live on that in LA I doubt, but here in Cincinnati I clear about $95 a day and live pretty nicely for a single, late-twenties dude. Also, most of the actors around here are theatre actors use to working for free, so $100 a day would be a huge bonus to them.

Ohh I get it for sure, you're in a little zone right now in your life. It's hard to make a good movie making $100/day and trying to survive at the same time, even if your monthly nut is low. Also, how many good cinematographers, gaffers, location sound guys are their in Cincinnati who are willing to work for $100/day? That's actually kind of a requirement for success because without it, you won't stand out in a crowd.

 

You and Tyler are talking about the kind that is 100% union and expected to (or already has) national and international distribution in place. I'm talking about projects that are produced on a small scale without union involvement - projects that can actually be profitable without distributors due to the low cost of making them.... It's a different ball game really.

Well, I for sure was not thinking union. I'm very much a non-union filmmaker and so are the people I work with. Someday I can teach you feature film breakdowns and what people get paid and why they're necessary on set to make a competent looking production. There is a lot more to a decent looking production then union involvement.

[Freya Black]

Yea, we're not talking the same thing at all.

 

In the real world of filmmaking, as in movies that get national and international distribution, low budget is anything under 10M. However, with a very clever and tight script, minimal locations, extremely fast crew and dedicated cast, you can make something for $500k that's pretty decent and marketable. In the real world, $500k is the cut-off, much below that is much tricker to get distribution, doesn't matter how much you inflate the numbers.

 

For us, getting a B+ or A- lead actor for $50 - $70k and smaller bit roles for around $30k, is peanuts. Especially considering those same actors could draw hundreds of thousands on other shows. It's also critical to work in A to A+ actors for ONE or TWO day shoots. Maybe the bar tender, maybe the bouncer, maybe the best friend at work, maybe the cop, etc. Those you'd pay $5 - $10k for and you can get quite a bit of interest if they like your script and believe in your project.

 

 

And when you're done with that $25,000 FEATURE film, what will you do with it? Who is going to buy it? Friends, relatives, maybe Facebook users? Getting your product out there is the most critical part otherwise, you'll just be making the same projects over and over again. It's the old saying, if a tree falls in a forrest and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound? Same thing here, if nobody sees your productions, then how will you grow as a filmmaker?

 

 

I assume you are talking about theatrical distribution Tyler. Traditionally there was a whole world of direct to video distribution too.

This would be where a $25,000 feature would traditionally go. However that whole world is quite broken at this point and ......

 

[Redacted as I came to my senses]

Edited March 27, 2016 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

I've met and talked with the Duplass brothers. They are probably the most modern version of the filmmakers you referenced. They have a great deal of talent, but they started with money from their parents. Again, it takes money, to make money. Plus, they did LOTS of shorts prior to their first feature, some of which won awards. They know what audiences want and they deliver just that, banging out project after project for the "GE" general audience. He absolutely agrees with the idea of making short films to refine your craft. He also agree's with the idea that success in the film industry is luck, having what audiences desire at that exact time and being at the right place at the right time.

 

Also their first feature was an absolute disaster, cost a fortune to make (well $65,000 anyway), and went nowhere.

 

You might have trouble getting them to talk about that tho as they still carry the scars!

Edited March 27, 2016 by Freya Black

[Phil Rhodes]

I've probably said it before, but from here, LA looks like an absolutely fantastic place to make very expensive, high-end cinema, but a fairly rough place to do low-budget filmmaking.

 

As I understand it, even shooting something in your lounge requires a permit (this puts a slightly different shine on this "personal freedom" thing to which the USA clings so fiercely - you're not allowed to do certain things inside your own home without a permit from the city!). Getting that permit requires insurance, but production insurance is one of the things that is, for some reason, vastly more expensive in the US - thousands, rather than a couple of hundred, as here. Thus, to work absolutely according to the rules, the absolute minimum spend to shoot anything whatsoever in Los Angeles is thousands. Now, those rules seem to be broken all the time, and nobody seems to mind too much as long as the shoots involved don't cause a lot of public nuisance with noise or obstruction. Even so, that's before we've even considered the costs of paying for a location for the day, which are increased by the fact that people are used to, and expect, well-funded productions capable of paying generous fees.

 

This is somewhat offset by the extremely high level of personnel available. It's unpopular - obviously - to say so, but even fairly unpracticed and inexperienced people in LA (and New York) are visibly more skilled, and more motivated, than the average Londoner who thinks himself quite sophisticated, and that's just the reality.

 

The opposite situation is that I can be insured and legally setting up track and dolly on the street corner on which I live, fully legal and permitted, for under $300. The only downside is that, well, I'm shooting southeast England, one of the world's uglier spots, and the grip can only be found by searching through the cloud of tobacco smoke.

 

P

[Guest]

Well Phil, what annoys the Americans is that they move to LA, become highly skilled, so that they can be "exported" to work in Toronto and Vancouver. :)

 

I had lunch with David Mullen on Friday, he was here shooting an ABC pilot. All stages at max capacity in Toronto right now. Of course the British are always welcome, there are certainly enough here (including me.)

 

Now all of this does little to nothing for the CDN "film industry" such as it is. But if you're "crew" there is lot's of work here right now, I think the only qualification is that you have a pulse.

 

For me...I see Toronto and LA both as dead zones to shoot a movie. South Africa is were it's at, for a long list of reasons. Mainly the weather does not totally stink in South Africa like it does in Toronto and Vancouver!!

 

R,

[Tyler Purcell]

For me...I see Toronto and LA both as dead zones to shoot a movie. South Africa is were it's at, for a long list of reasons. Mainly the weather does not totally stink in South Africa like it does in Toronto and Vancouver!!

Isn't it hard to get cast to South Africa without a pretty decent budget? Heck, I can't even imagine the cost to fly everyone from L.A. to Toronto or Vancouver, that would be quite a bit of my budget! :(

[Tyler Purcell]

I assume you are talking about theatrical distribution Tyler. Traditionally there was a whole world of direct to video distribution too.

Yes, I'm referring to standard theatrical and video/vod deals.

 

There are two types of filmmakers out there; those who only wish to make product and those who care about what they make and how it's seen. If all you care about is churning out product, for better or worse, it doesn't matter what deal you get. If you can recoup on your investment then you will probably be happy. Unfortunately, most of those films wind up on the .99 cent DVD box AND at the bottom of the list on Netflix, stuff that people simply throw away when done or never finish watching. In my eyes, if you can't score a theatrical deal, you haven't worked hard enough. Also, getting money for your next production can be even harder. The goal of a filmmaker should be a standard theatrical deal, which means they need to work extra hard in order to make it happen.

 

I know I use examples from my life all the time, but the little doc I made few years ago had a small theatrical run and was screened all around the world in 12 different languages. We were also picked up by Criterion for television, DVD and VOD release. Will we see any money back? Maybe... but it was funded through donations, so it's not a big deal. We got some great reviews and the majority of people who see it, really enjoy it. The problem is, it's a feature doc and nobody gives you work from a feature doc. ;

[Guest]

Isn't it hard to get cast to South Africa without a pretty decent budget? Heck, I can't even imagine the cost to fly everyone from L.A. to Toronto or Vancouver, that would be quite a bit of my budget! :(

 

Nah, few tricks to this even in first class on BA. Buy the tickets in South Africa, it then qualifies as a South Africa spend and you get 35% refunded as part of your co-pro structure. Heck I flew in two kids and their moms, plus myself, Jeri Ryan and her husband all in the expensive bed seats on British Airways. No problem.

 

1USD = 15 SA Rand, your US dollar goes very very far in SA, Much farther than in the USA. Now I had about 2 million to spend which is way more than the average low budget indie film, that is true.

 

Of course the USA is not a co-pro nation with anyone, so that creates an issue for US productions.

 

R,

[Tyler Purcell]

Nice, that's a good trick ain't it! :)

[Landon D. Parks]

A web series isn't a bad idea, but what is a web series after all? It's just a bunch of short films ain't it? Heck, most television is just a bunch of strung along short films. I've worked with many people on their web series and honestly, the only people who are "successful" as in, millions of hits, were mostly uninteresting crap for mass audience appeal. Point me to something otherwise, something that's just flat-out good and maybe I'll change my mind. But remember this... attracting people to your series cost money, lots and lots of money. On average, one click through costs one dollar. So lets say you have a budget of $100 per week for advertising and you get 100 click throughs. How many will watch? Maybe 5%? Out of those 5%, how many will share with their friends? Maybe .5%? So for your 100 click throughs, you may get HALF a watcher. I've done the math, you need to have 10M + watchers per video + own the content outright, to ever make it happen. That not only requires substantial dedication, but a lot of money. I know people who went into 100k + worth of debt to get their web series going and weren't successful.

 

Well, I mean the math is definitely not that great if you look at a typical 'YouTube series' that one might produce and throw out there. YouTube has nefariously bad CPM/CPC. In fact, I'd say it would be near impossible to recoup even a $25k budget, even over 10 episodes, with any real profit to speak of. For that reason, this is why I said to make sure you produce a PROFESSIONAL series capable of going beyond YouTube. You MUST treat it like a TV series, and not a 'web series' in the traditional sense. If you treat it like a TV series, your options are much wider. For example, if you shoot your series at 22 min or 45 min episodes, you might get a TV network be interested in picking up the show, or if worse comes to worse, companies like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon are always looking for GOOD, HIGH QUALITY content they can release as originals. Because you didn't follow the typical web series format of 5-8min episodes, your competition for these spots is a lot less.

 

So I would amend my original statement to say this: IF you're going to follow the web series path, make sure you do it with an eye above self-distribution, where you're pretty likely to fail.

 

As for a web series that has taken off, there are a couple of examples: 'Sanctuary' was one, 'Ruby Skye PI' was another... Not many really, but I think that is because a lot of web series, like indie films and shorts, are utter garbage or poorly produced in such a manner that they are never destined to reach anything other than a few hundred thousand YouTube views. There are others I'm sure, and you can look at some Hulu Original series as ideas of what a professional web series should be, like 'East Los High'. Heck, even Netflix's original series are still considered web series', and anyone saying they aren't successful is just kidding themselves.

 

Yea, but with 500,000 views, you'll most likely not be making much money. After fee's and taxes, the content maker will receive around $1000 for every million views. So if you aren't getting a few million views per video, you really aren't making much. Plus as I said above, it's very expensive to get those hits, that's the real game and the expensive part. Launching a channel and marketing it is easy, getting qualified users who will keep coming back, that's hard.

 

Yes, 500,000 was really a pretty low-ball number that many should be able to hit and exceed with a little ingenuity and market money. It also helps if you have content that already has a built in fan base, though getting proper permissions for that type of content is much harder.

 

Ohh I get it for sure, you're in a little zone right now in your life. It's hard to make a good movie making $100/day and trying to survive at the same time, even if your monthly nut is low. Also, how many good cinematographers, gaffers, location sound guys are their in Cincinnati who are willing to work for $100/day? That's actually kind of a requirement for success because without it, you won't stand out in a crowd.

 

Well, we have Cinematographers, Gaffers, etc. here as well, though most are more adapt to working on commercials than features, or they are type of do it part time when a production roles into town that needs their services; or they are like me, and mostly do their own thing, except in the rare case someone might want their services. As for $100/day, I'd say it depends. Currently, there is a web series shooting in Columbus, Ohio - Aidan 5 - using local professional crew and even some professional cast, who volunteer 100% of their time with no pay at all.

 

Well, I for sure was not thinking union. I'm very much a non-union filmmaker and so are the people I work with. Someday I can teach you feature film breakdowns and what people get paid and why they're necessary on set to make a competent looking production. There is a lot more to a decent looking production then union involvement.

 

My bad. I assumed that any production that expects perfection would be Union, or at least SAG. As for knowing the breakdown's and things like that, I'm well aware of how Hollywood spends it's millions of dollars, and to what proportions those are spent on cast and crew. If I had a budget to match those proportions, I'd certainly be paying those proportions and hiring the best of the best.

[Landon D. Parks]

Yes, I'm referring to standard theatrical and video/vod deals.

 

There are two types of filmmakers out there; those who only wish to make product and those who care about what they make and how it's seen. If all you care about is churning out product, for better or worse, it doesn't matter what deal you get. If you can recoup on your investment then you will probably be happy. Unfortunately, most of those films wind up on the .99 cent DVD box AND at the bottom of the list on Netflix, stuff that people simply throw away when done or never finish watching. In my eyes, if you can't score a theatrical deal, you haven't worked hard enough. Also, getting money for your next production can be even harder. The goal of a filmmaker should be a standard theatrical deal, which means they need to work extra hard in order to make it happen.

 

I really can't get behind that train of thought. Primarily, because it's discounting a whole arena of other outlets, like Television. Judging a filmmaker based solely on the number of screen he can get his product on is not a badge of artistic success to me. Sure, he can get rich and famous making such works, and if that is what he desires, then great for him. Most films that are released in theater's are either epic adaptations or rehashes of some low budget 70's horror flick that fails miserably. I see very few original ideas in wide release at the cinemas, and very few 'good, artistic' films. Hollywood want's safe, which means something that has been proven to work in the past - namely, blockbusters and remakes.

 

So no, I cannot get behind that mentality that someone who wants to produce quality product should aim for major theatre release. And who are we kidding, a minor theatrical release is a joke in terms of viewership numbers. In a limited release setting, how many people actually see that film in theaters? Maybe 5,000; or maybe 10,000 if you're very lucky with a wider 100 screen release.

 

In the mean time, Game of Thrones has 4 million viewers per episode, which vastly outweighs anything a theatrical release could do - even a major international release of a blockbuster couldn't touch those numbers for a whole season. Arguably, some of the best shows (at least in my mine) are not on the big screen or DVD, they appear on TV. And as best I can tell, your success formula doesn't even count these types of shows as success...

 

As for the bottom of Netflix and the $0.99 DVD bin, most movies end up there. In fact, Walmart had about 50 copies of the original Spiderman film in their $2 bin a few days ago. Often times, it just depends on how quickly they end up there. The market for any movie is limited, after all. Netflix, on the other hand doesn't really have a bottom I can find... It keeps suggesting I watch a film called 'Bug Off' (which clearly was never in theaters and was probably a low budget DVD) every time I log in. They also tend to rank the low budget films right up there with the rest of the lot in most categories, not that Netflix has a large selection of anything good anyway.

 

So, I'll close by saying this: The mark of any good filmmaker is not the number of screen his film can be plastered on. That is the mark of a successful filmmaker, which requires that his or her product follow certain artistic constraints that often times prevent any truly good movies from going that route. Yes, that route can make you a mighty fine living, but you're selling your soul to the devil to do it.

 

It really comes down to two types of filmmakers: Those who want success at all costs, and those happy to produce whats in their vision - and who will attempt to find an audience down the road. As for getting a job in the industry as per the original thread, I still stand by my statement that LA is not the end all be all. What's more important is WHO YOU KNOW, not necessarily where you live. If you want to be a 'hired director' working in feature films, I will wish anyone the best of luck trying that - though I would caution that such jobs are few and far between, because many films made nowadays are produced or created by the director, so the whole 'hired' director thing is mainly an option for epic blockbusters, where that whole 'who you know' thing again comes in handy.

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

Of course the British are always welcome

 

No, they aren't. Brits can't get a Canadian work permit for whole bars of bullion.

 

P

[Stuart Brereton]

 

No, they aren't. Brits can't get a Canadian work permit for whole bars of bullion.

 

P

 

I don't think that's true, Phil. Last time I checked, Canadian immigration dealt with film workers on a case by case basis. They even have a handy tool on the website which can tell you whether you are eligible.

[Phil Rhodes]

I don't think most brits could reasonably claim to be a "film worker" unless they're one of the top 1%.

[Stuart Brereton]

Well, I was eligible for a temporary work visa based on having a concrete offer of employment, and a British passport. At no point did they ask for my resume.

 

Under certain circumstances, film crew don't require a work permit at all.