Experienced Executive Producer Needed

just because someone is untried doesn't mean they can't do a great job and just because someone's been in the industry for a long time doesn't mean that they can do a great job either
Click to expand...

Out of interest, why are you demanding an experienced executive producer then?

What are you going to do if you convince an experienced executive producer comes on board, s/he finds you the only available deal which comes with a choice. Make the film for $80-100k or replace the entire team with marketable talent with a proven track record.

Are there not many directors who did really good jobs on their first films?
Click to expand...

You are correct. There are NOT many directors who did a really good job on their first film.

In the current environment of film making, with 50000 (more isn't it APE?) films made each year, I think you'd be hard pressed to find half a dozen each year. I'd hazard a guess that 20,000 of those would be first time film makers, no? If it was true, would that estimate of 3,000 to 1 odds be included in your investors pitch? Without further mitigation, wouldn't that mean you'd need to find an example of a film budgeted in the $1 million bracket that profited $3 billion to make the investment odds break even? I don't think the largest box office film of all time achieved that mark.
 
When I finish it you think I should first get an executive producer?
Click to expand...

Unless you simply enjoy the process of writing for personal pleasure, why work for so long on your script before you know you can secure financing for it?

Can you imagine engineers building a bridge before they know if they'll get paid for it? Do you think your government will pay for the infrastructure before they know they need the bridge?

In the financing world, it's called proof of concept stage, where you can prove there is demand through sales/orders etc, or in the case of films, pre-sales and/or distribution commitments.

You're at the chicken and the egg stage.

I have a DP and a sound engineer.
Click to expand...

If you only have 3 crew, why is it costing a million dollars?
 
Lauran said:
I'm not contradicting myself - an executive producer would do well to have connections, but a director has a lot of people to help her do a great job.
Click to expand...

Would that be a lot of untried "people"? If on the other hand you surrounded yourself with all experienced pros, that would certainly improve your odds considerably but an untried director is still a limiting factor. How different is it to having an experienced filmmaking team with no director? Who do you listen to and when?

Lauran said:
Are there not many directors who did really good jobs on their first films?
Click to expand...

Not that I'm aware of.

Lauran said:
What about Tarantino or Almodovar for example?
Click to expand...

1. Tarantino describes his first film as "terrible", although I've never seen it. It was 9 years from his first short to his breakout feature, he played the long game! Plus, his breakout feature was with all experienced/highly experienced industry pros. Almodovar made a number of shorts over a number of years before making his first feature and that first feature was not a "good job" by all accounts.

2. Again, you are following the completely typical logic/reasoning of those who end up following choice #1, then #2 (or #3 then #2). At some point they always bring up Tarantino (and others) as examples, examples which: A. Are not pertinent to their situation and B. Are those highly publicised extremely rare exceptions I mentioned before and C. Those quoting the examples seem to assume they have (or once they're funded, will have) just as much ability/talent as Tarantino.

We're now going around in circles and you've made it clear you are going for choice #1, so like directorik, I've nothing left to add except good luck and please keep us updated on your progress.

G
 
moonshieldmedia said:
This is just my initial reaction to reading the title of this post, but when I see the title "Executive Producer Needed" I automatically think "ok, someone is asking for money"

A far better approach might be just using the general term "Producer." The reason is because someone coming on board to work on your film will do so because they want to be invested in the project, they want to work with you and give input and use their expertise to help the film succeed, they probably dont want to write a check, walk away, and hope to get money back later. Although not all the time, I'd say MOST of the time, the Executive Producer is someone who has put down a lot of money or who is just in charge of finding money, and has very little creative input on the film. That's all fine for a mainstream Hollywood film production because that model works, but on the indie film level, it needs to be more like a family, everybody working together for a common goal. That person might end up being credited as the Exec Producer in the end, but that doesn't matter. The approach is what matters.
Click to expand...

Thanks moonshieldmedia. I'll change the title and see how the results change.
 
Sweetie said:
Out of interest, why are you demanding an experienced executive producer then?

What are you going to do if you convince an experienced executive producer comes on board, s/he finds you the only available deal which comes with a choice. Make the film for $80-100k or replace the entire team with marketable talent with a proven track record.



You are correct. There are NOT many directors who did a really good job on their first film.

In the current environment of film making, with 50000 (more isn't it APE?) films made each year, I think you'd be hard pressed to find half a dozen each year. I'd hazard a guess that 20,000 of those would be first time film makers, no? If it was true, would that estimate of 3,000 to 1 odds be included in your investors pitch? Without further mitigation, wouldn't that mean you'd need to find an example of a film budgeted in the $1 million bracket that profited $3 billion to make the investment odds break even? I don't think the largest box office film of all time achieved that mark.
Click to expand...

Sweetie - I'm not demanding, I'm asking. I think an experienced executive producer would be more likely to be able to get the money to make the movie, and faster.

I don't know what decision I'd make if a producer gave me the choice you outline above. I would have to weigh the options, and I do want to get paid. This isn't a hobby.

Lastly I'm puzzled why a $1 million movie should be expected to make $3 billion?

Thanks for taking the time to reply!
 
Sweetie said:
Unless you simply enjoy the process of writing for personal pleasure, why work for so long on your script before you know you can secure financing for it?

Can you imagine engineers building a bridge before they know if they'll get paid for it? Do you think your government will pay for the infrastructure before they know they need the bridge?

In the financing world, it's called proof of concept stage, where you can prove there is demand through sales/orders etc, or in the case of films, pre-sales and/or distribution commitments.

You're at the chicken and the egg stage.



If you only have 3 crew, why is it costing a million dollars?
Click to expand...

The three crew won't be the only crew, of course. And there other costs such as cast, script, marketing etc. But of course you know that.

I don't know how to set things up for 'proof of concept'. I thought the thing to do was write a script and sell it and, if wanted, direct. Remember, I'm new to this.
 
Lauran said:
.............. And really it depends on the entity - just because someone is untried doesn't mean they can't do a great job and just because someone's been in the industry for a long time doesn't mean that they can do a great job either. My script, cast and ideas are really good and will excite a lot of people. Including potential investors.
Click to expand...

Fom a mathematical point of view you describe 2 groups here:
- the untried and unproven
- people who have been around in the industry and still suck

Both lack a proof of talent/skill.
You can draw a graph with 2 axis:
x-axis = time in the industry (experience)
y-axis = skills/talent
Both groups are considered to be in the lower quadrants, because untried and unproven has an unknown y-value and an x=0.
Investors like the upper right quadrant (skilled/talented people with a lot of experience) most.
Second best is the upper left quadrant: upcoming talent.

Lower left is the greatest gamble: little to no experience, uncertainty about skills/talent.
Lower right is the quadrant most investors would like to avoid, although there is also a market for ridiculous crap ;) (Sharknado, anyone?)

Recently there was an almost similar discussion in another thread, where one of the viewpoints was that there have been 'first time feature directors' that got nominated for an Oscar. After reading through the 21 biographies, the conclusion was that 19 of them had either experience with directing or other parts of filmmaking, or gained their opportunity through over decades of writing Academy Award winning features.
The 2 major exceptions were Robert Redford, who had been acting for about 30 years before directing his first feature and the director of Boyz in da Hood, who came out of 'nowhere' through a program to help upcoming talent make their debut.
All of them got funding, because they had more or less relevant experience and because they were connected, so they could gather the right team.

I would suggest to you to get your feet wet and direct some short stuff with your team.
This way you'll get the feel of it before you jump into the ocean of directing a feature.

I also looked at your website: as a first time director your problem is a lack of portfolio.
This means you will have to depend more on your crew, but your DOP has no showreel on your site either.
And when I go to his site he has some testshots and some projects on it, but no showreel.
I will not mention that the site looks like it has been made 15 years ago and only had some text updated (it doesn't have to be a problem), but it is almost more about his camera than about his talent/vision. (It is 2016: the post-hardware era: showing what you can make impresses more than showing the toolbox.)
Ask your DOP for a great showreel.
Or go make some short stuff get material that shows your vision and his skills: this will make it easier to get funds in the long run.
(This is some free marketing advice ;) )

I hope you succeed :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks modallee42yu - sounds like fun!

Thanks for the marketing advice WalterB, and the good wishes. I will talk to my DP about a showreel. I've been planning a trailer but my DP lives in Arizona and having him here in Miami will cost a bit. I might have to do a trailer with no money but I'd much prefer to be working with my DP, Mark Braun. Will post it here.
 
Lastly I'm puzzled why a $1 million movie should be expected to make $3 billion?
Click to expand...

You don't understand risk/reward without mitigation? It's simple math, but the math will get really simple without mitigation. Without mitigation, it's a modular outcome. Succeed or fail. If it's assumed you have a 3000:1 chance to make a success, a million dollar bet at 3000:1 odds = 3 billion payout. Anything less is a suckers bet.

Real investments aren't that simple. You'll never be able to expect a reasonable investor to consider such high risk/reward ratios, especially if you cannot mathematically show the reward ratio makes sense.

In reality the success of a film isn't modular. There are varying degrees of success. You can make a bad film and still make a profit. You can make a good film and still make a loss.

There is also risk mitigation. When you finish your film, you may already mitigated up to 40% of your budget through rebates/credits and mitigated another 40% through pre-sales as you deliver your film.

A producers job is all about the mitigation of risk / maximization of value. Producing is an area that's as complex as filmmaking itself.

On this film, you're the registered producer and casting director. This is all your job to know and manage all this.

I'm new to this.
Click to expand...
I do want to get paid.
Click to expand...

How do those two go together?

"Hi. I'll be your surgeon today. Lie down. Don't worry, I'm new to this, but it's ok, I want to get paid."

How fast would you run away?

But wait, there's more... "Want to invest in my surgery?"

This isn't a hobby.
Click to expand...

There's no way to put this nice. If it isn't a hobby for you, start acting like it.

You're asking for a million dollars. That's a lot of money. If you want to get an investment, and you want to succeed you better get serious. You're trying to win the lotto to then get your 1 in 3000 shot. I'm suggesting you stop making excuses to why you don't deserve your shot.

I would suggest to you to get your feet wet and direct some short stuff with your team.
Click to expand...

Great advice.
 
Sweetie said:
You don't understand risk/reward without mitigation? It's simple math, but the math will get really simple without mitigation. Without mitigation, it's a modular outcome. Succeed or fail. If it's assumed you have a 3000:1 chance to make a success, a million dollar bet at 3000:1 odds = 3 billion payout. Anything less is a suckers bet.

Real investments aren't that simple. You'll never be able to expect a reasonable investor to consider such high risk/reward ratios, especially if you cannot mathematically show the reward ratio makes sense.

In reality the success of a film isn't modular. There are varying degrees of success. You can make a bad film and still make a profit. You can make a good film and still make a loss.

There is also risk mitigation. When you finish your film, you may already mitigated up to 40% of your budget through rebates/credits and mitigated another 40% through pre-sales as you deliver your film.

A producers job is all about the mitigation of risk / maximization of value. Producing is an area that's as complex as filmmaking itself.

On this film, you're the registered producer and casting director. This is all your job to know and manage all this.




How do those two go together?

"Hi. I'll be your surgeon today. Lie down. Don't worry, I'm new to this, but it's ok, I want to get paid."

How fast would you run away?

But wait, there's more... "Want to invest in my surgery?"



There's no way to put this nice. If it isn't a hobby for you, start acting like it.

You're asking for a million dollars. That's a lot of money. If you want to get an investment, and you want to succeed you better get serious. You're trying to win the lotto to then get your 1 in 3000 shot. I'm suggesting you stop making excuses to why you don't deserve your shot.



Great advice.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing - but am not getting it. Everyone has a first time.

My reaction to your response is sadness.
 
I've been thinking about doing a feature film.. but i think the key to my first time will be a script that I can do on a very low budget. Like $50,000
 
Lauran said:
Thanks for sharing - but am not getting it.
Click to expand...

Sorry for butting in again but this is interesting. As far as I can see, the only way you could not get what sweetie (I and others) are saying is without any understanding/concept of "risk".
I find this interesting because either I'm missing some really fundamental understanding or because there are seemingly intelligent adults who exist with little/no concept of "risk" and, either of these two possibilities are difficult to believe. Case in point:

Lauran said:
Everyone has a first time.
Click to expand...

Yes they do but, and it's a huge "but" which I can't fathom how you appear not to understand, the circumstances of that first time vary enormously depending on the risk!!

For example: Someone who dreams of becoming say a painter can just jump into their "first time" without any prior knowledge/experience or supervision because there's extremely little risk, just the cost of a canvas and a few tubes of paint. However, someone who dreams of becoming say a surgeon cannot. The difference between the aspiring painter and aspiring surgeon is the level of risk! Killing a patient is a terrible risk compared to the cost of a few tubes of paint and it's therefore a risk which has to be very severely mitigated: Years of training, years of witnessing and assisting on surgeries until when their first time finally comes, they are already so familiar with the procedure that it's not really a first time and even then, the risk is further mitigated by very stringent supervision.

Obviously with filmmaking we're not (usually) talking about a life and death level of risk but $1m is still a very significant risk, both in terms of the amount of money itself and in terms of the professional careers/reputations it represents. Therefore, completely contrary to your quote (and unless you have a close relative who is extremely wealthy), there will be NO first time without very significant risk mitigation! I don't understand how you could believe anyone would just give you $1m without very significant risk mitigation? I apologise in advance for this sounding so insulting but the only rational explanation I can come up with is that you are a child with little/no concept of; the value of money, risk, risk mitigation or of business in general. Maybe I'm wrong though and there is another rational explanation? As I see it, if it were your $1m, the lack of any risk mitigation would be your choice, you could make your film without any prior knowledge/experience and with whomever you wanted but, it's not your $1m! If you are asking for someone else's $1m then you have to learn what risk mitigation they require and comply with those requirements, otherwise no one in their right mind will give you $1m. Excepting a miracle, I see no way of getting around this fundamental fact.

G
 
AudioPostExpert said:
Sorry for butting in again but this is interesting. As far as I can see, the only way you could not get what sweetie (I and others) are saying is without any understanding/concept of "risk".
I find this interesting because either I'm missing some really fundamental understanding or because there are seemingly intelligent adults who exist with little/no concept of "risk" and, either of these two possibilities are difficult to believe. Case in point:



Yes they do but, and it's a huge "but" which I can't fathom how you appear not to understand, the circumstances of that first time vary enormously depending on the risk!!

For example: Someone who dreams of becoming say a painter can just jump into their "first time" without any prior knowledge/experience or supervision because there's extremely little risk, just the cost of a canvas and a few tubes of paint. However, someone who dreams of becoming say a surgeon cannot. The difference between the aspiring painter and aspiring surgeon is the level of risk! Killing a patient is a terrible risk compared to the cost of a few tubes of paint and it's therefore a risk which has to be very severely mitigated: Years of training, years of witnessing and assisting on surgeries until when their first time finally comes, they are already so familiar with the procedure that it's not really a first time and even then, the risk is further mitigated by very stringent supervision.

Obviously with filmmaking we're not (usually) talking about a life and death level of risk but $1m is still a very significant risk, both in terms of the amount of money itself and in terms of the professional careers/reputations it represents. Therefore, completely contrary to your quote (and unless you have a close relative who is extremely wealthy), there will be NO first time without very significant risk mitigation! I don't understand how you could believe anyone would just give you $1m without very significant risk mitigation? I apologise in advance for this sounding so insulting but the only rational explanation I can come up with is that you are a child with little/no concept of; the value of money, risk, risk mitigation or of business in general. Maybe I'm wrong though and there is another rational explanation? As I see it, if it were your $1m, the lack of any risk mitigation would be your choice, you could make your film without any prior knowledge/experience and with whomever you wanted but, it's not your $1m! If you are asking for someone else's $1m then you have to learn what risk mitigation they require and comply with those requirements, otherwise no one in their right mind will give you $1m. Excepting a miracle, I see no way of getting around this fundamental fact.

G
Click to expand...

I get your point.
 
Sweetie said:
Why aren't you using your contacts you made on those sets?
Click to expand...

That was 20-odd years ago, I haven't kept in touch with those people. I wasn't thinking of making movies at that time. Which is strange really, because at university I was thinking that and I always intended to make movies down the line. I just wanted a lot of life experience first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top