Where is film financing headed in the next few years?

J

JRy

I've looked into some unique cases of how some recent movies have made it to the big screen; such as the way James Wan and Leigh Whannell managed to get funding for the first Saw movie -- They wrote the entire screenplay, then recorded a 9 and a half minute short depicting the reverse beartrap scene from the original movie. If you haven't watched it, it can be viewed on YouTube here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=PpjwLN-6mPE

They used that short to gain the interest of actors and studios, and it worked; they got something along the lines of $4.3 million in funding and well, the rest is history. Saw went on to be one of the most successful horror movies of all time... all this came from two virtually unknown young filmmakers.


Another example is the recent film "Michael Clayton" by Tony Gilroy. Granted Gilroy is one hell of a writer, he wrote the Bourne Trilogy, but he has never directed anything before.
Gilroy played it smart, he used the screenplay (and probably the draw of his previous writing success) to get George Clooney to agree to star (and produce) the film if Gilroy could secure funding. With Clooney's name attached, it was a lot easier to secure private investing.
Gilroy made the film and did as many private screenings as possible to get good press from critics. With that good press in hand, he (supposedly) created one hell of a bidding war between studios, eventually signing a distribution deal with Warner Bros.
Basically, Gilroy managed to create the film his way. He didn't have the studio breathing down his neck to make changes and he didn't have to suffer through having his work rewritten over and over by other writers. He played the game his way, I have utmost respect for him for doing so; his end result is a pure masterpiece of film.

So, my question is: Does anyone think taking similar routes will become easier for new filmmakers?

I personally believe the industry is changing, and it's changing FAST. More and more filmmakers are coming out with commercially successfully movies on shoestring budgets (Eli Roth for example). We're going to get to a point where Venture Capital firms aren't going to be afraid to invest $5 mil or less into indie films that look like they can get distribution, so the type of routes these filmmakers have taken may end up becoming the norm. I know I'm definitely looking forward to it.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
These routes do happen and the amount of news they get are amazing and make us want that, the Saw guys, Robert Rodriquez...the fact is, there's thousands of us and a dozen of these "made good" stories...keep working hard and treat it like a job that you love. If lightening strikes, great! Don't expect it though, the odds aren't in your favor. These guys succeed not just because they are good, but because they play the networking game really well...and got lucky.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JRy said:
So, my question is: Does anyone think taking similar routes will become easier for new filmmakers?
Click to expand...
Of course.

Writing a script, shooting a complete short or a show reel and
getting investors isn't unique or recent.

A well connected writer using his connections to attract an A-list
actor and then funding the movie isn't unique or recent.

Both those methods have been used for decades and will be used
over and over and over again. We aren't getting to the point
where Venture Capital firms aren't going to be afraid to invest $5 mil or
less into indie films that look like they can get distribution, we are there
- and have been for many years.

JRy - these ways of financing are already the norm. Not easy, but
the norm.

You have the "SAW" info incorrect. The show reel didn't attract
actors or studios. Two members of a small special efx company
Gregg Hoffman and Oren Koules put up the first $750,000
themselves and formed a small prodCo. They then raised the rest
of the $1,200,000 budget and shot the feature independently - no
studios at all. It was accepted in the 2003 Sundance Film
Festival where LGF acquired the distribution rights.

Not much different that what happened with "Clerks" in 1994 and
"Sex, Lies and Videotape" in 1989.

I see where you're going with this post and I'm with you 100%! But
knowing that none of these financing methods is new or unique
helps clear the path the what can be new and unique financing
methods.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks again, Rik and everyone else!

I was just going on what I heard about Saw a long time ago, glad you corrected me though, I'm really interested in finding out how filmmakers get their projects started.

I'm just getting into reading on the business side of things, and from most of the things I had read, I got the impression that venture capital firms were still apprehensive to finance film. It's good to know that it's not something "new", it's just continuing to progress.

I'm hoping that one day, there will be less and less need for a having big studio distribution. If filmmakers got their funding from private investors and then sold their films directly to your television set through the Internet, that will truly we a good day.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
When folks mention Rodriguez (as I like to), they always talk about how he made his first feature for $7000, they ignore the hundreds of shorts and sketches he did with his family for fun before that. On the "el Mariachi" DVD, you can see his award winning short "Bedhead" done with his family, fun stuff...the point is, they all started the same place everyone here is, grab whatever camera you can get hold of and shoot stuff...shoot flowers waving in the wind...the beauty of it will spark something in you and you'll get another idea of something to shoot, it'll grow infectiously for you.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Here's an article by Hollywood screenwriter Craig Mazin which I think any aspiring writer/director should read.

I've got a slightly different take on how you persuade the industry to invest in your future.

I think stage one is getting competent as a director. There's no rule of thumb on this... but I think ten produced shorts and two produced features is the minimum anyone should be looking at, before they even consider pushing for a commercial product. These are skills you can acquire over night and you need space to make mistakes and learn from them.

You have to think of those twelve films as your version of film school.

When it comes to making the film you intend to use to lever yourself into the industry, then you have to a killer concept... a killer script... a killer production plan... and most important of all... an absolutely killer marketing plan.

Many film makers can't think any further than "if I attach a name to my film, that will sell it"

Just to reality check that... films made by huge names die on the vine every single day. And, you don't need stars to produce a film that makes an impact.

Bottom line is this... plan to spend the next five years reading everything you can find about writing for film, film production, marketing and trends in the business... on top of writing scripts, planning shoots, finding resources to make the films happen, making films and then testing them out in the real world...

Whilst all of this is going on you need to start thinking about and working towards your "breakout movie." The key to this is time spent on honing your concept, your script and your marketing strategy. You actually need a minimum of three feature scripts and a maximum of five to work in parallel... this is because you never know when Hollywood is going to blow your best concept out of the water... LOL Just never ask me about the day the release of "Bad Santa" blew five years of work out of the water.

Just to put this in context for you... I was film making for eight years before I took my first shot at making a "breakout movie" and I got the formula wrong. I've since then taken a three year break from production to figure out where I went wrong, fill out the gaps in my knowledge and plan the next move.

The scary thing is... I do this full time... I don't anything else and haven't for four years.

The only other thing I'd say is this... see this as a long term process and give yourself 15 years to make the breaks... the problem with this process is, the longer you hang in the larger your personal investment, the harder it is to quit... this is not an industry for either the sane or for those who can't hang in FOREVER, based only on the fact that they appear to be making snail like progress.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
JRy said:
I'm hoping that one day, there will be less and less need for a having big studio distribution.
Click to expand...
This, too, is already the case.

From AIP through New World, New Line, Mirimax, Orion and LGF
small, independently financed and run distributors have had great
success distributing small, independently financed movies. There a
re even more outlets now.

In a way, that makes it more difficult. Too many films out there mean
the audience get more discriminating. But that day is here JR.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
@Clive, another great article there. I actually really hate the idea of directors using their name to try to sell a movie. Eli Roth as an example... He still has less than 5 feature film directorial pieces and he's been attaching his name to his movies since Cabin Fever. To me, it seems as if those directors are more interested in personal fame than the art of making movies.

That's also a really good point about taking your time to prepare yourself for your breakout movie. I hate to hear that you say you messed up, at least you didn't quit all together, always best to learn from your mistakes and try again. That's what I do too.

I'm actually curious about the Bad Santa thing... Are you trying to hint that you were apart of that movie in some form? I actually throughly enjoy that film, it's not the smartest comedy in the world, but it's definitely enjoyable, better than most of the comedies that have came out since it's release.

I'm going to hang in until the day I retire. I know the progress is going to be slow, but I'm looking forward to the ride, whether is takes 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, whatever. The way I look it, this is my dream, and I'm not going to let myself windup old and on my death bed simply wondering "what if".



directorik said:
This, too, is already the case.

From AIP through New World, New Line, Mirimax, Orion and LGF
small, independently financed and run distributors have had great
success distributing small, independently financed movies. There a
re even more outlets now.

In a way, that makes it more difficult. Too many films out there mean
the audience get more discriminating. But that day is here JR.
Click to expand...
That's very true, I think a big part of people getting more and more discriminating is the fact that Hollywood keeps coming out with completely crap films that follow the same cliche storylines over and over.
Sure an over abundance of new movies means people have to pick and choose, but more and more people are starting to use the quick access to online movie reviews as indicators for what they should watch, people are starting to realize a trailer can't be used to gauge how good a movie may be.

Hopefully with advances in social networking and other social technologies it will become increasingly easier for people to recommend movies to one another in mass online. We're a long way off from perfecting the technology, but I'm confident we'll get there one day.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm actually curious about the Bad Santa thing... Are you trying to hint that you were apart of that movie in some form?
Click to expand...

LOL... Hell no. It was just that I'd been working for years on a project called "Shortfellas" -- in that film three "Little People" and a local boy rob a department store on Christmas Eve dressed as Santa and his elves... when Bad Santa came out I had to can the whole project, because I didn't want people to go "Oh, he's just ripping off Bad Santa."

Now, for me the funny thing is... I just heard my ex business partner has resurrected the project, but without the Santa element.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
clive said:
LOL... Hell no. It was just that I'd been working for years on a project called "Shortfellas" -- in that film three "Little People" and a local boy rob a department store on Christmas Eve dressed as Santa and his elves... when Bad Santa came out I had to can the whole project, because I didn't want people to go "Oh, he's just ripping off Bad Santa."

Now, for me the funny thing is... I just heard my ex business partner has resurrected the project, but without the Santa element.
Click to expand...
Ouch, I don't believe I can imagine how soul-crushing that must have been. Really sorry to hear that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ouch, I don't believe I can imagine how soul-crushing that must have been. Really sorry to hear that.
Click to expand...

Not really, I've always had more ideas than the time I'd need to develop them... and Bad Santa is a great film, better than the film I was planning.

It just taught me the importance of developing a slate.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top