Unless your audience wants style over substance (read: hollywood blockbusters, minimal story, flashy visuals)... know your audience, give them what they want.
A lot of indie films though have sold their audience on substance over style though. Good Will Hunting, Memento, Mean Streets, for example, did not have flashy visuals, and actually kind of empty and plain in terms of style.
Last edited by harmonica44; 01-09-2012 at 12:38 AM.
Harmonica44: true, but there is an audience for that and it's a target to shoot for... it doesn't return as much, so your expense making them needs be lessened to account for that.
A lot of indie films though have sold their audience on substance over style though. Good Will Hunting, Memento, Mean Streets, for example, did not have flashy visuals, and actually kind of empty and plain in terms of style.
You do realize every one of those examples had named or swiftly rising talent in the cast don't you? And EACH director had GREAT connections to this industry.
I would say the connections were more important, as at some point, the director/writers didn't have the names attached to the script. Good Will Hunting was made by the two lead in it and only got Robin Williams because he was presented the finished script (Matt Damon and Ben Affleck worked on it for years as unknowns) and chose to do it. With the named actor attached, they were able to get more production funding -- because the name guaranteed a return on that investment in the first weekend with a traditional marketing campaign.
The traditional goal is to get names attached to a project to get funding to do the marketing to sell the product at the end. This is a real and working model no matter how one feels about it. The trick is to figure out the equation that works at lower budgets, without studio backing and without as much access to the big name talent that Hollywood has.
My goals are mine, for you they may be wrong, but I turned a company in an industry that didn't exist into a million dollar enterprise (that later died a horrible bank breaking death for other reasons - not business acumen on my part). Creating an industry is easy, you just have to convince people that it exists, then get them interested in being part of it... like magic (Gandalf etc.).
For me, I don't want someone to pay for my idea, I want them to make a high-risk business investment with me. To provide them ROI, I won't be making film as art, I'll be making film as craft (which is often dismissed as selling out, but if you have mouths to feed and a mortgage, you'll understand the impetus to work this way)... along the way, if I happen to get all of the pieces "Right", I'll have made art while still providing for my family. I normally don't ever produce anything I've written myself (never have, not that kind of "one man" show here). We've thus far treated what we're doing as a community theater model. We're just looking to move beyond that now that we've built our crew and skillsets past that point. There are many examples of this model succeeding, "Not Ready For Primetime", "Groundlings", "Second City TV" - granted, all comedy troupes, but similar groundwork laid.
I could follow the normal path of dropping everything and moving to a coast to work in the existing industry and compete against all of the others who have done that, or I could start my own business with my own model. Finding backers for a business is different from finding backers for a film. This is why Studios make all the bank and indie filmmakers complain about the studios making the bank... Studios treat it like a business first, making a product that the customer wants. Here in MN, where there is no existing industry, I'm in prime real estate for creating an industry with little to no direct competition. There are many talented film crew folks who live here but commute to LA, NY and Canada to work and make a living. Providing local benefit to employees, businesses and investors is an easy sell. I'm not looking at filmmaking from the auteur's standpoint, I'm looking at it from the standpoint of a business entrepreneur. If you haven't done it, it's a strange mentality to put yourself into...
Then again, I started from "I want to make a movie" to spending 8 years working on my craft and developing myself to the point that the groups I've worked with now have specifically stated "I'm never doing another production without you." (Ego +++). I'm willing to work for the bigger picture. I'm not content to resign myself to "what is."
MN hasn't remained competitive with their "Snowbate" (I didn't name it, don't laugh at me) film rebate program amongst the states. There have been many films shot here over the years, it's just not as fiscally attractive here as it once was. Our old Gov' didn't seem to see the value in bringing "Gig" jobs into the state (with the associated income to local business it provided - food, shelter, office space, location rental, etc...).
The programs work thusly:
1) make a film
2) spend money wherever you make it
3) whatever money you spend on local resources (people, lodging, food, equipment, etc) you can get an xx% refund after you're done because it brings money directly into the local economy.
MN's xx% is lower (lower ROI for the production) than other states that have similar looks to them, so even films set in MN are shot elsewhere now. Almost every state has these programs.
As I'm looking at this endeavor as a business rather than a one off film, the state refund program becomes a side note that helps with my ROI as I can then claim the full budget of each production and the refund (if granted by the state board) gets us closer to our return/profit case faster. Since all of our work will be in state, we have a much higher amount of our budget that will qualify for the refunds (the funds are limited though due to the cutbacks over the past dozen years).
If I were a typical producer and looking at all of the possibilities for locations in the world, I'd want to go specifically where the rebate benefitted me the most and the initial prices were the lowest (lowering my upfront costs and increasing my return on that investment)... so many productions are done in Canada and a few of the other midwest states to our East. Over time, fewer and fewer productions have come here and many of the local resources had to shut their doors - lowering my business competition here.
Filmmaking costs money. If you don't look at it as a business, you'll never succeed at it unless you get struck by magic (Gandalf, etc.) As a business, you just need to make decisions about your product that benefit your customers in a way that make them want to pay you to do what you're doing (look at all the Hollywood Tent Pole Pictures) over and over again. A few initial profitable productions will enable us to get momentum and cash reserves to fund the next film, lather, rinse, repeat.
Or, I can put the same 6 rivets into refrigerators for the rest of my life. I don't currently do this, but have in the past - some of the folks I worked with were content that this was the reality of their life until the day they died. I'm going for the bigger of the two visions of my personal future. I've done it before, it just takes some time.
I am affraid that there are so many misconcepts in your post that I don't know where to start...but I will try to respond in a timely manner. Now , I ma at work so long reply are not doable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk
Damn, Indigo, why you gotta be Debbie Downer?
Believe it or not, people actually do make money off of feature films. Nobody is pretending it's as easy as getting a paper route. I don't even have a parade for you to rain on, but I'm sure as hell not going to let you block the light at the end of the tunnel.
Some of us still have this thing called a dream. I'm sorry you lost that. I don't look down on wedding videographers, but it's not for me (I make more money, serving drinks to those attending the wedding).
The majority of big-name directors today did not attend film school, and got their career started with pet-projects. I truly believe that the key to breaking through that barrier is simply making a movie that YOU think is awesome.
I don't need the odds explained to me. I don't need Negative-Nancy telling me it will never happen. I'm pragmatic, and I understand the harsh realities of the world. I'm also a dreamer, and I refuse to allow you to change that.
And with that, I wish the best of luck to all those dreamers out there. Set your lofty goals, put the wheels in motion, and make your dreams happen!
OMG...
Where dod you red all the "proofs" for your "accusations"? When and How did I became anybody's dreambreaker?
How did we got there?
Are yo to bored to read long post, so didn't red mine in full and carefuly, or is it something else?
Before I continue (or rather start from the beginning) let me try to establish some sort of mutual understanding facts in order to determine should I take a part in this discussion or is it just a waste of my time:
This is a topic about funding one's first independent FEATURE MOVIE(S)!? Yes or No?
(Am I missing something?)
Now, can we agree that discussing financing worlds of TV shows, music videos, industrial movies, webinars even the HOLLYWOOD FEATURE MOVIES and other forms of film/video storytelling, is not the main subject of this topic (of course that comparisons and informations about those are welcome but please let's not get lost in the loops of discussing Apples and Oranges)?
Now…… please answer for yourself the following questions:
-What are the points that are mutual (I found at least 3 points) for the following movies: "Citizen Caine", "Brazil", "Blade Runner" ?
-Did Steven Spielberg got rich by making movies?
-Did F.F. Coppla got rich by making movies?
-What are the points that are mutual (I found at least 3 points) for the following movies: "Citizen Caine", "Brazil", "Blade Runner" ?
-Did Steven Spielberg got rich by making movies?
-Did F.F. Coppla got rich by making movies?
1) none of them were indie films
2) the creators of all three were well known and established before attempting said pictures
3) none of them made a ton of box office money
So, as you say, funding a first time feature film. None of these are relevant to the discussion. I daresay Spielberg and Coppola are doing okay, financially, but again, that's not really our world either.
If you want to make Brazil, that's great (one of my all-time favorites). If you're doing it out of your own pocket as your first feature out of the gate, well that might be a little more difficult, and twice as hard getting it seen. All of the films you mentioned (and again, none of them indies) were done by creators who had BIG hits before (Welles in radio; Kane was his first feature film but he was already famous and well connected).
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to make artistic films. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to make money at filmmaking. They're two different perspectives, but the world has room for ALL SORTS of different perspectives!
1) none of them were indie films
2) the creators of all three were well known and established before attempting said pictures
3) none of them made a ton of box office money
So, as you say, funding a first time feature film. None of these are relevant to the discussion. I daresay Spielberg and Coppola are doing okay, financially, but again, that's not really our world either.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to make artistic films. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to make money at filmmaking. They're two different perspectives, but the world has room for ALL SORTS of different perspectives!
1-true but there is more that what you noticed.
2-partialy true. Welles was well conected but this is de facto his First movie (What would be you predictions of success and financing of movie if Jon Bon Jovi or somebody with similar sucess in other industry decides to became a film director in Hollywood now?). Ridlley Scott was pretty much nobody from Hoollywood's point of view before Bladerunner (so was HArrison Ford). I will get back to this later....
3-EXACTLY!!!
All of this is very relevant to THIS topic and disscusion. So as all other things and informations that me or anyboy else says about movies, books, sex, psycology of stamp collectors...
What is not relevant to this topic, is directly derived deductive conclusions when one compares all thise aspects and aplies them to indie feature firstimmer such as:
- YOU CAN MAKE A LIVING by making your first feature movie because you can MAKE A LIVING been a director/dp/producer/writer/actor of primetime advertizing commercials -
WRONG...
So many differences between the two that direct comparisson is just not possible and applicable! But yes, one can learn and improve from the experience of the other in many ways...
And yes, while there is nothing moraly wrong wanting to make a living by making indie features, but there is a clear proof of disfunctionality of one's ratio, if one thinks that that's "how the things are" in filmmaking.
Not to meniton that there is a BIG TIME WRONGDOING if telling your potential investor:
Give me your money because I am gonna make you profit big time, by making my indie movie, because indie movie industry is money making industry!
That's simply a -LIE!
indie movie making indusrty is - MONEY SPENDING Industry!
Not MONEY MAKING indusrty!
Can you comprehend the difference?
Let's continue the quiz:
4-If Speiblerg is doing OK financialy, than why he (anf other 2) sold whole Dreamworks company and archive fpr peanuts and some short chage to Disney?
5-How did Sielberg decided to protect his moneymaking profits?
6-Who put the money for Sofia Coppola's first feature?
7-Why no major successes in indie movies doesn't come from the major hollywood creative big wigs as a main backers and financiers of indie filmmakers?
8-Why is it easier for a newcomer filmmaker to meet 10 dentists to ask them to give you 25k each for your first movie, instead of meeeting Speilberg once and ask him to give you 250K for the same thing?
2-partialy true. Welles was well conected but this is de facto his First movie (What would be you predictions of success and financing of movie if Jon Bon Jovi or somebody with similar sucess in other industry decides to became a film director in Hollywood now?).
Do you realize what radio was in the 30s? Do you realize that Welles was a household name? A better comparison than Bon Jovi (who is not in a narrative art form, whereas Welles WAS) would be someone who is big in television....which oddly enough is where a lot of directors DO come from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indigo
Ridlley Scott was pretty much nobody from Hoollywood's point of view before Bladerunner (so was HArrison Ford). I will get back to this later....
This is just flat out wrong. Blade Runner was in 82. Alien was in 79 and made 80 million. The Duelists was in 77; Box Office Mojo doesn't list it, but it did star Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel. It was his debut, but had far more high profile actors than a debut by you or I would. Why? Because he had been directing television since 1965. Ridley Scott was not a nobody. He had been working for nearly 20 years and had one BIG hit. Incidentally, Alien was made for 11 million. You don't give 11 million to a nobody, not today, and certainly not in 1979.
All of this is you doing exactly what you said you didn't want to do...you're comparing apples to oranges here. Now, I'm not saying one is LIKELY to make money on an indie picture...or a hollywood film or what have you.
The difference is this: if you're making the movie that you want to make, your odds are much slimmer than if you actually study the market you are aiming for and make something that THEY want to see, and market it to them. No one is saying that everyone always makes money on movies. No one is even saying it is LIKELY to make money doing movies. What people are saying is that it CAN and HAS been done. Like anything else, there are ways to do it and be smart about it, increasing the odds that you can walk home with lunch money. And there are ways to do things wrong, which dramatically lower your odds.
Which is fine if at the end of the day you just want the movie that you want to watch. But if your goal is to make money (again, a GOAL, not a guarantee or even very likely), there are things you can do to work towards that goal.
It all depends on what your goals are. They're different for everyone.
Where dod you red all the "proofs" for your "accusations"? When and How did I became anybody's dreambreaker?
How did we got there?
Are yo to bored to read long post, so didn't red mine in full and carefuly, or is it something else?
I read your posts, in full, and found them to be rather negative. Not sure how you think they are anything otherwise. I'm not trying to get into a flame-war with you. I just wanted to temper your negativity with a little hopefullness. You did, after all, write this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indigo
Goal such as : Wanting to make a living as a feature filmmaker is wrong concept!
Goal such as : Wanting to make a living as a camera op in videobiz like industrial or wedding videos or a TV cameraman in CNN,ABC,CBS is absolutely OK and legitimate.
I didn't read anything wrong, or take it out of context. You stated, quite clearly, that you think I'm doing it wrong. I'm telling you that what you think is "right" doesn't work for me, on many levels. I'm not interested in doing what you think is "right", I'm perfectly capable of choosing the path that is best for me, and I'm not embarrassed to admit that it is the path of a dreamer.
MN hasn't remained competitive with their "Snowbate" (I didn't name it, don't laugh at me) film rebate program amongst the states. There have been many films shot here over the years, it's just not as fiscally attractive here as it once was. Our old Gov' didn't seem to see the value in bringing "Gig" jobs into the state (with the associated income to local business it provided - food, shelter, office space, location rental, etc...).
The programs work thusly:
1) make a film
2) spend money wherever you make it
3) whatever money you spend on local resources (people, lodging, food, equipment, etc) you can get an xx% refund after you're done because it brings money directly into the local economy.
MN's xx% is lower (lower ROI for the production) than other states that have similar looks to them, so even films set in MN are shot elsewhere now. Almost every state has these programs.
As I'm looking at this endeavor as a business rather than a one off film, the state refund program becomes a side note that helps with my ROI as I can then claim the full budget of each production and the refund (if granted by the state board) gets us closer to our return/profit case faster. Since all of our work will be in state, we have a much higher amount of our budget that will qualify for the refunds (the funds are limited though due to the cutbacks over the past dozen years).
If I were a typical producer and looking at all of the possibilities for locations in the world, I'd want to go specifically where the rebate benefitted me the most and the initial prices were the lowest (lowering my upfront costs and increasing my return on that investment)... so many productions are done in Canada and a few of the other midwest states to our East. Over time, fewer and fewer productions have come here and many of the local resources had to shut their doors - lowering my business competition here.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but why does your explanations of how film industry in MN works, and why is collapsed, sounds so much like premises on which car industry in Detroit was set up on (and look what happened to it), or Dubai's moguls ideas about how to make Dubai a skiing mecca?
In the language of New Age:
Its not sustainable!
To me that's clear sign that industry as such dosn't really exist but is rather a "Potemkin's Village"
You are basically describing MN film industry like a outsourcing center (within the same country) for bellow the line production, sub-contractor for the same thing that could have been done in California but because of tax incentives, political decisions based on questionable agendas, and similar socio-economical programs, is moved to MN where producers could save few bucks if they shoot in MN.
That's like Communist concept of economy and industry!!!!???!!?!?!!?
Completely unsustainable.
Something that depends purely on the personal view of the few.
Speculation.
The reason that Saudi Arabia is the biggest producer of oil in the world is because they have plenty of oil under their soil making it a REAL industry and profitable one too!
Now, their Sheicks could spend billions of dollars in buying snow making mashines so that they can create Alaskan chilly-full clima in order to attract tourists from neighboring heat-boiling countries, and create a whole tourist "industry" out of it, but that will last until Sheiks decide that it was enough, because they already spent too much money for snowmashines compared to profits that they gained.
Real industries don't rely on politicians and decision makers to make bills and laws in their favor.
REAL industries roll on their own strength!
They don't need a help from the side to keep them alive!
And you know when MN will have a real filmmaking industry?!
WHEN people from MN start telling their life stories and start narrating their drams, and how their catalyze. articulate, perceive, and artistically express their artistic and life experience!
WHEN MN folks start making movies about Paul Bunyan rather than wait for Hollywood studios to tell that story!
When they become the main CREATIVE force and not just physical labor nad guns -or-hire only if Hollywood studios need cheaper alternative to Californian workforce and original scenery and sets!
Because that's what people wanna see, and will pay for it to see!
It's 21st century!
People are tired of seeing how Holywood sees the world! We all already know that perspective. Thats why nobody goes to movie theaters anymore. They already seen that movie
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshL
Some clarifications here:
Do you realize what radio was in the 30s? Do you realize that Welles was a household name? A better comparison than Bon Jovi (who is not in a narrative art form, whereas Welles WAS) would be someone who is big in television....which oddly enough is where a lot of directors DO come from.
This is just flat out wrong. Blade Runner was in 82. Alien was in 79 and made 80 million. The Duelists was in 77; Box Office Mojo doesn't list it, but it did star Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel. It was his debut, but had far more high profile actors than a debut by you or I would. Why? Because he had been directing television since 1965. Ridley Scott was not a nobody. He had been working for nearly 20 years and had one BIG hit. Incidentally, Alien was made for 11 million. You don't give 11 million to a nobody, not today, and certainly not in 1979.
All of this is you doing exactly what you said you didn't want to do...you're comparing apples to oranges here. Now, I'm not saying one is LIKELY to make money on an indie picture...or a hollywood film or what have you.
You are absolutely RIGHT about Riddley Scot!
MY BIG MISTAKE! My appologies for ignorance and selective memory, and laziness to double-check the facts.
RADIO and Orson Welles notions could be a questionable debate which I will not get into, but since neither is important to the reasons why I asked questions 1/ 2 / 3 so I will not reply to your replies but rather give my own answers to my questions because I belive it's important that I demonstrate to you that I am not talking about apples and oranges because I am not
COMPARING DIRECTLY the two, bath rather trying to learn about one from the knowledge I have of the other:
My Answers
Questiion 3:
Up until early 2000s, Coppola has filed for his 7th bankruptcy!
Question 2:
Spielberg used money he made in early successful movies as a capital to start making a profit through REAL ESTATE biz in NY and D.C. area…
Question 1:
3 mutual point for these movies are:
-All of them are GREAT MOVIES that regardless of the people's taste and opinion about them, can be considered as artifacts of human spirit and civilization, their life progress or regressions and ultimately proofs of human existence, meaning they are -ART pieces!
-All of them were considered financial failure to the point that their own producers tried to sabotage them
-All of them are still making serious money on the market, despite free downloads, torrents, rapidshares, cheap illegal DVIX copies sold on the street etc…. People still gladly buy DVDs of those movies, rent them on netflix or even better, go to movie theater to see them (last screening of Brazil that I attended was saturday's midnight theater screening and it was SOLD OUT). Now try to find any product that is commercially exploitable 20/30/70 years after it's production! Not even german cars can d that
The only product that can do that is -ART!
ART is the ultimate commercial product!!!
Or to quote somebody who said it before me:
"ARTIST is the ultimate businessman because he is actually manages to sell you things for big money that you don't even need! "
In other words, if you wanna be commercially successful, you best bet is trying to crate art!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshL
if you're making the movie that you want to make, your odds are much slimmer than if you actually study the market you are aiming for and make something that THEY want to see, and market it to them.
If you really wanna be studious and analyze market, human's taste, what people like or dislike, you will find that actually they have no problem spending money on ART but do not want to spend money on the movie that is made "by the rules" of many instructional books ("from reel to deal" and such) in order to please them!
People wanna be moved, they wanna be surprised, they wanna be engaged, they wanna be educated, they wanna be intrigued… they want -ART!
Why all of this is important?!
Because you're all talking about he movies like they are stocks and bonds rather than - ART pieces!
I can understand that Hollywood Studio executives talk about movies in that regard because after all, non of them went to artschool nor filmschool but rather Yale/Harward biz school, but at least you, who are filmmakers with or without schools it doesn't matter, should have more self-respect and dignity towards what you do, and start treating movies like a "live being" rather than plain fact in the stats of stockbrockers! Like a ART!
Why is this so important?!
Because you will never have problems finding investors if you know what is that you do, if you honestly tell them why do you need money and especially if you manage to explain them that what you do is not biz/industry/trade specultions but rather ART madness!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk
I read your posts, in full, and found them to be rather negative. Not sure how you think they are anything otherwise. I'm not trying to get into a flame-war with you. I just wanted to temper your negativity with a little hopefullness. You did, after all, write this:
I didn't read anything wrong, or take it out of context. You stated, quite clearly, that you think I'm doing it wrong. I'm telling you that what you think is "right" doesn't work for me, on many levels. I'm not interested in doing what you think is "right", I'm perfectly capable of choosing the path that is best for me, and I'm not embarrassed to admit that it is the path of a dreamer.
No worries I am not accusing you for anything, I am just wondering am I too cofusing for others to read because of my elaborate writing....
It's funny what you say, because I consider myself to be a dreamer!?
OK, I get the point that my comments might be more on a negative side, but even if that's the case, it's not me who is negative:
I am just accurately interpreting the situation on the field! Situation is negative!
If experts are saying that 5 out of 6 movies in Hollywood is actually loosing money (and hope for a big successful smash hit to recoup the investments for the losers), why blaming ME for negativity?!
Why not instead be open enough and say to yourself:
Yeah, it sucks! I better stop dreaming about it the way Idid so far because one day I might find myself on elm street and the day will be friday 13th.
I am sorry, but I can not and don't want to nourish anybody's insecurity of their vanity not warm up the false hopes of neither my fellow filmmakers nor film investors just so that fragile ad sensitive souls of fellow filmmakers don't find my behavior be to be too discouraging for their goals!
Quite contrary:
I am trying to help everybody reach their dreams by pointing out the fact that if they dream of big money in indie movies biz, and especially if they talk their investor into those dream, the only dreams that that will come through are their own - NIGHTMARES!
If I say that indie movies is not money making biz and that lying to your investors based on the premise that it is, how exactly am I becoming partypooper?
Huh, this is getting too implicated and it seems that other people take my writing more on a personal level…I guess I will have to reset and start from the beginning, since otherwise we might end up in dead end street of mutual accusations!
Hmmm….
Nobody finds it useful to answer the questions under numbers 4/ 5 / 6 / 7/ 8 ?
You realize you're picking directors and situations that you think are proving your point but ignoring people that do make a film product for profit.
Many people don't like Michael Bay movies because they consider them to be the opposite of art. I like many of them, but regardless, he's pushing a money making/movie making formula that generates a lot of money for him and everyone involved.
There are lots of people making money making films an carrying films that turn a profit. You quoted me earlier and stuck your words after it making it sound like I agree with you. I don't. You do need to make a GREAT film on the independent level to turn a profit, any most that do independent film don't do it at that level for one reason or another. I actually think you're better off making a product than a piece of art.
Another example that's just the opposite of what you're saying, Rodriguez made Spy Kids. It's not exactly an art masterpiece, but it had a specific audience, could be made on a small budget and he did well off of it.
By the way, the reason people think your remarks are personal is because when you quote someone and add "are you serious!!!???!!!???" and a list of soapbox arguments on why that response is wrong in your eyes, it's a personal comment.
I respect your viewpoint. I actually agree that you'll never make a $ on a feature. I will though. I'm hitting it from a business side first, making money on shorts and developing the team for an indie feature and learning and polishing and refining along the way. Others can too.
I also never said I wanted to make huge Hollywood profits... I just want to make my mortgage payments. I pursue my craft for the same reason people whittle... but whittling is cheap, just need a knife and some wood from the backyard...
Filmmaking is expensive and I want to continue doing it. I can't move for various reasons and have tons of resources here. I have a perfect place to start a small business. Building films that people are willing to purchase and turning a small profit to push the company forward. I don't need to be universal, I'm happy to sell through direct to DVD markets and make small targeted films that people would buy. I don't need to make art, nor have I ever pretended that I did. Read through many of my old posts...
I'm a craftsman... If I do my job really well, the audience will tell me whether they think it is art. I HATE being forced to watch ART.
I like movies that are purely escapist entertainment... so do lots of other viewers, those people speak with their wallets and are the reason that the big summer blockbusters make larger profits than the smaller work of love pieces. I don't believe that the level of depth you're proposing is necessary. I think the raw numbers show that to be true. If I were going for laurels, it would be a different story, but again, I'm more concerned with sustainability in the small scale rather than the large scale fame and fortune model.
If I succeed in that model, the audience will tell me with their pocket books and I'll accidentally hit the bug fame and fortune model, but making it not necessary to success is the trick to the sustainability in this endeavor. Smaller investment levels, reducing risk and building self-sustaining investments in the company. After 4 or 5 small profits, the profit can be reapplied to the next film. If we target our audience well, we should be to the point where we don't need to bring money in anymore making the company jump forward with each not having to pay back investors from that point forward.
smaller scale that you seem to assume. I don't want to replace hollywood here in MN, that's impossible - we don't have the year round weather for it... but a 5-6 month shooting cycle with the rest being or pre and post would allow us to do enough projects to get to our "go" line faster... in under 5 years, so we can hit our sustainability within 10.
The difference with us is that I don't care what our next project is, so long as it meets an audience need. I'm passionate about making films. I think that comes through in my work - I don't necessarily need be connected to the content the way that artists making important films do. For me, it's about telling the story in the best way I can. I've never written a script and don't have any plans to do so.
That's pretty cool. I still feel I want to do my script, but am open to reading others and see if I can find one that is more 'escapist' or 'passable' to the audiences that like microbudget films. So what are some movies you guys have made for profit then?
There's something I am trying to understand about the target horror audience. I haven't seen a lot of microbudget horrors, but from the ones I have seen there is a lot of gore. A rather unnecessary amount to the point where it gives the movie an exploitative feel, rather than relying on deeper scares. If I do a horror or slasher, do I have to have gore nowadays for that audience, or can it be like the original Halloween and have almost none?
Last edited by harmonica44; 01-11-2012 at 11:44 PM.
My group is just moving into that part of our journey/plan. I'll gladly keep you up on the progress We're in post on our 2 most recent projects as we shake out our new crew (many from our last crew graduated college and moved away) and figure out the logistics for larger projects that are not for time constrained competitions. The results are very promising I'm excited to show you the results there. Our new crew is wonderful and full of great input. They are passionate about the work and all pushing forward toward the common goal of doing this for a living.
Linear Mode
