As oppose to wait to get funding from somewhere else. The few people I have talked to where I live seem to all wanna make three shorts, to see if they can get funding. Nothing wrong with that of course, but what if you don't get it and want to make a feature? How many of you have used your own money?
How many of you self-fund your first feature?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
I have.
Before others will invest in you, you must first invest in yourself.
I did it the wrong way with credit card cash advances.
Later, for recent productions, I took out loans from my 401K fund.
Now, I'm flate broke. But, the latest production is showing promise and a tax refund should bring it to the finish line.
Before others will invest in you, you must first invest in yourself.
I did it the wrong way with credit card cash advances.
Later, for recent productions, I took out loans from my 401K fund.
Now, I'm flate broke. But, the latest production is showing promise and a tax refund should bring it to the finish line.
Many use their own money, plus whatever supplementary funds they can scrape up.
Getting funding for a feature from other sources is a matter of experience (people don't give money to newbs), hustle (getting your butt out there to look for, meet with and convince investors to invest) and luck (lots of luck).
There are thousands of terrible self-funded and micro-budget features made every year. They are terrible for a myriad of reasons. Reason one is that the filmmaker is overly ambitious; s/he wants to make "Gone With The Wind" on $1.47. The second reason is lack of preproduction; we harp on this all the time here on IndieTalk - the more limited your resources the more planning it takes to make full use of what you do have. A third reason is lack of talented personnel on both sides of the camera - it's tough getting talented people to commit a large portion of their lives for little or no money and very little likelihood of any return. And then there is the experience level of the filmmakers themselves. Just because you have a script and access to rudimentary filmmaking tools does not make you a filmmaker.
And, of course, if your sound sucks nobody will pay attention, either.
The largest obstacle of all is that no matter how good your project is your competition is big-budget multiplex fare and network TV. Fair or not, that is the standard to which your projects will be held.
Getting funding for a feature from other sources is a matter of experience (people don't give money to newbs), hustle (getting your butt out there to look for, meet with and convince investors to invest) and luck (lots of luck).
There are thousands of terrible self-funded and micro-budget features made every year. They are terrible for a myriad of reasons. Reason one is that the filmmaker is overly ambitious; s/he wants to make "Gone With The Wind" on $1.47. The second reason is lack of preproduction; we harp on this all the time here on IndieTalk - the more limited your resources the more planning it takes to make full use of what you do have. A third reason is lack of talented personnel on both sides of the camera - it's tough getting talented people to commit a large portion of their lives for little or no money and very little likelihood of any return. And then there is the experience level of the filmmakers themselves. Just because you have a script and access to rudimentary filmmaking tools does not make you a filmmaker.
And, of course, if your sound sucks nobody will pay attention, either.
The largest obstacle of all is that no matter how good your project is your competition is big-budget multiplex fare and network TV. Fair or not, that is the standard to which your projects will be held.
Sorry, but I COMPLETELY disagree with this statement. Even if you have NO script and just a friggin' iPhone with which to film, you're a filmmaker. How good of a filmmaker is subjective, but you're a filmmaker none the less.
If you have the desire to make ANY film, and you actually go out and make it, then you're a filmmaker...
I was all my cash. I thought about raising money from investors but I felt like the time, effort and money required to raise money would probably drain all my resources to actually make a movie. Maybe it was the wrong decision. It sure was expensive.
Self funded my first three shorts. Probably to the tune of about $10K total.
My current efforts are all directed towards making money, much of which would be put back to be the seed money (say $20K or $30K) for fundraising a feature.
My current efforts are all directed towards making money, much of which would be put back to be the seed money (say $20K or $30K) for fundraising a feature.
Mostly self-funded feature here. This is why I'm biased against gearheads and tech freaks. Had I listened to any of them along the way, there would be no feature film to point to. High production values can be had without gee-whiz equipment. Indeed if ANYONE questions your format choice, FIRE them from your set, or if you're engaging in casual conversation, walk away, you don't need that neg vibe.
Good luck.
Good luck.
Oh wow, so it's that common. A couple of people I talked to where I live act like they wouldn't make a feature, unless they had funding. And I see what Alcove means, especially about pre-production. I didn't do enough of that on my first short so far, and for my first feature, like in the next two years, I will be sure to have everything ready.
I don't donate to other peoples' hobbies.
I don't expect anyone to donate to mine.
If I was saving starving homeless diabetic Jerry's kids then I wouldn't have a problem asking for money from strangers, but since I'm essentially shooting with a camera instead of a deer rifle - it's a hobby.
When your "hobby" starts funding itself then it becomes an economically viable activity.
I don't expect anyone to donate to mine.
If I was saving starving homeless diabetic Jerry's kids then I wouldn't have a problem asking for money from strangers, but since I'm essentially shooting with a camera instead of a deer rifle - it's a hobby.
When your "hobby" starts funding itself then it becomes an economically viable activity.
Last edited:
I think you should never use your own money on your first feature, use someone else's. It seems, at least for me, it would be a pointless venture to fund thousands of dollars on a feature and get almost nothing in return.
A lot of the "big time" directors almost never personally funded their first features. They built up a good resume of work first before someone trusted them enough with their money.
I just think you shouldn't spend all that money on a first feature that gets you nothing.
A lot of the "big time" directors almost never personally funded their first features. They built up a good resume of work first before someone trusted them enough with their money.
I just think you shouldn't spend all that money on a first feature that gets you nothing.
If you believe that how are you going to convince someone else to give you THEIR money?
The most important bit of pre-production you'll do on a feature is a detailed plan of "Here is how we CAN make money". It doesn't mean we will, in fact there a good chance we won't, but here is a plan for how we CAN.
Here is how much it will cost
Here are some similar movies with similar budgets and a detailed breakdown of how they made money
Here is who I'm marketing it to
Here is how I'm going to market it
Etc... etc....
Without that, nobody is going to give you money in the first place except family and friends.
No, you're right Gonzo. I just meant some people end up spending let's say 10grand on a feature using their own money, and then nothing comes out of it. The films fails and you've now lost that money. Where do you go, what then?
I know I sound negative at the moment but I'm just confused. I, like many of you, am just going around shooting no budget films, building skill. I'm just wonder how you get to the point where you, the filmmaker, start making money for yourself through your films and then get to the point where people trust your skill enough to offer THEY'RE money. its a rough business, I'm learning more and more about it everyday.
I know I sound negative at the moment but I'm just confused. I, like many of you, am just going around shooting no budget films, building skill. I'm just wonder how you get to the point where you, the filmmaker, start making money for yourself through your films and then get to the point where people trust your skill enough to offer THEY'RE money. its a rough business, I'm learning more and more about it everyday.
Wow...
Don't be too surprised, filmmakers are taught my other filmmakers that you aren't going to make any money doing this stuff. Of course ,they're told this by filmmakers who aren't generating revenue OR making things worth money to begin with.
It's a vicious cycle. I may succumb to this way of thinking at some point, that's how horrible this specific diatribe is.
i asked a question because i didn't understand something. I'm just looking for answers. yes kholi I've been told by filmmakers who aren't getting anything done themselves but also from people who have made somewhat of a career out of it. i just wanted a better understanding of how that is done.
Last edited:
Well even if you got a good script that will do something newer and feel it should be made, a lot of low budget film companies don't want to hand out money probably still. I was talking to a someone who I know who is in film school, which I am not, mostly because it would eat up money for a feature.
She said that even though my script is a lot more original and unique compared to most, a lot of people would still not want to fund it, cause in the movie industry people usually fund generic and cliched stories, because those kind are safer, to sell to an audience. I don't know if that's true, just what she told me she learned in film school so far. But that's kind of paradoxical, since it's usually the original movies that stand out more in the end.
Mainly I want my first feature to get some sort of DVD distribution. Some filmmakers starting out, I've heard actually have self distributed their own DVDs at events, film festivals, independent types of markets, etc. Then their films caught on and got picked up by a more commercial DVD distribution company, and got sold in more commercial retails and stores. This would be nice, or at least something to get copies of the movie out there and noticed, besides the film festivals.
She said that even though my script is a lot more original and unique compared to most, a lot of people would still not want to fund it, cause in the movie industry people usually fund generic and cliched stories, because those kind are safer, to sell to an audience. I don't know if that's true, just what she told me she learned in film school so far. But that's kind of paradoxical, since it's usually the original movies that stand out more in the end.
Mainly I want my first feature to get some sort of DVD distribution. Some filmmakers starting out, I've heard actually have self distributed their own DVDs at events, film festivals, independent types of markets, etc. Then their films caught on and got picked up by a more commercial DVD distribution company, and got sold in more commercial retails and stores. This would be nice, or at least something to get copies of the movie out there and noticed, besides the film festivals.
Last edited: