Remaining Budget and filmmaker's right?

[ad2478]

Hi friends i wanted to know about a question. Suppose if i wrote a script and any studio selected it and gave me the required budget to make that film. Suppose after doing all budgeting i say film will be completed in $ 200,000 including all the costs from A to Z. Later on due to efficiency i save any amount from that $ 200,000. Suppose i am able to save 10,000 now what does the customs of trade say? that will be the amount which i will have to return it or will i keep that amount without telling the studio because the deal was made for 200,000 SO what will happen of that remaining $10,000 ??

Any idea? what does custom of the trade say?

 

[directorik]

Of course that depends (as always) on the contract. There
is no "custom of the trade". Each project has it's own,
unique contract.

The issue with your scenario is your use of "will i keep that
amount without telling the studio". You, the producer, will
not be able to not tell the studio. The studio that gave you
the money will require a full accounting of every single
penny spent. But you also say, " the deal was made for
200,000" so if that IS the deal (contract), that you
get a check for $200,000 and the studio is no longer involved
then I guess you can keep the $10,000. I guess if you can
then make the movie for $100,000 you can keep $100,000.

You can see why a deal like that is not likely to happen. The
studio will still control the project and the money.

 

[ad2478]

directorik Thanks for the information. Well i know Pro houses keep control on budget. But when we do any project we get payment at each level and at every level some amount is kept extraa for safety measurements so at the end that amount can become a big amount like $ 10,000(in my example) . More over if we go with effecieny at every stage it can also be cost effective. Suppose if we had to shoot 5 scenes in a shift but getting luckier if we shoot 7 scenes [the numbers are just an example dont take these seriously ] so this way if we continue to work effeciently we can save some extraa money at the end.

But the clear thing is that if any such amount saved, will go to film maker because the deal was for a figure of $ 200,000

Am i right ?

 

[countevil]

Keeping the $10,000 to me would seem wrong to me.
The money was allocated for making a film, not to go into the pocket of the director.
Either you should put the money to good use on the production of the film or give it back. If you're going to keep it, you should share it between people working on the film.

But then I have no experience so maybe directors do this kind of thing all the time.

 

[ad2478]

I dont think it is unethical or bad. No matter it is Business of film making (at the end thats too a business) every one tries to work with effeciency and save the cost. It is simple. Try to keep the actual budget lower then the expected one without compramising on quality. Few might get hurt when i say FIlm Making is business. But i dont mean that it isnt an ART. I am talking about general people and general filmmakers who take it as business also

 

[Brooksy]

I would take that extra $10,000 and film a special scene for the movie and/or trailer. It may surprise you and become one of your favorite scenes (Look up Dead Alive by Peter Jackson. It's under trivia.)

 

[ad2478]

Brooksy Can you provide the link of scenes of which you gave examples?

 

[directorik]

You don’t think it’s unethical or bad to use some of the budget
for personal reasons. Why not raise $300,000 and then make the
movie for $120,000 without compromising on quality? That way you
keep $180,000.

You may be surprised to hear that every investor wants to keep
control of the budget. After all it’s the investors money - not
yours. If you, the producer, saves money for the investor you
don’t get to keep it. It’s the investors money, they keep it.

Of course, if you, the producer, can get an investor to agree to
invest $200,000 and NOT care how you spend it then you can keep
anything you don’t spend on the movie.

As you say,filmmaking is a business. The people investing money
see it as a business. They want to know how every single penny is
spent. An efficient filmmaker is a good thing. Investor love a
filmmaker who tries to keep the actual budget lower than
expected. But not so the filmmaker can make more money - they
want to save money.

But if you feel it’s okay to not spend all of the money on the
film and keep the balance for yourself, will you tell the
investors that up front - before they give you the money? Do you
think it’s good business to say, “Any portion of the budget I
don’t spend on the movie I will keep myself.”? Does that seem
like good business to you?

 

[ad2478]

As directorik said: You don’t think it’s unethical or bad to use some of the budget for personal reasons. Why not raise $300,000 and then make the movie for $120,000 without compromising on quality? That way you keep $180,000.

I think you people are taking me wrong when i say i am saving $ 10,000. Please try to understand what i mean. I never said i am intentionally saving this amount. The budget i propose will be very balanced for the film but you people are forgetting the element of effeciency. I mean to say that i will be using all the money but due to effeciency if i save $ 10,000 then can i keep that? The advice you are giving me is unethical because in that i will be proposing an extra budget specially to keep that in my pocket which is a wrong way. Because if the film can be made for $ 120,000 and i am proposing $ 300,000 then it obviously mean i am looking the extra money for my pocket. But my question was If i show efficiency and then save $ 10,000. It means that i am not intentionally asking for extra $ 10,000. I just saved it due to efficiency. There are differences in my point of view and your point of view. I hope i have made it clear?

As directorik said: But if you feel it’s okay to not spend all of the money on the film and keep the balance for yourself, will you tell the investors that up front - before they give you the money? Do you think it’s good business to say, “Any portion of the budget I don’t spend on the movie I will keep myself.”? Does that seem like good business to you?

Well again you have miss understood me. The method you are telling me is nothing but will be cheating to the art of film making and thats what we all know . Please try to understand what i say. When you are posting message you are making up the mind that i will be intentionally and from the beginning thinking to save extra amount. Which i never mean. What i meant was I am going fair (which obviously i love to) with the investor. I have no plan in my mind to save extra money or to fool the Investor. I have decided that i will be making the film for $ 200,000. Now suppose we had to work for 7 shifts (at first stage) according to my plan. But due to good actors, plus good weather (as the days have very strong sun light in our region and people prefer to avoid out door shoots in these timings for shoot, but suppose luckily monsoon starts or weather gets cloudy while we are shooting and this becomes an advantage making us able to wrap up 2 or 3 shifts before ) and due to these factors I get able to shoot soon and save money . I was talking about that saved money.

I never said "Suppose if I plan to fool the investor to hand over him a $100,000 film for $500,000. Obviously this will be called cheating"

 

[directorik]

I am not misunderstanding you.

You are asking if you save $10,000 do to your efficiency as a
filmmaker do you get to keep the money.

The answer in no. You do not.

If you save money due to good weather, good actors, good
scheduling and efficient filmmaking the money you save goes back
to the investors. Just like you, I am talking about that saved
money. That saved money in NOT your to keep.

Unless the investors have a contract with you that states any
money you save do to effenceny is yours to keep.

And I can tell you as a producer that I would never sign a
contract like that with a filmmaker. I want to work with an
efficient filmmaker not to give HIM extra money, but to save ME
money.

 

[lux]

You're not doing the investor/s an extra favour by being efficient with their money and then pocketing the difference, their soul interest in the film is to make a profit, so of course they wouldn't be impressed if your keeping some of the films money for yourself. Your intention to try film under-budget or not is also irrelevant, its the act of deciding to keep the money that matters.

You should want to develop a good reputation as a producer, so give the remaining of the investors money back, and let them see that your an efficient producer.

Also if you finish shooting with 2 or 3 shifts unused, I find it hard to believe there isn't at least a couple of shots that could be re-shot on one of those scheduled shifts.

 

[indietalk]

1. We are at the store.
2. I ask you to buy me a six-pack and hand you $20.
3. You purchase said six-pack for $8.99.

4a. You walk out and hand me the beer.
4b. You walk out and hand me the beer and the change.

What do you do?

 

[ad2478]

directorik:
Thanks for the reply and understanding me in right way. I was actually confused because when the contract is made for $200,000 and at the end some amount is saved where it will go because the contract was for $ 200,000. Anyways things are clear now.

As you said Lux:
I find it hard to believe there isn't at least a couple of shots that could be re-shot on one of those scheduled shifts.

well your thoughts might be right . Actually number of shifts in our region are always more than in West because for around 8 months we have to live with hard sun light and it means if there are out door day shoots then you are left with very small time like in morning from 5 to 7 and in after noon from 5 to 8. So we normally have bigger amount of shifts suppose if in west we can film a scene in 1 shift then in Pakistan it might take 2 shifts easily due to hard light. It becomes very hard for DOP to handle it. And if the weather is good we can easily save 2 to 3 shifts.

I personally experienced it while i was making the last project for media production course. For 2 days we didnt worked at day time because there was too much of hard light at a place and trees were making hard shadows and all this on cam was looking horrible. After 2 days we got lucky enough and clouds took over and we did 40 % of the shoot in 2 days. Other wise the project was looking impossible at the given time.

 

[ad2478]

Option 4b obviously

 

[directorik]

As I said, if that's the contract - I (the investor) hand you (the
producer) a check for $200,000 and I walk away, then I can
see you keeping anything you don't use for the film for yourself.

But you aren't going to see a contract like that. I (the investor)
am going to keep very close accounting of all my money. And
I'm going to encourage you (the producer) to make the best
possible film in the most efficient way possible. And not so YOU
(the producer) can keep my money.

Let me ask you, Abdeel:

If you are given a budget of $300,000 and due to your efficiency
as a filmmaker, good actors plus good weather and excellent
scheduling you manage to shoot the movie in five days less than
you originally thought all without compromising quality and you
save $100,000. Do you think you should be able to keep the
$100,000?

 

[Zensteve]

4c , obviously.

Get the 20-spot, buy the beer, walk back outside, flip the owner the bird, then run like hell.

I now have a free 6-pack of beer and $11.01 in change - which is more than enough for another 6-pack when I get thirsty again. Maybe enough for a cheap pack of cigs, too.

Dang! Do I have to do all the thinkin' around here?

 

[ad2478]

Let me ask you, Abdeel:

If you are given a budget of $300,000 and due to your efficiency
as a filmmaker, good actors plus good weather and excellent
scheduling you manage to shoot the movie in five days less than
you originally thought all without compromising quality and you
save $100,000. Do you think you should be able to keep the
$100,000?

Well practically speaking its impossible

 

[indietalk]

I have a better analogy.

Your boss sends you to the office supply store to buy paper. You use a coupon and save him $2. Basically what you are asking is, do you get to keep that $2. The coupon is what you are call efficiency. No, it is not yours. You don't get paid extra for coming in under budget!

 

[indietalk]

4c , obviously.

Get the 20-spot, buy the beer, walk back outside, flip the owner the bird, then run like hell.

I now have a free 6-pack of beer and $11.01 in change - which is more than enough for another 6-pack when I get thirsty again. Maybe enough for a cheap pack of cigs, too.

Dang! Do I have to do all the thinkin' around here?

4d.

and run.

 

[directorik]

Well practically speaking its impossible

I understand that. So IF you could save $50,000 of
a budget of $300,000 by being a very efficiant filmmaker
would you keep the money?