The probability of failure

[Mark B.]

I've been thinking about the numbers, and they don't add up. 2000 people with Red1's, 2000 people with movies to push, and only so many conduits to get those movies in front of the general viewing public.

So the odds that I will succeed financially with my own independent movie are very very low. What is everyone else thinking about their probability of success? Am I the only pessimist in the queue?

Any others here, new to the camera business, figured ways to earn money with their camera? I'm looking for something to minimize the financial loss when my movie efforts crash and burn. I know a lot of people talk rentals, but I don't see that as being as lucrative as imagined, what with the huge competition of all the other camera renters out there. Weddings and Events aren't much of an option either, what with only having one camera.

[jaadgy akanni]

Well my friend, all that pessimism is already a bad start. Get rid of it. Stop looking ahead with a negative attitude. Just take your camera, start shooting and see where it leads you.
I for one know that if only one among us achieves significant success, that'll be me. I'm a total amateur when it comes to operating cameras and lighting, etc., but I consider myself a great writer, a great storyteller and I'm very confident there. Although the only directing I've done so far has been for music videos, I know I'll do great with actual movie features. I'll probably hire DP's to shoot while I write and direct, but in the mean time I'm learning all I can about camera work and all the technical stuff I can, 'cause I'm sure there'll be scenes so artistically personal to me that I'll have to be the one doing the shooting at times.
BTW, there's never any probability of failure when you're doing what you love. Remember that the fact that you're doing it is success itself.

[Joel Kaye]

I've been thinking about the numbers, and they don't add up. 2000 people with Red1's, 2000 people with movies to push, and only so many conduits to get those movies in front of the general viewing public.


I'm pretty skeptical too - but those numbers aren't as pessimistic. Figure 6,000+ features get made one way or another each year (pre - RED). How many of those will be profitable? Not too many. LOTS of movies that get distribution don't return a profit to the filmmaker.

So what do you do if you're not already in a position to get a favorable deal with a distributor before you begin? Spend as little as possible on something as marketable as possible. Imagine you've got to sell your movie yourself and make your money back. Could you do it? If not, what makes you think a distributor will be able to?

OTOH I heard a horror movie coming out called "The Signal" (I think) was made for under $20k on a XLH1 and sold for 2 million. Every year a few people win the movie lottery... but I know a lot more people who've spent well into the six figures and can't make their money back on reasonably well done shows.

You just have to make a superior product. It ain't easy. I'm guessing there are more big league baseball players than profitable filmmakers. Those are the odds. But some will be successful... the best ones. It's very SMART to analyze the business before you decide which movie to make and who to cast (and how much to pay for them).

[Paul Hazlett]

it has always been an uphill battle selling movies. for every Blair Witch there are thousands of movies that tank. Jaadgy is right, if you dont believe in the product don't start it.

I am a bad guesser at what other people will pay to see, so If I were to make a film I would really have to believe in the script and my ability to bring it to life.

The number of outlets for films are growing daily and with the advent of superfast broadband you might not need to sell your film to a distributor.

can you say Itunes movies?

[David Cubbage]

I agree with Jaadgy; you have to totaly believe in yourself if you want success. We are all newcomers at some point in our lives and most people learn by experience and making mistakes. All the top film makers were once newbies to the industry at some point. It is never too late to learn especially with all the new technology out there to help us.

Yes, it is a lot easier to fail than be successful and yes we all fail sometimes but if you think you are going to fail you have less chance of being a success.

Apart from the necessary talent and skills, and you can learn skills, this business is all about taking chances and a lot of luck. However, taking big chances early on can be risky. Start small, make a few shorts; enter them in small festivals; that way you will get constructive criticism and praise when it's deserved. If your work is worthy it gets shown to an audience. Work on the mistakes and build on your strengths. OK, you don't make any money but it's a great way build a portfolio and your skillset. Before you know it you might get a few small paying customers who have seen your work at some festival and like what they saw.

There is no such thing as overnight success stories. A lot of hard work preceeds success. There are however a lot of self made success stories; people who believed in there own ability to succeed. But don't underestimate the value of teamwork; if you lack the confidence to get there on your own, find a like minded soul or souls and work together on projects; sharing costs and problems. Brain storming is a great tool to use in developing ideas. That's what the industry is all about; groups of talented people coming together on one project. There are so many aspects of making a film; I use the word film as anything regarding recording visuals on any medium for what ever purpose.

I am telling you this because I believe anything is possible if you have self belief and passion. I was once an engineer who dreamed of working in films. At the age of 40 I gave up my job and made armour for re-enactment because reenactment was the nearest thing I could get to the type of films I liked. One day a guy came into my workshop and asked me if I ever thought about making armour for film? To cut a long story short within six months I was working on the film "Gladiator". Since then I worked on most of the big epics making armour and suddenly, at the age of 59 I have sold the business and set up a film production company making my own films. Will it be a success? I don't know, but what the hell, if you don't take chances you'll never get anywhere.

[Richard Andrewski]

Failure is only giving up. You can't fail if you don't quit.

You will encounter problems along the way and if you don't have the vision, passion and drive for what you're doing to get through all the issues then you should be doing something else for sure. It's all about vision and keeping your eye on the end goal even when present circumstances don't appear to be going well. You have to be very skeptical about what you see around you sometimes. Almost taking the attitude: "My eyes are deceiving me. I just need to double check that I'm still on course for my vision.

Thomas Edison took 10,000 tries to get the light bulb and when asked why he didn't give up with all those failures; he said he didn't consider them failures--only examples of what not to do.

Read about people like this. George Lucas comes to mind as a particularly more appropriate comparison. Anyone that thinks the original star wars was easy should go back and see one of the docs like "Empire of Dreams" for example. Lots of problems. He was facing a tremendous uphill course.

But vision and keeping eyes on the end goal got him through. And look what he achieved with his passion for storytelling. He didn't really ever let tools be an issue in telling what he wanted either. In fact, he changed our industry in several domains with his vision about making storytelling not so limited as it was before. I'm sure many told him along the way that this or that wasn't possible but he refused to believe it and kept going...

[Jaime Vallés]

RED won't make your movie sell, any more than shooting on 35mm will.

On the other hand, a killer screenplay told through compelling imagery and great acting WILL find an audience, REGARDLESS of what you shoot it with.

Bottom line, don't buy a RED camera (or any other camera) if you don't have something good to shoot. I'm actually glad my camera was delayed until December. It will give me time to finish the killer screenplay. :devil:

[Shawn Nelson]

I firmly believe that your 'probability of failure' is based on whether you have a model of sustainability or of a one-shot chance. Can you keep making bad movies until you make one that is successful? If so, then you will make it eventually. But, if you are putting all your odds on one glorious attempt, then the odds are severely stacked against you. I am buying Red because all the money put into Red represents the same amount of money that a lot of filmmakers put into their one glorious attempt, only to fail. Whilst I will have the tool (Red) to repeatedly make films until I succeed.

Don't set yourself up for failure, set yourself up to have as many chances as you need to succeed. Like CoolLight's example of Edison needing 10,000 attempts to get the bulb, what if he had not had 10,000 opportunities?

[donatello b]

perhaps it is all in how you look at it ..
Sundance film fest must get 1500-2000 movies submitted .. they have approx 160 slots open .. so 160 movies will be chosen .. now out of those 160 i would guess 30 are from mini studio's and might have some distribution in place by the time they screen at Sundance .. every year you hear that maybe 2-6 indie's ( from nobody's) strike a deal ...
so one can look at all this as i don't stand a chance or one could look at it as my chances are pretty good ( or to shorten all this - is the glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full ) .....
now i have never submitted a movie to Sundance .. if i ever do i think my chances are pretty good ...

[GlennChan]

Not everyone with a Red will use it for making feature films... see Gibby's posts on EFP (most productions being produced are EFP and not targeted towards cinemas).

[Cam Crowley]

"[QUOTE=Lowkus;65620]I've been thinking about the numbers, and they don't add up. 2000 people with Red1's, 2000 people with movies to push, and only so many conduits to get those movies in front of the general viewing public."




At a guess most people with a camera on order WONT be buying the RED to produce their own cinema release movies. If they are banking on the camera to make their directorial dreams come true they need a serious reality check.

Most people (myself included) will be doing what they have always done when they get their RED - using the best tool available to deliver to clients what they are paying for.

So rather than assume we'll be seeing 2000+ RED shot feature films I would bank on seeing a lot more TVCs, Corprates, Music Videos, and all the other stuff that pays most of our wages shot using RED before anything else.

My thoughts anyway!

Cam

[I Bloom]

I honestly don't think you should buy a RED unless you have established income already from buying, using and renting cameras. It doesn't make sense to me to put that money upfront if your goal is to write and direct your own movie unless you have a long track record of returns from movie distribution. That's like putting the cart before the horse.

I would suggest spending a fraction of that money on renting a RED during the brief time that you will be shooting, and putting the rest of the money into the rest of your movie. The camera is just one variable, by no means is it responsible for success or failure.

I am buying a RED, but I'm doing so because I'm a cameraman whose carreer is at the level where I am paid to shoot movies, but below the level where productions don't care about whether or not I have a camera. I have targetted a few markets where I know there is interest in renting this gear and my goal upon purchase will be to first and foremost pay back the liability I will incur. I can do this as a DP, or as a AC/DIT who also provides the service that a rental house does.

I strongly encourage you to consider a business plan that allows your RED to pay for itself and then to pay for your movie.

Best of luck,

IBloom

[Steven Parker]

I am buying a RED, but I'm doing so because I'm a cameraman whose carreer is at the level where I am paid to shoot movies, but below the level where productions don't care about whether or not I have a camera. I have targetted a few markets where I know there is interest in renting this gear and my goal upon purchase will be to first and foremost pay back the liability I will incur. I can do this as a DP, or as a AC/DIT who also provides the service that a rental house does.

Same here. Even if you get just the most basic package, a RED is a serious investment for any filmmaker. I make my living as a DP so one, my Red should pay for itself; and two, it will hopefully open a few doors that normally would have been closed to me because I've never found a camera worth buying that I could actually afford. You have to look at your finances - if you can swing it, great. But understand that buying a camera may not be the best way to spend your money if you are actually focused on directing.

Having said that, I have to say also that positivity makes a HUGE difference in your success. Run the numbers, write a business plan, look at alternative distribution models... mostly you see an uphill battle to financial and professional success. Work on your script, choreograph some scenes, find the music that will complement your shots... and you will see that you MUST make your film and that it will be important.

It's kinda like Danny Aiello says in 'Jacob's Ladder'

When it's your time to go, if you're not ready, you'll see demons trying to rip you apart. But if you've made your peace, you'll see angels ready to take you to heaven.

Go to heaven, bro!

[Joel Kaye]

But understand that buying a camera may not be the best way to spend your money if you are actually focused on directing.


I'm wondering if a whole new breed of director/shooters is coming. There are already a number of established directors that shoot their own stuff. Peter Jackson grabbed one of the RED's for his 10 minute short.

I guess if you're a director that loves to shoot then it could make sense. That's my line of thought anyway - shoot as many jobs as I can to generate income and keep active with an eye towards my own movies. If the depreciation on RED is less than rental fees then it makes sense to own IF you've don't need the money you spent on RED for something else.

Get 4 guys like that together who rotate directing and shooting over 4 movies during a year and you've got 4 movies done with 4 cameras available for each. Hmmm... there's probably a business model in there somewhere.

[Priyesh P.]

I'm not fixed on the "magical sucess" story like with blair witch or so.
I'll get the Red for everything I can think of doing, may it be music videos, shorts, commercials, features or anything else. I'll take any chance to shoot just because I love it. Film business is not a gamble to hit the jackpot, in the first place it's a sort of art form, in the second just another type of work and (at least to me) at the last place something to become rich with. Do it if you love it and as long as it doesn't make you poor. Maybe the big money will come, but don't get fixed on that, that's when things get depressing, when dough is everything you're after.
Life is unpredictable but I believe you can control it's direction...

[Zakaree Sandberg]

i agree with the majority.. Not a great idea if the plans are to break into directing. Great idea if your plans are to break into cinematography.. even if your not established as a dp, Red is a great tool that will last a long time.
I even heard of one guy on here who wants to break into ACTING and is buying a red because he thinks this will be his ticket.. YIKES!


BUT on the otherhand.. BUY A RED NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE... lets get red more business

[Mardi_Gras]

Echoing what most of you guys have been saying, I believe one must have a plan as a basic, for whatever endeavor you undertake... moreso in the filmmaking business. If you're buying the camera to "belong" or in other words "break into" the industry, then your priorities are misplaced from the start. Talent, skills and a killer script will get you a place into some film festival or two... take it from there. That's one plan.

[Jason Francois]

Get 4 guys like that together who rotate directing and shooting over 4 movies during a year and you've got 4 movies done with 4 cameras available for each. Hmmm... there's probably a business model in there somewhere.

Interesting Joel. Too bad I can't shoot very well, or I'd be in. :)

Moviemaking is not the best way to make a living. As others have said... very few movies ever see the light of day. That's just a simple fact that will never go away. It's as old as the business itself.

Now, it can be profitable, but there are MUCH better ways to make a more reliable living.

I am one of those people that lost six-figures making a movie that got distribution and never saw a dime. It's taken me years to get back in the game, but if my next low-budget adventure should fail, I'll get back in the game once again...because I have to. It's not always about money and is often driven by the demon's in ones brain.

I would rather try and fail, than fail to try. I'd also rather fail over and over again than ever give up.

I would say to Lowkus, that if it's not passion that drives you to get up every time you're knocked down, then movie making may not be the best place to be.

but as zakaree said,

"BUT on the otherhand.. BUY A RED NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE... lets get red more business"

J.

[Sean]

Do more for less, and there might be a better chance on a return on your investment. I find a lot of traditional film budgets spend the bulk of money on hiring people to do things: a cinematographer, an editor, a composer, a production designer. If you have the talent, the digital revolution allows you to do most things yourself, meaning you can make a feature film for $10K (Soderbergh agrees with me here, so I'm in good company). If you have a story to tell, then it wouldn't take much to make back your $10K. Check out "The Puffy Chair." Shot on a shoestring by some very talented guys and their friends. I love that movie. They're clearly really smart and creative. It's on most video store shelves.

Then again, just because everyone has a word-processor doesn't mean everyone will write a novel worth reading (let alone one that makes a lot of money). In fact, very very few people can write a book worth reading. Similarly, now that everyone (for sake of argument) can afford a Red Camera doesn't mean everyone will make something as inspired as "The Puffy Chair." Still, there are a lot of other ways to turn your Red into a profitable enterprise other than long-form dramatic filmmaking. But it's probably a pursuit of passion, with a risk of failure, rather than a pursuit which offers some kind of guaranteed job security and cash flow. If you want the guarantee of cash flow, invest in medical school instead.

[Joel Kaye]

I would rather try and fail, than fail to try. I'd also rather fail over and over again than ever give up.

Yeah, I pretty much think if you think you can make a living any other way you probably should. I don't really have any interest in doing anything else - I love being on a set and shooting, I love actors, I love writing. I don't care if I get rich but I'm going to use as much business sense as I can. (other people's money)



Do more for less, and there might be a better chance on a return on your investment. If you have the talent, the digital revolution allows you to do most things yourself, meaning you can make a feature film for $10K (Soderbergh agrees with me here, so I'm in good company).

That idea makes a lot people nervous... most people can't conceive of very many people being talented enough to do that. We'll see. Some types of movies just need a lot of resources - but if the market won't support those budgets perhaps we will just stop making 'em.

[donatello b]

depends on how one defines/looks at success ?

a friend i known since 1980 who has been making films since 1975 ... he hasn't made back any cost on any of them, none has been picked up , he's been homeless for the past 7-8 years , whatever $$ he makes from doing hard manual labor he put's into his projects (just about all projects have been shot & edited on 16mm film) ...his current Doc project was shot 16mm , it was transferred to tape last Feb ... he's learning FCP ... he's hoping to get a 60min rough edit by end of October and whole project finished by end of year ... he enters film festivals and has won some awards ... he considers himself a successful filmmaker ...

[Joel Kaye]

depends on how one defines/looks at success ?

a friend i known since 1980 who has been making films since 1975 ... he hasn't made back any cost on any of them, none has been picked up , he's been homeless for the past 7-8 years , whatever $$ he makes from doing hard manual labor he put's into his projects

You should do a doc on him. Maybe expand it to the Hollywood Dream. It'll probably be the most successful thing he's been involved with.

Have there been docs on all the actors that have their dreams dashed in Hollywood? That would be pretty fascinating.

[Mark L. Pederson]

So the odds that I will succeed financially with my own independent movie are very very low. What is everyone else thinking about their probability of success? Am I the only pessimist in the queue?

I once asked a ROCKSTAR this question - "with so many bands, did you ever worry about failure? Did you ever think you might not MAKE IT?"

and he said "I just knew I had to ROCK"

Financially Successful Filmmakers, Rockstars, Jim Jannard and the entire RED TEAM defy PROBABILITY and ODDS -

No RISK ... no REWARD.

[Priyesh P.]

That idea makes a lot people nervous... most people can't conceive of very many people being talented enough to do that. We'll see. Some types of movies just need a lot of resources - but if the market won't support those budgets perhaps we will just stop making 'em.

I think the main issue with overblown budgets is, that the producers have to make a movie that is as broadly appealing as possible. Stories are getting more and more predictable, characters are of the usual 2D-type and the rest is just smoke and mirrors.
The most inspiring movies and productions I've seen in recent times were the exact opposite. Very little money, but they had fantastic designs and outstanding stories.

[Michael Hastings]

depends on how one defines/looks at success ?

a friend i known since 1980 who has been making films since 1975 ... he hasn't made back any cost on any of them, none has been picked up , he's been homeless for the past 7-8 years , whatever $$ he makes from doing hard manual labor he put's into his projects (just about all projects have been shot & edited on 16mm film) ...his current Doc project was shot 16mm , it was transferred to tape last Feb ... he's learning FCP ... he's hoping to get a 60min rough edit by end of October and whole project finished by end of year ... he enters film festivals and has won some awards ... he considers himself a successful filmmaker ...

I had a friend who was a schoolteacher that did several microbudget shot on video features - investing 7 to 14K of his savings on features that weren't bad for the amount spent but that never went anywhere but a few film festivals.

I also have another schoolteacher friend that spent 10 to 20 days over the past 25 years (and probably 10k or more each year too on, boat, tackle, travel) per year standing in a fishing boat in northern minnesota casting for eight hours a day to catch maybe 30 or 40 muskies.

The filmmaker teacher friend also wrote about 200 songs, probably none of which were heard, except possibly in the school auditiorium.

And I can't sing for shite compared to a professional, but I still like to bang away on my Stratocaster and sing Sympathy for the Devil.

Homeless is a little extreme, but there is still something to be said for making the artistic attempt, if it isn't successful well maybe for them it is more enjoyable and makes more sense than playing golf.

[planet e]

it's all about perception.

is your camera an investment or is it a camera?

if your camera is an investment, then you think in terms of the probability of its success. the ROI.

if your camera is a camera, then you take it out and play with it and have fun and see the world transformed before you.

i am buying one of each. one that i believe will return itself financially to my business. and the other one is for me. no one else gets to touch it or play with it. mine mine all mine. if #1248 doesn't return a dime, but we have a great time together and make some pretty pictures, then i will sleep well at night.

but if #1008 doesn't pay for itself in a year or two, several times over, well then, ol' 1008 and i are going to have to sit down for a little chat.....

[mdo]

The odds are not really the issue. Good work will rise to the top. Not to sound like a cliche, but the fact is that you are in competition only with yourself. The only question is can you formulate a solid vision, and can you put that vision into reality?

The industry is starving for good work. Starving!! If that's the case, why does the industry leave so much fruit out on the vine? If you want to understand why the vast numbers of submissions don't go anywhere, just watch some of them.

The hurdle you have to overcome isn't the fact that there are hundreds of people to the left and right of you. It's the fact that making a film that nails all of the points required is damn tough.

Now, you can look at the "odds" and say, "what are the odds that I'm going to produce something that is suitable for distribution." But that's not really an odds matter either. It's a matter of how much time one spent studying the art and business of filmmaking or how much attention one paid to the fact that making a film isn't a matter of throwing an idea into the air, but more a matter of carefully crafting an idea to hit a bullseye.

The Red will handle one small, very important part of indy filmmaking. When you drag your camera out and shoot your shot, the technology that underlies it facilitates a workflow that will output product suitable for theatrical distribution. That doesn't mean the lighting, framing, scene blocking, acting, makeup, script, etc., etc. will. Just the technology.

This is no small component. Why go through all the work to produce a suitable film and lay it down to an inferior medium?

But the real challenge is the same challenge that has existed all along. Can you make a good film.

Again this is damn tough. But there is no answer to this question beyond simply jumping in and taking it on. Just work like a dog and don't ever assume you know anything for sure, always be willing to accept input, and figure out how to weed out the good info from the bad. Bring onto your team as many people with proven competence as you can. Hire a cinematographer unless you, yourself, are one. Get your script reviewed by competent professional script consultants and pay them. Learn about the industry and who is going to want to see your film and how much distributors are likely to pay for it. Treat it like a business and carefully fit your art into that business and you'll have the best shot at succeeding.

[krd]

Learn about the industry and who is going to want to see your film and how much distributors are likely to pay for it. Treat it like a business and carefully fit your art into that business and you'll have the best shot at succeeding.

Unfortunately, filmmakers or producers who approach the medium "like a business", but don't have the resources to compete with mainstream commercial cinema by hiring stars, etc., tend to lose every dime. They make under-budgeted movies with the usual commercial characteristics, but no commercial value. Audiences can get the real thing (from Hollywood), for exactly the same price. Why pay for the cheap imitation? Even worse are the Hollywood/indie hybrids, which are artifacts of the financing process, rather than a rational attempt, however flawed, to serve a market niche.

I count 14 or so filmmakers who, in the last 25 years, established varying careers for themselves with low budget, self-produced movies. Virtually none of those of efforts would have looked like a reasonable investment prospect. Some would have been downright insane, from an investors' or marketing perspective. And many of these films could have just as easily have disappeared without trace. There was nothing inevitable about these successes. Many of these successes are unaccountable, even after the fact.

Similarly, "quality" is a hopelessly loaded term in this business. Some of the finest "no-budget" American features have never been distributed, while people like Kevin Smith and Ed Burns, who no one would put in the Pantheon, have national reputations.

In a word, look for justice in this medium, and you'll go mad....

[mdo]

Unfortunately, filmmakers or producers who approach the medium "like a business", but don't have the resources to compete with mainstream commercial cinema by hiring stars, etc., tend to lose every dime. They make under-budgeted movies with the usual commercial characteristics, but no commercial value. Audiences can get the real thing (from Hollywood),for exactly the same price. Why pay for the cheap imitation? Even worse are the Hollywood/indie hybrids, which are artifacts of the financing process, rather than a rational attempt, however flawed, to serve a market niche. I count 14 or so filmmakers who, in the last 25 years, established varying careers for themselves with low budget, self-produced movies. Virtually none of those of efforts would have looked like a reasonable investment prospect. Some would have been downright insane, from an investors' or marketing perspective. And many of these films could have just as easily have disappeared without trace. There was nothing inevitable about these successes. Many of these successes are unaccountable, even after the fact.

You're acknowledging that it is possible to start a career with a low budget, self-produced film. That's great news!

Filmmakers get into their positions through a lot of different routes. Some start as actors. Some as writers. Some in TV. And some by just starting to make their own low-budget films. Dov Simens, who teaches first-time filmmakers, says if you want to get the money to make a $2 million film, make a $200K film. If you want to get the money to make a $200K film, make a $20K film. You've got to start somewhere. So if a person hasn't already connected as an actor or a writer, etc., why should the person assume that he cannot do it as a low-budget filmmaker?

Every investor on the planet knows that indy films are probably the worst form of investment. It is broadly, generally known that money put into an indy film is almost certainly lost.

The only relevant question is whether or not, by intelligent assessment of the circumstances, the chances of success can be improved. I believe that, for the most part, the failure of films is not a mystery and that studying the area and competently applying the data learned can be of enormous benefit.

So despite the fact that the challenges of indy filmmaking are great, it's possible to:

1. Establish that you can actually complete a film, and thereby start building your career.

2. Possibly hit a niche and produce a film like:

American Desi (2001), made for $250K and earned $903K at the boxoffice,
or:
Better Luck Tomorrow (2002), cost $250K and made $3.8M at bo,
or
Lovely & Amazing (2001), cost $250K and made $4.2M at the bo,
or
Tadpole (2002), cost $150K, made $2.9M at bo,

3. Or hit the jackpot with a film like:

Open Water (2003), cost $130K and made $30.5M at bo.

The point is that it CAN be done. And it's not a roll of the dice. The product that is produced is fully under one's control.


Similarly, "quality" is a hopelessly loaded term in this business. Some of the finest "no-budget" American features have never been distributed, while people like Kevin Smith and Ed Burns, who no one would put in the Pantheon, have national reputations.

In a word, look for justice in this medium, and you'll go mad....

There are reasons why films fail. Those reasons can be known. You're correct that they're not always related to the quality of the film. You can guarantee failure of a fantastic film, for example, by placing it on a shelf and telling no one about it. Or, if you make a fantastic film that no one wants to see, there's not much you can do about it. That film is going to fail, even though its "quality" is excellent. Or it could be a great film that wasn't properly cleared, so that it's impossible to get errors and omissions insurance on it. Sorry, man, that film is dead. I find it very hard to believe that a quality film that fills an existing need and has no fatal flaws has been passed on by someone who could have used it.

I agree with you that justice may be hard to find in this business, but I think you're more likely to go mad by assuming that it's not attainable.

Mike

[krd]

Mike,

Nobody's denying that that low budget films can make money or lead to productive work, even if the budgets of most of the movies you cite are beyond the resources of most individuals, one of them ("Tadpole") featured a major star, and none succeeded because they were cinematic landmarks (putting it politely).

Clearly, there is no one answer, anything can happen (though we are talking about "probability" here!) and people who deserve "success", small or large, have been known to achieve it. But when you say

it's not a roll of the dice. The product that is produced is fully under one's control

my head goes into a loop. You may be right in a very limited sense, but there's so much else in the mix. For most serious filmmakers (real or just pretentious), the question is, do I have any hope of successfully realizing the film with my own money? If not, can I reasonably expect to find adequate financing, short of robbing a bank? If so, am I prepared to spend years looking for that financing? And, finally, if my film does get made, well or imperfectly with the resources at hand, what are its chances of getting distribution, paying back the investors or even receiving festival exposure?

"Fully under control" doesn't mean much, when these questions are in play, apart from trying to ensure that the project in question isn't fundamentally worthless from the start. But that question also runs in a circle: everyone thinks he's making a masterpiece with marvelous commercial prospects. Those of doubting temperaments tend not to make movies. And no one in this business has a proven record of predicting indie film success, including filmmakers who succeed once (but not twice).

Perhaps more to the point, if the process were as rational as you make out, Hollywood films would always make money -- the MBAs in the suites, with limitless market research, would never miscalculate. Instead, about 6% of feature film production pays for the remaining 94% of the failures.

Pre-judging the arthouse market, where films must have at least some non-commercial characteristics to succeed commercially, is even more difficult. Just look at the Sundance Dramatic Competition -- millions down the drain every year, and most of these film are "professionally" produced, by people who should know better (that they don't is a discussion for another day).

As for retaining one's sanity in the movie business -- I'd say that's a lost cause, whatever you do.

[mdo]

KRD:

Hollywood is made of dreams. What are the chances that a girl with no legs below the knee and only two fingers on each hand could become a concert pianist?

And yet this girl pulled it off:
http://dopejam.multiply.com/video/item/6

If she asked someone for the odds of succeeding, she would have heard a far more depressing reality check than has been presented in this thread.

I don't disagree with anything that you have said, with the exception of the idea that competition has any bearing on success as an independent filmmaker. It's not competition. It's whether or not you can produce a great flick. I know your earlier post indicted that you regard Ed Burns as somewhat less than a stellar filmmaker, but his Brothers McMullen cost $23K and made $10 million. If a filmmaker can't afford at least something close to $23,000, then I agree with you, it may simply be impossible to make a decent film. But the mystery of the success and failure of film has more to do with talent than anything else, which is why, by the way, the suits that hold the purse strings misfire so often. Their talents lie in other areas than the art of filmmaking. Another reason for misfiring on big budget films is committees making decisions -- the zebra, of course, is a horse designed by a committee.

I just don't buy the idea that because so many other people make mistakes in this area a person should consider that it tells him anything at all about himself. The high failure rate simply provides a powerful caution that a lot of people who thought they had done enough work actually had not. So a new filmmaker who thinks he's got all the bases covered would do well to humbly retrace his steps and see where he can improve the product. The numbers tell us that almost certainly, when you think you're done, you're not. When you think your product is ready, it isn't yet. When you think you have all the creative talent you need on your project, you probably don't.

A story that thrills audiences features a person who rises above insurmountable odds to do something amazing and wonderful. That's the story of low-budget filmmaking.

We may never come fully to an agreement because we're both correct in the details, we just have a different view on them.

The thread was started with a question about the odds.

The answer is that if one decides on the basis of the odds, he will not go into low-budget filmmaking.

If he decides on the basis of his own stubborn bull-headedness and determination and confidence in his own ability, he might.

At that point, all we can say is, "We wish you success."

[M Most]

Dov Simens, who teaches first-time filmmakers, says if you want to get the money to make a $2 million film, make a $200K film.

I'm all for dreams, however......

Dov Simens has never, to my knowledge, actually made any film, be it for $2, $200k, or $2 million. You can say anything and get paid for it if for some reason people believe you, even if you have no record of actual accomplishment, and even if what you say has been proven wrong over and over again. Just ask Dick Cheney. I'm not necessarily comparing Dov to Dick Cheney. I'm just sayin....

[krd]

MDO,

We could go on forever, which is pointless, but I'll take you up on one matter, which indicates how deeply the mythology can run in this business.

The Brothers McMullen. First of it all, it wasn't made for $23K. Burns sent a rough cut to Sundance, which accepted it. That, in turn, lead Good Machine (James Schamus/Ted Hope) to oversee post-production and take producing credits, with money from Fox Searchlight. So we're already closer to $100K (and maybe more), and professional support, and professional promotion at Sundance, before we even contemplate a commercial release.

Second: it was a major miracle that Burns not only got into Sundance, but won the prize. It happens, but that expectation is no basis for a rational business plan, as you advocate. Today, the film would almost certainly end up in the reject pile.

Third: the film grossed around $10 million, but it was Fox Searchlight's first acquisition and the company wanted a success. Word on the street is, Fox Searchlight spent about $10 million on marketing, which is plausible. The film was highly promoted -- lack of which tends to doom indie efforts (they last one weekend).

Fourth: Burns clearly doesn't have any particular understanding of indie film, because he's bombed ever since. If he had wisdom, it's long gone now. This doesn't say much for the "rational approach" argument.

If all this sounds like a brief for despair, it isn't. Anyone who wants to make films should, and all the rest be damned. You may get lucky like Ed Burns, or succeed one way or another thanks to the excellence of your film. But that doesn't mean we have to ignore the realities of the business.

[Sean]

This link to an article on the making of Greg Araki's, Robert Rodriguez's and Nick Gomez's ultra-low-budget films:

http://www.nextwavefilms.com/moviemaking/abc.html

I would actually turn the whole premise of this thread on its head: the probability of failure might be close to 0% if you're actually really talented. I mean, think about it. Turn back the clock and put Quentin Tarantino somewhere in Missouri and give him a Red Camera. I just don't think there'd be any doubt he'd make a film that would get noticed. He's got it. And as long as he didn't get hit by a bus, he was going to make it happen eventually. It might not have been on the same scale, or as quickly, but his talent would have shone through no matter what. If someone doesn't have the talent, then their chances for failure are greatly increased (but never 100%).

[donatello b]

"The Brothers McMullen. First of it all, it wasn't made for $23K. Burns sent a rough cut to Sundance, which accepted it. That, in turn, lead Good Machine (James Schamus/Ted Hope) to oversee post-production, and take producing credits, with money from Fox Searchlight. "

the POINT is he spend 23k then the project was picked up and if FOX spent $1 or 50mil to get it released isn't the point - 23k out of ED's pocket ....he got a picture deal with Fox for next film ...

"Today, the film would almost certainly end up in the reject pile."

i don't think so, it might not WIN.. i don't think it would go into reject pile ...

"Fourth: Burns clearly doesn't have any particular understanding of indie film, because he's bombed ever since"

how does one measure success or bomb ?
he's done very well financially and he's still producing and directing ... so i'm not seeing the Ed "bomb" ...

the realities of the business is they don't really care if a movie is good or bad - bottom line is can they make $$ off your project ( not break even or make a little $) ... so you can either make a movie that you think will make big $$ or you make films the way you want ... either way they may never see the big or small screen ...

[krd]

I would actually turn the whole premise of this thread on its head: the probability of failure might be close to 0% if you're actually really talented. I mean, think about it. Turn back the clock and put Quentin Tarantino somewhere in Missouri and give him a Red Camera. I just don't think there'd be any doubt he'd make a film that would get noticed.

I believe Q.T. did do some 16mm stuff -- and it was pretty terrible, by his own account. Have you ever tried to direct unskilled or inexperienced actors, particularly with extended dialogue scenes? That's what Q.T. would have had in Missouri (or southern California, for matter, on a very low budget). By contrast, Reservoir Dogs had capable stars and plausible production values, and Pulp Fiction was a studio picture (albeit a "cheap" one), with even bigger stars and better production values. We can't know what these films would have looked and sounded like if he had made them for $23K, but I can guess.... It likely wouldn't be pretty.

That aside, any number of filmmakers have made promising feature films, and still disappeared. It's easier than you think to sink without trace.

Donatello -- you're right that for $23k Ed Burns hit the jackpot, which is all that matters, but it was a one in a million occurrence, would almost certainly not happen today, the thing didn't actually make money for the distributor, and none of this good fortune hit Ed Burns because he made a great film. If miracles like that are necessary, then the business is even more hopeless than I'm contending here.

In the sense that Ed Burns continues to get his films financed, you're right again: he's a success. But that only shows how irrational the business of film financing is. He gets money because he's a minor celebrity and his name has commercial value. The movies he proposes to make are largely irrelevant to his investors.

But, in the end, who cares? This is all talk, nothing more. You live an individual life, not a statistical one. If you want to make that movie, make that movie. If you fail, it won't kill you.

[mdo]

I'm all for dreams, however......

Dov Simens has never, to my knowledge, actually made any film, be it for $2, $200k, or $2 million. You can say anything and get paid for it if for some reason people believe you, even if you have no record of actual accomplishment, and even if what you say has been proven wrong over and over again. Just ask Dick Cheney. I'm not necessarily comparing Dov to Dick Cheney. I'm just sayin....

Dov Simens has stated that he has made several dozen films in the role of production manager and other roles dealing with finance and other functions unrelated to the creative aspects. He has also stated that he is recognized as a bondable production manager for purposes of obtaining a completion bond. I have no reason to doubt what he has said. If there is information to the contrary that I should be aware of, definitely let me know.

Dov makes no bones about the fact that he has no talent on the creative end. He tried once and got nowhere. He only teaches the technology of completing a film, and he makes it clear that the talent of making a good film he must leave in the hands of the filmmaker.

However, there is a considerable body of knowledge involved in successfully completing a film, and that is the valuable contribution he has to offer. From that perspective, my impression is that he's got real-world experience that would give him an insight into how making a film in one budget range can be of benefit toward obtaining a larger budget.

Does what he said conflict with what you've seen?

[mdo]

But, in the end, who cares? This is all talk, nothing more. You live an individual life, not a statistical one. If you want to make that movie, make that movie. If you fail, it won't kill you.

Right on. That gives it the proper perspective.

[mdo]

This link to an article on the making of Greg Araki's, Robert Rodriguez's and Nick Gomez's ultra-low-budget films:

http://www.nextwavefilms.com/moviemaking/abc.html

I would actually turn the whole premise of this thread on its head: the probability of failure might be close to 0% if you're actually really talented. I mean, think about it. Turn back the clock and put Quentin Tarantino somewhere in Missouri and give him a Red Camera. I just don't think there'd be any doubt he'd make a film that would get noticed. He's got it. And as long as he didn't get hit by a bus, he was going to make it happen eventually. It might not have been on the same scale, or as quickly, but his talent would have shone through no matter what. If someone doesn't have the talent, then their chances for failure are greatly increased (but never 100%).

Thanks, Sean! I hadn't seen the article. Great link.

Good point on Tarantino. It definitely would be hard to imagine his work not getting noticed eventually, no matter where he might have started from.

[Sean]

I believe Q.T. did do some 16mm stuff -- and it was pretty terrible, by his own account. Have you ever tried to direct unskilled or inexperienced actors, particularly with extended dialogue scenes? That's what Q.T. would have had in Missouri (or southern California, for matter, on a very low budget). By contrast, Reservoir Dogs had capable stars and plausible production values, and Pulp Fiction was a studio picture (albeit a "cheap" one), with even bigger stars and better production values.

I dunno. I haven't seen his 16mm films. But I bet they're more interesting than most first efforts. But I don't agree that he'd be stuck with crap actors and that would ruin his movie in Missouri. Many directors like to work exclusively with non-actors and manage to get wonderful performances. Again, that's where talent comes in. (Maybe anyone can direct the likes of Jack Nickolson.) And I'm one of the people who really loved Soderbergh's "Bubble." The three leads had never acted before. They were all cast from the one small town in which the movie was shot, and the protagonist had to book time off Kentucky Fried Chicken to be available for the shoot.

[krd]

Many directors like to work exclusively with non-actors and manage to get wonderful performances. Again, that's where talent comes in.

This is going to sound insufferable, but I used to think that way too, and would sagely quote Bresson to doubters.

Then I got some actual directing experience. Under some circumstances, and with the right material, you can indeed get wonderful performances from "amateurs" -- or, more accurately, from non-professionals with extraordinary potential and great on-camera instincts, or just an uncanny grasp of the role. But, trust me, it's exceedingly rare. You can look for months, before finding that person.

And for a highly stylized Tarantino script -- forget it. It would take a miracle to bring that one off, unless you're a ventriloquist. The artless "acting" seen in Bubble won't work for self-conscious, theatrical material. Try to imagine the "real" but affectless characters in Bubble talking like John Travolta, Uma Thurman, and Samuel Jackson. No amount of coaching, cajoling or sense memory is going to create those movieland, stylized performances.

[M Most]

Dov Simens has stated that he has made several dozen films in the role of production manager and other roles dealing with finance and other functions unrelated to the creative aspects. He has also stated that he is recognized as a bondable production manager for purposes of obtaining a completion bond. I have no reason to doubt what he has said. If there is information to the contrary that I should be aware of, definitely let me know.....

Does what he said conflict with what you've seen?

Aside from not revealing any actual credits? Or the fact that he hasn't done anything but teach for the last, oh, 20 years? No.

I have nothing against Dov Simens, but I do tend to doubt the accuracy of those who purport to know about things they don't actually do. And those who claim to have worked on "numerous productions," yet won't reveal any of the names of those productions. And as there have been somewhat monumental changes in the business side of the industry over the last 10 years, not to mention the last 20, I would also tend to doubt the accuracy of what someone who has been out of that industry for almost 20 years has to say about how it works. Anyone who claims to be able to teach you how to "beat the system" should have a verifiable track record of having done it themselves. I don't know of such a track record in this case.

[Joe Carney]

Geez, now that I think about it, maybe this is all just a pipe dream and I should cancel my rez.
No F#ckin way:).

My goals are a little different than what many are aspiring too here at Reduser.
Yes I want to produce and direct. But I also love to take a camera out on a weekend drive and just shoot what ever comes my way. Virginia is a beautiful place to do that.

I've been taking camera courses, not to become a DP, but to learn how to have an intelligent discussion with one.

I've been studying production issues so I can learn to budget a feature.

I've been reading everything I can on lighting and even acquired a few DYI lights for low budget stuff. Not to be a gaffer, but for the same reasons I'm taking camera courses.
I'm almost deaf in one ear, so audio will have to be handled by someone else, but I know enough to know how important it is and what I want, and I can handle a boom pole with the best of them.

I take PA jobs to learn, and I ask questions. It turns out people love to share their knowledge if you're willing to show them respect and courtesy.

I'm reading and learning from Stu Maschwitzs' DV Rebels Guide, because it's fun and informative.
I studying and struggling through Michael Rabigers' "Directing Film Techniques and Aesthetics", perhaps one of the most daunting and demanding books out there on the subject. If I can stick it out and finish it, I'm confident I'll be able to handle just about anything that matters.

I'm studying fund raising techniques.

I want a RED because I plan on making more than one film.

I want a RED because I want professional SAG actors, and telling them I'm shooting with a Red will be the same as telling them I'm shooting 35mm. Yes folks, format does make a difference to a lot of people, even if you plan on direct to Broadcast or Blu-ray or what ever.

I want a RED because it will attract better behind the camera talent than with HDV. Besides considering how shots will have to be set up, there will be no room for the clueless and talentless.

Having professional talent both above and below the line will help greatly in getting financing.

Now if I can only find a writer who will join me in my endeavers.

Preparation, preperation, preparation.

Joe C.

p.s. Yes I'm scared, but that never stopped me before. hehehe

[mdo]

Aside from not revealing any actual credits? Or the fact that he hasn't done anything but teach for the last, oh, 20 years? No.

I have nothing against Dov Simens, but I do tend to doubt the accuracy of those who purport to know about things they don't actually do. And those who claim to have worked on "numerous productions," yet won't reveal any of the names of those productions. And as there have been somewhat monumental changes in the business side of the industry over the last 10 years, not to mention the last 20, I would also tend to doubt the accuracy of what someone who has been out of that industry for almost 20 years has to say about how it works. Anyone who claims to be able to teach you how to "beat the system" should have a verifiable track record of having done it themselves. I don't know of such a track record in this case.

I don't have any interest one way or the other in promoting Dov. but I do feel that I have a bit of a responsibility to offer some bits of info in his defense, since I brought his name up. To that end, I have included some quotes made by others that are posted on his site. Maybe the quotes were uttered ten or fifteen years ago. Personally it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other:

"INSPIRATION…Why waste 4 years at a film school? I got Dov's…Film School, shot 'Reservoir Dogs" [and] "Pulp Fiction," and launched my career as a writer who controls his scripts."
- QUENTIN TARANTINO,
Writer & Director of "Kill Bill"

"ENLIGHTENING…After the 2-Day Film School was given in London, I partnered with Matt Vaughn and Trudy Styler [and] launched my career...Thank you, Dov."
- GUY RITCHIE,
Director of "Snatch,"
"Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels"

"SUPERB…The course is great. I thought I knew filmmaking but my partner-agent had me attend the 2-Day Film School…and now I really do."
- WILL SMITH,
Yes, the Will Smith

"Bad-ass training. Helped me immensely…After one weekend with Dov, my acting and producing career was launched."
- QUEEN LATIFAH
Oscar-nominated actress

"I've produced and distributed over 400 films and have never known anyone who teaches filmmaking better than Dov."
- ROGER CORMAN


I would proffer that if you dismiss someone like Dov Simens as having nothing of value to offer, you might be missing out on important insights that could make your life easier.

But, if you're determined that he has nothing to offer you. That's fine. His advice provided only a minor contribution to the present discussion. Let's move on.