My parents are trying to seize control of my money, but...!

Post Reply New Topic

IIRC you were doing rewrites cos people didn't find the premise enjoyable or believable. If you're doing rewrites, it's not actually done, is it, since you're still editing it and doing re-writes. Be patient. It pays off.

Putting half of the money is definitely *more* reasonable, and also a good idea. The money isn't just "frozen" - it accrues interest so when the time is up, you have more money than what you started with. The more money you put into the account, the more money it earns over time.

What many movie makers do is look for sponsors to help finance their projects. Also, some studios DO buy scripts instead of completed movies. That's how the Matrix movies got made. Indie movies are called indie movies cos they're made independently, rather than with the help of a professional production company.

Other people will always tell you to follow your dreams, even at all costs - it's not their money on the line so it's easy to say "go for it!". Also, going for your dreams doesn't mean throw caution to the wind and dive in blindly. Most startups fail cos they don't fully understand everything that goes into what they're trying to do, and next thing they know, they're flat broke and have nothing to show for it. Finish your script, use a small amount of money, and maybe find a few people to help you film a few scenes. Spend very little in doing so. Once you have some material, then you can use it to try to get *others* to help you fund it (crowdsourcing, gofundme, etc). By then, maybe your saved money will have earned some more money, and you can reinvest the original amount back into savings, and use the earnings to move your movies along more.

Doing it that way ^ you still get to actively follow your dream, with a plan too, but with significantly less risk of losing ALL or even MOST of your money. I feel it's a safer compromise. If you dump all of your money into a movie project, and it doesn't work out, you'll probably regret it even more. Follow your dreams, but don't run in blindly. As long as you keep moving forward, however fast or slow, you're still making progress. Rome wasn't built in a day.

"Either do it or don't do it, there is no sort of doing it" is black white / all or nothing thinking. There is ALWAYS a middle ground. It's just a matter of finding it. I'm "sort of" building a race car - I'm not spending ever dime I earn on it, I save up amounts and spend when I can on what's most important at the time. It's taken me 10 years so far, but I'm still doing it, making it happen, just not all at once right away.

I am glad you did not get upset at my response. I mean well, even though I know I can come off as heavy handed with my advice. Business and finance is part of what I'm in school for, so I like to think I know at least a little about how to do financial planning and risk management. Splitting the money is a good idea. I'd not do 50/50, but more like 75% in savings / use 25% on filming, and budget it out slowly. Find ways to save money instead of spending money.

As far as that movie I mentioned, it was many many years ago, and I honestly don't remember the title - just that it was a B grade cinemax type movie that never went to theaters, and it was terrible.

Well by frozen, if I do what the parents say the money will not be withdraw-able for some time, and I need it to be able to pay everyone.

As for looking for funding, other filmmakers I know and have worked under have tried that but in the end, they were not able to get enough and still had to use a lot of their own money, so I wanted to do the same and have money ready to go, in case I couldn't get the funding.

And that's why you split the money - so some of it is spendable. Some of it should be unspendable, so you don't spend it. Don't spend what you don't have. Don't spend everything. Budget it wisely.

In general, if people are unwilling to invest in a project, that usually means it's not a good idea. It's easy to point at the lucky ones who funded their own projects and did succeed - but that's cos you never hear about the people who invested and lost. Cos they lost. Long shots like that are rare. Extremely rare. Play it safe.

In all fairness, if the film makers you worked with were good at what they did, they probably wouldn't have so much trouble getting funded. Read up on how the matrix got made. The wachowskis went to get the matrix produced, but the film company had never heard of them, so told them go make your own movie first so we can see what you can do, then we'll decide. The wachowskis wrote a script in a week (not the matrix, a different story, just for this purpose), filmed it with a basic digital camera, on locations they didn't have to pay for, using volunteer acting talent, and did all of the film editing themselves, at almost no cost. They showed the studio, the studio was impressed, and gave them a green light to start filming the matrix on the studio's dollar.

The water is often deeper than it seems. Things are usually harder than others make it look. Good luck with your film making. Reasonable goals, and careful planning, can go a long way.

Oh okay thanks, but I thought that the Wachowskis were not able to get any funding for their first movie and had to use their own money though. The movie you are talking about is Bound (1996), and the budget to that was $4,500,000 estimated. That is way over what I was going to budget. But that certainly is not what I would call almost no money. They still had to spend a lot to get their first movie made by themselves, without funding.

Maybe I've got my stories crossed - but the idea is still the same - there are ways to do things on a low budget or no budget, that can be used to convince people to invest in future projects with larger budgets. If you got a handycam and a few volunteers, and filmed a few scenes for basically the cost of the camera, then you have something to show other people to get them interested.

The point is to do a smaller thing to get people willing to invest in a bigger thing. The small thing should be simple, and cheap, but represent where things are going, and the basic idea of the project. It's also a way of gauging outside interest in the project, without having to invest in it too deeply.

Even in the specific case of the wachowskis, their investment in a $4.5 mil movie snagged them the opportunity to get a production studio to pay for their next $60 mil movie for them. You can do the same thing, but smaller. Spend a couple hundred dollars to make some simple scenes, then use those scenes to try to allocate funds / gauge interest. If people aren't willing to donate to your movie, that might be cos they don't like it, for whatever reason. Not every movie is a winner. It happens. If that's the case, that's a good clue that maybe this particular movie may not be the right one to make. OTOH, if people DO like what you film, and they DO donate, then you might have a lot more money to work with, w/o having to eat into your savings too deeply. Either way, you've still accomplished something, and have an idea of what to do next, and you don't have to throw a bunch of money at it to make it happen.

Okay thanks. I've worked with volunteers in the past though on projects, but I was told to hire professionals, cause they are much experienced. I was told I get much better actors and a much better DP for example, if I actually hire, compared to just choosing from whatever volunteers are available, and I was told that if I want the movie to be good, get people that are good, even if it means paying. Do you think that's true?

For example, I've helped two filmmakers with their feature films. One film had a budget of $480 dollars, and one $60,000 dollars. The 60K one has the much better acting, and much better cinematography and set design to it.

Big budgets don't guarantee great movies. A higher budget can present more opportunities, but it doesn't guarantee success. Waterworld and The Postman had massive budgets, and were terrible movies. Ghost Dog was filmed on a tiny fraction of that budget, and is one of my favorite movies. Many cult classics follow the same pattern. Mars Attacks had so many A-list actors in it, it makes my head spin, and it's still one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. So no, I don't think better actors and bigger budget necessarily make a movie "better" on it's own.

Keep in mind, you can pick what volunteers you use - you never know, you might find a really good performer. And the inverse, just cos you've paid for acting doesn't mean they can perform what YOU are looking for, or guarantee that their acting will actually be any good. You're paying for the hope that it will be better. Don't just pick the first person that applies. Try people out. Pick who you want. You do have that much choice in the matter. It's your project.

Even though money can technically make things "better" due to greater opportunities available, that doesn't mean that anything that spends less will be less good as a result. People can recognize the difference between a bad actor, and bad writing. A bad actor in a well written part is more important than a good actor in a poorly written part. Actors can be changed in a heartbeat - but the writing is the heart of things - if that's bad, you're not going anywhere, no matter how fancy the actors and sets and effects are.

It's like with video games. Old video games with lousy graphics can still be lots of fun. But the best graphics in a horrible game that's annoying to play, doesn't change the fact that it's still basically a horrible annoying game. The first Ghost in the Shell game for playstation is a perfect example. Nice graphics, and the original voice actors - but it was frustratingly impossible to play, and it bombed hard as a result.

Or cars - an old looking plain-jane car that runs perfectly is worth more than a shiny new fully modified car with no wheels, that doesn't work, and doesn't run.

Think of the WORST movie you've ever seen. Now consider the fact that someone though it was a good idea to make it, and paid money to make it. Even though you find it to be the worst movie ever. Would more money have made it better? Or would it still have been a terrible movie, that spent even more money? More resources can make a good project better, but they can't make a bad project into a good one.

Start simple - before you go dumping money into a project, see if the project is worthwhile. If your writing is good, people will see that, even if it's being acted poorly - and the fact that you bothered to film ANYthing shows that you are actually motivated to follow through and grow the project.

Be patient. Plan carefully. It pays off.

Oh okay thanks. Well let's say I try to make the movie for say only 10K. I keep running into things where the costs keep adding up to a lot more. Not just paying everyone, but also permit and insurance and all that. I just keep failing to keep the costs down to such a low price, and not sure what other people do to the cost that low. I've tried asking other people who have had more experience budgeting movies, and even they said it can't be done for that low, if I want it to be good.

So am not sure how to do it for much lower.

Many times, when someone says something "can't" be done, what it really means is, THEY haven't been able to do it, so they *assume* it can't be done. Also consider that the film industry is incredibly competitive, and many people may not actually be trying to help you in good faith. Even friends can get weird when competition gets involved.

Consider this - Blair Witch Project was filmed for $60K, but made almost $250M in theaters. Clerks was filmed for $27K, and made almost $4M. Slacker was filmed for $23K, and made $1.2M. Paranormal Activity was filmed for $15K, and made almost $200M. Primer was filmed for around $7K, and made almost $500K. El Mariachi was also filmed for $7K, and made over $2M. So it IS ABSOLUTELY possible to make a low budget movie, even one under $10K, AND have it be popular, and profitable. They are rare, but they exist. So it can't be impossible, since it's been done.

Also consider, who says you have to film the WHOLE movie all at once. Spend $5-10K filming a few scenes, rather than the whole movie. Rather than filming at places where you need a permit, film places where no permit is required. Avoid situations that require insurance. Don't hire so many people. Or, don't hire at all. Do as much as you can yourself, and get volunteer help when possible.

And making only a few scenes rather than the whole movie gives you a chance to let people screen it and see how they feel. No sense in filming an entire movie if people aren't even into the idea. Believing that the reason people don't like a movie is cos it didn't have a big enough budget is a lie that people tell themselves so they don't have to admit they didn't write a good movie. A good story can compensate for bad acting and a low budget. All the money in the world can't save a poorly written story, without fixing the story.

Oh okay, thanks, but if I don't have a whole movie, that I cannot market the movie then? If the rest of it doesn't get made, then I feel it would be all for nothing, even more so, compared to making the entire thing, cause then at least you have a whole movie to market.

Some locations I can get away with, without permits but the thing is, I was told by other filmmakers I worked with, that if you do not have permits and insurance, there is more of a chance that you will not get distribution as a result, if they are right.

And even if I make it for the price of The Blair Witch Project, that is still close to the budget I already have, which would be around $90,000 if you adjust for inflation more, so is that budget not so crazy of me then, since my budget is similar to those?

Literally anything can be marketed. It doesn't even have to physically exist. Bugatti marketed the Veyron LONG before they'd ever even built the thing. It's colloquailly called "building hype". If you have a scene, you have something physical you can show other people. You can ask them, Do you like what you saw? Want more? Care to donate? You mentioned earlier that studios are only interested in buying complete movies - that is absolutely not true - many studios will buy a script or a story of they feel it has merit. If nobody wants to buy it, that's also a sign that people may not be interested in the story, and to try a different plan.

"I was told" is the last advice a person should ever follow. I don't know these other filmmakers, so I can't speak for them, but I do know that you can never know for sure whether a person actually knows what they are talking about, unless you also know about the thing as well. I can't speak for their film making ability, but I can tell you that they have some very poor ideas on managing finances. I would bet that they don't actually make as much money as they think they do. I'm not trying to speak poorly of them, but the advice they seem to be giving you doesn't seem financially sound. I would tell them the same thing's I'm telling you.

Rather than focus on the biggest budget of Blair Witch, read further down the list to the other successful moves that were made for 10K and less, and made a ton of money. Read the other movies. Look more at the fact that El Mariachi was filmed for $7K and made over $2M. Paranormal Activity was filmed for $15K and made almost $200M, almost as much as Blair Witch. Don't focus on the bigger budgets. Focus on the smaller budgets.

Also, that's not how you use inflation. All you've done is arbitrarily inflate your budget for no reason. 60k in 2000 is equivalent to ~90k today's money, but that doesn't mean you need to spend that much more to get the same results. It's correct math, applied incorrectly. There are other relevant factors that need considering before one can use the time value of money in a meaningful way.

Look at the Low Budget ones. El Mariachi. $7K. Made $200M. Think more like that.

"If they are right" is a pretty big "if". That feels like a made-up rule. Permits and insurance serve a specific purpose that are directly related to the making of a movie, not the distribution of a movie. Permits are usually for one of several purposes - to obtain permission to be on private property, to obtain permission to show the property in the film, or if special services or circumstances are needed in public spaces such as blocking traffic. All of those can be avoided. Insurance is just to cover the production if someone gets hurt, because regular insurance wouldn't necessarily cover the special circumstances of making a movie. If you're not doing anything dangerous, and especially if it's just you and some people you know, who won't sue you anyways cos you're not doing anything dangerous, then you don't need insurance either.

The whole "I need people for this and permits and insurance and all that" is just WAAAAAAAAAY over-thinking things. That may be what is involved in big production movies, but that doesn't mean any and every movie needs to do it that way. Big movies need to do it that way cos they're big. Don't make a BIG movie. Make El Mariachi, or Paranormal Activity.

You and your movie friends seem to have a lot of hard held ideas about what a movie HAS to be, and I can assure you that they really don't have to be that way. It's one thing if you WANT it to be a big glossy fancy movie that is perfect in every way, but it doesn't HAVE to be that to be successful. Saying "I have to do this 100% or ill regret it forever" is black / white thinking. Whether it takes weeks or 10 years to get yout movie made, if it gets made, it got made. YOu succeeded. Adding things like "it has to be done NOW", or "it HAS to be the absolute best movie the first time off" begin to turn your goal into an unrealistic goal.

The more you convince yourself that you HAVE to do it ALL , and NOW, the more compelled you will be to do it, but that still won't make it a good idea. You're "building hype" in your own head, to dive in to something you want, because you want it. It's ok. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a normal trait for us. Compulsion. But it's still a good idea to plan ahead, and not act too rashly - the more emotional about the need to do something, the more you should slow down and not jump into things. I've made some of my worst mistakes doing exactly what you are doing. Diving in too deep cos I thought I "had" to do it, and I thought I knew what I was doing.

Never wager everything on a single bet.

Oh okay, well one other filmmaker I know has been able to get funding for his projects so far, so it's not impossible, but I was planning on the worst, in which case I very well might not get it if I shoot scenes before hand. I can shoot scenes beforehand, but still wanted a plan B, in case I didn't get the money.

Also, El Mariachi was shot in Mexico, so they were able to get a lot more more bang for their buck though weren't they? I also considered that option too, and inquired about shooting it in Indonesia to get more bang for my buck, since I have a friend from there, but other filmmakers told me not to, cause the movie would be less marketable with an Indonesian cast and setting they said. I can try to find someone who can help me budget it for lower, just not sure how to get it that low.

That sounds more like justifying what you already want to do, than coming up with a plan-B. Shooting in mexico is not why el mariachi was shot so cheap. That's just an assumption that happens to also fit your position. Desperado was also shot in mexico, but it cost $7M to make. That's a lot more. El Mariachi was cheap cos they made it cheaply - not because it was made in mexico. Paranormal Activity was filmed in San Diego California. Among the most expensive places in both america and california. Primer was shot in Texas, for $7K.

Traveling does not make filming cheaper, it makes it more expensive. Whatever you "save" on filming, you spend more on actually getting there, staying there, getting back, and everything in between. Let go of all that big budget movie talk. It's the main reason you're having problems finding ways to save money. You keep trying to copy the big spenders, and do everything at once, instead of looking at how the lowest budget movies succeeded. Rather than just assuming that elmariachi must have been cheaper simply cos it was in mexico (false correlation fallacy), and then deciding to go film in indonesia based on this inaccurate assumption, do some actual research on how the movie was filmed and what they did. Do some research on how they filmed Primer. Do some research on how they filmed Paranormal Activity. Cheap and successful movies.

Okay thanks, I will research it. I did learn in film school that El Mariachi was only shot for 7K though. I read that the entire sound design in post cause 30 million to do cause they had to do ADR for everything, cause the sound was so bad. Not that I would have that problem I don't think, it's just I feel the budget would be more, if I wanted to do the sound myself, rather than hope a distributor doesn't mind paying for that portion. I will research Primer and Paranormal Activity, and El Mariachi more.

So if traveling to make El Mariachi would have cost Robert Rodriguez more money though, then why did he travel to make then?

When I saw that a good DP is not cheap for examples, where do you find the cheap ones though? Perhaps I am looking in the wrong places... And where do you find location owners willing to forget about permits and insurance, and what if something breaks though, or someone gets injured, and then no insurance...

A better question would be, since travel makes things more expensive, then how much less than $7K would have el mariachi have cost to film, if they hadn't traveled to film it?

Anything you film on your own property does not require a permit, cos you own it, and it's your own permission. Don't do or film dangerous or risky things, and people won't get hurt. Two people in a room sharing dialogue does not typically entail risk of injury. Buy some old junk 2nd hand to use as props and then who cares if something breaks. You owned it, you had every right to break it. Keep things simple so you can avoid situations that involve liability in the first place.

What if, for example, all of the bad guy scenes were filmed via camcorder, like they were documenting their crime spree, so you only saw hints and clues of what was going on, and then you also hear sounds that give clues - and then all the police scenes are filmed as if from a body cam, and the mic is picking up things - same deal there, video plus audio implies whats going on more than actually full frontal showing it. Kinda like Jaws or Alien - most of the movie, you never even see the monster. Or even blair witch, shot like a home movie with vague implications. Present the movie like it's a closed case file, and you're watching archived footage from the actual case, long after it happened. You can "cheat" a lot of effects that way, and when you set it up as archived footage, then you've prepared people to expect "low quality" footage, since it's part of the story itself.

There's plenty of ways you can shave expenses and find cheaper ways to do things. Money eventually runs out - clever lasts forever. Find alternatives, rather than heaving money at problems. So far the biggest issue I see is that people don't seem to care much for your script. No amount of money or effects can make people go for a story they don't like. If people don't like it, they don't like it. That's part of life sometimes. That means it's time to move on to the next project. It's not giving up, it's changing direction. Make a different movie instead. Being flexible to opportunity is part of life. Still make a movie, just not that one.

That's another reason to NOT spend all of your money in one go. If you spend everything on a single attempt, you don't really get a second chance. If you only spend 1/4 of your money on a project, you can make 4 attempts before you're broke. No, spending more per attempt does not improve your chances of it succeeding - it's just improves your chances of losing money.

Okay thanks. I made some changes to the script based on people's recommendations, and going to shop it around more to others.

It's a horror thriller, and I was advised to do horror, cause they said on a lower budget, horror sells more. The only thing is, is that horror requires some complicated scenes, such as say running away from someone with a weapon, or scenes like that.

I won't be able to shoot the entire script on property that is mine, cause I don't have enough property to cover it all.

The video surveillance footage idea won't work for my story, because characters do things they would not want to film all the time. I tried writing it that way before, but in the end, it just didn't make sense, so I will have to shoot it without the found footage idea. But there are ways I can maybe hide things, without showing everything, but I feel that if I do it too much, it will become apparent to the audience that I am trying to hide something though.