I actually got accused last night by a filmmaker for NOT sending payment. When I said it was paid on September 9, 2009, (Three days after completion of the festival) there was an argument. The filmmaker went on to say other filmmakers he had spoken to, said we couldn't pay our bills and haven't received checks. I know exactly who he spoke to and the quoted person wasn't due a check. Only winners received checks. I also knew who he spoke to from the confidential information that was quoted back to us (by this time my wife Ginger took the phone).
Let it be understood that I paid most of my festival bills in advance and only the hotel, catering, and prize money were outstanding. They have ALL been paid (in full). The Central Florida Film Festival has no outstanding debts and an excess in the bank account to cover the corporate fees, accounting and start up for next year.
It's obvious to me that the check (#1043)was either misplaced by the filmmaker or lost in the mail. I had a return address on the envelope but we never received it. Upon review of the check book, the check in question is still outstanding. All other winning film checks have been received and cashed. I believe the check in question is either on his desk or in the dead letter office (if there's still such a thing). A replacement check will be sent out today and a "stop payment" (costing the festival $35) will be done on the check in question. The ironic part is that I advanced this person $60 (cash), out of my pocket because they didn't have cab fare to get to the airport (they asked and told me the reason). I even wrote a note, included with the final payment citing the advance of sixty dollars and why the check wasn't for the exact amount (in case they forgot).
This is why I am asking my attorney after the holiday, how to either sell or dissolve my organization. Our film festival is a "not for profit, charitable, organization created to advance Independent film in the Central Florida area." We've given it four years and this is the thanks we get. We're a turn key operation, we can qualify for the Academy of Arts & Science assistance program in our sixth year, and we have a following and excellent track record with our vendors. Any interested buyers out there? I'm serious! I will do more for Independent film by returning behind the camera.
In the meantime have a healthy and Happy Thanksgiving.
.....And Cut!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
And of course a retort!
Only two cents? It read like two dollars worth!
The article I referred to was about the BRAD PITTS of the industry. "A-List" actors are actors that are supposed to drive the film to success. It was in the papers and on CNN again yesterday. They had a dollar for salary compared to dollar for box office return. Not good for many major stars (or as the industry calls it "A-List").
I would like to find out which studios you are quoting when you say "on average studios make money?" We've got quite a few film makers out there that follow my blog. Anyone have a success story? Something to share? I believe, there isn't a studio head in his right mind that will say you're film is in profit (unless of course it's a lightening strike). Creative accounting is something every "major" studio has and even a few 2nd Tier Distributors. Every studio banks on a lightening strike. TITANIC (the first $200 million dollar film) in it's own way was a lightening strike. No film had ever grossed over a billion dollars and no man in his right mind would put that in a business plan or corporate projection. HONEY I SHRUNK THE KIDS was a studio film made for about the studio minimum that translated into "a lightening strike." The return on the film was way over expectations. You're right when you say there's no
"Magic Formula." but there is an industry formula and most films attempt to follow that path or they are scooted out the door (lightening strikes excepted).
I agree with most of your statement. However, lightening strikes and the search there of are part of our industry as well. Show me a major studio and I can tell you his most recent buyer or take-over. The films you quote (I guess your favorites, as I quoted mine) were nothing more than lightening strikes too. Kevin Smith's CLERKS was his lightening strike. Funny to you and high grossing to the studio but an Independent film maker just the same. Billy Bob was nothing but a two bit actor before SLING BLADE and like ROCKY for Stallone (one of his lightening strikes) wrote a script to showcase a character they were passionate about.
A good business savvy producer definitely helps but luck and passion should be included in the formula because without a chance of lightening you're just another film! And to think I'm based in Florida, the lightening capital of the world! If there are any other responses or comments, please feel free.
......And Cut!!
The article I referred to was about the BRAD PITTS of the industry. "A-List" actors are actors that are supposed to drive the film to success. It was in the papers and on CNN again yesterday. They had a dollar for salary compared to dollar for box office return. Not good for many major stars (or as the industry calls it "A-List").
I would like to find out which studios you are quoting when you say "on average studios make money?" We've got quite a few film makers out there that follow my blog. Anyone have a success story? Something to share? I believe, there isn't a studio head in his right mind that will say you're film is in profit (unless of course it's a lightening strike). Creative accounting is something every "major" studio has and even a few 2nd Tier Distributors. Every studio banks on a lightening strike. TITANIC (the first $200 million dollar film) in it's own way was a lightening strike. No film had ever grossed over a billion dollars and no man in his right mind would put that in a business plan or corporate projection. HONEY I SHRUNK THE KIDS was a studio film made for about the studio minimum that translated into "a lightening strike." The return on the film was way over expectations. You're right when you say there's no
"Magic Formula." but there is an industry formula and most films attempt to follow that path or they are scooted out the door (lightening strikes excepted).
I agree with most of your statement. However, lightening strikes and the search there of are part of our industry as well. Show me a major studio and I can tell you his most recent buyer or take-over. The films you quote (I guess your favorites, as I quoted mine) were nothing more than lightening strikes too. Kevin Smith's CLERKS was his lightening strike. Funny to you and high grossing to the studio but an Independent film maker just the same. Billy Bob was nothing but a two bit actor before SLING BLADE and like ROCKY for Stallone (one of his lightening strikes) wrote a script to showcase a character they were passionate about.
A good business savvy producer definitely helps but luck and passion should be included in the formula because without a chance of lightening you're just another film! And to think I'm based in Florida, the lightening capital of the world! If there are any other responses or comments, please feel free.
......And Cut!!
Great Response!
From: Alan Whitney - a producer/director in the Central Florida area.
Here is my two cents worth. I do not think there is a magic formula that can be followed. I think that making a movie is an art, but making money on a movie is a business. Writers, Actors, Directors, Set Designers, Costume Designers, DPs, etc. are artists, but need to be aware of the business side of things. Producers need to be astute business people. There are good artists and bad artists and there are good business persons and bad business persons. It seems that most independent filmmakers want to be an artists and most people involved with the film making process do need to be artists. But without a business savvy production, a project is destined to be part of the 80% that do not make any money.
There seem to be many ways to have a successful film – lightning strikes that are unique ideas or unique marketing campaigns (ref: Blair Witch, District 9, Paranormal Activity), big money studio marketing campaigns, big money star power, big money productions, etc. Other than lightning strikes, most of these ways require lots of money. Not all big money films make money, but on average studios make money so there must be something to throwing cash at enough films to get a return. One common element is that for the most part (again, other than lightning strikes), the films that make the money are quality projects - quality writing, quality acting and quality production.
Independent filmmakers have to rely on something else than big money. So the budgetary constraints leave lighting strikes or quality productions of quality ideas. Lightning strikes are like lottery tickets, so the best odds are to make quality projects - with one caveat that if you think you have the winning lottery numbers (i.e. a sure fire marketing idea or a sure fire gimmick), you should go for it.
Quality writing can come from strange places (ref: Juno) and quality acting can be from newcomers (ref: any early Kevin Smith, Richard Linklater or John Hughes film), but a recognizable face will help since they are most likely recognizable because they are quality. A recognizable face to me does not mean that you need Brad Pitt, etc., just someone that people know (ref: Richard Jenkins in The Visitor) Like quality acting and quality writing, quality production requires true artists. The business side of it is finding artists within your budget - after all, Ben Affleck and Jason Lee only got a few dollars for doing Mall Rats and Chasing Amy. It seems that cream has a way of rising to the top.
Crocodile Dundee was a lightning strike that captured the imagination and made a household name out of Paul Hogan - for a short time. Little Miss Sunshine, Juno, Fargo and Sling Blade are great stories that had name actors (even Billy Bob Thornton had done a dozen or more films before Sling Blade, though he was not a big money star yet). Saw was an original idea that was timely (as was Hostel), Friday the 13th created great quality scares using suspense, shock and gore (one of the first to do this to near perfection as was Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street), and Night of the Living Dead was a trailblazing idea (the many versions that followed did not gain the cult status as the original). Although it is common belief that horror films are the most marketable, for the most part it is the truly original ideas and quality productions that make the bigger money.
Anyway, that is my opinion for what it is worth....
Alan Whitney
Here is my two cents worth. I do not think there is a magic formula that can be followed. I think that making a movie is an art, but making money on a movie is a business. Writers, Actors, Directors, Set Designers, Costume Designers, DPs, etc. are artists, but need to be aware of the business side of things. Producers need to be astute business people. There are good artists and bad artists and there are good business persons and bad business persons. It seems that most independent filmmakers want to be an artists and most people involved with the film making process do need to be artists. But without a business savvy production, a project is destined to be part of the 80% that do not make any money.
There seem to be many ways to have a successful film – lightning strikes that are unique ideas or unique marketing campaigns (ref: Blair Witch, District 9, Paranormal Activity), big money studio marketing campaigns, big money star power, big money productions, etc. Other than lightning strikes, most of these ways require lots of money. Not all big money films make money, but on average studios make money so there must be something to throwing cash at enough films to get a return. One common element is that for the most part (again, other than lightning strikes), the films that make the money are quality projects - quality writing, quality acting and quality production.
Independent filmmakers have to rely on something else than big money. So the budgetary constraints leave lighting strikes or quality productions of quality ideas. Lightning strikes are like lottery tickets, so the best odds are to make quality projects - with one caveat that if you think you have the winning lottery numbers (i.e. a sure fire marketing idea or a sure fire gimmick), you should go for it.
Quality writing can come from strange places (ref: Juno) and quality acting can be from newcomers (ref: any early Kevin Smith, Richard Linklater or John Hughes film), but a recognizable face will help since they are most likely recognizable because they are quality. A recognizable face to me does not mean that you need Brad Pitt, etc., just someone that people know (ref: Richard Jenkins in The Visitor) Like quality acting and quality writing, quality production requires true artists. The business side of it is finding artists within your budget - after all, Ben Affleck and Jason Lee only got a few dollars for doing Mall Rats and Chasing Amy. It seems that cream has a way of rising to the top.
Crocodile Dundee was a lightning strike that captured the imagination and made a household name out of Paul Hogan - for a short time. Little Miss Sunshine, Juno, Fargo and Sling Blade are great stories that had name actors (even Billy Bob Thornton had done a dozen or more films before Sling Blade, though he was not a big money star yet). Saw was an original idea that was timely (as was Hostel), Friday the 13th created great quality scares using suspense, shock and gore (one of the first to do this to near perfection as was Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street), and Night of the Living Dead was a trailblazing idea (the many versions that followed did not gain the cult status as the original). Although it is common belief that horror films are the most marketable, for the most part it is the truly original ideas and quality productions that make the bigger money.
Anyway, that is my opinion for what it is worth....
Alan Whitney
Monday, November 16, 2009
I told you so!!!
There's an article in the Hollywood Reporter entitled, "Hollywood rethinks use of A-List actors." You can also find it on IMDB-pro. The article explains, "studios have decided to think twice about splurging on A-list movie stars and costly productions in reaction to the poor economy." It went on to quote box office figures from such films as THE HANGOVER ($459 Million), DISTRICT 9 ($200 Million) and even the new low budget thriller PARANORMAL ACTIVITY ($100 Million) of examples of films made for less money with no major stars that have obtained a large return on their investment.
I've been saying this in my business plan for over twenty years. Constantly both Major and second tier distributors would listen to my pitch or watch my completed film and state "we like it but you need a name to drive the picture into profit." Filmmakers go out, find a star who likes the script, but now your budget has doubled or even tripled because you had to add the additional expense of "Star Power." Now, it takes longer to get to profit. However, when it comes right down to it, the film is either entertaining or it isn't. It doesn't matter who's in it. Was the comedy funny and was the thriller, thrilling?
I went to the movies this weekend and even in this economy the West Orange 5 theater in Ocoee was packed. I spoke with the owner of the theater (Patrick) and he mentioned that "2012" will do quite well and that "DISNEY'S SCROOGE" not so much. "2012" is an effects driven film with John Cusack as the main star and SCROOGE is animated with Jim Carrey. SCROOGE has done in two weeks what "2012" has done in three days and PARANORMAL ACTIVITY has grossed more than the two films combined and I don't even remember the star of that film. It shouldn't take a marketing genius to know to get a film to profit you've got to keep costs down and production value up. If the studios listened to the independent filmmaker decades ago there wouldn't be a slow economy for studios.
My point is --- people are still going to the movies in droves! The good films do good and the bad films tank! The studios have been putting out more bad films with major stars creating enormous budgets and loss. then they toss good money after bad by buying advertising and trying to shove the film down our throats. Studios used to place 35-40 films on a production slate. There is an enormous amount of red tape to get a film "Green Lit" for production. Years ago, independent film makers earned what was called a "Negative Pick up." The studio would purchase the film because they knew it would make money and add it to their distribution slate. "CROCODILE DUNDEE' was made by Paul Hogan for a modest eight million or so Australian dollars. Paramount purchased the distribution rights for $10 million and invested a few million more in prints and advertising and it grossed $178 Million at the box office. No one knew who Paul Hogan was but a year later he was a household name and the studios raked in the bucks for two sequels as well. BLAIR WITCH was purchased for a couple of million and there was another large investment in retouching the film and for prints and advertising. The film was the highest grossing film in quite sometime and still ARTISAN managed to go broke in a couple of years making or distributing high priced films like REPLICANT. Hell, they made a remake of BLAIR WITCH (without the original filmmakers) for fifteen million and lost money! The original grossed over $250 Million worldwide and was made for under forty thousand. Artisan is now part of Lion's Gate, who has created a knack for picking up low budget horror films and turning a profit.
Remember Cannon International with the cousins Golan-Globus at the helm? They made and purchased low end product in the 80s and made a fortune. Once they got the studio mentality and started hiring big box office stars and shifting their business plan they were doomed for failure. Remember PIRATES (1986/Walter Matthau) made for an estimated $40 million and had a box office gross of $1.7 million? How about RUNAWAY TRAIN (1985/Jon Voight and Eric Roberts) made for and estimated $35 million and had a box office gross of just under $8 million? Cannon for years made more money on their low end product line than they did with their high priced, star driven films. Remember SLING BLADE? Who was Billy Bob Thornton until SLING BLADE was released? FARGO, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, JUNO, and don't force me to go down the list of horror films like CABIN FEVER, SAW (original), FRIDAY THE 13TH (original) and George Romero's classic NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.
What I'm really surprised at it that it took the studios this long to make the announcement of something independent filmmakers have know for decades. If you're looking to invest in a film, seek out an independent filmmaker. Take a look at his business plan and roll the dice. You might be surprised at the outcome. People still go to the movies. They rent them online, watch them on the web and even still view them on cable TV.
.....and cut!
I've been saying this in my business plan for over twenty years. Constantly both Major and second tier distributors would listen to my pitch or watch my completed film and state "we like it but you need a name to drive the picture into profit." Filmmakers go out, find a star who likes the script, but now your budget has doubled or even tripled because you had to add the additional expense of "Star Power." Now, it takes longer to get to profit. However, when it comes right down to it, the film is either entertaining or it isn't. It doesn't matter who's in it. Was the comedy funny and was the thriller, thrilling?
I went to the movies this weekend and even in this economy the West Orange 5 theater in Ocoee was packed. I spoke with the owner of the theater (Patrick) and he mentioned that "2012" will do quite well and that "DISNEY'S SCROOGE" not so much. "2012" is an effects driven film with John Cusack as the main star and SCROOGE is animated with Jim Carrey. SCROOGE has done in two weeks what "2012" has done in three days and PARANORMAL ACTIVITY has grossed more than the two films combined and I don't even remember the star of that film. It shouldn't take a marketing genius to know to get a film to profit you've got to keep costs down and production value up. If the studios listened to the independent filmmaker decades ago there wouldn't be a slow economy for studios.
My point is --- people are still going to the movies in droves! The good films do good and the bad films tank! The studios have been putting out more bad films with major stars creating enormous budgets and loss. then they toss good money after bad by buying advertising and trying to shove the film down our throats. Studios used to place 35-40 films on a production slate. There is an enormous amount of red tape to get a film "Green Lit" for production. Years ago, independent film makers earned what was called a "Negative Pick up." The studio would purchase the film because they knew it would make money and add it to their distribution slate. "CROCODILE DUNDEE' was made by Paul Hogan for a modest eight million or so Australian dollars. Paramount purchased the distribution rights for $10 million and invested a few million more in prints and advertising and it grossed $178 Million at the box office. No one knew who Paul Hogan was but a year later he was a household name and the studios raked in the bucks for two sequels as well. BLAIR WITCH was purchased for a couple of million and there was another large investment in retouching the film and for prints and advertising. The film was the highest grossing film in quite sometime and still ARTISAN managed to go broke in a couple of years making or distributing high priced films like REPLICANT. Hell, they made a remake of BLAIR WITCH (without the original filmmakers) for fifteen million and lost money! The original grossed over $250 Million worldwide and was made for under forty thousand. Artisan is now part of Lion's Gate, who has created a knack for picking up low budget horror films and turning a profit.
Remember Cannon International with the cousins Golan-Globus at the helm? They made and purchased low end product in the 80s and made a fortune. Once they got the studio mentality and started hiring big box office stars and shifting their business plan they were doomed for failure. Remember PIRATES (1986/Walter Matthau) made for an estimated $40 million and had a box office gross of $1.7 million? How about RUNAWAY TRAIN (1985/Jon Voight and Eric Roberts) made for and estimated $35 million and had a box office gross of just under $8 million? Cannon for years made more money on their low end product line than they did with their high priced, star driven films. Remember SLING BLADE? Who was Billy Bob Thornton until SLING BLADE was released? FARGO, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, JUNO, and don't force me to go down the list of horror films like CABIN FEVER, SAW (original), FRIDAY THE 13TH (original) and George Romero's classic NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.
What I'm really surprised at it that it took the studios this long to make the announcement of something independent filmmakers have know for decades. If you're looking to invest in a film, seek out an independent filmmaker. Take a look at his business plan and roll the dice. You might be surprised at the outcome. People still go to the movies. They rent them online, watch them on the web and even still view them on cable TV.
.....and cut!
Monday, November 9, 2009
The Circle of Life!
It's been over a month since my last blog and I have much catching up to do. I guess I've got a lot of homework to do as well. It appears as if a group of filmmakers made a movie for fifteen thousand dollars and have almost reached the $100 million mark in domestic sales. I had the same budget for a film festival and lost five grand! How does that happen?
I'm well aware of lightening striking, lottery tickets, even "being in the right place at the right time" and other film miracles but how? In this economy are people going to the movies to see a supernatural film made for $15K? I need answers and I hope one of you out there has one or two. When lightening struck years ago with BLAIR WITCH, I understood. They had a gimmick...the Internet. A marketing tool that wasn't developed and they used to their advantage. The Haxen team from Orlando worked hard to create the story and work the audience at Sundance. They also opened many a door for other independent film makers as they demonstrated that horror still sells worldwide. Sequels aside, BLAIR WITCH should be an inspiration to young film makers everywhere to go and make your film. I've been doing so for years but was inspired by NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. That was George Romero's classic made for thousands that returned millions back in 1968.
Every few years there's a film made that a studio takes a chance on for what it is--Entertainment. I guess the idea is to make movies as a hobby until one is bought, you make millions and then go on to make a living at it. In the 80's things were different. VHS was just rounding into form and Mom and Pop video stores were springing up everywhere. ALL studios and distributors (large and small) would fight for new product. You couldn't make a film that didn't get distribution and a decent advance. Careers were started, scream Queens were crowned and the movie industry boomed. We prospered until BLOCKBUSTER put mom and pop out of business and their relationships with the "major" studios put the Indy film maker scampering to foreign territories to earn a living. Now online distribution (NetFlix) has done the same to Blockbuster. Stores all over the country are liquidating and being boarded up. Talk about Karma! But is Internet distribution really worth a film investor's money? How can we look our investors in the eye and ask for $500K and even attempt to explain how the money will be returned via a business plan?
It's time for me and other independent veteran filmmakers to figure it out and get working. Just when I thought "if I can't make movies, I can always go and work at Blockbuster!" Horror still sells. Obviously people still go to the movies to watch it. Apparently, the studios are wrong and horror doesn't need to be star driven. The films just need to have an original idea and scare the bejesus out of us. Can't talk any more today, I've got to get writing a new comedy. Perhaps I can add a killer ending!
......And Cut!
I'm well aware of lightening striking, lottery tickets, even "being in the right place at the right time" and other film miracles but how? In this economy are people going to the movies to see a supernatural film made for $15K? I need answers and I hope one of you out there has one or two. When lightening struck years ago with BLAIR WITCH, I understood. They had a gimmick...the Internet. A marketing tool that wasn't developed and they used to their advantage. The Haxen team from Orlando worked hard to create the story and work the audience at Sundance. They also opened many a door for other independent film makers as they demonstrated that horror still sells worldwide. Sequels aside, BLAIR WITCH should be an inspiration to young film makers everywhere to go and make your film. I've been doing so for years but was inspired by NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. That was George Romero's classic made for thousands that returned millions back in 1968.
Every few years there's a film made that a studio takes a chance on for what it is--Entertainment. I guess the idea is to make movies as a hobby until one is bought, you make millions and then go on to make a living at it. In the 80's things were different. VHS was just rounding into form and Mom and Pop video stores were springing up everywhere. ALL studios and distributors (large and small) would fight for new product. You couldn't make a film that didn't get distribution and a decent advance. Careers were started, scream Queens were crowned and the movie industry boomed. We prospered until BLOCKBUSTER put mom and pop out of business and their relationships with the "major" studios put the Indy film maker scampering to foreign territories to earn a living. Now online distribution (NetFlix) has done the same to Blockbuster. Stores all over the country are liquidating and being boarded up. Talk about Karma! But is Internet distribution really worth a film investor's money? How can we look our investors in the eye and ask for $500K and even attempt to explain how the money will be returned via a business plan?
It's time for me and other independent veteran filmmakers to figure it out and get working. Just when I thought "if I can't make movies, I can always go and work at Blockbuster!" Horror still sells. Obviously people still go to the movies to watch it. Apparently, the studios are wrong and horror doesn't need to be star driven. The films just need to have an original idea and scare the bejesus out of us. Can't talk any more today, I've got to get writing a new comedy. Perhaps I can add a killer ending!
......And Cut!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)