All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I'm just not sure how useful it is to calculate these kind of things for a the budget of a short.
It's useful in that by knowing to produce product X, which requires parts A B C D E F & G, and knowing that I/you/any other director/producer (d/p) have free-in-cost access to A B C & G, then all we really gotta spend outta pocket is for D E & F. But another d/p may have free-in-cost access to B C D & E, and will only need to pay for A F & G. And yet another d/p may have access to...
You get the idea.
I calculate a bare bones resource requirement cost for the project without any regard for what aspects I can or cannot utilize free of cost, which is different for every d/p, and may even change over time (surprisingly rapidly sometimes) for any given d/p.
It's good to know the "whole cost" or "whole value" of a project.
Quoted Text
I think most directors are creative about getting around these things without spending money.
They are, but creativity still runs up against real-life limits.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
Yeah it can be done... plenty of micro-budget features out there made on less than some use on a short... Of course, I know it's wrong and (lol) we really shouldn't do it, never, ever... but it is possible.
+1 Nailed it.
Is VERY often that way. Is wrong. LOL! But is regularly practiced.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
But still... directors should rely on free scripts more often.
There's no way for a random writer to know what resources a random d/p has access to. The only people that can finance anything a random writer can fabricate probably are well beyond shooting shorts.
My 2 cents? I think more of you oughtta learn how to shoot video with even your cellphones, edit the video with freeware, and develop a greater appreciation for what a PITA it is to organize all the moving parts for a "simple" short.
And I wanna back the truck up a wee bit. There's a world of difference for writing for shorts vs writing for features. For features I whole heartedly encourage and promote pie-in-the-sky writing. But for shorts KNOW that you are writing for a specific market - those with almost no resources.
You have to keep in mind "What kind of person (idiot) has invested thousands of dollars in equipment, cultivated resources & contacts, and is willing to spend a whooooole lotta time to organize/develop/edit/market a short film - but has no story?"
Got camera+equipment+peeps+time. Got no ideas of my own.
I tried filming my own very simple short and I was useless. I need a real cameraman. I can't manual focus or anything, and I was using my kids... it was a real learning experience. I struggled with the most basic of scripts. Just a bullying thing... I had four free actors and I could fit them all in the car, yeah I had to buy ice cream. The shoot actually got ruined by some rude parents showing up thinking they can use the public park too.
I'd like to do it again though. I've got some video editing software. I use Ubuntu so it's Open Shot I've got. To be honest though, using the camera really isn't my thing. I need to team up with someone that can do that. I don't even want to learn it. But I would definitely like to produce one day. I need to learn the ropes first.
But I would definitely like to produce one day. I need to learn the ropes first.
Next producer's rope for you to never forget: KNOW how you're going to make money through distribution before even writing FADE IN.
Because...
"The online video world is not a meritocracy. If we thought this going in, we most definitely know it now. You can’t just put a film online and expect people to find it just because it’s a good film. You need a surge of traffic to get noticed."
You cannot tech your way out of a cr@ppy film. That happens somewhere between FADE IN: and FADE OUT:
Next, this is the path of a screenplay:
Next, this is how your workflow goes:
Sometime this week I'll complete (yet) another spreadsheet displaying the revenue results of limited release films. These are films that have been picked up by a distributor, ones you're likely familiar with, promoted to varying degrees, starring people you likely have heard of, and still - no one gives a sh!t.
It is very very easy to spend money on a film. It is very very hard to make money from a film.
Interesting to me was that the better film, IMHO, brought in less than the other one.
Pia, is it fair to say that genres are what customers are attracted to (the aspect they're willing to commit time or money to) and that content/quality of the story is secondary to that?
This may explain why the "better" film has sold less, all things being equal, such as promotion effort.
PS: And I still bristle thinking about how soon ripped-off torrents of your film(s) appeared. Irritates me to no living end. Big budget films - not surprised. Small indie films? FOR REALLY, PEOPLE? REALLY? @sses.
Pia, is it fair to say that genres are what customers are attracted to (the aspect they're willing to commit time or money to) and that content/quality of the story is secondary to that?
I'm not sure. All I know is that Amazon dropped "the better" film and keeping the other one. Apparently, computers are keeping track of the films and I was told that the one they are keeping has more people watching till the end.
PS: And I still bristle thinking about how soon ripped-off torrents of your film(s) appeared. Irritates me to no living end. Big budget films - not surprised. Small indie films? FOR REALLY, PEOPLE? REALLY? @sses.
After two days of the release, they were available online at 32 different torrent sites. That's why the distributor insisted that no one was given a DVD copy of any of the films. That sucked because that meant I had to pay to watch.
After two days of the release, they were available online at 32 different torrent sites. That's why the distributor insisted that no one was given a DVD copy of any of the films. That sucked because that meant I had to pay to watch.
They must just be ripped straight from the streaming sites then. The distributor may as well have given you the DVD. Idiots.
I tell you what though... it can be a good thing for a small film, even a large film. The reason why is, exposure. If your film is good and people see it, the word spreads and people that haven't seen it now want to see it. Plenty of musicians out there now making their money off the back of free/pirated downloads of their work. We shouldn't forget the role of popularity.
I tell you what though... it can be a good thing for a small film, even a large film. The reason why is, exposure. If your film is good and people see it, the word spreads and people that haven't seen it now want to see it. Plenty of musicians out there now making their money off the back of free/pirated downloads of their work. We shouldn't forget the role of popularity.
+1 Bingo.
How do record producers make money between radio and youtube? Give away some singles to sell a larger album. And some merch. And concerts, which is something filmmaking really isn't geared towards. However, the principle applies.
I advocate planning your films three deep: First film promotes the upcoming second film, second film promotes the upcoming third film, by the time the third film comes out I hope you're already planning on films four, five and six.*
Learnlearnlearn how to keep those shorts budgets super low, write 'em that way, and maybe I might consider producing a few of them **.
* Honestly, this makes selling a film series box set album MUCH easier, anyway. Most of the value comes not from the film itself (get over yourselves) but from the included DVD/BR extras such as interviews and behind-the-scenes footage. You seriously gotta plan ahead waaaaaay further than you'd normally think.
** And if you've been paying attention you'd consider having your short tie in to or promote that feature film you've just completed writing or are d!cking around not completing.
Forgot to include this image of mine right after "You cannot tech your way out of a cr@ppy film." in post/reply 318 above:
Primarily this is a slam against nubes that think that if they just had a better camera... And they actually talk about buying new equipment on their kickstarter/indiegogo campaigns...
No. No, you won't make a better film with "better" equipment. Idiots.
You make a better film somewhere between FADE IN: and FADE OUT: And record good audio. And use some proper lighting.
Ray....I don't care what you write, as long as you include dancing..err...thingys
Do do have some good ones
Oh, I do take on board all you are saying with regard to cost. Makes sense.
However, do you not think a producer/director - say shorts for now - is looking for something that would stand out? If that is currently written with a few too many scenes, a character too many etc he would then use his brain cells to think how could I make that happen? In short, you have to sell you script with the story and the producer has to make it add up. If the story is too far off achievable then it's a no go, but they won't put it down if there is a chance.
The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards. Third - Honolulu Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
If I write a screenplay for a film that I wanna direct and produce (or have sensible expectations that someone else will direct and produce) just... how much revenue should I, could I, estimate that film can bring?
I started flipping over DVDs at the WalMart $5 bin, at the local Dollar General and Dollar Tree stores, and even seeing who was distributing some of the really cr@ppy low budget films I could find available free online to see who were the distributors of these gems.
But those "users" numbers as a metric to judge about how many people had guesstimated seen the film had no context.
How many "uses" are a little, or a lot, or average, for a big budget wide release film (don't really care), or a low budget limited release film (do care), or a no budget (<$1-4million by Hollywood standards) limited release film (definitely DO care), so that I may compare that to some straight-to-DVD/VOD release films.
But now (sigh), I wanna see just what cr@ppy revenue some of these distributors are kinda used to seeing in their theatrical release films. And there's no way to tell how much they spent on P&A (promotion & advertising), which could easily be a quarter to equal the reported/estimated production budget. (Probably isn't a whole lot for these one and two theater releases.)
And that quest rendered the following spreadsheet: Comparison: Limited U.S. Release Distributor Results for 2010 - 2013 >> Preliminary: Needs budget data, (which is going to take FOR-EVERRRRR) https://docs.google.com/spread.....3eUE&usp=sharing
Obviously there's going to be revenue beyond theatrical release in the form of DVD/BR sales, and PPV/VOD, etc. Those sales could easily exceed the theatrical hauls. (cough, cough.)
But now we can have a fairly decent idea of about how much many films make or, more often, loose. And a lot of these loose a lot of money.
However, do you not think a producer/director - say shorts for now - is looking for something that would stand out? Just like buying a house: There's what you want and what you can afford.
Just because you can afford a POS house doesn't mean you want it, either.
Producer/directors are looking for the optimal balance between what they want and what they can afford weighted against the value of the end product.
Filmmaking is often like going on vacation: at the end of it mostly you'll have memories, some souvenirs, maybe V.D. or a tattoo, and a fair to large hole in your bank account as a direct result.
If that is currently written with a few too many scenes, a character too many etc he would then use his brain cells to think how could I make that happen? Are you advocating that the director/producer has to solve the problems of the screenplay as is? If it's okay with you that they completely obliterate the story that you wrote and associate your name with it still - then you're good.
However, I would advocate that you solve their locations and cast problems before presenting a screenplay. Let them scale up their own budget.
Cost is going to be SOMEONE'S problem.
So, as I've stated before: A writer's capacity to think up of sh!t exceeds a producers capacity to pay for it.
Kinda like a little kid making out a Christmas wish list. Not every kid gets presents from WalMart, or even Toys 'R Us. FAO Shwarz presents some pretty crazy sh!t for kids. http://www.fao.com/home/index.jsp
But most kids... get Walmart/TRU toys.
In short, you have to sell you script with the story and the producer has to make it add up. Inescapably. Someone's gotta pay for whatever's in the story.
Somewhere between "Betty has a cathartic conversation with her fern" and "Tranny zombies from Uranus overtake the White House with cyborg sharks with lazers" is probably a sensible story to be produced.
If the story is too far off achievable then it's a no go, but they won't put it down if there is a chance. Remember: a director/producer with equipment/cast/crew/locations/resources - BUT NO IDEAS OF HIS/HER OWN - is probably selecting one screenplay out of dozens of dozens, not just mine or yours.
Our spec. screenplays are competitive products. Just how fantasically non-competitive do you wanna make it?
I've tried tuning into producers who like my work but just aren't looking to make it. I even find myself pitching ideas I haven't written yet. They're looking for something that stands out to them. A script can be good, great even, just not right for them. They know their limits, what they can pitch for. Another experience I've had with a well-known European producer was he pitched my script and couldn't get funding from his investors. I know he's pitched to several people... so it's not just the producer you have to impress but his investors too. Unless you get lucky and sell one to a major production company whose investors don't ask too many questions.
At a later date I will compile a second sheet of the "to date" foreign & domestic revenues, along with additional info. The purpose of this first sheet is to cultivate some sense among limited release films and distributors what their U.S. theatrical release revenues are compared to the (estimated) production budgets of these films.
There are "fun with math" variables to keep in mind, though.
Revenues are for U.S. theatrical release only. Many of these films made much more revenue outside the U.S. than in it.
(Estimated) production budgets are sometimes pretty infrequently provided. Fewer budgets = increasingly useless averages.
However, by only including the provided budgets without placing zeros in for docs and foreign films we still get a "better representation" of an accurate average.
Foreign film revenues/budgets is almost useless. Their markets are in their own homeland. Consistantly they make less revenue in the U.S., so there's no point in counting that for this page. I will on another page, though.
Documentaries operate under a much more altruistic principle than narrative films, so their revenues/budgets are useless.
All that in mind, it's obvious very little theatrical revenue comes from these films, no matter their budget or casting, foreign or domestic. Theatrical release revenues, minus four extreme outliers, are only 12% of (estimated) production budgets.
The most appropriate business model for distributors to function under is that of a discount store that purchases quality remainders from larger retailers for their own marked up "discount" retail sales, (think TJMaxx or Marshall's: Buy seasonal leftovers from Target et al @ 10% retail, markup 3X to 30% retail.)
Largely, this page indicates film producers easily loose 80 - 90% of a film's cost upon theatrical release only. Distributor still makes money, though.
Until I acquire additional information about revenues beyond theatrical release filmmakers themselves bear the risk of financial loss more than the distributors do.
Sorry peeps, I'm about to chockup the portal with the ones I said I'd get back to and haven't been able to until now. Starting with yours, JEFF - I said I'd do it and I meant it.
I must have been dillusional the night I'd thought I'd commented on them all - missed 7, damn it! Though as I said previously - I did read them all.
Pages: 
Author
October 2013 OWC Scripts in one location
Logged
Locked Board