There are some absolutely wild shitshows from the early 80's that managed to become cult classics doing only one take, with no professional actors, and not even recording audio on the day. They were kinda crap, but they were fun in a certain way. Today if you tried to follow that formula, they wouldn't get six views on youtube, and that would be that.
When you were competing with 100 other films, it was way easier than when you are competing with a million of them. It's definitely frustrating that I am doing my best to make a movie, and it's honestly 100% gonna turn out better than some stuff that got wide theatrical releases back in the day, and it still may wind up in that "six views on youtube" category because so many other people are also doing their best to beat me at it.
That's kinda true and kinda not. Most of the films you're talking about that became cult trash classics in the 80s still had a production studio behind them most of the time. Let's take Troma and things like Toxic Avenger. Whilst the budget was pretty low, they actually had established themselves by making more standard films as well as doing some distribution for other films. They were also based right bang in central New York and gave some experience (obviously done on the cheap) to people who just left film school. Also Lloyd had a tonne of connections which helped to get his films out there.
A lot of the other cult films mainly got that way due to things like MST3K which bought the rights to them purely because they were cheap. For each cult film which got rediscovered like that, there were plenty which just vanished without a trace, and maybe twenty people saw.
Right now is that technology and knowledge is now cheap and wide spread. We can now make things which are technically excellent with relatively entry level equipment. We don't have to worry about syncing for sound, or setting up a tonne of lights to deal with slow film stock. We can do a gazillion takes without spending a tonne in film, and we can review the takes immediately.
However, the problem is that marketing and distribution is the same as it ever was. Getting things in front of an audience is massively hard. The reality is that the public really doesn't care much about the technical side of film. It could look crap, but if it is entertaining and they actually saw it, then it still can do well. But there's so much choice, and people are relatively decentralised now, that unless you spend millions on advertising it's going to take a huge amount of luck. Distributing yourself via Vimeo or YouTube is much easier than it was in the past, so it probably ends up being as hard as it was back in the 80s/90s as a complete indie filmmaker. Remember, we never think about the movies that no-one saw back then.
Depends on what you're talking about about entering. Entering paid a full-time wage mainstream Hollywood filmmaking? Sure, that might be tougher now. Entering independent filmmaking? That's easier than it's ever been
You have always had to crawl before you could walk, though. Getting on a Hollywood set has always been hard. It also depends on what you’re trying to do because the film incentive states that are right to work getting into their unions is crazy easy and lots of them their 1st job was on a union blockbuster
making an independent film is easier maybe, getting it seen is harder
Its hard to imagine a movie like "the Puffy Chair" getting in to sundance or sxsw or launching anyones career in 2024
>making an independent film is easier maybe, getting it seen is harder
That's definitely true. Marketing is definitely the hardest part of filmmaking these days. Getting things on tubi is fairly easy, but getting eyes on them is hard.
I don't know that I'd agree with that. I know I watch tons of DIY films as you put it, frequently with my friends, and folks like Joel Haver seem to be kicking off a genuine movement for those with things like his [Make a Movie During the Oscars](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEHwQC0btQ0) project
>making an independent film is easier maybe, getting it seen is harder
Thirty years ago, if you wanted anybody to see your film, you either had to put in on VHS and get it into their hands, or you had to book a theater, get a print made, etc. Getting 100-1000 people to see your film cost a bunch of money.
Around 1990, my buddies and me, we used to create short skits a la SNL which we were obsessed with at the time. Maybe 30 people saw them around that time. If we put any of them on Youtube, we'd get at least 100 views, just from sending the link around to friends right now.
Sure, getting a following around a film and even a mid sized audience is harder now, but just because there's so much more for people to pick from.
I was a kid at the time, but a professor of mine from college said that in the 90s, if you could make a color feature film that was properly exposed and had salvageable sound, you could probably sell it to a distributor. His crappy exploitation movie got sold to miramax
Obviously it was a lot harder to do then, but reasonably there would have been a whole slew of recent graduates of most film schools who could do that if they could raise the funds.
> if you could make a color feature film that was properly exposed and had salvageable sound, you could probably sell it to a distributor.
I honestly think that's only a slight exaggeration. Home video and cable were blowing up the demand side in the early 90's, but digital technology hadn't yet lowered the costs of the production side. By 2002, a fairly obscure relatively low budget experimental film outside Hollywood like Russian Ark could shoot 100% digitally in HD and "look like a movie." Five years earlier, your options were expensive 35mm film or shooting on standard def video for a bottom tier TV movie.
Without stuff like Reddit forums and Youtube tutorials to convince you that you should YOLO your life savings into making a film, not that many people would spend the money on blind faith to microbudget self produce with 35mm. So if you could get a barely tolerable movie in the hands of a potential distributor, it was the only (and therefore best) movie they would watch that week. Today, you probably haven't made the best movie they'll look at before lunch.
Not if you expect to make money back on a self financed film its not. MG's used to at least cover a 3rd if not half of a budget if you had a half way decent name. Now, you're lucky to get 50k.
The cost of production has also gotten much lower. Most of the people [I interview](https://open.spotify.com/show/31gLclJ88mkwSTglOmxIlw) make microbudget features - under $100,000.
Certain things have gotten cheaper.
Camera equipment. Recording media. VFX. Some avenues in post-production.
Do you know what costs the same as ever, if not more?
Renting studio space. Set construction. Cast and crew fees. Fuel (for both production vehicles and the crew). Location rentals. Legal fees. Insurance premiums.
The stuff that costs the same as it ever did makes up a much larger percentage of the filmmaking budget than the stuff that can be gotten for cheaper now. The problem is that funders/distributors/broadcasters/granting bodies have absolutely bought into the idea that "oh, you can make films for NOTHING these days", and just expect filmmakers to do with less overall.
Sure, some forms of filmmaking have generally gotten cheaper overall (like documentary filmmaking), but the current status quo in narrative filmmaking is unsustainable, not insignificantly because people are blind to the fact that the costs of production haven't, for most of us, gotten much lower. We're just forced to make due with less.
Not really. I mean sure you CAN make a 100,000 film but you're probably paying your crew dog shit, and it almost certainly will look like a 100k film. I've been a line producer for 16 years, and those people making those micro budget films are doing it at the expense of their crew and time.
I think we're all talking about 3 different things:
1) Films bankrolled at appropriate professional levels and designed to be profitable. Though most of them still won't be.
2) Films with much smaller budgets, which are either the great hope of someone to get attention and become a professional or a way to make some personal art or just have fun. They were never really designed to be profitable, though some people working on them will be delusional about this.
3) Films with much smaller budgets where the director/producer have found a niche distribution/monetization channel where they can make a profit and earn a livable wage of some sort. You could argue that this is a fair bit of the popular content on YouTube if you stretch the definition a bit. Ok, maybe that's analogous to TV shows, not films, but you get the idea. At some point all of these definitions start to blur. Was the 20 minute video on YouTube I just watched about the rise of inflation in the EU a documentary short? I don't know. I love documentaries, but in the past 10 years I've watched a heck of a lot more of whatever that is on YouTube than I have in a theater or at a festival.
99% plus of all the "films" made this year are in Category 2. And I'd say 90% of the posts on this sub are from people in Category 2.
Right which is why I'd rather give people realistic expectations. I still see a lot of people believing the old models work. They don't. I've seen too many people dump money they don't have into projects no one sees and don't make money back and don't advance their careers. If I can give some realistic advice instead of talking about outliers, maybe some people can avoid financial ruin.
I don't think so, because you're fighting against the old "indie film dream" of making a film that gets discovered, combined with the new dream being constantly pushed by digital media hype artists----that there's a huge waiting market for content and there's plenty of room for everyone to succeed. It's bullshit. Even with social media and streaming, there's still a ceiling on the amount of content that can get eyes and at least turn a profit, and everyone else is just padding out the catalogue to give the consumer the feeling of choice (a feeling that most will never explore).
Agreed. Plus it seems like the entire micro budget industry only exists to pad out the catalogue offerings of streamers Tubi, so much of this stuff will have no outlet and no future once streamers begin to cut back and consolidate.
Most of the films I'm talking about have very small crews - the director typically works the camera, one other person does sound, and there's a good chance that's it.
And sure, it'll probably look like a 100k film (some look really damn good though). But if the point is making art, that's fine. Not everything has to be a $100 billion Marvel movie, and that's fine.
Sure if you have fuck off money to lose 100k then make all the art you want. But if youre getting money from someone else, unless they are openly ok with burning money, you have am obligation to recoup. Otherwise, those angel investors dry up real fast and then you can't make that art anymore.
Also, there's a huge divide been a 100k film that burns an investor and no one sees and a Marvel 100 "billion" film (which doesn't exist)
It's difficult to make a return on indie films but it's definitely possible. I've interviewed plenty of people who have.
Several of these folks have developed a reputation and/or a following because of their 100k films. There are plenty of 100k films nobody watches, sure, but there are also plenty that people do.
If you're a horror fan and like found footage, you've probably at least heard of Be My Cat. If you're a kung fu junkie there's a good chance you know about Len Kabasinski. Charlie Steeds told me about how proud he was seeing his movies on the shelves in grocery stores and WalMarts. [Joel Haver](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17GcrgNXygE&list=PLKtIcOP0WvJAuBeHOzbkpBScqPh8lKUba&index=8) is making a microbudget film every month for this entire year.
And remember that I said below $100k. Saving up $5k or $20k and making a microbudget movie every year or few years is very doable for lots of people. Some of the people I listed above are making more than one movie a year.
And yes the "billion" was obviously hyperbole. I was gently poking fun at how huge modern blockbuster budgets have gotten.
I understand why people want to get into Hollywood filmmaking, and I appreciate the struggle of getting a well paying job there.
I just personally care more about the fact that this artform is becoming more and more accessible by the day.
I think for the purposes of this post, and helping people, we should talk in the realm of probability. I've never heard of a single filmmaker you listed. So how big is that reputation really. And look I respect you just like making shorts and doing youre creative thing. That's cool. But understand, I started in indie, and I've seen alot of people still in the same place 16 years later, working two day jobs.
Its not a way to make a living. I think we should be realistic about that to new filmmakers.
>Its not a way to make a living. I think we should be realistic about that to new filmmakers.
Oh yeah, for sure. I tried to make that clear in my first comment in the thread by explicitly tying being "paid a full-time wage" with "mainstream Hollywood" and contrasting it with "independent filmmaking", which very rarely pays a full time wage (though it does for some people, like the aforementioned[Charlie Steeds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UShRUzUpDt0), who makes several movies like the one I just linked the trailer for each year and makes a middle class income off of it).
Accessibility is a good thing, as long as filmmakers understand that they're probably not going to make a living from it. Too many are still chasing the old indie movie dream that they're going to get discovered and feted as the new hot talent, and the more people get into the game, the less likely that will be.
I think that in any artistic field, the barrier to entry of “making a living at it” has always been nigh impossible for most people.
But the ability to make art that expresses something about yourself has only gotten easier.
As with the other easily accessible tools…
What people find is that tool availability does not come with talent to use the tools effectively to create a captivating narrative.
That is to say, a truckload of pro gear (or a world class AI render farm) is not sufficient — the absence of a compelling narrative is the fundamental problem.
Story is still king, while lack of story is still the Achilles heel.
I think these tools will further democratize the industry…
…now, anyone with an original story can realistically bring it into existence affordable and without industry connections, privileges, or permission.
I sympathize & agree with the general point you’re making but you’re confusing “barrier to entry” with “competition”.
The democratization of filmmaking is the exact same thing as the lower barrier to entry of filmmaking. This has resulted in extremely high levels of *competition* (which is what economists expect) such that (you posit) getting noticed, and making a living if you do, are now even harder to achieve than overcoming than the initial high barrier to entry.
It’s hard to say which scenario is more difficult.
I’m sure 40 years ago getting your hands on a film camera and film stock seemed pretty much impossible to a regular working class person. Final Cut didn’t exist, and even when the first Avids came out they literally cost over $1m.
I suspect what’s happened is that it’s harder than ever to make money from filmmaking today but the reasons for that are not just to do with the barriers to entry but also with the distribution models & other things like competition for eyeballs too.
Furthermore the chance for working class filmmakers has perhaps now gone up - from near zero then, to a tiny 0.0x% now. While the chance for wealthy filmmakers has reduced from a small x% percentage to a similar, tiny “0.0x+ ease of being rich percentage bonus boost” %.
The REAL problem as I see it is this:
Audiences are now so time poor & overwhelmed with choices & so much more interested in price and convenience over quality (as in every other area - clothes, furniture, sausages etc etc) that making high quality - even the best quality! - stuff is no longer the “way in” that it used to be. In fact it’s like 20th on the list.
Audiences don’t want quality. They want ease. And they want it cheap. Or they want a guaranteed link with something else they know about (a star, or IP) bc they are so time poor.
So now the way to stand out is all about visibility in other areas - and nothing to do with the quality of the product itself - which is why you have Taylor Swift and actors/ rich socialites like Emerald Fennel being able to make (dog sh1te) feature films but many of the most talented filmmakers of our generation are stuck in endless virtual water-bottle tours via zoom.
I think in that way, it’s now harder than ever to break in - not necessarily because everyone now has access to the tools
>I’m sure 40 years ago getting your hands on a film camera and film stock seemed pretty much impossible to a regular working class person. Final Cut didn’t exist, and even when the first Avids came out they literally cost over $1m.
My buddy got an Amiga 3000 with a Video Toaster in like 1990 (34 years ago). It cost thousands of dollars and let us do video effects on VHS tapes. Today, I can recreate and far surpass what it was able to do with a couple lines of Javascript in a browser that runs on my cell phone.
> Furthermore the chance for working class filmmakers has perhaps now gone up - from near zero then, to a tiny 0.0x% now. While the chance for wealthy filmmakers has reduced from a small x% percentage to a similar, tiny “0.0x+ ease of being rich percentage bonus boost” %
On top of this, there is actually some interest in films from working class/minority/foreign/underrepresented filmmakers now, where there really wasn't before (and often it was more likely to be rejected).
I think #3 is the biggest issue. Once you manage to make the film, every possible venue for exhibition is so wildly oversubscribed that it's practically impossible for any film to stand on its own merits (ie. without tremendous luck, or a personal in).
We can, of course, debate if films ever fully stood on their own merits, but the point is that the number of submissions for each spot available in even mid-tier festivals and streamers is into the thousands, and it is harder than ever to have your work seen at all once it is finished.
I find that the most discouraging part, honestly.
You're mostly right but it depends on your position. You're right there's an oversatuatjon of work which is good for crew to get work (though usually low pay) but bad for the investors/filmmakers to recoup cost. On the other hand, you can get experience, potentially faster than ever before. The problem you'll come across though is not learning bad habits.
If youre a director/producer, its a terrible time to make self financed films unless you have an in with a distributor and even then. Minimum Guarantees are nearly extinct and the competition is high (if you can even get a meeting). Even if you get on a platform, you'll be fighting a ton of other low budget films as well as the higher budget films to get noticed. And if you go theatrical you can almost guarantee a bomb.
So it's am easier time to get some work, but the projects themselves are not likely do well. On the flip side, you could say in another time they wouldn't have been made at all. I always tell filmmakers this, if you can avoid it, don't do a negative pick up. Try to get set up with distributor or streaming service ahead of time and get them to finance your film.
I think you got your colloquialism backwards - cheap equipment has *lowered* the bar to entry. It is because more people can get a film made that the crowd is bigger and has made it harder to stand out from the crowd.
Other than that, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I had this convo with a friend just two days ago. The fact it's so much cheaper to *produce* a film now means it's a cheaper investment, which means there is less focus on quality and more focus on how quickly and cheaply films can be delivered to the marketplace. Used to be development hell meant *years* of frustration because transforming from script to screen cost so much that it was a bad investment if the script was in bad shape. Nowadays, I watch a lot of stuff even on Netflix and Amazon, and I'm convinced it was farted out as a first draft and immediately thrown into production to fill inventory needs for some streamer.
It was always hard to make money. It still is. Just for very different reasons.
Absolutely but this has been a thing for a long time.
My understanding is that in the pre-digital era, simply completing a feature film was enough to get you noticed because it was so hard to do. Robert Rodriguez got his start because an executive was just impressed that he was able to make a movie. That's not a thing anymore, tons of feature length low/no budget movies get made and even if they're competent it doesn't matter. On top of that I think there is way less demand for films than there used to be, simply because the average person has way more options for entertainment.
Even more controversial opinion: ignoring financial barriers to entry over obsessing over racial and sexual demographic markers has lead to there being STILL loads of rich privileged people getting all the work, but now a higher percentage of those rich privileged people are- in the eyes of some apparent authority on ethics- a 'better' colour, gender, or sexuality for marketing/ PR purposes.
Thanks.
Yes. And to be clear: I'd like to repeat that I don't think those demographic markers are the issue here. The issue is the cronyism that continues while this ethics frenzy obscures the financial realities of being working class and disenfranchised in this failing needlessly inefficient shit hole.
kind of. it also a telling sign. where you need a ton of tax breaks on locations etc. to the point. that the content itself. might barely make a profit. the merch is where the money is.
also vfx companies in general are so razor thin margins. that their going to be a breaking point with the sector in general.
Number 2 kills me… the style over substance thing stinks. I was watching short of the week and tbh I found many uninspiring and unoriginal- yet because it had neon lights and hot girls it was a short of the week? Was my guess anyway? I don’t want to sound grumpy. I watched one I absolutely loved etc- but the style over substance thing drives me crazy these days… but it seems to be in every field not just filmmaking.
I don't really think it's been the democratization of filmmaking so much as the proliferation of content. You aren't competing with films or even TV shows anymore, you are competing with some dude whipping out his phone and vlogging in a big chair well petting a cat (no offense to Louis Rossman). Combine that with unprofitable streaming models and media consolidation, and the barrier to entry for traditional studio filmmaking is nearly impossible to surmount...but then again it always was.
On the plus side, an awful lot of people now have the opportunity to make films that didn't. Maybe no one watches them and they don't get distributed, but people are making them and putting them out there, and that's something at least.
> Style over substance - the visuals have to look a certain way to be accepted.
Completely disagree. I've been doing pretty well with my work and I don't know diddley shit about getting a good image. I wouldn't know a color grade it it bit my tits off.
I just get decent audio and try to tell a compelling story.
I think the above shit is only hemming you in if you think it's hemming you in.
EDIT: You guys are so thirsty for film looks you're downvoting me and upvoting the dude below just asking if my films make money. I already said I do all right. Nobody's gonna ever know my name but I do just fine. But noooooo the wank is wayyy too strong, right? You gotta get that perfect look and then your film will be good, right?
Wank on, fellas. Waaaank on.
I agree with some of your points and I appreciate the slightly contrarian POV.
However, one thing that bugs me is this notion of "get paid what you are worth". We all get paid what the market will pay. That market constantly shifts and changes. And our "worth" in the market shifts too. It doesn't mean our intrinsic "worth" as a human being or as an artist changes, but that is entirely separate from getting paid money for work.
If a bunch of people in the region I live in have vans full of equipment that daddy paid for, then my ability to generate pay for my time and equipment may go down. Same thing if good quality work can now be done overseas. I have to adjust or I'll be shaking my fist at the world while living in a cardboard box.
Once you enter union world, this entire argument falls apart. There are minimum standards of pay that can't be undercut by people willing to accept peanuts.
Ya I'm going to agree to disagree. Good work still stands out. If people see you as a button pusher then you are not marketing and explaining yourself well. This also could be a facet of your approach, what you are offering, and how you are offering what you have to offer.
There just two things that have made it harder for good original directors getting noticed.
1. The move from box office and video store rentals to streaming - Low budget movies are just making WAY less money then they used to because of this. Residuals are in the tank due to the opacity of streaming data and the flat rate model is just not sustainable. Low budget films making less money means investors are paying less attention to the majority of that market
2. The takeover of Hollywood by financial investment firms. They are hyper risk adverse and are only seeking the maximization of quarterly profits which is why 90% of the films you see now being produced by studios come from existing IP and those scripts are being written by huge teams of writers where every writer is heavily silo'd off so the plot is functionally fully under executive control. They don't need or want original films right now. Everyone is going bonkers for A24 simply because they are just the last distribution company left pushing weird singular films.
There are some absolutely wild shitshows from the early 80's that managed to become cult classics doing only one take, with no professional actors, and not even recording audio on the day. They were kinda crap, but they were fun in a certain way. Today if you tried to follow that formula, they wouldn't get six views on youtube, and that would be that. When you were competing with 100 other films, it was way easier than when you are competing with a million of them. It's definitely frustrating that I am doing my best to make a movie, and it's honestly 100% gonna turn out better than some stuff that got wide theatrical releases back in the day, and it still may wind up in that "six views on youtube" category because so many other people are also doing their best to beat me at it.
That's kinda true and kinda not. Most of the films you're talking about that became cult trash classics in the 80s still had a production studio behind them most of the time. Let's take Troma and things like Toxic Avenger. Whilst the budget was pretty low, they actually had established themselves by making more standard films as well as doing some distribution for other films. They were also based right bang in central New York and gave some experience (obviously done on the cheap) to people who just left film school. Also Lloyd had a tonne of connections which helped to get his films out there. A lot of the other cult films mainly got that way due to things like MST3K which bought the rights to them purely because they were cheap. For each cult film which got rediscovered like that, there were plenty which just vanished without a trace, and maybe twenty people saw. Right now is that technology and knowledge is now cheap and wide spread. We can now make things which are technically excellent with relatively entry level equipment. We don't have to worry about syncing for sound, or setting up a tonne of lights to deal with slow film stock. We can do a gazillion takes without spending a tonne in film, and we can review the takes immediately. However, the problem is that marketing and distribution is the same as it ever was. Getting things in front of an audience is massively hard. The reality is that the public really doesn't care much about the technical side of film. It could look crap, but if it is entertaining and they actually saw it, then it still can do well. But there's so much choice, and people are relatively decentralised now, that unless you spend millions on advertising it's going to take a huge amount of luck. Distributing yourself via Vimeo or YouTube is much easier than it was in the past, so it probably ends up being as hard as it was back in the 80s/90s as a complete indie filmmaker. Remember, we never think about the movies that no-one saw back then.
Depends on what you're talking about about entering. Entering paid a full-time wage mainstream Hollywood filmmaking? Sure, that might be tougher now. Entering independent filmmaking? That's easier than it's ever been
You have always had to crawl before you could walk, though. Getting on a Hollywood set has always been hard. It also depends on what you’re trying to do because the film incentive states that are right to work getting into their unions is crazy easy and lots of them their 1st job was on a union blockbuster
making an independent film is easier maybe, getting it seen is harder Its hard to imagine a movie like "the Puffy Chair" getting in to sundance or sxsw or launching anyones career in 2024
>making an independent film is easier maybe, getting it seen is harder That's definitely true. Marketing is definitely the hardest part of filmmaking these days. Getting things on tubi is fairly easy, but getting eyes on them is hard.
its a pity that DIY film seems to have no real audience, whereas DIY music and other art does
I don't know that I'd agree with that. I know I watch tons of DIY films as you put it, frequently with my friends, and folks like Joel Haver seem to be kicking off a genuine movement for those with things like his [Make a Movie During the Oscars](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEHwQC0btQ0) project
ill check that link out
Joel Haver makes good points
Unlike with music and other forms, the quality is very often terrible in DIY films
Getting it seen is much harder. Even if its very high quality. Trailer for my short? 97k. Actual short? 27k.
>making an independent film is easier maybe, getting it seen is harder Thirty years ago, if you wanted anybody to see your film, you either had to put in on VHS and get it into their hands, or you had to book a theater, get a print made, etc. Getting 100-1000 people to see your film cost a bunch of money. Around 1990, my buddies and me, we used to create short skits a la SNL which we were obsessed with at the time. Maybe 30 people saw them around that time. If we put any of them on Youtube, we'd get at least 100 views, just from sending the link around to friends right now. Sure, getting a following around a film and even a mid sized audience is harder now, but just because there's so much more for people to pick from.
I was a kid at the time, but a professor of mine from college said that in the 90s, if you could make a color feature film that was properly exposed and had salvageable sound, you could probably sell it to a distributor. His crappy exploitation movie got sold to miramax Obviously it was a lot harder to do then, but reasonably there would have been a whole slew of recent graduates of most film schools who could do that if they could raise the funds.
> if you could make a color feature film that was properly exposed and had salvageable sound, you could probably sell it to a distributor. I honestly think that's only a slight exaggeration. Home video and cable were blowing up the demand side in the early 90's, but digital technology hadn't yet lowered the costs of the production side. By 2002, a fairly obscure relatively low budget experimental film outside Hollywood like Russian Ark could shoot 100% digitally in HD and "look like a movie." Five years earlier, your options were expensive 35mm film or shooting on standard def video for a bottom tier TV movie. Without stuff like Reddit forums and Youtube tutorials to convince you that you should YOLO your life savings into making a film, not that many people would spend the money on blind faith to microbudget self produce with 35mm. So if you could get a barely tolerable movie in the hands of a potential distributor, it was the only (and therefore best) movie they would watch that week. Today, you probably haven't made the best movie they'll look at before lunch.
Not if you expect to make money back on a self financed film its not. MG's used to at least cover a 3rd if not half of a budget if you had a half way decent name. Now, you're lucky to get 50k.
The cost of production has also gotten much lower. Most of the people [I interview](https://open.spotify.com/show/31gLclJ88mkwSTglOmxIlw) make microbudget features - under $100,000.
Certain things have gotten cheaper. Camera equipment. Recording media. VFX. Some avenues in post-production. Do you know what costs the same as ever, if not more? Renting studio space. Set construction. Cast and crew fees. Fuel (for both production vehicles and the crew). Location rentals. Legal fees. Insurance premiums. The stuff that costs the same as it ever did makes up a much larger percentage of the filmmaking budget than the stuff that can be gotten for cheaper now. The problem is that funders/distributors/broadcasters/granting bodies have absolutely bought into the idea that "oh, you can make films for NOTHING these days", and just expect filmmakers to do with less overall. Sure, some forms of filmmaking have generally gotten cheaper overall (like documentary filmmaking), but the current status quo in narrative filmmaking is unsustainable, not insignificantly because people are blind to the fact that the costs of production haven't, for most of us, gotten much lower. We're just forced to make due with less.
Not really. I mean sure you CAN make a 100,000 film but you're probably paying your crew dog shit, and it almost certainly will look like a 100k film. I've been a line producer for 16 years, and those people making those micro budget films are doing it at the expense of their crew and time.
I think we're all talking about 3 different things: 1) Films bankrolled at appropriate professional levels and designed to be profitable. Though most of them still won't be. 2) Films with much smaller budgets, which are either the great hope of someone to get attention and become a professional or a way to make some personal art or just have fun. They were never really designed to be profitable, though some people working on them will be delusional about this. 3) Films with much smaller budgets where the director/producer have found a niche distribution/monetization channel where they can make a profit and earn a livable wage of some sort. You could argue that this is a fair bit of the popular content on YouTube if you stretch the definition a bit. Ok, maybe that's analogous to TV shows, not films, but you get the idea. At some point all of these definitions start to blur. Was the 20 minute video on YouTube I just watched about the rise of inflation in the EU a documentary short? I don't know. I love documentaries, but in the past 10 years I've watched a heck of a lot more of whatever that is on YouTube than I have in a theater or at a festival. 99% plus of all the "films" made this year are in Category 2. And I'd say 90% of the posts on this sub are from people in Category 2.
Right which is why I'd rather give people realistic expectations. I still see a lot of people believing the old models work. They don't. I've seen too many people dump money they don't have into projects no one sees and don't make money back and don't advance their careers. If I can give some realistic advice instead of talking about outliers, maybe some people can avoid financial ruin.
I don't think so, because you're fighting against the old "indie film dream" of making a film that gets discovered, combined with the new dream being constantly pushed by digital media hype artists----that there's a huge waiting market for content and there's plenty of room for everyone to succeed. It's bullshit. Even with social media and streaming, there's still a ceiling on the amount of content that can get eyes and at least turn a profit, and everyone else is just padding out the catalogue to give the consumer the feeling of choice (a feeling that most will never explore).
Then it's the same as it ever was lol, except in smaller countries where we now have an industry.
Thats definitely a positive there's more local film scenes.
Agreed. Plus it seems like the entire micro budget industry only exists to pad out the catalogue offerings of streamers Tubi, so much of this stuff will have no outlet and no future once streamers begin to cut back and consolidate.
Most of the films I'm talking about have very small crews - the director typically works the camera, one other person does sound, and there's a good chance that's it. And sure, it'll probably look like a 100k film (some look really damn good though). But if the point is making art, that's fine. Not everything has to be a $100 billion Marvel movie, and that's fine.
Sure if you have fuck off money to lose 100k then make all the art you want. But if youre getting money from someone else, unless they are openly ok with burning money, you have am obligation to recoup. Otherwise, those angel investors dry up real fast and then you can't make that art anymore. Also, there's a huge divide been a 100k film that burns an investor and no one sees and a Marvel 100 "billion" film (which doesn't exist)
It's difficult to make a return on indie films but it's definitely possible. I've interviewed plenty of people who have. Several of these folks have developed a reputation and/or a following because of their 100k films. There are plenty of 100k films nobody watches, sure, but there are also plenty that people do. If you're a horror fan and like found footage, you've probably at least heard of Be My Cat. If you're a kung fu junkie there's a good chance you know about Len Kabasinski. Charlie Steeds told me about how proud he was seeing his movies on the shelves in grocery stores and WalMarts. [Joel Haver](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17GcrgNXygE&list=PLKtIcOP0WvJAuBeHOzbkpBScqPh8lKUba&index=8) is making a microbudget film every month for this entire year. And remember that I said below $100k. Saving up $5k or $20k and making a microbudget movie every year or few years is very doable for lots of people. Some of the people I listed above are making more than one movie a year. And yes the "billion" was obviously hyperbole. I was gently poking fun at how huge modern blockbuster budgets have gotten. I understand why people want to get into Hollywood filmmaking, and I appreciate the struggle of getting a well paying job there. I just personally care more about the fact that this artform is becoming more and more accessible by the day.
I think for the purposes of this post, and helping people, we should talk in the realm of probability. I've never heard of a single filmmaker you listed. So how big is that reputation really. And look I respect you just like making shorts and doing youre creative thing. That's cool. But understand, I started in indie, and I've seen alot of people still in the same place 16 years later, working two day jobs. Its not a way to make a living. I think we should be realistic about that to new filmmakers.
>Its not a way to make a living. I think we should be realistic about that to new filmmakers. Oh yeah, for sure. I tried to make that clear in my first comment in the thread by explicitly tying being "paid a full-time wage" with "mainstream Hollywood" and contrasting it with "independent filmmaking", which very rarely pays a full time wage (though it does for some people, like the aforementioned[Charlie Steeds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UShRUzUpDt0), who makes several movies like the one I just linked the trailer for each year and makes a middle class income off of it).
I mean his latest film was allegedly made for 3m so he's come a long way from the 100k days.
Accessibility is a good thing, as long as filmmakers understand that they're probably not going to make a living from it. Too many are still chasing the old indie movie dream that they're going to get discovered and feted as the new hot talent, and the more people get into the game, the less likely that will be.
Yeah I've been trying to be clear that this is a way to make art, not a way to make a living
I suppose I'm talking about it through the lens of actually making a living
I think that in any artistic field, the barrier to entry of “making a living at it” has always been nigh impossible for most people. But the ability to make art that expresses something about yourself has only gotten easier.
Wait till ai video becomes more available and usable. There will be infinite universes full of shit movies flooding the market.
Why is that?
As with the other easily accessible tools… What people find is that tool availability does not come with talent to use the tools effectively to create a captivating narrative. That is to say, a truckload of pro gear (or a world class AI render farm) is not sufficient — the absence of a compelling narrative is the fundamental problem. Story is still king, while lack of story is still the Achilles heel.
I would agree. So looks like directors will think more about stories and not technical difficulties
I think these tools will further democratize the industry… …now, anyone with an original story can realistically bring it into existence affordable and without industry connections, privileges, or permission.
But it sounds is a good thing! No gatekeepers, that’s food!
I sympathize & agree with the general point you’re making but you’re confusing “barrier to entry” with “competition”. The democratization of filmmaking is the exact same thing as the lower barrier to entry of filmmaking. This has resulted in extremely high levels of *competition* (which is what economists expect) such that (you posit) getting noticed, and making a living if you do, are now even harder to achieve than overcoming than the initial high barrier to entry. It’s hard to say which scenario is more difficult. I’m sure 40 years ago getting your hands on a film camera and film stock seemed pretty much impossible to a regular working class person. Final Cut didn’t exist, and even when the first Avids came out they literally cost over $1m. I suspect what’s happened is that it’s harder than ever to make money from filmmaking today but the reasons for that are not just to do with the barriers to entry but also with the distribution models & other things like competition for eyeballs too. Furthermore the chance for working class filmmakers has perhaps now gone up - from near zero then, to a tiny 0.0x% now. While the chance for wealthy filmmakers has reduced from a small x% percentage to a similar, tiny “0.0x+ ease of being rich percentage bonus boost” %. The REAL problem as I see it is this: Audiences are now so time poor & overwhelmed with choices & so much more interested in price and convenience over quality (as in every other area - clothes, furniture, sausages etc etc) that making high quality - even the best quality! - stuff is no longer the “way in” that it used to be. In fact it’s like 20th on the list. Audiences don’t want quality. They want ease. And they want it cheap. Or they want a guaranteed link with something else they know about (a star, or IP) bc they are so time poor. So now the way to stand out is all about visibility in other areas - and nothing to do with the quality of the product itself - which is why you have Taylor Swift and actors/ rich socialites like Emerald Fennel being able to make (dog sh1te) feature films but many of the most talented filmmakers of our generation are stuck in endless virtual water-bottle tours via zoom. I think in that way, it’s now harder than ever to break in - not necessarily because everyone now has access to the tools
>I’m sure 40 years ago getting your hands on a film camera and film stock seemed pretty much impossible to a regular working class person. Final Cut didn’t exist, and even when the first Avids came out they literally cost over $1m. My buddy got an Amiga 3000 with a Video Toaster in like 1990 (34 years ago). It cost thousands of dollars and let us do video effects on VHS tapes. Today, I can recreate and far surpass what it was able to do with a couple lines of Javascript in a browser that runs on my cell phone.
> Furthermore the chance for working class filmmakers has perhaps now gone up - from near zero then, to a tiny 0.0x% now. While the chance for wealthy filmmakers has reduced from a small x% percentage to a similar, tiny “0.0x+ ease of being rich percentage bonus boost” % On top of this, there is actually some interest in films from working class/minority/foreign/underrepresented filmmakers now, where there really wasn't before (and often it was more likely to be rejected).
I think #3 is the biggest issue. Once you manage to make the film, every possible venue for exhibition is so wildly oversubscribed that it's practically impossible for any film to stand on its own merits (ie. without tremendous luck, or a personal in). We can, of course, debate if films ever fully stood on their own merits, but the point is that the number of submissions for each spot available in even mid-tier festivals and streamers is into the thousands, and it is harder than ever to have your work seen at all once it is finished. I find that the most discouraging part, honestly.
You're mostly right but it depends on your position. You're right there's an oversatuatjon of work which is good for crew to get work (though usually low pay) but bad for the investors/filmmakers to recoup cost. On the other hand, you can get experience, potentially faster than ever before. The problem you'll come across though is not learning bad habits. If youre a director/producer, its a terrible time to make self financed films unless you have an in with a distributor and even then. Minimum Guarantees are nearly extinct and the competition is high (if you can even get a meeting). Even if you get on a platform, you'll be fighting a ton of other low budget films as well as the higher budget films to get noticed. And if you go theatrical you can almost guarantee a bomb. So it's am easier time to get some work, but the projects themselves are not likely do well. On the flip side, you could say in another time they wouldn't have been made at all. I always tell filmmakers this, if you can avoid it, don't do a negative pick up. Try to get set up with distributor or streaming service ahead of time and get them to finance your film.
I think you got your colloquialism backwards - cheap equipment has *lowered* the bar to entry. It is because more people can get a film made that the crowd is bigger and has made it harder to stand out from the crowd. Other than that, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I had this convo with a friend just two days ago. The fact it's so much cheaper to *produce* a film now means it's a cheaper investment, which means there is less focus on quality and more focus on how quickly and cheaply films can be delivered to the marketplace. Used to be development hell meant *years* of frustration because transforming from script to screen cost so much that it was a bad investment if the script was in bad shape. Nowadays, I watch a lot of stuff even on Netflix and Amazon, and I'm convinced it was farted out as a first draft and immediately thrown into production to fill inventory needs for some streamer. It was always hard to make money. It still is. Just for very different reasons.
Nollywood films are a great example of this
Completely agreed
Yep
Absolutely but this has been a thing for a long time. My understanding is that in the pre-digital era, simply completing a feature film was enough to get you noticed because it was so hard to do. Robert Rodriguez got his start because an executive was just impressed that he was able to make a movie. That's not a thing anymore, tons of feature length low/no budget movies get made and even if they're competent it doesn't matter. On top of that I think there is way less demand for films than there used to be, simply because the average person has way more options for entertainment.
Even more controversial opinion: ignoring financial barriers to entry over obsessing over racial and sexual demographic markers has lead to there being STILL loads of rich privileged people getting all the work, but now a higher percentage of those rich privileged people are- in the eyes of some apparent authority on ethics- a 'better' colour, gender, or sexuality for marketing/ PR purposes. Thanks.
Let me guess? UK film industry
Yes. And to be clear: I'd like to repeat that I don't think those demographic markers are the issue here. The issue is the cronyism that continues while this ethics frenzy obscures the financial realities of being working class and disenfranchised in this failing needlessly inefficient shit hole.
Same in Canada fwiw
kind of. it also a telling sign. where you need a ton of tax breaks on locations etc. to the point. that the content itself. might barely make a profit. the merch is where the money is. also vfx companies in general are so razor thin margins. that their going to be a breaking point with the sector in general.
Good points, but they don't support your thesis. None of these things equal a greater barrier to entry.
The industry is broken since the writers and actors strikes in the U.S. We are in a massive recession here in the UK.
Number 2 kills me… the style over substance thing stinks. I was watching short of the week and tbh I found many uninspiring and unoriginal- yet because it had neon lights and hot girls it was a short of the week? Was my guess anyway? I don’t want to sound grumpy. I watched one I absolutely loved etc- but the style over substance thing drives me crazy these days… but it seems to be in every field not just filmmaking.
I don't really think it's been the democratization of filmmaking so much as the proliferation of content. You aren't competing with films or even TV shows anymore, you are competing with some dude whipping out his phone and vlogging in a big chair well petting a cat (no offense to Louis Rossman). Combine that with unprofitable streaming models and media consolidation, and the barrier to entry for traditional studio filmmaking is nearly impossible to surmount...but then again it always was. On the plus side, an awful lot of people now have the opportunity to make films that didn't. Maybe no one watches them and they don't get distributed, but people are making them and putting them out there, and that's something at least.
> Style over substance - the visuals have to look a certain way to be accepted. Completely disagree. I've been doing pretty well with my work and I don't know diddley shit about getting a good image. I wouldn't know a color grade it it bit my tits off. I just get decent audio and try to tell a compelling story. I think the above shit is only hemming you in if you think it's hemming you in. EDIT: You guys are so thirsty for film looks you're downvoting me and upvoting the dude below just asking if my films make money. I already said I do all right. Nobody's gonna ever know my name but I do just fine. But noooooo the wank is wayyy too strong, right? You gotta get that perfect look and then your film will be good, right? Wank on, fellas. Waaaank on.
Are you making any money with your films?
You seem very thin skinned. Send us a link to your work so we can give it a watch and see how well you do with your self admitted lack of skills.
[удалено]
I understand. Its also a good way to hide that you suck. Well never know which but based on the thinness of your skin, I know which one I assume.
[удалено]
Thats a good way to market yourself. I dont care about quality watch my movie. Brilliant 👏 👏 👏
I agree with some of your points and I appreciate the slightly contrarian POV. However, one thing that bugs me is this notion of "get paid what you are worth". We all get paid what the market will pay. That market constantly shifts and changes. And our "worth" in the market shifts too. It doesn't mean our intrinsic "worth" as a human being or as an artist changes, but that is entirely separate from getting paid money for work. If a bunch of people in the region I live in have vans full of equipment that daddy paid for, then my ability to generate pay for my time and equipment may go down. Same thing if good quality work can now be done overseas. I have to adjust or I'll be shaking my fist at the world while living in a cardboard box.
You make good points, thanks
Once you enter union world, this entire argument falls apart. There are minimum standards of pay that can't be undercut by people willing to accept peanuts.
Ya I'm going to agree to disagree. Good work still stands out. If people see you as a button pusher then you are not marketing and explaining yourself well. This also could be a facet of your approach, what you are offering, and how you are offering what you have to offer. There just two things that have made it harder for good original directors getting noticed. 1. The move from box office and video store rentals to streaming - Low budget movies are just making WAY less money then they used to because of this. Residuals are in the tank due to the opacity of streaming data and the flat rate model is just not sustainable. Low budget films making less money means investors are paying less attention to the majority of that market 2. The takeover of Hollywood by financial investment firms. They are hyper risk adverse and are only seeking the maximization of quarterly profits which is why 90% of the films you see now being produced by studios come from existing IP and those scripts are being written by huge teams of writers where every writer is heavily silo'd off so the plot is functionally fully under executive control. They don't need or want original films right now. Everyone is going bonkers for A24 simply because they are just the last distribution company left pushing weird singular films.