I'm aware that a lot of users of this forum have pumped sums of money into making short and feature length films. I'm wondering how many of you have made your money back in regards to the initial budget you started with and if so how was the income generated. I ask this question as i eventually want to make my first feature and im a realest and very aware that it has a good chance to be overlooked or even straight out flop, but still i would find it very hard to have just spent say £10,000 ($20,000) on a movie that only ends up on youtube. I imagine sharing personal financial gains and losses is a touchy subject so i appreciate any feedback given.

Well, this answer won't help you much, but I haven't made much back from my filmmaking (aside from the occasional prize here or there-- more fun than fortune), and in fact lost quite a bit (nothing horrible, though).
But, sure, it was all worth it. That's why I do this.

If you really are in this for the money, get out. There are much easier ways to make a profit than in an industry that is so competitive and just plain difficult-- not only hard to do well, but also VERY hard to make something that audiences really like, even if made well (you see that all the time in hollywood, too).
If you just love filmmaking and know you want to make your career out of it, go for it.

That's really the distinction.

The odds are simply against anyone becoming big in the industry and to have a chance you'll have to be especially good.

Paraphrased from something (no idea what): "there are plenty of starving poets"
(And some who make a good living, too.)


However, there are of course ways to use video/film to make money-- make corporate videos, shoot weddings, etc., and you can make money without too much competition. You still need some skill and luck, but that's the way to go for a profit.


We'll see what others who have actually made it (or not) through this. I haven't gotten to a point yet where I'm able to comment on that, or worried about it. I like doing this, and I'll keep doing it-- regardless of the profit. If I start making lots of money too, well that's just great. If not? It's fun.

I definetly agree with what your saying, this is something i love and will pursie regardless. I'm about to start my first real short, i've been putting it off for ever due to fear of it not looking as good as i plan to be honest, but I've spent years reseraching, planning, listening and watching everything on how to make a good film. Of course the main ingredient of actually doing it is missing but this is next. Im planning to put some money into it so that it is as good as i can get it, and im happy knowing this is a project where there will be no money back from.

well, even with the money coming in, very slowly, i still do not brake even. but hey....over all the years, i have met wonderful people, before and behind the camera. since i selected certain groups/ actors events, my family has seen quiet a lot of different things one would not see normally.
whatever i do incl. all my equipment is by choice, so i can't complain...lol
(i could, but who would listen?)
i would do it again, but would add editing.

This is art, not business, so if you need to make up for your costs when filming it, you may want to wait and save up, or do something else instead. It's certainly no guarantee. But there's no reason you couldn't make your costs back, or even make a good profit. Just not a safe gamble, if it will be a major financial burden.
If you've got the budget, though, and it sounds like you enjoy this, go ahead and hope for the best.

What I have gained from making my short film -

Loads of contacts, both in and out of industry.
Full time employment in a production house, through the people I met in the process of producing the short film.
Something for my reel I am very proud of, that I will always enjoy.
The experience of seeing my film on a big screen, getting huge laughs and thunderous applause.
A few awards at small local festivals, which while not life altering where certainly life affirming.
A small sale of the film to a local cable channel, which returned less than one tenth of the actual production cost (which would in turn be less than one tenth of the theoretical production cost were it not for all the favors and people who helped me out.)

Absolutely worth it - I would suggest.

I have no idea how anyone make money on shorts.

However, I know a little bit about features. I have one friend who makes horror features for $5k a piece, and she makes money on 'em. They get direct to video distribution and she gets between $7k and $10k a piece for them. So even at the bottom end, people can make money.

You have to make a feature to know how to make a feature. It's a big chunk of organizing and getting one made will teach one heckuva lot. My advice would be to make a feature that you finance yourself and get it made and made well. That way you can approach investors for a good chunk more money next time out.

The trick to making an inexpensive feature well is treating exactly as if it was an expensive feature. Get a good script. Don't hire your friends. Just because a female character is goodlooking doesn't mean the actress doesn't need to know how to act. Get a real DP and a real editor.

This is art, not business,...

Uhhh... keep in mind the quote "they call it show business, not show 'art'."

This is art, not business,


Boy are you in for a rude awakening once you graduate school and enter the real world!

I couldn't imagine paying $5k, $10k, $20k of my own money to shoot.
In my little world, people pay me to shoot!
That's how you get things like a nice house and cars, and send your kids to college.
Paying your own money to make films, is like having a really bad drug addiction.

Paying your own money to make films, is like having a really bad drug addiction.
I have not made a feature, but I have invested what is to me a lot of time and money on shorts. My rationale is that I want all the experience I can get so I can be confident when I try to enter "the system". I like film but I can't indefinitely afford to fund them myself. If you want to make films that people see in the theatre (not some small art house) then I see no choice but to join the system.

I'm wondering how many of you have made your money back in regards to the initial budget you started with and if so how was the income generated.

I haven't seen a bean yet, but I have seen plenty of smiles of people's faces.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2593737/

I would recommend first shooting "two people talking in a room" ( of which my effort can be found on archive.org http://www.archive.org/details/adultcontacts )

Shoot a two or three contiguous day shoot before you embark on a feature, unless you have an excellent line producer and assistant director already lined up.

About half way through any shoot you'll just want it to be over (to paraphrase, I think, Trauffaut - but so true).

You might not make much money but you will begin forging your reputation. A reputation can be a very very valuable thing.

It's good to see peoples feelings regarding this matter, it seems that alot of people have gained good experience and networks rather than money. I think my route for making films will be by shooting commercial/corporate videos to finance my efforts. Although short and even feature films can cost a huge amount of money for little or no money back, i believe the final piece will be a priceless tool for getting investors for future films and providing a visual demonstrate to potential clients what your capable of. Something that money can't really buy.

Again, I think the big reason people don't make their money back on ultra-low budget features is that are casual about the shoot. I really honestly think that if you're shooting low budget and you put the same level care you would put into a big budget feature, you can make your money back and more.

Don't scrimp on pre-production. Don't decide an okay script is good enough. Don't cast your friends - unless they're hella fine actors. Get plenty of coverage. Have interesting locations. Hire a great DP and a great editor - which is much easier to do with not much money if you have a great script and real actors. If you do those things, and you're conscientious you'll make money.

We do post-production and I see lots and lots and lots of indie efforts. Most indie filmmakers take a lot of shortcuts they have no business taking. They'll write their own script because they have a cool idea even though they've never written anything professionally in their life. They'll decide to work with amateur actors because they don't how to deal with professional actors. They'll do 25 master shots, run out of time and get no coverage.

I think I'm gonna write a book on how to make a first rate film for under $50k.

i make shorts because i enjoy it ... all have been shot on FILM ... in the future will shoot em with RED 103 ...
if you want to make big $$$$ it's not in shorts !!!

the few persons that i know that made $$ off their 1st feature - produced them for under 40k ... the one's that spent 60-350k -well they got good write off's .... those that invested in 2-7 mil films ( one even got oscar ) well, they have never seen a dime to date ....

I'm dropping $10,000 on a documentary feature. The good news is that much of that is equipment, which can be reused for other features.

I don't know if I'll make the money back. I do know that being able to say "I've produced and directed a feature-length documentary" does open some doors later on.

Don makes a good point-- shorts don't sell. There's no market, unless it happens to fit a slot on TV.

I agree that shorts don't really make any money but i look at it like this; many people spend thousands on features in the hope they can use that to impress investors so that they can get a budget to shoot another feature at a higher level, where as personally i would rather spend 'hundreds' on a 'short' to impress investors to achieve the same outcome, which i believe is very possible if the same level of care Lori speaks about is put into it, oh and by the way Lori if you do decide to write that book, im buying. I put a link below to a short film called 'spin' which i think shows quality and effort into pre and post production perfectly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP59tQf_njc

Personally, I'd rather make movies than just have a nice car [or house, probably]. And I'm certainly not worried about sending any kids to college yet-- I'm in college. When the time comes, I'll figure that out, surely.

Then you're not really an artist. You're an employee. Certainly a reasonable way to go.
But the difference is that my films are MY films, not like "yours" which are not only the property of others, but also made through a "creative" process controlled by others.

I am an artist who gets paid. where is it ever said that artist = NO PAY ??? and where is it that you assume that PAY= EMPLOYEE ??? I've been self employed for over 20 years. I've worked on hundreds of projects over the years and people paid me for my artistic contributions. Are monet or picasso not artists ? thats silly to equate money to one's "true artistry"

secondly as far as "my films" vs "creative process controlled by others" nothing could be further from the truth. the process you mock is the process that fixes and solves many problems. a GREAT director or producer will take the input of good creatives around them to polish the original idea to make it better. Only the inexperienced or egomanical don't. I survived one of those directors who project crashed and burned rather then list to myself and another producer as to what needed to be fixed to make it sellable. it was all about HIM, and not the movie, and in the end the results spoke for themselves and I got to say " told you so"... but his ego was just too big to listen.

the "creative process" is a great way to work with other people. I like to see other people edit my shooting sometimes because they will put it together in ways I hadn't thought of, and thats always fun and cool to see that. its a good process if you have good people around you.

AFA my own independent projects, I've been thru several. they have all made money and at least paid back their production costs, sometimes made a small profit. you just keep making more, getting better at __marketing__ them, and move up. its all about the box and marketing. if either of those aren't good, you won't make a penny back no matter how good. of course the terrible truth is, so much stuff is just pure junk out there. only 1 in 20 independent films see ANY distribution. has to be a reason why.... and thats because a lot of it is not even watchable.

Steve, review this:In my little world, people pay me to shoot!
That was what I was referring to. In such a situation, it isn't your project-- it's someone else's.

If you can be paid to make your art-- great. That's the goal.

You're overexpanding what I said a bit, I think.

An early economist wrote "A man can be neither a lover, nor a poet, nor a philosopher lest at sometime in the recent past he has had something to eat." Starving artists are usually too hungry and too frustrated to be very creative, while admitting to the fact that there are commercial aspects to one's art gives one the means to actually create instead of squandering one's creativity.

"Steve, review this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig
In my little world, people pay me to shoot!
That was what I was referring to. In such a situation, it isn't your project-- it's someone else's."


Because I'm getting paid it isn't my project?
Using that logic... If Zanuck/Brown Productions hired Steven Spielberg to direct a movie it wouldn't be his project.

Daniel, you remind me of my son.
A brilliant guitarist who would rather work in a liquor store than accept a recording contract, because he thinks that would be selling out.

As for this brouhaha over whether one should finance their own film, I have something to say.

All films deal with the demands put on them by financiers. Kubrick is the only director I know of who has gotten complete creative control from the studios. But it can be especially harsh on small indie features where financiers frequently demand participation of actors who may or may not be appropriate to the role, because they think it makes distribution more likely. Huge numbers of films - including my first film - are utterly and irredeemably sabotaged by these demands.

The reason to finance your first feature is to:
1. protect it from destructive demands.
2. not burn through your money sources before you have made an entire feature.

Not many people get paid to make their first feature, or their second, for that fact. Getting a feature film shot, edited and into film fests or distribution is a huge and complex undertaking. Having a self-financed feature that proves you can get it all done on budget is powerful card to have in hand. Waiting until some pays you to make movies, when you don't have one as a sample, is a very long wait indeed.

The digital revolution is all about artistic control. I say use it for all it's worth.

As I said, you're exaggerating my point.

A brilliant guitarist who would rather work in a liquor store than accept a recording contract, because he thinks that would be selling out.Uh... that's not me. I'm in school, he's not. I'm probably smarter than him [at least in terms of common sense], and I will certainly never work in a liquor store.

At the moment, I don't need to work, and I am lucky enough to be able to spend some money to finance my own productions. I like that, and I like making movies.

Sure, I'd love to have a financial backer, but I need to prove myself first.

I'm a very serious filmmaker-- as a hobby. Soon, I will be working to get into it as a career. Just because I don't make my checkbook the foremost thought in my mind [mostly because I don't need to], that doesn't mean you have some higher status than I do.

I'm happy. If you are as well, that's fine then.

But TO ME, I would like to make the films I want, and I'm happy to pay for that.

As said before, I like making movies; it's how I want to spend my money.

No one has offered to sponsor me going on a vacation, but if I wanted to, I'd pay myself. In the same sense, I pay for my own films.


Once this becomes a career, based on my experience and reel from my work now, things will change and I will be working for a profit-- that's how things work. But I'm also quite sure that I will continue to make my own stuff on the side, unless I end up lucky enough to make what I want for a profit, which may or may not happen. And even if I don't end up working in the film industry, I will continue to make films, on the side. And, yes, I'll probably pay for them. Is it worth it? Definitely. What else would I rather spend the money on?

You can work and pay for food, bills, etc., all your life, then you die. What was the point if you didn't also find a way to do what you like? Pay bills first, sure, but if there isn't a second... why even pay the bills?
And even those who cannot afford more still want more, even if they can't afford it. And they may work out of debt, or another tough situation, to where they can again enjoy life.


Don't expand this to be an argument that anyone who makes money or is financially backed is not an artist or not making the films they want, but the way you phrased that, it sounded very much like you were given money to make a certain film. Perhaps your phrasing was just off, but that was the clear impression I got.