|
NE, I'm going to hop in, if you don't mind. For some background I work in business and legal affairs at a production company and its sister international distribution company, based in London. We make films in the $6-25m range, and sell films in the $2-25m range, but usually around $5-12m. On our recent production I had a slightly broader role, more akin to production executive, for which I am getting an associate producer credit (probably in the end titles). An editor on a mid-range indie film ($10-20m) will probably make around $100-150k, in my experience. screenwritersblues posted:Probably a dumb question but... How long is a piece of string? Is your film period? Set on water? Does it have car chases and explosions? Lots of locations? or is it an intimate film in a few locations with a small cast? Without knowing the specifics of a story that's impossible to answer. You could probably make a film using amateur actors, a Canon D5 or similar, and edit on a Mac using Final Cut Pro - total cost a few thousand dollars. After that, you will always find ways to spend money. A proper low-budget indie film with decent production value can probably be made for about $2m, including proper compensation for talent, production crew, music, etc, plus some deliverables (it isn';t enough to make the film; you also have to cteate the materials that allow for exploitation, like an interpos, interneg, digital cinema pack, HD masters, digibetas, betacams, sound items, and a boatload of documentation. Speaking of which would anyone be interested in seeing what our delivery schedule (for producers in our capacity as sales agent) or a studio like Miramax's looks like? Where can I post a large PDF? shinymodem posted:Do Ari Gould's really exist, or are most people in the business friendly and easy to work with? Gold. Some agents and lawyers are real assholes, like one who screamed for about ten minutes; generally they are fairly pleasant on the surface but untrustworthy, grasping, rapacious assholes. British agents tend to be, in our experience, nicer than American. There are some exceptions to the assholery; Viggo Mortensen's lawyer, for instance, is terrific, but that's because his client seems like an amazing guy. Lawyers are actually generally more straightforward than agents. Goddamn, I hate agents.
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2010 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Red posted:Are you allowed to 'volunteer' on films, so as to make connections and meet people? Seconding all that NE and 5 cent have to say. Some films allow for interns, which will get you some on-set experience. There are also formal interning schemes. Regarding film degrees, of all the people I work with at a film production and international distribution co, I think 2 have some kind of film related background in their studies; so if it's the business side of things you're interested in, which an interest in film is essential, a qualification in film is not. Agents and lawyers work on filsm! Although they are not involved in the physical manufacturing of films. Where do you draw the line?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2010 11:37
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:I'm not as in the business as NE, therattle, or others, but I can chime in on some of this if nobody minds. You again! I've had just about enough of your shenanigans, mister...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2010 15:59
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Are there any directors today who just shoot in the Hitchcock style where everything is story-boarded and they only shoot the exact shots they need? Rather than shooting everything from 10 angles then choosing the best angles when editing (as I understand it's generally done but could be wrong). (Not sure how that fits into "business", but the "editing is easy" discussion made me wonder about it) Cronenberg pretty much only shoots what he'll need, since he has most of the film mapped out in his head; it makes shooting with him a pleasure. A Dangerous Method finished two days early because of that (plus the generous schedule he requested and got).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 15:10
|
|
|
Popelmon posted:Hah, awesome thread. I have a few questions myself: In the independent world, there is some overlap. As NE said, there is post work being farmed out from LA, and Germany is a popular destination for productions because of DFFF tax rebate as well as lander funding. (These are not always easy to access as Hollywood productions as films need to qualify as German or European). As far as talent in concerned, stars in a local country can get success in Hollywood, which acts like an attractor for talent, it's hungry for good people. for instance, Christophe Waltz is now in studio films, Marc Foster directs Hollywood projects, etc - although that degree of interplay is limited. I you are looking to sell or produce a film for the international market the American actors are generally the A-listers, with quite a lot of Brits too, some Canadians, and some Aussies. There are very few non-first-language-English-speaking A-list actors.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2010 14:29
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Piracy straight-talkin' I want to copy and keep this to use against people who say that piracy is OK. it isn't. It is hurting independent distributors. I know this because we sell films to them. In some territories the market has collapsed because of piracy. Weaker distributors = lower prices paid for films = less money to make films.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 15:31
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Tell them about Spain. I nearly did! The Spanish market for films has collapsed; if you want to sell a film to an independent Spanish distributor, good luck. If you do sell, you'll get 20% of what you got a few years ago. There have been other factors, like a slump in advertising revenue, but the biggest driver has been piracy. With the high level of piracy in Spain, TV value has declined so broadcaster aren't buying as much or for as much, and the DVD market has fallen through the floor. Theatrical might retain some value, but generally distributors dose money on a theatrical release, hoping to make it up from TV and video. Spain used to contribute maybe 5-7% of a film's budget - that's now pretty much gone.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 19:08
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:I'm also going to echo this from the opposite side, because I'm someone who realized that, as much as I love movies, I value a steady life with a solid job much, much, much more than any particular area of work. I watched my friends go ahead of me. I listened and saw what my successful friends had to do. I was headed down that path myself, and one of the hardest, and smartest decisions, I ever had to make was realizing that my priorities for a happy life did not fit into a career in film, or at least the career I wanted in film. That's right, baby... actually, for all of my frustrations and disillusionment (particularly as regards lack of authority/responsibility, and lack of involvement in the creative side of things apart from international distribution acquisitions), I know that I am in a very fortunate position.  . I nearly became a lawyer and I am glad I am not, as I'd rather be working with legal issues, sure, but instructing the lawyer and doing the deals, instead of being instructed and just executing. That said, a fair chunk of my time is just execution (I've conformed god knows how many sales agency agreements), and there is still a lot of drudgery - as is the case with most jobs. On the other side, I work with great people, I get to read a lot of scripts of high-profile projects, some of which I get to help make or sell, and I have the warm feeling of knowing that I was involved in some terrific films (and some stinkers...). I also find that putting financing together and then driving a closing, in all of its multi-faceted complexity, terrifically exciting and stimulating, alongside stressful and demanding. There re so many elements to juggle, all of which impact the others, and keeping it all in one's head, and getting everything to line up, is a rush - and then at the end of it you've got a film. When we sell a film, I am a piece in someone else's puzzle; when we produce, it';s our puzzle, and I have to get all the parts (cast, budget, co-producers, multiple financiers, completion guarantor, distribution agreements, national competent authorities, insurers, ourselves, sales agent etc), which keep moving, to fit - and that's when we've closed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 20:02
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The MPAA is kind of obsessed with protecting their monopoly...that's more of a structural problem than anything else. I've just used the "ignore user" function for the first time. Go figure, I'm in London! Must have rubbed off on me... therattle fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Dec 2, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 11:50
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:To get this back on topic a few questions: 1) I suppose this is a general question, but it doesn't blow me away. I remember reading it described as not real 3-d, but two separated flat planes, which struck me as right. 2) Yes, and either way it's ugly. if the director goes rogue and just does what they want and the producer is weak, you get a flabby, self-indulgent film. When the director is ousted or marginalised it gets very ugly and unpleasant. 3) Yes, although they have what is called a closed set, with no visitors, press, etc, and an absolute minimal crew for that particular scene; so once the lighting is set up, for instance, lighting crew leave the area, and all hat's left is camera, sound, and director. 4) Not really sure how to answer that, but yes. For instance, my boss gave an interview for a Criterion release of a film he produced, which involved them setting up a camera in his office and interviewing him. Commentary tracks have involved him or the director, or both, sitting in a recording studio talking about the film as it plays silently. That is then licensed to distributors to add to their DVDs if they want it. If a distributor paid for the creation of it, then other distributors might have to pay an access fee, but often you can get them for free. 5) Hard question, as I tend to avoid inept films. I saw a stinker a few years ago called Confidence; The Majestic was offensively bad... ummm...Woody Allen's Scoop was truly appalling. I absolutely HATED Atonement, but it wasn't inept. I'm not on the production side so I don't look for tiny things that others might notice, but I do note expensive scenes; like period scenes where they've closed off and dressed a street, or have a large ball full of costumed extras, or with period cars driving by in the background - that sort of thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 15:55
|
|
|
In need of tissue posted:What percentage of movie tickets go back to the production company? What about dvds/blurays? 1) Impossible to determine, but in independent world, almost none to zero. Here's the chain. Cinema retains a fixed % of BO, then sends a slice (a range, 70-40%) back to the distributor. The distributor has often put up an advance which is paid to the international distributor/sales agent against future revenues. First the distributor takes its fee (15-30%) of revenues, then the balance goes towards repaying its release costs, then anything left over goes towards recouping the advance it paid the sales agent (which is generally used to finance the film). After that there is very rarely anything left over to go back to the sales agent. If there is (called overages), the sales agent takes its commission, and the balance goes into the pot, most likely to pay off the financiers who funded the film. DVD/VOD and TV revenues are treated in the same way. Some actors are arrogant, some are awesome. Viggo Mortensen habitually quietly goes to the bathroom near the end of a restaurant meal, and when he comes back lo and behold, he's paid the bill. Other actors won't pay for a drat thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 17:04
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:I though I read somewhere (even on these very fora) that the percentage changes depending on the amount of weeks a movie has been in theatres. Correction (my mistake, well spotted): cinema retains an agreed fixed AMOUNT and then the % split changes, depending, as you say, on desirability of the film, number of weeks in theatre, relative negotiating strength of cinema vs distributor, and a host of other factors.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:
These here are words of wisdom. Nothing to add other than my agreement; in my experience this is very much the case (and rather well put too).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2010 12:49
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:My wife just recently spent a year of her life working on a mid-sized (30 mill) movie from a smaller studio. In other words, a huge project for the studio involved, not least because it had a couple of A-list, Oscar winning contributors above the line. The film had a longer than usual director's cut period (say 16 weeks or so vs. 10 weeks or so,) far away from the prying eyes of the executives. During this time they had a couple of informal (friends and family plus guests) screenings. Most of the attendees gushed with praise. I was one of the few (perhaps only) people who insisted that it needed to lose 20 minutes of running time. The director and editor insisted that there were no trims or lifts that would work (despite some scenes that many felt were flabby, unnecessary, or confusing.) They knew there were "pacing issues" but didn't think the running time was a problem, or that the two were intrinsically linked. Anyway, it continued to be polished but never really got any shorter. It spent months of additional post production near the studio - which stepped in and ran two formal test screenings. The studio felt the film moved too slowly. The director and editor remained steadfast. The screenings settled the argument - scores were through the roof (like 91 and 93 or something insane.) What ultimately happened upon release? Critics thought it was too slow and it flopped at the box office. God that's a familiar story. We work a lot with established "auteur" final cut directors, and even when they don't have final cut the producer I work for is very director-friendly, so never exercises his final cut rights. We've made too many films that needed 10-20 minutes cut from them but where the director didn't see it, despite repeated prompting and pleading from the producer. Because of this, I am no longer sure I believe in directors getting final cut, except in certain exceptional cases (e.g., Cronenberg, Bertolucci). Most are too deep in the film, and too self-indulgent and egotistical to believe that their meisterwerk could do with changes. Small addition: sometimes test scores are used to determine whether someone (like a director) keeps their final cut or not. Five Cent Deposit posted:Being open to collaboration (which one must be in order to succeed in filmmaking as an endeavor and as a business) does not preclude one from putting a visionary, unique, or otherwise personal stamp on the project. And I am going to disagree and say that good directors are always in charge. When they aren't, you get movies that could have been made by anyone, i.e. the well-oiled Hollywood machine. Of course, many perfectly enjoyable, middle of the road films do get made this way. The way I see it is, the heads of department and to a degree the actors get direction of where to go and what to do from the director, and then they do their thing - and they do what the director cannot, because they are specialists and it is what they do (the director probably cannot design better costumes than the costume designer, etc). They then create, and bring their work to the director, who either accepts or requests/demands alterations until it matches what he/she wants - which is highly collaborative. So, you have a lot of creative people doing their thing, but in service of the director's overarching vision: the director is the one who ultimately makes the decision as to whether other people's creative output is right or not. Which is another way of saying that I agree with you! therattle fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Dec 6, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
lostleaf posted:How much involvement does the director or producer have in choosing their actors? I'm assuming for the main characters, you get to choose who you want. Do the executives ever force certain actors on you? Because of contracts or whatever? What about secondary characters that might only have a scene or two? Do you just leave it up to the casting director? It's give and take. In my experience directors (even top-end, A-list final-cut directors) usually have a wish list, and the producer works with them to identify which one of those actors works from a marketing/financing perspective (which directors usually heed, because, hey, they want their film to get made), budget, and scheduling. Directors usually select supporting cast with the casting director; casting makes suggestions, director ultimately approves. Lead cast is usually jointly decided by director and producer. In the indie world cast is very rarely imposed on a director; but a director who doesn't listen to what the market is saying is a fool, because their film won't get made, or won't get seen. Making a film for "the art" sounds all well and good, but it's masturbatory, self-indulgent, and if no-one goes to see it because it's only got no-name actors, ultimately pointless.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2010 11:53
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:NE: thanks. I come from the investment side on these deals, usually from large studios or serious institutional investors, so I get a jaded view. Hey, Voodoo. I know that when we receive packages for international distribution, they sometimes include comparable films, with their BO, performance, etc - which we ignore. It's our job to review the known elements: screenplay, director, cast, budget - and based on those, WE have to make the determination as to the international value. Example: X film comes in. We like the elements but the budget is $12m. There is nothing in the budget that necessitates that budget level - it could be made for $6-8m (it helps that we have a sister company which does production, and people, like me, spanning both, who have a basic idea of production and financing too). Furthermore, given the elements, it is unlikely that a French distributor would pay more than, say $4-500k - and that when the various territories are aggregated, that we'd be able to sell the film for more than, say, $6m worldwide. A producer's comparison to a hit film which made $100m at US box office is meaningless. Chances are, your film won't be a hit like that - those hits are freaks. Suggesting that your film will be that hit is wishful thinking, and makes you look naive, IMO. If you are dealing with sophisticated people, and you should be, then they'll be able to assess value themselves. The only prediction of any worth are sales estimates from a reputable sales agent; and even those often bear little resemblance to reality. The only reason I would include things is if I was pitching to unsophisticated investors and you were trying to let them know what type of film this was: is it like Splice, or is it like Away From Her?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2010 12:03
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:Thanks. They have a couple investors and are producing it internally, but have been talking to a couple small distributors in the hopes of securing financing to get them through post. There may well be a market for it - there's a market for pretty much anything. The crux of it is whether the budget and the market are congruent. Make something with a small market for a tiny budget - you're in the money. Vice versa, you ain't. Docus boomed a few years ago but have been relegated again to the back seat; they do sell, but, as I said, in limited numbers. The only animated semi-documentary I can think of that did anything is Waltz With Bashir, and that was more a narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2010 12:27
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:It is most certainly a small budget for a tiny market, and without saying more about the specific subject let's just say that I have doubts. It is a 40-50 minute doc about a monthly event, and I believe their plan is to hopefully team up with people who are part of the event to sell the DVDs at the various stores/locations that take part in the monthly event. A couple of the stores have been the silent investors for the project so far, and there is hopes that more of the participants will chip in so that it can be completely self-financed, but a lot of the participants are, well, broke poor and/or non-profits. They have offered to help in other ways, even selling the DVDs free of charge if/when they are done, but they just don't have the financial resources to contribute much - hence now exploring a distribution deal to help finance the remainder of post production. You'll know this as well as I: if they are looking for any kind of proper distribution they'll need correct physical materials (eg decent quality digibeta, HD master) and a metric fuckton of paperwork. Speaking of which, is anybody interested in seeing what a sales agent's delivery schedule is for a modestly-budgeted film? If so, where can I host a PDF?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2010 20:01
|
|
|
echoplex posted:I wish film shoots here still ran that way. (art dept/prod design lackey here). Yeah, I don' think they work like that either, otherwise the UK wouldn't keep attracting Hollywood tentpoles to shoot here. I have a decent idea of difference between PD and AD, but please expand: I always understood that PD conceptualises the overall aesthetic; AD executes. Yes?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2010 11:48
|
|
|
TheYellowFog posted:What type of money is typical for a screenwriter writing a hollywood script, as in one that is either optioned or produced by a major studio? I don't know about studios, but for a $5-15m film a fairly standard rate is around 2.5% of the budget, plus a share (5-10%)of net profits. A superstar writer (of whom there are few) might get awards bonuses and BO bumps too. The percentage budgeted fee might also be subject to a floor and a ceiling, so the calculation would be something like: Writer shall receive a first-day payment of 2.5% of the final bonded budget of the film including bond and contingency but excluding financing, interest and other indirect costs, such fee being subject to a floor of $100,000 and a ceiling of $350,000. It also depends on how much they were paid to write the screenplay during development. In the UK a decent range is anything from £10,000 for a draft and one or two polishes to £25,000 for the same, with bigger writers commanding even more. therattle fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Dec 10, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2010 18:34
|
|
|
Frost posted:words Frost, I love your post. You have a clear idea of what you want to be, and you are doing a job that gets you there. You are focused (no pun intended) on doing your job well, hoping that hard work and competence will get you up the ladder, as it seems to have. You're working on developing your skills so that when you get your next opportunity you'll be able to take it; and you have realistic expectations. I hope this doesn't come across as patronising, but it's great to read what you're up to, and your attitude. Good luck, man!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2010 16:43
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Michigan has a really great incentive right now, I think it's somewhere in the 40's... So naturally they're backed up so far with it that it's not really an option anymore. This. We're looking at shooting something in Detroit, and the MI incentive is about 40% of spend, plus another few % tacked on for Detroit. It makes it very attractive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2010 15:42
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Hey rattle - We are pretty quiet now but there is normally stuff going on until at least December 14 or so, and we are right back in the swing of things when the office re-opens from January 4th. This week is jolly quiet, and we officially close from today. As a sales agency we need to be active well before Sundance; we also need to prepare for Berlin, which might be a big one for us this year. We have at least one film screening there, possibly more - and it is also good to have a new project or two to take to market there, so that need acquiring and deal-making before we can start selling.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2010 12:56
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Are you going to Park City? I'm on the fence... really want to, not sure what I can get into. Any other fest on the planet besides Cannes I'd have no problem but this one... No. We don't really do Sundance unless we have a film there; there isn't much to acquire for international as most fest films have a sales agent already. As a company we attend in force Cannes, Berlin, Toronto and AFM, plus usually Venice, maybe Locarno, San Sebastian, Pusan, and any others where we have films and sales to be made. I always go to Cannes and have been to Berlin and Toronto. I think we'll have some films in Berlin this year (well we definitely have at least one) so I'll probably be there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2010 18:31
|
|
|
Timby posted:The other thinking was that not only was Webb a hot commodity, but this being his first big studio feature, he'd be a lot easier for Sony to control, rather than dealing with Sam Raimi stomping all over the place. All true, including this. Plus a director like that isn't going to be on a fat gross deal.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2010 12:48
|
|
|
There's been a veritable feeding frenzy (well, relatively) right across the spectrum, with studios, specialty divisions, established indies, and new smaller indies all participating, with a range of MGs. Some possible reasons: last year's two biggest Sundance pick-ups (Winter's Bone and The Kids Are Alright) both performed very well (relatively) at the BO. Other smaller "specialist" dramas (Black Swan, King's Speech) are also doing boffo BO. The studios have almost moved out of the small film arena entirely, although the audience hasn't entirely vanished. There's been a vacuum which is now being filled. While there have been a lot of deals, and some decent numbers,. the figures involved haven't been huge: off the top of my head the biggest advance I am aware of is around $4m (or maybe $7.5m?). However, most deals are for smaller, more reasonable numbers. The market has readjusted by making films for less and selling them for less, which allows more distributors to make a leap of faith on a film, knowing that their commitment, once P&A is added, is not as substantial as has been demanded in previous years. That's my take from someone on the outside looking to sell into the US market. Neurotica, you're more au fait with US distribution: is this a reasonable analysis?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 11:59
|
|
|
WebDog posted:In a nutshell. This is mostly correct. In film, the producer is the person who pulls it all together. They might have the original idea for a film, develop the script, hire the director, find the money, oversee the physical production (day-to-day handled by line producer), and launch the film. The Best Picture award goes to the producers. A producer can either facilitate a director's vision, or could hire a director to facilitate his/her own vision (I'd say it is usually a combination of those two). Executive producer is either money or someone who was important in the development or production of a project (similarly associate producer, but less so). So, let's say a producer acquires a project from another producer who can't get the film off the ground; second producer might demand an EP credit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2011 13:39
|
|
|
Nerd Of Prey posted:Awesome! Thank you! How much are you prepared to pay for: 1) an option, probably initially for 12-18 months and then extendable by another 18 or two 12-month periods; 2) a screenwriter to write the screenplay 3) if you are writing, a script editor to help you with your drafts 4) a line producer to help you budget and schedule, etc What are your intentions, other than "I want to make a film of this favourite work"? How do you intend to accomplish this?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2011 12:47
|
|
|
Sorry to be a downer too, but yes. You have absolutely no idea of what you want, let alone how to make it (whatever it is - a film from your fave work?) into a film. Don't waste your time unless you are prepared to spend some time first in understanding how the business works.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
Nerd Of Prey posted:Jesus guys, I don't know what part of "I asked because I don't know" wasn't clear. Don't bite my head off. Don't act like I'm some child sitting here with a penny jar getting ready to strut into Hollywood and ask for the keys to the kingdom. I AM taking classes. I'm studying this crazy fuckin business as best I can, but adapting stuff is not something that has come up, and I was curious. You haven't been able to even say what you want to DO. Do you want to get this project produced? Do you want to produce it? It seems like all you've given us is "I love this work and I would love to see it made into a film (or make it into a film)?", and that you would try and get the writer on board, which is pretty naive. It seems that you have so little basic understanding of what is required to get a work from underlying form to screen that it is hard to know where to begin. I'm sorry, but I am not going to explain to you from step 1 how films get produced. Once you have a basic understanding I'd be happy to answer more specific questions, but at the moment I am afraid that you just don't know enough to even know what questions to ask.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
CaptainViolence posted:Not to get all after-school special, but saying "everyone ELSE is doing it" isn't much of a case. Yeah, he obviously doesn't have a realistic idea of what he wants to do, but isn't that what the thread is for? Personally, I read it to learn from goons like you who are already in the industry and know what you're doing, not for personal insults. If I wanted to hear someone tell me how I don't know what I'm doing and it's a terrible career choice, I'd go talk to my dad. I don't, though. I'm going to school for film and at the end of a week-long run of 15-hour days, I'm still disappointed when a shoot is over, even if I have another one next week. There is nothing else I want to do with my life, despite how often I hear how unlikely it is that I'll ever be successful. I assume you have a passion for it just like I do, and I KNOW you know a helluva lot more than I do, and that's why I read the thread--not to hear "If you have to ask, you'll never know." That may be the case but he has not, as far as I can see, been able to formulate WHAT he wants to do. Does he want to produce? Write? Direct? All three? Some combination thereof? It's incredibly hard to answer "how do I do X" when he can't even tell us what X is, and can just say "but I'll do anything to get there". That does not help us help him. For the most part people in this thread are, I believe, very helpful, and both NE and I (but more NE) have taken time to answer questions. But there is no question, properly phrased and presented here, that can be answered. That's annoying.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2011 11:55
|
|
|
Nerd Of Prey posted:Let me see if I can clarify: OK! That's more like it. (I can't remember every poster who has said previously what they want to do - sorry!) There is something to work with. As NE has pointed out, the starting point is to contact the publisher, who will either own the rights or can point you in the right direction. When you find the rights owner, you will probably want to acquire an option. An option gives you the exclusive right during the option period (as extended) to acquire the film rights on certain terms. Why an option? Because an option fee (usually for 12-18 months, with automatic extensions if you pay an agreed fee of a further 12-18 months) is usually a lot cheaper and easier to fund than a purchase price (where you actually purchase the right to make the film from the underlying work). Your option agreement will include an agreed purchase price, but it is payable no later than the start of your film's production. It is either a flat amount (say, $200,000, maybe less the option payments), or a percentage of budget (say, 2%) or some combination (2% of the budget subject to a floor of $200,000 less sums already paid to grantor). An option payment can be anything from $500 a year to $100,000 a year, but mostly around the $10,000-25,000 level. While your option is running, your clock is ticking, so you have to get moving and hire a writer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2011 13:05
|
|
|
Stellar Curiosity posted:I just finished Mike Farrell's autobiography "Just call me Mike" and I feel somewhat incensed by the whole hoopla surrounding Patch Adams Hard to say, really, but fairly often. I would say it happens more to writers than to producers, because once somebody has written something and assigned their rights away, they have almost NO control over it. The producer, on the other hand, at least has some input into the project's direction (if indie, a LOT of input - in fact, drives it forward). I believe something like this happened with Paul Rudnick and Sister Act.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2011 15:17
|
|
. Does it happen often that a project gets hosed around with so much so that the person who put the wheels in motion (whether producer or writer) does not recognize the final outcome?
|
Automatic Jack, nice posts. I have seen numerous directors get their first feature from a great short. A good idea that is within your abilities to complete and is executed well is about the best calling card you can have, in my experience.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
Holy poo poo! You're an impressive dude. How much input have you got on writer, director and actor selection? "Meaningful consultation" or some kind of qualified approval right?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:I meant to ask this, but modified: is creative input negotiable in general (eg. saying that you'll take less money in exchange for creative input), or only if you're a relatively-powerful author? I assume that I've already--at least partially--answered my question, but I'd like to know for sure. It's very variable. Obviously if you are powerful or have a relatively desirable property you have more influence. It also depends on the attitude and the funding of the producer obtaining the rights. If you have little money to buy an option then one way you might be able to persuade an author to grant rights is by offering more creative rights than someone else might. In short, yes, creative rights are negotiable. In the film business, almost everything is negotiable. That's why when a film financing eventually closes, one is left with reams and reams of contracts, all of which will differ to some degree from contracts created for previous films.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2011 12:08
|
|
|
WebDog posted:Celtx on a mac can export to PDF, but that's a mac thing. This, plus PDF. I have used this Word template which strikes me as being pretty decent. http://www.indelibleink.com/scriptstyles.html
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2011 10:47
|
|
|
We have only ever received scripts in Final Draft, PDF, or, occasionally, Word.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2012 14:18
|
|
|
PastPerfect posted:I have a question for anyone in film finance or development. They don't usually get taxed to repatriate it, they get taxed on it if it is income, albeit income derived from a foreign source. Someone like Relativity, or any company not operating through a studio, will licence the rights to a distributor in exchange for either an MG or a share of distribution revenues. This income is matched to the cost of the film, plus whatever other costs are thrown in. That income is therefore not taxable until the film reaches profit, i.e., income exceeds cost. Most films do not reach this position. In addition, many countries have withholding tax treaties whereby the foreign country agrees not to tax the revenues on the basis that the producing country will be levelling tax - or vice versa, the foreign country deduct tax, but that is applicable against producing country's tax liability. In some cases rights are routed through Hungary which has several advantageous withholding tax treaties, so we use an Hungarian company, grant it the rights, and it sub-distributes them to withholding tax territories. The studios do this themselves. Look at the end of a Fox film and you'll see that in certain territories a different company owns copyright - it's a Hungarian company for that reason. Sai posted:When studios arrange their finances so that every movie loses money (the HP-thing discussed a couple pages ago), who actually pays that? Is it investors from outside the industry? Is it the production company looking for a tax break? Is it compensated with 'expenses' covering costs? How does this scheme work? It isn't really a scheme, and they do not declare bankruptcy. It is more that when people have a participation in the film's revenues, whether from investing in it, or providing services to it (i.e., talent), the studio arranges the definition of the participation, and the costs that come out ahead of that participation, in such a way that the participation never gets paid. As an example, Studio A makes ten films. 8 do OK, 1 bombs, 1 is a hit. On the hit, they would at some point have to start paying participations to third parties. So they will look at the costs that they have incurred across the ten films, let's say for creating marketing materials, and allocate 30% of the costs to the hit, 0% to the flop, and the rest between the mid-range films. This increased cost allocation to the hit delays the point at which the film reaches a certain definition of break-even, so that the third-party participants never see any money. They will do the same thing on the revenue side as the cost side: licence the film's as a package to a broadcaster (and this will happen in every territory), and allocate the licence fee equally between the films (straight-limning), rather than allocating a fair 35% or so to the hit, nothing to the flop, and the rest between the others. This reduces the revenues coming in for others to share.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2012 11:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
I'm not sure that other industries have the same accounting to third parties, different definitions of revenue and profit, and the allocations game that the film industry has.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2012 10:45
|
|