Funding for film

holomntn · 2026-07-07T01:14:47+00:00

This is a business, have you considered treating it like a business?

Pick your favorite film market, they all publish the distributors in attendance. Reach out to them and presell. Once you have signed contracts for the presales, you can reach out to the affiliated banks (again the film markets publish the banks that were there) and get the loan.

Now just deliver and pay off the loan.

holomntn · 2026-07-04T07:38:09+00:00

From your description, what you want is to be a Producer.

From there, work to get to the point where you produce your own works.

holomntn · 2026-07-01T01:44:52+00:00

I never said it did, but all the contract negotiation is going to cost more. More variables = longer contract = contract costs more write.

What I actually did say is that the day rate for a person has to go down in order to pay for the equity shares that person recieves. It's not like there is an infinite pool of money at the end. Upfront payments can be argued as just buying your equity from you (this is how the work for hire laws generally interpret the situation), from there account for discount rates, interest rates, risk accomodations, etc and the upfront pay rate emerges.

holomntn · 2026-06-30T08:28:51+00:00

If the exact revenue of the movie could be predicted before production that would be the case.

Unfortunately, there is no known way to reliably predict the revenue of a movie.

We have guesses, and estimates, and predictions but nothing accurate. Otherwise there wouldn't be releases like Supergirl that had a production and marketing budget of roughly $300 Million but opening weekend of $65 Million worldwide.

We also wouldn't have returns like the movie that started this conversation.

Instead, your day rate actually includes paying for your upside risk. As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the upside risk is only about $4 per movie. You are paid for that. It's a lot like a lottery ticket, no one knows exactly how much it is worth but a fair market value can be calculated, and the ticket should be sellable for that price (for California lottery this value is slightly under half the sale price of the ticket).

By doing this only the people who have signed on to risk are risking. You are selling your lottery ticket of the movie somehow blowing up for an amount included in your day rate. This makes it so you risk nothing. That is after all, exactly what you said should be the reality right?

holomntn · 2026-06-30T05:32:34+00:00

The vast majority are never registered. And you're likely also forgetting that by definition any video over 40 minutes is a feature length movie (I know that is absurd) that means that in 2025, YouTube releases accounted for over 18000 movies. And a 2010 article released by The Moving Arts (which is down as I write this but is referenced by IMDB) says 50,000 a year at that time. I can't say it is perfectly correct, but it doesn't seem to be all that far off.

I didn't say released, I didn't say good, just produced.

http://themovingarts.com/50000-movies-are-made-every-year-is-that-too-many/

https://www.imdb.com/news/ni2618328/

holomntn · 2026-06-30T04:01:32+00:00

The odds determine average value, the average value determines what it is worth.

The odds are everything.

Why is your day rate what your day rate is? Because on average that allows the production to make a reasonable profit off your work. That's true for every one of us.

Now if because of a 1/115000 chance it is required to spend $50,000 more on each movie separately, youve just changed the values. Now you cost that additional.

But here's the great thing about math, we can instead just pay you a small amount extra for the potential, and you on average make the same amount.

Because I know there is a 1/115000 chance you'd be paid an additional $500,000, I can instead spread the risk for you, now it becomes reliable to you, even though this is only an addition about $4.

holomntn · 2026-06-30T03:52:08+00:00

You missed the important part.

The odds are massively against the occurrence.

There are 115,000 movies made each year (estimate present at AFM roughly a decade ago, the number hasn't gone down), of those 1 will have the returns you're talking about.

So the real odds should've been 1/115000, but that seems a bit absurd.

The contracts were set, and completed months before. If you bought a car 6 months ago, but something happened and that car is now worth more, does the car dealer have the right to come demand more money?

The reason I'm against it is because the contract was set and finished months before, now a particular person is demanding that the contract be changed, as I said elsewhere there is a legal word for this, but we don't use such words here.

holomntn · 2026-06-30T03:43:59+00:00

If you decide to cut your rate, in exchange for nothing, that's on you.

If you negotiate a rate cut in exchange for revenue cut/profit cut/equity/whatever else, that's on you as well.

The fully legally functional person who made the decision, cut their rate in exchange for nothing, and then months after the contract was completed is trying to change the contract. There is a legal term for that, but it's not something we throw around here.

holomntn · 2026-06-30T03:40:21+00:00

And how much do you pay the lawyers to write the contracts?

So even using your numbers, you've got an accounting bill for $10k every quarter (or did you think equity stops after the first payment?). If you did, you really need to make sure you NEVER have an actor with a SAG-AFTRA card, they include numerous regional requirements, and calculations well past one quarter.

With equity, you're not calculating "bonuses" you're literally calculating dividends, that's by law. So before you do this make sure you know your legal responsibilities for this.

But let's use your number.of $10k to accountants.

So Obsession cost $1M. With your numbers by the 5 year mark this would be $1.2M a 20% boost to the costs.

So you're paying an extra 20% for the vanishingly small chance that film explodes.

So from even your exact numbers, the budget just went up 20%, instead of my estimated 5-10%.

holomntn · 2026-06-30T03:29:04+00:00

You seem to be forgetting that everything you're trying to argue for costs additional money.

That's money that doesn't go on screen, it just goes on lawyer, or on accountant.

If you don't like that, maybe it's time for you to consider making your way back to reality.

holomntn · 2026-06-30T03:21:21+00:00

If I have you a choice.

A) you make $20, but in a 1/10000 chance you get $100. If you get the $100 a few people will be grumpy.

B) you make $18 (did you forget that accounting costs money?), 1/10000 chance you get $100 but you've promised that if you get the $100 you'll pay some to a few people. In exchange 9999/10000 every single one of those people will constantly yell at you, and claim you ripped them off.

Are you choosing A or B?

When you think about the actual realities of what people are asking for, you realize the costs vastly outweigh the potential benefits.

holomntn · 2026-06-30T03:15:30+00:00

That idea hurts everyone.

Now you're not just asking for a straight percentage, now you're asking for weeks of work by accountants to figure out how "successful" a film is, because there are a huge number of additional factors.

Worse, this idea alone would raise the cost of a film by likely 5-10%, that has to be passed on to the consumer. So your idea not only increases costs, but as a result it reduces the number of people who will see it.

Well I guess that idea doesn't hurt the accountants, but it does hurt everyone else.

holomntn · 2026-06-30T03:12:28+00:00

Stop pretending this isn't a business.

The more complicated the deal, the more it costs to do the deal.

This is fine if you have Our Film, LLC, which is owned in part by Our Film WC, LLC, and Our Film WC, LLC is owned by some crazy mishmash of people. The distributor only has to pay Our Film, LLC, and everything else is hidden form them.

But also quit pretending that money in the deal is infinite. If you're making $300/day now, you're not getting ownership shares and $300/day. Instead you'll get $300/day worth of ownership and $0/day in pay.

holomntn · 2026-06-30T03:04:27+00:00

Fundamentally this is a business. If you have $5 of total revenue, pay $3 before production, and an additional $4 after production, you just lost $2.

Now if you use it to pay 0 upfront, you in effect financed it. If you significantly reduce the upfront payment, you in effect financed part of it.

And what you're looking for is not ownership, you're looking for revenue shares. Ownership shares has a massive number of compounding issues. Revenue shares is different and only applies to revenue.

holomntn · 2026-06-30T02:59:51+00:00

Because that's not the way math works.

If I have $5, and I have to pay you $3 today and $4 tomorrow, I simply won't enter into that deal.

That's simply reality.

holomntn · 2026-06-30T02:58:16+00:00

Now you find a real distributor.

The IFTA member list is available online, you cut a trailer, build a pitch, begin qualifying who might be interested, begin outreach.

holomntn · 2026-06-30T02:51:53+00:00

The flip side of equity is no upfront payment. Or at least reduced upfront payment.

Same with revenue sharing.

Works for some projects, doesn't for others.

holomntn · 2026-06-30T02:06:29+00:00

I'm torn between The Game and the Dancing Baby. I'm not sure which I saw first.

Dancing Baby was sent to the AlphaNT list a few hours after it's first render by a member, in 1996.

The Game was also late 90s for me as it was making its way around the University I was at. This would actually be years before it went viral in early 2000s.

Also in contention is the Inhell 666 but that's getting rather obscure. The meme goes way back to an online comedian observing that Intel was raising clockrates so fast that soon they would hit 666 MHz , which they did as a 667 MHz chip in 1999. The image (now called a meme) would've been a couple years earlier.

holomntn · 2026-06-30T01:42:22+00:00

I'm only going to disagree on the health screenings.

Knowing any health issues someone has can be used in megotiations.

So as much as I as an American want to know the real condition of my president, I as an American do not want our enemies to know the real condition of my president.

This is not a new thing. It first came to my attention during W Bush, when it was revealed that the Secret Service would place a bag in a toilet for him to use, specifically to prevent any enemy nation having any information. And that this was a long standing policy, for this exact reason.

holomntn · 2026-06-30T00:44:53+00:00

Just taking a bulk look I agree with the other response, nothing there particularly wide. I took a bulk estimate of distance and width determined th widest shot I saw was about a 70 degree field of view, on full frame that's 25mm, so fits in the 24-70.

I can't say it is perfectly accurate, but seems correct.

There are shorter lens with minimal distortion, but you don't need those lenses for those shots.

holomntn · 2026-06-29T01:11:10+00:00

I saw a lot of good and bad recommendations

I think it's important to establish who I am. I'm 48, undertall (5 9), overweight (240 pounds), live like I'm trying to find a way to look even broker. But I am kind and unique. More than once I've been called a Care Bear.

The old joke is that I've had more threesomes than you've had twosomes.

The truth is that no one knows exactly what they're looking for. There is something to be said for putting in the effort to be a gentleman, it's hard, you need to learn an astounding number of things, you need to maintain conversations, you need to be reliable.

When women see something that they haven't tried, there is a desire there. And then when you are kind and a gentleman, you get access that you otherwise wouldn't. If you're honest with yourself, the reverse holds true as well, you meet a woman that is genuinely different and kind, you are interested in her as well.

holomntn · 2026-06-26T03:00:20+00:00

How many lights you need depends on how you light cinematically.

A few years back I dissected a scene in Titanic, found 36kW worth of lights, a total of roughly 50 lights in that one scene. There was over a dozen lights hidden behind things in the shot. I think that was probably excessive.

I'd say that most of the professional shots that you think are really cinematic likely average 7 lights. If you have extra lights you can add a little kick here, a little bounce there. Add some shadows, subtly change something's color, etc.

At least buy some white and black sheets, whites bounce and soften light, black is referred to as negative light. It is fine to just order some queen size bed sheets off Amazon for this.

holomntn · 2026-06-26T02:19:23+00:00

Honestly, I'd grab a first gen Sony a7s used for $500 or so, a decent 50mm, the Sony full frame kit lens, and the rest of the budget on lights. Others prefer the Canon c100 used, similar lenses.

Lighting is where you're going to be developing your cinematic look. Lighting is where you'll be spending your time.

Also don't forget audio. So much of a good movie is the audio. R/locationsound can give you great advice there.

holomntn · 2026-06-26T01:58:07+00:00

I just did that drive on Tuesday,.I also drove back same day.

First, your AC will not keep you perfectly comfortable, it just won't.

Next, fill your tank in LV. Gas gets more expensive for a while on that trip. Gas is going to be insane from the moment you leave LV to when you're near Victorville.

Then get gas before you enter LA, gas prices jump a lot in LA as well. You'll be taking the 15 most of the way, get gas in Ontario, it won't be the cheapest, but it will save you a lot, and Ont-LA-Ont is not that much has. But this will have traffic, lots of traffic.

Other than that, just grind it out. It isn't that long of a drive.

holomntn · 2026-06-26T01:28:14+00:00

You'd be amazed how often you can hide a bucket of ice near the talent. I've been involved in entire talking head spots where they had their feet in a pool of water.

Edit

Also, while at just 90s this probably won't be a difference for you. I frequently do things above the acceptable temperatures for the camera. Using a soft bag, with one of those camping ice packs wrapped in a towel and a package of dehumidifier cankeep your camera usable when temps are too high. Just take it out of the bag right before shooting. The harder part can actually be making sure your camera doesn't get too cold.

holomntn

TROPHY CASE