this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
40 points (97.6% liked)

movies

3352 readers
317 users here now

Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

🔎 Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For his part, Baker spent a great deal of time on the campaign trail discussing the headwinds faced by indie filmmakers. In his Indie Spirits speech, referring to the time it takes to make a film, he asked a rhetorical question: “How do you support yourself with little or no income for 3 years?”

We posed that question to producer Alex Saks on this week’s Filmmaker Toolkit podcast as we explored the issue of why even the most successful indie filmmakers are unable to make a living. Saks is an indie producer, with 24 producing credits that include Baker’s “A Florida Project” and “Red Rocket.” Prior to producing she was a  film finance agent at ICM, where she structured indie film deals and helped director clients get their films off the ground.

“Sean said at his Indie Spirit Awards speech, ‘I’m able to do this because I don’t have kids, I don’t have a family,’ and it’s objectively not sustainable otherwise,” said Saks on the podcast. “He’s done it because of sheer passion and force of will, and probably because he can’t possibly see himself doing anything else, but that is such a rarity on multiple levels. It is a big point to how is this sustainable, and I think the answer is it’s not.”

While on the podcast, Saks got into the reasons this is the case, including a breaking down the math involved with equity investment, which is how a majority of how the films premiering at the bigger festivals get financed. Using the rosy (some would say dream) scenario of a film costing $5 million and selling for $7 million, Saks explained how little money actually reaches the creative team.

Under this scheme, the equity investor floated cash flow to make the movie. They would recoup their $5 million investment, plus a 20 percent premium — so, $6 million goes to the investor. The sales agent would also take a 10 percent fee from the sale; that’s $700,000. From the $7 million sale, that leaves $300,000 to split between the investor and the filmmakers. That means just $150,000 for the creative team, which can include the producers, writer, director, and crew members. The splits vary from project to project, and are individually negotiated.

Under this same $5 million hypothetical budget, the director drew a salary for their services during production. However, if a film takes three years to make, it could amount to less than minimum wage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 23 hours ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago

that's fascism baybay! it never fully goes away unless we can fully get rid of it and all its features once and for all

load more comments (1 replies)