I was wondering about this - do you usually form say, an LLC as production company, or videography biz, then create a new entity (like an LLC) for each movie?

I created an LLC as a production company, and here in Massachusetts it's a $500 fee to register an LLC. For each new movie I should create another one? Is that the standard practice?

I realize that I'm replying to a post that's over three years old, but I thought many people could benefit from this. Since it's for the purpose of general interest, I've left out the name of the OP.

I read scripts for such an agency that funds film productions. They're loans (not grants) that the producer has to pay back from the profits of the film, but commercial viability is never a major criterion in allotting or refusing funds to a project if it has artistic merit (man does not live from Bruce Willis or Steven Spielberg films alone).

However, I can tell you that 90% of the projects that get rejected have only the writing to blame. The "obscure tastes of the controlling minorities" is a boogey man conjured up to project blame, when the blame should rest squarely on the filmmaker who put more attention on imagining cool and hip visuals rather than writing a strong script.

So to anyone who has difficulty finding investors (public or private) or getting into a festival, I say forget about conspiracy theories and take a good, hard look at your writing - or better yet, get someone else who isn't your mother to do it.


J.

I agree with your views on funding for new filmmakers, but not your last sentence above. Most projects (commercial or independent) never find funding. People have to BELIEVE they'll be the exception, or no one would ever make movies.

So yes, by all means people, offer up examples that DID get money, against all odds. We all need the encouragement.


J.

It's not quite that simple. Great films come from experience, and you can only build limited experience by shooting projects over weekends with casts and crews that work for free. Eventually people expect to receive payment for their experience - directors and producers included.

However, I hate to see productions with inflated budgets. My last two short films were made for about $500 each, out of my own pocket and were both picked up by a distributor. I see short films that cost ten times as much to shoot in one location with one or two actors and list as many as SIX producers (exec., ass., etc.). The credits run almost as long as the movie itself. That, to me, has no right to exist because it drives budgets up by creating dangerous precedents.

Part of the appeal of filmmaking to me is creativity and ingenuity - how to get a certain shot, how to employ the visual language to tell a tale and how to stretch a dollar to do it all. A monkey can throw money at a problem, that's not filmmaking. So when I have to choose between studio space at $1,200 day, or a commercial loft at $1,200 a month, I won't take the studio even if someone offers to finance it for me - that's just obscene to me and it goes against everything I hold dear about independent filmmaking.

I think every filmschool student should have to take $1,000 of their own money to make a film and be graded on it as part of their curriculum. Teach them the value of a dollar and the importance of deciding where (and how) to spend that dollar.

This is slightly tangential but I think it should be a good reminder to all.

Once a recent low-budget shoot, one of the three EX3's we were using was damaged (possibly destroyed--still awaiting Sony Repair's verdict). Without going into the details, there was no production insurance in place and this created some disagreement about who was liable for the damage. It will all work itself out on this one but it should be a reminder that on a production where people are helping out for little or no money and bringing their kit along, there should be an explicit understanding in place of who is liable for damage. I will go further and suggest that production insurance is very important, but it is so expensive that I imagine that many short low budget projects forego this. In this instance, it turned out that having the insurance would have been less expensive...

To those producing, remember that if you "wing it" and mount a shoot without insurance, you are gambling, plain and simple. To those who go on low budget shoots with their gear even to help out their friends, be aware that you are doing the same unless you take steps to cover yourself. It wasn't my gear that was damaged on this shoot, but I had a good $10K of my own gear there and from now on will be adopting a strict policy on a signed agreement of liability when I help out people.

More is Less
 

Yes, I was given the same information from a Hollywood producer. I am packaging a production in Taiwan that originally had a budget of less than 10 M. Which I had considered was a monstrous budget compared to the 2 M budget films we usually make here. When I handed over a detailed copy of my budget for evaluation (75 pages long) I thought he would say ' This is way too much'. Instead he said - "Your budget is too low .... nowdays 20 M is considered low budget. More is Less for investors." Good God I thought. But there you go.

This has been a really useful thread, thanks for this.