Financing / Crowdfunding

Great advice, Michael Fitzer. The concept and the characters are what get me to watch a movie more than anything else.

Michael Fitzer Risky title.. some might find it offensive,

love what the Duplass brothers have done. I am not looking for studio help or fat cat investors…but would love to identify a couple producers interested in commercial-leaning indie fare similar

to what the Duplass brothers produce. Small budget, done as much in house as possible…focus on story/emotion rather than car chases.

I think every producer should have those documents, Patrick McIntire. I tried to make two feature films way back, and I didn't have them. It made things a lot harder than they needed to be.

Thanks Grady Craig . Nice to chat with you here. Thanks for all the great information. And yes... all those things DEF matter and are super relevant for getting people to come on board a project. We've been positioning ourselves more and more with this kind of packaging and are certainly making more progress than before implementing this model. And sad but true about "even crappy scripts can get made". Sends a lot of my writer's and myself down a nasty rabbit hole of "WTF?" Who actually read that and was like "Yeah, let's put money in THAT?" Such a dog and pony show sometimes. But we all keep going back for more because inherently... WE WANT TO TELL GOOD STORIES and will keep trying at the top of our lungs. :) Tariffs...no tariffs... incentives...no incentives. None of us are heading out of the game any time soon. BY THE WAY... anyone heading to Cannes next week?

Jon Shallit Try to bring on a producer with capital structuring expertise, or as you say "a salesperson's" mind. Your core team should complement each other... I'll be the first to admit that I'd benefit from a strong creative / writing companion, as I haven't exercised those skills nearly as much over the years!

With so much talk about budgets and pre-sales, few people talk about the actual business plan needed to secure investors. I see templates online but what would you suggest is the most important things to focus on when making a film business plan that would make financing most feasible?

I have tried, Mr. Craig. I did make a full movie, SETESH, but no luck with distribution. If you want a strong creative/writing companion, I'd be glad to send you some scripts. Maybe I can fulfill that role...I can write anything for any location, premise, group of actors, genre or set of props.

Geoff Hall Could it affect European tax incentives? Theoretically, if a U.S. tariff caused the cost of producing in Europe to rise significantly, European governments might face pressure to increase tax incentives to maintain competitiveness, though such adjustments would depend on broader economic and policy considerations

But how practical is the tarriff for a US studio that goes abroad to produce cheaply? If the U.S. studio then ships physical media (hard drives or LTO tapes) back from abroad, customs could theoretically assess a tariff. In practice, the drives themselves are inexpensive relative to a multi-million-dollar production budget, so any tariff would be negligible and would not affect the millions of digital copies distributed to theaters, streaming platforms, or home media. Or would it?

Digital delivery via SFTP, cloud services, or platforms like Aspera entirely avoids physical import, making enforcement of a tariff effectively impossible. Even if a “digital import tax” were proposed, it would be extremely difficult to apply, as determining the portion of production completed abroad and valuing digital files is impractical.

Additional loopholes further weaken enforcement: significant post-production done in the U.S. allows the studio to claim the work as domestically produced, and replicated distribution copies are not subject to tariffs, so taxing the original master has little economic impact.

Ashley Renee Smith I recently came across a couple listing their 74-acre property in Colorado for $300 million. If you—or someone you know—own an asset of that scale, almost any bank will finance your film upto $50 million or more if you pledge the property as collateral.

Without collateral whose value exceeds the loan amount, banks are generally not an option. That leaves equity or non-bank debt as alternatives—essentially, people willing to invest or lend knowing they could lose 100% of their money if the project fails.

The transaction itself isn’t terribly complicated if you have a solid project and the right stars attached. What I’m currently focused on is financing a slate of projects, but that’s probably best discussed after execution.

Thats one I've never considered, Kenneth George! Interesting.

Ashley Renee Smith If you’re looking to raise, say, $50 million to produce a slate of around 10 strategically budgeted films—which is very feasible, by the way—you really have to go big in terms of strategy.

State-level tax incentives and programs like Section 181 can help, but they’re more like supplementary or secondary tools (like coupons) rather than primary solutions.

If you’re actually in the financial trenches and not just talking hypothetically, there could be some very real options available to you—especially with your background. It’s hard to say without knowing exactly how much you’re aiming to raise.

Debbie Seagle This seem to be the most recent status.

https://www.dga.org/news/pressreleases/2025/250813_dga_supports_legislation_for_federal_film_tax_deduction

Thank you Kenneth George !

@debbieseagle With regards to the deduction and profits my understanding is yes. This is awaiting renewal and a National film tax credit is in consideration as well. The reliability of Section 181 is open to interpretation for indie film investors. Studios and production companies with ongoing profits are best positioned to utilize the deduction. Varying legal advice exists as to whether individual investors can take advantage, as the language implies "those purchasing an asset" or similar, versus investing in a project. I tend to steer away from it as the top entertainment attorney advises against it and liabilities could arise if an investor were not to obtain the deduction. It is often sold as a simple matter, which it is not. I have used it however in the implementation of film tax credits and acquisition by a company for which it seems most intended vs. for investors. Only a top, senior entertainment attorney or very experience entertainment CPA as Ashley rightly commented could advise best.

Debbie Seagle If the Section 181 program continues, it would be very beneficial. Normally, when you acquire a capital asset, you have to depreciate the cost over a set period depending on the asset class—commonly 5, 7, or 10 years. What this program allows is for you to deduct the entire cost in the same year the expense is incurred, rather than spreading it out over several years. That immediate deduction can have a significant impact on cash flow and tax savings.

Thank you Debbie, let's hope H.R. 4840 The CREATE Act will be voted on and signed by the president sooner than later.

Ashley Renee Smith I haven't seen it, but what is interesting is that it is one of very few films that grossed over $100 million yet is tagged in only one genre: Horror.

https://www.intense.pictures/industry/analyze.php?action=full_sorted_wg&...

Of the four or five films that meet this criterion, they all seem to be either Horror or Comedy.

Maurice have you seen it? What did you think? Any way to get the script?

I haven't seen Conjuring: Last Rites, but I've seen the other movies, Jon Shallit. I just looked for the Conjuring: Last Rites script. I couldn't find it. It's probably not online yet.

The Conjuring is a Horror franchise definitely worth studying, Ashley Renee Smith. For screenwriters, producers, directors, investors, etc. I'm trying to figure out a Supernatural Horror story, and studying the Conjuring franchise might help me finally figure it out.

Yeah, it's likely too soon to get the script as the movie just released theatrically, Jon Shallit. I would check again in a few weeks. It may get shared closer to Halloween when horror scripts tend to make their rounds online.

Thanks for sharing the video, Ewan Dunbar!

Willem Elzenga 2 Each of the sources you listed have pros and cons. You probably forgot the mob (as in Ozark). They usually just need somewhere to park a few million in what looks like a legitimate enterprise. Just have a good escape plan to disappear if the film bombs. They'll usually send an enforcer to come looking for not just you but anyone connected to you. They dont quite care about the disclosed risk factors in the prospectus or ppm.

Sandpaper your script into something “four-quadrant” (i.e. bland enough for everyone. Love that comment.

Michael Fitzer, thank you for this post! There’s a wealth of practical insight here that too often gets overlooked in the rush to get the cameras rolling.

That point about treating a low budget like real money is critical. It’s easy to fall into the mindset that “under $300K” means shortcuts everywhere, but it’s often the opposite, every dollar has to work harder, which means the planning has to be even sharper.

Also love the reminder to pay yourself something as a producer. Creative burnout or financial strain can tank even the most promising project, and carving out a sustainable workflow is part of being a professional.

Thanks for sharing, Randall Scott White!

Amber Greenlee The issue is that you probably don't have access to the industry and market data they have collected over the years to inform their decisions. A few weeks ago, I mentioned a film that featured top stars, a Bond girl, and a Clint Eastwood protege as the director. It had a production budget of $20 million but only generated about $700,000 in revenue that we know of. When you have several such failures in a given year, it highlights the value of established franchises, which can go on to gross nearly a billion dollars.

Kenneth George I don't have all the metrics, no. I don't have all the numbers, no. But I do have case studies. What I do have is an ear for what people are saying and and eye on box office numbers now and the tentpoles aren't delivering what's promised any more. Maybe Hollywood is metric-ed out. Maybe they just need to... make art again?

Remember that? Making art? Telling a story to say something or comment on something or just to entertain people? I think @Minh Koby Nguyen up there has a pretty good instinct about where the new media is going to come from.

When Old Hollywood was spending huge budgets on movies like Cleopatra in 1963 and spending $1M on a movie star's salary for the first time to get Elizabeth Taylor people forget that that film flopped in theaters. That was a $57M domestic box office against a $42M budget, only a $27% profit margin. 5 years later Night of the Living Dead, a B picture from an unknown director done on a shoestring budget, had a far more impressive profit margin. It made $12M+ domestic box office with a production budget of only $114,000 which is a profit margin of 106.03%. I'm getting my #s from here: https://www.the-numbers.com/

Spielberg was still making art into the 1990s. Jurassic Park (the first one) is a piece of art as is Shindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. The first movie has dinosaurs and action and, sure it was made to make money too, but it was also to tell a story about humanity's ego and hubris; as a warning to not let our own awe blind us to our conscience. The other 2 he made because WWII is very important to him personally because of his heritage. He put his heart into those films and you feel it there on screen.

Amber Greenlee: Treating exhibitors' ticket sales as revenue available to recoup investment in production costs fails to account for all the other folks standing at the front of the line to get paid to put the film on a big screen to begin with. The exhibitors take half off the top. Distributors take their fees before then recovering P&A/marketing costs. Sales agents and Producers agents all want to get paid. Set aside the creative accounting and the producers / investors will do good to see at best 30 or 40% of box office.

Absent expensive subscriptions beyond the reach of most independent producers, we have almost no visibility into the economics of streaming.

It was the DoJ's Roosevelt/Truman era anti-trust case (United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131) which busted up the vertical integration in the industry, leaving the production studios to then demand the transparency we now enjoy over the economic performance of theatrical exhibition. But action by the Trump DoJ in 2020 reversed those gains (https://www.justice.gov/atr/paramount-decree-review), and the Biden administration failed to live up to its rhetoric. No one has taken on the streaming services which re-integrated vertically, producing content for their own exhibition platforms.

The project I currently have in development (29 days of photography, 170 days of pay for the cast) would cost roughly $600k to pay scale under the IATSE/Teamster/SAG-AFTRA/WGA/DGA MBA low-budget. That is before I start paying for locations, sets, vehicle and production package rental fees.

My conversations with folks in distribution have so far cautioned micro-budgets, and realistic expectations for the revenue potential of streaming licenses. They caution that absent millions to spend on marketing, only four-walling provides any hope of an Academy qualifying theatrical exhibition. And failing to back such a DIY approach with ample marketing expenditures threatens to demonstrate a lack of market fit scaring off subsequent distribution opportunities.

The US lost 5.7k screens since the lockdown. Apparently theatrical exhibition in foreign territories are favoring local content alongside US made tentpole content. And it may be a couple of years before streaming begins to effectively penetrate foreign markets. Apparently 95% of streaming revenues are still in North America.

Set aside the cost of attaching marketable names and faces to a cast. The question remains, how do we reliably recoup our investors money?

Its not an encouraging picture right now.

Amber Greenlee When you say things like, “What I do have is an ear for what people are saying…,” it’s a bit like going to court and repeating what you heard from someone (hearsay) to a judge or jury. Hearsay isn’t considered reliable evidence — and in business, it’s no different.

When companies are putting billions of investor dollars on the line, with investors expecting returns, decisions aren’t based on anecdotes. They’re driven by hard data, market research, and insights from experts — PhDs in marketing, consumer psychology, behavioral economics, data science, etc. — people who dedicate decades to studying consumer behavior and the factors that shape decision-making both at a micro and macro level.

Sure, you’ll occasionally see an outlier — maybe once a year, or even once every few years — where a film made on a shoestring budget (usually in horror) breaks out with unexpected revenue. But those are deviations, not the norm. It doesn’t mean the entire industry should run on microbudgets.

Think of it like sports: teams with the largest budgets who sign the biggest stars usually dominate and almost always contend for championships. Struggling teams rarely win consistently. Yes, every once in a decade you’ll get a Cinderella story — a low-budget team that makes an improbable run. But those stories stand out precisely because they are exceptions.

As the song goes: that’s just the way it is.

I do appreciate everyone's thoughtful responses. There's so much to consider when it comes to making a movie-

I think about all of my friends in the industry that had been affected by waves of layoffs going through the industry and what it did to them financially, career-wise, emotionally. Some studios with tall pole movies that just cut all the people who had just put it together for this neat accounting trick doctors hate!

The more people involved, the more money, the higher the tentpole. When it falls, it falls hard. When you see a professional physical tent put up, there are guide wires there to help support the center pole, anchors in place to try and help it from falling. I see this as the marketing, the press tours, the interviews, trailers, the toy deals, etc. Everything to support the big pole. These are the known names, the known IPs, and the "sure bets." But the guide wires need support too. They can't hold up the one pole alone.

Big tents have more than one pole. They have lots of little, smaller, shorter poles around the sides to help hold up the tent. Each with it's little support wire, all working together to hold up the whole structure. If one is too weak, the others have the strength to compensate so the tent doesn't fold on itself.

I suppose my argument is not that the tentpoles CAN'T be there, just that we might need to lower the tallest and raise some of the lower poles near those guidewires. Or make a graduated level tent that has place enough for the acrobats at the top and floorspace for the clowns at the bottom.

When you're fortunate, you should build a longer table, not a taller fence. It feels like there's a pedestal up there on top of those tentpoles. With the ladder pulled up.