ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

8 years, 11 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

A line producer ideally.

I've worked on a few projects developing schedules and budgets - then going on to production to 'manage' the spend and time. I'm also working with a few established producers creating schedules and budgets mainly for features.

There is also Paddy who you could talk to as well - he's on here a lot and you're probably seen his posts. So either contact me off line or Paddy. I'm sure between us you could get the ball rolling.

Wozy

8 years, 11 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

You would pay a line producer to produce one for you, and commonly (although not universally) the amount you pay them could be offset against their fee if you take them into production. This is because there are a LOT of projects that fall through (seriously, a detailed budget is weeks of work), and a producer could take a budget and go to another LP for the shoot (or the investor requires a different one, etc.) This is what your development money is for.

One thing you need to know at this stage though, is that for £8M production you need a BONDABLE line producer at that level, and so you'll pay proper money for this. If the investor isn't asking for bond details, there's a very real chance they're not a real investor!

8 years, 11 months ago - John Osiko

Hi Lee and Paddy - Thanks for your replies! So I'm already halfway down the rabbit hole that is understanding bondability... of which (reassuringly) the investors are certainly aware.

So one reason for our hesitation in actually attaching THE line producer we will go forward with is that there are some big unanswered questions about the balance of location vs studio shooting that we'd like to creatively discuss with the Director once he's attached - a matter that makes drawing up an expensive bondable Line Producer's budget at this stage impossible. The second reason is that we're being cautious about burning development money on an expensive bondable Line Producer at this stage in the game since without the director actually attached we obviously don't know if we'll ever definitely get to draw down the production budget!

So a few spin off questions:

1. do you have a sense of the ballpark cost of a Line Producer capable of such a budget to produce a budget? (I realise this is an incredibly elastic amount).

2. When established production companies undergo the traditional development process of a script would they have a 'go to' Line Producer buddy that they get a professional budget done by before they raise finance? (I'm sure you're wondering how on earth we got to this stage without this but the short answer is that the same script previously had a £12million budget drawn up for it in the states, it's now ended up with me and the established investor has told me that they'd cover our equity and gap for up to £8 million.... we're now desperately trying to get a credible £8 million budget drawn up. The answer may of course be to bite the bullet and take the risk of forking out for a bondable Line Producer's budget right now?)

8 years, 11 months ago - Dan Selakovich

What Paddy and Wozy said. One thing to be aware of from a Line Producer or Production Manager that does these types of budgets, is them asking you if you want a reverse budget. Don't do that.

A reverse budget is this: you have X amount of money, and they do a budget to fit that amount. This can be a legit budget, but it is also a budget full of compromises. At this point, you need to know how much your film will cost if done professionally and properly without any corner cutting.

I don't necessarily agree with Paddy about them being bonded at this phase of the process. Though it is completely necessary if you are bringing them on as the Line Producer or Production Manager when financing is in place. Don't get me wrong, it's an excellent idea to have a bonded LP do your budget. If you have to go to a bank for GAP funding, they'll make you re-do the budget with a bonded producer anyway. Too, I don't necessarily agree with investors asking about the completion bond. If they are film investors, they absolutely will. If they are a bunch of lawyers and dentists, they won't know enough to ask. It really depends on where you are getting your funding from or where you think you might be getting your funding from.

I would also be wary of anyone you approach that doesn't include a schedule. You can't budget a film until you've scheduled it. If they don't do a schedule, they are going back to films they've done in the past that match your genre, and doing a lot of estimating for your budget. You'll get a budget really quickly out of these guys, but it won't be right for your specific film.

And finally, once you have a budget, it's a good idea to have another LP or PM check it out. You can't imagine the costly slip-ups if just one thing is missing or not budgeted correctly. For example, if it's a director's first feature with a producer that hasn't worked with a lot of first time directors, the schedule would need to be extended.

8 years, 11 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

1) I'd suggest maybe £5k for 2 weeks work - you could ask your bonding company to suggest some names and hit the phones. It's going to be an important relationship.
2) Established companies will have their own track record of credibility for the bonders, but yes they'll certainly have a few line producers they trust and use.

8 years, 11 months ago - Dan Selakovich

John, you wrote your reply while I was writing mine, so I didn't see your questions until I posted.

When one investor is giving you that kind of cash, whether 8 mill or 12 mill, they typically want a name in the cast. My guess is that the U.S. budget included money for that star. The investor that said he will give you 8 million will still want that star, but at a lower cost. In other words, are you making a 3 million movie with a pricey star that fills out the rest of your budget?

Yes, studios and established production companies have more than one "budget guy." They'll have different PMs do a budget to see if they fall in the same ballpark.

8 years, 11 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

You could probably spend a couple of grand getting a ball park figure with a non-bonded LP, to get the schedule and budget down on paper and a good starting point to then go talk to director and financiers. But once you need to move forward officially, then you could pull that bonded LP in to relook at the budget and fine tune, restart, or top up (which ever is the LP preference). But then you'll pay the 4-6k for the final official budget that will satisfy all the legal aspects.

But it's still 2 weeks work or more to get you that first step.

And let's face it, once the director comes on board there will undoubtedly be changes to cast, locations, VFX, design etc... that will need to be taken into account anyway.

8 years, 11 months ago - Alève Mine

Dan, so it is not necessarily Line Producers but also Production Managers who do budgeting?
And: how do you know if a LP is bondable?

8 years, 11 months ago - John Osiko

Thanks Paddy, Dan, Lee - all really really helpful insights, especially about timing and payment. Interesting to think about the reverse budget issue as that is something I'd potentially be asking any given LP to do unless I can find a second source of investment.

Dan you hit the nail on the head when you talked about named cast. Although we're in discussion with a very established director who directed the good and the great it will all depend on our ability to secure a named cast member. This is so far above anything we've ever made before and so we realise that we personally don't have the experience to say for certain that having the director attached will guarantee the right cast.

Whilst I've got your experience ears I wondered what your take on the following scenario vis a vis bondability would be like. We have partial information form the completion guaranteer that we've spoken to but we're tentatively finding our way so as to not sound ignorant. The question is would a production be bondable at this budget if the Line Producer, Executive Producer, Director and other heads of department were bondable but the actual Producers (me + one other) were unbondable?? (Our plan as stands is to take exceptionally good advice from an experienced hand on one side and leave the execution of the project to the Line Producer on the other)

8 years, 11 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Yes, probably. Imagine the bond being there to protect the investors from the producer. You'll probably pay top whack for your bond, though (maybe 7% or so?)

Named cast - the director's experience will determine if you can get the named cast. You will have to come up with pay-or-play money (basically escrow the actors fees), so you're caught up in the glory of SAG and Equity deals in their fullest form. Actually I've a lot of patience with the Equity and SAG deals - cast have been so messed about by aspirant producers it's no wonder they've negotiated a solid agreement!

8 years, 11 months ago - Dan Selakovich

What Paddy said. Usually a bond is 4-6 percent of the budget, but if everything goes smoothly you might be able to get some of that back if you're paying on the high end. It really depends. If you're acting as producer, but have a co-producer that the bonding company approves, I think you'll be fine. Any bonding company would be willing to take a chance on a new producer if the percentage is high enough. Any producer that has triggered a completion bond... well, their careers are essentially over. A solid PM that the bonding company approves could probably also get you over that hurdle. Again, it depends. You can ask them for recommendations. I'm not that familiar with the U.K. if you're shooting it there. I wouldn't worry about department heads at all, except for the AD.

Aleve: I'm old, so these terms like LP and PM to me are almost interchangeable. "Line Producer" used to be only a television credit, then started showing up in features. Line Producers do all the nuts and bolts work of producing a film. Production Managers are much the same, but without as much power. Everything goes through the PM; from daily film and sound reports, to kit rentals, to what's budgeted and what's really spent, to, well, everything. PM is one of the most important jobs on a film. Nothing gets done without them. They do budgeting and schedules, as well as finding and negotiating deals once pre-production starts. I've been on films where the PM will get a LP or Associate Producer credit as a "thank you" for a job well done. Once the AD comes on, they'll work together on the schedule because everything changes, from an actor's availability to locations being lost, to a big star only giving you 15 days. It's a monster.The sheer amount of detail that goes into a simple schedule sends most people screaming to the insane asylum. A shit ton of the best producers started out as PMs.

I can't remember the film, but some big tentpole movie, the studio had a PM do a budget. It was too high, so they sent it to another PM. His numbers were essentially the same as the first. And a third time with the same result. Finally, on the 4th try, that particular PM gave them a much lower budget that they could live with. Guess what happened: they went over budget. Studio execs are largely idiots. I once did a timing on a script for a PM, and it came up too short. He told me that the idiot producer just changed the spacing on the script so that it took up more pages. Idiots, I say!

8 years, 11 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Oh, sorry I missed your last question, Aleve: they are typically bondable because they've worked on bonded movies and came in on schedule and on budget. In other words, they didn't trigger the completion bond. The more movies you've produced that have a positive result, the more the bonding company will trust you. You can always ask a bonding company for recommendations.

8 years, 11 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

As Dan says, the roles LP and PM have a huge amount of overlap, but the difference as I see it is that the LP is probably focused more on dealing with the budget, producer, accountants, creatives, and longer term picture. This means the PM can get on with actually making the film. It's the stuff a hands-on producer would be doing themselves, but they get to pay someone else to do it (and bring more experience, possibly).

I quite like the term that'll never fly in the features world but is more common in ceremonies and events 'Production Director' - that should confuse everyone ;-)

8 years, 11 months ago - Alève Mine

Dan, Paddy, thanks much. So I guess they all have to start with a project that they fund themselves or get funded by someone who is unaware of all this bonding stuff.

All right, seriously, doesn't anyone else think bondage when they read bonding, or am I the only one? I thought it would stop after a while, but it didn't.

8 years, 11 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Well it feels like indentured servitude :-$

8 years, 11 months ago - Dan Selakovich

HA! So true Paddy! Indentured indeed! Yep, I agree with you about the LP, especially in today's climate where you have 10 "producers." When I started out, though, they were simply known as "Producer." I'm sure you remember those days as well.

Your "Production Director" credit reminds me of the casting director fight here. They wanted their title card to read "Casting Director," but the DGA said "Hell no! We've given away the directing credit too much already. As is stands now, everyone thinks the Director of Photography directs the picture." Though I quite like the term "Editing Director" ; ) HA!

Aleve, yes, in the old days investors didn't know about completion bonds. Hell, most filmmakers nowadays don't. But often, a completion bond is part of the prospectus to guarantee that a film will be completed.

8 years, 11 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Ha! I don't see why the DGA should get so precious - after all those guys get the glamour. The 'producer' title is so watered down and kicked around why should they get away without it?!

Editing Director, Production Director, Director of Sound why not? Perfectly reasonable if there's a DoP (or a cinematographer with highfalutin ideas)

8 years, 11 months ago - Alève Mine

Dan yes, you guys are the only ones I've heard about bonding from.

8 years, 11 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Aleve, I've worked on films that triggered their completion bond (for the bonding company). The bonding company comes in and takes over with key new crew members. It used to be incredibly rare. Well, it's still rare, but seems more common than it used to be. The last one I did was because the producer(s) gave the bonding company a lower budget than the actual budget. I guess to save a few dollars on the percentage fee to the bonding company. It was really stupid. As soon as they went over the "fake" budget, they lost all control of their film. The thing is, while we try to make the best film possible with the money left, the bonding company only promises to finish the film. Not to make the film any good. So money is first and foremost, not the quality of the finished picture.

That's why producers try not to trigger that bond. They'll go as far as firing the director before that happens. In the days of film, I've seen the director fired in the 2nd week of principle for blowing their shooting ratio. It only takes once for a producer to trigger a bond before his/her career is basically over. They'll do anything to keep that from happening.

8 years, 11 months ago - Alève Mine

Dan, thanks. That sounds odd. They must have thought their budget was higher than needed.

8 years, 11 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

There's very little rationality in film finance. Rather there's a lot in the reality of it, but not much from the continuous stream of chancers coming into it.

If you are told you have to withhold 10% of your budget for the bonders, plus give them 7% for the privilege, you're either cutting 17% of your film, or searching for ways to try to dodge it!

8 years, 11 months ago - Alève Mine

Wait, what's the 10% for? And what happens to it if the bond is not triggered?

8 years, 11 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

It's an insurance. Nothing happens if the bond isn't triggered.

8 years, 11 months ago - Alève Mine

Then what's the 7% for?

8 years, 11 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren

Well, they typically require that the production have a contingency fund - somewhat around the 10% to ensure that there is sufficient capital to dip into if needed. And then there is the cost of the bond itself which can be anything from 3-7% or thereabouts. Each completion guarantee company will have a slightly different set of requirements. So when it comes time for arranging the bond, you'd shop around from the 'limited' number of companies that offer them.

8 years, 11 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Basically what Wozy says - you pay a percentage upfront as a fee to the company which is theirs to keep no matter what. You also have to reserve contingency, which you aren't allowed to spend, so that if there's a problem, there's money there for the bonding company to spend to get the film out of trouble and finished. If everything goes OK you'll probably put it towards post or marketing or producers fees once it's released ;)

8 years, 11 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Basically what Wozy says - you pay a percentage upfront as a fee to the company which is theirs to keep no matter what. You also have to reserve contingency, which you aren't allowed to spend, so that if there's a problem, there's money there for the bonding company to spend to get the film out of trouble and finished. If everything goes OK you'll probably put it towards post or marketing or producers fees once it's released ;)

8 years, 11 months ago - Alève Mine

I see, so 10% is contingency. Thanks.

8 years, 11 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Aleve, in this particular case I can't imagine they thought that they could get the film done on the much lower budget. I really think they were trying to pull the wool over the bonding companies eyes so that the payout to them was lower. Unbelievably stupid.

It's important to keep in mind that bonding companies know everything you're doing. It's not like, say, car insurance where you pay for your coverage, and hope they don't find you at fault if you have an accident. A completion bond is more like them putting a computer in your car, and they know how far you've driven, whether you made a rolling stop at that stop sign, how many times you went over the speed limit, when you buzzed through that yellow light... everything. They do understand that a budget is a living, breathing, thing. But if you rent a 2nd camera that's not accounted for, you'd better find someplace else in the budget you can cut. I once had to fire a 3rd Assistant Editor while on location. The PM asked who I was bringing up from L.A., and I said that I could get by with only 2 AEs at this point. He was over the moon. "Now we can rent that big fan for the wind scene!"

8 years, 11 months ago - Alève Mine

Yes it is incredible.

It is a sweet business we're in, one where just renting a device makes someone so happy.