Make money with short animations

Follow us on Twitter or join the Reddit Filmmakers Network on Facebook. Professionals and amateurs alike unite to discuss the world of filmmaking. This is a place to learn from and share with professionals. In this spirit we encourage detailed and insightful posts, comments, and discussions on the Cinema Arts.

How long will you keep making free shorts? If not, why do you keep making them? Why not allocate your resources into making and marketing a feature film? Training - I get. Make like 30 shorts, don't publish them, learn the craft, move on to a feature. Or do you honestly believe that producers will see your talented short and hire you on a spot over hundreds other unemployed filmmakers who have feature films in their portfolios?

People have actually been hired off of short films a lot.

Martin Scorsese, Wes Anderson, Robert Zemeckis and Christopher Nolan all made shorts which got the attention of investors and allowed them to make their first independent movies. Besides Doodlebug we haven't seen most of Nolan's early shorts because he only showed them to family members and friends.

Another strategy you can do is try to make a low budget feature and use it to prove you can make features. Richard Linklater, Robert Rodriguez, Kevin Smith, Peter Jackson. Also, keep in mind that many of these people have made many shorts they don't show people ex. Linklater had been making shorts for 5 years before his full movie, Peter Jackson quit school and got a job so he could make shorts.

Scorsese was making shorts for a while but Nolan got to do insomnia mainly off the success of his second or third short Following. And Wes Anderson is a good example since he just made the feature length version of his short Bottle Rocket. Same deal with Napoleon Dynamite which was a short at first. OK, but I see that wiki ' To conserve film stock, each scene in the film was rehearsed extensively to ensure that the first or second take could be used in the final edit.

Nolan directed the film from his own script, photographing and editing it himself. My bad, I was counting Following as a short albeit a long one just because of it's funky running time that would serve as his calling card. Making short films to make a profit is a fool's errand. Putting your resources into making a feature film with the same money is similarly stupid.

The idea behind a short film is to market yourself as a writer, director, producer, ect. It's very rarely worth it to do the feature, unless you are exceptionally naive about what you are undertaking. Sure it's unlikely that you'll make profit.

Anyone making a short is probably aware of that. But the question is "did you make any profit off any of your short films" and you are not answering that question. I know of about 10 short film buyers out there. These buyers usually pay, not in hugs, but in money. Plus, between kickstarter, government grants, tax credits, self distribution, there are definitely shorts making money out there. How many people do you know have actually paid money to watch a short film that wasn't made by Pixar?

And film festival screenings don't count Who are these short film buyers you're talking about and where do they sell their films?

Who is paying to watch them? I'm not saying its BS because its not true. I'm saying its BS because the question is asking about the exception to the rule and people usually just throw the rule back at the question.

There is a short film market in February in Clermont-Ferrand where all the short distributors attend. Examples of people or companies that pay for short films are youtube, airlines, and other websites looking for content.

Here is a 57 page list of short film distributors who buy content. Believe me, I know its hard to sell a short. But its not impossible. I've met people whose full-time job is buying short films. Just don't tell me it never happens because it never happened to you or anyone you know. You say you're asking a question of the people who are the exception to the rule and have successfully sold shorts while but at the same time you're questioning why people make shorts for free?

You're asking "why do you keep making shorts for free? I don't get it. I didn't ask the original question.

I was a bit confused by it as well. However, in the past I have asked for info about selling shorts and have always gotten the "It's impossible" answer. The first half of the title of this post is "Filmmakers: This is what the experience was like.

Filmmakers: did you make any profit off any of your short films? How long will you keep making free shorts? : Filmmakers

This is what to look out for when reviewing the contract However I still don't think it's BS to say "Making shorts to make a profit is a fool's errand". Playing the lottery to get rich is also a fool's errand, even though yes, some people do win. Its not BS, its just a truism and I'd rather see someone write something that isn't already well known. The average really good short worthy of distribution costs thousands, if not tens of thousands. Festival wins are usually a thousand dollars max, maybe a bit more in the bigger ones.

Usually they are far less. How much do the distribution companies offer? For a film to be considered successful financially, it needs to bring in twice what it cost. To directly answer your question: I have not made a profit off anything I have self-funded. I do not know anyone who has. For a feature studio film to be considered successful, it needs to bring in twice what it costs. For a short to be considered successful, it should win some awards and depending on the budget, if it makes back half of it, it can be considered a smash hit.

We've submitted to a couple of others that have K prizes. Plus, I'm now starting to negotiate distribution deals. It would be nice to hear from them. For any film to be considered successful financially That's an arbitrary number. If it makes back its money and anything more, I would consider that a successful short. Especially if the main goal of the production was not profit.

I agree that twice is somewhat arbitrary, but we're talking profit, so I thought I'd reference the amount referenced in popular thought as being successfully financially. I think that talking about 'profit' in regards to a short film is still stupid. It's like talking about how much you profited from an open mic night. Yeah, it's cool that you profited - but it's missing the point of doing it.

It was made at a point where the fact that it was made - and was a competent film! Primer isn't amazing, there are a lot of problems with it. If it was released today, it wouldn't get anywhere near the same level of hype. To get big now, a cheaply produced film has to be very good, or it has to be adequate hard enough by itself and the circumstances surrounding its production so unique that the fact that it exists becomes the story.

Finally, to throw you a curve ball. Tommy Wiseau made The Room for a reported 6 million. It's a pile of pants but had made lots of money through DVD sales and circuit screenings. Ultimately, you can just as easily make a very good feature or an atrocious short for 10k. It just comes down to story, context, and talent. Here's an interview where they break that down.

Making Money from Animated Shorts - Bloop Animation

Monsters became famous because of the exceptional quality of the VFX, which are on a par with those in many Hollywood productions. Paranormal Activity is the only hit you've mentioned in the budget range, and in terms of profit ratio and percentage it is the most profitable movie ever made.

The Room looks crap because they spent poorly. It's the sort of money you can really do something with. My 'I'll fucking do it! Money doesn't guarantee quality, but it does significantly reduce headaches, and gain you access to better cast, locations, equipment, and crew.

It also gives you more time, and time is the most expensive thing of all. Hindsight is an awesome Film Producer. My point was that these projects were started with a low budget in mind. Sure Reservoir Dogs' final budget was 1. The project grew to accommodate the money available. Same goes for Blair Witch. Once they'd made the film, only then was the chance to get it into Sundance.

Adding these totals after the fact is just Hollywood accounting at it's best. Gareth Edwards took a few friends on a trip to South America. Filmed lots and then came back and added value with his own technical skills. Once he had a distribution deal money went into cleaning up the film for distribution. I know some people who've worked with him post Monsters.

He's incredibly resourceful, pragmatic, and didn't start by saying he was making a k picture. Suggesting that you wouldn't consider making a feature for less that 50 is akin to a person who wants to be a supermodel but states that they wont get out of bed for less than 10k. My original budget for a short I directed ended up being twice what I planned it to be, thanks to some extra funds. I don't tell people the short was the original budget, because that wouldn't be true.

How long will anyone do anything that requires blood sweat and tears to complete? You do it until you don't think it's worth it to do anymore. I've had a hand in making a few shorts and will probably continue to make them because there is reason enough to continue. Profit comes in all forms. We seek to create and so we do given the resources that we have. Would I like to have a hand in a feature?

But at this point the money doesn't exist. Could I make a feature for less and suck up on my own vision for what a feature from me would look like? But man, I really don't want to have to compromise too much. You get into a situation where you have to balance vision with expediency and it's not exactly comfortable.

With shorts I can achieve vision and expediency. And hopefully all that work is paying into something more sustainable. I hammer at the wall because it continues to pay back.

When it doesn't pay back I'll probably quit hammering and move onto something different. But, I enjoy my part in the process. And so until someone gives me a fuller chance to take part in a larger process I'll hone and work and make something better and better, even if it's short. Direct answer to your question: Any director that made a commercial or music video made money. Many of them are comparable to short films. But I'm assuming that's not what you had in mind.

I think it's important to look at a number of successful directors and their MOE to the industry and their first paid job on a feature:. As you can see, not a lot 'got hired on the spot', actually, zero did and there's no correlation to their portfolio content.

All of them did SOMETHING first, then it was a case of somebody noticing. Shorts aren't there for any reason other than practice and portfolio building, same as anything you do that is unpaid. Yes, there are thousands of directors with shorts that are vying for your space, but the pool doesn't get smaller if you add a feature film to your portfolio, there's still a VAST saturation of Directors to employ, you are completely dwarfed by all the directors who producers and studios know about and have work that's been seen etc.

The single thing that will get you paid to direct movies is to convince somebody looking to pay a director that they should hire you. I worked on a TV sitcom in the UK. The DP is so prolific, he always takes two months off between a job, he doesn't need to work any more than that paid enough, enough reliable job flow. Chatting to another crew member, he mention; 'said DP could EASILY handle a feature film, there's no scenario the man wouldn't know how to handle, however, he knows NOBODY in that field so he's not getting hired for it'.

The only thing you need to do to become a director, is be heard of, and not be thought of as rubbish. The more you're heard of, the better you're making your odds of someone choosing you for a feature. Because, it IS luck. Until you're there, you're ALWAYS competing with other directors trying to get to the same place. You HAVE to have a unique fingerprint, something nobody else does, but it also HAS to be noticed by the RIGHT person and at the RIGHT time when whatever it is you have unique is considered attractive and in demand.

I am of the camp of 'make a feature at least once because shorts and features are totally different' but there are no RULES in this game. You never mentioned directors, you mentioned film makers. But your question suggests making productions of your own volition is the only route to success, the only profession where this is true is the Director.

All other jobs you can climb ranks in. Hence my assumption you were referring to directors. Convincing someone to hire you to be a director will get you paid though.

The Godfather was directed by Francis Ford Coppola, not Stanley Kubrick. When The Godfather was filmed in , Coppola already had a handful of features under his belt. He was young, in debt, and relatively inexperienced, but had already won an Academy Award for writing Patton. He was not Paramount's first choice to direct the film, but he was not selected because he would be "easy to control"; he was selected because he was of Sicilian and Italian heritage, and because he would be an inexpensive choice for a risky film.

Yep sorry, I really wasn't checking my facts right and that's a mother of a sin to confuse Kubrick and Coppola. I was recalling Coppola's interview in 'Inside the actor's studio' with regard to that. He said something to that effect, perhaps not true but he felt that's why he was selected.

Happens to the best of us. Coppola's selection on The Godfather , I've heard him say similar things as well, but that may just be revisionist history. It may also be true, but in any case, he wasn't quite a novice, and I'm sure that wasn't the primary reason they chose him—since before him, their first choices were Sergio Leone and Peter Bogdanovich, both of whom were known for being difficult to work with on occasion.

A guy in my class made a 30 min short while still in Secondrary school. When it was all finished he marketed the film in his town as a big film that was made locally with actors from the area etc etc. He got loads of posters, got on local radio and all that. They held a premiere screening in a local theatre and it sold out so they had another one the same night.

Not bad for an 18 year old. He's putting the money he made towards his next big project. Looks like I'm the exception here. I have several short films in distribution which I've made a profit on. My intention was to get noticed and it worked. A producer approached me after a festival screening and asked if I'd like to direct a feature. That feature is now in the can and we're making deals over the next few weeks with distributors and sales agents worldwide.

Music videos are typically made on a shoe-string budget. They don't usually make much profit, although they can make a little bit for the director. I used to work at a post house and we did music videos as a loss-leader because they made other products look good and because they helped editors break into new visual areas. I just watched literally hundreds of horrible shorts, got fed up. Someone need to tell these kids with no talent to stop wasting time and money.

Those terrible kids make awful shorts to learn how to make films. It's a cheaper way to learn than spending much more money and several years working on a shitty feature. Why don't you make a short film telling these "no talent kids" who should probably get off your lawn while they're at it to stop wasting their time and money?

Then you could also create a list of "talented" filmmakers who deserve to keep making short films? And then you could tell those filmmakers which of their shorts were good and which weren't. Then you could share those films with the internet and save us all a lot of time and money. I think a problem is people narrow the definition of "short film" to "short independent movie submitted to film festivals".

If you widen the definition a little HowToBasic has ,, views. I'd bet they've both made over 6 figures in money off of those videos and i'm sure there are plenty of other examples like those two.

If a filmmaker shifts their goal from "Show how brilliant I am" which is my impression of a lot of shorts to "Make accessible enjoyable entertainment for the masses" it's possible to make money off shorts this way. Thanks for the reply. Short film is just a calling card, and completely different from min feature. My point is, aim low and you will shoot yourself in the foot.

Not everyone wants to direct features! Commercial directors make shitloads. Some people direct TV. But that's another point. Shorts are not 'aiming low'. There are a plethora of amateur filmmakers making cheap features, and all it shows is that they have more money than sense and not much money in the first place, either. By making a kick-ass short you can show off your directing ability much better, and pack in far more production value.

Between the amazing short and the sub-average feature, nobody will watch the sub-average feature, but they'll watch the amazing short. You will always gamble with the better director. Anything less will make something of such poor production value and quality that it would an embarrassment. To answer another comment you've made here, a short film's only job is to get its makers hired.

You're not trying to compete with features. So few shorts are bought or get distribution. You're making a short so that a company will look at you and say "They look like a good director, let's bring them in for a chat. I'll reiterate - it's much, much easier and cheaper to make a very well directed five-minute short than to make a feature of the same quality.

Say, I am a producer. I am in the movie business. Must produce a feature film and make money. I have a script and need to hire a director. Two resumes in front of me, one with many brilliant shorts, another with the decent, NOT GREAT, but decent feature film. Who do I hire? Would I gamble with Shorty, or give a feature guy a chance? Otherjockey, I embrace your creativity. But ANY short is simply not good enough.

You need to train for marathon, not sprint. Develop your networking, managing, marketing skills, too. Short film is escapism, you escape into this delusion of real or perceived creativity that you think is enough. But it is not.

If I ask myself - would people actually PAY to watch this, I will make a better movie. Short film is a training exhibit, a calling card, a glimpse, a promise, anything but final product. And you need to aim to deliver a final, sellable product.

It is not escapism. You need to learn to speak for yourself. Do I think it's enough? Money is enough to you apparently. And while I can't deny that the allure and the opportunity provided by money is both intriguing and a beautiful thing I won't pin my future hopes on that chimera.

I don't need to deliver a final sellable product. That's not my aim in this. Will I attempt to deliver something that is sellable?

Yes, but only because I would like a wider audience and only because I believe, as a reluctant capitalist, that in our system the only way to gain attention for your story is to glue eyeballs to dollar bills.

I want to tell stories, and certain stories, and right now I have the ability and resources to complete short films and I am enjoying and learning from that process. There will come a time when that won't be enough, but I certainly hope that time comes far after the time people have given me to showcase broader and more interesting narratives for a far wider audience.

It's an interesting thread. Thanks for asking the question. I had a good time reading it between beers. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

By signing up, you agree to our Terms and that you have read our Privacy Policy and Content Policy. Log in or sign up in seconds. Submit a new link. Submit a new text post. Filmmakers subscribe unsubscribe , readers users here now Apply for your VERIFIED PRO flair and be sure to follow RedditFilm on Twitter.

DARK MODE NORMAL THEME Apply for your VERIFIED PRO flair today! Rules Memes are strictly forbidden. Please flair your posts. Be excellent to each other. About Us Follow us on Twitter or join the Reddit Filmmakers Network on Facebook. Related subreddits Verified Pro Flair When you see verified pro flair, you can be sure the commenter works in the industry and has years of experience.

Learn about more our flair and how to get your own here. Guides What camera should I buy? Are there other film subreddits? Your First Audio Kit What editing software should I use? Got sick of Storyboard templates What do you think? This guy's transitions are unreal. Can anyone point me towards any tutorials for these kinds of effects? Or at least the names of these transitions? My Lynch inspired new music video came out yesterday!

Would love if you took a look. You can shoot a micro-budget feature on the streets of LA. One City and a Van - Behind the Scenes - Making of 'Nobody Walks in LA'.

How I Made Over $90, Selling my Short Film + Video Tutorials

This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment. How many shorts each of them made before getting a first feature deal? Most shorts are not profitable. The key word is financially.

Congrats on your discussions with distribution companies, I hope that works out. Paranormal Activity cost something like 15k, Blair Witch was around 30k. Tarantino was going to make Reservoir Dogs for 50k until Harvey Keitel got on board.

Gareth Edwards filmed Monsters for 15k. With inflation, those costs today would be: I don't think you understand how budgeting works.

I think it's important to look at a number of successful directors and their MOE to the industry and their first paid job on a feature: Went from art dept in BBC to commercials to movies. Made friends on the Universal lot, made a short and then onwards Kubrick Coppola: Picked for the godfather as an unknown who would be "easy to control", he had been directing theatre stuff Sam Mendes: Musicals and theatre, picked for American Beauty Zemeckis: Shorts got attention from Spielberg, metored into his first feature Peter Jackson: Made a feature almost without intending to, got attention from NZ film commission and took it to Cannes Francis Lawrence: Worked his way up through music videos before getting Catching Fire Constantine Tarantino: Sheer obstinance and convincing Harvey Keitel to help him Christopher Nolan: A series of shorts and then a feature film shot over weekends.

Won awards and gave him an audience with potential investors for his next film pitch Momento As you can see, not a lot 'got hired on the spot', actually, zero did and there's no correlation to their portfolio content. I mean, at the end of the day, Lawrence Francis has only started his feature career in his 30s.

Some AWFULLY bad mistakes and mis-sourced information mostly left as strike throughs. Picked for the godfather as an unknown who would be "easy to control", he had been directing theatre stuff The Godfather was directed by Francis Ford Coppola, not Stanley Kubrick.

Worked his way up through music videos before being given Catching Fire The director of Catching Fire is named Francis Lawrence, not Lawrence Francis. Lawrence—hey, that's what you get for having two first names! I should check things more vigilantly It's stupid because I knew that and just forgot it. I like the anecdote about the DP, although it is somewhat sad. All in all they sold nearly tickets and over DVDs.

So It can be done! The joke in the class is that we'll all be working for him someday. Over priced I know, but people bought them! That wasn't my intention in making them. That is the answer I was looking for. What about music videos? Do those turn much profit? A feature length film? Have you made a profit on either? Their mistake was to show their awful learning films to anyone.

I look forward to reading your lists! Fuck the market, but love the market too. Posts are automatically archived after 6 months.