Financing / Crowdfunding

Amy Wilhelm The more I learn about filmmaking, the more fascinated I become by film finance.

One question I've been thinking about:

Why do independent filmmakers often struggle to build long-term financial ecosystems for themselves?

In many industries, successful companies reinvest profits into future growth. Yet in filmmaking, projects are often financed one film at a time through entirely new funding structures.

Do you think the future of independent film financing lies in stronger collaboration between filmmakers, or will project-by-project financing always remain the dominant model?

I'd love to hear perspectives from producers, financiers, and filmmakers with experience in this area.

Abhijeet Aade I see that now - this is truly fascinating because this is where the energy begins to compound.

We have the ability; what is required is the willingness to take a practical and sensible approach. Every successful endeavor begins with a single connection, and I myself must remain open to networking and collaboration to help turn an idea into reality.

A film is a product, but a career is built on community, relationships, and trust - I see a future of collaboration and balance among filmmakers where shared success strengthens the entire creative community. Slow moving but reshaped in 5 years parts of the industry will operate with this model.

The strongest filmmaking ecosystems are built on four things: creativity to inspire, connection to build community, groundedness to sustain growth, and persistence to see a vision through to completion.

Amy Wilhelm You bring up very good points, and address an important factor in film finance, There are indeed (more than) two methods of obtaining financing. One method entails reaching out to outside investors for either seed development or production funding. The other most common is established film finance companies with track records in funding films. Increasingly, more companies are coming to the fore with the resources and capital required to provide a sustainable structure to finance film and television. Thanks for adding your thoughts!

Amy Wilhelm Amy, I think that's what I appreciate most about your perspective. You're looking beyond a single project and thinking about how creative communities can grow over time.

I also agree that careers are built on relationships and trust. Scripts, films, and opportunities come and go, but the connections we make along the way often end up having the biggest impact.

Honestly, our own script exchange is a small example of what you're talking about. Two writers connecting, sharing work, giving feedback, and helping each other improve. If more filmmakers approached things that way, I think the industry would be stronger for it.

And yes, I can definitely see parts of the industry moving in that direction over the next few years. It may be slow, but meaningful change usually is.

Always enjoy reading your insights, Amy.

Genre:

Memoir Drama / Romantic Comedy / Inspirational

Format:

Feature Film

Runtime:

Approximately 60 Minutes

LOGLINE

A struggling Nigerian screenwriter trapped between rejection, survival, and self-doubt unexpectedly finds love and global purpose after a cancelled airport flight introduces him to a woman who changes the direction of his life forever.

HE ORDERED MY STEPS

Genre: Action • Thriller • Romance • Faith-Based

Format: Feature Film

Target Runtime: 110–120 Minutes

Written: Samuel A. Oluyemi

THE HOOK

What if the worst thing that ever happened to you was actually preparing you for your greatest purpose?

HE ORDERED MY STEPS is a globe-spanning action thriller that combines explosive suspense, emotional romance, and spiritual transformation into an inspirational cinematic experience.

From Lagos to London, Dubai, Istanbul, and Jerusalem, one broken man must discover that God's guidance is often hidden within life's greatest disappointments.

LOGLINE

After a devastating betrayal destroys his career, marriage, and faith, a former international security operative uncovers a powerful global conspiracy. Teaming up with a courageous humanitarian doctor, he races across continents to stop a catastrophic terrorist attack and learns that every painful detour in his life has been leading him toward a divine purpose.

Great take, thanks for sharing.

Great post, thanks for sharing!

Elena Schumann Elena, I actually think the premise itself is intriguing because it immediately creates both a survival dilemma and a moral dilemma. The question isn't just how to stop the plague, but what people are willing to become in order to stop it.

Sometimes I wonder if originality isn't always the problem. A lot of unique ideas struggle because the industry first asks, "Who is the audience?" and "How do we position this?" before it asks whether the concept is interesting.

What stands out to me about your idea is that the ethical question feels universal. "Do the means justify the ends?" is a theme that audiences have connected with for generations, regardless of genre.

I'd be curious whether the people you've shared it with responded to the concept itself or whether their concerns were more about marketability, budget, or positioning.

People like my concept, but as usual they are not sure that this unusual idea is going to get a "wide enough audience", in other words it may not be commercially viable. I am not the only one that has this problem. I do not want to make a film that just makes a lot of money, in fact if it did, THEN I HAVE FAILED, because I do not want to make a commercial film that people see just because they want to pass some time and eat popcorn or candy or whatever. The movie theaters make all their profits on the food and snacks, the films themselves break even, assuming people actually even go to a real movie theater anymore. I like GOOD SCI FI which often includes dystopian themes, though I am not sure if my idea is technically Sci Fi or Horror, it is probably both. Again it is not going to be for everyone because of that it is going to be very difficult to get any funding to make this film, I understand that and have to deal with that fact.

Markice Moore Very good to hear you've found it of interest. Original stories will continue to be made, the industry cannot survive on self-consumption of remakes. Both will coexist. imho.

Geoff Hall I'm not sure this is really a move away from single-project financing. Traditional independent film financing often relies on pre-sales, distribution advances, tax incentives, and gap financing. A private equity or venture-style investor doesn't necessarily need those pieces in place before committing capital. They can decide to invest in a single or slate project if they believe the risk/reward profile makes sense. Various financial institutions operate at different levels when it comes to financing capabilities. Some banks can only handle tax incentives due to regulation. On the investment banking side or non-banks (private equity/private equity/hedge funds), they are not bound by all those rules or formulas.

Geoff Hall Also, there often can be a dark side to venture capital. Because the risk they undertake is often so high, don't be surprised if they ask for an unusually high amount of equity in the project(s), control of management, board seats, decision making, etc. I've heard way too many horror stories of founders who got booted out or replaced for accepting VC funds. That might be extreme cases but not uncommon.

Every big company, every production company etc. have slates. Why do you think slate financing is new?

David Taylor He probably meant deploying a slate strategy personally or through his company.

Geoff Hall This is a fascinating development because it feels like a sign of where parts of the independent film industry may be heading.

For a long time, many independent productions have been financed one project at a time, which means every film starts from scratch in terms of capital, risk assessment, and investor confidence. A slate model changes that equation by spreading risk across multiple projects rather than placing everything on a single title.

From an investor's perspective, that can be attractive because they're betting on a portfolio rather than one outcome. One film may underperform, another may exceed expectations, and the overall slate can balance the risk.

From a producer's perspective, the advantages seem significant. As the article suggests, it creates more flexibility, reduces dependence on pre-sales, and allows companies to think strategically over several years instead of focusing exclusively on the next project.

What also caught my attention is Simon Gillis's comment about partnering with external producers and filmmakers. If these kinds of financing structures become more common, they could potentially create new opportunities for emerging filmmakers to collaborate with established production companies that have access to longer-term capital.

Of course, there are challenges as well. Slate financing generally favors companies with proven track records, strong management teams, and a history of delivering projects. For newer producers, accessing that level of investment remains difficult.

Still, I think this reflects a broader shift from financing individual films to financing creative ecosystems. Investors increasingly seem interested in backing companies, teams, and long-term pipelines of content rather than evaluating every project in isolation.

I'm curious whether others see this as the future of independent film financing, or whether single-project financing will remain the dominant model for most producers outside the larger established companies.

Interesting strategy for sure!

Sean Hussey If you need $20 million to make a film, you probably need a more defined strategy.

Sean Hussey I really like the psychology behind this approach.

What stands out to me is that it reframes fundraising from a search for a single savior into a process of building relationships and belief. Many filmmakers spend years waiting for one large investor to say yes, when sometimes a project gains more momentum by gathering dozens of smaller supporters who genuinely care about the story.

I also think there's a producing lesson hidden in the "donation brick" idea. Those engraved bricks represent people who wanted to be part of something larger than themselves. In many ways, independent filmmaking works the same way. People don't always invest solely because of financial projections—they invest because they connect with the vision, the filmmaker, the community, or the cultural value of the project.

And as you mentioned, those supporters can become much more than sources of capital. They can become advocates, audience members, future collaborators, and the foundation of a project's early visibility.

The phrase that really resonates with me is: "How do I assemble enough people who believe in this story?" That feels less like fundraising and more like community-building, which is often what independent filmmaking requires in the first place.

Amanda Toney Interesting. Netflix has certainly had a major impact on the industry and probably still. If it had acquired Warner, that would have made things quite more interesting.

Agreed Kenneth George. What I found interesting was her comment about producers unknowingly selling their films off to Netflix for them to acquire data points on the cheap to create their own content. Based on what I saw at Cannes, there is a true rise of independent cinema once again - where the control is going back to the creator for theatrical & self distribution and not relying on streamers.

Amanda Toney Great insight, Amanda. Such a fascinating angle. The financing discussion often gets most of the attention—and deservedly so—but your observation about producers potentially trading away valuable market intelligence and IP leverage really stands out.

That said, can we really blame Netflix for capitalizing on an opportunity the market presented? They've consistently demonstrated an ability to adapt and leverage their scale, data, and distribution advantages.

While the landscape may be shifting back toward greater creator control, Netflix might still be positioned to remain a formidable force in the industry for quite some time, it seems.

Amanda Toney Thanks for sharing this.

One thing that stood out to me over the past few years is how often industry conversations return to the same theme: adaptation. Whether it's streamers changing acquisition strategies, international financing becoming more important, AVOD and FAST channels growing, or AI entering the conversation, the financing landscape seems to be evolving faster than many traditional models can keep up with.

The phrase "we're in a period of morphing" feels accurate because it doesn't suggest the old system has disappeared it suggests multiple systems are coexisting while the industry figures out what comes next.

I also think this creates both challenges and opportunities for independent filmmakers. The challenge is that the path is less predictable. The opportunity is that there may no longer be just one path. Financing, distribution, audience building, and platform strategy are becoming increasingly interconnected.

I'm curious what others think. Looking at today's market, what do you see as the most significant shift in independent film financing compared to five or ten years ago? Is it the role of streamers, the rise of international co-productions, alternative financing models, or something else entirely?

Best bet is for you to master writing. Then go into directing. Go shoot some short films (recommend different genres to build your chops), build your directing muscles there. To set expectations, no investor is going to back first time filmmakers without any experience to show for it. Go make a feature for nothing. Call in all your favors! Best example of success out there, right now: Obsession. Curry Barker made a number of shorts, and then made a feature for $800 (no typo). Then A24 got behind him for Obsession, and it was made for approx $750K.

Perhaps you should rewrite the info and tell people more about the story ‘a question’ isn’t very exciting. Use the 35 words or less better. Create a fabulous logline. Like the title and the visual. Good luck

Benjamin Longo Interesting title. Whats it about? Serial killer related?

It's actually related to the number of sexual partners Mikey has had. But, I love that you asked about serial killers because I'm kind of playing that idea. Devin treats Mikey like has killed someone rather than an appropriate reaction- which was something I did play with! You just made my day haha!

Benjamin Longo Sorry to hear about that. The title "Body Count" suggested a homicide investigation or a serial killer case where the number of victims keeps growing maybe with the same signature. I think the commercial value might be higher if it involved literal bodies piling up—a killing spree, disaster or something along those lines—but it sounds like you're drawing from a more personal direct or indirect experience

Seems to be the case, yeah. I know there are some options with crowdfunding: Kickstarter and Indiegogo. I would say GoFundMe, but I feel like that's more so for serious and emergency funding than businesses. I plan on making one after our proof of concept is complete, but I'm unsure if it'd be wiser to do it before hand. At least a crowdfund for starting up only?

Nicole Carpio You’re actually approaching this the right way starting with a proof of concept before scaling up is exactly what makes investors take notice.

For early-stage studios, especially in animation, it often comes down to de-risking the idea visually. A strong 30–60 sec short that clearly shows tone, world, and character appeal can do more than a full script when it comes to attracting interest.

Outside of crowdfunding and merch (which, like you said, comes later), a few paths that seem to work:

• Targeted grants and labs (especially for animation or emerging creators)

• Strategic collaborations partnering with composers, writers, or small studios to increase perceived value

• Building a niche audience early through short-form drops (even before monetization)

Also, animation investors usually respond to IP potential series, licensing, or long-term scalability not just a single project.

Curious are you building this as a standalone short, or as a proof of a larger series/IP?

Abhijeet Aade We're building this as a larger series/IP by starting off small. With our shorts, we're hoping to branch out to an audience by letting them get to know the cast, world, and tone of the series before launching a pilot and so on.

I would love to do collabs with other creators one day! We just haven't found an opportunity yet.

Nicole Carpio That’s honestly a very smart approach because you’re building audience investment before asking people to commit to a full pilot or larger production.

A lot of indie creators try to jump straight into massive projects, but introducing the world gradually through shorts lets people emotionally connect with the characters first. By the time a pilot arrives, the audience already feels attached to the universe instead of being introduced to everything at once.

And collaborations usually happen naturally once people can actually see the vision. Proof of concept creates momentum. Artists, composers, animators, and even potential investors tend to respond much more strongly when there’s already a living world, tone, and identity in motion.

The fact that you’re thinking long-term as an IP rather than just a single short also makes a big difference. That scalability is exactly what makes animation projects potentially attractive over time.

Wishing you and your team a lot of success with it building something from scratch is difficult, but it’s also where some of the most original projects come from.

Nicole Carpio It depends... what exactly do you need money for and how much?