Financing / Crowdfunding

Amy Wilhelm Just the opening sentence was enough to raise concerns: “…five production companies agree to form a shared fund…”

Film financing is already complex enough with a single production company. Combining five entities into a shared financial structure—likely some form of LLC or multi-member vehicle—immediately introduces significant structural friction. That’s problem number one.

Then there’s the assumption: “…Each company continues to seek outside financing, grants, investors, and distribution deals…”

This doesn’t simplify anything—it compounds complexity. You’re now layering a shared fund on top of already fragmented financing strategies. It also raises practical questions: what is the annual volume of projects each company is actually producing, and what are their average budgets? Without that baseline, it’s difficult to assess whether the model scales in any meaningful way. If each has a yearly slate budget of $100 million. your proposal runs into a ton of challenges.

Another issue: “…However, when a project generates revenue, a small percentage (capped) is contributed back into the community fund…”

At that point, you run directly into one of the most heavily litigated and audited areas in the industry. Do you have any idea how many attorneys and forensic accountants are required to define, track, and verify “revenue” across different production, distribution, and recoupment structures? Even a single production can involve multiple definitions of gross receipts, net receipts, backend participation waterfalls, and territory-specific accounting rules. Trying to standardize that across five separate companies most likely turns the theoretical model you suggested into a pure nightmare on elms street.

The larger production companies grow, the less they rely on pooled financing structures with other companies. At that scale, studios and streamers generally have sufficient internal capital, balance-sheet strength, or direct access to credit markets to finance their own slates independently. While they may still co-finance individual projects on a deal-by-deal basis to manage risk or expand distribution reach, the industry does not typically operate through permanent, cross-company capital pooling arrangements. Instead, financing is structured around individual projects and strategic partnerships rather than shared, ongoing funding pools between competing production entities.

Companies like Netflix, Amazon, Apple, and Paramount are natural competitors, even if they occasionally collaborate on individual projects. Unlike smaller production companies, they are not dependent on securing external financing before greenlighting a project.

Filmmaking is very risky. Plus the Product you are making and selling is different every time. No two film are alike even if they tell the same story. The people who make the most money are the people who mass produce a certain product that everyone buys, like tin foil for instance or peanut butter, there is no conformity in film production or there should not be in order for the audiance to be interested in the film and that is the problem.

Kenneth George You raise valid concerns. The model I envision does not require the pooling of project revenues across production companies, nor does it necessarily require a shared LLC or ownership vehicle. Each company would remain independent, maintain its own financing structures, investors, accounting, and revenue streams.

The community fund would function more as a voluntary contribution model, where participating companies allocate a predetermined amount or capped percentage from their own revenues after recoupment and according to their own internal accounting.

It's basically to keep production without having to start from scratch on the next project and keeping them in the game longer. For sustainability and resilience when projects are delayed, financing falls through, distribution changes, or revenues fluctuate,

Elena Schumann Thank you Ellena, exactly, stories are not standardized and much different form manufacturing, the competition arises from limited resources, not from storytelling itself, because every film is unique. In the traditional model, the greatest risk IS CREATIVITY ITSELF. Filmmakers may spend years pursuing financing rather than creating, and many worthwhile projects never get made at all.

My interest is in exploring whether a more collaborative ecosystem could help preserve and sustain the CREATIVE PROCESS. Participation would be a conscious choice, not an obligation. For those who genuinely enjoy collaboration, community, and supporting the long-term success of fellow filmmakers, it may offer a more sustainable and fulfilling path while still allowing for healthy competition and artistic excellence.

There are certainly risks and challenges to any model. However, if participation is voluntary and aligned with shared values, I believe there is little to lose creatively by exploring new approaches. The greatest risk may be doing nothing and continuing to lose valuable stories, talent, and creative momentum to the difficulties of financing and development.

Amy Wilhelm Whatever complications we identified before, multiply that by five. Now you're introducing "voluntary contributions," but the larger issue is that the proposal appears disconnected from how film financing functions in practice.

You state that participating companies would allocate a predetermined amount or percentage of revenue after recoupment. The problem is that recoupment itself is often uncertain and can take years, if it happens at all. Investors, producers, distributors, lenders, and completion guarantors all have different positions in the recoupment waterfall, and every project has its own financing structure.

This is not simply a matter of risk. The model seems to assume a level of predictability and surplus cash flow that rarely exists in independent film financing. Most film investors are already operating in a highly speculative environment. The institutions that do provide financing—banks, gap lenders, tax-credit lenders, and similar entities—typically participate only where there are identifiable and reasonably secure revenue streams, such as tax incentives, presales, distribution contracts, or other collateralizable assets.

What you're proposing appears to require participants to commit future revenues from inherently unpredictable projects into a shared funding mechanism. That creates a significant alignment problem because each company's first priority will almost always be preserving liquidity and recouping its own investments rather than contributing capital to a broader pool.

The challenge is not whether the concept is well-intentioned. The challenge is whether it can attract enough participants willing to subordinate their own financial interests in an industry where cash flow is already irregular, project-specific, and highly uncertain.

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