Producing

From what I've seen working as a production coordinator, I would say to onboard someone in a consultant role as early as you can. Professionally or even through a friend if they have the know-how for it. They can help you shape the project's budget based on your list of assets/locations/etc, reorganize the project to fit that budget (if need be), and then you can build a pitch deck that's a lot more compelling. That said, given how dark fantasy is in the market right now, it might be a matter of convincing small investors that the audience exists, that your project's story overlaps with other successful dark fantasy content, and map out how they'll get a significant ROI if they partner with you.

Thanks for the insights, Myranda! You're completely right about aligning the asset list and locations with a realistic budget early on.

For RAVANGA, we are indeed keeping a close eye on target audience overlap and building a lean packaging model that demonstrates clear value for partners. Appreciate you sharing your perspective from the production coordination side!

Really thoughtful feedback, Abhijeet Aade . It's extremely helpful, and I'm most appreciative. All my best to you...

Echoing the sentiments of the others! I think a hybrid of producers / creative execs are the way to go. IP is always valuable, and as Ashley said, your career is an asset that you can use to your advantage.

Something I think that will also be helpful is in addition to your finished screenplays, a presentation going through your literary slate with loglines, reader stats, and strong visuals would be very helpful to the process. That way, you can let producers and execs come to you with what they like from your portfolio, rather than you putting in the work for free upfront.

Sean Hussey Many thanks, Sean!! Dumb question: where would such a presentation actually live?? Did you mean Stage32?

Hi Kim Triedman - I would love to hear more about your journey as an author, especially if you self published any of your works. I have 8 screenplays and really wanted to create an ebook series adapted from one of my screenplays. So I am in the midst of writing a 5 ebook series that I am rolling out next May.

Kim Triedman Thank you, I really appreciate that. I’m glad the feedback was useful. Wishing you all the best with the project, and I hope we get to keep exchanging ideas as our work develops.

At that budget level, I’d be careful about locking the budget before the financing structure and co-production partners are clearer. Have you already mapped which elements of the $20M–$50M spend could realistically qualify for incentives in each territory?

Hi Rethabile -- let's set some expectations on this, and you will not like some of the things I say. First, if you do not have a track record in motion pictures, no one from the USA will invest in your movie, UNLESS you have major A-list talent (then they'll take a look). Next, your budget is $20M - $50M - that's $30M gap range so right away the investors will know that you do not know what you're doing. Set a budget, and lead with that number (but first, you must have a shooting schedule because the budget is based on the shooting schedule). IMAX? Why are you bringing up IMAX? Shooting on IMAX only drives up your budget. And finally, looking at points 1 - 4 that you've listed: if you're asking for answers, information, or details, then this is a huge red flag that you are not prepared, you do not know what you're doing, and you don't have experience. So what do you do? Go research! Go learn! Get stronger! Go shoot something for very low budget to learn the ins and outs of production. Then you'll be in a stronger position. Break a leg!

Hi Lindbergh — appreciate the straight talk, needed to hear it.

You’re right — $30M locked gross, not $20M-$50M. That range was my internal sensitivity, dropping it. 35-day NYC schedule — Brooklyn bar, Times Square one-take, Pierre Gala, JFK — all NY.

Correction from me: 100% US based. I mentioned SA earlier only because I’m based in Pretoria (Masia Pictures), but AZURA shoots entirely NYC, no SA spend.

IMAX — good catch — not 65mm capture. Alexa 65 certified, IMAX deliverable 2.39:1 for trailer, not camera package. Noted.

Track record — hear you. Building via Masia Pictures, bar proof-of-concept shot, deck/bible/NY waterfall ready. Not chasing US equity cold — packaging cast-contingent + NY 30% credit ($18M QSE = $5.4M credit, net $24.6M) + presales.

My Qs were Lounge craft, not investor deck — but point taken — leading with schedule + locked top sheet from now on.

Thanks for the push — tightened package.

— Rethabile

Hi Zoltán — thanks for flagging, you’re right.

Quick correction from me: AZURA is 100% US based — Brooklyn, Times Square one-take, Pierre Gala, JFK. I mentioned SA in my original post only because I’m based in Pretoria (Masia Pictures), but that’s my background as writer-director, not the film’s location. No SA spend, no co-pro.

$30M is locked GROSS for packaging — the $20M-$50M was my internal sensitivity model, dropping it.

US-only mapping: $30M gross, 35-day NYC. ~$18M below-the-line NY QSE qualifies for NY State 30% credit = $5.4M gross / $4.86M monetized, net $24.6M. QSE is NY crew, NYC locations, stages, camera/lighting, NY post — all through NY vendors. ATL + contingency/insurance non-qualified.

Credit modeled as soft money, not baked into top sheet — kept clean for US equity.

I’ve attached my 1-page NY waterfall. Would value your take — what do you like to see locked first at this level before partners — top sheet or waterfall?

Thanks — Rethabile

I love reading your post.

Even though I don't have a background in production, I've noticed something about Generation Z.

I think their attention spans have become shorter because they grew up with short-form content like reels. At the same time, they also seem to be intelligent, they notice details more quickly and think differently than previous generations. That's probably why many of them can still enjoy long films, pay close attention, and even dissect complex stories like The Odyssey.

Maybe they're drawn in by the cinematography, the story, the performances, or a combination of all three.

I think that's the key: understanding what captures their attention and creating stories that truly engage them from the very beginning.

Sandra Isabel Yes they can both be true. I recall one report last week that says they buy cinema tickets but don't sit through... My observation though is that there are so many options for entertainment and most theatrical films are not particularly interesting... so why stay if you're bored when you have options? Meriem Bouziani Humans have not evolved just because short form social media exists (short form always existed, somewhere). "Younger people have shorter attention spans" was claimed when MTV popularized short music videos in the 1980s, again in the 1990s when video and computer games came out, then in the early 2000s when texting started, then in the 2010s when short-short videos started on other platforms, and now, when TikTok and others have been attempting (unsuccessfully) to monetize ephemerals and "microdramas" (I believe TikTok just deleted no less than 10,000 produced microdrama series because the average viewer watched just over 1 episode (1.2 to be exact) before leaving, and are now focusing on "well written stories" to replace them. No surprise to some of us). And while Gen Z certainly has many more options, some of the options they are choosing are traditional, old fashioned long form live theater and of course, music. Which by definition means it's not an attention span problem but implies its a quality problem. Historically, every commercial entity (and filmmaker) who has accepted the idea that "attention spans have gotten shorter" has paid the price in unsold products and unwatchable movies.

Thank you very much Shadow Dragu-Mihai

That's a really interesting perspective, and I think you're right that having more choices changes the way audiences behave. Maybe it's less about attention span itself and more about how quickly people decide whether a story is worth their time. That makes the opening of a film even more important. If we can give audiences a reason to care from the very beginning, they'll gladly stay for a long and well-written story.

Sandra Isabel I think the more interesting shift isn’t simply that younger audiences are going back to cinemas it’s what makes them decide a film is worth seeing theatrically.

We’ve spent years talking about the competition between theatrical and streaming, but perhaps that’s too simplistic. If audiences are willing to leave home for certain films while still consuming plenty of content at home, then the real challenge for filmmakers is creating something that feels like an experience rather than just another title in a library.

As a filmmaker and screenwriter, that makes me think differently about how I approach projects. The question isn’t only, “Who is the audience?” but also, “Why would this audience want to experience this story together?”

I also find the renewed interest in character-driven storytelling interesting. Spectacle can create an event, but emotional connection is often what makes people talk about a film afterward and recommend it to someone else.

I’m curious what producers here are actually changing because of these audience trends. Are you changing the kinds of projects you develop, the way you package them, or mainly the way you position them to buyers?

I'm like, at the tail-end of millennial/Gen Z so from my perspective I think it really comes back to good (REALLY good) storytelling, less so the actual format. Yes, there's certain genres that seem to 'work', and maybe more people want to go to theaters so they're not at home all day, but even I sometimes am watching something and then just lose interest, primarily because the writing just isn't...tight.

Contrarily, I've found some older movies (Law-Abiding Citizen for example) that within minutes had me toss my phone across the couch and watch the film start-to-finish. I think that kinda touches on your point on shows that lean into that early 2000s vibe a bit. So it might be less, "We need to follow this trend and get people in theaters!" and more "What kind of stories make a human being connect to the point where they're fully engaged in the experience of it?" It might help to look deeper and see which movies are driving people into theaters and which ones kind of aren't.

One thing I’ve seen repeatedly with indie filmmakers is that filmmakers who can also write tend to have much more control over their careers—and are often able to keep themselves much busier. They’re not entirely dependent on waiting for someone else to hire them or bring them material. They can create something for themselves and actively push it forward.

I would push back a little, though, on the idea that A-list actors or directors simply “become producers” and suddenly control their careers. They certainly have an enormous advantage: their attachment can help get a movie greenlit, and they can often attract other talent with a phone call. But they’re still competing for the same limited number of financing, studio and distribution slots as everyone else, and plenty of projects developed by major stars never get made.

Producing gives talent more agency, but it doesn’t eliminate the fundamental difficulty of getting a movie financed and made. For indie filmmakers, I think the more useful takeaway is to generate rather than wait. Keep writing, develop your own material, find collaborators and keep creating opportunities for yourself rather than relying entirely on incoming work.

Mari Bengston Love that observation. What's clear is that hustle is a clear competitive advantage...

Katrina Wolfe Agree with your points, which is why I financed my first three shorts... and your point about being a writer warms my heart :) and developing your own material :) :) I won't slow down. Thanks!

Katrina Wolfe, love your point- "But they’re still competing for the same limited number of financing, studio and distribution slots as everyone else, and plenty of projects developed by major stars never get made." I've also seen this many times and had projects with fantastic attachments not move forward. It's hard for everyone, not just beginners, because at the end of the day there are only so many options for the hundreds of thousands of incredible stories that are out there waiting to be told.

It ends up being pretty slow-going but as an indie creator myself, I ended up financing a lot of my work through doing as much of it myself as I could (on the creative/content-design side) and then using my own pocket-money to cast voice actors to bring certain parts of it to life. It led to my creating a more hybrid form of literature/animation as a result, but it became a space for me to be able to create something without waiting for someone else to tell me, "Yes." Kept my sanity more that way, haha.

I think after that, it really becomes talking up your work, growing an audience, and then if that audience loves your work as much as you do, they'll crowdfund other aspects of it.

I saw some incredible photos, Sandra Isabel and it looks like our friend, Xochi, was there having a blast with Kay and everyone else.

Not a producer (production coordinator and creative pro!) but when I see a short film that looks feature-ready, it boils down to what they were able to accomplish with limited resources, I think. Plot, pacing, acting (which leans into the director's abilities), color-grading, costuming...could they make the project look like a feature with an indie budget? Then if they got a feature-level budget, they'd probably blow the industry out of the water

Thanks for the link, Maurice Vaughan , I am going to check it out today.

You're welcome, @John. Stage 32 has two Screenwriting Lounge posts with pitch advice.

www.stage32.com/lounge/screenwriting/Pitching-44

www.stage32.com/lounge/screenwriting/Pitch-Advice

I relate to this a lot. I’m much more comfortable building the actual story than trying to condense everything I know about it into a few minutes. One thing I’m learning is that pitching is almost its own separate skill from writing. You can know your project inside and out and still have to learn how to communicate only the parts somebody needs to hear first. I’ve been working on simplifying mine down to the core character, conflict and emotional hook instead of trying to explain the whole world.

Congrats on the double recommends! Here are my two cents about pitches as an exec and a working writer so I am both on the receiving end of pitches and often the one pitching. When I was an actor I had a casting director give me an invaluable piece of advice about auditions which are essentially pitches in a different format, he said he could always tell when an actor was too hungry, and that all it made him wonder was why no one was feeding them, Basically there needs to be an ease about the pitch that can really only come from practice practice practice. The pitch should be so rehearsed that it feels off the cuff. There are two ways to go about doing this, one ask everyone you know to listen to you pitch and second record yourself, then record yourself again. You want to know your story inside and out and then you want to work on making the pitch feel conversational. If you can have it memorized, look us in the eyes, we want to engage with you, we want to be brought in on the journey, not just of the story but of how you came to write it. Make me laugh, catch me off guard, be a person I feel like I can have a cup of coffee with. A fun exercise to work on becoming a better is pitcher is take a movie or story that you don't like and try to pitch it in a way that would make someone watch it. But essentially my biggest bit of advice is to practice, pitching is an art and it can be learned!

Echoing the sentiments of the others here. No need to stop practicing the pitch and improving, but some people aren't as strong on the page as they are in the room. Perhaps you need to explore a collaborator (another writer who excels at pitching or a producer/manager type who believes in you as a writer).

I agree that above all, getting the script in the hands of the producer and let the work speak for itself is key. The better you can position those, the better!

Thank you to all for commenting; all these points were very helpful! I'm like a dried-up starfish crawling its way to the sea, soaking up every bit of water I can. Soon I will be very plump and juicy - I'll stop there before I take that too far lol. Jack Vincent, putting it in such a way as to ask if it's worthy, makes me look at projects in a completely different light, in a positive way. Because you're absolutely right: anything is technically producible with the right resources, but asking if it's worthy of producing- there is something about putting it that way that hit home for me. So many areas to consider under this realm of reasoning. Which is why I decided to ask this question. So thank you for that thought. I appreciate it.

Grady Craig, asking and researching who the audience is that will watch, I think, plays a big part. How broad an audience you reach that will be interested and invested long-term, or not, is what will hugely make it a success or not. This ties into Jack Vincent's question of whether the return will surpass the expense, and by how much.

Ashley Renee Smith, yes- do all the pieces fit into the puzzle? And is it realistic? For a project to become a greenlit production, all the pieces have to add up when put together; not one part of the puzzle can be missing or not fit properly with the others. This is how my brain works. I have a high level of metacognition; I lose sleep over thinking about thinking, because it's just so much to think about! Lol. And thank you for mentioning that blog post. I will definitely read it! I'm quite eager to soak everything up. Thank you again for commenting; I found it so helpful.

For me, it’s the combination rather than one thing: a realistic budget, a clear audience, and a team that understands how the project can actually be made and eventually reach that audience. A great script gets attention, but a realistic plan makes the project feel producible.

I completely relate to that, Gabrielle Beattie. You're definitely not alone.

“I completely agree. A harmonious set doesn’t happen by accident; it starts with the culture the producer establishes from Day 1. When people know they can speak directly and respectfully, problems become easier to solve before they become personal. For me, that kind of trust can be just as important as the production itself.”

Thank you for sharing this! Learning from good mentors about gratitude on set is so important. As a writer and director, I completely agree that making everyone feel seen and appreciated creates the best environment to make a film!"

I’m still early in my career, but one thing I’ve already learned from networking is that people remember how you treat them just as much as what you’re working on. Film and television takes too many people to make for anybody to act like they did everything alone. I’d rather build relationships with people I can grow with than only reach out when I need something from them.

Completely agree, Ian. People may forget the details of a shoot, but they remember how they were treated. A genuine thank you costs nothing, but it can build relationships that last for years.

Ian Milne I think this matters even more on a film set because filmmaking is so dependent on people trusting each other when things inevitably go wrong.

A producer or director who takes the time to acknowledge people before the pressure starts can create a very different atmosphere than someone who only communicates when they need something fixed.

I also like your point that the thank-you doesn’t need to be transactional. You may never work with that person again, but they still contributed something to the film.

As a director, I’d want to build that into my own working process. The people behind the camera, in production, locations, sound, lighting, art, and every other department are helping turn something that existed in my head and on the page into an actual film. It’s easy to become so focused on the shot that you forget how many people are making that shot possible.

And honestly, I think how a filmmaker treats people during the difficult days tells you much more about them than how they behave when everything is going smoothly.

Curious for other directors and producers here: what’s one small thing someone on a set has done that made you feel genuinely appreciated?

Yakub Deyemi Appreciate that, Yakub. That’s actually one of the main things I designed the pilot around.

The pilot opens with an older, emotionally exhausted Jayson in a dangerous situation, then takes us back to him at 17 before the life has really changed him. So the audience immediately knows where he eventually ends up, but not how this kid becomes that man.

From there, the pilot establishes the family pressure driving him — his mother’s declining health, financial instability, his responsibility toward his younger brother Donnie — along with his friendship with Manny and the neighborhood environment surrounding them. It also begins planting the criminal and law-enforcement worlds that will grow much larger as the series develops.

The series engine is really the consequences of each choice widening the world around Jayson. What starts as two teenagers trying to solve an immediate money problem gradually becomes a larger story about family, brotherhood, power, loyalty and what happens when the life built to protect the people you love becomes the thing that destroys them.

Season 1 is fully written, and Seasons 2 and 3 are structurally developed from beginning through the endgame, so a number of details planted in the pilot are designed to gain new meaning later in the series and on rewatch.

The pitch package carries the broader three-season vision, while I wanted the pilot itself to make the audience ask one central question:

What happened to this kid?

jJack Vincent Thank you, Jack. That’s something I’ve been learning quickly — the amount of material behind the series only matters if the pilot and pitch make someone want to see more first. I’ve been putting a lot of focus into making sure those two pieces communicate the characters, emotional hook and series engine without trying to explain everything at once. I appreciate the advice.

I’d add one thing, Ke’Andre: being prepared is important, but so is being easy to work with. A producer may love the pilot, but they’re also asking themselves whether this is someone they can develop a series with for the next few years. Being open to notes without losing your own voice can matter just as much as having three seasons mapped out.

Absolutely Zoltán Varga . That balance is important to me — protecting the identity of the series while still being open to strong notes and collaboration. Television is too collaborative to approach it any other way.

Ke’Andre Hawthorne From my perspective, the amount of development is useful, but I don't think it’s what makes a first-time creator credible by itself. A producer ultimately has to believe both the project works and the creator has a distinctive voice worth betting on.

I’d probably put the strongest pilot first. If the pilot immediately demonstrates the characters, tone, conflict, and series engine, then knowing that the creator has thought through Seasons 2 and 3 becomes reassuring rather than essential.

I also think the creator’s connection to the material matters. Why you had to tell this particular story can sometimes be more persuasive than another ten pages of mythology or future-season planning.

The long-term architecture is valuable too, especially for a serialized crime drama, but I’d treat it as evidence that you understand where the story is going—not as the main selling point.

If I were approaching producers, my hierarchy would probably be: strong pilot → distinctive voice → compelling series engine → clear pitch materials → evidence that the larger story has somewhere meaningful to go.

I’d be curious to hear from producers: what is the first thing you look for that makes you think, “I want to meet this creator”?

So excited for the webinar :)

It's my pleasure to host this incredible webinar with Alexia Melocchi, she's a rockstar.

Thank you to Alexia + Sandra! What a great webinar :)

James Lagrimas AFM seems like one of those markets where preparation matters more than simply showing up. Having hundreds of buyers, sales agents, financiers, and producers in one place doesn’t necessarily help if you haven’t identified who is actually relevant to your project.

I’m particularly interested in the idea of tailoring the approach depending on whether you’re looking for financing, sales representation, distribution, or co-production. Those are very different conversations, even when they involve the same project.

As a filmmaker working toward international opportunities, I think the most useful part would be understanding how to research the right companies and people before arriving at the market, rather than trying to figure everything out once you’re there.

I’d be curious to hear from filmmakers who have attended AFM: what did you wish you had prepared before your first market?