Really great analysis. I have a few additional questions that I think might add some illumination.
1. Did the debut film make money? You have the variable of the debuts that made 2.5x increases is 1.64, but I'm curious if there's any additional details for any film that makes money.
AND then
2. I'd pair this with the market value of the genre. Are romances higher because they make more money? (More people see them? The mainstream likes them?) I don't know.
I found it interesting that the more people variable was more important than the good film variable (at least how I read your piece), that breaks my heart in a way, but I'm not surprised. A film that sells is more "valuable" because it makes money, not necessarily art.
Which points to the heart of all my questions: Capitalism. What gets made is what makes money. If you want to make art, you're probably not in it for the money.
Great analysis. I appreciate how you broke down the takeaways so that for all of us preparing to make our first feature, we can make decisions to increase our chances of making this a career (though I feel like the biggest thing we can do is ignore the odds and do the work)
Going forward from 2018, it seems more factors would need to be in the mix: social media presence, followers count, and youtube subscribers. Since filmmakers are bringing their online audiences to the multiplex, it would make sense that those audiences would give online creators more chances to direct movies by supporting their work.
As someone who has made two features this is really really interesting. I always told myself after the first that if I could just make another I’d put myself ahead of many others in my position. It’s cool seeing numbers to back that feeling I had.
Seems for me the positive factors in my favor were that I’m young (21 when I directed the first), I waited only 3 years between projects, and that I’m a man.
That said I had no real success with the first outside of the personal pride I felt at what we accomplished. Didn’t play any festival, is still sub 1k views on YouTube. To my knowledge nobody has ever watched it that I haven’t directly talked to about it. I had no major attachments or connections.
I always told myself with certainty that I’d make another regardless. The truth is that I got very lucky, at least in terms of being able to go again just three years later. I found a job that gave me tons of flexibility and enabled me to give myself to the project fully. I was fired mid way through production but at that point it was too late lol.
I guess my advice, keeping this data in mind, is to just make the next. The second you find yourself in a spot where you’re mentally and physically ready, don’t hesitate. I’m so grateful for the chance to make another film. It changed my life in so many ways and further allowed me to see myself as a filmmaker. Thanks for compiling this and good luck to anybody out there who’s between the first and second! Keep going.
Fascinating. One thought about documentary directors having the lowest rate of returning to make a second feature: I imagine they'd need a huge emotional motivation to invest years of their life creating a documentary about a subject they care deeply about, and I wonder if their low return rate is due to a trifecta of: a presumably low financial reward, the high level of bureaucracy and inherent legal risk of documentary filmmaking, and the low likelihood of finding another subject they feel equally passionate about.
Fabulous analysis! Especially since for many filmmakers, it is the second film or even third film that helps them to breakout (off the top of my head, I'm thinking of Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing, which was his third film). We fret so much on getting that first film done (which, fair, is always challenging) but it's usually the follow-up(s) that can make the difference between a long-tail career and a one-hit wonder.
This is a great read, thanks Stephen. I would be interested too, particularly looking at filmmakers from the UK, what success came to directors who had previously been directing in Advertising (as opposed to just Shorts and TV). Unlike many other countries which like to keep their types of directors separate, the UK has a bit of a tradition of directors coming up through making commercial films - namely the Adland 5 - and it looks to be the route to take these days for starting-out directors.
So, I the lesson here is to make two features instead of one debut. I'm mostly kidding. It feels like its both harder and easier to get seen now if you are able to put the time and resources into getting in front of audiences. And if your debut being seen is the biggest indicator, then there's something we can do to impact that outcome.
Really great analysis. I have a few additional questions that I think might add some illumination.
1. Did the debut film make money? You have the variable of the debuts that made 2.5x increases is 1.64, but I'm curious if there's any additional details for any film that makes money.
AND then
2. I'd pair this with the market value of the genre. Are romances higher because they make more money? (More people see them? The mainstream likes them?) I don't know.
I found it interesting that the more people variable was more important than the good film variable (at least how I read your piece), that breaks my heart in a way, but I'm not surprised. A film that sells is more "valuable" because it makes money, not necessarily art.
Which points to the heart of all my questions: Capitalism. What gets made is what makes money. If you want to make art, you're probably not in it for the money.
Nice work. Thanks.
Great analysis. I appreciate how you broke down the takeaways so that for all of us preparing to make our first feature, we can make decisions to increase our chances of making this a career (though I feel like the biggest thing we can do is ignore the odds and do the work)
Going forward from 2018, it seems more factors would need to be in the mix: social media presence, followers count, and youtube subscribers. Since filmmakers are bringing their online audiences to the multiplex, it would make sense that those audiences would give online creators more chances to direct movies by supporting their work.
As someone who has made two features this is really really interesting. I always told myself after the first that if I could just make another I’d put myself ahead of many others in my position. It’s cool seeing numbers to back that feeling I had.
Seems for me the positive factors in my favor were that I’m young (21 when I directed the first), I waited only 3 years between projects, and that I’m a man.
That said I had no real success with the first outside of the personal pride I felt at what we accomplished. Didn’t play any festival, is still sub 1k views on YouTube. To my knowledge nobody has ever watched it that I haven’t directly talked to about it. I had no major attachments or connections.
I always told myself with certainty that I’d make another regardless. The truth is that I got very lucky, at least in terms of being able to go again just three years later. I found a job that gave me tons of flexibility and enabled me to give myself to the project fully. I was fired mid way through production but at that point it was too late lol.
I guess my advice, keeping this data in mind, is to just make the next. The second you find yourself in a spot where you’re mentally and physically ready, don’t hesitate. I’m so grateful for the chance to make another film. It changed my life in so many ways and further allowed me to see myself as a filmmaker. Thanks for compiling this and good luck to anybody out there who’s between the first and second! Keep going.
Fascinating. One thought about documentary directors having the lowest rate of returning to make a second feature: I imagine they'd need a huge emotional motivation to invest years of their life creating a documentary about a subject they care deeply about, and I wonder if their low return rate is due to a trifecta of: a presumably low financial reward, the high level of bureaucracy and inherent legal risk of documentary filmmaking, and the low likelihood of finding another subject they feel equally passionate about.
Fascinating. Great post!
this is amazing. that -0.83% comeback rate for female directors 😭
Fabulous analysis! Especially since for many filmmakers, it is the second film or even third film that helps them to breakout (off the top of my head, I'm thinking of Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing, which was his third film). We fret so much on getting that first film done (which, fair, is always challenging) but it's usually the follow-up(s) that can make the difference between a long-tail career and a one-hit wonder.
This is a great read, thanks Stephen. I would be interested too, particularly looking at filmmakers from the UK, what success came to directors who had previously been directing in Advertising (as opposed to just Shorts and TV). Unlike many other countries which like to keep their types of directors separate, the UK has a bit of a tradition of directors coming up through making commercial films - namely the Adland 5 - and it looks to be the route to take these days for starting-out directors.
So, I the lesson here is to make two features instead of one debut. I'm mostly kidding. It feels like its both harder and easier to get seen now if you are able to put the time and resources into getting in front of audiences. And if your debut being seen is the biggest indicator, then there's something we can do to impact that outcome.