The $320 Million Question: What If The Electric State Had Funded 50 Independent Films Instead?

In a previous blog, I talked about the collapse of pre-sales and how streamers have unintentionally hollowed out parts of the independent film ecosystem. One example stood out. The Electric State.

Netflix reportedly spent around $320 million producing the film, making it one of the most expensive movies ever made. Which raises a pretty uncomfortable question: What if that same money had been spread across 50 independent films instead?

Not because all 50 films would’ve been great. They wouldn’t have been. Some would fail. Some would be average. A few might be terrible. But a handful could’ve been exceptional. And more importantly: What would that model have done for the industry overall?

Because when we talk about film economics, we tend to reduce everything down to:

• subscriber retention

• box office

• streaming numbers

But films are ecosystems. They create:

• jobs

• taxes

• infrastructure

• future talent

• cultural value

• long-term economic activity

So let’s compare the models. Not emotionally. Structurally.

Model A: The Electric State

Reported Production Budget: $320 million

Now obviously Netflix doesn’t publicly release detailed financial breakdowns, so the following figures are approximations based on industry-standard production models for films of this scale. A production like The Electric State likely employed:

Above-the-line:

• directors

• writers

• producers

• lead cast

• executive producers

Estimated: 50–100 people

Below-the-line:

• production crew

• VFX artists

• editorial

• construction

• costume

• lighting

• transport

• post-production

Estimated: 2,000–3,000 jobs

Which sounds enormous. And it is. But here’s the thing people miss: At extreme budget levels, labour intensity per dollar actually starts dropping.

A huge amount of the budget gets concentrated into:

• star salaries

• overhead

• VFX infrastructure

• backend deals

• executive fees

• marketing

The spend becomes less economically distributed.

Estimated Economic Activity

Using conservative assumptions:

If roughly:

• 35–40% of the budget went directly into payroll and production labour

• and assuming average blended taxation rates across income/payroll/VAT/local spend

Then a $320M production might generate roughly: $40–60M in direct and indirect tax revenue.

That’s obviously significant. But now let’s compare it to a distributed model.

Model B: 50 Independent Films at $5 Million Each

Instead of one giant film: 50 films × $5M = $250M production spend

Add:

• development

• modest marketing

• contingency

And you’re sitting in broadly the same total capital range. Now the ecosystem changes completely.

Employment Multiplication

A $5M independent film typically employs:

Above-the-line:

• writer(s)

• director

• producers

• lead/supporting cast

Estimated: 20–40 people per film

Below-the-line:

• crew

• locations

• transport

• post

• costume

• editorial

• practical effects

Estimated: 80–150 people per film

Now multiply that by 50.

Estimated Industry Impact

Above-the-line: 1,000–2,000 jobs

Below-the-line: 4,000–7,500 jobs

Potentially: 2–3x more direct employment than a single mega-budget production.

And crucially, the work gets spread across:

• more production companies

• more filmmakers

• more actors

• more crews

• more regions

• more vendors

The ecosystem breathes.

The Tax Difference

This is where the numbers get really interesting. Because 50 productions don’t just mean more jobs. They mean more economic circulation.

You suddenly have:

• 50 production offices

• 50 accommodation cycles

• 50 catering ecosystems

• 50 location economies

• 50 rounds of local hiring

Hotels.

Restaurants.

Drivers.

Builders.

Rental houses.

Editors.

Designers.

Local services.

Everything multiplies.

Using conservative assumptions, 50 independent productions at this scale could realistically generate: $70–100M+ in combined direct and indirect tax revenue

Potentially substantially more than one concentrated mega-production. Not because the budgets are bigger. Because the economic activity is more distributed.

Then There’s the Talent Pipeline

This is the bit the industry massively undervalues.

50 films means:

• 50 directors getting opportunities

• dozens of writers getting produced credits

• hundreds of actors getting meaningful roles

• cinematographers stepping up

• editors building careers

This is how industries regenerate themselves. Not through gigantism. Through repetition and opportunity.

The Variance Advantage

This is where the current model starts looking genuinely irrational.

One $320M film gives you:

• one tone

• one release

• one creative interpretation

• one chance to connect

50 films create:

• multiple genres

• multiple audiences

• multiple breakout possibilities

• multiple cultural touchpoints

This is how the following enter culture:

• Get Out

• Whiplash

• Moonlight

• Little Miss Sunshine

• Paranormal Activity

Not because they were safe. Because the system once had room for variance.

The Industry Has Forgotten Portfolio Thinking

Every other creative industry understands this. Tech does. Music does. Venture capital does. You spread risk across multiple outcomes. Film increasingly doesn’t. Instead, it concentrates more and more capital into fewer and fewer bets and then acts surprised when volatility increases.

Would 50 Films Be Riskier?

Creatively? Absolutely. Financially? Arguably not.

Because business risk decreases when:

• exposure is spread

• outcomes diversify

• upside multiplies across a slate

This is the confusion at the heart of modern Hollywood. The industry keeps conflating:

creative risk with financial risk

They overlap. But they are not the same thing.

The Bigger Cultural Question

A healthy film industry isn’t just:

• profitable

• efficient

• scalable

It’s generative. It creates:

• new filmmakers

• new aesthetics

• new careers

• new cultural moments

When too much money concentrates into too few projects, the ecosystem narrows. And eventually culture narrows with it.

Conclusion

This isn’t an argument against big films. Big films absolutely should exist. But not at the expense of the wider ecosystem. Because the numbers suggest something pretty uncomfortable: 50 smaller films may create significantly more jobs, more tax revenue, more opportunity, more creative variance and potentially more long-term value than one giant one. And the benefit isn’t just cultural. It’s strategic. Because Netflix wouldn’t just have one film. It would now have:

• 50 additional assets in its library

• 50 opportunities for audience connection

• 50 release cycles

• 50 chances for breakout success

• 50 films driving engagement, retention and long-tail discovery

That has value. Not just creatively, commercially. Netflix reportedly spends around $20 billion a year on content. In that context, this isn’t some radical restructuring of the business. It’s a tiny percentage of annual spend. But the downstream effect could be enormous on:

• filmmakers

• crews

• audiences

• regional economies

• and the long-term health of the industry

Because maybe the future of the industry isn’t about spending more money. Maybe it’s about spreading opportunity better.