Low-Budget Feature - Best ways to save money -- Worst pitfalls to avoid

C

c.g._eads

Veteran
I just thought I'd start a thread asking those out there who have shot low-budget features what they've learned while shooting. Specifically in the areas of how to save money and the common mistakes that first-time filmmakers can avoid.

I will offer what little I know. As my feature is coming up, I am seriously considering buying a lot of those worklights from Home Depot and getting that 'black wrap' to shape the light (I will have SOME professional lighting equpiment - but those lights should be sufficient to fill a room with light. . That will save me a ton on lighting right there.

Also, instead of renting a camera and being forced into a 4 week consecutive shooting schedule, I decided to buy a camera (the HV20) and shoot on weekends over a long period of time. The reason for this is that it's a lot easier to get people for cheap/free if you're asking them to help you on the weekend rather than for 30 consecutive days. Lots of money saved right there.
 
While you may save some money by shooting over a long period of time on weekends, I think that would affect the quality and (especially) the consistency of your film. Of course, it all depends on the specifics of your film. It's difficult to assess how you could save money and avoid common mistakes without knowing what you're shooting...

That said, what kind of budget do you mean when you say low? I found that using Kino lights to flood a scene worked GREAT for many of my "daytime" interiors. They are fairly inexpensive to rent, and setup/breakdown is a breeze.

When you say you are getting people for cheap/free, do you mean crew and actors? I took the approach of paying a crew a small amount (as much as I could, really), but we found good actors to work for free. Well, most of them were good actors. Of course, I was in NC. In Cali I would think you could find better quality actors who are desperate to work.

One area that I screwed up on was not having a sound department. If you can at all afford to hire a good sound man with equipment that does not run through your camera - DO IT! I was so obsessed with getting a good picture on the Varicam that the sound budget (and ultimately quality) were sacrificed and I count this among my biggest mistakes.

Also, if you want to save money in the long haul, hire a good AD. This doesn't necessarily mean someone with a lot of experience, because they won't be cheap. It does mean someone who is very professional and VERY, VERY organized.

I'm sure I'll think of more later. If you offer more specifics or questions you have, I'll be happy to take a crack at them. I made my first feature on HD a little over three years ago.
 
Saving money can be as simple as keeping the number of shooting days to a minimum. The fewer shooting days, the fewer meals -- less food = less money. However, at this stage in your project there may be little you can do about that.

I just wrapped principal photography on a unique suspense/drama feature called 'Tangled Web'. I wrote the script, and from the beginning it was designed to be shot in a VERY short amount of time. The script was written so that the whole story is seen from the POV of three webcams, each in a different character's home. (Of course, in reality all three were in different rooms in the same house.) This unique perspective allows for VERY fast shooting -- no camera movement, no changing camera setups or lights, mics mounted on stands (no boom or operator). All we had to do to get ready for the next scene was make adjustments to the set dressing. We were ready to shoot before the actors could even change their wardrobe!

And since everything is seen from a single POV, there was no need for the usual coverage -- master shot, medium shot, two-shot, closeups, cutaways, etc. Every shot was a master shot. Closeups were accomplished by simply moving the actor close to the camera. Extremely simple!

We shot an 83-page script in just 2 days! And we wrapped early both days. It went very, very smoothly!

And so far we've got VERY little money in it. Everyone worked on deferred pay -- which is easier when they only have to commit a single weekend to the project. No equipment was rented -- I own one camera, my DP owns the other two. We did use work lights from Lowe's. And I bought audio equipment, which I've already turned around and re-sold, recovering 75% of the cost.

Editing is also very simple compared to your typical project, and is going very quickly.

So we had 7 actors. The crew consisted of me (director, writer, producer, editor), my wife (producer, grip, craft service), an AD (also the executive producer and documentarian), a DP (also one of the main actors), and an all-around grip/SFX makeup/hair girl.

And I won't tell you how little it cost us (so far), but the cost is breathtakingly tiny. :)
 
I would first ask yourself why you are shooting a feature. If you have made a few shorts or worked on other people's projects and have a good handle on your skills, you may want to proceed. If not, do the above first.

Second, why so low-budget? If you have something to show in your reel, have a good script, and have developed relationships with good crew, you can raise some money and do it right.

Third, decide what you want to do. Are you going to direct? DP? Produce? Write? Don't even think about doing all of them and expect to do it well. Pick one (maybe 2) and find other competent folks to do the rest. I know many folks point to Robbie Rod and think they can pull it off. Chances are you are wrong. Do one thing and do it well. It increases your odds.

Fourth, hire a good crew. They will save you time and money and are the best investment you can make. They often come with their own gear. Instead of buying worklights and crappy audio gear, offer a DP a few bucks, meals and replace his expendables, then do the same for an audio guy.

Fifth, re-write your script

Sixth, re-write your script

Seventh, re-write your script.

Eighth, cast well

Ninth, re-write your script.

Then figure out how much money you have for your production and figure out how to make that work. Then take that figure and expect to pay that much to do post and get someone to see it.

99% of features never get seen. Usually it's because they aren't any good. Even if they are, they don't have a name and the money to promote. I'm not trying to dissuade you. If you are making it for fun, or as a learning experience, I recommend a short. You get 90% of the knowledge ond fun with a lot less resources.

If you are making a feature because you expect it to be commercially viable, do all of your distribution and marketing homework before you shoot. If you don't, odds are you will have a very expensive home movie.


I am not directing this at any one person. I know CG Eads has been on these boards a long time and he knows his stuff. These are just general tidbits from my own experience.
 
Some of us are just not good at convincing other people to let loose of their money. I know I'm not. My goal is to make no-budget features until one of them makes some money. Take the money from that and use it to make a better feature. Use the money from that to make an even better feature. Then, with luck, I'll reach the point where others will feel more confident about investing their money with me.

A good reel is easy -- a good movie is hard.
 
I don't buy that. You can learn to do anything well, including fundraising. When you want to make a career out of something you need to be willing to do the things that aren't as much fun...especially in a field that is as competitive as this.

You are right that a good movie is hard, and making one with no money is next to impossible. How do you expect to keep on making films with no money until you learn enough to make one good enough to make money? Most people burn out long before that. And who will help you for that long, with no money when they have lives of their own? I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I firmly believe that your odds of success (meaning commercial viability), increase exponentially if you take the time to learn your craft, assemble enough resources and make a quality product. Otherwise I think you are kidding yourself.

Or, find a partner or producer that believes in you. Then they can raise the money...and hopefully not screw you.
 
Not everyone can learn to do everything. Some Hollywood actors make terrible producer or directors, and vice versa. We have strengths and we have weaknesses.

A partner or producer can be a good thing -- it can also be a nightmare. I brought a partner in to help produce what was to be my first feature film, and she ended up stealing the project right out from under me. (Misplaced trust.) Any time you sign on a partner or producer, you are ceding some control of your movie away to someone who may not agree with you at some point. You're also sacrificing a big chunk of your profits.

How do I expect to keep on making films with no money until I learn enough to make one good enough to make money? The same way Robert Rodriguez and so many others have. It's true that most people burn out long before that -- but I'm not most people. As for who will want to stick around and keep helping me -- most of the people I've worked with so far are more than happy to come back. If you have a great script, and you've proven you can make a finished film out of it, people will help. At least, that's true where I live. Your results may vary.
 
NOW is the time to start looking for a distributor. DON'T wait until you've finished the film. Spend a few bucks and get yourself posted in the trades...build some buzz. If you can afford a PR guy to start that buzz, so much better. Have all your ducks in a row BEFORE you begin to shoot. Search out distributors and perhaps you'll be able to get them to help with the financing if the project interests them enough. Find a way to get a recognizable face in you movie even if it's only a small cameo. That'll help sell it when you can say, "I've got so-and-so in my movie."
 
Good advice Blaine.

It's been awhile since I read Rebel Without a Crew, but if memory serves, El Mariachi was his first FEATURE. He had done shorts and video projects for years, where he honed his craft. He did not make feature after feature to get it right. I don't know of anybody who has. The resources (both physical and emotional) are too great to keep up without some sort of reward.

You are right, you can't do it all. But if you do not want to learn the business end, including the fundraising, how much will you know about how it works if somebody does start throwing money your way? If you are the filmmaker, then the film revolves around you. If you don't believe in it enough to learn to get it funded...well, than I think that says something.
 
I don't remember anybody saying "make feature after feature" without making shorts first. I've certainly made my share of shorts.

Rodriguez got lucky, in that his first feature got distribution. But if it hadn't, would you have suggested he quit? He obviously didn't line up a big chunk of investment capital before making 'Mariachi'. He took a chance. If the movie hadn't sold, I'm sure he would've used it as a learning experience, added it to his reel, and made another one.

I agree with you that everyone should learn the business end. But knowing the mechanics of wooing investors doesn't automatically make you a good salesperson. Some people have a gift for that, others don't. I don't think people should give up their dream to make movies simply because they don't excel at drawing investors -- just as they shouldn't quit simply because they're not the best cinematographer in the world. They should learn to find and hire people who ARE good at these things, then put them to work.
 
The most important part of making a film, ESPECIALLY a low budget film... pre-production. Sort of like a retail store... it's all about pre-production, pre-production, pre-production. Not at all saying that production or post-production aren't important... it's just the more time you invest into pre-production, the better your finished feature will be.
 
And I want to point out that I'm not saying it is impossible to make a feature that is good your first time out. I worked as a DP a couple of years ago on a feature for an actor who was directing his first film. THe guy was in his 50's and had a lot of experience on a set. He had a good script, 6 weekends, a dedicated cast and a crew of 2.

The film turned out pretty well. Coming in at just over an hour, it barely qualifies as a feature, but it just got accepted into it's first festival. Will it get seen? Yes. Will it make money? Probably not. Will the people who worked on it come back to work again for nothing? Mostly no.

When he first screened it he turned to me and basically said. "I wish I had waited a little longer. If I had just raised a few thousand dollars for a more experienced crew and given this another rewrite, I think I'd be cashing a check right about now."

I didn't have the heart to remind him that I had given him that advice months earlier.

He was an experienced writer and actor and he made a movie that was 75% of the way there, which is pretty damned good compared to the average. But, it's like swimming 75% of the way across a lake.
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
I don't remember anybody saying "make feature after feature" without making shorts first. I've certainly made my share of shorts.

Rodriguez got lucky, in that his first feature got distribution. But if it hadn't, would you have suggested he quit? He obviously didn't line up a big chunk of investment capital before making 'Mariachi'. He took a chance. If the movie hadn't sold, I'm sure he would've used it as a learning experience, added it to his reel, and made another one.

I agree with you that everyone should learn the business end. But knowing the mechanics of wooing investors doesn't automatically make you a good salesperson. Some people have a gift for that, others don't. I don't think people should give up their dream to make movies simply because they don't excel at drawing investors -- just as they shouldn't quit simply because they're not the best cinematographer in the world. They should learn to find and hire people who ARE good at these things, then put them to work.
Click to expand...

I don't think we are really disagreeing with each other all that much. You have to take chances. All I am saying is that investing a little more time before shooting to get out of your comfort zone and rally some financial resources is a good use of your time. I never have and never would suggest anyone quit. I don't see how you could interpret any of my posts that way. Just the opposite: Work harder to get what you need to make a film right, even if it's stuff you don't want to do.

Would RR have quit? No. But if he hadn't gotten lucky, he would probably be doing something else for a living until he did. Besides, he shot with over 5 grand, which is a lot for some people. Me, I am currently raising a half-million and I hate every minute of it. But I am lerning a lot about how it all works, and the money men I have met with seem to change their attitudes when they see that I know what I am talking about in the realms of Finance and Distribution. It's not why I got into this, but as a filmmaker I feel that it is my responsibility to give every project I do the best chance of success, and that means making sure the project has the deck stacked in it's favor, including having a reasonable amount of financial resources. Anything less is a dis-service to the project and the people I am bringing in to it.
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
Rodriguez got lucky, in that his first feature got distribution. But if it hadn't, would you have suggested he quit? He obviously didn't line up a big chunk of investment capital before making 'Mariachi'. He took a chance. If the movie hadn't sold, I'm sure he would've used it as a learning experience, added it to his reel, and made another one.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and I completely agree with you.
And in a way, the Rodriguez example also strengthens the point that you can never shoot enough shorts before making your first feature. Rodriguez had been shooting since he was very young, virtually nonstop, before making Mariachi. So while he didn't have a ton of capital behind him on that film, he did have years upon years of experience under his belt.

AND this also strengthens Blaines point about having distribution (or at least a plan) in place before starting.
Rodriguez had planned on selling Mariachi to the Mexican video market - which he could have easily done. He shopped it around for the hell of it, and next thing you know he actually got distribution in the US. But the point is - there was a plan in place.... shoot 3 movies for mexican direct to video release, then come back and try to make his first 'big' film in the US. Things don't always work out the way we plan them to (sometimes they work out better)...but it's important to have a plan that you can deviate from.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here - there are alot of good points being brought up.
Just trying to add to the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Luis Caffesse said:
Absolutely, and I completely agree with you.
And in a way, the Rodriguez example also strengthens the point that you can never shoot enough shorts before making your first feature. Rodriguez had been shooting since he was very young, virtually nonstop, before making Mariachi. So while he didn't have a ton of capital behind him on that film, he did have years upon years of experience under his belt.
Click to expand...

This is a very key point that is all to often left out in discussions of the RR rags-to-riches story.

Rodriguez had planned on selling Mariachi to the Mexican video market - which he could have easily done. He shopped it around for the hell of it, and next thing you know he actually got distribution in the US.
Click to expand...

Key point again. RR was a *heartbeat* away from taking what was almost certainly a crappy deal with a crappy company. It was in no small part because said crappy company played the "check is in the mail" game a little too hard that he (very wisely, even *not* in retrospect) held off on signing with them. *Then* he got the bite at ICM that led to the bidding war and the million dollar deal.

Imagine it...one step away from oblivion, and the next day he's got the power elite eating out of his hand. Quite a story.

To his great credit he's held up his end of the promise and done some excellent work. "Sin City" (in no small part due to Frank Miller) is one of my favorite films of the last few years.
 
the only way to reduce costs is to schedule in plenty of time in preproduction to negotiate deals and reduced rates. it takes time. i had nearly three months of prepro before starting Heart of Now in which we managed to secure very good deals and donations toward catering and equipment rentals, while interviewing young skilled filmmakers for our crew, who were eager to collaborate and gain experience in a nurturing atmosphere rather than being out simply to earn a paycheck. it's a lot of work and phone calls but it will save you money and make the prduction possible. you just need time to negotiate and interview candidates for your team. I remember one location that we got for free by talking to the owner and describing our project. this same location had been used the day before by CSI and they paid $8000 for it.

i think the worst mistake a low budget producer can make is hiring the first guys that come along. it is vital to meet as many people as possible and find out as much as you can about them -- experience, aspirations, personality, ability to communicate effectively, etc. we start by posting on mandy and craigslist, asking applicants to read about the project on our web site, then to write ten reasons why they want to be a part of this specific production. anyone who doesn't follow that simple instruction is easily weeded out, giving you a handful of very good, hard working (usually young) people who are passionate about filmmaking. the team we hired for Heart of Now have all become good friends. five of the guys you see pictured here were brought on board using this process. that's five out of more than 100 applicants that submitted for positions, of which we brought in about 20 for interviews.

img3979nn7.jpg
 
Last edited:
I happened to catch part of one of my wife's "girly" shows, Rachel Ray or something along those lines... anyways, there was a woman who just sold her story to a studio for some good chunk of change. Her story? She and her husband had babies , had a babysitter try to steal her husband and kids... That isn't important though. What is, was the fact she decided to write it, and placed ads in the trade papers as Blaine suggested. That caught someone's eye, and they decided to proceed with it.

Of course, you also need to find a competent attorney to keep you from getting screwed. Keep in mind, they are pricey too.
 
Zak Forsman said:
i think the worst mistake a low budget producer can make is hiring the first guys that come along. it is vital to meet as many people as possible and find out as much as you can about them -- experience, aspirations, personality, ability to communicate effectively, etc. we start by posting on mandy and craigslist, asking applicants to read about the project on our web site, then to write ten reasons why they want to be a part of this specific production. anyone who doesn't follow that simple instruction is easily weeded out, giving you a handful of very good, hard working (usually young) people who are passionate about filmmaking. the team we hired for Heart of Now have all become good friends. five of the guys you see pictured here were brought on board using this process. that's five out of more than 100 applicants that submitted for positions, of which we brought in about 20 for interviews.
Click to expand...

Perfect. Take your time. ANything worth doing is worth doing well. This may be the one time in your carreer nobody is rushing you. Enjoy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top