Putting together a short film (questions)

chapelgrovefilms said:
I don't understand why you would go to so much effort to trash my film when you haven't even seen it. How can it be "not a very convincing example" when the next thing you say is "(irregardless of the quality of the film)"? Wouldn't the quality of the film be what MAKES it a good example or not? (Since the point was whether or not a 'good' film could be made on a miniscule budget.) And isn't that a judgement that you really can't make without actually seeing the film itself?

You make the assumption that the film has only 1 location. You're wrong -- while it only has one PHYSICAL location, the apparent locations in the film are 3, not one -- and that doesn't include the 4 other locations seen in short incidental scenes included in the movie. It's the same concept as if you constructed three different sets inside a single warehouse -- 1 physical location, but the audience sees 3 different 'locations'.

Also, it could be pointed out that many feature films have revolved around a single physical location. "My Little Eye" all takes place in one house, as does "The Brutal Truth". "Blair Witch" mostly took place in the woods -- which can be considered as a single location, since 'woods is woods' so to speak.

The strength of 'Tangled Web' lies in the quality of the script and the performances of the actors, both of which help to engross the audience to the point where they stop thinking about how many locations they're seeing, and become engaged in the people and the story. Granted, that was a challenge -- but challenges are good.

Yes, in many ways 'Tangled Web' is very static. But I feel the story and the characters more than make up for that. Am I right? Audiences will have the last word on that. But it's grossly unfair for anyone to make that judgement without ever even having seen the film.
Click to expand...

If I wanted to trash your film.. I would have.

Next time please read what I wrote. No where did I trash your film.

In fact I made a specific point to separate the quality of film from my point with a short little bracketed statement.

Thank you for paying attention.
 
Loki said:
You've used this film of yours as examples in several threads. It's such a poor example of a feature film on shoe string since you had 1 location. And you're film (from my understanding) is a gimmick film...

When you sell your $1000 film at Sundance for a large chunk of money.. and I can see it somewhere other than your own website I will be impressed.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a slam to me. Please tell me, then, what you mean by these remarks, since I'm obviously not reading them the way you intended them.

Even if my film DID have only 1 location, how would that, in and of itself, make it a 'poor example' of a feature film on a shoe string?

And what's it's being a 'gimmick film' got to do with anything? The same could be said of 'Blair Witch' or 'My Little Eye' or Mike Figgis' 'Time Code'. Even 'Cloverfield' could be called a 'gimmick film'. What bearing does that have on whether or not a film is 'good' -- which is, admittedly, a very vague term.

And I still don't understand how you can judge any film to be a 'good' or 'poor' example of a good film if you've never actually seen it.

Your point is well taken that the film hasn't been reviewed yet, since it's still in post -- and therefore there is no independent assessment of its quality. I hope to remedy that soon. But I'm still of the opinion that a 'good' feature film can be made for under $10,000. 'Great'? Maybe not.

For what it's worth, Netflix members can view online (or order) the indie feature 'Destination: Mars!' This movie was made for about $6000. It's an unofficial remake of 'Plan 9 From Outer Space'. It's entertaining, with a lot of inside jokes. Great cinema? Probably not. But a good film that got distribution.

Or rent 'My Date With Drew' -- a feature that was made on a budget of $3000 and got theatrical release and critical acclaim. It's a lot of fun to watch, and very well done in my opinion.

It's possible to be talented, creative, interesting and entertaining without spending a ton of money -- it's just harder.
 
Loki said:
It's also my belief that people should be payed properly for the work they do on set.
Click to expand...

As do I. I would never approach another professional and expect that they would work for free or for a discount, just as I would never expect someone to ask me to contribute my time for free. I'm alway upfront as far as my ability to pay them, and if they decide that what I have to offer isn't enough, then that's that. But if they do come on board, the understanding is that I am doing everything I can to compensate them; if I can't pay them at the moment, then I will in the future, or I will work for them for free, or lend them my equipments if they needed it etc. That's how I maintain all of my professional relationships; you have to give in order to take, because I respect the work that they do and I want to work with them again in the future. You speak as if I'm taking advantage of these individuals, which is simply ridiculous.

Now, you're speaking as if there is a financial threshold under which a film will not sell, and therefore "go nowhere." Like I said, smart planning and a great story will make your $2,000 film looks like a $10,000 film. If you're able to do more with less, how is that "underfunded"? Or maybe you're assuming that I'm making a feature just for the hell of it and that by not throwing money into it I'm wasting everyone's time?
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
Sounds like a slam to me. Please tell me, then, what you mean by these remarks, since I'm obviously not reading them the way you intended them.

Even if my film DID have only 1 location, how would that, in and of itself, make it a 'poor example' of a feature film on a shoe string?

And what's it's being a 'gimmick film' got to do with anything? The same could be said of 'Blair Witch' or 'My Little Eye' or Mike Figgis' 'Time Code'. Even 'Cloverfield' could be called a 'gimmick film'. What bearing does that have on whether or not a film is 'good' -- which is, admittedly, a very vague term.

And I still don't understand how you can judge any film to be a 'good' or 'poor' example of a good film if you've never actually seen it.

Your point is well taken that the film hasn't been reviewed yet, since it's still in post -- and therefore there is no independent assessment of its quality. I hope to remedy that soon. But I'm still of the opinion that a 'good' feature film can be made for under $10,000. 'Great'? Maybe not.

For what it's worth, Netflix members can view online (or order) the indie feature 'Destination: Mars!' This movie was made for about $6000. It's an unofficial remake of 'Plan 9 From Outer Space'. It's entertaining, with a lot of inside jokes. Great cinema? Probably not. But a good film that got distribution.

Or rent 'My Date With Drew' -- a feature that was made on a budget of $3000 and got theatrical release and critical acclaim. It's a lot of fun to watch, and very well done in my opinion.

It's possible to be talented, creative, interesting and entertaining without spending a ton of money -- it's just harder.
Click to expand...

How is it a poor example? Well examine it a little bit.

Your film was made for $1000.00. Was shot in 1 location (dressing the set to look different doesn't change that it was indeed 1 location). You shot your film from the POV of a web camera which means no setup time ever, aside from the first time you plunk the camera down. There is no need for a real Camera Op, AC, AD etc.. you've eliminated a large number of crew positions. You all but eliminated the need to block a scene.

So far.. this isn't sounding like a typical film. This is why I mention 'gimmick film'. Your experience is so limited from this film.. it just isn't possible to apply it to other more 'normal' film work. You were able to make this happen in 3 Days.. because it was a gimmick film...

It is a poor example because you barely did any of the work typically associated with making a film. All the complicated issues were removed for you here. Sure Performance takes time, but when you have 1 angle.. you can do a hell of a lot more when you know you'll never need to move the camera.

I don't need to see your film to know if it is a poor example by which to judge other productions...99% of all the other films out there being made... are far more challenging... and to do a typical feature on $1000 is nearly impossible and to come out with a great film.

There are exceptions. My date with drew is a nice film.. I own it... but I think I have explained my reasoning here.

I'm out.
 
whoa...slow down there, turbo! I didn't mean to insinuate that both chapel and huy are trying to take advantage of anyone or do not appreciate those who are giving their time and effort. I'm just saying that some directors and producers in this world truly believe that people working on their projects should feel privileged that they are embarking on such a glorious project. Of course, the project could be the best thing ever, but some people forget that the crew is actually doing the director/producer a favor by being there. I am glad to hear this is not how the two of you operate or plan to operate.
 
Loki said:
How is it a poor example? Well examine it a little bit.

Your film was made for $1000.00. Was shot in 1 location (dressing the set to look different doesn't change that it was indeed 1 location). You shot your film from the POV of a web camera which means no setup time ever, aside from the first time you plunk the camera down. There is no need for a real Camera Op, AC, AD etc.. you've eliminated a large number of crew positions. You all but eliminated the need to block a scene.

So far.. this isn't sounding like a typical film. This is why I mention 'gimmick film'. Your experience is so limited from this film.. it just isn't possible to apply it to other more 'normal' film work. You were able to make this happen in 3 Days.. because it was a gimmick film...

It is a poor example because you barely did any of the work typically associated with making a film. All the complicated issues were removed for you here. Sure Performance takes time, but when you have 1 angle.. you can do a hell of a lot more when you know you'll never need to move the camera.

I don't need to see your film to know if it is a poor example by which to judge other productions...99% of all the other films out there being made... are far more challenging... and to do a typical feature on $1000 is nearly impossible and to come out with a great film.

There are exceptions. My date with drew is a nice film.. I own it... but I think I have explained my reasoning here.

I'm out.
Click to expand...

Okay, I think I get what you were trying to say -- that 'Tangled Web' is not your 'typical' film, since it was shot in 1 physical location, etc. That's certainly fair. But your original response said it was a poor example of a feature shot on a shoestring -- which it isn't.

The debate was whether or not a 'good' feature could be shot on a miniscule budget. My point was that you can reduce costs by thinking outside the 'traditional film' box. The very fact that 'Tangled Web' was able to be shot without much of the 'work typically associated with making a film' is exactly what helped keep the costs down to a bare minimum.

Actually, we did do a great deal of the 'work typically associated with making a film' -- but we did it in advance. We developed the script. We hired the cast and crew, which did include a DP. Even though the camera positions were static, we did need a DP to help determine the best camera setups for what we wanted. We developed lighting and camera plans to simulate different times of the day -- morning, afternoon, evening. We worked to overcome difficulties with sound capture and mic placements. We obtained all the props and wardrobe items we needed, including 2 firearms. We prepared for the special effects, including SFX makeup. We arranged for craft service. The only things we really DIDN'T do involved camera movement during takes and camera/lighting breakdown and setup. We didn't have a boom operator -- mic positions were locked.

We didn't have to do the typical coverage shots -- master shot, medium shot, 2-shots, closeups, cutaways. That did save us some time. However, don't be misled by that into thinking we didn't HAVE closeups and medium shots, because we did. It was just a matter of moving the subjects closer to the camera, rather than the camera closer to the subjects.

There were some things we DID have to do that aren't normally dealt with on a typical shoot. First, we had to run 3 cameras, 3 audio setups, and 3 sets of lighting at the same time. And we had to devise and implement a method by which people in 3 different areas of the house could see and hear each other so they could perform their scenes.

The thing is, nearly all of that work was done in advance of the shoot. So the shoot itself, as a result, was very short.

Now, if you want to talk about whether or not it's possible to shoot a more 'traditional' feature film on less than $10,000 then we could discuss my previous feature, 'Afterlife'. :)
 
David,

Let me paraphrase what I think Loki is trying to say here.

You intend to write a book on how to shoot a feature in 3 days for $1000 budget. The point is, anyone following your instructions must by rights create a webcam style film with a static camera. Regardless of how good the actors are, how complicated the lighting is, how they move closer or further to the camera, your directions will produce a webcam style film, period, end of story.

Now I read your script, and thought it was a clever idea. Unfortunately for the intended audience of your book, once your movie is out there, you would have pioneered the webcam film genre and effectively used that schtick up.

If your movie became a critical success, a copycat film would immediately stand out as a copycat since the style is so distinct. If it was a failure, then the world would have spoken on the legitimacy of cinematography circa 1910 prjected in 2008. Either way, your idea is so unique and original it's almost to a fault.

It really isn't a good example of how to make a feature film on a low budget since anyone following your methods would produce exactly the same results, for better or worse.
 
So a 30 minute short is frowned upon by festivals? that's disappointing since i want to get some shorts under my belt before i tackle a feature, and my script which i originally wrote as a feature was broken down to 32 pages, so i feel I'm losing too much by cutting out even more. I like the story cause it has comedy while allowing for some good filmmaking - cinematography potential.

and I would like to use the better portion of the budget for talent over gear. anybody here know the best way of going about finding a DP? is the only option posting ads on criagslist or something like that?
 
Adam, I see what you're saying. I'd have to disagree on two points, though.

First, the point of my post -- and my book -- wasn't to say "Do the same thing I did." It was to illustrate that if you want to make a feature on a shoestring, you should apply a little creative thinking -- think outside the box. The webcam approach is what I came up with, but it might inspire others to come up with something else.

Second, I don't think I've used up the webcam idea. In fact, I have at least two other webcam-based stories -- completely different in concept from 'Tangled Web' -- that I'd like to produce. And a third that would combine a more traditional POV interspersed with a webcam POV.

I'm not actually the first to pioneer this concept. "My Little Eye" was a feature that was primarily told from the POV of 'webcam's placed all over the inside and outside of a house. There may be others as well.

All I'm saying is there's more than one way to make a low budget feature -- and I do believe a good feature can be made for under $10,000.

Perhaps a better example would've been 'Afterlife'. This is a 'traditional' feature that should have been difficult to make on such a miniscule budget. Multiple diverse locations including a mansion, a country club, a hospital room and corridors, a cemetery (with custom headstone), car interiors, a nighclub, a business office, and hell itself. Two car crashes. Ghosts. And well over a dozen speaking parts. With 95% of the movie cut together now, we're still under the $10,000 mark -- and it looks pretty darned good! A trailer is on YouTube -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92ZurHvyRQ
 
Let's consider another project -- a feature I have in development called 'Focal Point'. This is more of a traditional -- meaning not 'gimmicky' -- project. And yet much of it is designed in such a way as to make it possible to produce on a budget of $10,000 or less.

Without giving away too much of the story, let me just say it's a ghost story set in the woods along a portion of the Appalachian Trail. Interestingly, for all but about the last 5-10 minutes of the movie, there is only one character -- a young woman who is hiking the trail and taking photos for a coffee table book.

So the cast for most of the shoot consists of only 1 person.

We'll be shooting digital and mainly using available light, so we can use a minimal crew. Breakdowns and setups will be pretty much limited to the camera, since there will be no lighting gear. That should make the process go a little faster.

The movie is set in the woods. As we learned from 'Blair Witch', one spot in the woods looks pretty much like another. So you can confine your shooting area to a fairly small space, and yet still convey the idea of having hiked miles and miles.

I know an actress who is perfect for the lead role, and she's very interested. She happens to own and live on 40 wooded acres in the NC mountains, where electricity is available. Although I haven't scouted the site yet, it sounds like an ideal location.

Tiny cast, small crew, minimal equipment needs, one principal location, minimal catering/craft service needs -- all of this works together to make this project affordable on a $10,000 or less budget.
 
and it looks pretty darned good! A trailer is on YouTube -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92ZurHvyRQ
Click to expand...

I am going to have to disagree. It looks precisely like all the other no-budget features out there...

I sought out your work.. also watched a scene from 'Tangled Web' on youtube.. everything i have seen from you screams 'low budget' but not in a good way. Though I merely speak of what I have seen, not what I have not seen.

What is the draw to producing under funded films? If lightning didn't strike the first time round... why stand in the rain once more? why go about it the right way if you want to make movies?

I talked earlier about paying people that work for you. Now I have no problem with doing freebies for people or others doing for me...but thats starting out... thats not what you do on your 3rd film..

So that leads to the conclusion that the people you work with are not professionals. Nobody that considers themselves a professional would work on 3 features when there is no money involved... people do have mortgages to pay. How long will people work with you as they realize the well is perpetually dry?

Making films for less than $10k is not a career; it's an expensive hobby. Ingenuity will only take you so far... you simply just cannot compete with a properly funded film. What's the point? If it is for the sheer enjoyment of making a film.. you could do that in a quarter of the time and money with a short film.

You sight a new film that has 1 character; I am all for working around a budget.. and compromising.. but is that what you want to be doing forever? Compromising your work because you have no money?

I dunno.. it just doesn't seem like much of a career to me making no-budget films.. and not being able to shoot the film i want because of money. I'd rather struggle to get money for a film, than to make a no budget film nobody is going to see.

I am in this to make a career, not a pricey hobby.
 
Loki said:
Making films for less than $10k is not a career; it's an expensive hobby.

I am in this to make a career, not a pricey hobby.
Click to expand...

Robert Rodriguez made 'El Mariachi' on less than $10,000 and he's managed to do pretty well from such humble beginnings.

Nobody wants to make $10,000 movies the rest of their lives. (Although being the next Roger Corman wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, I suppose.) Many of us may not get as lucky as Rodriguez with our first feature -- we might have to make several more 'humble' features before we pique the interest of investors. We do what we can with what we have, and try to parlay that into something better.

Best of luck to you!
 
I agree that 'El Mariachi' is inspiring, but let's be serious here. We live in a completely different age and everything is much different than it was back then. Not everybody had access to a camera or film or were willing to through such lengths (using their body for scientific research) to fund their movies.

My opinion in regards to the several "humble" films is that why not save up the money from several humble films and make one decent sized budget film? For experience? You can easily acquire experience through shorts, having already done a feature.

-Kegan
 
el mariachi was shot for 7 grand, and most of that was film stock and processing. He only spent 600 on the production. Rodriguez is a badass.
 
tanks for the tanks and the good/civil discourse... but my Q's (questions) still stand and would love some A's (answers) if anyone knows: How does a man of a decent sized budget for a short go about finding a dp? is it craigslist? and if my 32 pager is too long for festivals how much do i have to cut out do you think? i don't think i can realistically go from 32 to 10 pages. maybe 20 but not 10 or 12.
 
i'm in the fair city of philadelphia, and no i haven't posted in that section... didn't see it, i'm on it.
 
www.mandy.com is a great place to find willing participants.

I found my DP initially by posting an ad on mandy.

Craigslist works too... but mandy is more focused on productions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top