"Corrado" - A production blog

Status
Not open for further replies.
troopercooper said:
Hey Adam,

A question about your IMDB ranking structure for getting talent for your film. In terms of costs of talent, did it prove an effective gauge for that purpose, or was the IMDB ranking just used to help structure the cast?

I'm looking at talent for a potential future feature - very competant actors, all in the 4000-6000 range, all fantastic for what I'm thinking of in their own ways.

Now, the only way I'll know how much they'll cost to be in my feature is to contact their agents, and I know you did well with your contacts to get more people on board. But looking at the IMDB rankings, would you say the money you paid for the talent you got together abided by any kind of natural hierarchy following the sliding scale of the STARmeter?

Also, from your experiences shooting on your budget in LA, do you think that the possibilities for foreign investment in shoots in LA are greater considering the weakened dollar rate and the E-grade investment visas open to anyone with a large enough budget looking to go out and film stateside?
Click to expand...


Casting your film properly has a few different facets, imdb starmeter is just one of them.

Strictly speaking of Star Meter, the lower the better - you should also check what's called their data table. This tells you their rankings over the years and shows you how consistent they have been on maintaining that ranking.

For example, one actress I am looking at for my next movie has had a triple digit score for almost a decade, and she has been #1 several times.

Having said that, actors who have a starmeter over 1000 become more and more obscure - when you are in the mid 4-5,000 you may recognize the face but probably not the name. These guys are the workers of the actors - not famous, but been in a dozen movies you've seen and a bunch of tv shows.

It's important not to cast TV actors in feature roles - they are notoriously poorly received by distributors with the exception of the Keifer Sutherlands and James Gandolfinis - i.e. the upper crust TV people.

You simply have to pick the most famous people you can afford to be in your film. They will increase your chances of getting your movie sold.

Next time you have an actor in mind for a role, bounce the name off a few of your friends. If you get blank expressions and "huh?" look elesewhere for another actor.

Having an actor in your movie that has a fairly low imdb score but no one knows about him is just about as bad as having a no namer.

Your core cast members should collectively have the lowest scores.

Not sure that the pay is really related to star meter - most agents actually don't really speak of the star meter much. Every actor has his rate.

Another measure of the actor's bankability is his Ulmer rating, which is spoken of even less than the starmeter by industry insiders.

Finally, when you have a half dozen names of people in your movie - say John Travolta, Selma Hayek, and James Gandolfini for example - it doesn't matter what their starmeters or Ulmers are - everyone knows them.
 
Great stuff - thanks Adam. :)

So aside from using STARmeter, Ulmers and your own budget, what else do you consider key to your casting choices?
 
Really it boils down to the most known people you can afford, and who looks best for the role.

If no one knows who they are, regardless of starmeters, ulmers or whatever you just burned your money. Statements like "he has a small but dedicated fan base" will fall on deaf distributor ears.

If I had a million more to spend on Corrado, for example, it would have gone mostly into the cast and we would have had a very different movie in terms of cast recognition.

I feel like I did make some casting mistakes on Corrado - not with my core cast, but with some others, and I don't really want to get into it since most of them will read it here, suffice to say I've learned a few lessons that won't be repeated on the next film.
 
I mean no disrespect at all, Adam, but I'd like to ask a purely hypothetical question. Your answer will help me avoid a major mistake in my own personal way of making movies.

Artistically could you have made Corrado just as good a movie with no name talent, for, say, $25,000?
 
filmman said:
I mean no disrespect at all, Adam, but I'd like to ask a purely hypothetical question. Your answer will help me avoid a major mistake in my own personal way of making movies.

Artistically could you have made Corrado just as good a movie with no name talent, for, say, $25,000?
Click to expand...

If you go back and read this thread, you'll see that he spent about $200k on the movie itself, and then about $110k on the talent. So making Corrado without names would have been like $220k
 
Shawn is right....no way in hell could I have made the movie for 25K. No way even close.

My daily costs were averaging around 10K per day, not including talent. It costs money to feed people, insure a project, pay for locations and permits, and deal with all the issues that arise.

I was reading that other thread where people were talking about 15 and 20 thousand dollar movies just shaking my head wondering how in the hell they do it.
 
You're right, Shawn, I withdraw the question.

I should have added beside no name actors, reducing the movie to two or three locations, dropping other production value -- you see I haven't read the screenplay and I don't know the production logistics involved. I do know the production used two cameras and a lot of great technicians, but that could be worked around if you have friends, etc.

I guess it would be impossible to make Corrado for under $200,000.
 
Ah, we posted at the same time.

The shooting schedule -- I forgot. And it was a short shooting schedule too. You mentioned you would've like to have shot an extra week or so.

Regarding the ultra low budget filmmaking, Adam, it's possible to reduce everything down the line.

I guess I should have added to the original question: if you had made a different film altogether -- can you make a movie for $25,000? Or would you want to?
 
I do not believe I could make a feature film for $25,000 nor would I want to try. At this point I have graduated up beyond that level and won't really look back.

It may come as a surprise, but I would not make another film with Corrado's budget ever again. It's just too tough. I need more money. It's not even an ego thing, it's just too tough when using name talent, and I'm not shooting anything that doesn't have name talent in it again.
 
Ted is right - thanks man.

Let me throw this out there - it may come as a shock to some people:

Why would you want to make a no budget movie with no talent? What possible function could it serve to make a 25K movie with no recognizeable people in it?

Budgets make it difficult to do what you want to do, forcing you to re-invent the wheel. Example:

We have no money for real guns - the permits cost too much - safety issues blah blah - solution: Put the flashes in in post!!!!

Ridiculous. If you had the cash you'd fire off a zillion real rounds of ammo and film it from evey angle in slomo twice.

Money or lack thereof forces you find solutions to problems that do not exist if you just had more....money.


As for name talent, let me throw another one out there. It's an extreme example, I know, but bear with me.

So let's say I hire Ton Hanks to beina movie. Pay whatever he wants. I guarantee you, no matter how awful it is it will get distribution - maybe even theatrical because he is in it. There! Name talent just solved your distribution problem!!!!


No, my freinds, let me tell you, if you and I could be out there making 10-20 million dollar movies all day long we would do it anf be happy. It really is where you want to be.
 
taormina said:
I have everything I need to shooti this movie and will rent NOTHING.

Stupid strategy? Maybe. But I'm making more than one movie in my life.
Click to expand...
I just got wind of this thread and the answer is no, not a stupid strategy at all.
taormina said:
And there is always an emergency. My DP likes to say "It's not a real movie until the cops show up!"
Click to expand...
LOL. True enough.
taormina said:
Permits. Shot wherever you can without a permit. They are wasteful bureaucratic bullshi* that some armchair politician cooked up. Sometimes you must pay them, but in the indie film world, you seldom have enough crew and people to impact anything significantly. They add no value to your production whatsoever, regardless of what some film commissioner says. The thousands you will spend on permits will never be seen by the viewer!
Click to expand...
We have never gotten permits and many times have shot Downtown in the day. Permits are mainly needed when blocking the public from freely moving on the street.
taormina said:
Permits, bad enough in and of themselves, go hand in hand with little upcharges like being forced to hire a liaison, police officer, fire marshall, guide, representative, you name it. And they always have a "minimum" number of hours they must be there. Plus insurance certs and other legal hoops.
Click to expand...
This is something people don't understand. It not that you're being "indie" and just want to be anti-authoritarian or even just some annoying form of "cool". A lot goes on with permits and such. Anytime the government, gets involved it's a hassle. There are some advantages such as being able to block streets off but this has never seemed to be in issue, we simply timed things and called it a day.
taormina said:
Socal is a tough place to shoot without a permit. Nosy neighbors will call the cops if they see filming. So film somewhere like Orange County, where you do not need a permit for a filming on private property.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? What kind of place is SoCal that people randomly call cops if they see filmming and with that in mind why would anyone want to shoot there?
taormina said:
Bogus! And as helpful as the Film LA people pretend to be, permits are nothing but a tax on production. It's not as if we're filming war of the worlds here where we need to blow up a street. We would be quietly shooting inside someone's house.
Click to expand...
What the heck? You need a permit to shoot in someone's house? How would people even know?
taormina said:
To add insult to injury, the permit fees are the same whether you are Spielberg or some nobody.
Click to expand...
You're in LA. I'll assume the price of the permits are to money and aid in discouraging indy productions.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
taormina said:
I really feel as if I'm talking to myself here, but no matter, more is forthcoming.
Click to expand...
I my last shoot for was only $4500 and everything you're saying still applies.

-Nate

Edit: Dude, I just saw you in HDVideoPro magazine.
 
Last edited:
Nate, all that stuff Adam said about permits, it's all TRUE... you MUST have a permit, even to film in your own house... if you're doing a feature.
 
Brandon Rice said:
Nate, all that stuff Adam said about permits, it's all TRUE... you MUST have a permit, even to film in your own house... if you're doing a feature.
Click to expand...
That's absolutely insane. That's got to be some kind of scoff law. How would they even enforce that?

-Nate
 
If you're shooting inside your house, they can't. But the moment you step outside into the public street or if guns start going off inside your house, you'll need a permit.
 
If you use a movie light, that could be a fire hazard. If someone sees you from the outside and they call the cops, you'll be shut down.

As long as you're not endangering someone's life or freedom to enjoy their life (in its broadest interpretation :-)

Otherwise you can shoot anywhere without a permit.

Small video camera, no lights, no tripod, release to Youtube -- instant success! You're a movie maker!

Just kidding. Follow in Adam's footsteps, make movies with celebrities, let distributors beg you for your film, breakfast at the Polo Lounge, dinner at Spagos, live in Beverly Hills, vacation in Hawaii.

As yourself this: if not me, who?
 
They know you're filming because of the film crew, trucks, crew vehicles, and power lines leading to your home. Neighbors in LA are so wise to filming they will immediately call and rat you out. Just get the permit and you will be fine.

We aren't talking about two people inside one home with one light and a DVX here, we're talking about anything that resembles a film crew.

I shot about 85% of Corrado with a permit of some sort (and even got kicked out by the cops once permit and all!!!!) The rest were shots were easy to obtain with a skeleton crew. We descended on a location,shot and wrapped before anyone was the wiser.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top