Anyone Here do business with Maverick Entertainment?

[lawriejaffa]

It's not my plan, it's simply a plan for those who want to go this route and DON'T make the kind of money you may make. Everyone has their own road. My next film will obviously cost more than $5k but people can make a living on the deals that Maverick hands out by shooting cheap and making more than one film per year. Also if Maverick buy one of your films, it's a good chance they'll buy more of the same particularly if it sells well.

Oh you make it sound so easy hehe - glad we have a plan now because jeez i was really wondering how success would come hehe.

Its not a plan, its just picking a number out your hat and saying make 3 movies at oh i don't know, lets say 6k this time, profit on each one... and you can possibly scrape a living...

It's self defeating and at worst dellusional to think in this way.

For a start any filmmaker has to first ask himself if he is trying to develop a career or a production company. The strategy for either is completely different and has no relation to this matter of fact sillyness your saying.

A career minded director will not be so concerned about the cost (outwith personal financial circumstances) and should make the very best film he can - and not to fulfil the critieria of a new start production company - but as a means to debut on the film stage with the maximum impression. That influence, its connections and such like will inevitably allow entry into a profession. The quest here is for one man to achieve.

Alternatively one might operate a modest production company by which capitol costs for features does become a vital (and again circumstantial aspect) of the profit making process. Yet the difference is not to catapult oneself into the employment chain in the industry - but to create self sustaining profit for ones own company.

That is why the 5k a movie thing is ridiculous out the bag... the variables a company must adhere can't be summed up in one 'over confident' statement. But anyway, for such production companies, the precise result of any net profit from a film is pivitol for the next movies budget of course, but it could never be sustained by pumping out (rushing out) poor quality features.

That is what somebody rushing a 5k feature will almost certainly produce.

---

My huge dream is film production - i like most here romanticise and are inspired by films and the opportunity to craft stories for audiences. Of those two options I cite - i picked no2 - the production company model.

I started with zero starting capital 2 and a half years ago, i operate an hpx500 and a couple of hvx200's now, with a sustainable wage (through commercial work.) It came about from not making silly self confident statements about how one can accrue profit - but by thorough and mind numbing business plans, and continual research (and a bit of what Adam has... confidence.)

I do not see any point in one trying to make a pure profit based micro budget film as its impossible with todays competition to create an easy exploitation pic that sells. Even porn has to viciously compete with a vast volume of production.

It's also self - defeating to pump out the very thing that is supposed to comprise ones greatest passion - film production. Why sacrifice its magic by attempting to rush poorly budgeted crap for minimal profit?

Either go big like an entrepenuer director such as Adam hehe, or do it painstakingly via a production company (doing it the boring way.)

I know i might sound like im getting on at you - its not you darling but from that statement you've oft repeated in this thread - it carries an attitude of nonchalance which perpetuates a myth about genre filmmaking and them representing an easy path to profitability.

 

[jls4]

A career minded director will not be so concerned about the cost (outwith personal financial circumstances) and should make the very best film he can.

I'm an Unbeliever in the "All In" Approach.

Even if one is to create a GREAT Film, without every other aspect of movie making, i.e. the marketing, the movie is still doomed to either not sell or to sell much lower than it's worth.

Making movies over time, production company approach, is safer, wiser, and unfortunately a longer process. But it also ensures that once one is extablished that they continue to be established. But that doesn't mean that each movie made in the production company process is bad - they can still be great films. But the planned approach is just different.

 

[lawriejaffa]

Yep JLS well by that logic neither am i a believer of any 'all in' but im not suggesting a 'careerist' director has to do throw everything in either. I would always practice some financial prudence however sometimes risk has its value too. For Adam that was how he funded his movie, with my company we invested in future earnings (in todays financial climate im not so brave as to do that!)

The important distinction i think one has to make is whether they intend to develop a career as an indy director - producing from the outside in with the intention of breaking in (perhaps like Rodriguez)

Or whether their intention is to develop a production company that turns over product - (that doesnt mean its less arty or more commercial or anything) just that the machanics are different as to how one plans for success.

There are decisions you make about money - investment and such like that you would do differently if your not trying to develop a production company but just and only just a succesful film to help create a career for oneself.

In that sense a 3 features a year business model (forget 5k though!) makes no sense to someone trying to represent their 'best capabilities' as it were - as much it 'might' to a production company.

The lack of distinction filmmakers make between effectively trying to develop a career in film (to be paid for by others) between developing an actual production company with the capacity to produce films (another ball game completely) is sometimes alarming.

 

[filmman]

but there is something else at play here, lawrie. Nate is starring, directing, doing some of the camera work and even some of the post. It's better that he keep his budgets low because he has a different goal in mind.

If he sets his production on a strictly professional level, he'll end up doing only one thing -- most likely either starring or directing.

 

[lawriejaffa]

Yep gosh i hope i dont sound obtuse!

Yep well i mean Nate or any indy could and many do to everything - its really a more strategic term i refer to when i say that a director in making films is either making them to build for him a career resulting in employment with production companies and studios or is intending to create a succesful production company that is producing product they direct (and hence could star / do whatever anyway.)

So its not a point that affects what roles an indy would do - but rather what im trying to highlight is - an indy putting together a film at a low budget - is a very different proposition to building a succesful company (for which purpose i critisised this make 3 movies at 5k idea as silly.)

The comparison between career and company was relevant i think because for anyone trying to churn out movies for profit - that may or may not (but most likely will) compromise attempts to establish oneself as a career director of some notable worth.

 

[Nathyn]

Oh you make it sound so easy hehe - glad we have a plan now because jeez i was really wondering how success would come hehe.

Its not a plan, its just picking a number out your hat and saying make 3 movies at oh i don't know, lets say 6k this time, profit on each one... and you can possibly scrape a living...

Actually you'd be making $10k - $15k profit per film with the Maverick deal mentioned here.

It's self defeating and at worst dellusional to think in this way.

Your other option is shooting three $1000 urban action movies (provided you have your equipment) and simply giving them to York. Probably won't see any money but they will sale the films and it will put you on the map. Then start sending your films to reviewers and gear up (and saving up) to bring the hotness. The more you shoot for the cheap the better you know how to use real money.

For a start any filmmaker has to first ask himself if he is trying to develop a career or a production company. The strategy for either is completely different and has no relation to this matter of fact sillyness your saying.

Simply not true.

A career minded director will not be so concerned about the cost (outwith personal financial circumstances) and should make the very best film he can - and not to fulfil the critieria of a new start production company - but as a means to debut on the film stage with the maximum impression. That influence, its connections and such like will inevitably allow entry into a profession. The quest here is for one man to achieve.

Again you have this issue where you feel everyone's goals are like yours and they're simply not.

Alternatively one might operate a modest production company by which capitol costs for features does become a vital (and again circumstantial aspect) of the profit making process. Yet the difference is not to catapult oneself into the employment chain in the industry - but to create self sustaining profit for ones own company.

That is why the 5k a movie thing is ridiculous out the bag... the variables a company must adhere can't be summed up in one 'over confident' statement. But anyway, for such production companies, the precise result of any net profit from a film is pivitol for the next movies budget of course, but it could never be sustained by pumping out (rushing out) poor quality features.

I do remember mentioning this was no sure thing but the odds of you making profit off your first film by going with a company like Maverick who will at least pay you something for your film. What you do after that is up to you.

That is what somebody rushing a 5k feature will almost certainly produce.

That's why you get good at it so you won't produce poor quality films.
---

My huge dream is film production - i like most here romanticise and are inspired by films and the opportunity to craft stories for audiences. Of those two options I cite - i picked no2 - the production company model.

I started with zero starting capital 2 and a half years ago, i operate an hpx500 and a couple of hvx200's now, with a sustainable wage (through commercial work.) It came about from not making silly self confident statements about how one can accrue profit - but by thorough and mind numbing business plans, and continual research (and a bit of what Adam has... confidence.)

I make money from making statements. I'm a teacher.

I do not see any point in one trying to make a pure profit based micro budget film as its impossible with todays competition to create an easy exploitation pic that sells. Even porn has to viciously compete with a vast volume of production.

You keep bringing up porn. Exactly what kind of productiong company are you starting? (That's a joke dude).

It's also self - defeating to pump out the very thing that is supposed to comprise ones greatest passion - film production. Why sacrifice its magic by attempting to rush poorly budgeted crap for minimal profit?

You're still deluding yourself here. Do you know how many great films never even get into a festival and how much crap actually gets into people's DVD player. If you take the formula they use to make crap and simply use your knowledge to do better, I don't see why you wouldn't or couldn't. If people keep saying they want to see what I can do with bigger budgets, they were intrigued by what I did on a small budget. Scarecrow was shot on a 100k budget or something and no one wanted (or needed) a Scarecrow 2, but they got it and both sold well. But I never heard anyone say, "Man I wonder what it would be like with a bigger budget."

If you fail at $100k or $200k why would someone let you play around with a million if they know you make sucky films.You can do that with a low budget and people will buy the film to laugh at. But the idea is if you can produce a good story on $800 or $5000 then someone may be willing to see what you can do with more. I can explain production problems on a $5k budget, I can't do that on a 250k budget.

Either go big like an entrepenuer director such as Adam hehe, or do it painstakingly via a production company (doing it the boring way.)

I know i might sound like im getting on at you - its not you darling but from that statement you've oft repeated in this thread - it carries an attitude of nonchalance which perpetuates a myth about genre filmmaking and them representing an easy path to profitability.

My statements were based on Maverick's $20,000. My whole thing was to state how you work with this. If you're going with a bigger company this advice may not mean anything to you. If you have the money to sink into a big move (like Adam) then why would you even be bothering with Maverick. Look at their website for goodness sakes.

I don't have that kind of money. This next film looks like it will cost about $10 - 15k. (A lot less than $50k). Nothing's 100% but a person from a national entertainment new agency has already said they'll dispatch a photographer to the set when we start shooting at the mention of the presence of our "stars" (mainly one in particularly and you know who). Does this mean I'll make a million bucks? No. But I may make $20,000. I can pay a lot of bills with $20k.

No matter what I love what I do and I'll take less money as long as I am able to do it. But I believe eventually this won't be an issue. Money will come. The industry changes and there's no sure fire magic but I do genre films and the more I do the better they get. So there's no sitting back and saying "I'll wait until I get XYZ dollars." I did that already. Nothing happened.

I almost put this project off because I didn't have the $50k I "decided" it would need. But I prayed on it and then worked on it and already things are falling together and people are showing interest. I would like 50k, but knowing what I know now, I know I don't need it, I simply would prefer it and who knows what will happen in the end but I'm going for it now!

I'm not telling anyone what to do. If they want to take 5k and see what they can do with it, why not. If it's your first film I wouldn't spend 5k, maybe 1 or 2k. See how good you can do and learn what it means to shoot a feature then try to get distribution even if you think you can't, send it out anyway. NO ONE may pick it up or someone may pick it up and offer no money, or you may get a 20k deal. You have to decide what's right for you. For me it's not worth looking back and saying "should'a would'a could'a".

I believe I can make a good film on a big or small budget if you feel that you need a lot of money that's fine too. You do you, but I'm not sitting this one out because of what I don't have or some lofty goal. I want to make genre films and that's what I do and love every moment of it. From the writing and rewriting to the cuties all the way to the getting in "fighting" shape.

I make B films. Maybe one day some will end up in a theater. That would be awesome, but I'd take a constant string of straight to DVD deals. I'm not looking for an Oscar. All I crave is the scene where me and my nemesis strike our cools poses and run toward each other like madmen firing off endless rounds of ammo only to end up slugging it out for martial supremacy. Good versus evil, right versus wrong, hero versus villian. This is what I do. I'm a martial arts action hero. I prayed for it, I worked for it and I freaking love it. I'm simply setting out info for people who want to do this thing and not sit on their hands waiting. End of story.

-Nate

 

[lawriejaffa]

Yes! Thats a record, my intention all along is now discovered - to get quoted over 10 times in one post! Magnificent hehe.

I can't possibly quote so many times so i will abridge my comments somewhat

Er, right okay so - the profits, yeah i know you said 10 - 15k profits (gross) and thats if your fortunate enough to produce in a rush, and with a crap budget, products that can be repeatedly sold to places like Maverick. I think most filmmakers with 5k budgets have made (if the statistic rings true) nothing.

The York comment is a bit weird as well - the point isn't to try and profit as a occupation by making tiny budget films - the point would be to use what you have to make a good film - the very best!!! There's no business model that can even remotely guarantee a decent or secure revenue from micro budget genre films produced every 4 months!! In that case it is not just money that represents the most valuable resouce but TIME! You'd forever struggle to progress and improve really, by setting such an unrealistic time limit for producting a quality product.

Business 101 Nate!

Simply not true.

Yah spoken like an expert in the field

Okay you go on to say not everyone has my goals (glad you know my goals!) Except you say this after you quote me discussing those directors using their films to build careers (like career portfolios). Well that is indeed the alternative to developing a production company, but its not my goal - im a managing director of a company so for me its production company first (not my personal career at behest of another company.

-

You disagree I guess with my belief that you can't make 'good' features repeatedly for 5k budgets EVERY 4 months from pre to post and completion - pfft ask anyone here if they could i doubt it. Saying 'thats why you get good at it' is nuts really, i mean whats the point where if you focus more time and money on better film it will do so much better for you in the long run. And like i say before, if you don't have the money - then TIME is your most precious commodity for producing a better film.

I make money from making statements. I'm a teacher.

Well don't worry statements aren't the exclusive preserve of teachers, but in the business world you don't collect your salary on the contrary you have to create a wage from the ether. I don't dig those guys that just say these things as if it were so simple, when i know as a guy who started a business, as most here will know, that you can't kick your shoes back and just churn out movies and 'like magic' they all profit wonderfully just cos distributers like Maverick exist.

//

You're still deluding yourself here. Do you know how many great films never even get into a festival and how much crap actually gets into people's DVD player.

Um that rather makes yourself sound delusional... do you know how easy it is to get a crap film out on dvd? Yah... but you are equating a profit to this that is mythical. And yep i also know how many good films get into festivals?

The rest of your comments about folk never asking what a movie would be like if its budget was higher seem fair enough (its rare) but i dont see its relevance to this discussion as im not suggesting films 'must' cost loads of money, and neither am i saying they must be arthouse pieces.

What i am criticising is this matter of fact idea that if someone churns out microbudget features, that there is genuinely a profitable base of revenue just waiting to be tapped, that each film can make in gross x3 its budget and that it represents a sustainable business model for an indy filmmaker - annnd that you take exception that it represents a filmmaker actually trying to operate a production company (which they would to be producing so many films.) Which i say automatically requires a REAL business plan based on reality - not indy myths and with crews forever comprised of volanteers!

So when alls said and done Nate - i commend your passion and thats pretty much all you need (and 5k i guess) for you to make your own movie anyway.

However, to live subsistantly on meagre profits, paying virtually nobody and having to pump out 3 micros a year - all genre exploitation to make ends meet is just a bit silly isn't it Nate hehe. Just a little now

Its ok, you can admit it even to my biiiiig pompous British moustached face muhaha

 

[Nik Manning]

Anyway let me contribute something a little more constructive to this debate than simple naysaying

I like most of you am an indy filmmaker faced with the difficult prospect of producing a feature film - and developing either a career or in my case a company that regularly does so - and profits from doing so.

I must admit my ideas were completely different to say pumping out a genre feature for (in my currency £2500!!!)

My plan was to start a production company, compete for commercial work, invest in equipment and training best suited for the purpose of filmmaking - till such a stage where we could invest from our own company in a debut feature film.

I set it up in my last year at university (im aged 27 and returned late) - did it as a part time / hobby affair for first 6 months. We scraped together got an hvx200 and started cutting my teeth on shorts.

Then in the following year worked full time more or less, - and now i can work full time (with two part timers working in the company.) All fairly modest wages especially because we've invested in gear (HPX500, another hvx, track, jib, lights you name it - probably about 80k$ worth of gear and post production computers and stuff.)

With everything just about paid off, and with a business that gets work fairly okay - we can now invest directly in our own feature films with profits in and around the commercial work done.

Its not ideal of course but the way i played it in my head, was that if i wasnt working for my own company id have to work somewhere to pay the bills whilst developing a movie. Im sure others have totally different experiences!

We do some free lance work with companies based in Pinewood Studios (mild FX etc) and have a respectable position in the business community (we won vid company of the year where we're from.)

The downside is that during that period all i could do was scrape time to write scripts, and so im dying myself to get started on a feature. If i hadnt done all this perhaps id have made a feature already (on peanuts with just a borrowed prosumer - and maybe it would be a breakthrough hit!) But never won to gamble i wanted a company as a good fallback to help fund the next movie (and my er life) as well.

Ive spoken to companies who would quite honestly laugh at you for proposing a feature costing less than $30k. Of course we know it can be - must be - and is done! But im sure they know something our all so certain idealists don't

My companies strategy is to produce innovative genre films (whose isn't) 2 - 3 features a year too, first feature starting in the Summer 2009

Ok I am sure you are the guy to make a movie. You need a producer is all.
Don't write a script, get a script from a writer. On a 30k budget I am sure you could do it. Problem is you aren't thinking about the movie after this. Movie number 2 is where the money is.
Take 30k get a named actor and a script and solid storyboard and go go go!

 

[lawriejaffa]

Ok I am sure you are the guy to make a movie.

What makes you say that buddy! Its the suit in wearing in my portrait right! To be honest i seem to be working mostly as a producer atm for commercial creative industry work. Which is fine cos my companies buying gear and raising pennies for our movies budget. We are talking to some other companies about co-production too (namely them contributing capitol, us working in kind etc.)

I look too much like a Broadway music producer in that pic!!!

So Nik thats a little out the blue but yeah true enough though. I'm a big believer in seeking good writers (though i love the opportunity to produce one of my feature scripts its pointless if its inferior to a great / superior story if theres one out there already)

We haven't made any firm decisions on feature #2, i mean we've got about 3 feature scripts internally developed, but really im looking to use a great writer from this forum (Ah shucks he knows who he is hehe) to write one up more specific to our production requirements than my er epics lol.

Talent is a weird one for UK filmmakers as there are so many considerations to take into account regarding 'names' and their cross appeal particularly for the US market.

Either i'll go with a name or ill instead produce a very conceptual genre film (in the hope that some novel aspect of its storytelling technique) will give it appeal. Either way ill have a diary blog in the user films section when it starts.

 

[Nathyn]

However, to live subsistantly on meagre profits, paying virtually nobody and having to pump out 3 micros a year - all genre exploitation to make ends meet is just a bit silly isn't it Nate hehe. Just a little now

I simply don't agree. It's not impossible. And you don't just keep doing 5k films, I believe I mentioned the idea is to raise the budgets eventually so you use what you know from the small films to make bigger ones. I don't think this is so hard to grasp.

-Nate

 

[lawriejaffa]

However, to live subsistantly on meagre profits, paying virtually nobody and having to pump out 3 micros a year - all genre exploitation to make ends meet is just a bit silly isn't it Nate

I'm amazed you can disagree with that above comment and claim what you propose is 'possible'. Surely enough by the laws of metaphysics no doubt it is 'possible' i'll give you that, but it makes no business sense to me. Your capping your own potential at every turn to do it that way and without a *ahem* teaching job it would afford no genuine security for any business or production company (which is what you would need to have by the 2nd film when every free volanteer got fed up giving up their weekends!)

I don't have the luxury to dabble with such fantastical business plans, i actually have to operate within the confines of reasonable strategy based on the concept of reality! Gooood luck though on your 3x features with magical x3 grosses produced at mini mini micro budgets - a year! If you ever make a succesful go of that masterplan then I quite honestly promise to eat my own faeces drenched in the hormonal fluids of ferrets.

Suffice to say we can agree to disagree

 

[filmman]

LOL -- great exchange boys.

 

[Nathyn]

Your capping your own potential at every turn to do it that way and without a *ahem* teaching job it would afford no genuine security for any business or production company (which is what you would need to have by the 2nd film when every free volanteer got fed up giving up their weekends!)

You assume that it's all or nothing and I don't know why. I teach, make movies and currently have someone considering using me for their music video.

I don't have the luxury to dabble with such fantastical business plans, i actually have to operate within the confines of reasonable strategy based on the concept of reality! Gooood luck though on your 3x features with magical x3 grosses produced at mini mini micro budgets - a year! If you ever make a succesful go of that masterplan then I quite honestly promise to eat my own faeces drenched in the hormonal fluids of ferrets.

Suffice to say we can agree to disagree

You just need better time management. Why don't you shoot a feature for 5k. Keep the actors low, (you only need about five for a good film) make a good story and see what develops. The worst that can happen is you'll shoot a film. I mean with all your knowledge you'd at least know the basics and you could pay your actors about $50 a day. The shoot doesn't have to be long. You shoot it and bring in a boom guy and see what happens. Even if you don't sale it use it as a calling card. "This is what I can do, now gimme that money!" :thumbup:

But seriously why don't you try it one time. If you don't like it, call me an @$$hole and never do it again. If you love it, then ask yourself why you aren't doing it more. When I'm doing with this I might make another very cheap film just to put on DVD and sale myself, maybe a drama or thriller or something out the box.

But "Divinity" will be my best so far. Big action, special effects, great story and great characters. Hope you're keeping up with the thread. If not just click on the link below.

-Nate

 

[Loki]

I spent around $8000 on my last short film... and that is just the dollar amount i spent, it doesn't factor in the time I spent planning, organizing (producing)..

And I called in a lot of favours on this to make that film happen.

A couple of my friends attempted to shoot a horror feature film for $5000 (slightly less) and it ended up precisely how I thought it would.. awful.. and generally un-watchable.. and .. not even close to being finished.

Sure you can shoot a film for $5000.. but 99% of the time it won't be anything I would spend my time watching... and I think that speaks for most people..

I understand the draw of wanting to make a feature film for peanuts; but I am in agreement with lawriejaffa.. its not a viable business model.

Making a film for $5000 or less you have to skimp out on so many things. One of the big things that comes to mind is insurance.. not only that it certainly does limit you creatively.

Nathyn you use your film 'Wages of Sin' as an example of what can be accomplished on a micro budget... when I watch it all I see is what isn't there... what could have been with more money.. and that is what a lot of these 5K features end up like... they could have been so much more.

I really do think making a $5k feature is waste of just about everyone's time. You can spend that $5k on making a really nice short film. Something that you can be proud of, and not cringe when you watch it and realize you didn't have enough money. Also these films tend to have really awful scripts to begin with.. so they start out being terrible from the start.

And short films can be used to get you the money you need to make something bigger.

negative? maybe.. but I am realist.. and a dreamer.. the realist in me usually ends up winning the financial arguments though.

EDIT: <grammar nazi> Sorry this is bothering the hell out of me... Nate... 'sell' .. the verb sir. The noun 'sale' just ain't cutting it.. </grammar nazi>

 

[Mickey Munday]

Sure you can shoot a film for $5000.. but 99% of the time it won't be anything I would spend my time watching... and I think that speaks for most people..

depends on who's shooting it. there's more up and coming and/or bad filmmakers out there than there are good ones.

i dont agree with the $5k feature method either, but i also don't believe you should sit on your ass waiting for someone to give an unproven filmmaker thousands and thousands of dollars when you probably won't be able to give them any return on their investment (and when i say 'you" i'm not talking about "you" literally - just to be clear)

i have a friend who's a filmmaker, hasn't really done much, and has spent the past 3 years looking for investors....while other people are actually creating a product whether it be good or bad.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Nathyn you use your film 'Wages of Sin' as an example of what can be accomplished on a micro budget... when I watch it all I see is what isn't there... what could have been with more money.. and that is what a lot of these 5K features end up like... they could have been so much more.

But you're watching the film as a filmmaker. The question is, what does the audience see when they watch 'Wages of Sin'?

I'm always watching movies -- from Hollywood -- that I think could have been better if they'd done this or that, or added so-and-so. Sometimes I miss the days when I could just watch a movie and not be SO aware of things.

Sure, it's easier to make a better movie with more money. But it's possible to make a decent movie on a shoestring, too.

 

[Slice]

Also this films tend to have really awful scripts to begin with..

EDIT: <grammar nazi> Sorry this is bothering the hell out of me... Nate... 'sell' .. the verb sir. The noun 'sale' just ain't cutting it.. </grammar nazi>

Do not throw stones when living in a glass house.

Just busting your nuts Loki.

 

[Loki]

depends on who's shooting it. there's more up and coming and/or bad filmmakers out there than there are good ones.

i dont agree with the $5k feature method either, but i also don't believe you should sit on your ass waiting for someone to give an unproven filmmaker thousands and thousands of dollars when you probably won't be able to give them any return on their investment (and when i say 'you" i'm not talking about "you" literally - just to be clear)

i have a friend who's a filmmaker, hasn't really done much, and has spent the past 3 years looking for investors....while other people are actually creating a product whether it be good or bad.

Oh I agree.. that you absolutely should try and make something... but this thread seems to be about the viability of making very cheap feature films... and making them good.. which most of the time simply doesn't happen.. the odd time they will be really great.. but those are so few.. it isn't worth mentioning..

I don't think anyone should sit around and wait for people to give them money.. but lets face it.. $5000 even to start is stupid low.. I spent more on my computer.. with all the things you need to spend money on for a film.. I just really think it is a waste of time (generally speaking) to try and do a feature for that much.

but then.. I am of the mindset that I want my work to look and feel professional.. and I want to have other professionals work with me.. and for that budget range.. it won't work.

 

[Loki]

Do not throw stones when living in a glass house.

Just busting your nuts Loki.

Oh.. he can go grammar nazi on me all he likes.. it was just driving me batty reading all his posts (in this thread and others) using that word.. hah.

 

[Loki]

But you're watching the film as a filmmaker. The question is, what does the audience see when they watch 'Wages of Sin'?

I'm always watching movies -- from Hollywood -- that I think could have been better if they'd done this or that, or added so-and-so. Sometimes I miss the days when I could just watch a movie and not be SO aware of things.

Sure, it's easier to make a better movie with more money. But it's possible to make a decent movie on a shoestring, too.

I was watching as a movie lover. And me as a movie lover is far less forgiving than me watching as a filmmaker.

The audience sees the same film I do, and if they like it, then thats great, but if they don't, most of the time they won't be able to pin-point what it was exactly that threw them off..