J Davis
Veteran
+1
It doesn't make anyone like the film more or like the filmmakers more.
$200 Budget Action Film....WOW!
- Thread starter ZazaCast
- Start date
It doesn't make anyone like the film more or like the filmmakers more.
ZazaCast
Major Contributor
hahaha ^ yeah.
I'll create a new thread in cinematography section when I do my tests. In the meantime continue to debate the worth of $200 and how you measure the monetary value of free contributions to a passion project.
No worries Ryan.... I'm with you on this one & just wanted to see what others thought. I know I'd be lucky to be able to get the location alone for 200 bucks...not to mention the props (all those guns and that really cool electronic cigarette), the 'friends' willing to help out, etc. Then there's the time it took to organize, shoot, edit, score, CC, etc.
I look forward to the other BTS videos.
$200.... hummmm.... I think not.
snowleopard
Well-known member
Agree with everyone else.
Tired of the money reference, no matter what it was. Thought the sound was great. Acting and writing iffy, but as someone said, you often see iffy acting and (writing) on $100m films.
Tired of the money reference, no matter what it was. Thought the sound was great. Acting and writing iffy, but as someone said, you often see iffy acting and (writing) on $100m films.
Neveraholiday
Member
Nicely shot congrats! I think so even if I don't like the new type of action movie with only fist fighting and shooting. What concerns me is the rolling shutter effect in the hand camera. Thought (and hoped) that epic would perform much better there. This looks the same as my gh2.
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
I didn't think it was any different from other high-end digital cine CMOS cameras. I think it has more to do with how the camera was operated. If you look at the short BTS clips at the end of the video, the operator is holding the camera a little strangely for my tastes. He has one hand on the body and one hand on the lens - remember, the EPIC body is about the size of a DSLR. Then, he had some Zacuto rails it looks like for a little bit of shoulder stabilization. But the camera was not traditionally stabilized on a shoulder rig with handles and a follow focus.
I could be wrong, but that's what I remember seeing in that clip. I was not a huge fan of how it was shot. There is good handheld and bad handheld in the art of operating, and I feel a good chunk of the operating does not fall under the "good" category. Not only was I so aware of the camera watching this piece, I was aware the operator was having problems. It went from a documentary feel to a home movie feel, which didn't work in the story for me.
Again, just my opinions.
BLUESPIDER
DVXuser Ninja
It's a pretty cool short. Reminds me of another Freddie Wong video but more serious. Now I be impressed if someone shot a Lord of the Rings for $200 bucks. If I had a free Epic, I can do one for $10 bucks.
Chris Adler
Veteran
Was the goal of the project to be as cliche and unoriginal as possible?
snowleopard
Well-known member
Hence my quibble about the writing.
mentatDUKE
Veteran
This is totally believable as a $200 budgeted short. Have your own gear? Then yeah you can basically shoot a short for free. Where's the disagreement coming from?
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
A budget is an honest assessment of what it would cost to make the film/project from start to finish.
You have a camera you purchased 3 months ago say, for 2500. You already own it. You use it on a short. Well, if you are going to show a true budget, you would include in the equivalent rental of that camera, because if you didn't own it, you would be renting it. Same with any lighting gear, audio gear, people on the film, actors, etc.
What about pre-/post-production expenses?
On the flip side, inflating the numbers is a bad idea too. 600/day for a PA is unrealistic. 100-200 a day is honest. The honest number goes in the budget, whether or not you actually paid that PA or they volunteered for the gig.
You can say: "This was our budget $XXXXX, but this is what we actually spent $XXX, thanks to everyone that donated their time and equipment" That would be an honest kind of budget statement.
So saying your budget is "$200" is far fetched and actually untrue/unrealistic. Hence my asking films to stop talking about your budget, especially when they have no idea of what a budget consists of.
And frankly, I think if film makers started giving real numbers out, it would help push them and make them work harder. Because the critiques would be more candid. For example: "You had a 15K budget for this shoot, but only paid 200. Yeah it looks like a 200 shoot. What happened?" versus "You had a 200 dollar budget, and spent 200. It looks like a 200 dollar shoot. You did what you could under those limitations"
For a true budgetary number, you have to count in all aspects of it. Including gear you own and all out-of-pocket expenses and things other people donate/pay for. Too many people claim these low budgets when in actuality it is not true that they were that low. When someone donates their time or gear to your project, that DOES have a value and needs to be acknowledged in the budget by showing what it was worth if you had to pay for that level of involvement. A budget is not just the cash in your pocket the day of the shoot, and that is what people don't seem to understand.
You have a camera you purchased 3 months ago say, for 2500. You already own it. You use it on a short. Well, if you are going to show a true budget, you would include in the equivalent rental of that camera, because if you didn't own it, you would be renting it. Same with any lighting gear, audio gear, people on the film, actors, etc.
What about pre-/post-production expenses?
On the flip side, inflating the numbers is a bad idea too. 600/day for a PA is unrealistic. 100-200 a day is honest. The honest number goes in the budget, whether or not you actually paid that PA or they volunteered for the gig.
You can say: "This was our budget $XXXXX, but this is what we actually spent $XXX, thanks to everyone that donated their time and equipment" That would be an honest kind of budget statement.
So saying your budget is "$200" is far fetched and actually untrue/unrealistic. Hence my asking films to stop talking about your budget, especially when they have no idea of what a budget consists of.
And frankly, I think if film makers started giving real numbers out, it would help push them and make them work harder. Because the critiques would be more candid. For example: "You had a 15K budget for this shoot, but only paid 200. Yeah it looks like a 200 shoot. What happened?" versus "You had a 200 dollar budget, and spent 200. It looks like a 200 dollar shoot. You did what you could under those limitations"
Last edited:
Chris Adler
Veteran
I agree, Doc. Worked on a short that burned about $65K in cash but the "in-kind" budget we came up with was more like $150K. We use the in-kind budget numbers when promoting the film.
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
Except a Freddie Wong video would have better writing/acting.
mentatDUKE
Veteran
Doc, I disagree with this premise due to the fact that this has no application to any other area of life.
Garagebands practice and play gigs. You don't include the cost of amps, drums, and guitars when playing a gig.
Soccer moms have bake sales. They don't include the cost (or equivalent rental) of the state of the art GE oven they may have used.
Buddies have pool parties. They don't figure out what it would cost to rent a pool in order to figure the budget for it.
What do all these people factor into the budget? The actual cost of food.
That's it.
Garagebands practice and play gigs. You don't include the cost of amps, drums, and guitars when playing a gig.
Soccer moms have bake sales. They don't include the cost (or equivalent rental) of the state of the art GE oven they may have used.
Buddies have pool parties. They don't figure out what it would cost to rent a pool in order to figure the budget for it.
What do all these people factor into the budget? The actual cost of food.
That's it.
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
MentatDUKE, you are right. It does not apply to pool parties. But it does apply to business and anyone doing anything as a business. That's the difference.
Let's say you have a product you want to make. You first find out out what materials you need and how much they cost. Then you price out tooling and labor. Then you estimate the time it is going to take to make each part and the wear on the machines. With that in mind, you determine the budget for the part, before you start making the parts. Now, when you get into production of your parts, the cost of material may go up, or you find it cheaper. You may break tools and they need to be replaced. Maybe you find somebody willing to go cheaper for wages. That all influences your budget. But the initial hard estimation is where you start.
In the end, your budget was your initial cost analysis and you add in over-runs and savings. Having the equipment does not mean it is "free". You have to factor the costs of the equipment in.
That is how it is supposed to be done for film budgets too. MentatDUKE, I appreciate that you have a different opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that that is how it is done in any budgeting endeavor. You estimate your costs up front, including any rentals (even if they are donated in-kind).
Let's say you have a product you want to make. You first find out out what materials you need and how much they cost. Then you price out tooling and labor. Then you estimate the time it is going to take to make each part and the wear on the machines. With that in mind, you determine the budget for the part, before you start making the parts. Now, when you get into production of your parts, the cost of material may go up, or you find it cheaper. You may break tools and they need to be replaced. Maybe you find somebody willing to go cheaper for wages. That all influences your budget. But the initial hard estimation is where you start.
In the end, your budget was your initial cost analysis and you add in over-runs and savings. Having the equipment does not mean it is "free". You have to factor the costs of the equipment in.
That is how it is supposed to be done for film budgets too. MentatDUKE, I appreciate that you have a different opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that that is how it is done in any budgeting endeavor. You estimate your costs up front, including any rentals (even if they are donated in-kind).
Please help me, because I'm slow. I'm trying to understand what is going on here. What are we supposed to learn from watching this short? I ask sincerely, because I'm always open to learning. I watched the short.
Regarding the $200 budget, I figure that's meaningless, as has been explicated by many posters. It all depends how you count, and however you count it's still going to be arbitrary - who believes they hit $200 exactly and not, for example $194.76... when we say the budget was $25 million, I can understand rounding up a few bucks to get to a nice even number, but when we're dealing with as little as $200, it strikes me, that a dollar makes a difference here. Anyway, somebody claims a nice round $200 - eyeroll, whatevs.
But forget that. As has been remarked, the writing and acting, to put it mildly, is not exactly a revelation. In actuality the writing and acting here it's not something noteworthy in any way - it differs by nothing from millions of other shorts populating youtube.
I'll say the fight scenes were done much more competently than you see in most shorts. The cinematography was reasonable. And quite a few people were involved, so the filmmakers showed that they can solve logistical problems. They also got ahold of some locations - again, credit where credit's due.
So this was by no means "bottom of the barrel" - I am NOT BY ANY MEANS BAGGING on this short... again, I see some good points as outlined above. What I fail to see, is why this is noteworthy - the positives I mentioned were not enough to push it over the edge of "noteworthy".
And that is where I think the $200 figure comes in. The only way a PR person could entice you to see this short, is to say "made for $200" - but it's all about the $200 figure, not the intrinsic merits of the work. That's the only thing that's "interesting" (in any sense of the word) about the short - "made for $200"... which as has been remarked, is a kinda bogus figure.
Why bogus? Because what are we to take out of this? Presumably the point of making the claim "for only $200" was to showcase the talent of the people involved, as to how they stretched the $200, how clever and shoestring! Why can't YOU make it for $200? Well, of course you may not have access to all that equipment and in-kind services, but life ain't fair. But that's like saying "hey, I didn't train for the marathon at all, yet I crossed the finishing line! With no training! Why can't you?" "Of course, my dad gave me a ride in his limo and I ran only the last 50 yards, but I CROSSED THE LINE!" - would it then be fair to make a headline in the paper "Man does no training for the marathon, but crosses the finish line in record-breaking time!!!"... you may find a way to technically claim everything is true in that headline, but it's not exactly a bracing achievement. In other words, there is nothing remarkable in crossing the finish line in that way. And there is nothing remarkable about this short - that I can see, but of course, I am open to differing opinions. Again - I didn't say it's a BAD short. It's just unremarkable, and the $200 claim does not make it one whit more remarkable. Just my opinion.
Regarding the $200 budget, I figure that's meaningless, as has been explicated by many posters. It all depends how you count, and however you count it's still going to be arbitrary - who believes they hit $200 exactly and not, for example $194.76... when we say the budget was $25 million, I can understand rounding up a few bucks to get to a nice even number, but when we're dealing with as little as $200, it strikes me, that a dollar makes a difference here. Anyway, somebody claims a nice round $200 - eyeroll, whatevs.
But forget that. As has been remarked, the writing and acting, to put it mildly, is not exactly a revelation. In actuality the writing and acting here it's not something noteworthy in any way - it differs by nothing from millions of other shorts populating youtube.
I'll say the fight scenes were done much more competently than you see in most shorts. The cinematography was reasonable. And quite a few people were involved, so the filmmakers showed that they can solve logistical problems. They also got ahold of some locations - again, credit where credit's due.
So this was by no means "bottom of the barrel" - I am NOT BY ANY MEANS BAGGING on this short... again, I see some good points as outlined above. What I fail to see, is why this is noteworthy - the positives I mentioned were not enough to push it over the edge of "noteworthy".
And that is where I think the $200 figure comes in. The only way a PR person could entice you to see this short, is to say "made for $200" - but it's all about the $200 figure, not the intrinsic merits of the work. That's the only thing that's "interesting" (in any sense of the word) about the short - "made for $200"... which as has been remarked, is a kinda bogus figure.
Why bogus? Because what are we to take out of this? Presumably the point of making the claim "for only $200" was to showcase the talent of the people involved, as to how they stretched the $200, how clever and shoestring! Why can't YOU make it for $200? Well, of course you may not have access to all that equipment and in-kind services, but life ain't fair. But that's like saying "hey, I didn't train for the marathon at all, yet I crossed the finishing line! With no training! Why can't you?" "Of course, my dad gave me a ride in his limo and I ran only the last 50 yards, but I CROSSED THE LINE!" - would it then be fair to make a headline in the paper "Man does no training for the marathon, but crosses the finish line in record-breaking time!!!"... you may find a way to technically claim everything is true in that headline, but it's not exactly a bracing achievement. In other words, there is nothing remarkable in crossing the finish line in that way. And there is nothing remarkable about this short - that I can see, but of course, I am open to differing opinions. Again - I didn't say it's a BAD short. It's just unremarkable, and the $200 claim does not make it one whit more remarkable. Just my opinion.
mentatDUKE
Veteran
This wasnt an amazing short as a whole. But it showcased one thing and one thing very well: fight choreography and staging. Can you point to another short that has near Bourne Identity-level choreography and staging? I'd like to see it. Most shorts that get attention do one thing really well. We had the effects-driven shorts of 2k10 that all did effects really well. Did anyone laud the acting in those? Now filmmakers are focusing on cinematography and staging. I can't wait til one of them reveals the total package. Acting, effects, staging, and cinematography. The guy (or gal) who does that will REALLY blow us away.
As to the budget argument, it's all irrelevant. Shorts aren't a business. They're a calling card. They're practice. A lot of folks make filmmaking their life. Life has sunk costs. Why nickel and dime? Should we add the clothes on everyone's back? The car they drove? The gas it burned? What other artistic endeavor behaves this way?
As to the budget argument, it's all irrelevant. Shorts aren't a business. They're a calling card. They're practice. A lot of folks make filmmaking their life. Life has sunk costs. Why nickel and dime? Should we add the clothes on everyone's back? The car they drove? The gas it burned? What other artistic endeavor behaves this way?
Chris Adler
Veteran
I can't think of any others where someone asks and the information is published. IMDB has a budget field for both shorts and features. How is your question relevant?
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
So why mention a budget at all? If it is not important, as you say, then why even mention it?
I get your point, and to some degree, I agree. But film-making is not like any other artistic endeavor. Budget is a BIG part of the equation in film-making. You don't hear recording artists being asked what their budget was for recording a song. Film-makers always get asked what the budget was for their short. Namely because it is such a collaborative effort. Hey if a bunch of people get together to slap a film into reality and they are all hobbyists and only did it to see their work on Youtube, great. But once you delve into the market to get exposure with the intention of getting paid for their work, now budgets come into play. How was it spent? Do you see the results on screen?
That's why honest budget statement are important. Studios look at how honest you are. But if that is not your goal, fine, say your budget is a dollar, or a million. If getting exposure to the bigger studios is your goal, you better believe they will be looking at what your budget was for that shoot. They want to see how you spent the money and donations in order to get the project done. Squander it, and you won't even get a call. Same if you are dishonest about your budget.
But hey, what do I know, right?
Last edited:
mentatDUKE
Veteran
Because the only thing that's really hard to get is food. Everybody has friends. Equipment is relatively easy to comandeer. The hard parts are actually learning the craft and getting your volunteers fed.
Compare to being in an indie band, being a photographer, web designer, blogger, or gamer.
Compare to being in an indie band, being a photographer, web designer, blogger, or gamer.
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
Apples and oranges. They don't compare. That's where you are having issues understanding. Film-making is not like the examples you mentioned.
Ahhhhhh. Now starting to see clearer. Only expense is food. Got it. Not really realistic, but okay. Sorry, but the total off the Pizza-Hut receipt is not your "budget" for a film. And despite how you feel about it, that is how a budget is done. Disagree all you want, but you might as well as disagree with gravity. Saying it isn't right won't make it wrong.
Last edited: