$200 Budget Action Film....WOW!

Apples and oranges fine. However nobody includes how much they paid for their car in their "budget" for helping a friend move out of his apartment, going to a pool party, etc. Why insist sunk material costs be included here but not there? Why is filmmaking the only endeavor where we attempt to amortize the whole world? It's basically being used as a crutch which is why I'm speaking out against it. There are no excuses anymore.

"The budget clearly wasn't $200."

Sure it wasn't.
 
Tell you what, shoot that film for a paying client, and charge 200, no 400, that'll give you a 100% "profit" margin. Tell your "friends" that you are getting paid by the client for the shoot. I bet you find out about budgeting REAL fast once money is in play.
 
Your hypotheticals mean nothing. Would you help a friend move if you found out his job sent him a $1000 check to cover it?

You're confusing opportunity cost with hard costs. The film had $200 in hard costs. You can argue against it all you want. May as well argue against viscosity. :)
 
mentatDUKE said:
Your hypotheticals mean nothing. Would you help a friend move if you found out his job sent him a $1000 check to cover it?

You're confusing opportunity cost with hard costs. The film had $200 in hard costs. You can argue against it all you want. May as well argue against viscosity. :)
Click to expand...

Enjoy film-making. If you ever need assistance with a real film budget, there are people here that will help you.
 
The same can be said about everything else. Worry about budgets when you're ready for prime time and the work goes beyond favors. Doesn't matter if you're in a band, a standup comic, visual effects artist or seamstress.
 
mentatDUKE said:
Doesn't matter if you're in a band, a standup comic, visual effects artist or seamstress.
Click to expand...
I am intrigued how you keep trying to draw parallels between all of these other professions and film-making, when they are completely different.

Why? And what is it about an honest budget statement that you are against? It is clearly not the same, though you seem to think they are. Just curious.
 
You're confusing "an honest budget statement" with "amortization". Those are two different things. For an indie filmmaker the budget are all out of pocket hard costs associated with a shoot. You're trying to argue that it's some value-driven thing. Why are you ignoring every other profession and saying that this method of accounting only applies to film making? That's the real question. Especially when you are saying that the filmmaker's stated budget of $200 is a lie. Isn't the burden on you to illustrate how it's a lie?
 
Nobody's saying you amortize everything in your budget. If I shoot a feature and the DP owns the camera and he says we can use it, I don't have to pay for it, but in my in-kind budget I would include the standard rate for rental of that camera. To me the actual budget and in-kind budget reflect "what it cost me to make" and "what it would cost someone without my connections to make".

To me your crapping on your cast and crew if you don't acknowledge the value they brought to the production. There are different ways to do that, but budget is a common way.
 
mentatDUKE said:
For an indie filmmaker the budget are all out of pocket hard costs associated with a shoot.
Click to expand...

Trying to get this straight... so if you own the camera for example... you wouldn't put that in your budget...

I mean I can come up with scenarios why you would and wouldn't... just wanted to see what you say...

Personally I can't think who posted it... but I thought the same thing... the $200 budget thing is a gimmick to get you to watch it... it worked... but I knew it cost more than that...
 
No, you're not crapping on your cast and crew. You show appreciation by saying "Thanks" and sharing in the recognition when it comes your way.

Regarding, putting my camera, lights, and sound kit in my budget: No, I wouldn't put that in my "budget" since it's a sunk cost. Just like my car is. If you use your car to do something, do you put that in the "budget" of said activity?
 
Here's an alternative argument. By insisting that you have to add every little thing into a budget, aren't you actually minimizing the role of the line producer or unit production manager? If you have a talented producer that can make a $100,000 film look like $1 million dollars, that should be acknowledged.

Sidebar: What would you rather have? A volunteer army or mercenaries?
 
mentatDUKE said:
If you use your car to do something, do you put that in the "budget" of said activity?
Click to expand...
I do, if it's for work. :)

Not really going to get into this but why bother posting a $200.00 budget for this short anyway?
It was obviously done purely for marketing purposes.

I look at it this way, go make this movie with the same gear for $200.
I bet you can't. Most people couldn't. That's really the point here.

Really though, who cares? I guess I do enough to post here but I was getting tired of all the bitching. :)
 
So you only include your car in the budget if it's for work. Not any other activity. Interesting. Why is that?

"Most people couldn't"

You just stumbled on the reason for all the "bitching". "Most people couldn't" = TALENT. That's why everyone is kind of upset about the $200 figure. Doing a short of this scale for $200 shows tremendous talent. The fact that most filmmakers don't have this level of talent is what's making everyone so defensive. This SAME thing happened in the "METH" thread if you remember.

Performing at a certain level on a zero budget project is highly offensive to a lot of folks. I say rather than be offended, why don't we all just step our game up?
 
mentatDUKE said:
If you have a talented producer that can make a $100,000 film look like $1 million dollars, that should be acknowledged.
Click to expand...

No... because if your buyer thinks it cost a million he'll offer you that... if he knows it only costs a 100k... that's what he'll offer also....

As per your camera. lights. sound, etc... your statement would be find... if your rich uncle left you the money to fund your own film... you'd be the only investor... but if you have other investors... yes you'd put in
the cost of using your equipment... that would be part of your investment...

Just talking in general... because like I said before I can come up with other scenarios to make it work the other way also...
 
mentatDUKE said:
Performing at a certain level on a zero budget project is highly offensive to a lot of folks. I say rather than be offended, why don't we all just step our game up?
Click to expand...
I have zero issues with that. Especially since the only thing great about this short is how it looks.

I've seen better short films that provided a more accurate budget which were shot on $1000.00 cameras.
Just sayin'

Hell, insurance alone for gear and crew probably eclipsed said 'budget' in this short.

I'm out though. No use arguing over it. The short is pretty lame aside from production value.
Luckily they don't have to pay for it. ;)

It lacks a good story, which is probably the cheapest thing they could have 'borrowed'.
 
Last point, check out Silent City
Ruairi made this film years ago and posted a budget of 7K euro + 3-4K just to shoot it!
Yet he did almost all the SFX work himself.

Less is said and it's far more interesting. This is something to aspire to! And the budget doesn't come with a shovel.
 
Yup, I loved Silent City. It's a great effects driven short. Didn't have much in the way of staging or fight choreography though which I think is the next gap to be filled within the zeitgeist.
I think we agree about accurately budgeting hard costs when it comes to doing a professional feature with an eye toward selling/acquiring distribution. We disagree about in-kind services, favors, and sunk equipment costs. That's moot though, since a feature generally needs about 6 weeks of production which one isn't likely to recieve based on favors or in-kind services. So with regard to professional features, the point is moot.

I'm specifically speaking on shorts that hone the craft and may serve as a calling card. For those, I'm saying keep the hard costs low, forget about sunk equipment costs (they're just school supplies and we all have a trapper keeper), and focus on honing strong leadership and levelling up the skills so you can even GET a cast and crew willing to work for free.
 
If it is an item that is used by the production, for the production and it would need to be rented/bought for use in order to complete the film, whether by choice or necessity, it becomes a line item on the budget (even if you own it, get it for free or borrow it). And, no that does not take away from the UPM or LP. Because if they were doing their job, they would have been the ones insisting it be put in the budget. But many small productions don't have that position and/or the responsibilities are absorbed into other positions.

I think this is a dead point now.

LOL, volunteer army or mercenaries. Mercenaries any day. They are trained already and know what they are doing. And for the most part, pro's.

I'm specifically speaking on shorts that hone the craft and may serve as a calling card. For those, I'm saying keep the hard costs low, forget about sunk equipment costs (they're just school supplies and we all have a trapper keeper), and focus on honing strong leadership and levelling up the skills so you can even GET a cast and crew willing to work for free.
Click to expand...
That says a lot. Now I understand why you have been against honest budgeting. I ask what the budget is on any film that asks me to work for free. And I also ask what equipment they will be using. If I hear things that sound like they are hiding their budget or they are spending too much on other areas, I know they just don't want to pay. And I tell them "Sorry, I will do it for XXX but not for free. You have been able to afford these things, I think it would only be fair to pay me something for my services on your production."

I would be striving to get a cast and crew I could pay for so I get the highest caliber people I can afford, rather than try to get people to work for free for me and I reap the benefits. Even if it is a fraction of the normal day rate, you usually see a vast improvement in the caliber of talent when they say they cannot do it for free, but will do it for $XX

But it will be a calling card that will backfire if you are talking to pro's and they ask what your budget was for the shoot. You can tell instantly a lot about a person if they lie to you right off the bat. People can see a rough approximation of a budget by looking at the film.
 
Last edited:
You're using the word "honest" and "lie". A budget isn't what something is worth. It's what something cost. Declaring what it cost is honest. Estimating worth and then declaring it as cost is dishonest. If you buy a foreclosed house for $70k but it was worth $200k, you can't tell the IRS you spent $200k or you'd be thrown in jail.

Let's be real, guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top