$200 Budget Action Film....WOW!

I will use your analogy: Since you were looking for a house, what was your budget for that house? Were you counting on buying a foreclosed home for 70k? Was that your budget for buying a house? Is so then 70k was your budget. If you were planning on buying a 200k home (and you budgeted 200k for it) and the 70k one came up.......you still budgeted 200k and saved a lot of your budget (70k is your outflow). And thanks for the tip about the IRS.....never knew that........geez.

That is where you are having some confusion. Budget and actual money spent are two separate things. One is what it should have cost, the other accounts for what you actually spent and reflects any cost savings. And if the film is done well, showing that cost savings will help you. If it is not done well, it shows the production's deficiencies in a telling way. (which is why, IMO, people fudge the numbers for their claimed "budget". It would say too much about the production.)

Hence, if you are going to use a budget as a bullet point about your film, give the real one. Otherwise, don't bother.
 
Last edited:
lol. Really? Semantics? Ok then.

I won't use the word "budget" anymore. I'll say "expenses". Find and replace every occurence.
 
That is exactly the right word. In film making, you will learn there is a huge difference between those two words. And mixing them up could cause you grief in the future if you plan on a career in the industry.

It's not semantics, it how it's done and it is simple economics.

Think about this: You have a client that wants you to shoot a project for them and they ask for your budget. Last month you shot the exact type of thing and you know it cost 10,000 (with your connections and what you own) but your budget was 22,000 (if you had to source all the equipment, talent, and rentals, and a small profit margin). You made a healthy profit on that project, and the client was happy with the outcome (Win-Win). What number are you going to give the new client? Your budget or are you going to say, "the last one cost me 10,000. And can you also add 12,000 just because?"

Whenever you save money in your budget, that goes into your margin or at least you don't have to spend it. Of course if you never want to get paid for your work or be considered a serious film maker, all of this will mean nothing.
 
Last edited:
lol. That's silly.

You don't give a client your budget. You give them a bid or quote. Going back to the house analogy, if my budget was $80k, but I get a $200k home for $70k, then I'm a samurai warrior. Doesn't matter that I undershot my budget. It just means I was an awesome "producer". See what I did there? :)
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Except a Freddie Wong video would have better writing/acting.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

mentatDUKE said:
The fact that most filmmakers don't have this level of talent is what's making everyone so defensive.
Click to expand...

Lol yeah, except this short was terrible.

Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Especially since the only thing great about this short is how it looks.
Click to expand...

Honesly, I thought the lighting and handheld-style looked cheap and very video-y. Would never have believed it was shot on an Epic if it wasn't advertised as such.

Dozens of DP's on these forums could have done a better job with a GH or Canon.
 
Jester2138 said:


Quoted for truth.



Lol yeah, except this short was terrible.



Honesly, I thought the lighting and handheld-style looked cheap and very video-y. Would never have believed it was shot on an Epic if it wasn't advertised as such.

Dozens of DP's on these forums could have done a better job with a GH or Canon.
Click to expand...

QFT - entire post.

/end thread?

Kegan
 
I call bullsh!t. There's no way they got Michael J Fox to camera-op for a couple of C-notes.

Did anyone else watch this in 1080 full screen? Vomit-inducing. Much more of a pronounced effect than anything Greengrass has done.

The fight choreography was well thought out and edited, just not very original. At least a few of the action beats were lifted directly from the Bourne films (along with pretty much everything else). Still, making hand to hand combat look even halfway decent is an accomplishment worth lauding.

All in all I think student/indie filmmakers should keep their budgets to themselves and let their work stand on its own. All these shot-for-peanuts proclamations are getting annoying and are ultimately counter-productive from a market standpoint.
 
I think shooting this with the Epic was actually a mistake.

If one of us had shot this with their rinky-dink DSLR, people would be really stoked. They would praise the locations and choreography, and give honest and thoughtful critiques of the 'script'.

But, they shot it on the Epic and (with the addition of the $200 price tag) they are getting unjustly raked over the coals.

Don't get me wrong, the story was non-existent. But, the fight choreography, color, and editing was spot-on. I can't wait to see what these guys can pull off with a good script.
 
Since everyone seemed to enjoy that one :undecided... here's another....a 34 minute film with a budget of $1800, 100 volunteers and
3 1/2 years of work. Shot on a couple stock EX-1's. Thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top