Ballpark Budget?

H

hesh

New member
I was wondering if anybody could give me some advice on budget issues. I plan on shooting a zombie movie in an "urban" setting. Most of the project is gonna be pulled off gorilla warfare style but I do want a good blood & guts/makeup budget.
I know it depends on how resourceful you are, but how much do think would be needed to pull this off and look halfway decent?
 
Boy that's tough, I mean everyone has different filmmaking styles as well. I would guess if you say you're doing it fairly guerilla then permits are out of the question, as are large crews and lots of equipment, so you're probably thinking you want to have minimal lighting so you have minimal crew (grips, etc.). Also just a suggestion but it's going to be tough filming any sort of night scenes guerilla style, because you have no permits to put up large lights, which is how you make low light look good on low budget cameras, even something like the RED is still going to want some decent light to make it look professional. Perhaps some nice twilight scenes could give a killer mood, though, and have just enough light?

I mean I think with something like that you could spend anywhere from $30,000 to $250,000 doing it fairly indie, but some people here would say they've done stuff for like $15,000. So it does really depend what your budget is, and you earmark that amount of money, and do the best you can with it, putting it to best use.
 
A lot of factors - number of pages, number of days, number of locations, number of characters, etc. Add to that format being shot and size of crew - then your FX etc. Every film is unique -

Michael
 
You would have to do a script breakdown, scheduling, cast/crew, craft service, equipment rentals just to get a basic estimate.
 
Budgeting for a feature film, I would imagine, is an art in and of itself. I have no idea how they do it so well on big features, but I can only assume it's based on a LOT of experience, and a comparison of similar-type films, a lot of variables. It has to be a really intensive process to get that budget within a really close range of what it should cost.

When I budget for a project like a music video or short film I'm still adding a lot of variables, some based on experience (transportation, food, etc.), but it's not a tough process in most respects and I can come within a stone's throw of getting the budget right.
 
I don't budget features, it's not my job but I work with a lot of ADs and producers who do. Just to give you an idea, for most low budget features with a million to five million dollar budget, a producer charges between $3,000.00 to $6,000.00 to do the budget with fringes, all in, etc. It's a big job and takes a lot of research, work and knowledge and if you haven't done it before, you are going to majorly screw it up. That's why EPs pay producers $3k-$6k to do a budget.

OTOH, if you are going to try to make a feature with $100k, the budgets are pretty easy. Non-union and you don't really have enough money for most things so you just have to decide where you can spend it. I would do something ULB with the best actors and key crew positions I could afford and I would NOT do it on film or even a high end camera. Adam Cultraro made Corrado at an ultra low budget of about $350k and his film looks pretty impressive from a look standpoint and was shot on the HVX200. He was smart and put his money into some name brand talent and now has distribution with Shoreline.

Story and talent in front of and behind the camera are where the money should go when you don't have much of it.

Dan
 
puredrifting said:
I don't budget features, it's not my job but I work with a lot of ADs and producers who do. Just to give you an idea, for most low budget features with a million to five million dollar budget, a producer charges between $3,000.00 to $6,000.00 to do the budget with fringes, all in, etc. It's a big job and takes a lot of research, work and knowledge and if you haven't done it before, you are going to majorly screw it up. That's why EPs pay producers $3k-$6k to do a budget.

OTOH, if you are going to try to make a feature with $100k, the budgets are pretty easy. Non-union and you don't really have enough money for most things so you just have to decide where you can spend it. I would do something ULB with the best actors and key crew positions I could afford and I would NOT do it on film or even a high end camera. Adam Cultraro made Corrado at an ultra low budget of about $350k and his film looks pretty impressive from a look standpoint and was shot on the HVX200. He was smart and put his money into some name brand talent and now has distribution with Shoreline.

Story and talent in front of and behind the camera are where the money should go when you don't have much of it.

Dan
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's true, good advice. I wouldn't personally shoot a feature with an HVX200 because I'm kind of tired of even having to use it for short films or music videos. It's a good camera and I like the workflow but I'd rather retire it and use it for corporate work only, Web stuff, etc. Where the workflow is great and easy, and the quality is abundant. If I shot a feature I'd want the RED or better, i.e. Scarlet probably. It's not a large investment of money for what you're already going to spend, IMO.

I think making a feature and spending over $100,000 is a waste of money unless you can get some sort of name talent. Otherwise, you're throwing a huge amount of money at something, for personal investment purposes I mean, that has very little chance to be picked up by a distributor. How do you interest a distributor in a film by a first-time director, let's say, without a name? You just tell them it's a really good story? Of course you think it is. But will they have the time to sit down and watch it? But if you could just say it's a story about such and such starring (a name actor), the distributor might already start spinning those gears, thinking about his / her marketability, and thinking if it's good there is a market for a film like this, etc. It's a way in the door.

I used to think I would try a horror feature for $150,000, no names, now I'm trying to save up for a horror feature for more like $250,000, one significant name at least.
 
JonathanLB said:
Budgeting for a feature film, I would imagine, is an art in and of itself. I have no idea how they do it so well on big features, but I can only assume it's based on a LOT of experience, and a comparison of similar-type films, a lot of variables. It has to be a really intensive process to get that budget within a really close range of what it should cost.


It also helps to have $100M or so as a working budget.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the replies...puredrifting- ive never seen Corrado. I was thinking something along the lines of Mullberry St. as far as quality goes...i read somwhere they shot that for about 60 grand-no permits-actors all friends/family no pay. I plan on using certain tatics to try to compensate for the low production value . As far as sets/locations it will go in this order... city streets -warehouse- streets- apartment #1-streets-houseparty-streets-mini mart-streets-"crackhouse"-streets-apartment #2-graveyard. I should be able to swing all of those places without paying. The bulk of my budget will be going to blood/makeup and post production. I plan on distributing myself at first and then maybe picking up a distribution deal after some good hand to hand sales (is that do-able or do you have to take deal in beginning or forget it?) Im not too worried about the zombies looking perfect i just want to have ALOT of them in a few scenes. That seems to be the biggest complaint of the low budget market, they can tolerate bad acting and plotholes the sizes of grand caynon but they want atleast 1 or 2 scenes where theres more than 3-5 zombies on screen. Anyone know the average cost per person to put in zombie makeup?
 
If you're making a zombie movie you're obviously making it for mindless entertainment (e.g. profit), which I'm heartily against, but whatever...

The bottom line is -- forget everything you've ever heard or seen graphed about budgets. Hollywood budgets exist the way they do for two reasons: Unions and Write-offs.

That's it. So, you obviously won't be using unions, and the write-offs are between you and your accountant. Everyone, even including the indy filmmaker is so terrified of the government finding out that all of their write-offs weren't perfectly accurate (e.g., 10K budget for food), that they end up with these figures like 350K simply to make a larger final profit. We do the same thing in banking. It's all bullshit, trust me.

So forget all that.

With the exception of minimal fees, your locations should all be free. I don't care if you're using a privately-owned business or your friend's mother's house, there is no reason you need ever pay for a location. The best option is to shoot your coverage in a small town that WANTS and WILL ENCOURAGE your being there. Get the locals as extras and make a time of it. I live in Chicago and I can drive 2 hours south and will quickly find myself in the middle of butt crup nowhere.

So, locations: FREE

Extras: FREE

For talent, go to your local community theatres and low level equity places, or univeristies (Columbia is right down the street from me, so is Steppenwolf and Second City). No bullshit, I saw the best performance of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest I've ever seen in my LIFE (including the film) and it was done by a bunch of non-equity actors doing the thing for FREE!

So, talent: It rangers. But I'd say if you feed the people, they'll probably work for food, experience, gas money and maybe a little extra cash to keep them committed to the project. Total budget for talent on about 6 principles on a total of 10 days of photography using each principle, figure a few thousand, including food.

For physical effects, if you're not adept yourself and need some help, I'd say find a local Holloween or Magic Shop in your area. There's usually one in every suburb. Go there. Find out who owns the place and make a deal with them. I have NO idea what the costs for you would be on this, but if you get the owner of a make-up/horror shop involved, you'll get the asssistance of the people they know, and you'll probably get your blood and guts for cheaper (or even some prosthetics on loan, depending).

Ballpark for Physical effects, depending, probably 1K

For CGI effects, you can get capable people just out of college for 20 bucks an hour. People that have a complete set-up and who will make your life hella easy will cost more like 40 an hour. Get a bidding war just like you would in construction, same as you should with your sound mixer and any post work. And then pay them in sections according to delivery.

So, for instance, if you have 3 big CGI effects in the film, figure that each one of those effects will take approx 35 hours to complete (COMPLETE ballpark. But if you wanted a character to be hit by a car, their head to explode, or a bullet moving through the air -- that takes about 35 hours for one guy without a crew to complete), then you simply pay them per shot. Thus, going by this, you'd be dropping for film-level effects 1400 per shot X 3 shots = 4200.

I'd pay the sound mixer in 1/4ths. Their costs will vary. A way to split the cost is to find a kid right out of college who has no equipment but who knows what he's doing, and then line him up with someone who has a music studio. That way you'll have access to a studio (which people are always trying to rent, some of whom have 100K setups in their basements) for any ADR, and you'll get two sound people for the price of one. Probably 2K for ridiculously awesome sounds, and you'll probably get homemade tracks thrown in for that.

The equipment is going to be the kick in the nuts if you don't currently own a RED, Varicam or the like. The best way to go is to grab a cinematographer who has these cameras and a light set up. This guy is doing this for a living, and he'll probably be able to give you a better price than one of the rental places where you can acquire goods and services. If you're lucky, you might even be able to pay him most of his fee under the table -- whereas working with rental houses that just plain won't work.

There's no way of knowing how much a person with a Varicam or Red One and complete set of lenses, etc is going to cost. If they're hungry and/or believe in you and the project, you might be able to get them for 3K per week. I'd suggest working out a kind of salaried deal with them, unlike how you'd treat the more "labor-esque" aspects of the process and persons. This guy is going to be the thing that makes your movie great, and will be with you until the end. If I'm an out-of-work cinematographer with a mortgage and a family to care for, the idea of consistent money over weeks and weeks looks pretty appealing.

Just remember, making movies is NOT like fighting in a war (what a ridiculous and demeaning expression in the first place, right?!), it's like building a house. You have electricians, framers, roofers, drywallers, bricklayers, etc. It is LAUGHABLE that you can build a house for 80K, but people think you can't make a studio-level HD film for the same amount. Paying actors 500 dollars a day, union people hundreds of thousands of dollars is what makes a movie expensive. Do you honestly think an electircian should be paid less per hour than a DP? Come on, man...

Each person brings a different kind of technical prowess and artistry to their craft. Thus, you have to pay them all differently. Some people should be paid in food, some in experience, some in a commission structure, some salaried.

Thus, if we're dealing in real figures here (not write-offs), you should be able to do your film for 20K. Seriously. It sounds obnoxious from all that you hear, but it's the reality now, and don't let anyone tell you anything different.

After that, I would FULLY expect you to gather together another 5K and SELL THE MESS OUTTA YOUR PRODUCT.

Spend 2 weeks shooting. Six months in Post. And the next 5 years promoting and selling it. Make sure to keep your characters in non-year-specific garments. Make sure all of the cars are dated and dirty (unless you rent something in a luxury line where the design doesn't typically change dramatically). And make sure your script doesn't reference any current media or utilize any current phrases, as they may be out of date by the time you get it into the hands of your viewer.

So that's it. Get your friends and family together and start pounding the pavement.

And, just a side note -- Please, if you're making a film, please do so for the love of making it and not for the money or the lifestyle people think comes from being a filmmaker. If you want fame and fortune there are MUCH easier and quicker ways to arrive there. I hope you want to make a zombie movie for the right reasons.
 
Zombie movie automatically equals mindless entertainment? Wow, guess someone has never seen the Night of the Living Dead films. Or has no appreciation of cinema -- I'd rather assume the former. I took an entire college course, ENG 220 at the time, on JUST the Living Dead trilogy, and we watched the remake of Night, but the other remakes were not out yet nor was Land of the Dead. The point is all of those movies have a LOT to say about society in general, they are very philosophical, deep films, but I guess if you just sit there mindlessly watching them you wouldn't see that. But then you have nobody to blame but yourself, because you're the mindless one, not the films!

I agree most zombie movies are just good entertainment, but to assume it MUST be mindless makes you come across as ignorant. Not trying to be mean just being blunt.

As for your other assertions, you can't assume locations are always free, in fact they are the most expensive part of most shoots in my experience, corporate work aside where you can shoot on the company's property. I was able to shoot a short with two locations, one free, one inexpensive, but it's not easy and doesn't happen every time. A lot of times, the locations are a huge part of the budget of an indie film.

And quality acting is very important, personally I'd definitely shoot with SAG actors or at least as a SAG signatory for the company producing the film. Their low budget contracts are really reasonable.
 
Romero's movies and intentions in no way play a part in the current swell of indy zombie films. 5 new indy zombie movies come out every month and pile up on the shelves and on netflix and, having seen most of them, I can tell you that they are completely devoid of any satirical commentary.

Bringing up Night in today's zombie movie enviornment would be like pointing to the Godfather or Goodfellas in defense of Mobsters.

Anyone who I meet in this business who is doing it primarily for the cash or the lifestyle, I think should suffer a most horrific tragedy. I hear, "I wanna make a zombie movie," I think, "Tragic and horrible death."

But, if you'll notice, I ended my comment with "I hope". Because I truly do hope that the new inexpensive media we have now for film will finally put an end to all this artists-for-profit crap. Leave the stardom to the addicts. It's the artist's job to create perspective and perception.

So, I hope that this person wants to create a zombie movie because he has something to say, not because he wants to have something that will sell.

And I am shocked that anyone would ever take a low-level SAG member over an equally priced high level equity person. In no universe does that make sense. 99% of the time the seasoned stage actor will give a better performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top