Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
- Thread starter Arcburn
- Start date
THiNSPiRiT
Well-known member
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
lol, I was going to say Evil Dead... he started it coming out of highschool actually... there's a huge gap in the movie where bruce campbell looks to have aged 2 years in a cut between shots simply because they started it in highschool and had a gap from the end of highschool to first year of post-sec or something... they took a big break from filming... it's quite funny to see...
El Mariachi was so cheap because Robert Rodriguez didn't have to pay anyone else to do any work on it. He only paid for raw materials. I'm pretty sure his actors worked for free and he composed the music, wrote the movie, directed it, filmed it, pretty much did everything. Most expensive things in filmmaking is hiring talented people.
lol, I was going to say Evil Dead... he started it coming out of highschool actually... there's a huge gap in the movie where bruce campbell looks to have aged 2 years in a cut between shots simply because they started it in highschool and had a gap from the end of highschool to first year of post-sec or something... they took a big break from filming... it's quite funny to see...
El Mariachi was so cheap because Robert Rodriguez didn't have to pay anyone else to do any work on it. He only paid for raw materials. I'm pretty sure his actors worked for free and he composed the music, wrote the movie, directed it, filmed it, pretty much did everything. Most expensive things in filmmaking is hiring talented people.
IsraelHoudini
Well-known member
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
the 7000$ on el mariachi was only for tape stock and a transfer for editing. the blowup and sound work was over 100, 000$ (the version u go rent on the el mariachi/desperado double dvd).
the 7000$ on el mariachi was only for tape stock and a transfer for editing. the blowup and sound work was over 100, 000$ (the version u go rent on the el mariachi/desperado double dvd).
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
By tape stock you mean film stock, of course... the $7,000 paid for everything they needed to get a finished film on tape, which is what they shopped around to the networks and television stations.
Yes, Columbia did dump about $100,000 into it for audio cleanup, cutting & conforming the negative, and blowing up to 35mm. But Rodriguez shot it on film, transferred it to tape, and had a finished product on tape for $7,000.
By tape stock you mean film stock, of course... the $7,000 paid for everything they needed to get a finished film on tape, which is what they shopped around to the networks and television stations.
Yes, Columbia did dump about $100,000 into it for audio cleanup, cutting & conforming the negative, and blowing up to 35mm. But Rodriguez shot it on film, transferred it to tape, and had a finished product on tape for $7,000.
J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
[quote author=PaulK link=board=movies;num=1094244199;start=0#12 date=09/03/04 at 18:16:26]Yup, El Mariachi has every low budget beat in the dollar-to-entertainment ratio. I can't think of one other full length feature shot for only $7000 that's ended up on the big screen. Not even Roger Corman films are that cheap.
[/quote]
El Mariachi might have been shot for $7,000...but that's not what it cost to get it screen worthy. They re-edited all the footage, redubbed the dialogue and did a complete reedit and mix of the sound, not to mention that they had to strike a print and do extensive color correction.
The figures I've seen put El Mariachi well over 160k before even striking the first theatrical print...they've held onto the 7k figure as a marketing gimmick.
[quote author=PaulK link=board=movies;num=1094244199;start=0#12 date=09/03/04 at 18:16:26]Yup, El Mariachi has every low budget beat in the dollar-to-entertainment ratio. I can't think of one other full length feature shot for only $7000 that's ended up on the big screen. Not even Roger Corman films are that cheap.
[/quote]El Mariachi might have been shot for $7,000...but that's not what it cost to get it screen worthy. They re-edited all the footage, redubbed the dialogue and did a complete reedit and mix of the sound, not to mention that they had to strike a print and do extensive color correction.
The figures I've seen put El Mariachi well over 160k before even striking the first theatrical print...they've held onto the 7k figure as a marketing gimmick.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
To be fair though, it would have been the 7K film that got the execs WILLING to fork out the 160K...
To be fair though, it would have been the 7K film that got the execs WILLING to fork out the 160K...
J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
[quote author=Mike_Donis link=board=movies;num=1094244199;start=15#29 date=09/08/04 at 09:30:03]To be fair though, it would have been the 7K film that got the execs WILLING to fork out the 160K...[/quote]
Absolutely. But that 7,000 figure is not what is shown on screen, so it can hardly be called a $7,000 film. I think we can all agree to the premise that Rodriguez could have sold the film as he originally finished it and it might have found a home on mexican television as he probably intended.
That version is not a version we would be adding mindlessly to our home video collections. Without the investment in distribution, sweetening, mixing, and film print, it would have never received the same exposure and it would have languished as a curiosity of "latin" cinema.
I agree that the $7,000 film was what the executives invested in, but I don't see the difference between a remarkable $7,000 film that gets...lets say $93,000 in finishing funds and a remarkable $500 script that gets $99,500 in production/post budget.
It doesn't particularly matter when and where the money was spent, it's the total figure that must be considered. It doesn't diminish El Mariachi, it just keeps it in perspective.
[quote author=Mike_Donis link=board=movies;num=1094244199;start=15#29 date=09/08/04 at 09:30:03]To be fair though, it would have been the 7K film that got the execs WILLING to fork out the 160K...[/quote]
Absolutely. But that 7,000 figure is not what is shown on screen, so it can hardly be called a $7,000 film. I think we can all agree to the premise that Rodriguez could have sold the film as he originally finished it and it might have found a home on mexican television as he probably intended.
That version is not a version we would be adding mindlessly to our home video collections. Without the investment in distribution, sweetening, mixing, and film print, it would have never received the same exposure and it would have languished as a curiosity of "latin" cinema.
I agree that the $7,000 film was what the executives invested in, but I don't see the difference between a remarkable $7,000 film that gets...lets say $93,000 in finishing funds and a remarkable $500 script that gets $99,500 in production/post budget.
It doesn't particularly matter when and where the money was spent, it's the total figure that must be considered. It doesn't diminish El Mariachi, it just keeps it in perspective.
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
..in my little world i only care about the money out of my pocket.. if i personally spend 7,000 and it goes to the big screen, then i got a movie on the big screen for 7,000. the distributor could put in 4 mil, and it wouldnt bother me a bit.. I mad the movie for 7,000. and will make a big return on my 7,000. to the general public sure the film was made for 4 mil and 7,000 , but to filmmakers its all about how much a filmmaker has to spend to get the film there. the rest is detail.. if i had get a distributor to give me the 4 mil just to make the film it be a different story. but if i make it myself, and they pay me to remake it better then ive already sold the film, and its out of my hands.
..in my little world i only care about the money out of my pocket.. if i personally spend 7,000 and it goes to the big screen, then i got a movie on the big screen for 7,000. the distributor could put in 4 mil, and it wouldnt bother me a bit.. I mad the movie for 7,000. and will make a big return on my 7,000. to the general public sure the film was made for 4 mil and 7,000 , but to filmmakers its all about how much a filmmaker has to spend to get the film there. the rest is detail.. if i had get a distributor to give me the 4 mil just to make the film it be a different story. but if i make it myself, and they pay me to remake it better then ive already sold the film, and its out of my hands.
Josh_Boelter
Well-known member
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
Yeah, I agree. Seven grand is what Robert Rodriguez had to spend as a filmmaker, so that's the number that interests me.
Yeah, I agree. Seven grand is what Robert Rodriguez had to spend as a filmmaker, so that's the number that interests me.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
J Barnes is right though - the final PRODUCT that we've seen was a 160K product, not a 7K product, so we can't assume that we can get the exact same quality as the special edition DVD will be with only 7,000.
But it proves that good films are good films, and if your movie is good, regardless of the resources YOU have, it is possible to make it. It gives hope for us all.
J Barnes is right though - the final PRODUCT that we've seen was a 160K product, not a 7K product, so we can't assume that we can get the exact same quality as the special edition DVD will be with only 7,000.
But it proves that good films are good films, and if your movie is good, regardless of the resources YOU have, it is possible to make it. It gives hope for us all.
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
i agree.. it does give us little guys hope.. espescially since that was then.. this is now..
now i could make the same film much better and a much better DVD all for far less than 7,000.. right now any of us could make a film such as "open water" or "blair witch" for little or nothing if we were so inclined, and it likely wouldnt have to get much of anything more put into it to make it screenworthy cause were starting out with nice equipment and abilities to begin with. in fact i dont question that the DVX with a good mic or two and a current NLE could make either of those films with equal or better better resolution and imagery, and equal or better audio quality than the theatrical relesed versions of those films right out of our computers to the screen. ..of course this assumes that we did a good job with our equipment to begin with.. but my point is that about any of us hear have/own/could rent the equipment and ability to make a film that is screenworthy right off our desktops for next to nothing. ..cause our desktops now have more stuff in it than all the money poured into films like "mariachi" years ago.
in any case if someone wants to look at the 100,000 dollar figues and tell themself it takes that much money to make a finished film like that today (mariachi, blair witch, open water) its not like were at odds or anything.. its just that i can personally look at the same film, and the 7,000 figure, and know i could do it even better (of course this assumes i had the talent to make the film to beign with) then their remade version for less. of course, this is not including putting it on the big screen and paying film transfer costs..since the film would already exist in its finished state. , and if its going to be released on the big screen it would be a distributor absorbed cost of distribution that i wouldnt associate with the cost of actaully making the film, anymore than i would associate the cost of them advertising it.
i agree.. it does give us little guys hope
.. espescially since that was then.. this is now.. now i could make the same film much better and a much better DVD all for far less than 7,000.. right now any of us could make a film such as "open water" or "blair witch" for little or nothing if we were so inclined, and it likely wouldnt have to get much of anything more put into it to make it screenworthy cause were starting out with nice equipment and abilities to begin with. in fact i dont question that the DVX with a good mic or two and a current NLE could make either of those films with equal or better better resolution and imagery, and equal or better audio quality than the theatrical relesed versions of those films right out of our computers to the screen. ..of course this assumes that we did a good job with our equipment to begin with.. but my point is that about any of us hear have/own/could rent the equipment and ability to make a film that is screenworthy right off our desktops for next to nothing. ..cause our desktops now have more stuff in it than all the money poured into films like "mariachi" years ago.
in any case if someone wants to look at the 100,000 dollar figues and tell themself it takes that much money to make a finished film like that today (mariachi, blair witch, open water) its not like were at odds or anything.. its just that i can personally look at the same film, and the 7,000 figure, and know i could do it even better (of course this assumes i had the talent to make the film to beign with) then their remade version for less. of course, this is not including putting it on the big screen and paying film transfer costs..since the film would already exist in its finished state. , and if its going to be released on the big screen it would be a distributor absorbed cost of distribution that i wouldnt associate with the cost of actaully making the film, anymore than i would associate the cost of them advertising it.
Josh_Boelter
Well-known member
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
Yeah, I realize that J Barnes is right about the fact that the Mariachi DVD I saw wasn't a $7,000 product. But like iamloser, I'm more interested in the money I have to spend out of my own pocket to get a flick made. It might not be a flick that can be released theatrcially, but if it can get into a festival or interest a distributor, it's teh dollars the filmmaker spent that I care about. Not that the information about what the final product costs isn't useful--it is. It's just not as important to me as what Rodriguez did to get his film made.
Yeah, I realize that J Barnes is right about the fact that the Mariachi DVD I saw wasn't a $7,000 product. But like iamloser, I'm more interested in the money I have to spend out of my own pocket to get a flick made. It might not be a flick that can be released theatrcially, but if it can get into a festival or interest a distributor, it's teh dollars the filmmaker spent that I care about. Not that the information about what the final product costs isn't useful--it is. It's just not as important to me as what Rodriguez did to get his film made.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
I gotcha 8)
I gotcha 8)
M
mino
Guest
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
Hey Daniel
Your post got swallowed up in the $7000.00 debate and was as overlooked as a can of Coke exploding in a house fire!!! I would like to know how much it cost to produce "the god's must be crazy"
anyone know?
Hey Daniel
Your post got swallowed up in the $7000.00 debate and was as overlooked as a can of Coke exploding in a house fire!!! I would like to know how much it cost to produce "the god's must be crazy"
anyone know?
BLUESPIDER
DVXuser Ninja
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
blair witch cost 40k and gross 100mil. Is that the record for the cheapest film made and highest gross?
BTW, i didn't like Blair Witch. The Telatubies were scarier.
blair witch cost 40k and gross 100mil. Is that the record for the cheapest film made and highest gross?
BTW, i didn't like Blair Witch. The Telatubies were scarier.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
I believe so, although my records show it as grossing 150 mil. Just remember that all of these numbers are subjective. Studios are the home of the most creative accountants in the world, next to the mob. They are nototious for inflating and deflating figures to suit there own needs. Just ask anybody who has gotten net points on a deal.
I believe so, although my records show it as grossing 150 mil. Just remember that all of these numbers are subjective. Studios are the home of the most creative accountants in the world, next to the mob. They are nototious for inflating and deflating figures to suit there own needs. Just ask anybody who has gotten net points on a deal.
thartley
Veteran
Re: Best Lowest Budget movie you've seen
I may be the only person who has both seen and liked Mule Skinner Blues. I have no idea what the cost was for the film, but it cant have been big dollar. It was directed by Stephen Earnhardt and if anyone can post how much it reportedly cost to produce, I'd love to know.
I may be the only person who has both seen and liked Mule Skinner Blues. I have no idea what the cost was for the film, but it cant have been big dollar. It was directed by Stephen Earnhardt and if anyone can post how much it reportedly cost to produce, I'd love to know.