Could you shoot a 10-episode web series with $2500?

AlexDarke

AlexDarke

Active member
Hey DVXUsers!

I know there are a lot of scrappy indie filmmakers in this forum who thrive in the Guerrilla Filmmaking setting.

I posed a challenge to my two filmmaker friends in Chicago to create a 10-episode web series for $2500, and they created a great, hilarious, short comedy series called "I'm Sorry". I also asked them to document the process along the way. You can see what they did by clicking here:

http://cinemasummit.com/series/creating-micro-series/

And, you can see the completed series here: https://gildedcinema.vhx.tv/i-m-sorry


If you want to see more videos about film production and filmmaking, be sure to subscribe to our YouTube channel and our newsletter on Cinema Summit.


Let me know what you think! I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

Best,

Alex Darke
 
Could I? Yes. Would I? No way in the world.

Around here it's hard enough to compete without cutting the guts out of the business when one is trying to deliver a quality production and at the same time make a fair and reasonable living. In the long run people producing cheap productions will kill the industry. It's already evident this is happening. Once started on the cheap production mentality it tends to stick. To keep the industry viable for independent shooters / producers I believe anyone teaching students or trainees needs to instill in them that their work ethic and skills are worthy of a reasonable rate of pay. Tell me another industry where a tradesman's rates are under pressure like they are in video production. My electrician and plumber have a set rate and and they won't haggle much. My local Sony tech support won't drop their repair hourly rate so why should I. $2,500 wouldn't cover two days shooting for me let alone pay for an assistant, cover media costs, fuel costs, parking fees, phone costs, public liability insurance, etc. This list goes on!

Sorry if I sound pretty hard on this but super low production rates can only reflect badly on the industry in the long run.

Chris Young
 
Hey Chris!

Firstly, thank you so much for taking the time to respond. I see where you are coming from. This debate is one where you can just go around in circles endlessly. I just saw it happen in a FB group the other day.

In my opinion, yes, employers should be held accountable for paying legal and fair wages. But students and those learning their craft should not.

Film is a strange artistic medium, and unlike most others it is one that is difficult to do alone. But, like all others still requires practice to master and become a professional that demands those fair and legal rates from employers.

Because of this, I disagree with the notion that everyone in the industry should stop making these no-budget, micro-budget, passion project, practice project type films.

Best,

Alex
 
I would also like to point out, for the record before the lambasting begins, that we posed this as a challenge. They took that challenge and created a concept that allowed them to pay everyone fair rates for the time commitment because the concept lent itself to a very short shoot.

Check out the videos and you'll see what I mean.
 
AlexDarke said:
But students and those learning their craft should not.
Click to expand...

Ah, but herein lies a big part of the problem. When people are indoctrinated into thinking that you have to pay your dues and do it for free or almost free and "that's just how it is" from the beginning, then it continues on and on and on, because that's what they learned.

And the whole "it's art" BS is the equivalent of "sunshine pay". I have no problem with someone doing their "passion project", but the no/low/micro budget mentality has swept over to the professional world, I believe, partly because of the guys doing the no/low/micro budget stuff making the leap over to the full blown professional world and also those in charge of money in the professional world being exposed to it. So now you have producers wanting to do everything (to paraphrase) "on a beer budget", because some "college kids" did it and guys that were just those "college kids" willing to do it for whatever they're offered.

Alex, I'm not trying to be the old curmudgeon or rain on the parade, but I have a vested interest in this industry, namely ME. And I've seen the rates essentially double from when I started 20 years ago to now they have dropped significantly, with some people paying close to the old SD rates and some people even paying less than they were 20 years ago and that's not good for any of us.
 
Dear Run&Gun,

(Sorry, I didn't catch your real name)

Once again, it's an interesting point, but I think that pointing to people shooting these types of projects as "the problem" is a bit more than a little fallacious.

What you are describing is a product of Capitalism and is in no way, shape, or form unique to our industry. In addition, there are dozens if not hundreds or thousands of other factors beyond the one you point out that cause this. Not least of all, global, national and local economy. How about the fact that entire new facets of the industry have emerged in the past 10 years and are just beginning to be ironed out?

I'm glad you made that last point about the past 20 years being an Up and then Down cycle. I think it's pretty safe and easy to draw parallels to our economic crisis that occurred during that 20 year period.

I stand by my thought, whole heartedly, that people can and should practice their craft as often as possible. And if that means finding a gang of like-minded individuals and working together for no money to create something, then so be it.

I think it is a little far fetched to think that the act of doing so is ruining the industry.
 
Here's my take. There are two types of people out there. Those who
make 100% of their income from filmmaking/video production.
And those who don't. If you are in the second camp and do it
for artistic satisfaction, as a fun endeavor, or because you are
trying to get exposure, you will have a different opinion on things
than someone who must pay all his bills doing it. Not saying anyone
is 'right' or wrong, but I can understand where each side is coming
from easier when I look at that very important difference. On one
side, the money thing is VERY important. On the other side, the
money thing is almost an afterthought.
 
That is a very good point, and good to remember.

Nothing is as easy as just A or B. Black or White. Right or Wrong. There's a lot of grey.

I am on the side of being a full time filmmaker who makes 100% of my income from filmmaking. But I also partake in the occasional 48 Hour Film Festival or no-budget personal project for fun and practice.
 
I'll add that the flood of people into the world of filmmaking that is afforded by MUCH less expensive production and postproduction equipment has easily had as much impact (I think more actually) on income potential at the lower-mid to mid level than the low fees that those people are willing to accept. Or rather, the two are directly related.

When cost of entry is that much easier, you will start getting talented efforts showing up at age 19 without having "paid dues" in the old school sense. All it takes is for a producer or hiring manager to experience some decent work for lower prices a few times to have their perception of costs shift downward.

If we are going to blame that 19 year old for not being educated about what they should hold out for regarding payment, then we should blame everyone else for not educating that person and for not offering them the "proper rate" to begin with.

It's not like there are producers and production companies working round the clock to figure out how to make sure up and coming talent is business savvy and maintaining the industry. However, there ARE engineers and marketing folks working round the clock to make sure up and coming talent can edit a feature with a $300 worth of software and a $1000 computer, and that they can shoot a series with $3000 worth of equipment.
 
How is this any kind of debate, even? If you are working on a project that is bringing in millions of dollars, you'll get paid top rate simply because it's a fraction of the overall budget (below the line), and it's not worth skimping to save a couple of bucks at the cost of getting the best people and a pro production result. You really want to save $50/hour and go with a sound guy who may or may not know what s/he is doing? I kinda doubt it, when you're paying millions to the talent that's doing a scene that will now have to be re-shot because your sound person is not at the top of their game. I don't know about you, but in that position, I'd rather pay top $ for the sound guy. Same for the DP, makeup etc... I mean, who would you try to save on? Craft? Hardly - nobody wants to eat sh|t and drink cold coffee. So you're barking up the wrong tree. Top people will always get top dollar. No danger that "rates" will be driven down.

Or are you talking about freelance folks who do small jobs here and there or work on low budget movies? If so, welcome to capitalism. Why do you think that your job should be exempt from competition? If there's a kid with a go pro who does a better job at cheaper rates than you with top equipment, well, shame on you. If they do a worse job, then the producer will turn to you and you'll charge more. Simple. But if it so happens that there are competent people who will do your job cheaper, welcome to the reality of competition - find a different niche where you deliver a unique service, or lower your rates to compete, or go out of business. Tough.

Plus, really, so many projects wouldn't even exist if they had to pay union rates. I can't afford to pay good rates for my $10K feature. What are my options?

(1) Abandon the project. Sure, and how are you, the "top rate" guy benefitting from a project that never gets off the ground? How is that a *win* for you? "Great for me! OldCorpse abandoned his project!" You're not a dime's worth better off.

(2) Do the project for $0 dollars and nobody gets paid. How does that hurt you? You're not doing it anyway, so how does it hurt you that Joe down the street wants to DP for free? I can't pay anyway, so it's either not getting done ($0 for you), or you're not doing it (again $0 for you). It doesn't affect you.

(3) Joe down the street gets some benefit - gets experience, put something on a resume, learns something, makes contacts and connections. Sure, you can laugh at it - but everyone has to start somewhere. So you think Joe should get paid top dollar? Well he won't, because there isn't any. And if I DID have the money, I wouldn't hire Joe anyway, since if I'm to pay top dollar, I'll get a top DP for my top dollar, someone who is already experienced. And Joe will be left with a chicken and egg dilemma. The only way out, is for Joe to pay his dues, sorry. If Joe has talent, and the project is good, then Joe will get recognition and a bite at the apple - working for top rates on big budget productions that don't mind paying for talent. And if Joe has no talent, well, then why should he get paid top dollar? And how does any of this hurt you? You won't do it anyway, no skin off your nose.

(4) A $0 production might actually start careers - it's happened countless times. So people gamble. All you need is talent and good taste in picking projects. If you like the project do it, if not, don't. Easy. For many people it's worth gambling on hitting it big. Maybe you don't like to gamble and want to always get paid. In that case, pass this project by and wait for a phone call from the big budget guys. Again, how does that hurt you?

What I hear is a lot of crybaby nonsense. Don't be the horse and buggy guy crying about how unfair cars are. If you can't compete, whose fault is that? Why do you want to stop the 19 year old kid from doing stuff for little or no money? It's his/her right. If you don't like it, find another job or make your skills so indispensable that big budget guys compete for you and pay you top $. The days when having gear was a barrier are over - thank god. I am all for driving production cost down to as low as possible, or zero. Not a problem, because people will ALWAYS pay for talent. Here's a film/book/music by a no talent hack for a very low price... want it? No? OK then pay for the talented guy - sorry the talent demands a price and GETS IT, because nobody wants the alterntive of the no-talent hack. And for the producer who can't tell good work from bad - he'll eventually have to pay up or go belly up... again, not your problem, people get what they pay for.

IF YOU ARE ANY GOOD YOU'LL GET PAID!!!

IF YOU ARE NOT ANY GOOD, YOU HAVE NO GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO GET PAID.

IF THE MARKET WON'T PAY FOR WHAT YOU'RE SELLING - SELL SOMETHING THE MARKET WILL PAY FOR.

Do any of the above, but don't complain. Long live the free enterprise system!
 
giphy.gif
 
I used to be a teacher at a 16+ college. When I went back to making my living from the business, wherever I could I employed my ex-students (the good ones) and my old college would pass me new ones for the basic roles I needed covering. All these people got paid. The ones who had moved on, graduated and were good, became regulars at the proper industry rate, and the others - very often box shifters and junior roles got paid the UK minimum rate of pay.

I have never had a real worker do it for free - ever. I do have people as 'experience' who don't get paid, but they are over the crew compliment - they are non-critically tasked and extras to the projects. If they learn and become important, then I pay them and they become proper crew. The less good ones move on with their lives.

I get really angry seeing adverts for people who need to be skilled and often have their own equipment who would be working for experience, development or training. Asking a 'volunteer' to unload a truck, or rig lights, or actually operate things is, in my view, very wrong - and while I'm comfy with a group of individuals getting together and working for free, as soon as this becomes a product with any kind of income stream, then they should be paid. If a project can only make money with people working for free, then at the base level it should be profit share. The idea of some getting paid, and then with no money left, using volunteers sucks.

I
 
paulears +1. Wholeheartedly agree with what you say. You are obviously an ethical producer. There are many unethical ones out there.

I know of one well known international ad agency, US, UK, France, Germany, Australia and other countries who I did a series of videos for for the launch of a new line of pharma drugs and who took advantage of trainees who were lo / no pay types. They needed 11 videos done for the launch. A fair bit of work on each one. Various locations, various interviews with doctors, specialists and consultants. We shot and posted the whole lot. The ad agency supplied assistants they got in from a local Sydney crewing agency. i found out later they asked the agency for low / no pay assistants. I then found out that the ad agency then charged the pharmaceutical company for these assistants as fully experienced crew at full day rate. On that basis they could easily have paid these assistants $300 a day but no they took advantage of them and paid them $100 a day. The crewing agency got their cut based on the full experienced crew day rate and said nothing. I supplied three fully equipped cameramen and two sound ops at the going rate for equipped experienced crew. No argument from me we were paid what we were expecting, full experienced crew rates. They doubled our rate to the pharma client which I felt was a bit rich but hey it's free enterprise world so I'm ok with that.

I just don't like seeing young enthusiastic willing people wanting to learn being taken advantage off. As good and keen as they are eventually many of them can't afford to stay in the industry due to this lo / no pay attitude that has crept into the industry. I guess I was lucky. I started many, many years ago with the Beeb, BBC. As trainees we were paid a trainee rate, and "trained" not "...pick it up as you go mate." We were covered for workers compensation and accident insurance. These days I see productions that don't even cover casual lo / low casual crew properly. Sad to say it's the poor fresh young hopefuls who get screwed in the long run. it does none of us a service in the long run not to pay a decent rate be it a trainee rate or the rate for a fully equipped cameraman, soundie or gaffa.

Chris Young
 
I went to film school, so my days and weekends were filled with volunteering on other people's projects to get the most out of school that I could. It was not only an extremely valuable learning experience but also gave me a solid network of friends who have since moved on to higher positions and bigger projects that I still work with to this day. At the same time I would PA on big budget commercials and music videos, where I was paid for my time on set.

At that point in my career, there is no way I would have felt comfortable doing a position that I volunteered for on a paid shoot - aka producing, DPing, editing, etc. So I was able to gain experience in those positions for later down the road.

If given the opportunity to do it all over again, I would probably tell myself to do MORE free volunteer work, because ultimately that knowledge and network has gotten me to where I am currently, and has given me 96% of the jobs that I have had to date.

My current position as DP of Larry King's telelvision shows came to me from this. A friend from film school brought me on for one day of work as an assistant editor. A camera operator dropped out that same day, and he knew from previous projects I volunteered on that I could also shoot. So he asked if I wanted that job. After a few months, I was given the opportunity to be the backup DP, and now I am the main DP. All because of projects I worked for free on in the past and people I met from those projects.

Again, I'm sure it's not for everyone. There are a dozen paths to take in this crazy industry. But I think finding a team of people to work with and work out the kinks of your skills is a very good idea.
 
Looking back at the past 30+ years, I worked for free many times and created plenty of content on a shoestring. No way to put a specific percentage on it, but my gut tells me that a very small amount of it led to paying work in terms of relationships. I shot countless short films for fledgling directors, most of whom never caught fire in that job capacity and the few who did usually didn't call me once they had paying work. That said, this contributed to building a reel which DID get me paying work, so there is that benefit.

My main aversion to shooting without pay is not that I have better things to do with my time (if a project is presented to me that I find interesting or worthwhile, I will consider it). It's that I have to go out and find three departments worth of crew and beg/borrow equipment, which is a long, boring and stressful process. Shlepping gear around is my least favorite thing these days, and it is inevitable that a low or no paying gig will involve lots of this with little assistance. I've turned down any number of requests by saying "I like the project, and if I could just show up and shoot it for you, that would be fine...but the legwork involved in crewing and dealing with gear is where the problem lies".

I do honestly wish that I had access to the kind of equipment that is available now back when I was starting out because I'd be doing projects like the one described by the OP every other week. I've shot TV shows that started as scant-budget webseries and then got picked up. I have a friend who made a 5 part webisode for almost nothing; she's currently writing a pilot version of it for Paramount. I wouldn't advise anyone against working for free or little pay or aiming at making content on the cheap. I would suggest that if they are hoping to springboard that into paying work that they not make a habit of it for too long, if they can help it.
 
Last edited:
Never work for free. Never ever. That said the remuneration doesn't have to be financial. It just has to be worth your time to do in whatever way and you have to get something out of it other than a promise of future glory. I've worked without being paid many times but there has always been something I have wanted to get out of it that made it worth doing. From testing a working partnership to trying a new piece of kit to going in a helicopter to helping a charity I believe in to getting access to a cool location etc.


That said, I'm not averse to working without pay on something worthwhile but only if that means what would have been my fee can rent some lights/grip/production values elsewhere etc. I'm not interested in doing something that will be crap for money, let alone for free.

I always worry if I or my camera is the most expensive thing in the budget.
 
Ben Scott said:
Never work for free. Never ever. That said the remuneration doesn't have to be financial. It just has to be worth your time to do in whatever way and you have to get something out of it other than a promise of future glory. I've worked without being paid many times but there has always been something I have wanted to get out of it that made it worth doing. From testing a working partnership to trying a new piece of kit to going in a helicopter to helping a charity I believe in to getting access to a cool location etc.


That said, I'm not averse to working without pay on something worthwhile but only if that means what would have been my fee can rent some lights/grip/production values elsewhere etc. I'm not interested in doing something that will be crap for money, let alone for free.

I always worry if I or my camera is the most expensive thing in the budget.
Click to expand...

+1

Yes, of course, whenever you work, whether for pay or not, it must be worth it to you otherwise why would you do it - there's no slavery here! If the pay is low or zero, there still has to be a reason. Perhaps you want to build a reel, or simply gain experience. Or you believe in the project. Or you think the project has tremendous potential. Or a thousand other reasons, some of which were mentioned above. But it all has a place - you may be at a point in your career where working for free makes no sense, as you have all the experience, reel, relationships you need, but meanwhile you've got a mortgage to pay. In fact, it's not even about *YOU*. The point is not whether YOU should work for free or not, the point is that you should not pass judgment on OTHERS who choose differently. YOU would not work for free, but what's it to you if SOMEONE ELSE does? That's what chaps my hide. "It's bad for the industry" nonsense, often said by a union guy to a non-union person, when many unions are practically impossible to get into without nepotism and such. That's just a way of saying "you won't get to work, period", not just limiting competition so you can get to charge more, but preventing others from getting a break. This is why anti-competitive behavior is a negative overall. I'm not against unions, but when the union acts as a barrier to entry, I have a problem. Same with freelancing. I understand that you want to limit competition, but that doesn't make it right. And seriously I would not worry about impact on industry or lowering rates - if you have the talent, you'll write your own ticket, and you'll get paid what you demand and are worth.
 
Oh don't get me wrong, I'll pass judgement on other people working for free for what I consider the wrong reasons :)

I don't want to limit competition. I'm not really in competition with people cheaper than me anyway.

But I don't want clients to get into the habit of thinking that a certain level of quality has a base level cost of 'free' and if they think promising the world in order to get something free and then just doing it again with new people ad infinitum is acceptable I'm always going to try to break that chain.
 
Good concept.Terrible execution.
And here is where the gist of "i made this for $2.5k" really is. With no budget you pray that all elements will fall into place while with budget you hope that money will cover for possible lacks of balls behind written material.
Here you got a good concept (didn't watch it all) but the shakeyish camera dolly and often terrible actor's timing takes me absolutely positively out of what those people are saying. When you make a minimalist piece EVERYTHING needs to be ABSOLUTELY perfect for it to work. So... can you shoot something for $2.5k? Obviously. Will it be any good? Most likely not.

And to clarify, the "goodness" i speak off is abstract because it's not necessarily reflected in the works performance. That's why we have countless examples of less-than-perfect projects reaching success. And even the "success"can have multiple definitions (financial, accolades, future prospects etc). This is a never ending discussion here on this board about what came first chicken or the egg. Personally i think that if you aim for greatness rather than simply success then even "unsuccessful" work will add something to general Zeitgeist (as will successful work but on spiritually smaller level).

And i couldn't stop laughing at what Charles said above as pretty much every word of his is SOOOOOO true.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top