Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, that's the rub -- folks are only going to get one chance. If it's not absolutely amazing, don't bother even mentioning it, because I'm not going to look at anything from someone who wastes their first opportunity.
Do you think it's possible to shoot an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?
- Thread starter filmmakerguy
- Start date
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
12 Angry Men (the original) could be done for $10,000 in today's film world. High concept, good writing... the performances are good, but even still a little over-the-top. It is a great film.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
I said yes because anything is possible. It's just not probable... Even remotely. Think of all the professionals with talent and money who manage to screw things up. It is really really really hard to make a good film, let alone an amazing one... But if beethoven was deaf, I don't see why a rare and odds defying filmmaker can't syrprise the world.... But it could be tomorrow or 100 years from now. Who knows, except only a fool would say it could NEVER happen.
Depends on what you count as "free," I suppose. Can you do it for only $10,000 in total value of time, equipment rental, costumes, makeup, location rental, craft services, post services, etc., etc.? Not just the stuff you ultimately pay for, but total actual value? Almost certainly no. Craft services alone on a feature will eat that up right quick (no pun intended).
With massive donations of all of that? Maybe.
With massive donations of all of that? Maybe.
I put my vote in for (YES). For the sake of the blanket question, yes.
But, it completely depends on what type of feature it is, and even more importantly, what one considers AMAZING. I think PRIMER is a great movie, so much that it's in my top three list (Ghostbusters, Primer, Shawshank Redemption--in that order, sue me) BUT, I do not think that, when framed within those three favorites it is an amazing piece of cinema.
Shawshank Redemption, now that movie is AMAZING to me. You cannot do Shawshank Redemption on 10K.
You can do competent and decent on 10K. Passable, acceptable, entertaining, worth watching, worth BUYING, good, okay--could keep going...
So, define amazing first, which for the OP seems to be Glengary Glenross, then okay. Perhaps.
Also, it hinges on who the filmmakers are: Gareth Edwards can pull MONSTERS off for 24K US... full length feature film with some pretty fantastic locations, vfx, etc. but I am very VERY sure that there were way too many people that said he could not do it.
There are still people who tell me that a vfx heavy feature film with cast and location counts both exceeding the number ten could be pulled off for less than 200K. Now-a-days I nod my head and say "you're right."
But, it completely depends on what type of feature it is, and even more importantly, what one considers AMAZING. I think PRIMER is a great movie, so much that it's in my top three list (Ghostbusters, Primer, Shawshank Redemption--in that order, sue me) BUT, I do not think that, when framed within those three favorites it is an amazing piece of cinema.
Shawshank Redemption, now that movie is AMAZING to me. You cannot do Shawshank Redemption on 10K.
You can do competent and decent on 10K. Passable, acceptable, entertaining, worth watching, worth BUYING, good, okay--could keep going...
So, define amazing first, which for the OP seems to be Glengary Glenross, then okay. Perhaps.
Also, it hinges on who the filmmakers are: Gareth Edwards can pull MONSTERS off for 24K US... full length feature film with some pretty fantastic locations, vfx, etc. but I am very VERY sure that there were way too many people that said he could not do it.
There are still people who tell me that a vfx heavy feature film with cast and location counts both exceeding the number ten could be pulled off for less than 200K. Now-a-days I nod my head and say "you're right."
Also, I suppose, it depends on how long a time you're willing to do it over.
Darky Mikado
Active member
Budget doesn't necessarily limit how good or amazing a movie is going to be - it limits what kind of movie you can make. Sure, you can try to fit a square into a round peg hole and see how that goes (try to make a heavy laden VFX feature with 'splosions every fifth second for ten grand and tell us how that works out for ya!), but really - why bother? An amazing movie demands amazing circumstances and an amazing story - both on and off camera; blood, sweet and tears are just part of it. Any movie takes that, but an amazing one can demand so much more. Budget then becomes next to irrelevant - it is rather what you are making then what you have to make it with!
If all you've got is one location and two actors you can be creative. Will it be a masterpiece? Go into legend? Be 'amazing'? Who knows. Limitations are just that: limitations. In the end it comes down to the writer's and director's ability (as well as the crew ofc) and what they can make of it. Can something amazing come from that? Sure. Is it likely? No. It's a fools errand to go in with the attitude "I'm making something amazing!" and then have only ten grand and a dream. You can make something good with that, but amazing demands sacrifice.
Then it all boils down to: what is amazing cinema? Is that Primer? Or Paranormal? Citizen Kane? Where exactly does something go from 'great', 'enjoyable' and 'good' entertainment to an amazing piece of work? Behind the scenes. When a production has the profound sense to follow through from start to finish - perfecting everything into the most minute detail. Even then, some would say mistakes are what make the movie - or at the very least, adds character and charm. So, isn't it all a fools errand? Amazing? Legendary? Great? Well, yes and no.
Most people can agree on what is total s**t. Most can agree on what is great. But few, very few, ever agree on what rises above - what truly defines cinema as an art form - and ultimately justifies it's existence beyond the pay per view dollar value that has become depressingly common to associate the medium with. So who decides? The critics? The viewers? The box office? None? All?
Maybe all it takes is a camera and a dream, or perhaps that is just an encouraging idea to keep going even when it gets tough and you are all out of cash. One thing is certain: no matter what, even if all the world laughs at you for it, as long as you told the story you wanted to tell the way you wanted it to be told then you've done your job. Be humble and be open to ideas - but know when you are not improving the movie; when you are in fact killing it.
I don't know about you guys but I'd rather produce works that I appreciate, in hopes that other's will appreciate it as well, rather than hope that others will one day sway to the opinion that my movies are amazing (which'd be nice, but not necessary by any means...)
Anyhow, back to my corner... :zombie_smiley:
If all you've got is one location and two actors you can be creative. Will it be a masterpiece? Go into legend? Be 'amazing'? Who knows. Limitations are just that: limitations. In the end it comes down to the writer's and director's ability (as well as the crew ofc) and what they can make of it. Can something amazing come from that? Sure. Is it likely? No. It's a fools errand to go in with the attitude "I'm making something amazing!" and then have only ten grand and a dream. You can make something good with that, but amazing demands sacrifice.
Then it all boils down to: what is amazing cinema? Is that Primer? Or Paranormal? Citizen Kane? Where exactly does something go from 'great', 'enjoyable' and 'good' entertainment to an amazing piece of work? Behind the scenes. When a production has the profound sense to follow through from start to finish - perfecting everything into the most minute detail. Even then, some would say mistakes are what make the movie - or at the very least, adds character and charm. So, isn't it all a fools errand? Amazing? Legendary? Great? Well, yes and no.
Most people can agree on what is total s**t. Most can agree on what is great. But few, very few, ever agree on what rises above - what truly defines cinema as an art form - and ultimately justifies it's existence beyond the pay per view dollar value that has become depressingly common to associate the medium with. So who decides? The critics? The viewers? The box office? None? All?
Maybe all it takes is a camera and a dream, or perhaps that is just an encouraging idea to keep going even when it gets tough and you are all out of cash. One thing is certain: no matter what, even if all the world laughs at you for it, as long as you told the story you wanted to tell the way you wanted it to be told then you've done your job. Be humble and be open to ideas - but know when you are not improving the movie; when you are in fact killing it.
I don't know about you guys but I'd rather produce works that I appreciate, in hopes that other's will appreciate it as well, rather than hope that others will one day sway to the opinion that my movies are amazing (which'd be nice, but not necessary by any means...)
Anyhow, back to my corner... :zombie_smiley:
ugafan
Looking for a woman
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Give Martin Scorsese 10K and I bet it would.
keylight
Veteran
Nope.
Because everyone's time has a price. Even if someone is giving you their time for free, that time still has a certain real dollar value to it.
An example: Take the classic low budget El Mariachi. Everyone knows that the whole thing was shot for $7,000. But that price tag didn't include the ton of donated work people put in to the film. From Wikipedia (which indicates this info comes from the DVD commentary):
So, did he make the film for $7,000?
Not really. He made it for $7,000 in cash and countless dollars worth of donated time, materials, resources. True that the donations didn't cost him anything out of his own pocket. But the donations DID have a cost for the people who did the donating.
When you donate goods to a non-profit, they have to account for the value of the donations on their books. Same is true when you donate your time to a non-profit. (Although in the case of non-profits, you get a tax deduction for cash and goods donations, but not donated time. But I digress....)
That free camera you are using to shoot your AMAZING feature? Well, it's free because you already bought it, but there is still a cost associated with your use of it, whether you realize it or not. (Think depreciation.)
Those lights you're using on location (your friend has generously donated the use of his home) are consuming electricity which your friend will end up paying. That car to move equipment? That free food (perhaps in exchange for a credit at the end)? All of it costs. Maybe it doesn't cost you, but there's still a cost......
Because everyone's time has a price. Even if someone is giving you their time for free, that time still has a certain real dollar value to it.
An example: Take the classic low budget El Mariachi. Everyone knows that the whole thing was shot for $7,000. But that price tag didn't include the ton of donated work people put in to the film. From Wikipedia (which indicates this info comes from the DVD commentary):
So, did he make the film for $7,000?
Not really. He made it for $7,000 in cash and countless dollars worth of donated time, materials, resources. True that the donations didn't cost him anything out of his own pocket. But the donations DID have a cost for the people who did the donating.
When you donate goods to a non-profit, they have to account for the value of the donations on their books. Same is true when you donate your time to a non-profit. (Although in the case of non-profits, you get a tax deduction for cash and goods donations, but not donated time. But I digress....)
That free camera you are using to shoot your AMAZING feature? Well, it's free because you already bought it, but there is still a cost associated with your use of it, whether you realize it or not. (Think depreciation.)
Those lights you're using on location (your friend has generously donated the use of his home) are consuming electricity which your friend will end up paying. That car to move equipment? That free food (perhaps in exchange for a credit at the end)? All of it costs. Maybe it doesn't cost you, but there's still a cost......
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Stop being Haters
The answer is Yes. But you better have everything nailed and every favor owned.
The answer is Yes. But you better have everything nailed and every favor owned.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
Like many of the others have said, it could be done but it would almost have to be a character study/big concept of some sort with no aspirations of trying to BE a blockbuster if you know what I mean - If someone did a script that calls for very few actors (this would limit the sheer number of talented people to make it amazing), very limited number of locations (just pick a few GREAT ones) No (or very limited) special effects.....the film's cost could be cut down dramatically - but man would the script have to rock!
Someone mentioned Pi earlier - That fits all the above criteria, and with today's gear/software, something like that could be done for way less than when it was made. Something like Memento fits as well....but the acting in that was much more demanding. Basically you'd need a very talented individual at the helm and a great concept (that took money into account) to even have a chance.
Someone mentioned Pi earlier - That fits all the above criteria, and with today's gear/software, something like that could be done for way less than when it was made. Something like Memento fits as well....but the acting in that was much more demanding. Basically you'd need a very talented individual at the helm and a great concept (that took money into account) to even have a chance.
Terry_Lasater
All about the Caption
The yes camp takes a commanding 4 mods to 1 lead.
Stay tuned to the action junior members...
Stay tuned to the action junior members...
pulpfiction007
Veteran
Exactly...and it's not like it's a rare thing either. It's being done on a regular basis....well maybe not 200 million, but certainly there's a ton of 50 million dollar piles of ---t out there.
vcassel
Veteran
Pshh. If that logic held true then I deserve to be a millionaire for all the time I spent doing things not even film related. That band I practiced in for years? I coulda shoulda woulda been in a profitable band. That family that raised me? Coulda been the Hiltons. Just because you can imagine being paid elsewhere doesn't mean it's logical to surmise a perceived loss doing something that intrinsically isn't profitable.
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
If the poll asked "decent" instead of "amazing" there wouldn't be much debate. "Amazing"... hmm... that's a tall order... like "lotto" tall... and change "possible" to "likely" and the debate ends the other way.
Lot's of key words making it a loaded question. Possible? Yes. Likely? No.
Lot's of key words making it a loaded question. Possible? Yes. Likely? No.
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
Vcassel, I would like to expand on your thought.
We all went through this (well most of us), we jumped into film-making, did a couple things, people liked them. Does that make us pro film-makers? No.
The question asked is only applicable if there is mucho experience under the belt. You have to KNOW film-making do do that. Even if you have a small or non existent "budget", you better know what is needed and would be listed in the budget if you had one. Then comes the question, "well, how can we get it for little or no cost?"
Yes, my time is valuable, but I still take on projects on an outcome basis. Will the film help me advertise my company, will my company get good exposure, is the script solid enough for at least some reel material? Believe me, if I get asked to get involved in a film that cannot pay me, you better believe I have some very pointed questions for them. "Where are you shooting this, what are you shooting on, when will I see a script, how many crew members do you have, how many cast members do you have, what is the time requirement?" Etc. And yes, that does put some people off, but that is my way of qualifying the value of our involvement in the project. Believe it or not, I don't need to see a Red on set to get interested. You just need to show me you know what you are talking about and have seriously thought it through.
We all went through this (well most of us), we jumped into film-making, did a couple things, people liked them. Does that make us pro film-makers? No.
The question asked is only applicable if there is mucho experience under the belt. You have to KNOW film-making do do that. Even if you have a small or non existent "budget", you better know what is needed and would be listed in the budget if you had one. Then comes the question, "well, how can we get it for little or no cost?"
Yes, my time is valuable, but I still take on projects on an outcome basis. Will the film help me advertise my company, will my company get good exposure, is the script solid enough for at least some reel material? Believe me, if I get asked to get involved in a film that cannot pay me, you better believe I have some very pointed questions for them. "Where are you shooting this, what are you shooting on, when will I see a script, how many crew members do you have, how many cast members do you have, what is the time requirement?" Etc. And yes, that does put some people off, but that is my way of qualifying the value of our involvement in the project. Believe it or not, I don't need to see a Red on set to get interested. You just need to show me you know what you are talking about and have seriously thought it through.
Last edited:
I didn't say "no." I said "maybe," with creative bookkeeping assumptions (and depending on your threshold for "amazing" -- mine is pretty high).
But if the question is truly whether you can start with only you, your script, the clothes on your back, $10K in your pocket, and no connections in the production world, and make an AMAZING feature without having to spend a dime over that $10K -- if you can, you deserve to have a movie made about YOU.
The biggest factor in getting "amazing" work is getting amazing people. If you want amazing professionals for free (and you will need that if you plan to do a feature for $10K), what do you offer them for their time?