Do you think it's possible to shoot an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?

[OldCorpse]

Really, aren't the rules pretty simple? Shoot a story that's involving. Something that makes people want to see more. There's room for every kind of taste, just like in music, other arts, clothes, food and so on. There will be films with broad appeal, and films with narrow appeal. If you focus your film for a small market and achieve success there - great! For example, I don't mind, in fact I love certain talky films, like stuff by Eric Rohmer, or Malle. My Dinner With Andre - you can make a film like that for $10K with today's tech. The key is: where is your market. Few films find universal appeal or even agreement about their greatness. To me, Primer is boring - in fact it's one of the few films I turned off in the middle - but it's a quirk of mine, that I happen to despise and be bored by time-travel themes, it's sort of like some people are just allergic to the "it was all a dream!!!! Whoa!!!" type films. But Primer has many fans, who no doubt would be super bored by "Clair's Knee". But Eric Rohmer had a great career.

And yeah, there's a lot of negativity around here. There really is no answer to this. Because the people who tell you "it's unpossible! can't be done! oh noes, you can't!" will resolutely sit on their hands and there's no argument that will convince them - they'll prove it can't be done and they won't lift a finger. It's hopeless. You will learn only why things are not possible. There's a cast of mind that sees the glass as always half empty, and sees obstacles with superhuman vision. Then there are those who see difficulty as an opportunity to learn and to do things differently. If you only look at things from the point of view "how you can't", then that's what you'll find, "how you can't".

So what can you do? Well, the only way to go ahead is to actually go do it. Do it. Shoot your under $10K feature. The proof is in the pudding. Arguing that "you can" isn't going to convince the knights of negativity. But here's the funny part - when you actually go do it, whether you succeed or fail, you'll most likely lose any desire to come back and argue or say "I told you so!", because you'll realize that the skeptics cannot be convinced, period. They'll write off your success as an exception - another one in a long list of exceptions - and when the next person comes to ask "can it be done", they'll be right back to telling them all about how "it can't" - but you've already done it, so you are immune to their negativity poison, you just go on your way, never looking back, trying to convince anyone. The only person hurt by the knights of negativity are those who listen to them and take them seriously, because they'll become infected by that negative outlook on life.

That said, well, sadly, life is not fair. Just because you go out there and put out your best effort doesn't mean you'll succeed. You may simply not have the talent - sorry. Or you may get unlucky. I was supposed to already start shooting this March, but I had a medical emergency that wiped out my funds. Oh well, I'm gathering them again, and I'm going ahead, hopefully by the end of the year. And who knows - I may be able to shoot my 10K feature (yes, it's about that low), and it'll be the worst pile of trash and waste of time and money ever. Then I'll have to evaluate - if I decide that I simply don't have it in me, well, that's something good to find out. I'd rather die knowing I tried, than always wonder "what if". I can't guarantee anything. But we also have an obligation to others. I can waste my time and money, but I don't have the right to do the same to others. That's why, I will not accept money from anyone. My friends who will work on the movie, know what they are getting themselves into. I've warned in the starkest of terms that the odds of success are slim. I told them "be prepared for the worst".

What's good about doing it under $10K all under your own power? You don't owe anyone anything - there's no studio or exec or whoever telling you this that and the third. It's your responsibility - go wild, shoot what you believe in. You'll end up with what you end up with, but it'll be all yours, no excuses. Odds are, you'll spend a lot of time, effort and money and at the end, never recoup. But you'll learn from it. And you'll be doing what you believe in. That's worth something.

And whatever you do - don't listen to the Debbie Downers. They'll always be around, and they'll gloat when you "fail". But you'll be doing what you believe in. Yes, I believe you can make a good feature for $10K. I can't say "amazing", because that's not something everyone will agree on. I find something like "Le Grand Bouffe" amazing and a masterpiece (and could've been done today, slightly altered - and obviously without stars - for $10K). Someone else will find it boring, just as I find Primer boring. We don't know if you'll make a great, or good or even acceptable film for $10K. But we do know that you for sure won't, if you don't even start.

 

[David Jimerson]

I'm completely confused by your response. I said that it is fact that what is important to humans includes but is not limited to relationships, death, sex and social acceptance. You replied by asking if I was doing a scientific paper. That reply makes no sense. I never said that what I was presenting was something that you would want to see but only that the subject matter itself was of importance. I'm sure there are many thematically important films that you or I would not want to see, but those films, because of their inherent themes, are of importance.

And then you go on to say that you can find any reasonable amount of human beings who are not concerned with social acceptance, sex, relationships or death, which is a ridiculous claim. Even a priest finds sex "important". These are basic human functions that have been established since the inception of our species and have been proven to be of ultimate worth and consequence (e.g. important). For you to just throw all that out the window and say, "I can find someone who doesn't care about life" is just an absurd perspective. I'm certain that you COULD find someone who doesn't care about life, but I would also then show you a person with a psychological abnormality.

I know that you want to feel that you are correct, but arguing this is just silly. We are made of what we are made of. The themes that define us do not exist because of art or societal or economic influence (the way you talked about a diamond's worth), these things are a part of our DNA.

Now if you want to argue against science and nature and take a more creationist approach, that would be a different debate but at least could be debated. But whether or not being ostracized by your community *matters* to a human animal isn't a debate you can win in the realm of actual science.

All this is to say is that there are human principles (embeded in our DNA) that can be defined in thematic terms. Their existence is incontrovertable.

You're claiming that there are things which are inarguably important in an objective sense.

I never argued that there aren't things which people generally gravitate toward, but they're still "important" only because people do so. In fact, my argument is that those things are important specifically BECAUSE people think they are.

And if you break it down, you get this: yes, relationships are important to people in general. Sex is important to people in general. But so what? That's about as detailed as you can get before you start getting into deep disagreements. "People want love." Yippee. You're going to have get more specific than that, and no matter what you have to say about it when you do, someone will disagree with you. There is no universality.

You named a number of specific things that are "important" whether anyone even knows about them or not, like bacteria in the catbox. You talked about "consequences." You talked about things like "human rights" or "animal rights" or other things which, in your description, are incontrovertibly important. I responded to THAT. It didn't have a thing to do with Shakespeare, relationships, sex, Greeks, or anything of the sort.

Obviously there are things that resonate with the majority of people. Of course, that in itself doesn't make it "important," it only means they resonate with most people. It's the people who make it "important."

And to go back to what you said in specific:

Look to the last of that -- CONSEQUENCE. Does your message deal with worth or consequence to ALL humans? That is the barometer of importance with regards stories of the human conditon.

There is nothing --- NO THING -- which is of worth to ALL humans. There is no consequence of anything, anything at all, deemed of importance by ALL humans.

And even that is a cheat, because even if every human being everywhere did agree that any one thing was important, it still wouldn't make it inarguably so. I certainly wouldn't be "scientific fact."

So no, there is nothing of inarguable importance. There is nothing beyond debate.


And besides, the first thing I said was that "nothing is important unless people think it is." You argued with me on that, saying there are things which are important regardless. So your entire argument against my statement that "nothing is important unless people think it is" comes down to "there are things which people find important"? Really?

Especially considering the original post of yours I was responding to:

How many people do or do not experience a thing doesn't dictate how important or unimportant a subject matter is. If that was the case then the plight of shape-changing robots would one of the most important topics of our time. That's a ludicrous barometer to gauge a subject's worth and importance.

If something is written on the subject of civil rights and no one ever reads it, the subject itself would still retain its importance. There are any number of things happening right now on a microscopic level that no one is witnessing that are hugely important to humans, the world and the universe. It doesn't matter that no one is here with a microscope to gaze into my cats' litter box though what's happening in there could be hugely important and of great consequence. Importance is not gauged by how many people witness said importance. "

 

[David Jimerson]

For the record, if anyone noticed, the thread was closed but not intentionally. It's open again.

 

[Brian_Rice]

Suuuuure, it was an "accidental" stifling.

heh

j/k

There is nothing --- NO THING -- which is of worth to ALL humans. There is no consequence of anything, anything at all, deemed of importance by ALL humans.

And even that is a cheat, because even if every human being everywhere did agree that any one thing was important, it still wouldn't make it inarguably so. I certainly wouldn't be "scientific fact."

So no, there is nothing of inarguable importance. There is nothing beyond debate.

But you're not arguing against people, you're arguing against science. And yes, you can say that science only exists because consciousness or cognitive thought exists, but that's a different debate.

If you deem science to be something that exists (physics, biology, etc), then you know that when I say "science" I'm not talking about what someone says, I'm talking about behavior. The rat doesn't "tell us" that social acceptance and self-preservation is important, it exhibits behaviors that show it to be true and factual.

People don't need to "agree" on gravity, it just is. You CAN debate gravity if you so choose, but it just seems entirely illogical. Just as debating biology and psychology is pretty ludicrous.

 

[snowleopard]

Just read the first few, and last few pages of the thread. Hmmmm.

Here's a thought. In my opinion John Cassavetes A Woman Under the Influence is an amazing film. It was nominated for two Oscars, has a 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, and an 8.0 rating on IMDB. I rated it a 10, and I don't hand a lot of those out. If it were shot today, on something like an AF100, 5D, etc. it could be shot for under $10k. Not that it would - very few indies today seems to really attempt such films, but it would definitely be possible.

My point is that "amazing" is often interpreted to mean production value, but here's a film that had very little attention paid to that, and everything paid to story, characters and acting, and in that regard was indeed amazing.

 

[David Jimerson]

Suuuuure, it was an "accidental" stifling.

heh

j/k




But you're not arguing against people, you're arguing against science. And yes, you can say that science only exists because consciousness or cognitive thought exists, but that's a different debate.

If you deem science to be something that exists (physics, biology, etc), then you know that when I say "science" I'm not talking about what someone says, I'm talking about behavior. The rat doesn't "tell us" that social acceptance and self-preservation is important, it exhibits behaviors that show it to be true and factual.

People don't need to "agree" on gravity, it just is. You CAN debate gravity if you so choose, but it just seems entirely illogical. Just as debating biology and psychology is pretty ludicrous.

I'm not arguing against science in any way, shape, or form. Art is not about science.

I'm arguing about what's "important."

And the answer is: only that which people consider important. Nothing -- nothing -- is important all on its own.

 

[Barry_Green]

And the answer is: only that which people consider important. Nothing -- nothing -- is important all on its own.

Is this a discussion worth pursuing though? Seems to be cluttering the thread for the sake of argument.

I mean, I could say "human life is, empirically, important." If anyone disagrees with that, well, they don't really belong in the human race, and therefore, since humans are the only ones we're discussing, it seems like that should settle it.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I'm with Snowleopard even though I haven't seen that film. Screw production value, if it's costing you a lot of money that could otherwise be spent on getting a couple of decent actors who will properly tell the story...

 

[pulpfiction007]

I like it quite a bit because people are actually talking about film, the business of film, making films, artistic pursuits, and all that good stuff, and not pixelbating and bashing others' cameras.

So, here's to another thousand posts! :beer:

+1 to that....it's nice that a thread can revolve around a single question, yet branch out into many other topics (at their core still relevant to the question)

 

[Brian_Rice]

I'm not arguing against science in any way, shape, or form. Art is not about science.

I'm arguing about what's "important."

And the answer is: only that which people consider important. Nothing -- nothing -- is important all on its own.

I'm probably gonna side with Barry on this one and let this aspect of the conversation start to fizzle.

I've stated and cited numerous explanations as to why SCIENCE dictates what is IMPORTANT to people (e.g. for the sake of what I'm speaking to, PEOPLE do not define what is important, nature does).

But if your statement means that nothing can be important if nothing exists, then yeah, but again -- that doesn't matter. People exist and science has CLEARLY shown what is important to PEOPLE (it has always shown what's important to cats, cattle, rats and the planet).

The point of moving away from amazing and into "important" was because I feel that within that sphere there is a clear stipulation of facts -- things not based on personal opinion.

And in that, I believe that YES, someone can make an IMPORTANT film for 10K. And it can be important even if no one ever sees it by virtue of its inherent subject matter.

 

[filmmakerguy]

This is for Barry Green...talking strictly from a business standpoint, you're saying you want to put up $10k on an amazing script. What genre are you thinking?

Would you do it if it was an over the top comedy? Would you do it if it's a horror? What about a drama/love story. Or are you just open to anything as long as the story is amazing? It seems when most people think amazing, they think dramas. Since comedies and horror films tend to not win Oscars or get that sort of "amazing" praise that dramas do.

 

[pulpfiction007]

Is this a discussion worth pursuing though? Seems to be cluttering the thread for the sake of argument.

I mean, I could say "human life is, empirically, important." If anyone disagrees with that, well, they don't really belong in the human race, and therefore, since humans are the only ones we're discussing, it seems like that should settle it.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I'm with Snowleopard even though I haven't seen that film. Screw production value, if it's costing you a lot of money that could otherwise be spent on getting a couple of decent actors who will properly tell the story...

Totally agree with you guys on this and with a small budget - (to retain maximum quality)

A.) 2 or 3 great actors beats 20 to 30 people just filling roles
B.) One or two nicely dressed up locations beats 20 to 30 mediocre ones
C.) A highly focused stripped down concept beats a complicated one
D.) This is a case where less can truly be more.

My silly analogy of the day

2 guys each have $10,000 to spend on a car -
Guy 1 buys a nice used Honda Accord for $8000, puts in a new stereo, new tires, gets eveything checked out fills it up with gas and goes.
Guy 2 buys a Corvette for $10,000 - problem is...it NEEDS WORK. He's not going anywhere for a while.

I'd much rather be the guy with the Accord in this scenario.

 

[filmmakerguy]

I know it sounds crazy, but I almost think you need to spend a good chunk of your budget on making the movie look like it cost more than it actually did. I'm talking $2k+ or so just on that one scene that WOWs people. Explosions, guns a blazing/shootout or a boat chase or helicopter chase or something that people see and go THIS IS A MOVIE. Or how did you do that/get that in your movie? Sort of thing.

I watch a movie like Monsters and the VFX were what really did it on that one. When you got army tanks driving down the road in your movie, or something big, I think it sets you apart. Maybe people then trust you a little more, I don't know what it is, but they are more likely to stick around to the end of the movie once you give them a solid Hollywood type scene. Just a random thought.

 

[Brian_Rice]

I'm always reminded of this little special features section in the back of Brian Michael Bendis's comic book (masterpiece) Jinx. In the "special features" there are several mini adaptations of the Jinx characters, and in one specifc presentation it was just two dots on a page talking. And I swear it was some of the best comic book storytelling I've ever seen -- just two dots moving around the panel, talking.

I think you see this kind of thing in a lot of minimalist comic book art (again, even Bendis's Powers line takes an extremely limited artistic approach). Some of the best stuff I've experienced in comics has come from black and white, badly drawn pages. But if the script works, it works. The key is to have great cover art to sell the thing.

 

[vcassel]

2 guys each have $10,000 to spend on a car -
Guy 1 buys a nice used Honda Accord for $8000, puts in a new stereo, new tires, gets eveything checked out fills it up with gas and goes.
Guy 2 buys a Corvette for $10,000 - problem is...it NEEDS WORK. He's not going anywhere for a while.

I'd much rather be the guy with the Accord in this scenario.

I'd rather buy a sports motorcycle for $2000, save a lot in gas, and out-speed the Accord and Corvette with $8000 in my pocket. Just gotta watch out for rain.

 

[filmmakerguy]

I think it all comes down to concept/story. If the story is something you absolutely would love to see, for example a documentary on the early career/start of your favorite movie director...you'd watch it even if the footage was grainy and on youtube with semi decent audio...just because you crave the story. I think it goes for a movie on your favorite book in history, your favorite historical figures and in general a premise that hooks you. So I think story is the most important thing and most people simply can't tell an amazing or even a great story. There stories are always decent to good and it doesn't matter how cinematic and perfectly it's shot or who's in it, it will always be decent to good at best. Story is everything.

 

[Barry_Green]

This is for Barry Green...talking strictly from a business standpoint, you're saying you want to put up $10k on an amazing script. What genre are you thinking?

Genre doesn't matter, as long as the film isn't some recycled piece of crap or overreaching thing that can't be possibly done on the budget. Not gonna do anything "adult" though.

Would you do it if it was an over the top comedy?

Definitely -- as long as it's actually a funny comedy and not just some raunchfest. Someone wants to do that, they're welcome to, but I won't be part of it.

Would you do it if it's a horror?

Definitely - again, as long as it's actually a good genuine horror movie and not some torture-porn saw-kids-up overdone cliche blech.

What about a drama/love story.

Of course.

Or are you just open to anything as long as the story is amazing?

Basically, yes.

It seems when most people think amazing, they think dramas. Since comedies and horror films tend to not win Oscars or get that sort of "amazing" praise that dramas do.

That's definitely appeared to be an Academy bias, but I don't think anyone here is entertaining visions of Oscars for a $10k budget!

 

[Barry_Green]

Totally agree with you guys on this and with a small budget - (to retain maximum quality)

A.) 2 or 3 great actors beats 20 to 30 people just filling roles
B.) One or two nicely dressed up locations beats 20 to 30 mediocre ones
C.) A highly focused stripped down concept beats a complicated one
D.) This is a case where less can truly be more.

My silly analogy of the day

2 guys each have $10,000 to spend on a car -
Guy 1 buys a nice used Honda Accord for $8000, puts in a new stereo, new tires, gets eveything checked out fills it up with gas and goes.
Guy 2 buys a Corvette for $10,000 - problem is...it NEEDS WORK. He's not going anywhere for a while.

I'd much rather be the guy with the Accord in this scenario.

Excellent summation.

 

[pulpfiction007]

I know it sounds crazy, but I almost think you need to spend a good chunk of your budget on making the movie look like it cost more than it actually did. I'm talking $2k+ or so just on that one scene that WOWs people. Explosions, guns a blazing/shootout or a boat chase or helicopter chase or something that people see and go THIS IS A MOVIE. Or how did you do that/get that in your movie? Sort of thing.

I watch a movie like Monsters and the VFX were what really did it on that one. When you got army tanks driving down the road in your movie, or something big, I think it sets you apart. Maybe people then trust you a little more, I don't know what it is, but they are more likely to stick around to the end of the movie once you give them a solid Hollywood type scene. Just a random thought.

...but scenes that really BLOW the mind (not the senses) rarely have anything to do with money per se, but more about people being involved with the characters.
I'll use one of my favorites (obviously) Pulp Fiction....the stabbing the heart scene (that wouldn't cost a lot....it's a couple of minutes) and that's a great scene.
Another example is a classic - "Do you feel lucky punk? Well do you?" or Deniro - "You talking to me?" Those are lines, but the scenes become great because of the audience and the character are tied together.
A low budget film (to be amazing) in my opinion should leave the vfx/explosions/ crazy stunts by the wayside (because you can't touch Hollywood for $10,000 in this respect) and instead should try to blow people's minds with a very clever/determined/intriguing concept.

Another great scene is from On The Waterfront....(the shots are very standard) Brando - "I coulda been a contender" or Bogart in Casablanca or more modern- Nicholson "You can't handle the truth!" Explosions are forgotten easily, great moments sink into our souls.

 

[snowleopard]

I agree with Pulpfiction 007. Those are good examples that fit what I was saying about Cassavetes films. Characters, dialog, story elements, acting, great scenes. That's what people really connect to. They connect to extravaganzas, giant VFX too, but I don't ultimately think as much, per se. And considering the topic of the thread, films filled with scenes like those you describe can be pulled off.

 

[Barry_Green]

So I think story is the most important thing and most people simply can't tell an amazing or even a great story.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

There stories are always decent to good and it doesn't matter how cinematic and perfectly it's shot or who's in it, it will always be decent to good at best. Story is everything.

Leveraging off your prior post about special effects -- I totally don't agree that you need to try to compete with special effects. Because you can't. No matter how good you may be, no matter what special effects wizard you may know, no matter whether you're that guy in Brazil with the "Transformers" thing or not, you're never going to compete with Harry Potter 7.

If you're trying to make a special effects movie, you'd better make a great special effects movie. Torching half your budget to get one good-looking effect is not gonna get that job done.

So you'd better have something that Harry Potter 7 doesn't have -- because, like it or not, you *are* in competition with Harry Potter 7. When someone makes the decision to spend two hours of their life on entertainment, they can choose from a wide variety, and HP7 is gonna cost $15 for a DVD, just like yours. It's gonna take two hours, just like yours.

And you can't compete, at all. So you have to do the only thing you can -- change the game. Compete on a different set of rules. Offer the audience something they haven't seen before. Tell a great story. A great one.

An "amazing" one.

Anything else is just pissing around with a camcorder, patting yourself on the back while you make an irrelevant piece of drivel that nobody, ever, is ever going to see.

Spend your time with ink and paper crafting an amazing tale. One that can be shot affordably. And when you have that amazing tale, nobody (and I mean NOBODY) is going to give one flying crap about what camcorder you shot it on. Or that it was a DSLR. Or that you only had $10k. Or that you had $10 million. Nobody cares. They just want to see something engaging, absorbing, entertaining, something that respects the audience's intelligence and really values the commitment the audience is making to commit two hours of their life to your product.

The world doesn't need, or want, another no-budget 19-year-old-white-guys-with-guns-acting-like-gangsters-cussing-and-shooting "movie". And El Mariachi was 20 YEARS ago. And Reservoir Dogs was 20 years ago. It's time for something new.

Be that something new. And be really, really good at it.