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

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

  • Total voters
    157
Kholi said:
Thing is, I honestly do not believe that even mumblecore producers disagree with you. It's just almost impossible without the right connections to do what you're prescribing, effectively, for less than 100K. ALMOST impossible, mostly improbable.

So, you make a choice and run with it.

But, make no bones about it: someone CAN do it.
Click to expand...

I think we're limiting things visually if we're talking about only CGI effects. IMO the odds of making spectacular life-like CGI simulations of 3D entities (that, as Barry said, could compete with Harry Potter) on what is essentially a zero budget is probably impossible. Obviously the caveat would be if you yourself are 3Ds Max/AE wizard and have tens of thousands of dollars of equipment and software to get it done in your basement. The project Barry is talking about (the budget he's talking about) could never include life-like CGI 3D renders.

That aside, I think some spectacular things can be done using miniatures, matte paintings and AE. I'm doing a sci-fi short (fan film) right now and there isn't a lick of 3D CGI in it. We have several moving and stationary robots, a giant model robot head, flying ships, an entire city scape drawn in 3D space and a whole host of other things, and, personally, I've yet to see a real *need* for CGI 3D effects beyond a single shot that's nothing more than a large, moving reflective surface.

I mentioned Hunter/Prey in the filmmakers thread. What's interesting in that (self-funded) movie is that when it opens they use 3D CGI to the best of their budget and, frankly, it's an epic fail. However at the end, they decided to shoot a miniature ship and, I swear, I could not tell the difference between those shots and the shots coming out of a multi-million dollar picture.

CGI is a glorious thing for someone with professional experience and tens of thousands of dollars of equipment, but for the smaller indies having to hire out that kind of rendering prowess, personally, I'd void that idea every time.
 
Here's a clip from A Woman Under the Influence, the John Cassavetes film I mentioned. Almost zero attention paid to production style, and such, but superb filmmaking. I would encourage anyone trying to take on Barry's challenge to watch this film. This is screenwriting, acting, and directing actors at the highest level.

I would also encourage people to watch Richard Linklater's Tape. This isn't quite on the level of Cassavetes, no, but it's well acted, just three characters, and entirely takes place in one hotel room.

Many more films on this level. Minimal sets and characters, no FX, emphasis on concept, writing, acting, directing of actors: Sleuth (1972, not the remake), Bergman's trilogy, Death of a Salesman, Wait Until Dark, etc.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
If at all possible I would very much like to help out with the music for the project....I offered earlier but I think it may have been lost in the great Brian Rice/David Jimerson debates of 2011.
Click to expand...

To be sure I'm going to be using some of what we talked about in a script. (C)

:D
 
I do think there should be a production blog of some sort (could even start at preproduction), but nothing too complete because, as Barry has mentioned, you want the 'making of' to be a selling point of the final product. Just something to drum up interest and maybe even to alert DVXUser to more beginning filmmakers. I don't know how easy something like that would be to incorporate into the site. On the one hand, yeah, 'keep it at home'; on the other, it might turn a potential audience for it off to search through pages and pages on a forum centric site as opposed to having all the info up front and spotlighted.
 
Brian_Rice said:
I think we're limiting things visually if we're talking about only CGI effects. IMO the odds of making spectacular life-like CGI simulations of 3D entities (that, as Barry said, could compete with Harry Potter) on what is essentially a zero budget is probably impossible. Obviously the caveat would be if you yourself are 3Ds Max/AE wizard and have tens of thousands of dollars of equipment and software to get it done in your basement. The project Barry is talking about (the budget he's talking about) could never include life-like CGI 3D renders.

I mentioned Hunter/Prey in the filmmakers thread. What's interesting in that (self-funded) movie is that when it opens they use 3D CGI to the best of their budget and, frankly, it's an epic fail. However at the end, they decided to shoot a miniature ship and, I swear, I could not tell the difference between those shots and the shots coming out of a multi-million dollar picture.
Click to expand...

I prefer practical to computer generated elements. However, what you're talking about can cost just as much as computer generated in the end. It can come off as equally ridiculous of either aren't done properly.

I know what you're saying for sure! Just mentioning. If I had the choice, I would do practical all day.
 
Kholi said:
I prefer practical to computer generated elements. However, what you're talking about can cost just as much as computer generated in the end. It can come off as equally ridiculous of either aren't done properly.

I know what you're saying for sure! Just mentioning. If I had the choice, I would do practical all day.
Click to expand...

The great thing about practical over 3D CGI, IMO, is that unlike rendering a computer image that you yourself may just simply be UNABLE to render to life-like realization with the equipment at your disposal, using minatures and matte paintings can go on appreciating the painstaking attention to detail and even re-shoots (unless, of course, you blow them up!), essentially, into infinity. By that I mean you can keep improving a practical effect whereas with CGI sometimes you just plain hit your limit. Both are incrdible investments in time and effort whichever way you go.

Here, even though this is just a quick and dirty puppeteering, because it's practical it doesn't matter that it cost the price of an At-At and a green screen sheet to make.

 
Last edited:
Brian_Rice said:
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).
Click to expand...

Brian, if you keep repeating that, then you haven't followed me at all.


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.
Click to expand...

A work of art is important only if people consider it to be. That's the only time. Just because people in general find relationships, sex, etc., important, it does not follow that any particular work of art which explores those themes will be deemed important. It does not follow that any particular idea concerning those things will be deemed important.

So no, a work of art is not important if no one sees it, and it's not important if no one cares.

That's why it's relevant to the thread.
 
vcassel said:
I do think there should be a production blog of some sort (could even start at preproduction), but nothing too complete because, as Barry has mentioned, you want the 'making of' to be a selling point of the final product...
Click to expand...
In a traditional sense, yes. But this would be anything but an traditional dance step map.
dance_steps-thumb-190x250.jpg


I think the overly-detailed BTS stuff starting at pre-pre-production could generate buzz and pre-pre-sell people (in their minds anyway).

Again, not a traditional approach...but that in itself the selling point. IMO
 
David Jimerson said:
Just because people in general find relationships, sex, etc., important, it does not follow that any particular work of art which explores those themes will be deemed important. It does not follow that any particular idea concerning those things will be deemed important.
Click to expand...

Ugh. We're getting closer, but I'm just not sure we're just not going to see eye to eye on this.

The *idea* of relationships, sex, death and social acceptance, to me, is the same thing as the thing itself. To me if the thing itself is inherently important, then the *idea* of the thing is of equal importance.

And again, form my perspective the work of art does not need to be deemed anything by anyone living or dead. The work of art that presents and examines the *idea* of these things is the idea itself so that the picture of the food or the picture of the spouse carries with it the same things that food and spouse represent. E.g. you may not care about the paper that the photograph was printed on or how the subject was lighted, but you care about the thing in the photo, you have a personal connection to it and even if you would have never seen that photo you would have to admit that the subject in the photo that you've never seen is, in fact, important to you hence making the photograph also important.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Is the definition of "importance" important?
Click to expand...

With regards this conversation, yeah. lol

We're not discussing the definition of importance, though, we've been discussing whether or not a piece of art can be inherently important if it in fact addresses an important subject, and further whether or not a subject can be inherently important. I believe we've finally agreed that a thing (or, subject) can be inherently, genetically, scientifically proven to be important. But we're still back and fourth on whether or not something that represents the concept of that thing is of equal importance.
 
Brian_Rice said:
:::sigh:::

Read previous posts to understand why "importance" is not subjective.
Click to expand...

No need to keep sighing. I don't agree with you on that point. There's plenty of room for opinion and thought here. Now, if you'd like to gentlemanly debate my point, I'm all for it, but please don't be so dismissive as I've never been so to you.

"Importance" is subjective in the personal and individual sense; it's objective in the the sense that it can be accounted for and collated in terms of quantity and quality, but only in hindsight.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Is the definition of "importance" important?
Click to expand...

Okay...now we're getting into Monty Python territory!

The sad truth of artists in general - musicians/painters/writers,etc - is that fine line between doing "important" work AND having your work "commercially" accepted. There are countless examples of musicians/painters/writers, etc. not being important in their own lifetimes (or early in their careers) ....but becoming important later.

I think at the heart of David's argument is - If you want to be a filmmaker, it requires an audience to some degree, because without an audience you might as well be Don Quixote.
I think at the heart of Brian's argument is - The artist should be telling what the artist believes is an important story, because after all....should we not write/tell what we know for it to end up being compelling.
Whether or not it's a success depends upon if that story can then be delivered to a receptive audience.

I could be wrong, but I think you're both right (but approaching from different angles completely)

Sorry guys....LETS MOVE ALONG (I was typing reeeeeaalll ssllllowwww)
 
vcassel said:
No need to keep sighing. I don't agree with you on that point. There's plenty of room for opinion and thought here. Now, if you'd like to gentlemanly debate my point, I'm all for it, but please don't be so dismissive as I've never been so to you.

"Importance" is subjective in the personal and individual sense; it's objective in the the sense that it can be accounted for and collated in terms of quantity and quality, but only in hindsight.
Click to expand...

As I stated previously and in depth (hence the sigh) is that science has already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, beyond any debate, what is inherently important to ALL humans. Yes there are things that can be important to you and not to me, but we've been speaking about the entire species and the fact that as a species there are things that are incontrovertably important. What science has already proven can't be debated if we're to accept science as fact.

And I didn't mean to sigh at you, it was me saying in so many breaths that I didn't want to backtrack this conversation as I think this aspect is coming to a close. I think.

Apologies for any misgivings.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
Okay...now we're getting into Monty Python territory!

The sad truth of artists in general - musicians/painters/writers,etc - is that fine line between doing "important" work AND having your work "commercially" accepted. There are countless examples of musicians/painters/writers, etc. not being important in their own lifetimes (or early in their careers) ....but becoming important later.

I think at the heart of David's argument is - If you want to be a filmmaker, it requires an audience to some degree, because without an audience you might as well be Don Quixote.
I think at the heart of Brian's argument is - The artist should be telling what the artist believes is an important story, because after all....should we not write/tell what we know for it to end up being compelling.
Whether or not it's a success depends upon if that story can then be delivered to a receptive audience.

I could be wrong, but I think you're both right (but approaching from different angles completely)

Sorry guys....LETS MOVE ALONG (I was typing reeeeeaalll ssllllowwww)
Click to expand...

Not the heart of my argument at all. I'm saying "belief" has nothing to do with it. I'm saying that in factual, scientific terms a thing can be important even if it's never been experienced. So even if a human being has never experienced social interaction, it is still important. And thus art, if dealing with an important subject matter, regardless if whether or not it's ever been seen, does not lose its importance. What's important to us as a species isn't decided by us, it's in our DNA.
 
To David -- I have come to some closure about all this, though, as I thought of my photo/spouse parallel and took that same rationale to the food in my fridge. If the food inside is important to me (on a genetic level, not because I deem it to be important), then that would mean that the fridge is of equal importance. And if the fridge is of equal importance to the thing inside it, then the paint on the fridge is of equal value because it coats the fridge, etc, etc, etc into infinity.

I won't be able to concede that the thing being in the art does not deem the art as of equal importance, but I will at least say that that aspect of my argument is unwinable in any rationale terms. I will go on believing that the thing being inside the art dictates the art as being important, but it will have to stay personal opinion.

Good talk, though ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top