Brian_Rice
Carbonite Member
I think the green screen effects are pretty bad. But I thought those 3D ship models and space flights looked pretty good.
Do you think it's possible to shoot an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?
- Thread starter filmmakerguy
- Start date
I think the green screen effects are pretty bad. But I thought those 3D ship models and space flights looked pretty good.
Brian_Rice
Carbonite Member
Brian_Rice
Carbonite Member
More effects done on a zero budget.
And this is just done on Carrara in the guy's free time (and he's not even an FX artist by trade)...
The funniest part is when the fx people in the comments section start raging because the creators call it a "no budget" short. Finally they have to say, "Okay, it wasn't EXACTLY no budget. We borrowed some cameras and green screen. Had Carrara and had AE and used Vegas to cut it..."
lol
And this is just done on Carrara in the guy's free time (and he's not even an FX artist by trade)...
The funniest part is when the fx people in the comments section start raging because the creators call it a "no budget" short. Finally they have to say, "Okay, it wasn't EXACTLY no budget. We borrowed some cameras and green screen. Had Carrara and had AE and used Vegas to cut it..."
lol
Last edited:
Brian_Rice
Carbonite Member
Because they want you to make that for them too?
I'm certain most strippers dance in their living room. But if you want them to dance for you in the club, it'll cost ya.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Or insist on shoving dollar bills in your draws! :grin:
pulpfiction007
Veteran
So for those pondering a single location and seeking inspiration, I've made a list of films that may be worth taking a look at. (no particular order, and I know it's only a drop in the bucket)
1. Rope - Hitchcock
2. Rear Window - Hitchcock
3. Lifeboat - Hitchcock
4. Dial M For Murder - Hitchcock
5. 12 Angry Men - Lumet
6. Sleuth - Mankiewicz
7. Wait Until Dark - Young
8. My Dinner With Andre - Malle
9. Session 9 - Anderson
10. Death and the Maiden - Polansky
11. Glengarry Glen Ross - Foley
12. Oleanna - Mamet
13. Dog Day Afternoon - Lumet
14. Buried - Cortez
Many of these I need to see again and a few of them I haven't yet seen. The most recent film on the list is Buried, The director said this film was heavily influenced by Hitchcock.
1. Rope - Hitchcock
2. Rear Window - Hitchcock
3. Lifeboat - Hitchcock
4. Dial M For Murder - Hitchcock
5. 12 Angry Men - Lumet
6. Sleuth - Mankiewicz
7. Wait Until Dark - Young
8. My Dinner With Andre - Malle
9. Session 9 - Anderson
10. Death and the Maiden - Polansky
11. Glengarry Glen Ross - Foley
12. Oleanna - Mamet
13. Dog Day Afternoon - Lumet
14. Buried - Cortez
Many of these I need to see again and a few of them I haven't yet seen. The most recent film on the list is Buried, The director said this film was heavily influenced by Hitchcock.
There are a lot of reasons why, but the most common is just what Brian said: we can give you more money and the connections to do better. In exchange, let us profit off of you.
Why should NBA players be paid to do something they already love to do, and would probably do for free?? Because, someone else sees a huge profit in it.
A painter is going to continue to paint regardless of whether he is being paid, but those paintings belong to him. If I want one of those paintings, I am going to have to pay him for it.
keylight
Veteran
Of course, one thing to keep in mind that these were shot (for the most part) on sound stages or sets, which is a lot different from a single location ON location. Then again, equipment has gotten soooooo much smaller (not just cameras, but everything) so you can do a lot more on location than before. But nothing beats having a sound stage where you can control every last detail of the environment.
This is the reason why I want to shoot Epic on the next feature. I need the flexibility in space to do some nice stuff indoors. And, if it will not be Epic then it will be an MKIII Or an FS100. I can hear all of the "it's not about the gear" bees buzzing my way to sting me in the face for that, but this is how I feel comfortable with shooting on a low budget. By using tools I can trust to get the job done when I can't focus on little shortcomings of other cameras.
keylight
Veteran
Except that NBA players wouldn't (and couldn't) play the game for free no matter how much they love it. Instead of spending 40 hours a week training off season, and working hard to stay healthy and ready for nightly games during the season, they would be out working other jobs and shooting hoops after work or on the weekend. It's the fact that they can make a living at it that makes playing an option. But for most players, the game is just a job - a way to eek out a living. Most don't earn that much. Only the super stars earn the big $$. Just like in entertainment really. And of course, it's no coincidence that sports and entertainment are lumped together in many ways (agent representation, law, manager, accountants).
snowleopard
Well-known member
Ahh, so it will fit right in with the prequels. :happy:
I would generally agree with this. However, there are more than a few people that sank most if not all of their savings, plus months of their time, into a project, gave it all they had, and walked away with something that didn't get them anywhere. And left them holding onto a heap of debt, and tremendous stress from it.
ROI. If they think you can do something as good, or better, that can sell, a capital investor may sink plenty of money into you. That, and while these guys may have done this for "free" that doesn't include cost of time, food, gear, software, more time, etc.
keylight
Veteran
The issue of whether to do work for free or not is a fantastic topic that impacts all of us in one way or another. I think discussing after 650 posts on amazing films for under $10K makes it a bit hidden.
So I created a new thread with a poll (I know how much everyone loves those). Tried to make it a fair question with reasonable choices. Take a look if you want, and let's here where you stand on the issue....
Would you take a job for little or no pay, or would you walk away?
So I created a new thread with a poll (I know how much everyone loves those). Tried to make it a fair question with reasonable choices. Take a look if you want, and let's here where you stand on the issue....
Would you take a job for little or no pay, or would you walk away?
snowleopard
Well-known member
Keylight noted that PulpFiction's list was mostly shot on a sound stage. That is true. Though I don't think all of these films had to be shot on a sound stage. They were because it was convenient for the studio, or financiers. Many of them could have been shot on location (Session 9 was on location, and could not have been shot on a sound stage). This would have likely been the case had the filmmaker wanted to get the film done, but had little money, and no access to a sound stage. For example, John Cassavets shot the film Faces for the most part in his own house. He could have gotten studio funding, but with that came studio control, and he wasn't interested at all.
Brian_Rice
Carbonite Member
There is a ginormous difference between doing work "for free" and doing work "for your reel" (or, if several artists, actors, et al are working on a project, their collective reel).
The video I posted of Modern Times was showing a few guys getting together to make a short film that was, I'm assuming, for portfolio's sake.
Further, I'm completely confused by your statement. Most people here are saying that NBA players *would* in fact play basketball whether they were being paid to do so or not. Your argument is that they *couldn't* be playing basketball because they have a day job? But then you say that they *would* be playing at night and on the weekends?
Getting paid to play basketball means only that they don't have to work a second job. It doesn't mean that they're any better or worse players and doesn't even mean that they can't play as often. It just means that they don't have to work a day job. It also means that they would probably have to sacrifice most everything else to work that day job while continuing to play basketball at a competitive level.
Also, I think the lowest possible economic tier for an NBA player is 500K a year. At least that's what it is in the NFL. That's "big" enough money IMO.
No, his point was that they wouldn't be near as good (i.e. enjoyable to watch) because they don't have to work a second job and can spend that 40 hours a week continuing to practice. Even if a pro player isn't banking millions, as long as they are solely using their profession as their bread and butter, they will be professional.
The point is that making feature films for 10k means you HAVE to be working someone else, which means your attention is not fully on the project, which also means that it is the biggest torpedo to making an amazing feature film. You have to be making enough money on the film in order to devote the vast majority of your attention to it, and you cannot do that with a 10k budget.
You're worse at anything if you can't devote full time and attention to it. That's just a human fact.