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

[Kholi]

Kholi, that doesn't have anything to do with my point.

Well, you said "it's your film project, not theirs." At the end of the day though, if they're agreeing to work on something and are fully disclosed to the facts, then it's becoming their project as well because obviously there's something in it for them one way or another. I guess that's not opposite of what you said? I may be missing the point.

I'm also not saying it's "okay", at the end of the day choose your destiny but yeah... it kinda isn't just the director's project nor the producers when you're under that umbrella, it's everyone's.

 

[David Jimerson]

Well, you said "it's your film project, not theirs." At the end of the day though, if they're agreeing to work on something and are fully disclosed to the facts, then it's becoming their project as well because obviously there's something in it for them one way or another. I guess that's not opposite of what you said? I may be missing the point.

But they're there because you need them to work for you. And they're doing it for free, as has been described. It's still your vision, not theirs, that they're helping you to bring to life.

The point is, you should not be so cavalier if they end up injured and financially ruined because they did so, for you, even if they thought they were getting something out of it. You should not ever think that "screwing someone over" is "fine." (You shouldn't even do so if you were paying them, and paying them well.)

Boy, if saying that turns me into some unreasonable bad guy, then I seriously worry.

 

[Kholi]

But they're there because you need them to work for you. And they're doing it for free, as has been described. It's still your vision, not theirs that they're helping you to bring to life.

Honestly... nothing is ever done for free. It's the same thing that people went around about as far as real budget. They're doing it because they're going to get something out of it. The DP is going to get a feature film credit, which could potentially get him bigger and better work. The AC is there to get a feature film AC Credit, so on and so forth.

I know they're there to make someone's overall vision come to life, but it's not like they're there with nothing to gain.

The point is, you should not be so cavalier if they end up injured and financially ruined because they did so, for you, even if they thought they were getting something out of it. You should not ever think that "screwing someone over" is "fine."

That's an entirely separate point, which I do agree with. Safety is paramount, too many horror stories about kids and helicopters on sets, and by too many that means one (1), which is enough. You definitely should never see it as screwing someone over, and I wouldn't work with someone who's got that attitude.

Boy, if saying that turns me into some unreasonable bad guy, then I seriously worry.

Nah, I don't think anyone's turning you into an unreasonable bad guy. At least not myself. It's a risk, indeed, but nobody really ever got anywhere without risking something.

 

[David Jimerson]

Kholi, you're entirely mudding up the point. Don't concentrate so hard on the "working for you" part. That's incidental.

Concentrate on the "basic human decency" part. It's not about "taking precautions." It's about the attitude of not caring after the fact if someone is destroyed because of working on your set.

 

[Kholi]

Kholi, you're entirely mudding up the point. Don't concentrate so hard on the "working for you" part. That's incidental.

Concentrate on the "basic human decency" part. It's not about "taking precautions." It's about the attitude of not caring after the fact if someone is destroyed because of working on your set.

Gotcha. Yeah, it's difficult, because I see two different points. Again, I get what you're saying. We're not disagreeing on human decency and making sure people are safe, cared for, etc. And the backlash that you'll receive when someone gets hurt. Definitely don't go in with an attitude that you don't care.

I'd wager everyone understands that

 

[agcohn]

Which doesn't do them much good if they're badly injured or bankrupt.

But that's not even the point. The point is, it's your film project, not theirs; you're the one calling in favors from them. If they get hurt and financially ruined, you shouldn't be shrugging it off with "meh, they knew the risks."

I don't think I have ever advocated trying to screw over your injured crew members in this thread. The only thing I said even close to that effect was about Waiver / Release Forms. Those do not exist to screw people over, but to stop oneself from being screwed over by ridiculous lawsuits.

Of course you have a responsibility to help your injured crew members seek needed medical attention.

And of course a Release Form is not going to protect you from a lawsuit if you recklessly placed anybody in harms way.

That's irresponsible behavior, filmmaking or not, and I do not personally know, and hope never to know, any filmmakers that would willingly place volunteers in danger.

I don't think any of these $10K films are going to performing stunts such as the one in the recent Michael Bay film where the extra was nearly killed.

Even that story about the NYU student who was killed on a set involved incredibly irresponsible behavior on the part of the student and the filmmakers, with the student operating a piece of heavy machinery that he was clearly not qualified to be operating.


But even having guests over to your house is risky business, because if a piece of the ceiling falls on their head, you can be held responsible.

Life is risky, and you have to take some risks in order to get ahead. Even $100M films have to take risks.

Nobody is going to give you the means to make a multi-million dollar film if you haven't all ready proved that you can all ready make a movie.

 

[Gary Huff]

Because you're skimping on everything else, you'll also skimp on professionals to do potentially dangerous stunts or whatever, thus placing people at greater risk than they would be otherwise.

But, besides that, what if you break a camera that you're using on a favor basis? Will you ever attempt to even help get it repaired/replaced? I'll lend you my HV30 if you want to borrow a camera, but not an EX3 when you only have 3k to your name.

 

[David Jimerson]

Who in this thread has said anything about screwing people over other than you and maybe keylight?

Well, you did. It was in the post I quoted.

Jimerson, how would you handle the following situation. You start a production with maybe $3000 in the bank. One of the assistants breaks his leg and can't work for a month. That means that he might not get any kind of salary, might have trouble paying his rent/mortage/other loans and buying food. You still push to finish the project and now your bank account shows $0. Even if you (of course) want to help your friend who has sacrificed so much participating in the project, you can't just throw money at him.

I wouldn't be in that situation. But even if I were, I wouldn't shrug it off and say "he knew the risks." I'd feel some responsibility. I'd do what I can.

It's not about the "risks you have to take." It's about the attitude you have toward the people who help you.

I keep getting this vibe, though, that some think there's some kind of a natural right to make a film, and that making the film justifies certain things that it really doesn't. Sure, you do what you can with what you have. But having a low budget with which to make a film doesn't make it OK to check your responsibility to other people at the door.

"Making a film," for example, does not justify asking someone to take a potentially life-threatening risk with no provision that you can do something about it if it goes badly. If you can't effectively cover that risk, then don't take it. Think of it as a limitation which spurs your creativity to find another way to do it.

 

[David Jimerson]

I don't think I have ever advocated trying to screw over your injured crew members in this thread. The only thing I said even close to that effect was about Waiver / Release Forms. Those do not exist to screw people over, but to stop oneself from being screwed over by ridiculous lawsuits.

I never said you did. Read what I said in the context in which I was saying it. I quoted a post and was responding to it.

 

[agcohn]

Because you're skimping on everything else, you'll also skimp on professionals to do potentially dangerous stunts or whatever, thus placing people at greater risk than they would be otherwise.

But, besides that, what if you break a camera that you're using on a favor basis? Will you ever attempt to even help get it repaired/replaced? I'll lend you my HV30 if you want to borrow a camera, but not an EX3 when you only have 3k to your name.

I have two scripts in mind that this thread has inspired me to write, which I would like to try and shoot for around $10-15K each, and neither requires stunts of any kind, let alone dangerous stunts.

The only people I know doing dangerous stunts at no budget are those crazy BMX / skateboard filmmakers, and they are making their own films and taking their own risks. I want nothing to do with that.

If I am responsible for breaking somebody's camera, then of course I am going to do what I can to try and get it repaired / replaced.

Why do you seem to associate low-budget with irresponsible?

 

[OldCorpse]

Everything you do in life, carries risk. You can call your friends to all meet at Starbucks, and on the way there, one of them gets in an accident - how could you be so thoughtless to arrange a meeting at Starbucks! Do you have insurance?! It's ridiculous. Again - that's not how the West was won. Risky ventures carry risk, news at 11. Everyone has their own tolerance for risk. I would hope people don't do dangerous stunts on a $10K budget - my project involves none, and 95% of it will be shot in my own apartment, involving no stunts of any kind, unless an actor bites his tongue accidentally while delivering a line. But really, this is all a straw man. Nobody argues that you should screw over people or take unnecessary risks.

But really? The proof is in the pudding. There is theoretical discussion, and then there's reality. Ask, how many of these early projects by Tarantino, or Lynch or any of the thousands of people on tiny projects - including shorts, have ever had insurance? Exactly. Does that mean that any of them would not care that something happens to anyone? Of course not, and nobody is arguing that - the very definition of a straw man. I'll let you in on a secret: I would care about my friend having an accident even if he never worked on my project and he had his accident having nothing to do with me, in the privacy of his own house - simply because I care about my friend. So it has nothing to do with the $10K feature - that's a straw man. Now back to reality.

You have a choice. You can build a straw man, as an excuse not to do a $10K feature - that's fine, though I don't think you need any excuses... don't want to, well don't do it. Or you can follow the proven path and experience of countless filmmakers who have done exactly what we are talking about here - tiny budget, "our gang", wild, uninsured, risky and "crazy" projects. Because if you want safety, best sit at home under a blanket - and make sure you're insured against meteorites striking from the sky.

 

[David Jimerson]

Everything you do in life, carries risk. You can call your friends to all meet at Starbucks, and on the way there, one of them gets in an accident - how could you be so thoughtless to arrange a meeting at Starbucks! Do you have insurance?! It's ridiculous. Again - that's not how the West was won. Risky ventures carry risk, news at 11. Everyone has their own tolerance for risk. I would hope people don't do dangerous stunts on a $10K budget - my project involves none, and 95% of it will be shot in my own apartment, involving no stunts of any kind, unless an actor bites his tongue accidentally while delivering a line. But really, this is all a straw man. Nobody argues that you should screw over people or take unnecessary risks.

But really? The proof is in the pudding. There is theoretical discussion, and then there's reality. Ask, how many of these early projects by Tarantino, or Lynch or any of the thousands of people on tiny projects - including shorts, have ever had insurance? Exactly. Does that mean that any of them would not care that something happens to anyone? Of course not, and nobody is arguing that - the very definition of a straw man. I'll let you in on a secret: I would care about my friend having an accident even if he never worked on my project and he had his accident having nothing to do with me, in the privacy of his own house - simply because I care about my friend. So it has nothing to do with the $10K feature - that's a straw man. Now back to reality.

You have a choice. You can build a straw man, as an excuse not to do a $10K feature - that's fine, though I don't think you need any excuses... don't want to, well don't do it. Or you can follow the proven path and experience of countless filmmakers who have done exactly what we are talking about here - tiny budget, "our gang", wild, uninsured, risky and "crazy" projects. Because if you want safety, best sit at home under a blanket - and make sure you're insured against meteorites striking from the sky.

I don't know why you need to be so combative.

As usual, I made a very specific point responding to a very specific post:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...under-10-000&p=2335264&viewfull=1#post2335264

And it has since been blown into something akin to kicking puppies and taking lollipops from toddlers. I didn't say anything remotely like what you're making it out to be.

If reasonable points such as the one I made are going to cause this kind of flaming, and it seems like it's going to every single time, then this thread is far too charged and needs to end.

 

[filmmakerguy]

Here's the thing, movies like FOLLOWING, EL MARIACHI and PRIMER were made for around $7,000. However they were all shot on 16MM film. If you do the math on it, pretty much ALL of their budgets was spent on film and processing.

The thing is we live in a new age of film making where the equipment is there that you could either borrow, rent or buy and have better looking HD footage. So in the end, you could put a solid $10k into your project that isn't dumped into film and processing. You could have much more invested IN FRONT of the camera than behind it. So when you think of it in these terms, you'd see how possible it really is to make something great, at least better than FOLLOWING, EL MARIACHI or PRIMER.

 

[Chris Adler]

The point of insurance is address the legal responsibility that you are assuming by producing this $10K short. Personal feelings and wants and desires are irrelevant. If the camera is damaged there is a LEGAL responsibility that needs addressed, and a release form isn't going to protect you when someone is injured. Stunts aren't the problem. If someone trips in a gopher hole walking to the set and breaks their leg the production company is legally responsible, and their health insurance will come after you.

Shooting a $10K feature without insurance to protect the equipment, cast, and crew, is akin to driving without insurance or having casual sex without protection. Its completely irresponsible and it doesn't matter if you're Tarantino doing it or Charlie Brown. It's a bad position to take and put yourself and others in.

 

[OldCorpse]

I was responding to Gary Huff, certainly not being combative. As a matter of fact, I'd say I exercised restraint, after a leading question implying I don't care about bankrupting or injuring someone: "Really, I find this whole line of thinking disturbing. It's not so much about covering the filmmaker's ass, as to being prepared to help out a crewmember (who you aren't paying and are pulling a favor for, BTW) in case of a medical emergency, which could end up being quite costly. You simply don't care if you bankrupt someone due to an accident?" I think my response has been quite restrained, frankly. Anyhow, I'm not interested in a flamewar, and I don't participate in such - I have bowed out of threads before, when they were going in that direction.

Anyhow, I think this is a tangent. The idea is to concentrate on the topic. Is is possible to do a $10K feature - the new objection is "you can't afford insurance, so you can't do the feature for that amount" - and my response is "well, many people have, and here are some examples"... that's where it should be concentrating, the response should not be personalized "then you are a bad person who doesn't care about injured friends or voluneteers", because if that's the accusation, then naturally people will respond, that's to be expected. The answer is not to personalize it like that. Just my 2 cents.

 

[OldCorpse]

The point of insurance is address the legal responsibility that you are assuming by producing this $10K short. Personal feelings and wants and desires are irrelevant. If the camera is damaged there is a LEGAL responsibility that needs addressed, and a release form isn't going to protect you when someone is injured. Stunts aren't the problem. If someone trips in a gopher hole walking to the set and breaks their leg the production company is legally responsible, and their health insurance will come after you.

Shooting a $10K feature without insurance to protect the equipment, cast, and crew, is akin to driving without insurance or having casual sex without protection. Its completely irresponsible and it doesn't matter if you're Tarantino doing it or Charlie Brown. It's a bad position to take and put yourself and others in.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Could you clarify? You say: "a LEGAL responsibility that needs addressed, and a release form isn't going to protect you when someone is injured." OK, what do you mean? Sincere question. Are you saying:

1)You, the project leader, will be on the hook - and that's bad for you and your finances down the road?
2)You, the project leader, will be on the hook - and that's entirely appropriate, because you are in fact responsible for the volunteer, so step up and do the right thing and pay the man for his injuries?

 

[CallaghanFilms]

I think it's fair to say that by definition, a micro-budget film is not going to do everything by the book.
I would further think that getting the proper amount of insurance equates to getting the proper amount of film permits-
everyone would love to have 'em, but realistically may not be able to procure them at this micro-level.

To take that to the next step...could you even be fully insured without having all the permits on the up and up?
Also, are those who are saying insurance is always necessary only talking about features?
What if one shoots back-to-back (to back) shorts...spending as much, or even more time on-set than he would on a feature?

Everyone would agree that insurance (and permits) should be gotten if realistically possible. But at the 10K level, is it really?
Everyone should also agree that if you are not insured, drama/comedy/light-thriller probably should be the way to go.
In this scenario,
Forget stuntwork; the producer/director himself should volunteer to hang a friggin' light that is at all dicey...

 

[Chris Adler]

Yes, #2. The production entity, and ultimately the principles of that entity, are indeed legally responsible for what happens on-set during the shoot. It is clearly intended to be a commercial venture.

Recently I produced a short and they wouldn't pony up the $ for insurance. I made sure the location contract was signed by their production entity, of which I am NOT a member. I would have been a fool to sign the contract myself under those circumstances. Liability insurance that would have covered damage to the location is about $450 a year.

 

[Chris Adler]

If you're shooting back to back shorts you can get yearly terms (like I said, $450/year for liability) that would cover all of your productions.

Permits very depending on where you shoot. I had to pay nothing for my short and we were 100% legal and insured. We even shot on BLM owned land and had their approval to do it for free. Insurance underwriters don't care if you have permits, they just want to know what you're doing.

 

[CallaghanFilms]

It was a serious question. So this hypothetical insurer will pay a hypothetical claim for an accident that occurred at a place you didn't even have permission to be working (shooting) at?