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
Barry_Green said:
End of story? Not really...

But if yes -- would you do it again? What if I gave you the $800 bucks so you didn't even have to spend it out of your own pocket. Would you work the nine months it takes to make that film? No? Why not?
Click to expand...

I know you're asking Brian_Rice this, but I'll pitch in: If it were 30-50K, I would do it again. However, it would be an even TOUGHER situation, because just about every favor I had to burn I torched. That means, at 30-50K, I would be doing everything myself outside of Make-up and Sound or worse.

Pretty much can only do it once, twice if you're a really good person, but after that the jig is up!
 
Brian_Rice said:
Well, I think there's probably more than a few people who would purchase 7K of gear (which they get to keep) and then would in fact make that movie for you and hope that it leads to further work.
Click to expand...

Buying 7K worth of gear to keep isn't really fair to the film you're trying to make and hope leads to further work. If I only have $10K to make a film, I better have owned the equipment in advance and know sure well how to use it. And to further deflect the ridiculous 'actual' cost question, no, the price of that gear is not included unless it can be subtracted from any and all past and future work I use it on, and that's an accounting impossibility. That $10K is ALL going on screen.
 
Brian_Rice said:
Um, yeah, I'd say I made 200 bucks. lol

But yeah, I don't get your first point. If I sold 1K of DVDs out of my trunk and it cost me 800 to make the movie, then I made 200 bucks. You could get into write-offs for tax purposes, but it's all just BS.
Click to expand...
Well, the point is -- you worked for a year, and your net total "profit" was $200.

Is that all you value your time at?
 
Kholi said:
I know you're asking Brian_Rice this, but I'll pitch in: If it were 30-50K, I would do it again.
Click to expand...
Why? Why does it go from $800 to $50,000? What's the difference?

However, it would be an even TOUGHER situation, because just about every favor I had to burn I torched.
Click to expand...
And so that means... that those favors had actual tangible value, and you used it up. Capital/equity was spent. And in order to replace that equity, it would now cost you an additional $49,200.

And that is why some of us are saying -- you didn't make the film for $800. You expended a tremendous amount of value, which is now spent (like an exhausted bank account). It's gone.

And you made $200. For a year's labor and blowing through $49,200 worth of favors.

Point being -- it isn't a sustainable business model, because the accounting is simply not honest. If you don't value what is going into the film fairly, then you're not honestly valuing the services and the donations.

Even if you did EVERYTHING yourself -- and I mean EVERYTHING -- you wrote it, you direct it, you star in it, it's a filmed version of a one-man stage show, you light it with your own lightbulbs from your house, you do *absolutely everything* -- and I mean every job, you don't call in ANY favors, you don't hire anyone else, you use public-domain music, you do the editing and all the titles and all the set dressing and you make all the props and you do every stitch of work yourself... would you still really do it? Would you spend a year on that, and then say "hey, I made $200!"

If I hired you for that job and said "I want you to work 20 hours a week, every night for four hours, plus 28 hours on weekends, every Saturday and Sunday, for a year, and spend no more than $800 to make this, and at the end I guarantee you I will give you $200 cash" -- would you do it? Or would you tell me exactly what I can go do with myself?
 
Brian_Rice said:
Cuckoo's Nest can be shot for 10K because I've seen it performed on a stage, quite adequately, by unpaid community theatre folk. Ink was able to use their hospital location for free. Free hospital + Free actors = Equipment charges only.
Click to expand...
There are quite a few major differences between shooting a feature film and performing on stage, and for an "amazing" film you need more than just a free hospital for a setting.

You need set decorators, production designers, continuity supervisors, assistants....

Just the headaches of shooting on location in an actual hospital will give you problems such as white walls that burn out on the video your shooting on and ventilation that screws up the sound. Problems you would never have with a stage performance.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Well, the point is -- you worked for a year, and your net total "profit" was $200.

Is that all you value your time at?
Click to expand...

The value of my time in that case would be in the aesthetic and accomplishment value of creating a feature film, along with the hopeful value of using it as a career stepping stone. I've always told myself that no matter what I'd like to make a feature-length film as my major life's accomplishment--hopefully a good one, though I'll take what I can get. But I would not do it again and again at that level.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
There are quite a few major differences between shooting a feature film and performing on stage, and for an "amazing" film you need more than just a free hospital for a setting.

You need set decorators, production designers, continuity supervisors, assistants....

Just the headaches of shooting on location in an actual hospital will give you problems such as white walls that burn out on the video your shooting on and ventilation that screws up the sound. Problems you would never have with a stage performance.
Click to expand...

Huh? I didn't say that.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
Uh uh...now the discussion turns to philosophy
If you made an amazing film for 10 grand and no one sees it - is it still an amzing film?
Click to expand...
If it's amazing, yes -- it's an amazing film with terrible distribution.

Now, if you made an "amazing" film and nobody WANTS to see it -- then that's not an amazing film, that's delusion on the part of the filmmaker.

And none of what I'm introducing here is meant to be "philosophy" -- it's just a different way of looking at it so that folks can examine and fairly value what they're doing. Hey, if someone really truly burns to make indie features and can turn out something truly staggeringly awesome and only needs ten grand to do it, then I have already gone on record as saying I will back them for that venture (as long as they can demonstrate that it truly will be something fantastic, and that they have a body of work that shows me examples of what it will be).

I'm not telling you not to do it. I'm just saying -- look at the total picture and understand what you're doing. That's all.

Could a "truly amazing" film be made for $10,000? Sure it can. Watch "Battle At Kruger" -- that was made for $0 and I found it absolutely riveting. Guy on a safari just happened to point his camcorder at the right thing at the right time. Not a "feature" but... if it'd gone on like that for 90 minutes, it maybe could have been...
 
vcassel said:
Because you're point is clear on the matter and I've always agreed with it--it's not a sustainable business model. But I'd happily do it once, guns blazing.
Click to expand...
Right. Gotcha. Hey, I've gone in and done the guns blazing thing myself a couple of times, long ago, so I well understand that! :thumbsup:
 
Brian_Rice said:
Key you are talking crazy people things.

If I have my AMAZING actor friends act from an AMAZING script and they let me use their AMAZING house and property and I have my AMAZING make-up friend do AMAZING vampire make-up and I buy a friggin cheap-ass T3i, a Fostex and an NTG3 w/ some accessories...

People do this every day. You simply have to surround yourself with talented and creative people.

"deferrals/donations" lol

Dude, if you're making a film for under 10K, are deferrals really going to be part of your vocabulary? You're calling in favors and having friends lend a hand. That's it. Only way.
Click to expand...

If you have all of those AMAZING resources at your disposal, then why the hell are you stuck with a $10,000 budget? :)
 
Barry_Green said:
And so that means... that those favors had actual tangible value, and you used it up. Capital/equity was spent. And in order to replace that equity, it would now cost you an additional $49,200.
Click to expand...

Oh, no, sorry if this came off the wrong way: every single ounce of effort that was and is being put into this for whatever wage is certainly worth a dollar amount in excess to what's being paid. And, anyone who undervalues the cost of hard work and effort needs to quit now and go find something else to do. THere's no more room for that kind of thinking.

I agree with everything you posted. And, no, I wouldn't do it at all, at least not again if the outlook was 200.00 profit and no deal into a larger budget or another picture. It isn't a sustainable business model, but like Cassel said...

Would probably go in guns blazing on the right project if I could see an opportunity forming from it. Haha.
 
Brian_Rice said:
Well, I think there's probably more than a few people who would purchase 7K of gear (which they get to keep) and then would in fact make that movie for you and hope that it leads to further work.
Click to expand...

If you took $10K from someone to make a film and used 70% of it as a bonanza to enrich yourself with equipment instead of putting it into the film, good luck with getting further work. (Oh, and good luck keeping the equipment, too.)
 
David Jimerson said:
If you took $10K from someone to make a film and used 70% of it as a bonanza to enrich yourself with equipment instead of putting it into the film, good luck with getting further work. (Oh, and good luck keeping the equipment, too.)
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. :beer:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top