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
Doc Bernard said:
Vcassel, I would like to expand on your thought.

We all went through this (well most of us), we jumped into film-making, did a couple things, people liked them. Does that make us pro film-makers? No.

The question asked is only applicable if there is mucho experience under the belt. You have to KNOW film-making do do that. Even if you have a small or non existent "budget", you better know what is needed and would be listed in the budget if you had one. Then comes the question, "well, how can we get it for little or no cost?"

Yes, my time is valuable, but I still take on projects on an outcome basis. Will the film help me advertise my company, will my company get good exposure, is the script solid enough for at least some reel material? Believe me, if I get asked to get involved in a film that cannot pay me, you better believe I have some very pointed questions for them. "Where are you shooting this, what are you shooting on, when will I see a script, how many crew members do you have, how many cast members do you have, what is the time requirement?" Etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's all perfectly reasonable.

I do take issue with the idea that knowledge and work automatically equate with compensation or that it can work in the negative, i.e. what I lost doing anything for free. It can, but humans don't just stand around automatically accruing monetary worth doing nothing either (most of us anyway)--and I'll have to assume that that's the other choice given the option to work on a project pro bono. And if the other option was paid work, well I don't think it's healthy or fair really to judge yourself against what you could have gone for. You (in the general sense; not you, Doc) didn't. Go do paid work if you can get paid work and leave the unpaid passion projects for those who would do them anyway.
 
Last edited:
Anyways, for what it's worth I haven't voted either way because I hold subject the word 'amazing', which raises a whole other can of qualitative worms.
 
I disagree with your original assessment. I think "Primer" is a great movie and did set the bar of what you can do with a measly ten grand.
 
vcassel said:
Yeah, that's all perfectly reasonable.

I do take issue with the idea that knowledge and work automatically equate with compensation or that it can work in the negative, i.e. what I lost doing anything for free.
Click to expand...

LOL, that is not what I am saying. Errrrrr, how to accurately convey the ideas in my brain. No, knowledge and experience do not mean money as an automatic. But they sure help. Get paid for a job, and not deliver a decent work product......that client may never ask you again.

So, there is a double-edged blade here. As your experience and knowledge expand, the expectations do as well.
 
David Jimerson said:
I didn't say "no." I said "maybe," with creative bookkeeping assumptions (and depending on your threshold for "amazing" -- mine is pretty high).

But if the question is truly whether you can start with only you, your script, the clothes on your back, $10K in your pocket, and no connections in the production world, and make an AMAZING feature without having to spend a dime over that $10K -- if you can, you deserve to have a movie made about YOU. :)

The biggest factor in getting "amazing" work is getting amazing people. If you want amazing professionals for free (and you will need that if you plan to do a feature for $10K), what do you offer them for their time?
Click to expand...

I was just clicking the "view poll results" button and counting yellow names. :)
 
vcassel said:
Anyways, for what it's worth I haven't voted either way because I hold subject the word 'amazing', which raises a whole other can of qualitative worms.
Click to expand...

a valid point. ever since Kholi said that shawshank was amazing, i consider him dead to me.
 
Keylight:

One must not wave raw meat in front of the lions while wearing a bacon shirt.......please repeat. Mmmmm, now that I mention it, some bacon does sound good for dinner. Must stop posting while hungry.
 
A $10,000 budget would kill off your chances of using a Dolby 5.1 mix right away and you'd be stuck with stereo.
Can a film have a 2.0 mix and still be amazing?

I will say this however:
If you have the equipment and $10,000 and want to make an amazing film, make a documentary.
 
Kholi said:
Also, it hinges on who the filmmakers are: Gareth Edwards can pull MONSTERS off for 24K US... full length feature film with some pretty fantastic locations, vfx, etc. but I am very VERY sure that there were way too many people that said he could not do it.
Click to expand...

MONSTERS cost at least 400-500K. IMDB estimates it at 800K. 24K is incorrect. And it was BORING! Not to mention the tear from the girls eyes at the end looked like eye-drop time!

PRIMER was awesome though, FOLLOWING was good, though not MEMENTO great.
 
If Gone With the Wind was shot on a HVX for 10 grand I wouldn't bother watching it.

Let the hate mail begin...
 
Futchibon said:
MONSTERS cost at least 400-500K. IMDB estimates it at 800K. 24K is incorrect. And it was BORING! Not to mention the tear from the girls eyes at the end looked like eye-drop time!
Click to expand...
It could be argued that 2001 A Space Odyssey, Once Upon A Time in the West, Le Grand Bleu and Blade Runner are boring as well. They're still amazing masterpieces of cinema and among my top five favorite films ever.

It could also be argued that none of them would get distribution in their current form if they had been made today by a non established filmmaker.

But yeah you're right about the cost of Monsters.
 
:::scratches head::::

Did someone just say that Blade Runner was boring?

Explosions and car chases do not make something un-boring.

Relative consequences make something un-boring.

Blade Runner is not boring unless you find a strobe light "exciting", in which case there's no point in discussing things further.

(And yes, Blade Runner *in its current form* would most certainly get distribution. Only in today's market it might also actually win some academy awards)
 
Brian_Rice said:
:::scratches head::::

Did someone just say that Blade Runner was boring?

Explosions and car chases do not make something un-boring.

Relative consequences make something un-boring.

Blade Runner is not boring unless you find a strobe light "exciting", in which case there's no point in discussing things further.

(And yes, Blade Runner *in its current form* would most certainly get distribution. Only in today's market it might also actually win some academy awards)
Click to expand...
I don't find Blade Runner boring, but I've met a lot of people who do. My girlfriend does. She hates the film.
It's very likely my favorite movie, but I don't blame her for not liking it. It's slow moving, the story is subtle but also kind of vague. It's not a film for everyone, but then neither is The Empire Strikes Back. I love the hell out of Blade Runner, but I can understand how some might find it boring.

And I'm not entirely convinced that a no name first time filmmaker today could convince an established distributor to release the film as it is today without drastically changing the editing and music.
I think any distributor would say it's too slow and meandering, too vague and it doesn't really fit into a specific genre mold properly enough to find an audience.
 
Nope. It's a non-argument. You can say the script shot on a 10K budget might not find distribution, but the effects, set design and the acting and the directing...we can go on all day. There's no such thing as a movie of this scale not being picked up because a movie of this scale can't be made on an indie budget of any level. Non-argument.

And that's crazy about your girl. Does she just hate sci-fi in general? That I could understand. Some people just don't like to suspend disbelief in general.

But if she does like sci-fi, what in the world would be her version of a "good" sci-fi movie? Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen?

Please, whatever you do, don't show her Gattaca. You might just have to leave her when she ends up dissing it.

No joke, I actually stopped dating this girl years back because she would not agree that X-files was a good show. Because she didn't like it she then insisted that it wasn't a good show. I tried explaining to her that the writing, acting and production design was some of the best that was on television and that it didn't matter if she didn't like it, it was still a good show from a techinical standpoint. We went back and fourth for like two hours and she literally could not grasp the concept that something she didn't like could actually, in fact, be something that's well made and well executed. I broke up with her like three days later. She was hot, but completely friggin dull-witted. Even today when we talk on FB she still thinks that if she doesn't like something that means it's not good.

:::sigh:::

"I think of a man, and then I take away reason and accountability."
 
The fact is nothing will be loved/liked by everyone. That is comes down to "taste" and personal appeal. For me, romantic comedies, ehhhhhh. Not my cup of tea. But that does not mean they won't be a successful and well respected film.

I imagine, for the sake of this discussion, that we should set aside personal film tastes, and look at from the business angle.

Keylight, you brought up some interesting points about gear for the budget. Do you factor in depreciation to your budget? Never really thought about that, normally gear becomes a line item for rentals. But if you already own the gear.......and have shot many other things with that gear, does it go on your budget as an expense?
 
Last edited:
In theory you need only camera and cards/tapes to shoot ,cpu to edit so that would be the cost of your amazing movie - rest would be favours of friends,so in theory its ossible ,in practice its very hard to do.Script is everything.It depends what kind of storyline.You wont shoot back to the future wit this budget.It would have to be blair witch project type of movie.I hate blair witch,boring.Friend wanted to show it to me but it looked kike my holiday vids and i told him wtf and switched to transporter 1.That was proper movie.
Hilarious question BTW,you would need a lot of connections to backup such movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top