Do you think it's possible to shoot an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?
- Thread starter filmmakerguy
- Start date
Gareth himself has said that it cost him 24K US. The inflated numbers may be additional marketing budget or additional post costs after it was picked up. that happens often.
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
This may be true, but what I'm saying is not that the film won't be picked up at all. I'm saying in all likelyhood it wouldn't get picked up without drastic changes having been made to things like for instance editing and music and possibly reshoots.
But yeah it's a non-argument. The point was even though some might find MONSTERS boring, that doesn't change anything. A lot of amazing films are considdered boring by some as well.
She's just not into sci-fi. It's a matter of taste.
Gattaca rocks though. Love that film.
5.1 mix is for theatrical mostly, helps to get distributed as well. Majority of the planet can't take advantage of a 5.1 mix at home, 2.0 is fine. Regardless, if you know someone that knows someone, it can be done. I mean, technically, getting a 5.1 Mix on a budget of 30K for production and post is crazy sounding, right?
All of this comes down to who's making it, in the end. One person's 10K may look like 10K, another person's 10K like 100K. Yeah, that's burning favors, people coming to work for free, etc. That's an entirely different discussion. If you HAVE those favors and the working knowledge to do something on a shoestring then yeah.
Other filmmaker's mileage may vary.
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
Didn't Barry offer to fund someone's film back on page 2? Why are you knuckle-heads still wasting time in this thread 5 pages later when you should be writing?*
*I actually know the answer to this, but will let you guess.
*I actually know the answer to this, but will let you guess.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Only if it really is amazing. If it is, then yes I will totally back it. But anyone submitting for it had better be very sure that it really is something special.
keylight
Veteran
Absolutely appears on my budget. Oh, and I carry insurance on my gear. Pay just once a year but it is overhead so I have to account for it somehow. There are a lot of expenses that most people on this thread are ignoring. And while I will be happy to take an offer from someone to work for free on a project, they better be really good or they'll be replaced with someone I'll pay.
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
I've got plenty of stuff to pitch but no way would I do a feature film for $10,000.
MARIANNE cost $150,000, took two years of my life and that was tough as hell. Next time I'm not doing it for under $500,000!
keylight
Veteran
+1000 for proving my point exactly (even though you meant to argue against it).
At the end of the month, you WILL have electric and water bills to pay. Now you can choose how you look at those other bills. Your father sounds like he would assign some of the expenses to your food budget.
Say you're budgeting a film. You've got someone in charge of props. They're donating their time and all you need to do is cover expenses. So they drive around looking for super cheap props for the film. They get some at Goodwill. Others at Salvation Army. They've saved you a ton and only spent $100 on all the props. BUT they also spent $10 on gas. Add $10 to your bill. Now say they tell you not to worry about the gas, they've got it covered. The gas still cost someone $10. Did it come out of your pocket? No. But it DID add $10 to the total cost of making the film. It was just a cost that was covered by someone else.
I will ALWAYS include those kinds of things in my accounting. I'll first add the expense of $10 for gas, then subtract the cost as having been paid by a 3rd party. At the end of the day, I want to know how much it really cost to make the end product, NOT how much I spent. (I'll also add and then subtract the real labor cost for that person.)
Why?
The next time I start work on a project, I really need to know what it will cost me to make. If I'm bidding on a commercial job, I know that I'm not going to get free labor and materials.
From my perspective, it is unprofessional to ignore the true costs related to a project.
The question was:
No. Not if you're honest about your accounting.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Well, I think you can make a very good film for $10,000.00... but for AMAZING your are going to need AT LEAST one Cheerleader shower scene and a car chase, and that is gonna be real tough to shoot for $10 Gs!! :2vrolijk_08:
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
Keylight, you can do the budgeting on my films any time.
It's what I've said since the beginning of the thread.
Could be a good exercise for illustration of the point, being an actual script which takes place mostly in one room. Break that down. You have a cast of 12, no extras. How do you do it for $10K?
(Not meant as a challenge to Brandon personally, just as an exercise for anyone who wants to take a stab at it. A real-world example.)
But that 1K isn't the "actual" cost -- it's only what you'll be on the hook to pay for.
If your grandfather gives you a brand new Volvo, that doesn't mean it was free. It only means you didn't pay for it yourself.
Or, if your rent is 1500 and your parents give you 500, it doesn't make your "actual" rent 1000.
If your grandfather gives you a brand new Volvo, that doesn't mean it was free. It only means you didn't pay for it yourself.
Or, if your rent is 1500 and your parents give you 500, it doesn't make your "actual" rent 1000.
Darky Mikado
Active member
Yes, but in what way is that relevant to the one on the receiving end? I'm still getting a free car; regardless whether the cost was ten grand or a million. "Actual cost" I'd think is a misnomer, as it implies something that isn't true (that'd be that a car has an actual intrinsic value; which it hasn't, unless we're talking about labor and parts, in which case, yeah, that's true).
What is relevant in the end is what the filmmaker ends up paying when all is said and done; everything else is a mere technicality ("Well, technically my salary should be xyz"). Of course you shouldn't expect someone to donate there time twice in the same way, that'd be a foolish thing to count on, but at the same time that donated time has been accepted for free - there is no meaningful way to say that it really holds some monetary value that has just been happily donated. If you work for free your offering a service that comes at no cost to the film - if it comes with a cost to you, then that is still completely irrelevant to the film's budget!
Technically no film is ever made accounting for everything in the budget; such exact math just isn't possible when you're dealing with hundreds of people and an immense amount of equipment and expendables. A budget is just a rough approximation of how much monetary support is needed to successfully complete the production. If something has been readily provided for then why on earth should you feel the need for it to be in the budget? There will be no money going towards that end so I'd assume accounting for it would only make sense if you're afraid the person in question might chose not to offer their services for free - but in that case why aren't they already on the payroll? Either way, it makes no sense to include it unless you're planning for future productions (which will need new estimates anyways, so...huh?). I feel like I'm missing something pretty important here...
Lliam Worthington
Active member
Don't think the sarcastic "Genius" line does your argument any favours Giriki.
Keylight is just being realistic and accurate imo. In "real" terms the answer is obviously a no.
But now the question has instead become - if you do it or get it for free, should it be considered as part of your cost for making the film?
I like this question... It's one I've bandied about in my head and I have done costings before for both reasons as Zero budget marketing hype is something that can be useful. It can also however be dangerous, and having a, "real" cost analysis of the film done can be of great use depending on who your dealing with and what your trying to achieve.
However when it comes to the specific question... The parameters are too loose. Perhaps, can you make an AMAZING film with just 10K's worth of equipment??
Otherwise, it is as Giriki says, if your James Cameron, you can probably make a film with an actual production value greater than American Beauty for zero dollars.
If it's 10K in equipment? I believe incredibly these days, it's a yes given an incredible script with a no budget premise and amazing performances.
But budget scales of above vs below the line expenditure can really tell you everything you need to know about the difficulty/value/cost of getting quality performance, direction and story...
So yep, there's only one fair answer as has been given =numerous times, nothing is "impossible" but it's highly improbable.
NOTE: LOVED that line way back in the thread about - "The real question is whether could you make a feature in the time spent reading thread slike this... or whatever it was... lmao. Even as I'm clicking on the thread I'm going, comeon what are you doing, surely there's something better iyoucould be doing toward your project right now...
and then your typing...
But hey, a worthwhile thread if you have an "AMAZING" single location, two hander script that you can send Barry.
Keylight is just being realistic and accurate imo. In "real" terms the answer is obviously a no.
But now the question has instead become - if you do it or get it for free, should it be considered as part of your cost for making the film?
I like this question... It's one I've bandied about in my head and I have done costings before for both reasons as Zero budget marketing hype is something that can be useful. It can also however be dangerous, and having a, "real" cost analysis of the film done can be of great use depending on who your dealing with and what your trying to achieve.
However when it comes to the specific question... The parameters are too loose. Perhaps, can you make an AMAZING film with just 10K's worth of equipment??
Otherwise, it is as Giriki says, if your James Cameron, you can probably make a film with an actual production value greater than American Beauty for zero dollars.
If it's 10K in equipment? I believe incredibly these days, it's a yes given an incredible script with a no budget premise and amazing performances.
But budget scales of above vs below the line expenditure can really tell you everything you need to know about the difficulty/value/cost of getting quality performance, direction and story...
So yep, there's only one fair answer as has been given =numerous times, nothing is "impossible" but it's highly improbable.
NOTE: LOVED that line way back in the thread about - "The real question is whether could you make a feature in the time spent reading thread slike this... or whatever it was... lmao. Even as I'm clicking on the thread I'm going, comeon what are you doing, surely there's something better iyoucould be doing toward your project right now...
and then your typing...
But hey, a worthwhile thread if you have an "AMAZING" single location, two hander script that you can send Barry.
It's relevant because someone has to pay for it.
OK, go tell all your people that the time and material they're donating is worthless, or has no value.
It's not a question of whether or not it's in the budget. It's question of what things actually cost.
What you're missing is the actual point -- the question is, "can I make an AMAZING feature for $10,000"? The answer is, not if you don't have massive donations of time and stuff.