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

[vcassel]

It's relevant because someone has to pay for it.

Apparently not the production in the case of this general hypothetical. So no, it's not 'dishonest' as some have implied not to include it in the budget.

OK, go tell all your people that the time and material they're donating is worthless, or has no value.

'Value' in this case is internalized. Far be it for me or anyone to dictate the terms by which anyone values their work and in what way. Everyone has to figure that out for themselves. But if they're putting the effort into working for free, I'd have to assume that they've attached some sort of internalized value in doing so.

The answer is, not if you don't have massive donations of time and stuff.

We haven't been working under that assumption this entire time?

 

[David Jimerson]

Apparently not the production in the case of this general hypothetical. So no, it's not 'dishonest' as some have implied not to include it in the budget.

It is when you claim that a movie only cost X amount, or that X was the "actual" cost. If you say "all I spent on it was X," that's something different, but that was never the question of the thread.

'Value' in this case is internalized. Far be it for me or anyone to dictate the terms by which anyone values their work and in what way. Everyone has to figure that out for themselves. But if they're putting the effort into working for free, I'd have to assume that they've attached some sort of internalized value in doing so.

As I said, go tell them that. "Your time is worth nothing." See what reaction you get.

We haven't been working under that assumption this entire time?

It's not assumed in the original question, no. The question wasn't "can I make an amazing feature with me personally spending only $10,000?" And it certainly isn't immediately implied by someone who says "sure you can."

In fact, if you do make the assumption from the start, the entire discussion becomes absurd from the start, because you CAN make anything for "free" if all you're worried about is what comes out of your own pocket. But in that case, naming any number is just as valid. "Can I make an amazing feature film for $1?"

If the discussion is to have any meaning at all, then you need to acknowledge what things actually cost, not what you'll personally be on the hook for.

 

[CallaghanFilms]

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.)

Assuming you have a script that good that has not been bought/optioned/fought over; yet still is somehow miraculously brought to the attention of today's equivalent of Henry Fonda plus some of the best character actors/heavies in the business. This onscreen talent then agrees to do the feature at the SAG exception waiver minimum of $100/day...

 

[vcassel]

As I said, go tell them that. "Your time is worth nothing." See what reaction you get.

You're the one saying this. Why would I tell anyone that? I know the reaction I'd get, not being the droolingly stupid sort. What their time is worth is their deal and internalized by them, whether it's experience, credit, or done as a personal favor. But if it didn't have a monetary value assigned to it from the beginning, then that work doesn't have a monetary value period. That's reality, not creatively assumptive accounting.

 

[keylight]

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

Ok, so let's say you make your AMAZING film for $10K. And because it's so AMAZING, it gets picked up by a distributor who buys it. Let's say you get $100,000 for it. You've got a couple of choices. You can pay something to everyone who worked on it, or you can say thanks and keep it all for yourself.

If you keep it all for yourself, you just cost yourself a ton of ill will and earned a bad reputation. If you end up paying people, should that payout be considered when calculating the cost of making the film? Of course it should. And if you're paying people, you'll probably pay the most valuable people first/the largest amounts.

In reality, you've probably made a ton of "back end" deals with people - promises to pay if the film ever turns a profit. So the decision as to whether or not you pay upon receiving money is mute. Likewise, if you've followed my approach, which is to account for every expense, whether or not you paid out of pocket, you're going to repay all of your expenses BEFORE you ever divide the profits. So the camera you own and used that you normally rent out at $200/day? Well you either counted it as an expense on your books or you didn't. If you did, then you get to reimburse yourself for that rental; if you didn't, then you don't. (Of course, you'll need to reimburse people on their expenses based on whatever agreements you may have.)

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.

You are wrong about this. Certain people will get have petty cash to work with, but they still submit receipts and prepare petty cash reports. The film's accountant is going to categorize and record every expense. There's a reason Hollywood films are almost never profitable. It's because they keep track of every expense and make sure that every dollar earned goes to pay expenses. $20M on a marketing budget for the latest studio release? A huge chunk is spend buying ad time during shows the studio produces. Transfer of money from one balance sheet to another. Then the movie comes out and the first $20M goes to the distributor for the marketing campaign. Oh, and they take there fee. Then others take their fees. All of these are expenses that go to the total cost of the film. When all is said and done, people with back end deals never make any money.

I feel like I'm missing something pretty important here...

There are things that you're missing, but that's not unusual. There is a lot that goes into film accounting and financing. There are a number of books on the subject that might interest you:

The Big Picture: Money and Power in Hollywood
The Hollywood Economist
Film Production Management 101

The reality is that for a $10,000 budget you won't have many people working on the film. You'll probably be doing most, if not all, of the spending. How you choose to keep track (or not) of the money is up to you. But if you've promised to pay people on the backend in exchange for their "free" participation on the film (most film-makers will do this) then you really do need to keep track of everything, including how much their participation would have cost you had you paid them up front. To me, that's what this all comes down to.

 

[Darky Mikado]

It's relevant because someone has to pay for it.

Yes, and to that person it is relevant - to me, it is not. Same reason I'd'nt ask a friend who gave me a birthday present what the actual cost was. Actual cost is what was paid. End of story.

OK, go tell all your people that the time and material they're donating is worthless, or has no value.

*sigh*
To the production, the cost - expenditure if you will - for their services rendered was nil. None. That is all. I don't assign arbitrary numbers to what they *should* have been paid. For that I have contracts and real world numbers nailed down so everyone knows exactly what they're getting - including me and my budget.

I always value anyone who takes the time to show up and help on set and I especially value donations of equipment and locations - but that does not make me include it as "real costs"; as far as I'm concerned it has no bearing on what the movie actually cost as there was no expenditure.

It's not a question of whether or not it's in the budget. It's question of what things actually cost.

So now we're talking about different things I see...
Well, in that case I really should account for the camera, lenses, mattebox, gears, FF and anything else my DP has because - you know - that cost him cash at some point. Even if the only thing that is really relevant to the film is what his or hers services will cost - which is decided beforehand. Whether that be 100$/hour or 0$.

Look, what does it matter what things 'actually cost'? The discussion is about a 10K movie. I assumed that we meant a movie for a 10K budget. In which case, 'real costs' become irrelevant (unless, again, that is how you count your budget - which I don't).

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.

The answer is 'yes' and apparently with the addendum: '...depending on how you count your budget.'

 

[David Jimerson]

You're the one saying this.

In what possible way am I saying that?

Any time you say or imply that someone's donated time doesn't figure into the actual cost of making a film, you are telling them that their time is worthless.

 

[vcassel]

If you spend 10k on a feature, doesn't that automatically mean that you made a feature for 10k?

That's what's so exasperating about this discussion. You have $10,000 or under in actual cash and you take it and you make a movie with it. What you're actually spending, what you actually have to spend--or at least that's the OP's setup. Where is all this imaginary spending coming from?

 

[vcassel]

In what possible way am I saying that?

Any time you say or imply that someone's donated time doesn't figure into the actual cost of making a film, you are telling them that their time is worthless.

No, that's what you're telling me that I'm telling them.

 

[keylight]

Why don't we go ahead and throw in the price of the shirts on the backs of the talent and crew while we're at it? How about the cost of construction of the street we're shooting on? etc., etc., ad nauseum.

So there you are, setting up to shoot on location in downtown L.A. when a cop comes up and asks to see your permit. You don't have one. You pack up and leave. But maybe it's early Sunday morning and there are no cops around. You get all your shooting done and leave before nobody notices. You've saved the cost of a permit. Do you record the cost of a permit that you didn't buy? Of course not. But you didn't get the permit for free either. But you did get your shot, so congratulations!

 

[David Jimerson]

If you spend 10k on a feature, doesn't that automatically mean that you made a feature for 10k?

No. It means it's all you paid for. That doesn't mean it's what it cost to make it.

Craft services alone on a feature (which is something with a real tangible cost, not someone "internalized" view of their own worth) will run more than 10K, easy. Just because you had it donated doesn't mean it doesn't cost that.

 

[vcassel]

So there you are, setting up to shoot on location in downtown L.A. when a cop comes up and asks to see your permit. You don't have one. You pack up and leave. But maybe it's early Sunday morning and there are no cops around. You get all your shooting done and leave before nobody notices. You've saved the cost of a permit. Do you record the cost of a permit that you didn't buy? Of course not. But you didn't get the permit for free either. But you did get your shot, so congratulations!

Obviously we could both drown this discussion in as many hypotheticals that we could dream up.

 

[keylight]

OK, go tell all your people that the time and material they're donating is worthless, or has no value.

touché

 

[CallaghanFilms]

No. It means it's all you paid for. That doesn't mean it's what it cost to make it.

Craft services alone on a feature (which is something with a real tangible cost, not someone "internalized" view of their own worth) will run more than 10K, easy. Just because you had it donated doesn't mean it doesn't cost that.

I'm fairly sure the original question refers to $10K that was paid for. Any donated time/materials will be compensated if and when this "amazing" film turns a profit. That can also be assumed. Otherwise that "amazing" filmmaker who made that "amazing" film will have an amazingly tarnished reputation.

Assuming we are talking "paid for" 10K budget, I still say a resounding NO to any chance of being better than "good".

 

[David Jimerson]

No, that's what you're telling me that I'm telling them.

Someone donating their time is no different from someone giving you cash. If you took the cash and put it toward the movie, yet still claimed that the "actual cost" of the movie is what you personally spent from your own coffers, then you're saying they didn't give you anything. It's the same thing.

 

[David Jimerson]

I'm fairly sure the original question refers to $10K that was paid for.

Well, not really. It was "do you think it's possible to shoot" for $10K. If you say "yes," then you absolutely have to include the asterisk of needing massive donations, because if you're paying for everything, no, a $10K feature ain't gonna happen. (You literally would have a better shot at using the $10K for lotto tickets.)

Any donated time/materials will be compensated if and when this "amazing" film turns a profit.

Deferred spending is still spending, though.

That can also be assumed. Otherwise that "amazing" filmmaker who made that "amazing" film will have an amazingly tarnished reputation.

And that's the rub, isn't it? What does it get you to tell people X movie only "cost" 1K when the real cost (i.e., if you had paid even fair minimum value for everything) was much higher? It's not like you're going to be able to do it again, or bring in a feature for that little for someone who hires you to do it.

Assuming we are talking "paid for" 10K budget, I still say a resounding NO to any chance of being better than "good".

I would mostly agree, but I won't discount it entirely.

 

[vcassel]

Someone donating their time is no different from someone giving you cash. If you took the cash and put it toward the movie, yet still claimed that the movie only cost what you personally spent from your own coffers, then you're saying they didn't give you anything. It's the same thing.

This is all tengential. It doesn't matter what I claim it costs after the fact. The point is I have $10,000 or less of actual money to spend. Never mind whether it's amazing or not at the moment. I'll claim it cost a $billion if it makes people happy. In fact Hollywood inflates their budgets all the time. But the point is still start with $10,000, make a movie with it.

 

[CallaghanFilms]

But to be an "amazing" film you would've had an A-Team above and below the line. That cost mucho pesos.

Theoretically, too much "paid for" dollars to raise up-front. (Assuming the 10K is the fence you're riding on, cowboy.)

Hence the "deferred".

 

[Gary Huff]

And that's the rub, isn't it? What does it get you to tell people X movie only "cost" 1K when the real cost (i.e., if you had paid even fair minimum value for everything) was much higher? It's not like you're going to be able to do it again, or bring in a feature for that little for someone who hires you to do it.

And if you can make an amazing movie for $10k, why should anyone ever spend any more for you to make the next one?

 

[David Jimerson]

Well, it's not really tangible cost.

No, it is. The food costs something. Perhaps you didn't pay for it yourself, but it cost something.

Look, why are you even bothering to spend that 1K at all? Why not just get everything else donated by someone else and say the movie cost 0?