vcassel
Veteran
I make no judgements on that. Like I said before, I didn't vote because I take issue with a subjectively qualitative word like 'amazing'.
Do you think it's possible to shoot an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?
- Thread starter filmmakerguy
- Start date
I make no judgements on that. Like I said before, I didn't vote because I take issue with a subjectively qualitative word like 'amazing'.
vcassel
Veteran
A really good point and the main reason I don't think the industry will ever really recover to anyone's expectations.
Yes. They do. Which is exactly my point.
I have never paid an actor less than $100/day and I have never played the "invoice" game or the "deferments" game (or the "do this for credit" game). They got paid on the spot. Along with all the other crew. I wouldn't ask anyone to do anything for me for free. If I can't pay them in some way, even if in trade (which happens now and then), I won't do it.
But if I didn't pay them, I would always, always acknowledge their donated services/materials as part of the actual cost of making the film. To do otherwise is disrespectful.
keylight
Veteran
Jurassic Park's production budget almost certainly included a big fee for Spielberg. On top of the fee he earned up front, he also had a backend deal for a share of profits. Now, Spielberg being who he is, almost certainly got a percentage of dollar one (in other words, he got a percentage of the total revenue earned from the first dollar). Except for a few power players, back end deals are usually for a percentage of the Net (after all expenses are paid).
Example 1 - movie losses money:
Total cost: $1,000,000
Movie grosses: $700,000
Back end DOLLAR ONE GROSS participants (who have a total 30% share) get: $210,000
Back end NET participant earns: $0
$700,000
- $1,000,000
===========
- $300,000
Example 2 - movie "appears" to make money:
Total cost: $1,000,000
Movie grosses: $1,200,000
Back end DOLLAR ONE GROSS participants (who have a total 30% share) get: $360,000
Back end NET participant earns: $0
Why? Because the Dollar One Gross participants got their 30%, leaving just $840,000 remaining. But the total cost for the film was $1,000,000.
$840,000
- $1,000,000
===========
- $160,000
So while the movie "looked" profitable, it turns out it wasn't. What you end up paying someone on the back end DOES impact the profit. Back end deals are simply DEFERRED expenses.
IF the movie recovers some of its expenses, people with back end deals *might* get paid, depending on their deal. But make no mistake, that "pay" is an expense.
Every once in a while you'll read about someone in Hollywood suing a studio. You might remember this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/business/media/27movie.html
You might find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
Last edited:
Although I voted "no"...I did see an amazing feature film at a festival several years back that was shot for less than $10,000. It was a fascinating supernatural thriller called Firefly and shot on a DVX. There was quite a bit of buzz around it at the time, and it looked like it would get picked up for distribution. And then it didn't. And it vanished. You can't even get it on DVD. The director, seemingly exhausted by trying to make such a good film with so little support, vanished from the radar. I remember the audience I saw the film with was stunned by the whole thing. If it had been shot on an AF100 (which didn't exist then, obviously) maybe things would have been different. Or maybe not. When something is that good (even with the flaws--ie., it was shot in DV) and it still vanishes without even getting DVD distribution, then it makes you wonder what the point of the exercise would be. Self-distributing a DVD may have worked for him, I dunno. Probably not. You'd have to sell a lot of discs, and if it really was of interest to people, it would just end up on BitTorrent. Oh, and if you don't think Pi was amazing, then you wouldn't like this film either.
keylight
Veteran
You're able to use far fewer words than me to get a point across. If you write scripts, I bet they're a pleasure to shoot!
There's a major reason why people who can do decent on ultra tiny budgets get ushered into the system, not limited to the fact that if they can do it for 10K, then give them 1M and we can all make big money.
I think it's well understood that the only reason these small budget films get made is for a shot at larger budget and better productions.
People get moved up the chain frequently enough to back that up. Do good work then you get to do more good work.
Yup. I said that earlier.
There's a difference between doing something for a "minimal" budget and never paying for anything. How many times do you expect to be able to make something where everyone works for free (or for the hope of being paid "someday") and all materials are donated, especially when you're making money off it yourself?
That's pretty much like saying that the cost of a house is the down payment. Sure, it gets you in the door, but you're obligated to pay the rest. Every cent you pay is the cost of the house.
Speilberg's deferred payment is still payment. If you didn't agree to it, you wouldn't have gotten him, and you'd have no movie. So, it's a production cost.
From what you've been saying, that's what you're doing now. 1K doesn't pay anyone much of anything in terms of a feature.
That's not the point. If you get hired because you say you made a feature for 1K, and the company who hires you expects you to do it again for 1K, what are you going to do?
keylight
Veteran
For starters, you don't go around saying you made the film for $10,000. You say you spent $10,000 on the film and received tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of dollars worth of work, materials, and equipment by a really talented group of filmmakers. Of course, it helps if you know how much all that donated work, materials, and equipment would have cost you.....
In case you missed my reply to this when you posted it before, see #112 above.
A lot of this may not seem to make much sense until you really start to dig down into it.
If you pay them later, that count's as an expense, right? Say you spend $10K and sell the film for $20K. If you pay out $5K to people you are going to treat that as an expense, right? So the film cost $15K to make, not $10K.
Regardless of whether you sell the film, it cost you $15K to make ($10K cash, $5K in deferred payments).
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
There is something all of you seem to be forgetting.
Let's say you have an amazing screenplay, a team with their own equipment and the best unknown actors known to man plus two or three known faces who will all work for meals only for the honor of being in your amazing $10,000 feature film. Let's say you also got sponsors that will feed your crew (and give them coffee). You've got all your locations covered and cleared, you've got a finished complete storyboard and all you need to roll cameras.
You've got all these people, the PAs, the production designer, the make up artist, the cinematographers, the sound guys, all of them.
You've spent a year or two full time writing and perfecting the screenplay working against the best script advisor you could get. That's not unreasonable for an amazing screenplay, in fact it's necessary. During this time, you lived at home with your parents and they fed you and payed your bills. Or maybe your girlfriend. Because these things don't write themselves and let's face it you do need to eat. Or maybe you lived on instant noodles for a year.
Now comes the hard part. Here's the reality check for the optimists who still haven't shot their first feature.
You've got 50 scenes to shoot. If you want an amazing film I would say averaging more than two scenes per day is a bad idea. That means AT LEAST 25 days of shooting and weekends off for the cast and crew.
This is five weeks of shooting.
As anyone of you who's ever been on a set for a long time knows, people step on eachother's toes. Getting a full cast and crew to work for five weeks FOR FREE and STILL CARE enough to pull an amazing performance for the entire duration you would need a spaceship with the infinate improbability drive.
What do you do when a key player gets fed up? Gets a better offer? Runs out of money? Finds a girlfriend? Just stops caring about the project?
Stops showing up?
Add to this that you yourself will be so physically and psychologically exhausted from working under the conditions a $10,000 feature film demands that a lot of your own directing decisions will be far from amazing.
Making a feature is about more than collecting equipment and talent.
First make a feature. Then make an amazing feature. Then see if you can do it for less than $10,000.
Let's say you have an amazing screenplay, a team with their own equipment and the best unknown actors known to man plus two or three known faces who will all work for meals only for the honor of being in your amazing $10,000 feature film. Let's say you also got sponsors that will feed your crew (and give them coffee). You've got all your locations covered and cleared, you've got a finished complete storyboard and all you need to roll cameras.
You've got all these people, the PAs, the production designer, the make up artist, the cinematographers, the sound guys, all of them.
You've spent a year or two full time writing and perfecting the screenplay working against the best script advisor you could get. That's not unreasonable for an amazing screenplay, in fact it's necessary. During this time, you lived at home with your parents and they fed you and payed your bills. Or maybe your girlfriend. Because these things don't write themselves and let's face it you do need to eat. Or maybe you lived on instant noodles for a year.
Now comes the hard part. Here's the reality check for the optimists who still haven't shot their first feature.
You've got 50 scenes to shoot. If you want an amazing film I would say averaging more than two scenes per day is a bad idea. That means AT LEAST 25 days of shooting and weekends off for the cast and crew.
This is five weeks of shooting.
As anyone of you who's ever been on a set for a long time knows, people step on eachother's toes. Getting a full cast and crew to work for five weeks FOR FREE and STILL CARE enough to pull an amazing performance for the entire duration you would need a spaceship with the infinate improbability drive.
What do you do when a key player gets fed up? Gets a better offer? Runs out of money? Finds a girlfriend? Just stops caring about the project?
Stops showing up?
Add to this that you yourself will be so physically and psychologically exhausted from working under the conditions a $10,000 feature film demands that a lot of your own directing decisions will be far from amazing.
Making a feature is about more than collecting equipment and talent.
First make a feature. Then make an amazing feature. Then see if you can do it for less than $10,000.
Response to this, which isn't right or wrong, is that every situation is NOT the same nor the experiences.
Of course not, but it's something to consider, and something that someone who's never run a set probably doesn't even think about.
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
Right. Because you can make a film for less than $10,000, but the chances of it becoming great... if you're even counting them you're not gambling. You're dreaming.
You don't make a $10,000 movies because you want to make a great film. You do it because you want to make a film, period. Something to have on your resume that proves you can make films at all.
I always like comparing filmmaking with carpentry. Most mainstream non indie films here average about 3-5 million dollars.
I don't know what an average house costs to build, but could you build one for 0.002% of what the average cost is?
Yes.
Is it possible to build an "amazing" house for less than 0.002% of what the average house cost to build?
Would you live in a house like that?
I know, and I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right. I think a lot of the caution does come from experience, and you can't really get that any other way.
It's also good to know that sometimes it's a great experience and not as soul-sucking as a lot of people make it out to be.
vcassel
Veteran
Why would you want to make a sub $10,000 feature if you can show you can already make an 'amazing' feature for more than that and that you can raise more than that? I don't think anyone's advocating going for less money as a viable option. Everyone wants to put cash in the pockets and food in the stomachs of those who help them. The underlying point is how possible is it to get your career off the ground with limited resources and means.
vcassel
Veteran
If I were homeless? Sure.
I don't think that's what the OP was getting at, no:
Seems like he's talking about the possibility of it in general terms, not for any career-building purpose.
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
Oh I don't mean it's soul sucking. But people are people, you know? You work intensly together for a long time. There will be bickering. That's only natural.
That's what this work is like.