It's not about "amazing" from the point of view of a homeless person. It's about "amazing."
Do you think it's possible to shoot an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?
- Thread starter filmmakerguy
- Start date
It's not about "amazing" from the point of view of a homeless person. It's about "amazing."
vcassel
Veteran
The films he referenced were certainly career builders. It wasn't like those filmmakers were used to spending millions of dollars and then decided to go ultra low budget one day.
Eric Boellner
Well-known member
I haven't read this whole topic (posting while cutting audio takes), but the fact is you can make an amazing film for nothing out of pocket. I think others have mentioned this and probably expanded on it elsewhere, but you CAN'T make an amazing film without spending at least $100k in sweat equity - most of that coming from the people who volunteer on your film, or work for deferred pay (on the feature we just shot, we called it "monopoly money," and that's exactly what it is).
I've spent the last month working and living with a good friend of mine who wrote, produced and directed a feature thriller from concept pitch to production wrap in 2 months and 3 days. We shot for barely under $10k out of pocket (I believe total out-of-pocket expenses as of now, 2 weeks after production wrap, are roughly $13k). That said, I think the last time I heard the deferral amounts, it was something like $100k-180k. That's for a total cast/crew of about 20-25 all-in. Why so much? Because my friend isn't a rip-off producer who gets his people to work for free and then takes a s..tload of cash for himself as soon as the film sells. When it sells, the initial investment will be paid back and then deferrals will begin to be repaid.
Calix (my friend, the director) and I are gearing up to shoot another feature in the coming months for even less than that (unless, by some act of God, we get investments). We'll see how it turns out.
As others have said, "AMAZING" is a very subjective term. The only film I remember seeing that comes even close to the requirements of "amazing" and "shot on a dime" is Paranormal Activity, and even that took some post work and IIRC wasn't released until 2 years after Paramount bought it. (I haven't checked that fact, btw)
The point is, anything you make has a cost. If you have a great script, make it marketable - then find a f..k-load of friends who work in film, because you'll need every favor you can call whether you want to get investments or make it for $10k out-of-pocket. And always be aware that the stories of "Yeah, I made this amazing film for $250!" are bulls..t. There's always something more to the story, always another cost - if not, they might have failed to mention that it took them 3.5 years in their mother's basement to get it finished.
I've spent the last month working and living with a good friend of mine who wrote, produced and directed a feature thriller from concept pitch to production wrap in 2 months and 3 days. We shot for barely under $10k out of pocket (I believe total out-of-pocket expenses as of now, 2 weeks after production wrap, are roughly $13k). That said, I think the last time I heard the deferral amounts, it was something like $100k-180k. That's for a total cast/crew of about 20-25 all-in. Why so much? Because my friend isn't a rip-off producer who gets his people to work for free and then takes a s..tload of cash for himself as soon as the film sells. When it sells, the initial investment will be paid back and then deferrals will begin to be repaid.
Calix (my friend, the director) and I are gearing up to shoot another feature in the coming months for even less than that (unless, by some act of God, we get investments). We'll see how it turns out.
As others have said, "AMAZING" is a very subjective term. The only film I remember seeing that comes even close to the requirements of "amazing" and "shot on a dime" is Paranormal Activity, and even that took some post work and IIRC wasn't released until 2 years after Paramount bought it. (I haven't checked that fact, btw)
The point is, anything you make has a cost. If you have a great script, make it marketable - then find a f..k-load of friends who work in film, because you'll need every favor you can call whether you want to get investments or make it for $10k out-of-pocket. And always be aware that the stories of "Yeah, I made this amazing film for $250!" are bulls..t. There's always something more to the story, always another cost - if not, they might have failed to mention that it took them 3.5 years in their mother's basement to get it finished.
vcassel
Veteran
"Amazing" is always from a point of view.
Pretty much. The reason these things get made is just this, looking for opportunities to advance, not to stay at the same level. Even if the advancement from 10K is to 100K, that's still 10x the first budget.
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
Sure it's possible to get your career off the ground with limited resources and means, but the OP was talking about making an amazing feature. That's something else.
The key word being "amazing".
pulpfiction007
Veteran
My yes vote was only a yes IF the hypothetical film being made is being made for as cheap as possible because the people involved have NO other choice.....either they get to make a film by themselves or they don't make a film at all. So in understanding this they choose to shoot a project that CAN actually be pulled off for X amount of dollars. It seems that is what The Following ,Pi , and El Mariachi had in commom. They knew what they could get away with and where they could cut corners. They didn't need GREAT actors, just very dedicated ones. They didn't try to do something beyond the scope of the budget (Like a SCI FI FANTASY or SWEEPING 1800's epic (the costumes alone would blow the budget) They didn't have a ton of different main characters, etc.
I think it could be done by a group of friends who happen to share the same passion/vision - other than that kind of determination though and the odds would be stacked HIGH.
I think it could be done by a group of friends who happen to share the same passion/vision - other than that kind of determination though and the odds would be stacked HIGH.
You don't look at these things from the lowest point of view possible if you want it to be meaningful. I mean, the OP even gave examples of films which he didn't consider "amazing," so in terms of this topic, it would have to be better, at least, than those films. And those films weren't refrigerator boxes.
Eric Boellner
Well-known member
+1. The Following was pretty good, but despite it's great story the production value was so low that it never even made it to the point of being "great." The rest of the films in that list were even lower, IMHO.
That said, I think it's perfectly possible to make an amazing film for cheap. The only way to know for sure is to really just make a movie. "Amazing" isn't something you can determine before you decide to do the project - it takes till the time of release, when the eyes of the audience gauge your work, to really know if it worked. And that's no different whether you have $10k or $100mil.
keylight
Veteran
Love the premise up to this point. Where do I sign up?!
And I start to dislike the premise....
To this list of possible problems I would add, "stubs a toe or gets a splinter" - won't take much really...
Very good post.
One hopes part of the $10K goes to a good insurance policy.
vcassel
Veteran
I have to admit, I liked Rodriguez's book Rebel Without a Crew a hell of a lot more than I liked El Mariachi as a film. In fact, I didn't care for El Mariachi at all.
Anyways, I think all other things can be cheated in terms of cost effectiveness at the script level, i.e. location, number of character, props, etc. Writing a good script is tough; writing an "amazing" one is tougher still; writing an "amazing" script with very strict budget limitations is pushing it, but still free. Other things like equipment are a necessity, but as a film like Blue Valentine shows, you don't need a lot of equipment as long as you're factoring it in as a consideration from the get-go.
So the other major foundational column to consider is performance. Your "amazing" film needs to focus on characterization and performance. If I had to divide an actor's performance down to essentials on the spot, I'd chalk it up to talent/experience, dedication, and directing. $10,000 can only pay for so much talent and so much dedication, depending on how many principles you have--again, a script level budget consideration. So you better damn well be sure you can direct and goad and pull a performance out of someone. That's probably not going to happen unless you have some experience in the subject.
Again, I think this is all perfectly possible and becoming more and more possible in accordance with Moore's Law, but it's a 1 in million shot. It's not something I like to present with my fists on my sides in a defiant pose warding off anyone willing to give it a shot. People grow up with enough negativity bogging them down and the internet doesn't help as we get a lot more "you can't"s and "it'll suck"s as a blanket answer to anything. Also, the pros in this field are historically avaricious with the keys to the kingdom whether they want to admit to it or not and are quick to shoot down any notion they feel may threaten the current worth of their industry. But it is possible, and there's no reason not to make a go of it.
Anyways, I think all other things can be cheated in terms of cost effectiveness at the script level, i.e. location, number of character, props, etc. Writing a good script is tough; writing an "amazing" one is tougher still; writing an "amazing" script with very strict budget limitations is pushing it, but still free. Other things like equipment are a necessity, but as a film like Blue Valentine shows, you don't need a lot of equipment as long as you're factoring it in as a consideration from the get-go.
So the other major foundational column to consider is performance. Your "amazing" film needs to focus on characterization and performance. If I had to divide an actor's performance down to essentials on the spot, I'd chalk it up to talent/experience, dedication, and directing. $10,000 can only pay for so much talent and so much dedication, depending on how many principles you have--again, a script level budget consideration. So you better damn well be sure you can direct and goad and pull a performance out of someone. That's probably not going to happen unless you have some experience in the subject.
Again, I think this is all perfectly possible and becoming more and more possible in accordance with Moore's Law, but it's a 1 in million shot. It's not something I like to present with my fists on my sides in a defiant pose warding off anyone willing to give it a shot. People grow up with enough negativity bogging them down and the internet doesn't help as we get a lot more "you can't"s and "it'll suck"s as a blanket answer to anything. Also, the pros in this field are historically avaricious with the keys to the kingdom whether they want to admit to it or not and are quick to shoot down any notion they feel may threaten the current worth of their industry. But it is possible, and there's no reason not to make a go of it.
keylight
Veteran
No, to get the film in the can it costs $10K in cash and so much more in deferrals/donations. This thread asked a simple premise, can you make an AMAZING film for $10K. You have to count the value of everything that goes into the project, whether or not you've paid it out yet. That's the only way to know what it really costs. If you want know fantasize about making a film for less than the true cost, go ahead. But fantasies don't make reality.
Take David's down payment scenario a bit further. You pay $50,000 down and take out a $50,000 loan over 15 years. How much does the house cost you?
A. $50,000
B. $100,000
C. $121,171.43
D. Free - my rich uncle bought it for me.
I'll wait for your answer.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
I really think the key to doing this would start with a very talented individual/group of individuals who were very aware of their limitations. A lot of potential ideas would need to be discarded right off the bat. WW2 film with lots of battle scenes - uhhh NO. A Spy Thriller set in several locations - Nope. Lots of witty dialogue and a big cast - probably not a good idea either.
The script would be best being very minimal and not over eager. The concept in my opinion would be more important than anything ....meaning what can be done within those limitations that also plays well into the budget concerns.
If you look at Memento's basic concept and number of characters/number of locations...it looks as though it was conceived with a small budget/crew/cast in mind. Yes, it was a bigger budget film- but if I had to bet- I'd say maybe the Nolan bros thought they'd be slumming it.
Pi also had a very minimal script/locations/cast. DA knew his limitations very well...
The script would be best being very minimal and not over eager. The concept in my opinion would be more important than anything ....meaning what can be done within those limitations that also plays well into the budget concerns.
If you look at Memento's basic concept and number of characters/number of locations...it looks as though it was conceived with a small budget/crew/cast in mind. Yes, it was a bigger budget film- but if I had to bet- I'd say maybe the Nolan bros thought they'd be slumming it.
Pi also had a very minimal script/locations/cast. DA knew his limitations very well...
Brian_Rice
Carbonite Member
I'm losing the grasp of this argument.
Can a feature be shot on 10K?
People can say what they want about the post-production of Mosters and Mariachi and PA, but Blair Witch had SERIOUSLY no budget and could be shot today for nothing. Zombie Diaries same thing. Blinky Productions shot a re-worked script of Halloween and called it Methodic for about 800 bucks.
Okay, so movies CAN be shot for under 10K. Impossible to argue as the films actually exist that have been shot for under 10K. Done and buried.
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.
I already mentioned Glengarry Glenross. American Buffalo? Heck, you could probably manage to swing Suburbia if you know someone who works at a 7-eleven, or 8 Mile if you have some friends who rap-battle.
We're not talking SAG. It can be done, end of story.
Can a feature be shot on 10K?
People can say what they want about the post-production of Mosters and Mariachi and PA, but Blair Witch had SERIOUSLY no budget and could be shot today for nothing. Zombie Diaries same thing. Blinky Productions shot a re-worked script of Halloween and called it Methodic for about 800 bucks.
Okay, so movies CAN be shot for under 10K. Impossible to argue as the films actually exist that have been shot for under 10K. Done and buried.
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.
I already mentioned Glengarry Glenross. American Buffalo? Heck, you could probably manage to swing Suburbia if you know someone who works at a 7-eleven, or 8 Mile if you have some friends who rap-battle.
We're not talking SAG. It can be done, end of story.
If this is what you qualify as amazing, then throw me 5K and let's get it on.
I quote you, for agreement.
Barry_Green
Moderator
End of story? Not really...
Okay, let's look at it this way: let's say you shot "Methodic" for 800 bucks. And Lion's Gate came and bought it off you for $1,000 cash. Would you say that you made a $200 profit?
No? Why not?
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?
Okay, let's look at it this way: let's say you shot "Methodic" for 800 bucks. And Lion's Gate came and bought it off you for $1,000 cash. Would you say that you made a $200 profit?
No? Why not?
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?
Brian_Rice
Carbonite Member
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.
Brian_Rice
Carbonite Member
Um, yeah, I'd say I made 200 bucks. lol
I'm not sure about your second question. I mean, let's say it was 10K. Barry Green says I can have 10K but he's going to own the film.
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.
For 800 it's not worth it. If you're doing something for 800 bucks you might as well do it as a loss and at least retain full ownership of your creation.
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.