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

[David Jimerson]

I know you said you give up, but I totally disagree. What you're talking about is tax accounting 101, not reality.

Here we have a basic math equation:

If Joe Smith shoots Walter Doe dead with a 12 gauge shotgun, how much did it cost Joe to kill Walter?

Shotgun + Bullets = Answer.

Joe Smith ended up getting life in prison and 20K in court fees, but the original answer stays the same.

Shotgun + Bullets = Walter Doe dead (or, film finished)

Whatever happens after that has nothing whatsoever to do with Walter Doe being dead or your 10K film being finished.

That isn't what he's talking about.

He's talking about what needs to be paid to people for their part in the production of the film. Even if it takes place after production, it's still a production cost, because you agreed to it as a condition to them participating. No participation, no film.

If you build a house on loan and put a down payment in, the house gets built, and you get into the house -- but you continue to pay on it. That's the cost of the house.

 

[Barry_Green]

Here's the missing piece that nobody seems to be getting -- those people who are donating their services, are financing your film for you. You're financing it on their backs.

Let's say Kholi normally charges $400/day for his services. You're shooting 20 days. That's $8,000. He decides to do it for free. Is it truly "free?" Well, let's look at it another way -- what if, instead of Kholi "donating" his time to the project, what if I gave you $8,000 and you spent it to hire Kholi. That's really a zero-sum transaction, so it all nets out to the same thing, but you can see that there was a debt that in one case was paid, in the other case it was ignored. But the obligation and the value is still there.

So, next question -- let's say you raised $800 for your film. And I donated $5,000 to you to help you make it. And you spent all of it, you hired people and bought food and spent all $5,800. Do you tell people "this film cost me $800 to make"? Is that an honest portrayal of it?

If not -- why does my donation get valued, but Kholi's didn't?

 

[CallaghanFilms]

That isn't what he's talking about.

He's talking about what needs to be paid to people for their part in the production of the film. Even if it takes place after production, it's still a production cost, because you agreed to it as a condition to them participating. No participation, no film.

If you build a house on loan and put a down payment in, the house gets built, and you get into the house -- but you continue to pay on it. That's the cost of the house.

Not trying to add to the

but you wouldn't try selling that house on the day you moved in (well, maybe you would, but you would definitely try selling the film "house" on day one...)

 

[David Jimerson]

Here's the missing piece that nobody seems to be getting -- those people who are donating their services, are financing your film for you. You're financing it on their backs.

Let's say Kholi normally charges $400/day for his services. You're shooting 20 days. That's $8,000. He decides to do it for free. Is it truly "free?" Well, let's look at it another way -- what if, instead of Kholi "donating" his time to the project, what if I gave you $8,000 and you spent it to hire Kholi. That's really a zero-sum transaction, so it all nets out to the same thing, but you can see that there was a debt that in one case was paid, in the other case it was ignored. But the obligation and the value is still there.

So, next question -- let's say you raised $800 for your film. And I donated $5,000 to you to help you make it. And you spent all of it, you hired people and bought food and spent all $5,800. Do you tell people "this film cost me $800 to make"? Is that an honest portrayal of it?

If not -- why does my donation get valued, but Kholi's didn't?

I brought that up earlier -- it's not being missed, it's just being DISmissed as unimportant to the question.

 

[David Jimerson]

Not trying to add to the

but you wouldn't try selling that house on the day you moved in (well, maybe you would, but you would definitely try selling the film "house" on day one...)

But you still have to pay off the loan even if you sell it immediately.

 

[CallaghanFilms]

Right, but I'm just testing the weight limit of your analogy bridge...




Edit:
You buy a house as a purchase. You make a film to make money. You don't do it for art's sake or for the art of art...you do it because that's how you want to make a living.
And please don't any-friggin-one mention that some people "make a living" by flipping houses...we all know that is an exception in the big scheme of things.

 

[Eric Boellner]

Here's the missing piece that nobody seems to be getting -- those people who are donating their services, are financing your film for you. You're financing it on their backs.

Let's say Kholi normally charges $400/day for his services. You're shooting 20 days. That's $8,000. He decides to do it for free. Is it truly "free?" Well, let's look at it another way -- what if, instead of Kholi "donating" his time to the project, what if I gave you $8,000 and you spent it to hire Kholi. That's really a zero-sum transaction, so it all nets out to the same thing, but you can see that there was a debt that in one case was paid, in the other case it was ignored. But the obligation and the value is still there.

So, next question -- let's say you raised $800 for your film. And I donated $5,000 to you to help you make it. And you spent all of it, you hired people and bought food and spent all $5,800. Do you tell people "this film cost me $800 to make"? Is that an honest portrayal of it?

If not -- why does my donation get valued, but Kholi's didn't?

Well said. Don't some filmmakers/crew give discounted invoices when volunteering their time? I think someone earlier in the topic mentioned doing this, and I think it's a good way to think about things.

 

[David Jimerson]

Right, but I'm just testing the weight limit of your analogy bridge...


Edit:
You buy a house as a purchase. You make a film to make money. You don't do it for art's sake or for the art of art...you do it because that's how you want to make a living.
And please don't any-friggin-one mention that some people "make a living" by flipping houses...we all know that is an exception in the big scheme of things.

It doesn't matter why it's done; it's about what constitutes the "cost" of doing so.

 

[filmmakerguy]

I've been following the thread and reading everyone's comments. Everyone brings up some excellent points. I think in many ways you guys agree with one another but don't want to admit it.

I think most people arguing over the $10k not really being $10k at a certain point are right when it crosses a point of it simply not being "fair". What I mean by that, is it's not "fair" that you say your budget is $10k when you got a well known b-list actor and a DP with a Red that usually charges $400 a day. I think it can cross a line where you're tapping into connections that very few people have access to.

However on the other side of the coin, if you have $10k and nothing more, and you do everything you can to make it happen under those circumstances, then yes, you did a feature for $10k. People can speculate on in kind/donations all day long, however that is the importance of having a good producer on your project. I've done a feature before for under $10k, we got locations for free, we got a lot of stuff for free that usually costs money. The difference is not having to pay, the difference is if anyone wants money we keep looking until we find someone who doesn't. It will never cost more because we don't have anymore to pay. If we can't find it for free or cheap, we will re-write it from a coffee shop to a diner or whatever it is we can get for free. If we can't get a particular actor for what we're offering, we go with another. This is how movies are done, from the ultra low budget to the big budget films. So I think people are arguing over things that are quite irrelevant because you either get it for that or you go elsewhere or you go without. That's the reality of it.

However I do agree with the extreme, that it can reach a point where clearly you are getting special treatment. You either have an "in" with someone or you are connected and it can reach a point of not being fair. It's then not fair that I say my feature costs $10k when we really scraped to get it done for that, whereas you say yours cost $10k, yet you had a friend with a Red and an amazing DP with $10k+ of professional lights, and you had b-list actors that people recognize, and on and on because of your connections. At the end of the day, you can say it cost you $10k, but people will think you're full of it, so in the end it's almost like the people decide on if you crossed that line of reasonable favors or not. So I think both sides in turn are right, it just depends on the extremes of the situation. Both are using extreme points to prove they are right and both are right with those extreme points, so it just depends on the circumstances. Just my perspective on it.

 

[Kholi]

Here's the missing piece that nobody seems to be getting -- those people who are donating their services, are financing your film for you. You're financing it on their backs.

Let's say Kholi normally charges $400/day for his services. You're shooting 20 days. That's $8,000. He decides to do it for free. Is it truly "free?" Well, let's look at it another way -- what if, instead of Kholi "donating" his time to the project, what if I gave you $8,000 and you spent it to hire Kholi. That's really a zero-sum transaction, so it all nets out to the same thing, but you can see that there was a debt that in one case was paid, in the other case it was ignored. But the obligation and the value is still there.

So, next question -- let's say you raised $800 for your film. And I donated $5,000 to you to help you make it. And you spent all of it, you hired people and bought food and spent all $5,800. Do you tell people "this film cost me $800 to make"? Is that an honest portrayal of it?

If not -- why does my donation get valued, but Kholi's didn't?

Was just thinking about this after your other post last night. My day rate's typically 750 or more to shoot, with that I also bring connections to a crew and gear. So, yeah, factor that in and you've got a larger budget than what's being reported!

Low budget numbers, I think, are typically just chess pieces you can (if you want) use to get eyes on a project that otherwise wouldn't have gotten seen. All time should be valued somehow, and factored into the equation so that everyone benefits beyond simply making it happen.

 

[Chris Adler]

If you're shooting a film with the INTENT of making money from it but you're asking for volunteers and donations you better damn well be signing contracts with everyone you hustle into working for you, and they should be paid BEFORE you ever see a dime yourself.

 

[KyleProhaska]

Yea I agree there's no standard to determining what the REAL budget is of a project. Do you base it on actual dollars spent or what the dollars would be? From an indie-distribution perspective you don't want to tell any distributor your film costs $10,000 to make, because they're going to cut you a crappy deal (but great for the dollars you spent). The few years of work however are never paid for. Your $10,000 film really was a $100,000 film or more if you likely added up typical rates for each person volunteering their time.

If I actually paid myself for all the jobs I did on my last feature over 3 years time it would've cost many hundreds of thousands instead of under $100,000. I'm just guessing of course but basically I worked for free for YEARS...my film really wasn't under $100,000 as far as I'm concerned, but on paper...sure.

 

[pulpfiction007]

Sorry to sound like a broken record - but you would not be able to do things in any kind of conventional way (as others have illustrated). The cost for getting "amazing" sound and "amazing" cinematogrophy, "amazing lighting" are just too high - unless as other members have stated, someone is not being paid fairly for their contribution.

So, as I stated earlier, it would need to be made by a collective core group who all understood the limitations and work involved and were doing it for the love of the art and the same goal. You could have decent sound, decent images,decent actors...and in the end what would make it amazing, is the concept and/or script. Delusions of the type of film that could be done would derail it from the beginning. It would have to be a very stripped down film in scope/cast/locations and this would need to be hashed out before anything else.

I think budgets get out of control on a lot of projects, because all of this is overlooked. Example - Some local guys I know are doing a very low budget film...I asked: what's the premise?
The screenwriter says: It's kind of a Sci Fi thriller etc. etc. After hearing all the basic ideas and the number of characters in it...I thought - Good luck on that one!
My point - Know your limitations...and if possible let them help shape a very focused idea.

 

[CallaghanFilms]

Sigh.
So should we send an open letter back in time to cats like Ed Burns and Rodriguez and even Kevin Smith
(who so influenced us back in the early 90's with what they did with just under or just over 20 grand in the pre-digital world)?


Dear Ed, Rob and Too Fat For 23:

You are all poo pooing liars.

Thanks for nuttin'.

Sincerely,

Us
(The Real Budget Squad)

 

[vcassel]

Sigh.
So should we send an open letter back in time to cats like Ed Burns and Rodriguez and even Kevin Smith
(who so influenced us back in the early 90's with what they did with just under or just over 20 grand in the pre-digital world)?


Dear Ed, Rob and Too Fat For 23:

You are all poo pooing liars.

Thanks for nuttin'.

Sincerely,

Us
(The Real Budget Squad)

Poor Kevin Smith. However aesthetically displeasing his films may be to some, I feel the critics regularly cross the line with him into actually wanting to shame him for being a creative being. Perhaps he's an easy target because he doesn't remove himself from the audience so much and is much more of an everyman. I suppose if I didn't have the tools to deal with it and didn't know better, I'd allow that sort of shaming to scar my creative inner child enough to quit, too. It reminds me of Rodriguez being attacked as a liar for his reported budget and how he went about filming El Mariachi. I think every one of us would do well to remember that the naysayers who use these sort of shaming techniques and call it out as ego are doing so as a self-denial mechanism. It's easier to put someone else's creativity and go-to optimism down than to be put on the spot by it and have no excuse to not try.

 

[vcassel]

Someone has to pay for the guy who picks up the letter from the box. And for the guy who delivers the letter.

I guess it also depends which market and which union we'd like to imagine they work for.

 

[pulpfiction007]

Sigh.
So should we send an open letter to cats like Ed Burns and Rodriguez and even Kevin Smith (who so influenced us back in the early 90's with what they did with just under or just over 20 grand in the pre-digital world)?


Dear Ed, Rob and Too Fat For 23:

You are all poo pooing liars.

Thanks for nuttin'.

Sincerely,

Us
(The Real Budget Squad)

I am not saying that it can't be done - far from it. I'm just saying if you look at the examples of very low budget films where at least a good chunk of people would agree they're "amazing" - They all have one thing in common - The scope is narrowed either through having a small cast or limited locations/ limited effects/limited stunts etc.
Clerks - Very few locations. The sound wasn't great. The actors were limited. His story won with script and the actors fit their roles very well.
El Mariachi - The actors were not challenged with a busy script...it was very bare bones. The story and how it played out is the amazing part.
Pi - Very few locations. Very few actors overall. A sparse script and the actors fit their roles. esp. the protagonist and his mentor. Concept is the "amazing" part.
The Brothers McMullen - This one is a tad bigger budget wise (and I think a case where many people donated time). They filmed mostly at Burns' family home, which was a nice luxury to have such a great location. His story and authentic dialogue are the winners here along with some capable actors including Burns himself. (He wrote/acted what he knew)

I again say that I believe it can be done - I just think one needs to be realistic about what they can get on to the screen with limited budgets- and that a limited budget can actually help to create a more focused effort.

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Anyone know how much the cast of Clerks was paid?

 

[pulpfiction007]

Anyone know how much the cast of Clerks was paid?

Many of them were family members and childhood friends and the store where Smith actually worked was used for the central location. One scene (the wake) was shelved because of probable cost. This is what I'm saying....work within feasiblity and an amazing film can be made for $10,000. Kevin Smith didn't try to make something like Gangs of New York, or Titanic.... neither did R. Rod.
They kept it simple.

 

[Chris Adler]

Why are Clerks and El Mariachi being used as examples of "Amazing Movies"??? They aren't amazing. It may be amazing that they were produced for a low budget, but neither movie is amazing compared against other movies. In fact, they're anything BUT amazing when you look at production value, etc.