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

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

  • Total voters
    157
Not to be outdone by the King, the "no" camp attempts a comeback of their own. Yes camp still leads; 4 mods to 2.

HG_Elvis_SuspiciousMinds_Other.jpg
 
Film Budgeting: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Accept Studio Accounting

Film Budgeting: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Accept Studio Accounting

For anyone who is still interested, I would love feedback on posts 1 - 4 at the Film Budgeting: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Accept Studio Accounting thread. Does it help explain how and why the studio accounting approach is the one to take? What did I miss? And what could be said better?

I am also working on an Excel budgeting worksheet for those who care. It'll throw it up on the other thread when it's done.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
I'm gonna stay in the 10K camp

It can so be done.

blah blah with all thing being equal and on par and nailed ...... DER NO s**t SHERLOCK

The simple answer is YES YES YES

Of course it can and should be

-

Is it a rare feat ... yes. We know this

But don't tell someone they can't

BUT I WILL AGREE WITH BARRY on one particular point

THEN GO DO IT.

(Preaching and knowing I too need to just poo pooING do it)
Click to expand...
Did you just tell people to throw caution to the wind and risk their financial future by spending their last savings and two years of their life on something?

It can so be done? What do you base this on? People's right to dream?

You can make a feature length film for $10,000 but it won''t be amazing. It's hard as hell to make an amazing film for ten or fifteen times that amount.

It should also be noted that none of the films that are usually mentioned as low budget career starters (Bad Taste, Evil Dead, El Mariachi, Following, Clerks etc) were made digitally. That means the independent scene wasn't flooded with microbudget films that never gets seen and competition wasnt as high.
 
Last edited:
David Jimerson said:
No. It didn't get built for $18000. It got built for the amount of the loan. It was not going to happen without the loan. Your $18000 by itself was not going to get it built. It may have cost you 18000 up front, but it's going to cost you the entire amount before you're done. That's now much it costs. Not the $18000. You just get a reprieve on paying the rest of it.

Honestly, this is such a simple concept I, don't understand why I need to explain it again.
Click to expand...

Nope. Again, you're talking about future costs for the person who obtained the loan (not, say, the bank, who provided the funds up front).

You as the *producer* received work done on deferred payments (paid if/when the film is ever profitable). Unlike a bank, if your film is never profitable, chances are those deferrs will not be paid thus never affecting the original budgeted amount.

If you involve future costs then you have to involve future profits in which case I could say, "It didn't cost me a penny to make my movie. I made 5K in profits after all was said and done, so that means I was paid 5K to make my movie. So an AMAZING feature can be done for NEGATIVE $,5000"

You can't include future expenses in the front-end costs if you're eliminating future profits; for all intents and purposes both are fictional entities until the money/deferreds are actually paid out.

But let's look at this in easy-to-digest terms.

You make a feature FAN FILM with your friends for 10K which has ZERO POTENTIAL to make any profits whatsoever.

How much did your film cost to make?
 
Brian_Rice said:
Nope. Again, you're talking about future costs for the person who obtained the loan (not, say, the bank, who provided the funds up front).

You as the *producer* received work done on deferred payments (paid if/when the film is ever profitable). Unlike a bank, if your film is never profitable, chances are those deferrs will not be paid thus never affecting the original budgeted amount.

If you involve future costs then you have to involve future profits in which case I could say, "It didn't cost me a penny to make my movie. I made 5K in profits after all was said and done, so that means I was paid 5K to make my movie. So an AMAZING feature can be done for NEGATIVE $,5000"

You can't include future expenses in the front-end costs if you're eliminating future profits; for all intents and purposes both are fictional entities until the money/deferreds are actually paid out.

But let's look at this in easy-to-digest terms.

You make a feature FAN FILM with your friends for 10K which has ZERO POTENTIAL to make any profits whatsoever.

How much did your film cost to make?
Click to expand...

I can only say the same thing so many times.
 
?

Everyone volunteers on a project that cannot make a profit.

I bring 10K to fund the project.

How can what you've been saying possibly apply unless you apply a dollar value to someone's volunteering -- which is bizarre since they themselves aren't applying a dollar amount to it, they're only applying a percentage of ownership (and, in this case, creative-only ownership).
 
Is it possible to shoot an amazing feature-length film on a cash budget of $10,000? Yes. Is it possible to fall out of an airplane and survive, get struck by lightening while winning the lottery, and end up dating a celebrity by stalking him/her. Yes. Would you want to risk your life/ wealth/happiness by relying on those odds? Most people would say no.

I would not shoot a feature-length film for $10,000.
 
Shooting a feature that turned out "amazing" for $10K?

First off, amazing can't be in relationship to the budget because potential audience doesn't care. It has to be amazing compared to a studio feature, which is the common point of reference. Studio features are made by huge all-pro crews that know exactly what they're doing.

To make an amazing $10K feature you'd need a perfect storm, which I don't think any mortal could ever pull off. Look at it this way: If it were even remotely possible to do it, don't you think producers would we making these 10K films and banking the profits? Hell, a producer could fund 1000 of these films and if only 1 worked it would pay off all of them and the producer would still bank a profit. I don't see anyone following this model in the real world.
 
Yeah, I abandoned the "amazing" aspect of the argument long ago as it's just too subjective. Even if you were to say amazing acting, amazing writing, amazing sound and amazing cinematography people could still argue why one is better than the other.

I think it's better to just ask "Can a feature be made for 10K" -- and I think that's what the 70% of "Yes" votes are speaking to.
 
You could also go on a spending spree with the hope that you'll win the lottery and can therefore pay for everything in the future.

There is risk, then there is ignorant risk.
 
Anything is possible. Is 10k really going to ruin someone's life? Doubtful.

People spend far more on luxuries they don't really need.

I would be thrilled with a feature that was accepted into top festivals and was received well by critics. Can it be done on the cheap? Why not?

As for costs and people complaining that you have to pay everyone because if you don't you're ripping them off... how about this. I have a large group of actors who are pleading with me to make a feature. They are offering their talent to me free of cost.

Obviously, I would pay them if I could. But if I'm going to put my blood, sweat and tears into a feature for no pay... Why can't they? For me it will be about trying to make a great movie. Not making money. For the actors I think it's about getting into a top festival and being discovered. If I was an actor I would be happy with that. Baby steps.

Of course, if you make something amazing, money will probably eventually follow.
 
David G. Smith said:
Well, Mark Harris just started this thread:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?247516-Good-Interview-with-Ed-Burns

So it looks like Ed Burns just made a feature, using a 5DMKII, for a shooting budget of $9,000.00. He also makes some good points about the economics of low budget shooting.
Click to expand...

This is what I posted over in that thread:

Mark Harris said:
Very relevant to microbudget indies, and a good reality check for those with unrealistic dreams of stardom.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/toolkit_ed_burns
Click to expand...

Nice! Thanks for posting this. Doesn't look like he's saying anything other than the same thing most of us here say: we're not waiting around for someone to give us money to do what we want to do. It's also cool to see a guy like Ed Burns isn't saying that there's no chance of making money here, or breaking even. He's clearly pointing out avenues in which the no-budget no-namer can recoup their small investment. ITunes, for example.

Even THEN, his path isn't gospel, either. It's definitely great to read that someone with some success under their belt is still down to grind on a thin budget.
Click to expand...
 
Snazzy Flapper said:
Shooting a feature that turned out "amazing" for $10K?

First off, amazing can't be in relationship to the budget because potential audience doesn't care. It has to be amazing compared to a studio feature, which is the common point of reference. Studio features are made by huge all-pro crews that know exactly what they're doing.

To make an amazing $10K feature you'd need a perfect storm, which I don't think any mortal could ever pull off. Look at it this way: If it were even remotely possible to do it, don't you think producers would we making these 10K films and banking the profits? Hell, a producer could fund 1000 of these films and if only 1 worked it would pay off all of them and the producer would still bank a profit. I don't see anyone following this model in the real world.
Click to expand...

Yet somehow they still manage to crank out a long list of terrible (but extremely well shot and glossy) features every year. I've found when I've watched worthwhile lower budget films in the past the first 5 or so minutes were a bit distracting, but then I soon forgot about the "look" and got involved with the story.
You are right 10K features are not a viable business model because only certain types of films even have a chance of being made for that cheap - (to have more of a shot) You'd have to throw out period films, elaborate sets, exotic locations, huge casts, Fantasy SCI FI, giant explosions, elaborate stunts, etc, etc.

You could however (just for example): film a serious drama with 2 cast members - A couple who have decided to separate are spending one last night together in their home. In the morning they wake up to a blizzard for the ages and are "trapped" for several days.
This situation brings about several things - obvious tension, frustration, subdued feelings come out, secrets are revealed, and in the end - who knows.
The cost of something like this is reduced by - small cast, one location (although to break the mood you'd need flashbacks or something else) fairly static camera moves, etc. You would need some very capable actors and clever timing/editing to pull it off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top