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
Kholi said:
Yeah, the other thread was also a bit arrogant sounding. 30-40 minutes? Not a feature. Anyway, regardless of HOW MUCH it takes to complete a feature film.
Click to expand...

You know, this entire thread was about an AMAZING film for under $10K. You and some others (Giriki primarily) argued very passionately that it could be done. Hundreds of posts back and forth. Until finally something akin to NIMBY shows up with your post #331:

Kholi said:
LoL! Hey! I already said I wouldn't try to do it below 30-50K. I am just saying that some little filmmaking team out there, with skills in all areas, could probably make a decent or good little feature if they had ten grand in spending cash.

I personally would not do it.
Click to expand...

Talk about pulling the rug out from under the entire thread.....

The whole discussion that took place was based on the premise that we were all operating under the same assumptions. Ok, people might differ a little on what AMAZING means. We can disagree on whether you should book all of the expenses, out of pocket and deferred or donated.

But to change the underlying assumption so radically? As the other thread in its short life showed, the two most active people taking the "no" position in this thread (Jawa Ex Machina and myself), actually took a "yes" position when your NEW parameters were used instead of the OP's parameters.

If you had simply said from the beginning that you wouldn't or couldn't do an AMAZING feature for $10K, or even a "decent or good little" feature for $10K. This thread would probably have been a lot shorter.
 
My first feature was actually done for 10k. It was the budget the producer gave us. Though it was not the greatest film in the world but it was a feature done for only 10k. With that said, we did have a cast and crew of about 100 and filmed under 2 months in 5 different cities. We got creative and found ways to work around such a tight budget. It was not easy for one bit but I learned many valuable lessons on that film. I'm shock to find the rantings on imdb pretty high. I think it was probably due to our budget and what we had to deal with. People felt sorry for me. :) I wrote a story about all the problems we had and despite all that, we still managed to complete the film. So it's possible but there's no guarantee it will be "amazing." I've yet to see an amazing 10k budget feature. I admire Rodreguiz and Smith's work but they weren't amazing. to me Amazing is Lord of the Rings done with 10k. Now that's amazing! ;)

2006 Tears trailers


ps: I'm now working on my 10th feature since Tears. I still have sh*t load of stuff to learn.
 
keylight said:
You know, this entire thread was about an AMAZING film for under $10K. You and some others (Giriki primarily) argued very passionately that it could be done. Hundreds of posts back and forth. Until finally something akin to NIMBY shows up with your post #331:

Talk about pulling the rug out from under the entire thread.....

The whole discussion that took place was based on the premise that we were all operating under the same assumptions. Ok, people might differ a little on what AMAZING means. We can disagree on whether you should book all of the expenses, out of pocket and deferred or donated.

But to change the underlying assumption so radically? As the other thread in its short life showed, the two most active people taking the "no" position in this thread (Jawa Ex Machina and myself), actually took a "yes" position when your NEW parameters were used instead of the OP's parameters.

If you had simply said from the beginning that you wouldn't or couldn't do an AMAZING feature for $10K, or even a "decent or good little" feature for $10K. This thread would probably have been a lot shorter.
Click to expand...

It seems you've taken my posts out of context. If you find one that's argumentative, please quote it. I participated, but the passionate posts were about "real budget numbers" and they sure as heck weren't from me. However, here's a quote from the third page of the thread:

Kholi said:
I put my vote in for (YES). For the sake of the blanket question, yes.

But, it completely depends on what type of feature it is, and even more importantly, what one considers AMAZING. I think PRIMER is a great movie, so much that it's in my top three list (Ghostbusters, Primer, Shawshank Redemption--in that order, sue me) BUT, I do not think that, when framed within those three favorites it is an amazing piece of cinema.

Shawshank Redemption, now that movie is AMAZING to me. You cannot do Shawshank Redemption on 10K.

You can do competent and decent on 10K. Passable, acceptable, entertaining, worth watching, worth BUYING, good, okay--could keep going...

So, define amazing first, which for the OP seems to be Glengary Glenross, then okay. Perhaps.

Also, it hinges on who the filmmakers are: Gareth Edwards can pull MONSTERS off for 24K US... full length feature film with some pretty fantastic locations, vfx, etc. but I am very VERY sure that there were way too many people that said he could not do it.

There are still people who tell me that a vfx heavy feature film with cast and location counts both exceeding the number ten could be pulled off for less than 200K. Now-a-days I nod my head and say "you're right."
Click to expand...

So, no, the thread went on this long because there was a "heated" debate on the theories of cost, which particularly took place between yourself and others. I made my position very clear from the get-go. I understand if it was glanced over.

And, I still stand by what I said several pages back: there is a group of great filmmakers that have a solid idea that they could produce for 10K and it would be good or decent. I wouldn't be able to do it for less than 30-50K, because I don't have those kinds of ideas. Never once said I was THAT person, so again, sorry if you misunderstood.
 
keylight said:
If you had simply said from the beginning that you wouldn't or couldn't do an AMAZING feature for $10K, or even a "decent or good little" feature for $10K. This thread would probably have been a lot shorter.
Click to expand...

I'm totally thrilled that the conversation bent and swiveled into something more complex (as good conversations often do).

Heck, we might even get a micro-budget flick produced by Barry Green out of all this!

:thumbup:
 
Barry_Green said:
So, what I'm getting from this is -- a lot of people saying you "can" do it, but not a whole lot of evidence. And a lot of people saying you can't do it, which the "can" folks think is negativity.

So let's take some of the "can's" - Hudson, Hicks, and Callaghan. Gentlemen, start your engines. Callaghan, pen a brilliant script that takes place in one location. Hudson will direct it, Hicks will shoot it, I'll exec-produce, and I'll bring the ten grand and a vanload of camera, lighting, and sound gear. Not a 10-ton truck, maybe 1/4-ton, but enough to get it shot.

Just has to be do-able on the budget, and I'm not gonna want to work that hard, so -- one location.
Click to expand...

This pretty much concedes the point, though -- I don't think the question is "AMAZING considering the budget." It's just plain AMAZING which is on the table. Judged as a movie against all other movies regardless of budget, not as a micro-budget movie. A one-location flick puts a whole new level of doubt on that.
 
Great discussion here.

We have a tight little psychological horror feature set in one location. Would just have to book a model home or vacation rental for a month. We own 90% of the gear we'd need. Very high concept, cast of two or three for most of the picture. Plan to shoot a slick little 5 minute proof of concept later this year. And given the choice, no we aren't going to hinder ourselves with a $10k budget. Still it would be doable if everything was donated and everyone worked for free.

As far as I'm concerned, the "amazing" qualifier on a $10k budget needs to be primarily in the writing. Start with a great story, well told. And hustle for everything else.
 
Zak Forsman said:
As far as I'm concerned, the "amazing" qualifier on a $10k budget needs to be primarily in the writing. Start with a great story, well told.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Someone take the script from BURIED and re-shoot it for the $500 that is actually required to make that film, and this topic will be solved.
 
Zak Forsman said:
We have a tight little psychological horror feature set in one location. Would just have to book a model home or vacation rental for a month. We own 90% of the gear we'd need. Very high concept, cast of two or three for most of the picture. Plan to shoot a slick little 5 minute proof of concept later this year. And given the choice, no we aren't going to hinder ourselves with a $10k budget. Still it would be doable if everything was donated and everyone worked for free.

As far as I'm concerned, the "amazing" qualifier on a $10k budget needs to be primarily in the writing. Start with a great story, well told. And hustle for everything else.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%, story is everything. Most features fail not because of all the other things people are worried about but because of a weak screenplay. Finding or writing an amazing screenplay is the real challenge I think and moreso one that can be done in whatever budget range you're limited to.
 
In my experience, what "Story is everything" means is that Story dictates everything else in the production.

It doesn't mean you can have a great screenplay and everything else is mediocre and you can still sell your film.

Nobody reads screenplays anyway, and I mean REALLY nobody does. Which also means, the film had better be CONSTANTLY AND PROGRESSIVELY ENTERTAINING to sit through, or you won't sell it.

You know that part of ADAPTATION where Brian Cox as Robert McKee tells Nicholas Cage as Charlie Kaufman that the third act is everything, and if you have a great third act you'll win everyone over?

Well, you gotta get people to sit through to the third act in order to do that.

So yeah in my experience, if you want to sell your film everything had better be great, and not just the screenplay.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
In my experience, what "Story is everything" means is that Story dictates everything else in the production.

It doesn't mean you can have a great screenplay and everything else is mediocre and you can still sell your film.

Nobody reads screenplays anyway, and I mean REALLY nobody does. Which also means, the film had better be CONSTANTLY AND PROGRESSIVELY ENTERTAINING to sit through, or you won't sell it.

You know that part of ADAPTATION where Brian Cox as Robert McKee tells Nicholas Cage as Charlie Kaufman that the third act is everything, and if you have a great third act you'll win everyone over?

Well, you gotta get people to sit through to the third act in order to do that.

So yeah in my experience, if you want to sell your film everything had better be great, and not just the screenplay.
Click to expand...

If you weren't thousands of miles away I'd give you respect knuckles. We all know the script is important. So is the tech and everything else to bring it to life. You aren't competing with writers and novelist, you're competing with other pictures.

So yeah, we agree, hardcore.
 
Kholi said:
If you weren't thousands of miles away I'd give you respect knuckles. We all know the script is important. So is the tech and everything else to bring it to life. You aren't competing with writers and novelist, you're competing with other pictures.

So yeah, we agree, hardcore.
Click to expand...
Weap_melee_fist.png
 
Last edited:
David Jimerson said:
Go do it.
Click to expand...

I don't have $500 to spend on a project that would be infringing copyright. <grin> But I agree with the underlying point that this is all just speculation until someone does something. And I feel like an ass for saying "I'm working on it," but that's all I've got.
 
It's important to remember also that the difference between creating a $10,000 movie and a $100,000 movie, is mostly the quality on the end product.
A $100,000 movie will look and sound better. You might have a known face in there. The music will be better because you can get someone to do that who's great at it.

If you make a $10,000 feature, you're competing against not only $100,000 features, but also $3,000,000 + features.
It takes as long time for the audience, and costs as much, to see your $10,000 film as it does for them to see a $30,000,000 movie.

The only difference is, you don't have to get as many people to see yours to break even.

I'm sure somewhere there's a graph that shows what the ultimate budget number is for independent microbudget films. How much you'll have to spend against the likely amount of money you're getting back on your microbudget film.
I'd love to see a graph like that.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
In my experience, what "Story is everything" means is that Story dictates everything else in the production.

It doesn't mean you can have a great screenplay and everything else is mediocre and you can still sell your film.

Nobody reads screenplays anyway, and I mean REALLY nobody does. Which also means, the film had better be CONSTANTLY AND PROGRESSIVELY ENTERTAINING to sit through, or you won't sell it.

You know that part of ADAPTATION where Brian Cox as Robert McKee tells Nicholas Cage as Charlie Kaufman that the third act is everything, and if you have a great third act you'll win everyone over?

Well, you gotta get people to sit through to the third act in order to do that.

So yeah in my experience, if you want to sell your film everything had better be great, and not just the screenplay.
Click to expand...

:) Agreed. I didn't say a great screenplay. I said a great story, well told. and "well told" means great performances, pacing and much more that doesn't necessarily have to cost anything. I have had my phone calls with acquisitions at Magnolia/Magnet and Sony Pictures Classics. I feel like I have a good handle on what they're both looking for (and each is different). My takeaway from that, and only if you are truly limited by a $10k budget, is that any compromises or deficiencies that one would attribute to the camera dept are forgivable, given that the rest of the components really sing.
 
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...

Thread relevant:
Here's a Tribeca Attendance review of Ed Burns' feature, shot on the 5D MKII for 9K: http://www.indiewire.com/article/tr...ss_newlyweds_says_about_the_future_of_cheap_/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top