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

[ullanta]

Haven't seen that one, but I've liked a few of Burns' little films that could probably be pulled off for a pretty low budget…

 

[Doc Bernard]

Had to get involved in the fist bumping...........too cool, Jawa.

You know, you guys are impressing the heck out of me. I bow to your understanding of the film budgeting biz....both sides of the coin.

Never understood that aspect and this is has been a university level class for me.

 

[pulpfiction007]

For those who say it can't be done, please refrain from using the following statements ever again -

1. Content is king
2. A great director could use a handycam and make a great film
3. Just go shoot something
4. How you shoot is far more important than what camera you use

These are all quotes that are often used around here (and I agree with the spirit of them)
but I guess what some of you really mean is -

1. Content is king - but that won't matter if you shoot with X cameras and X amount to spend....because it will look like hell compared to BIG FANCY HOLLYWOOD MOVIES (so why bother)
2. A great director can make a great film with a handycam - but not if that person is me or you.
3. Just go shoot something - but make sure you have a crew of highly paid professionals, expensive lighting rig, decked out audio recording units, etc. etc. (otherwise why bother)
4. How you shoot is more important than what camera you use - unless we're discussing shooting something amazing, in that case get prepared to fork over some serious cash.

The goal should always be to make something amazing, sometimes it won't turn out of course....but seriously - if Smith, Rodriguez, Nolan, Aaronofsky, Burns had the low cost cameras and tech we have today...they would have been thrilled to ONLY have 10K, instead of literally spending all their money on film. I'm sure many here would also love to have anywhere near 10K to put into their films....

BTW....I'm only posting this to remind people of "that kid inside" who just wants to make a great film and will find a way, even with very little money.
The cautionary tales of "how much things really cost" are valid and should be noted as well....but I know a lot of you have the talent to make something great, even if you're spending only x amount of dollars.

 

[Kholi]

...they would have been thrilled to ONLY have 10K, instead of literally spending all their money on film. I'm sure many here would also love to have anywhere near 10K to put into their films.... Some of you need a

Need a what!? WHY YOU NO TELL ME WHAT COME AFTER A!!?!?!

 

[Doc Bernard]

Pulpfiction, would love to see you expand upon your points. Man, I am soaking this stuff up. Granted, I am a nobody, compared to the experts we have here, but I have produced a few projects and this info is liquid gold to me, should I produce another one (been asked).

So please.....expand.

 

[pulpfiction007]

Need a what!? WHY YOU NO TELL ME WHAT COME AFTER A!!?!?!

Sorry Kholi...I was going to say some of you (me included) need a reminder of the creative spirit I trust most of us had when we were younger before "reality" set in and the "Rules" became more important than the imagination. I changed my wording around a bit in my other post. The more I read this thread, I'm more convinced than ever it could be done...it's just that the people/person attempting it would need an extraordinary imagination(s) that could spin having little money (to spend) into an asset rather than a liability.

 

[Brian_Rice]

I'll actually be happy when Rodriguez and Smith et al leave the debate. Personally I don't think El Mariachi would have mattered *at all* if it was made today on, say, an EX1. Potentially Clerks, Pi and a few others would have a chance because of their scripts or directing, but I do think it's worth appreciating the concept that a "good" under-50K film done 20 years ago was a substantially greater feat than it is today. I honestly believe that quite a few people can (and have) made movies on the level of El Mariachi on a similar budget using HD instead of film.

Also, think about what's on television now (including HBO) compared to what was on back then. Think of the internet. The everyman has a voice whenever he/she wants to give it via vlogs, blogs, etc.

We've been talking a lot about budgets, but I think the real quandry has been that term "amazing". Amazing, IMO, would be something like what Rodriguez accomplished or what Smith accomplished in the era they accomplished it in. But what is amazing now? Jersey Shore? Iron Man? The latest 30 second video from Fred? Citizen Kane?

Indie filmmakers and writers have only ever had one job -- to give people something that they cannot get from the mainstream, something that engages an audience. Indie art only exists to do something that no other structured, corporate entity can achieve. THAT is what makes an amazing *indie* film.

I think the real question is, can an amazing indie film, based in reality, exist at all anymore, or are they doomed to being "good" or even mediocre? Is there anything that people can't see or know about or breathe in any moment of any day? I can go find a hundred blogs right now that would give me the same information and potentially even entertainment that Clerks gave me all those years ago. If I want to know what's going on with the Boyz in the Hood, I don't need a dramatic narrative to reflect that. I can go watch live streaming video of actual boys in the hood.

I still think there's something left for the indie film and prose in sci-fi and fantasy and to a lesser extent horror, but the basic human interaction stuff, the thing that defined "indie" for so many decades, the reason the films and writings needed to exist in the first place -- Do we really need anything more that rests in the same slots as A Streetcar Named Desire and The Real Housewives of Orange County? Are movies in general becoming less impactful and important because there's simply nothing left "amazing" to show and tell in the realm of straight-forward human interaction storytelling?

Sometimes I think the only thing the indie filmmaker has left to offer the world is The Human Centipede.

I think we're stuck in this back and fourth because "amazing" for a lot of the people here means something actionable. Two people sitting in a room talking, while great, can probably not be done better by anyone living today or who will ever be born than it's already been done by people who have already long since died.

So while I am in the "Yes" camp on this poll, if we remove the potential for reality-based narrative fiction and then ask the question again whether or not something "amazing" can be made for 10K, today, in the world we live in with the information people can obtain and the experiences they can have by virtue of a simple mouse click, I'd probably say "No", because I think the only "amazing" stories left to be told will come from genre fiction and not from basic human interactions.

An indie filmmaker may come along to prove me wrong, but I doubt it. The future of indie filmmaking is in genre stuff (which used to be the fringes of indies like Evil Dead and Romero's stuff). *That* is where we'll continue to see the potential for "amazing". I'm just not sure it can be done for 10K.

 

[pulpfiction007]

Doc...my points are just from the point of view of creativity. I sincerely believe making a great/amazing/fantastic film should no longer be about how much you spend, whether it's 10 grand, 100,000 grand, etc. Not so long ago....the cameras themselves were a hinderance right off the bat - Anything any normal person could afford just looked like "video", no matter what the content was. Anything with progressive capability since and including the DVX gives mere mortals a chance to compete on that front (now viewers will just watch the story, not the camera IQ) and with incredible low cost editing software....it's a more even playing field than ever before.
The guys who did Lonesome Jim on a DVX100a said that they got to do WAY more with software than they ever could have done with film (cost wise).
I just think the story would have to fit into a low budget world....meaning to concentrate all efforts into fewer elements.
Like I said earlier and Barry Green also mentioned - One location (with obviously interesting sub locations) small cast, etc. It's a lot easier to find 2 to 4 very good actors, than it is to fill 30 roles. It's also way more efficient/cheaper to set up/light/record in one location than 20 to 30.
Music is readily available from many talented people here and elsewhere who would be happy just to get their stuff out there......
My answer to this question is a more emphatic yes...than it was yesterday. The caveat is the scope/genre of the film....I'm a dreamer, but I'm also realistic.

 

[Kholi]

For what it's worth, I think a lot of the opinions and ideas expressed here have made the thread worth keeping up with for myself.

Brian, at first glance your last post is pretty interesting, and I think I agree. Would have to really think about it, though.

 

[Brian_Rice]

For what it's worth, I think a lot of the opinions and ideas expressed here have made the thread worth keeping up with for myself.

Brian, at first glance your last post is pretty interesting, and I think I agree. Would have to really think about it, though.

I probably need to think about it more too. It was sort of coming to me as I was writing, so I don't know if I'm completely convinced by my own observations.

It feels somehow creepy to me. Kind of a, "Is this really all there is?" thing. Never sits right. I have trouble believing in absolutes, especially when it comes to something as complex as the human condition.

I think potentially we could see something come out of other countries, and maybe even some women-written-by-women stuff. But, honestly, tell me an American story that hasn't been told or that needs to be told in a different way? Something that HBO can't do a better job of than most any indie filmmaker.

Even if we went the romantic comedy route (if we're considering a straight romantic comedy a non-genre), what good romantic comedy writer wants to be writing films when they can be writing for television getting a larger audience and more money more consitently? I'm not sure there's been a really good American romantic comedy since When Harry Met Sally (and some people don't love that movie).

I think unless it's about a really fringe subject like violent rape or molestation, there just plain ain't a lot of stories that the American public hasn't seen and heard to death already by completely capable filmmakers (most with budgets larger than 10K).

But like I said, I still need to marinate on this a bit.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

An indie filmmaker may come along to prove me wrong, but I doubt it. The future of indie filmmaking is in genre stuff (which used to be the fringes of indies like Evil Dead and Romero's stuff). *That* is where we'll continue to see the potential for "amazing". I'm just not sure it can be done for 10K.

I absolutely agree with this, and I'd like to add that as long as Hollywood is only interested in doing remakes, sequels, prequels, reboots, robots, rowboats and rhubarbs, it's up to independent filmmakers to make original stories.

Hell. Human interaction in the independent world in the form of mumblecore is dead now anyway, isn't it? It ought to be anyway.

I think we're in a place now much like in the 70's, and A Serbian Film and The Human Centipede are this generation's Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Last House on the Left. It's easy to make independent horror and sci-fi now, so that's where the original stories will be told.

The problem is distribution. We're not quite there yet where it's in the filmmaker's hands and so we're forced into this old system of distributors. Once it's easy to make money and reach out to an audience via VOD (if that ever happens), it'll also be a lot easier to make $10,000 movies because we won't have to sell them to distributors before we sell them to the audience.

 

[pulpfiction007]

I think the real question is, can an amazing indie film, based in reality, exist at all anymore, or are they doomed to being "good" or even mediocre? Is there anything that people can't see or know about or breathe in any moment of any day? I can go find a hundred blogs right now that would give me the same information and potentially even entertainment that Clerks gave me all those years ago. If I want to know what's going on with the Boyz in the Hood, I don't need a dramatic narrative to reflect that. I can go watch live streaming video of actual boys in the hood.

I still think there's something left for the indie film and prose in sci-fi and fantasy and to a lesser extent horror, but the basic human interaction stuff, the thing that defined "indie" for so many decades, the reason the films and writings needed to exist in the first place -- Do we really need anything more that rests in the same slots as A Streetcar Named Desire and The Real Housewives of Orange County? Are movies in general becoming less impactful and important because there's simply nothing left "amazing" to show and tell in the realm of straight-forward human interaction storytelling? - Brian Rice

I think Indie films still have a very valid place and I don't think they're doomed to being just good or mediocre, and the reason I say that can be directly linked to one of your earlier points -
Indie films don't have to adhere to the conventions that often plague big budget films.... They only need to be confined by
A. The budget
B. The directors imagination
While I agree we've seen all there is to see with basic human interraction - The WAY the story is told is still wide open to many changes. Examples of this are
Memento - It's basically a NOIR mystery, except that it is told in a unique manner.
Irreversible - A tragic film, that becomes much more so the way it is told.
Resevoir Dogs - A Basic heist concept, but the main characters talk about everyday stuff and the timeline is wacky just like Pulp was.
Also I believe that there are TONS of unique ideas yet to be put into a film, it's just that in the Hollywood system....a lot of weight is put into regurgitating tried and true concepts (guaranteed winners)
Indie filmakers should leave these concepts in the hands of that system and branch out. That, like you mentioned is what gives them their value....and BTW these untapped original concepts are not avaialble on reality shows or on the largely vacant instant gratification type videos displayed on the internet.
Now more than ever - people are starving for new ideas (even if they don't know it)

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

I don't buy this "because everyone makes films, it's harder to get noticed." Wrong. It's like race car driving. If somehow everyone could afford to race, would everyone have equal chance of making it to the top? No. Would those who are 30 seconds a lap slower than you be your competition? No. It still would take talent, but now those talented guys and gals could actually get a chance and try to get to the top. It's the same with filmmaking, cream rises to the top, always. Yes, there might be thousands of films out there, but 99% of them are garbage. And if you make a great film, you're not competing with them.

You're arguing against yourself there.

Look. In 1981 when Sam Raimi made The Evil Dead, there were MUCH fewer films made. Both on the independent circuit and in Hollywood.
IMDb lists 2,983 titles in 1981.

30 years later, IMDb lists 7,160 titles released in 2010.

You're right that cream always rises to the top, and I agree 99% of all films produced (studio and independent) are crap, but there's considderably more cream to compete with both on the festival circuit and on the home video market than there used to be.
The film market is flooded. If anyone can make a film, that means there is also considderably more crap out there, and it's much harder to get watched.

I tell you a problem I had personally, with my film.
During pre-production, I contacted a lot of domestic distributors, trying to get them involved in the project. If not financially, at least so they'll know about it when the film is ready. They took me with a grain of salt at the pitch meetings but were curteous and we kept contact and when I told them I'd finished shooting the film a couple of months later they were stunned. Not because of the film itself, but because they get this all the time now. Most people don't finish the films and the ones that do are more than likely unreleaseable.

I don't blame them. I would be too.

Go to a comic book or movie convention and buy a couple of DVDs from independent filmmakers without distribution. Watch them and learn. Now imagine you're a distribution company and have guys like this knocking on your doors constantly.

You could be the next Quentin Tarantino, David Lynch or James Cameron and they wouldn't know. How could they? How could they possibly?

If you made BURIED on a $500 budget with no known names attatched and showed it to a distributor, in their mind they're not thinking "Wow, This Is An Interesting Movie". They're thinking "How Am I Going To Mass Market This Product?"

If your answer to that is "Well, its an amazing movie, I think its way better than El Mariachi and I'm sure people will love it", their answer will be "El Mariwho?"

I'm just saying that your problem is not making a 90 minute movie, it's selling it to a distributor. For $10,000 you'd BETTER have an amazing production value.

In this regard, I would say it's a bigger risk (in the sense of losing your investment) to make a $10,000 film, than it is to make a $100,000 film.

 

[David Jimerson]

For those who say it can't be done, please refrain from using the following statements ever again -

1. Content is king
2. A great director could use a handycam and make a great film
3. Just go shoot something
4. How you shoot is far more important than what camera you use

These are all quotes that are often used around here (and I agree with the spirit of them)
but I guess what some of you really mean is -

1. Content is king - but that won't matter if you shoot with X cameras and X amount to spend....because it will look like hell compared to BIG FANCY HOLLYWOOD MOVIES (so why bother)
2. A great director can make a great film with a handycam - but not if that person is me or you.
3. Just go shoot something - but make sure you have a crew of highly paid professionals, expensive lighting rig, decked out audio recording units, etc. etc. (otherwise why bother)
4. How you shoot is more important than what camera you use - unless we're discussing shooting something amazing, in that case get prepared to fork over some serious cash.

Nonsense.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

For those who say it can't be done, please refrain from using the following statements ever again -

1. Content is king
2. A great director could use a handycam and make a great film
3. Just go shoot something
4. How you shoot is far more important than what camera you use

These are all quotes that are often used around here (and I agree with the spirit of them)
but I guess what some of you really mean is -

1. Content is king - but that won't matter if you shoot with X cameras and X amount to spend....because it will look like hell compared to BIG FANCY HOLLYWOOD MOVIES (so why bother)
2. A great director can make a great film with a handycam - but not if that person is me or you.
3. Just go shoot something - but make sure you have a crew of highly paid professionals, expensive lighting rig, decked out audio recording units, etc. etc. (otherwise why bother)
4. How you shoot is more important than what camera you use - unless we're discussing shooting something amazing, in that case get prepared to fork over some serious cash.

The goal should always be to make something amazing, sometimes it won't turn out of course....but seriously - if Smith, Rodriguez, Nolan, Aaronofsky, Burns had the low cost cameras and tech we have today...they would have been thrilled to ONLY have 10K, instead of literally spending all their money on film. I'm sure many here would also love to have anywhere near 10K to put into their films....

BTW....I'm only posting this to remind people of "that kid inside" who just wants to make a great film and will find a way, even with very little money.
The cautionary tales of "how much things really cost" are valid and should be noted as well....but I know a lot of you have the talent to make something great, even if you're spending only x amount of dollars.

1. Content (in the sense of storytelling and production value) is king. How much production value can you get for $10,000?
2. An established director could use a handycam and sell a film. A great first time director with a raw natural talent could use an iPhone and make the greatest film known to man, but he'd have a hard time selling it because it's a movie made with an iPhone.
3. Just go shoot something after you've spent a year or two in pre-production and have your entire shooting schedule, story boards, post production crew and marketing strategy. But never "just go shoot" a feature film.
4. How you shoot is far more important than what camera you use in the sense that if you let a monkey handle your RED camera you'll get monkey footage. But not in the sense that you'll be able to sell a feature film made with an iPhone unless you're already established and famous.

 

[pulpfiction007]

Okay....I give up. It can't be done.

 

[David Jimerson]

It's 2011. If you want people to see your films, you have the internet. Youtube, torrents, etc. You can market in Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, message boards, whatever.

People can "Like" all they want. People can re-Tweet all they want. You can have hundreds of thousands of fans and they all can click "Join."

But the only button that matters is "Pay and Continue." That one's considerably harder to get people to click.

If you've made a film for 10k or under, why not upload it to internet so people can download it for free? It CAN work. Example: Star Wreck was released on the internet for free and has been downloaded for over 4 million times. That didn't stop it from getting DVD distribution in Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Japan, US and UK. It has made about 500,000€ profits.

It had a bankable hook - it was a parody of a very popular entity. If it weren't, it wouldn't have. Hardly anyone would have watched it if it had been entirely original.

(Which is, by the way, an answer to the question "why do a fan film? Why not do something original?" 'Coz someone who doesn't know you might have an interest in watching it.)

Btw, if someone loses their investment on a $10,000 film, the film is most likely utter crap -> exactly my point.

Are you saying that any 10K film which merely rises above "utter crap" should be able to make its money back?

 

[David G. Smith]

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_/

Yep, that pretty much reflects a lot of what has been discussed in this thread. Notice that Ed Burns is not faulted for low production values or a the naturalistic/documentary aesthetic, but by the the lack of an original story. He would have been faulted for that even if he had spent millions of dollars on that picture.

 

[vcassel]

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?

I agree with this. I thought the majority of Miracle at St. Anna was pretty cringe worthy, but the denouement had me blubbering in tears. I consider it a great film for that.

 

[David Jimerson]

Anything that can help you advance on your career and get your films seen, even if you don't get $$$, is worthwhile. Neill Blomkamp. Fede Alvarez. The guy who did Raven. The guy who did that film about pixels. They all created something they wanted to make and put it online for free so people could see it. They didn't get money for it. They got an opportunity. Granted, those we're all short films, but if you can make great enough material to catch that buzz wave, I don't see why you couldn't do the same with a feature film.

You were talking about "marketing." You were talking about making your "investment" back.

Yes, Star Wreck had a marketable hook. Just like almost every Hollywood films has. What stops indie filmmakers from making a film that is original AND has a marketable hook?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. What hook do you have if you're just another anonymous filmmaker and you don't have the budget to buy one? If George Clooney agrees to work for you for free, then you may have something. But if it's just you and your friends whom no one knows pumping out yet another indy film? You've got nothing. You're just another face in the crowd.

If it doesn't get someone's attention instantly, it's not a hook. And if it doesn't induce someone to put their money down right then and there, it's not a bankable hook.

I didn't say that you should expect same kind of numbers that Star Wreck did. But to get your money back and get yourself out there? Possible. You have to be creative to succeed.

"Pay and Continue." That's it. Nothing else matters. What have you got that makes someone click it?