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
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Barry & co, why don't you use your ten grand to make a fan film or something? Or maybe something like that Mortal Kombat concept trailer?
Put $10,000 into something like that and you might land a much bigger investor with much more money for much less hassle.
Click to expand...

I'm spending around 3K on my current fan film. The budget was there before deciding to do one. In the end, since we're talking about portfolio/reel purposes, I felt a fan film will get more interest/views than would a straight sci-fi short film. Some filmmakers are vehemently opposed to them, though, usually out of a fear of being pigeon-holed as a fan filmmaker, not a serious artist. Personally since everything I do is so user-friendly mass-media genre, I'm not all that concerned with perception.
 
This debate has been very interesting because we've gone from

A) Op's original question to
B) Can ANY film be made for 10K to
C) Can a film be made for 10K and be profitable (sold/distributed)

I think it's worth taking a serious moment here for anyone who is actually thinking about self-funding their own film -- if you're going to borrow/raise 10K, borrow/raise 50K instead. It will take five times as long, but a 50K film (not including "deferreds") is something that has the POTENTIAL to actually sell in real terms.

To put it another way, let's say the average micro-budgeted professional-grade short film costs on about 4K (that's right smack dab in the middle, IMO), and let's say that the average micro-budgeted professional-grade short film comes in at about 10 minutes. That means that every ten minutes of filming should cost around 4K. With 50K you're in the arena of a "correct" micro-budgeted feature.

This isn't an exact detailing, but it gives you an idea of what your micro-budget film should cost.

Please do not go out and make a feature film for 10K. If you can gather together 10K you can gather together 50K -- and if it's a loan you can simply stretch the amortization to make the payments affordable (thought most will advise against self-financing).

You're much better off being a little bit patient, or making 3 incredible short films for that 10K and try to use them to get investor interest in the screenplay you're trying to shoot.

If you're someone with a large amount of disposable income and want to do a 10K film as some kind of a marketing play (e.g. "This film only cost 10K to make"), that's a different story -- the guy who did Monsters has mentioned several times that the budget was one of his primary selling points when looking for distribution (and, of course, the marketing guys used that same point again and again to death).

So while this is all fun in theory to talk about, I think it would be EXTREMELY unwise to spend 10K on a feature film. Anything under 50K (for the reason cited above) has the potential of leaving you nothing but in depleted.

My dad has always said, "Do it once, do it right, get it over with."
 
I've gotta assume you pulled those numbers out of your butt, Brian. My 23 minute "professional-grade" short film cost over $50K to shoot, and that was paying people minimum wage so we could cover them with workman's comp. We also had TONS of donations to make that budget, and everyone above the line worked for free. Shot @ 3 locations, a mixed professional crew, etc. Professional grade by my definition includes a real color session with a professional, professional sound mix, and a professional editor.
 
Snazzy Flapper said:
I've gotta assume you pulled those numbers out of your butt, Brian. My 23 minute "professional-grade" short film cost over $50K to shoot, and that was paying people minimum wage so we could cover them with workman's comp. We also had TONS of donations to make that budget, and everyone above the line worked for free. Shot @ 3 locations, a mixed professional crew, etc. Professional grade by my definition includes a real color session with a professional, professional sound mix, and a professional editor.
Click to expand...

lol

Out of DVXUSER's butt actually. Over the years, reading about people's budgets here in the fests et al, that's the number I came up with. Yours was more than twice as long as I listed here and has been defined differently by you actually paying all of your talent on a short film (which I wouldn't deem necessary when talking about something that is primarily for reel purposes of all those involved).

But by your estimates you're saying it costs on about 21K for every 10 minutes to make a "professional-grade" micro budget film.

I agree that 5 times the budget is better, but I don't agree that the film itself will be any more "saleable" between 50K and 250K (again, prior to deferreds).

I'm actually a bit astonished that it cost you 50K to make a short film. If I'm not mistaken Zak just made his latest feature for 50K pre-back-end. Might have considered cutting a few more corners as it's extremely difficult to have a short film be profitable.

And unlike "amazing", we don't need to take individual stances on what "professional" means. Professional, by definition, means saleable (or, paid for the work you've done). I believe a "saleable" feature can be made for 50K. Beneath that, it's a crapshoot/lottery/pick-your-long-shot-analogy.
 
Giriki said:
Thousands of screenwriters get read every year because they have a "hook"
Click to expand...

Getting "read" doesn't mean much. Getting paid does. Thousands of people get read. Few of them get paid. Everyone else goes back to tending bar or waiting tables and watching the screenplays of other people on the screen.

Besides, we're talking about marketing a film, not submitting a screenplay to agents or contests or whatever.

The same thing applies to films: you have something that sounds and feels interesting to people and they will give it a chance. When they do, then you need to deliver, of course. But it all comes down to having an interesting product and marketing the hell out of it.
Click to expand...
What "people"? Are you making a play for customers, or for investors? Or for an employer?

Hype and buzz. Marketable concept. Good looking trailer. Intriguing backstory helps if you have one. If you've made the whole film by involving people around the world from the development stage to finished product, that helps. The key thing here is that when making an indie film, you must be creative and do something unique both in front of camera and on the marketing side of things. Do "just another indie film" and market it the traditional way and you WILL end up being just a face in the crowd.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, if you don't catch someone's attention within 4-5 seconds, you never will. You need to give them a reason, immediately, to watch. What's your plan?


And what an attitude. Films are all about "pay and continue"? I think it's more like this: I want my films to be seen by as many people as possible and those people want to be entertained by my film.
Click to expand...
Then you're setting yourself up to be a lifelong filmmaking hobbyist. Professionals get paid. If you don't make a living at it, you'll always be something else, making movies in your spare time when you can drum up the cash. And if you don't get people to pay to see what you make, then you'll never, ever make a living at it.

And if you ever go into a meeting with a real investor saying "I don't care if I make money, I just want people to watch and enjoy it," that meeting will be over as soon as you say it. An investor wants to make money. If you don't, then he should not invest with you.

That's just a fact. It's obviously not what you want to hear, but it's the truth.


Paranormal Activity, Blair Witch Project, Monsters, Star Wreck etc. did something right. That's why those films succeeded when others didn't. I don't give a damn about odds. And some aspiring filmmaker does, he/she's in the wrong business. If I gave a damn about odds, I might as well just give up. What are the odds to become a full-time filmmaker, whether the budget is 10k or 1M? What are the odds to make it big with your sub-10k film? What are the odds to...? Who cares, really? If I wanted to play it safe, I would've gone to law school.
Click to expand...
You keep going back and forth on what it is you're trying to do. Are you trying to bring in money on your film or are you trying to sell yourself? If you can't decide which is which, your marketing is going to be a mess. Before you can sell anything you have to decide what you're selling.

All my comments had to do with selling the film, not you. I'm sorry, but unless you're already noteworthy, unless your name already has value, no one cares about you. They only care if they can make money on what you do. If they can't, you're back stocking shelves, no matter how "interesting" your ideas are, no matter how "passionate" you may be about the work, no matter how "visionary" you may be. If you can't bring in the bucks, if people won't put down their money to watch what you make, you're nowhere.

Sure, you might be able to find "patrons," people who don't care about getting their money back and just want to contribute to "the arts" or to "independent film." But the real money comes from people who intend to make it back, and a profit on top. They care about the money.

So, if you want to be anything more than a hobbyist who gets other people to fund his hobby, then "Pay and Continue" is what matters, because it's what pays the bills. Professionals get paid for what they do. If you're not making a living at it, you're not a professional, and you don't make a living if no one pays to see your film.

You call it "negativity," you call it "pessimism," you call it whatever you want; I call it simple physics. You can spend your whole life making personal projects funded by other people or by your other job, and if that's enough for you, if it's its own reward, then so be it -- do whatever you want and be happy with it. The "odds" don't matter. But if you want to do it for a living, then yes, you need to make something people will pay to see, in large numbers.

The film business is not special. It's a business like any other. It exists to sell a product. No business which doesn't sell stays IN business. So, you need to sell product, or you're done.

And inevitably the reaction will be "so I should just give up, huh???" That's up to you. But whatever you decide to do, everyone is better off knowing what they're actually up against and what it is they really have to do in order to make it.

Three shows everyone hoping to make it as a professional filmmaker should watch: Shark Tank, PitchMen, and anything where Simon Cowell tells people why they'll never have a career. Watch, and listen. And above all, don't pretend that what they say doesn't apply to film.
 
David -- I can almost agree with you. Almost. Except that I personally feel that you're speaking as a producer, not a filmmaker. We've talked alot about Kevin Smith and how he made his movie for X amount and then sold his film for X amount. Kevin Smith made a film, but his producer set up the screening and, in the end, sold it.

I think a filmmaker can also wear a producer cap, but when they have that filmmaking hat on, I agree with Girk's sentiment that it should be about art for art's sake. It's then up to the producer (or producer's hat) to figure out how to sell what's been made, or better yet to intervene PRIOR to the thing being made and make sure what's being made is saleable.

But when conceptualizing and actually making the film, if $$$ is coming into the framework, that can be some very dasterdly business. Hopefully the picture you've set out to make your producer (or producer hat) has already given the nod that it is indeed filling a vacancy in some niche market.
 
Simon Cowell's got nothing on D.J.!

I know some people might take his comments the wrong way, (he called one of my posts nonsense - I just laughed. He knows a good deal more than I do)
There's a lot of value in there for people.
I still think it should not stop someone from trying to make an "amazing" film with whatever budget they can muster - but I've never said a feature should be their first film. Start off with shorts, music videos, and go from there...then maybe you'll have some more backing available if your early work shows promise.
 
Pulp, I said "nonsense" because you were misconstruing what people were saying. No one said anything about what specific kind of equipment people should use, etc., or that you "can't" do it if you don't use a high-end camera, or anything like that.

Brian, of course I'm speaking here as a producer, because it's the producers who will give you your shot if they think they can make money on you.

If you want to skip the producers altogether and go straight to the customers, then what I say is even more important. At least with a producer, you have a shot at them "seeing something" in you, polishing you up, and giving you a go -- but it's gotta be something they can make money on. Customers? They don't care about "shots" or "potential"; they want immediate results.

(And I'm not generally Simon Cowell-ish; if I were going to be like any of them, I'd be more like Randy Jackson. But even Jackson lays it down straight if pushed.)
 
David Jimerson said:
Pulp, I said "nonsense" because you were misconstruing what people were saying. No one said anything about what specific kind of equipment people should use, etc., or that you "can't" do it if you don't use a high-end camera, or anything like that.

Brian, of course I'm speaking here as a producer, because it's the producers who will give you your shot if they think they can make money on you.

If you want to skip the producers altogether and go straight to the customers, then what I say is even more important. At least with a producer, you have a shot at them "seeing something" in you, polishing you up, and giving you a go -- but it's gotta be something they can make money on. Customers? They don't care about "shots" or "potential"; they want immediate results.

(And I'm not generally Simon Cowell-ish; if I were going to be like any of them, I'd be more like Randy Jackson. But even Jackson lays it down straight if pushed.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but isn't that kind of convoluting the argument? You're saying that the producer "gives you a shot" because they think they can make money on you. But that's not really the case. The producer gives the PRODUCTION a shot (e.g. is this a script, cast and crew that he/she believes in enough to invest in). But we're not talking about that, right?

Should the *filmmaker* be making art for art's sake? Yes.

Should the *producer* be funding films for money's sake? Yes.

But whether or not the producer funds a film has nothing to do with the motivations of the filmmaker. And, in fact, I'd venture to say that most producers would want the best filmmaker possible working with their money, and the best filmmakers aren't producers, they're filmmakers.

So on the production side I think you're right, but on the filmmaking side I don't think what you're talking about gets any play. The filmmaker's job is to make something great, not something that's profitable. That's the producer's job by either picking the right productions and/or setting up a criteria/guidelines/set of goals for the filmmaker to adhere to whilst in the midst of the creative storm.

And again, I think one person can wear both hats, but there needs to be a clear division between the two, otherwise you're just making a product, a thing to sell, a frisbee, you're not making anything of any merit or that has any real need to exist outside of personal greed -- in which case, there are a thousand ways to make a bunch of money that are infinitely easier and more stable than is making movies.
 
Brian_Rice said:
The filmmaker's job is to make something great, not something that's profitable.
Click to expand...

Not in the business of film. It certainly can be both, but if you're not making profits, you're not going to be making films professionally for long, unless you made enough previously to self-finance -- and how long can you do that without making it back? (Kevin Smith got sent packing after too many flops and is currently blubbering about it.)

If you go cold, you won't get sold; you'll get put in the back in the discount rack like another can of beans. Billy Joel said that about being an "entertainer," but it's true of anyone and anything in the entertainment business. Which is to say, any business.


And again, I think one person can wear both hats, but there needs to be a clear division between the two, otherwise you're just making a product, a thing to sell, a frisbee, you're not making anything of any merit or that has any real need to exist outside of personal greed -- in which case, there are a thousand ways to make a bunch of money that are infinitely easier and more stable than is making movies.
Click to expand...
Oh, but the film business makes product, not art. It makes frisbees. If they happen to be really artistic and beautiful frisbees and still sell, then so much the better, but make no mistake -- it makes frisbees.

And this is probably what frustrates "artists" more than anything. Artists are loath to subordinate the art to the business. They feel it's beneath them. And most filmmakers who cling to that never get to be professionals. (But they do spend a lot of time howling about Michael Bay.)

Everyone who has made it professionally in any "artistic" field has sold out to some degree. Sometimes, maybe most times, to a huge degree. And guess what? Often their work is much better for it later. The Beatles, for example, started out as a thrashy, nasty punk* band in Germany until a producer said "let's clean this crap up and put out something that plays in suburbia." If they had held to their "art" instead of the commercial package, there would be no White Album.

If you think that you, as a filmmaker, can make it as a professional and never compromise on "art," you're in for some huge disappointment.

You said yourself that in order to be professional, it has to be salable. Most art for its own sake isn't. Why? Because what's important to the artist is rarely important to much of anyone else. (And, seriously, it's often not very good.)

Like I said, if you want to do personal projects which are important to you, that's fine -- but no one's required to care about what you find personally meaningful. No one's required to recognize its brilliance. You really want to get someone's attention? Should be no surprise now -- make something they can sell. And they can sell only what people are willing to pay for.

If you want to be professional, you have to go where the money is. There's no other way to do it.






*Not "punk" the genre, but they were total punks.
 
Giriki said:
About screenplays, I have an example: Brian Koppelman. Finally got someone to read his not-so-commercial spec called Rounders. When that guy read it, he saw that it was a great product. Even if that script wouldn't have sold, Brian and his writing partner would've gotten paying gigs off it anyway. That's the point I'm trying to make. If you self-finance a short or a feature, you might not make awful lot of money off that particular project, you might just get your money back and that's it. But it can open you doors to gigs that do PAY you. And in that way, screenplays and completed films ARE similar. 99 guys might say NO when you try to get them to watch your film, but when someone finally says YES, you're golden. In this case, I'm talking about people who are in the biz.


Doesn't matter. Customers, people surfing the net, distribution companies, studios, Kanye West. People.


That's what I'm talking about, if you carefully read my posts. You need something that makes people want to watch your stuff. Example: One day a guy just went to see a producer at a Finnish production company. He had hundreds of tapes with him. He told the producer that he had documented the lives of his drug using friends for a couple of years and he thought it was a story worth telling. It became Reindeerspotting - Escape from Santaland and made it's money back and then some.


I seriously think that you can both make your film available for free AND make your money back and some profit on top of that. They can co-exist. But sure, I wouldn't do it for the rest of my life and yeah, I wouldn't do it with a film with REAL budget. But when you've used only your own money and less than 10k, I don't see a problem. I don't see how it dooms me to be a lifelong hobbyist. Maybe you don't understand or want to understand.


Do you seriously think that I'm that stupid? Who in their right mind would go to an investor and say "you'll lose your money, but hey, it's gonna be a great film"? If a real investor takes part in a project, it's very important that you can pay him back and make him some profit, because if you don't, your career is over. But when you're self-financing your sub-10k film, that goes out of the window. That "limitation" actually allows you to be more creative with your marketing, distribution, etc. And yeah, as I'm the only investor, I have no problem telling myself that "okay, I have X amount of money and I can afford to lose it. Now I'm going to make a film the best way I can, market the hell out of it, make it available to the widest audience possible and see where it takes me." Of course you want to make money off your self-financed film. But it's not the end of the world if it doesn't happen - especially if it brings you your next gig.


:grin:


Oh, these two things can't co-exist? So you need to decide before making a film whether you want to establish yourself as a filmmaker or just make crapload of money? You can't do both? Or maybe you're just scrolling through my posts, trying to find something, anything to pick on and turn to something negative?


Neill Blomkamp. Fede Alvarez. Ricardo de Montreuil. Carl Rinsch. Patrick Jean. Guys who made Star Wreck. They all had interesting ideas that they executed well. They all showed that they are "visionary" and "passionate". Oh and they let people watch their film for free. I guess those guys should just go back to where they came from or "nowhere".


If you dive into production of a film solely because you want to make your investors some money, your film is going to be a pile of crap and no one will want to pay for it -> you can't pay them back. When you have investors onboard, it's important to be able to pay them back, yes. But if that's the only reason you're making a film, you'll fail.


Thank you, Captain Obvious. I didn't say that anyone should give their films for free for the rest of their lives. I never talked about any investors other than the filmmaker him/herself. But if you're trying to say that someone shouldn't do films that feel personal to them, wow. I don't mean that you should do a film that's 9 hours long and it's about a guy who bangs his head against the wall for the whole duration. But it's not all about money. If it is, hey, let's just make porn, shall we? Small costs, huge profits, no need for "art".


Humans usually have two legs. Just in case someone didn't know that, right?


I never said that I would consider giving up in any circumstances. I simply said that if you're trying to make it in the film business as a director, writer, actor or whatever, you shouldn't think about the odds. Why? First of all, you can't calculate the odds. Some people have a better chance of doing it than some. Some people have 0% of doing it. If you start thinking about how big are the odds to make it, how big are the odds to get someone to see your film, how big are the odds to get your next gig, you're only gonna plant doubts in your mind. Don't overcalculate things, just do your best.


Wait, first you say that you don't understand why I talk about selling screenplays because "it doesn't apply to filmmaking" and then you want us to watch shows that have nothing to do with filmmaking just because you think it applies to filmmaking?

You misread everything I write, on purpose or not.
Click to expand...

Then there's little left to say other than "good luck."
 
David Jimerson said:
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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps -- but I've moved beyond the interest of some theoretical philosophical discussion or the implementation of someone's particular definition. I'd like to now get down to the actual doing.
 
David Jimerson said:
Like I said, if you want to do personal projects which are important to you, that's fine -- but no one's required to care about what you find personally meaningful. No one's required to recognize its brilliance. You really want to get someone's attention? Should be no surprise now -- make something they can sell. And they can sell only what people are willing to pay for.

If you want to be professional, you have to go where the money is. There's no other way to do it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I thought, as well. Guess if it's selling out it's selling out. I'd rather keep doing this and make livable wages than have to do something else. I probably already said that, though.Haha. Just agreeing with you, David.
 
But what you're talking about isn't the filmmaker/artist's responsibility -- it's the responsibility of the producer (or producer hat).

I cannot imagine anything more obscenely dull-witted than would be getting into filmmaking to make money. It's literally the worst reason I have ever heard of to do anything in the arts.

You as the filmmaker, writer, painter, musician need to do what it is you do. If you want to then put on a producer hat and mold what it is you do into something saleable, that's fine, even encouraged for the reasons you mentioned, but the raw data and motivation must come from a place other than $$$. Profiteering is the lowest common denominator in any form. People like that make it in porn as someone else mentioned. Artists make art, producers make money that sometimes trickles down to the artist. But if the artist and the producer are both out to only make money, who's making the art?
 
Brian_Rice said:
But what you're talking about isn't the filmmaker/artist's responsibility -- it's the responsibility of the producer (or producer hat).
Click to expand...

The producer is going to hire the director/filmmaker/artist who will make a product that makes him money. Or who, just by being a name themselves, will draw people in.


I cannot imagine anything more obscenely dull-witted than would be getting into filmmaking to make money. It's literally the worst reason I have ever heard of to do anything in the arts.

You as the filmmaker, writer, painter, musician need to do what it is you do. If you want to then put on a producer hat and mold what it is you do into something saleable, that's fine, even encouraged for the reasons you mentioned, but the raw data and motivation must come from a place other than $$$. Profiteering is the lowest common denominator in any form. People like that make it in porn as someone else mentioned. Artists make art, producers make money that sometimes trickles down to the artist. But if the artist and the producer are both out to only make money, who's making the art?
Click to expand...
Who said anyone had to make "art" in business?

The trick is, find something artistically meaningful which also sells. Or, be as artistic in the task at hand as you can be and still get the job done. I'm sure in a perfect world David Fincher would have preferred NOT to direct Alien3, but it was the opportunity he had and he made the best of it (insert snide comments about the movie here). Like the Beatles, if he hadn't, there'd be no Se7en, no Fight Club, no Social Network. At least not as they exist now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top