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

[Barry_Green]

1. Content (in the sense of storytelling and production value) is king. How much production value can you get for $10,000?

How much do you need? Again - reference "Battle at Kruger" - riveting entertainment, and -10,000,000 production value. Reference "Blair Witch": -100,000,000 production value, but a worldwide sensation.

If you're trying to make a film that "competes" with what Hollywood does, on $10k, then you're dead before you even start. You have to do something entirely different than what they do, and something interesting. Something new. Something different. And when you go down that path, just how important does "production value" really become? As long as you can hear what's being said and the shots are occasionally in focus, that's probably enough - depending on the content. Depending on the story and what you're watching.

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.

Disagree. If a great first-time director made the greatest film known to man, they'd have little trouble selling it. The problem, IMO, is that a bunch of delusional newbies think that the pile of crap they make, is the greatest film known to man. Again -- Haxan used a camcorder that was ostensibly lower in quality than an iphone, and made the most profitable, most well-known indie film in history. With zero production value.

All they did is all you have to do -- give the world something they've never seen before.

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.

Totally agree. Well, almost totally -- let's say I agree 99%. But there does come that 1% when you've just got to actually go do something. You should never go in unprepared, but at some point you just have to do it, and I don't know that anyone ever really feels 1,000% prepared before they leap in.

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.

Well... how YOU shoot isn't necessarily all that important, it's how whoever shoots your film shoots. Meaning -- if you're not a genius cameraman, don't shoot it -- hire a genius cameraman (or the best you can get). Composition and style can add so much that it's not even funny. I've seen Macgregor do amazing things with available light in public spaces, like handheld at an airport. Scenarios where 98% of us would have come back with home video footage.

Bottom line is: just because you (the figurative plural all-encompassing "you") have the fire to make a movie, that doesn't mean jack crap. If you have the skills to make a movie but don't, that doesn't mean jack crap either. But if you have the imagination to tell a different story that the world's never seen before, that is interesting -- then yes I daresay that it's entirely possible to do something "amazing" on $10k.

But I think it's absolutely impossible if your goal is to emulate the look and feel of a hollywood feature film. That cannot be done on $10k. You would have to have a massive amount of "favor equity" thrown in on top of it, you'd have to have the last name of Roberts or Cruise to pull off a truly hollywood-looking feature film for that kind of budget.

So don't.

Do something original. In all senses of the word. Even if it's horrible, like Blair Witch, if it's truly original it can captivate the whole world's imagination.

 

[David Jimerson]

All they did is all you have to do -- give the world something they've never seen before.

And that they want to see.

 

[Barry_Green]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. 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.

This is true, yes. You must have something that makes you entirely unique.

You can either buy that, through $$$, to get George Clooney. Or you can come up with something utterly amazing and totally creative and unique -- which costs nothing. But in general, it's probably a lot easier to raise the money to buy a hook, than it is to come up with something compelling and original.

 

[keylight]

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.

Thank you David. This is really the crux of pretty much all of the issues in this thread's twists and turns.

 

[Barry_Green]

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.

Been there, done that, don't really need to do it again. I was more interested in the concept of "what can we get these DVXUsers making".

 

[Barry_Green]

The odds do get beaten every now and then, just as someone wins the Powerball every couple of months or so. Everyone allowed for that.

But, some people seem to be of the mind that such an amazing confluence of circumstances can be engineered at will. Do what you do and maybe you'll get lucky. But the overwhelming likelihood is that you won't.

This is also 100% correct.

And if someone was so talented that they actually *could* arrange the circumstances at will... they sure as heck wouldn't be doing it for $10k... at least, not twice.

 

[Barry_Green]

David, I'm not saying that I can do it - (and believe me I get what you're saying) - my belief is that some highly motivated, highly imaginative DVX User is out there with the right story that fits the requirements for an amazing low budget film (smaller in scope, high on concept). I just want them to try....that's all, and maybe he/she can be helped to achieve this through the wealth of user knowledge here.

And that is exactly what I'm wanting to explore too.

 

[filmmakerguy]

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

You say go where the money is, where is this?

 

[Barry_Green]

And that they want to see.

Touche.

 

[Brian_Rice]

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.


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.

I hear your point of view, but you might have to at least consider that it's incorrect.

Either that or we need to start talking about what art in film is and the difference between being a technician and an artist.

If someone is proficient at using a certain mechanism -- pen, pencil, camera, welding torch, etc -- does that make them a great artist or a great technician?

To me art is the inception of art, the creative force that insights something that reflects experience (real or imagined). So when you mention Fincher on Alien 3 I see a technician doing a job. When you mention Fincher on Fight Club I see in that film the artistic inception. A great artist can often be a great technician. So the guy painting surrealistic murals might also take a job painting signs on road side diners in order to pay the bills.

Technicians (jugglers, musicians, photographers, etc) can certainly use their techniques to make money and further business as the Beatles did. But by citing the Beatles I think you also have to flash forward to Lennon's later works, which weren't created for profit's sake and, by most accounts, were better than anything the Beatles ever accomplished (artistically).

All I'm saying is that the Painter artist and the Painter technician can be one in the same and often times the Painter technician can help support his artistic inceptions, and sometimes the Painter artist can support himself by artistic inception alone so long as he has a following or someone to help engineer that following.

But I agree, art does not belong in business just like business does not belong in art, the key for the producer (or producer hat) is to try and preserve art when it's passed on to the business side of things to the best of their ability. But to antagonize the inception of art with business particulars, again, is a deeply flawed reasoning and is what results in the end with the death of art and unique expression.

The only place business should exist in art is in the distribution of art. And yes, that distributary intervention might come at an early -seemingly- creative stage, but the inception of the art, if incited out of business purposes, is a worthless thing to anyone other than the people profiting from it.

So if your main concern in filmmaking is making profits then you're not a filmmaker, you're a producer. If you're main concern in painting is making profits then you're not a painter, you're running a gallery. If you're main concern in acting is making profits then you're not an actor, you're an agent (or maybe just a prostitute). A person can pick up a camera and call themselves a filmmaker and shoot things called films, but if the inception is about profits they're not an artist, they're a technician (or acting as one) and a technician doesn't create, they perform a task the same as your plumber.

On Alien 3, Finch was the resident plumber, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just happen to think there's a difference between being a plumber and being a painter. So when he made Fight Club he set down the plunger and picked up the brush.

 

[Barry_Green]

You say go where the money is, where is this?

Depends on which money you're looking for - investor money or audience money.

 

[David Jimerson]

You say go where the money is, where is this?

That place where people are willing to pay.

 

[Kholi]

This is also 100% correct.

And if someone was so talented that they actually *could* arrange the circumstances at will... they sure as heck wouldn't be doing it for $10k... at least, not twice.

DEFINITELY not twice. A 30-50K is MAYBE a two time deal for me, and that's stretching it hardcore.

I'm fairly sure I'd have to do even more jobs than before.

 

[David Jimerson]

I hear your point of view, but you might have to at least consider that it's incorrect.

Either that or we need to start talking about what art in film is and the difference between being a technician and an artist.

If someone is proficient at using a certain mechanism -- pen, pencil, camera, welding torch, etc -- does that make them a great artist or a great technician?

To me art is the inception of art, the creative force that insights something that reflects experience (real or imagined). So when you mention Fincher on Alien 3 I see a technician doing a job. When you mention Fincher on Fight Club I see in that film the artistic inception. A great artist can often be a great technician. So the guy painting surrealistic murals might also take a job painting signs on road side diners in order to pay the bills.

Technicians (jugglers, musicians, photographers, etc) can certainly use their techniques to make money and further business as the Beatles did. But by citing the Beatles I think you also have to flash forward to Lennon's later works, which weren't created for profit's sake and, by most accounts, were better than anything the Beatles ever accomplished (artistically).

All I'm saying is that the Painter artist and the Painter technician can be one in the same and often times the Painter technician can help support his artistic inceptions, and sometimes the Painter artist can support himself by artistic inception alone so long as he has a following or someone to help engineer that following.

But I agree, art does not belong in business just like business does not belong in art, the key for the producer (or producer hat) is to try and preserve art when it's passed on to the business side of things to the best of their ability. But to antagonize the inception of art with business particulars, again, is a deeply flawed reasoning and is what results in the end with the death of art and unique expression.

The only place business should exist in art is in the distribution of art. And yes, that distributary intervention might come at an early -seemingly- creative stage, but the inception of the art, if incited out of business purposes, is a worthless thing to anyone other than the people profiting from it.

So if your main concern in filmmaking is making profits then you're not a filmmaker, you're a producer. If you're main concern in painting is making profits then you're not a painter, you're running a gallery. If you're main concern in acting is making profits then you're not an actor, you're an agent (or maybe just a prostitute). A person can pick up a camera and call themselves a filmmaker and shoot things called films, but if the inception is about profits they're not an artist, they're a technician (or acting as one) and a technician doesn't create, they perform a task the same as your plumber.

On Alien 3, Finch was the resident plumber, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just happen to think there's a difference between being a plumber and being a painter. So when he made Fight Club he set down the plunger and picked up the brush.

You know, the Beatles used to sit around joking with each other about how "today, we're going to write a swimming pool" or "today, we're going write a new car." They understood that what they were doing was a business. Are you going to say they weren't artists? And some of those swimming pools and new cars are considered some of the best songs ever written.

If a muralist makes his living painting road signs, then he's a professional road sign painter who does murals as a hobby. There's nothing wrong with that, but he's not a professional muralist.

 

[Kholi]

To sort of side with David... Brian, why are you doing an X-Men Fan Film? Because, you know more people would watch it versus an original sci-fi.

That's business practice, that isn't art.

 

[David Jimerson]

To sort of side with David... Brian, why are you doing an X-Men Fan Film? Because, you know more people would watch it versus an original sci-fi.

That's business practice, that isn't art.

Yes.

 

[Zak Forsman]

I think it's a career killer to draw a line between the art and business of filmmaking in these times. I truly believe that we've entered an age where the successful indies will embrace both, as artist-entrepreneurs. I'm not sure how else one can expect to elevate themselves from making movies as a hobbyist, to one that sustains themselves as a full tilt filmmaker.

Winning the lottery is not a plan I would bank my career on.

 

[keylight]

What are your backgrounds?

What are your backgrounds?

Some pretty bold statements have been made in this thread. But not really knowing a person's background can make it difficult to understand how and why someone has that particular point of view (or why they hold it so strongly). You can get a picture for some people - Kholi, Jawa, David, and Barry for example are pretty well known around here and they've pretty much demonstrated their bona fides.

But for other people posting here, who knows?

I'm clearly in the "who knows" category at this point. For all anyone knows I could be a 20 year old day-dreaming of making movies who wants to hop on the next flight to L.A., with a dollar in my pocket and a whole lot of chutzpah - but no real education or experience on which to base most of my assertions. So time for a little disclosure....

About 20-25 years ago that description was pretty much me. So I went to school and studied the industry inside an out and worked for 15 years in production (about half of those as a producer). A few years back I went back to school (while working part time as a freelancer) and changed professions. I am now a lawyer (business and IP law) and split my time between representing clients and working on a documentary.

I'm wondering about the backgrounds of Brian, vcassel, and Giriki. You've all argued pretty vociferously in this thread. I think it would help me (and others?) to have a better understanding of who you are and where you're coming from.

 

[keylight]

David -- I can almost agree with you. Almost. Except that I personally feel that you're speaking as a producer, not a filmmaker.

Without producers, there would be no filmmakers. (To clarify, I mean professional filmmakers, not hobbyists.)

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?

You're right about the producer giving the Production a shot. But they are still the one giving you a shot because they've hired you as a part of the production. And if they see you screwing it up, the Producer will be the one to fire you and bring on someone else.

 

[CallaghanFilms]

To sort of side with David... Brian, why are you doing an X-Men Fan Film? Because, you know more people would watch it versus an original sci-fi.

That's business practice, that isn't art.

You mean like the fan film that was Tales of the Gold Monkey? :evil:



(Just f-ing kidding, by the way...It was my favorite show at the time too)