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
Whether it needs saying or not, let me say it:

Deuce of Spades.

There's someone who undertook the art and business of filmmaking simultaneously. She understood exactly who her audience was, and she made a film that appealed to her sense of art and to her audience, with the understanding that if she made something they would want to see, they'd see it.

She spent practically nothing on it, and has grossed about a quarter of a million dollars in sales so far.

Is the film "amazing"? Not to a lot of the audience, no -- it's well done and well crafted and well shot, but it's not redefining the world of filmmaking like El Mariachi or Blair Witch did. But it's pretty amazing what she pulled off as far as a period piece, with zero budget.

But she was extremely intelligent about it. She knew her audience and made something that her audience wanted to see. And through the internet she has reached that audience. Ten thousands DVDs sold worldwide, so far -- and she's four-walling it to sold-out screenings across the country.

Probably one of the most (yes, I'll use the word) amazing indie filmmaker success stories DVXUser has seen.

And yes, I would classify her as a "filmmaker" -- one who understood her film, what she was trying to do, approached it as an art, and also one who totally understood her audience and made something they wanted to see.

Spend the $22, get it, and see how one of your contemporaries actually did it. And then learn the lessons from it.
 
Zak Forsman said:
I personally 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.
Click to expand...

Zak, I think I may have mentioned to you about how I feel outcasted as a no-budget filmmaker. It almost feels like this sector is more segregated than the big machine people are always harping on. If you aren't doing a documentary or something quiet and sleepy, you're not one of us. But, reading this from a guy who I think represents some of the best in message-delivering, emotional, and engaging narrative--never having to rely on the things that I do--it makes me feel a ton better about being part of the group.

I know you're more so saying that you need to balance the business and art if you want to support yourself, it still rings strong with me, personally.
 
keylight said:
Without producers, there would be no filmmakers. (To clarify, I mean professional filmmakers, not hobbyists.)
Click to expand...
Agreed 1000%.

However, as pointed out by Faith, the business of producing doesn't have to be quite what it once was. People talk a lot about the "democratization" of film -- and they always want to point to some damn camcorder or DSLR as if that has anything to do with it. It doesn't. The true "democratization" of film is what you're staring at right now. The internet. The internet has made it possible to connect artists with one another, to connect businesspeople with those artists, and to connect the final product to the audience. Look, I've already pitched in here that I'm trying to put together something with Callaghan, Hudson, Kholi Hicks, and Frank. I know Hudson's in San Diego and Hicks is in Los Angeles. I think Frank's in Germany and I have no idea where Callaghan's at. Does it matter? Of course it doesn't matter, because the Internet has made it possible.

Faith has sold 10,000 copies of her film worldwide. How many to a conventional film distributor? Zero. All are direct sales to end customers (or to some stores in Finland or something, I forgot exactly what she said she had going on there). Point being -- she didn't need Lion's Gate or Artisan, she did it herself, through the internet. Reached out to the audience, found them, interested them in the film, and is now selling it to them, in such quantities that she's been able to quit her day job and buy a motor home and turn her career into touring the country promoting the film and holding screenings in front of appreciative audiences.

Poo poo the DSLR. The Internet is the "democratization of filmmaking."
 
Kholi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't look at it as selling out. Look at it as buying in!

(Hey, I think that will be my new sig!)
 
Barry_Green said:
Agreed 1000%.

However, as pointed out by Faith, the business of producing doesn't have to be quite what it once was. People talk a lot about the "democratization" of film -- and they always want to point to some damn camcorder or DSLR as if that has anything to do with it. It doesn't. The true "democratization" of film is what you're staring at right now. The internet. The internet has made it possible to connect artists with one another, to connect businesspeople with those artists, and to connect the final product to the audience. Look, I've already pitched in here that I'm trying to put together something with Callaghan, Hudson, Kholi Hicks, and Frank. I know Hudson's in San Diego and Hicks is in Los Angeles. I think Frank's in Germany and I have no idea where Callaghan's at. Does it matter? Of course it doesn't matter, because the Internet has made it possible.

Faith has sold 10,000 copies of her film worldwide. How many to a conventional film distributor? Zero. All are direct sales to end customers (or to some stores in Finland or something, I forgot exactly what she said she had going on there). Point being -- she didn't need Lion's Gate or Artisan, she did it herself, through the internet. Reached out to the audience, found them, interested them in the film, and is now selling it to them, in such quantities that she's been able to quit her day job and buy a motor home and turn her career into touring the country promoting the film and holding screenings in front of appreciative audiences.

Poo poo the DSLR. The Internet is the "democratization of filmmaking."
Click to expand...

In addition to Faith's internet audience, she's also gotten herself a DCP of her feature film so that she can roll around the control plugging it in at Digital Cinemas! That's pretty awesome, and I am sooo jealous that she's doing that. Haha.

Can we just push the User Films section to the top of the forums!? >:]
 
CallaghanFilms said:
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)
Click to expand...

As such, it's a good illustration of some of this.

Tales isn't a fan film of Raiders, and it wasn't inspired by Raiders. What it was inspired by (and is sort of a fan film of) is:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031762/combined

(Geoff Carter? Jake Cutter? Kinda unsubtle.)

It was being shopped around in the late '70s but no one wanted it. Then, Raiders happened, and it was ripe for cashing in on. People wanted that kind of thing. But before Raiders, no one could tell there was a market for it, and Tales was dead letter.

Tales was greenlit only because ABC thought it could make money with it.
 
Kholi said:
Zak, I think I may have mentioned to you about how I feel outcasted as a no-budget filmmaker. It almost feels like this sector is more segregated than the big machine people are always harping on. If you aren't doing a documentary or something quiet and sleepy, you're not one of us. But, reading this from a guy who I think represents some of the best in message-delivering, emotional, and engaging narrative--never having to rely on the things that I do--it makes me feel a ton better about being part of the group.

I know you're more so saying that you need to balance the business and art if you want to support yourself, it still rings strong with me, personally.
Click to expand...

yeah, I would say it's a matter of making them indivisible from one another, inseparable. by creating a solid business foundation so the artistic/entertainment components can connect with an identified audience and flourish, whether that audience be a niche or more broad in scope.

here's an example. I have a friend. she hosts a tech show on cable, cultivates a huge community of fans on her own web site and has over 100,000 followers on twitter. she's also an actress and we've worked together in the past. say you were to sell a $15 DVD or bluray of a artfully rendered microbudget actioner or thriller or horror movie with her in the lead to just 10% of her followers. now you have a number to work backwards from. this is the way business supports the art of filmmaking. and yes, this is something I'm currently developing for her.
 
David Jimerson said:
As such, it's a good illustration of some of this.

Tales isn't a fan film of Raiders, and it wasn't inspired by Raiders. What it was inspired by (and is sort of a fan film of) is:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031762/combined

(Geoff Carter? Jake Cutter? Kinda unsubtle.)

It was being shopped around in the late '70s but no one wanted it. Then, Raiders happened, and it was ripe for cashing in on. People wanted that kind of thing. But before Raiders, no one could tell there was a market for that it, and Tales was dead letter.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. As much of a fan of that film I am, I never saw it as a possible inspiration for Monkey. Very interesting.
 
Zak Forsman said:
yeah, I would say it's a matter of making them indivisible from one another, inseparable. by creating a solid business foundation so the artistic/entertainment components can connect with an identified audience and flourish, whether that audience be a niche or more broad in scope.

here's an example. I have a friend. she hosts a tech show on cable, cultivates a huge community of fans on her own web site and has over 100,000 followers on twitter. she's also an actress and we've worked together in the past. say you were to sell a $15 DVD or bluray of a artfully rendered microbudget actioner or thriller or horror movie with her in the lead to just 10% of her followers. now you have a number to work backwards from. this is the way business supports the art of filmmaking. and yes, this is something I'm currently developing for her.
Click to expand...

My next two ideas are a lot more "sound" from the script phase. I think the first is just an exercise in execution, commitment, and delivering something that people will watch/pay for.

You're definitely on the money about the audience percentage: ten percent of those people is a realistic number, barring everything else is on the level, and you can set your budget from there. So, your safe bet is 150K spending budget, something you could break even on over the course of two years, then everything outside of that is cake, which involves grabbing an audience beyond her followers.

Honestly, all of this stuff is a no brainer to me. I'm just curious about the thought process of other mciro/nano independents?
 
The posit doesn't necessarily assume 'live action'. It may have less to do with this site and it may feel like a tangent at this point in the conversation, but one definitely can make an 'amazing' animated film for less than $10K in this day and age. Beyond the tools an actual animator capable of taking on such a challenge would probably already have (a capable computer and software), a definite assumed expense would be in rendering, but there are sites like RenderWeb that are making things possible without the need to buy a dedicated render farm. You're timeline on such a project is protracted, though. I would cell render in a classic anime style.
 
vcassel said:
The posit doesn't necessarily assume 'live action'. It may have less to do with this site and it may feel like a tangent at this point in the conversation, but one definitely can make an 'amazing' animated film for less than $10K in this day and age. Beyond the tools an actual animator capable of taking on such a challenge would probably already have (a capable computer and software), a definite assumed expense would be in rendering, but there are sites like RenderWeb that are making things possible without the need to buy a dedicated render farm. You're timeline on such a project is protracted, though. I would cell render in a classic anime style.
Click to expand...

You would also spend a good straight two to three years non-stop doing it. This is a question of: is it worth it? I'm a huge anime geek, by the way, and I support the idea. But, the reason I learned live action is just that. It would take TOO long and it would be TOO expensive to do an anime properly.

I came from Digital Illustration first. At one point I wanted to do that as a career, then I did so... and, I realized it was NOT for me. hahaha. Live Action with CGi is much easier and faster, instant gratification is the term.
 
Kholi said:
You would also spend a good straight two to three years non-stop doing it. This is a question of: is it worth it? I'm a huge anime geek, by the way, and I support the idea. But, the reason I learned live action is just that. It would take TOO long and it would be TOO expensive to do an anime properly.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would take that long if you're animating 3d models and cell rendering like Ghost in the Shell or Steamboy did, but even those were mixed media. I would use a lot of helper scripts and files, like the City Generator script in Max and pre-built models for non-essential props. I think with a good core team it wouldn't take 2 or 3 years and can definitely be cost effective.
 
vcassel said:
The posit doesn't necessarily assume 'live action'. It may have less to do with this site and it may feel like a tangent at this point in the conversation, but one definitely can make an 'amazing' animated film for less than $10K in this day and age. Beyond the tools an actual animator capable of taking on such a challenge would probably already have (a capable computer and software), a definite assumed expense would be in rendering, but there are sites like RenderWeb that are making things possible without the need to buy a dedicated render farm. You're timeline on such a project is protracted, though. I would cell render in a classic anime style.
Click to expand...

I'm so not even going to go there.
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

I moved beyond that point on page 2. And oh, I got amazing treatments. One has a monkey. But don't worry, I totally know where I can get a free monkey.
 
Barry_Green said:
Whether it needs saying or not, let me say it:

Deuce of Spades.

There's someone who undertook the art and business of filmmaking simultaneously. She understood exactly who her audience was, and she made a film that appealed to her sense of art and to her audience, with the understanding that if she made something they would want to see, they'd see it.

She spent practically nothing on it, and has grossed about a quarter of a million dollars in sales so far.

Is the film "amazing"? Not to a lot of the audience, no -- it's well done and well crafted and well shot, but it's not redefining the world of filmmaking like El Mariachi or Blair Witch did. But it's pretty amazing what she pulled off as far as a period piece, with zero budget.

But she was extremely intelligent about it. She knew her audience and made something that her audience wanted to see. And through the internet she has reached that audience. Ten thousands DVDs sold worldwide, so far -- and she's four-walling it to sold-out screenings across the country.

Probably one of the most (yes, I'll use the word) amazing indie filmmaker success stories DVXUser has seen.

And yes, I would classify her as a "filmmaker" -- one who understood her film, what she was trying to do, approached it as an art, and also one who totally understood her audience and made something they wanted to see.

Spend the $22, get it, and see how one of your contemporaries actually did it. And then learn the lessons from it.
Click to expand...

What makes her accomplishment even more amazing to me, is that she did something that went against the "logic" of working with a low budget - A period film!
When I sat down and thought about ways you could make a hypothetical $10,000 feature, my conclusions were that it should be a smaller cast, fewer locations, and paired down in scope - She had many locations, a fairly large cast, and the scope of it was pretty big (being a period film)
What this says to me is that the answer to our question should not be an emphatic yes or no, but a simple - "Why not?"
Meaning - if you have a particular story/concept and it just could NOT be done for that kind of money the reply to "Why not?" is "It can't be done, given what I want to achieve."
Totally understandable.
But if you have a story/concept that would be feasible to make for AROUND $10,000 (a little less or a little more) the reply to "Why not?" should be "There is no reason why not" and get on with making your film.
It's in a way like recording music - If you have a solid guitar/bass/drums band with good songs, there is no good reason a strong record can't be put to disc for little money (Trust me on this one)
If however you want to make an epic record with 2 guitars/bass/drums + strings, 8 minute interludes, tons of vocal and guitar overdubbing, electronic sounds, etc. the budget will move much higher.
The first example is Bleach by Nirvana recorded basically straight up for $600
The second example is Radiohead's O.K computer recorded for lord knows how much... Both amazing records IMO, but different projects require different budgets.
All I'm saying is there are "amazing" projects that could be done for around the stated budget (because the concept doesen't truly require massive spending)
 
Starting with the above mentioned 12 Angry Men, and moving on to Buried and 127 Hours, a single location film could save you $ on sets, costumes, transportation and more.

But speaking of $, what kind of accounting are we talking here? Because anything donated, be it gear, labor, costumes or houses, costs something, at some point, to someone.

If it's an in-kind donation (of goods or services)- it's till worth something. That's why charities and political campaigns keep records on these donations.

But can an amazing film be made for $10K, out of pocket? Possibly. Not likely, though.

"Amazing" sets the bar high- very high. I don't know that I'd say 10 truly "amazing" films have been made in the past 10 years, on any budget.
 
groveChuck said:
Starting with the above mentioned 12 Angry Men, and moving on to Buried and 127 Hours, a single location film could save you $ on sets, costumes, transportation and more.

But speaking of $, what kind of accounting are we talking here? Because anything donated, be it gear, labor, costumes or houses, costs something, at some point, to someone.

If it's an in-kind donation (of goods or services)- it's till worth something. That's why charities and political campaigns keep records on these donations.

But can an amazing film be made for $10K, out of pocket? Possibly. Not likely, though.

"Amazing" sets the bar high- very high. I don't know that I'd say 10 truly "amazing" films have been made in the past 10 years, on any budget.
Click to expand...

Here we go again! (hahaha)
 
I have an idea for a film.

It's a horror film, could be done for $2,000 bucks maybe.
Unfortunately, it's not a commercial concept.

It's an interesting idea and it's never been done this way before, and it would piss a lot of people off though.
So at least it would be fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top