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

[pulpfiction007]

Again, I think that depends on your definition of amazing. You're presenting a perspective of a what I would consider a traditionalist or purists in comparing current films to Spielberg and Scorcese. The comparison is almost generational to a fault. Have you considered that the overall film audience, their attention span, and their definition of amazing is changing more rapidly than ever before?

Yes, I have...but if they have a choice between a BIG Budget action flick with all the fixings and an small action flick with huge limitations, guess which one 99% will choose. As far as the directors go...I only referenced them for their style. I think filmmaker guy could be an action guy at heart, but still do something interesting to start off with (with elements of action) and do it with a style. He'd get more value from his money if he invested more toward having an original story/concept than to blow it all on stunts etc. Not to say you couldn't do action...it would just be very tough to compete - that's all I'm saying.

 

[Mark Harris]

...Not gonna do anything "adult" though.!

Dang, there goes my monkey idea...

 

[jwmemmer]

Yes, I have...but if they have a choice between a BIG Budget action flick with all the fixings and an small action flick with huge limitations, guess which one 99% will choose. As far as the directors go...I only referenced them for their style. I think filmmaker guy could be an action guy at heart, but still do something interesting to start off with (with elements of action) and do it with a style. He'd get more value from his money if he invested more toward having an original story/concept than to blow it all on stunts etc. Not to say you couldn't do action...it would just be very tough to compete - that's all I'm saying.

But see, your perspective is that an amazing film under 10k has to be a small action flick with huge limitations. What you consider barriers may not be barriers to others.

 

[pulpfiction007]

But see, your perspective is that an amazing film under 10k has to be a small action flick with huge limitations. What you consider barriers may not be barriers to others.

There ARE limitations though. If we're talking about ACTION films...having a low budget is a limitation(compared to 20 to $100,000,000) Action films are made with MULTIPLE cameras and/or from several different angles, explosions galore, car chases, incredible stunts, lots of effects, and the list goes on. If someone can do all that for $10,000 they deserve an Oscar. If it doesen't have at least some of these things...it's not really an action film - it's something else, and an entirely different story.

 

[David G. Smith]

And that, my friend, is the definition of the tragedy. He ignored what he was good at, and chased after something that was never going to happen, and ended up losing it all. I know several lawyers, (including on this very board) who have decided they'd rather be film/videomakers. Lawyering is pretty good preparation for that, and it at least helps you fund this expensive hobby, and you really, really do have something to fall back on.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything -- I'm just asking you to really honestly review what you're doing. If it's not gonna happen, get out now and get on with magnifying your talents and growing your skills and becoming who you're meant to be. Not everybody has to be a filmmaker. Seems like everyone wants to be, but by definition most will never succeed to any measurable degree. So find out now, early, whether that's you or not. You will be doing yourself, and the world, a favor if you find out where you belong, as soon as possible.

The equally sad and weepy side to this is that even when "Chasing" the dream many folks do it with half measures, less than 100% commitment, and when it comes to rolling the dice, taking the big chance to see what they have, they flinch and back away. Their lot is worse then those that try and fail. Their lot is knowing for the rest of their life that they did not really try. I like your example of Jim Henson, but I believe that even when he put the sock puppet on his hand and went out into the world he had to pick up the dice and roll. Of course we know that his roll came up seven, and, I believe the world is better for it. If, as you say, a person should look at their real prospects and make a decision whether they "Have what it takes", I would agree. However, I would add the qualifier that they should make the decision after they have given their dreams a full 100% effort, put the "Full days work in" that would be required to pull off the dream and really faced the risk of big failure. If they have done that, and failed, I think that they would be able to find out a lot about themselves and will probably find their place in the world and make their mark. If they are not willing to do that, well, they have also learned a lot about themselves and they may want to take the best job they can and get on with their life.

As another qualifier, and to keep from sound preachy, I have to admit that I have just about reached a point where it is my time to pick up the dice and take the roll. The project will be a more than a bit more then $10K, and will be put together, mostly, from my own and my partner's personal resources. I have to admit that there is more than a little trepidation, but like I noted above, I gotta know for sure. Back to the OP, I don't really know if an AMAZING film can be made for $10, 000.00. I suspect that the question was raised because that is the amount the OP believes that can be raised. Well, there is a lot of information on this thread about that, but the reality of it is that there really is only one way to find out. Pick up the dice.

If not, well, "They are always hiring at the Post Office".

 

[keylight]

See, I still believe that King's "I have a dream..." speech would have been important whether or not anyone ever heard it or read it. Had he written the speech and then tossed it in the fire, it is something that existed and, for a time, was important even if its creator was the only one to have ever seen it.

So it could have been a very important step for King in his personal growth. But instead of using a real speech that was given, let's make something up. Let's say King was talking to his neighbor one day and said:

Maybe someday we'll be equals and can sit down and watch our kids play together.
​

Now that one sentence wasn't very important to anyone really, but it ultimately led to something important, because it sparked something inside of King. Some time passed, and he thought about it more and more, expanding on it and turning it into a sermon of sorts that would shake the foundations of our country....

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

​

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

​

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

​

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.​

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

​

I have a dream today!

​

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

​

I have a dream today!​

So then we substitute "I have a dream" with "Maybe someday" as I paraphrase what you wrote:

See, I still believe that King's "Maybe someday..." [line to his neighbor] would have been important whether or not anyone [else] ever heard it.... Had he [said and forgotten it], it is something that existed and, for a time, was important even if [his neighbor] was the only one to have ever [heard] it.
​

I don't know. Somehow, if the thought never got used in any meaningful way then it really wasn't important. In the hypothetical where it sparked something that evolved into something important later on, maybe it was a little important as something that planted a seed. But that seems tenuous to me.

Anyway....

 

[snowleopard]

I too think this is a great thread. And I agree with David J. This is much more interesting than another "My DSLR is better than your DSLR" thread analyzing hair-splitting technical detail.

I wonder though, because everyone has different dreams, hopes, expectations:

How would you define "make it"? What tangibles would that mean to you? Earning your living in film? How much is that? Being an A-list director? Making a film and getting praise, even if no money? How do you define "make it", or "success" not for others, but for yourself?

Conversely, how would you define "failure"? And I mean for you, not for any unidentified general filmmaker.

Maybe you're very capable "making it" right now and don't realize it?

 

[keylight]

Saw this tonight and thought, "you know, that touches on almost every single topic discussed in this thread.

So, presented here for your amusement:

 

[xqzt]

I too think this is a great thread. And I agree with David J. This is much more interesting than another "My DSLR is better than your DSLR" thread analyzing hair-splitting technical detail.

I wonder though, because everyone has different dreams, hopes, expectations:

How would you define "make it"? What tangibles would that mean to you? Earning your living in film? How much is that? Being an A-list director? Making a film and getting praise, even if no money? How do you define "make it", or "success" not for others, but for yourself?

Conversely, how would you define "failure"? And I mean for you, not for any unidentified general filmmaker.

Maybe you're very capable "making it" right now and don't realize it?

In being able to make work that inspires and challenges me I find success, once that artistic drive has ended.. that would be severe failure.

It's funny, every now and then, I feel like I have "made it" in some capacity(finishing a film, getting a good gig). The bar continues to rise. But then looking back, what I truly cherish are those moments when it was the most challenging, most guerilla... I had hardly any money and I would long for some amazing job that would "make it" for me... Now I do pretty good, I'm working on a indy feature film that inspires me and getting paid okay to do it, I work in tv early @$$ in the morning and the pay sucks, I get to teach seventh graders how to make films and animations, its all some form of success. If I make a ton of money and fully fund my own artistic visions, sure I would have made it again, but I must continue to strive for some innovation in my work, still maintain that desire for more & less. Zen, baby.

(killer, killer thread)

 

[Brian_Rice]

So it could have been a very important step for King in his personal growth. But instead of using a real speech that was given, let's make something up. Let's say King was talking to his neighbor one day and said:

Maybe someday we'll be equals and can sit down and watch our kids play together.
​

Now that one sentence wasn't very important to anyone really, but it ultimately led to something important, because it sparked something inside of King. Some time passed, and he thought about it more and more, expanding on it and turning it into a sermon of sorts that would shake the foundations of our country....

So then we substitute "I have a dream" with "Maybe someday" as I paraphrase what you wrote:

See, I still believe that King's "Maybe someday..." [line to his neighbor] would have been important whether or not anyone [else] ever heard it.... Had he [said and forgotten it], it is something that existed and, for a time, was important even if [his neighbor] was the only one to have ever [heard] it.
​

I don't know. Somehow, if the thought never got used in any meaningful way then it really wasn't important. In the hypothetical where it sparked something that evolved into something important later on, maybe it was a little important as something that planted a seed. But that seems tenuous to me.

Anyway....

Yeah, the debate went on long enough. But just to clarify, what you're saying here isn't speaking to my point. To clarify a final time, I'm saying that if a piece of art addresses something important (as defined by scientific fact) then that piece of art becomes inherently important. It doesn't need to be seen, witnessed, watched, read or handled. It can be created and then be buried for all eternity and its importance will not have changed if 1 person or a million ever see it. That's my personal position. It's a tough one to accept so not a lot of people accept it. To most people things matter because people say they matter. That, to me, isn't the case. If a million people told me that Jersey Shore matters, it wouldn't sway me to believe that Jersey Shore in fact matters. If those same people told me that Silly Bands matter, it wouldn't sway me to believe Silly Bands matter. I've chosen to take human perspective out of the equation, and since I've done that I then have to ask myself, "To the species, what matters more, a movie about Silly Bands or a movie about Civil Rights?" Well, by most definitions here, if more people saw the movie about Silly Bands then that means that the film about Silly Bands is *more important*.

That's the position of most of the people here, and I understand that position, but I don't agree with it.

 

[djbobbyrhodes]

Yeah, the debate went on long enough. But just to clarify, what you're saying here isn't speaking to my point. To clarify a final time, I'm saying that if a piece of art addresses something important (as defined by scientific fact) then that piece of art becomes inherently important. It doesn't need to be seen, witnessed, watched, read or handled. It can be created and then be buried for all eternity and its importance will not have changed if 1 person or a million ever see it. That's my personal position. It's a tough one to accept so not a lot of people accept it. To most people things matter because people say they matter. That, to me, isn't the case. If a million people told me that Jersey Shore matters, it wouldn't sway me to believe that Jersey Shore in fact matters. If those same people told me that Silly Bands matter, it wouldn't sway me to believe Silly Bands matter. I've chosen to take human perspective out of the equation, and since I've done that I then have to ask myself, "To the species, what matters more, a movie about Silly Bands or a movie about Civil Rights?" Well, by most definitions here, if more people saw the movie about Silly Bands then that means that the film about Silly Bands is *more important*.

That's the position of most of the people here, and I understand that position, but I don't agree with it.

I understand what you're saying, but let's put this out there: What's more important a film about civil rights that only the director watches and then buries. Or a film about civil rights that is viewed by millions?

If it's the 2nd one, then although both may be important, viewership has value just as well as subject.

 

[Brian_Rice]

I understand what you're saying, but let's put this out there: What's more important a film about civil rights that only the director watches and then buries. Or a film about civil rights that is viewed by millions?

If it's the 2nd one, then although both may be important, viewership has value just as well as subject.

Oh, of course. I've never argued that. Obviously viewership matters. I would never argue that the more people see a thing the more people can be influenced by a thing. The only argument has ever been whether or not something is inherently important, that's all. And that conversation began when people said that creating or conceptualizing something for only reasons of profiteering was somehow an amicable pursuit. I disagreed and was attempting to explain why (e.g. one is important to the profiteers while the other is important to the species. As artists, I believe we should be focused on the latter. Has nothing to do with foresaking the former, only that conceiving of something only for purposes of profiteering is, IMO, a vacant pursuit and does nothing but muddy the human experience).

But I would never denounce the artist who sets out to make something important combining his/her efforts with the producer who sets out to make something profitable. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, despite what we see out of most Hollywood productions.

For instance, my producer hat wanted me to make a fan film so that more people will end up seeing the short film. But my artistic self chose the X-men as the topic because although it would be easier to make, say, a Batman fan film, I felt there were more important things to be said using the X-men franchise.

 

[David Jimerson]

Well, Brian, I think it's time for your filmmaking butt and all the hats that go along with it to get out of your chair and go make the film. 'Coz there's one thing that's irrefutable -- if it never gets out of your head and into tangible form, it doesn't mean a thing. Don't say it. Do it. If you do, you won't have to say anything.

 

[Brian_Rice]

Well, Brian, I think it's time for your filmmaking butt and all the hats that go along with it to get out of your chair and go make the film. 'Coz there's one thing that's irrefutable -- if it never gets out of your head and into tangible form, it doesn't mean a thing. Don't say it. Do it. If you do, you won't have to say anything.

I'm doin it Dave, I'm doin it!

 

[CallaghanFilms]

...This is me closing my case.

...but arguing this is just silly...

I'm probably gonna side with Barry on this one and let this aspect of the conversation start to fizzle...

...I didn't want to backtrack this conversation as I think this aspect is coming to a close. I think...

...I have come to some closure about all this, though...Good talk, though

...But yeah, I've moved on

...But I realize that the argument regarding whether or not art can be inherently important (unlike some things that are inherently important to the species) isn't one that can be debated to resolution and so has to stay my personal opinion.

Yeah, the debate went on long enough. But just to clarify....

Now, move along.

 

[Brian_Rice]

lol

That was awesome.

And totally not my fault. Everytime I go to let things go someone comes in and takes another jab at my position urging me to defend it. I don't think I've said something non-reactionary for about 63 pages.

On a side note, it's creepy how some of those lines taken out of context look as though I'm being proactive. Particularly the "I didn't want to backtrack the conversation..." That was me explaining to someone else why in fact I wasn't giving them an in-depth response. But, taken out of context, it looks like I'm the instigator.

Forget content -- context is key.

 

[Zak Forsman]

I actually agree AND disagree with this.

First, here's how I disagree:

I would argue that most of us shouldn't spend too much time crafting that amazing tale. People who are Amazing storytellers/writers should, but I suspect (and it's certainly true of me) that most of aren't. Rather, spend your time reading. Everything. Short stories online, in magazines, in quarterly literature publications. Find something someone else has written that you really love, that can work as a movie, and then option it. No, you won't be optioning the latest NYT best seller. But there are a lot of really good writers out there who have written great stuff. And that stuff can usually be optioned for hundreds instead of thousands of dollars.

The discussion in this thread at one point talked about the democratization that the internet has had on film making. Same is true for writers who are now self publishing. So read, read, read..... Consider the time it takes to develop a great story. What's your time worth in dollars? (You may not want to count it as a cost, but it is. hehe) Now consider spending a fraction of that time reading hundreds or thousands of other people's stories. A lot of junk, but some good stuff too.

Compare the chances that the story you wrote will be great vs finding a great one in those thousands you read? Now add in the value you get from the fact that a whole bunch of other people probably also read and liked that great story you found. Specifically I'm thinking about how much easier it might be to get financing if your backers see that people (other than you) like the story. The story has potential market value, and that's paramount for your investors. (The art may be paramount to you, and since it's a great story you get to apply your art while the investors decrease their risk and increase their potential for ROI.)

So optioning something can be a cost (and time) effective approach.
​

And here's how I agree:

Focus on whatever your core competencies are. If that's writing, then fantastic, write away. But keep doing that and don't worry too much about directing, producing, lighting, audio, editing.... Worry about the story. Let others who are already good at film making put it up on the screen. There will be plenty of time for you to direct later on, after you've got a few produced stories under your belt.

If your forte is directing, then don't worry about writing something new and original. Instead, worry about translating that new and original thing someone else wrote and you optioned to the screen.

Film making is a collaborative art. You can of course go it alone, but it is so much more interesting, fun, and profitable to do it with others. Collaborate with a good writer, or if you're a good writer then collaborate with good film makers.

​

Thoughts?

good stuff, keylight. focus on the type of work you're inspired to do and "close the gap"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI23U7U2aUY

 

[filmmakerguy]

good stuff, keylight. focus on the type of work you're inspired to do and "close the gap"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI23U7U2aUY

great vid, great point, thanks for sharing

 

[Brian_Rice]

Jumping back to the aspect of the thread concerning Kholi and a few others regarding CGI vs practical with regards budget --

Star Wars: Threads of Destiny, a feature-length fan film, is being worked on by CGI people all over the world (Germany, Sweden, Spain, US, etc) on a zero budget and I feel that their space battle CGI effects are equal to what we're seeing in theatres (or at least better than what we see on the Sci Fi channel).

Unfortunately it looks like there's going to be some weakness in the acting and scriptwriting, but CGI effects can be done well on a zero budget feature -- it just might take you 5 years to complete it.

Ironically I wonder if they would have done it all using miniatures like the original Star Wars if things wouldn't be taking so long.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ThreadsOfDestiny

 

[vcassel]

Jumping back to the aspect of the thread concerning Kholi and a few others regarding CGI vs practical with regards budget --

Star Wars: Threads of Destiny, a feature-length fan film, is being worked on by CGI people all over the world (Germany, Sweden, Spain, US, etc) on a zero budget and I feel that their space battle CGI effects are equal to what we're seeing in theatres (or at least better than what we see on the Sci Fi channel).

Unfortunately it looks like there's going to be some weakness in the acting and scriptwriting, but CGI effects can be done well on a zero budget feature -- it just might take you 5 years to complete it.

Ironically I wonder if they would have done it all using miniatures like the original Star Wars if things wouldn't be taking so long.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ThreadsOfDestiny

Hmm, I don't want to disparage your overall thought in regards to CGI on little budget (I went to school for it and I agree), but just a quick glance at that trailer leaves me unimpressed with most of the post work. The two-shot from 1:14 onward in particular, besides having bad contrast and color issues, has some pretty nasty keying issues in flickering and feathering. I feel kinda rotten pointing it out, though; at least they're trying. But it's just not on par with the work done on a big budget 'amazing' feature.