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
Man, I just couldn't disagree more with this line of thinking.

Not working a job (or being able to devote *all of your time* to something) will not make you inherently better at whatever it is you're trying to do. I mean, if that were the case then no professional could ever lose their job or position to someone coming off the street. It's an absurd argument. *Time* does not make one person better than the other. Talent and work ethic usually takes care of that.

The most hilarious thing I hear from most artists (although less so from athletes because maybe they're better at dealing with the realities of life) is that if they only had more *time* they could actually do something with themselves. And you know when they're usually saying that? When they're sitting at a pub with their friends complaining about how they don't have enough *time*. Chances are they just can't cope with the real concept of sacrifice.

I just want to make absolutely sure that you guys understand your position on this: Kurt Warner was working at a grocerie store and playing football on the side when he was drafted. That means he TOOK THE JOB of someone who was a working professional -- someone who ONLY HAD TO PLAY FOOTBALL. He then went into the NFL and won a Superbowl. Could he have done that while still working his job at the grocerie store? You bet he could.

Working a day job does not make one boxer worse than the other. The world's full of guys working jobs while boxing until they finally knocked out a big enough name guy so that they didn't have to work that day job anymore.

Silly argument IMO.

You will never have to be your best to win. You will only ever have to be better than everyone else.
 
Brian_Rice said:
Not working a job (or being able to devote *all of your time* to something) will not make you inherently better at whatever it is you're trying to do.
Click to expand...

No, it will make you better at what you're trying to do through work, practice, repetition, and exercise of skill. Arguing against it is what's "silly." I mean, really, really silly.
 
And if you're shooting a feature on weekends over a period of months, how will that even be amazing even the most basic aspects of writing/directing/acting.

Complete nonsense. Example: Eraserhead.

Only one of the most original films ever, and launched the career of one of the most original and significant American directors ever, David Lynch. The film has been universally recognized as a landmark, and its reputation has only grown, with 2004 even "deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry."(from the wikipedia link).

It's relevant in two ways here - ironically, it was started by a $10,000 grant from AFI, but it wasn't finished - wait for it - for 5 years, shot sporadically over the years 1971 to 1976, on weekends, using friends family and acquaintances. Note, it has no real professional actors - all were relative unknowns at the time.

Reactions from other directors:

"After seeing the film, Mel Brooks hired Lynch to direct The Elephant Man in 1980.[16]
Eraserhead was one of director Stanley Kubrick's favorite films.[17] Before beginning production on The Shining, Kubrick screened Eraserhead for the cast to put them into the atmosphere he wanted to convey.
George Lucas was a fan of the film and, after seeing it, wanted to hire Lynch to direct Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. Lynch declined"

I don't know. If that many people, including directors like Kubrick find it to be one of their favorite movies, I don't think there is much doubt about it not having "even the most basic aspects of writing/directing/acting."

Wow. Talk about being wrong. Not only was Eraserhead excruciatingly long in production in extremely prolonged fashion, but it was a very early effort with little access to top pros. And yet, the result was revolutionary for the art of cinema.

Here's reality. It's not important if you shoot on weekends, and if it takes you one month or five years to complete, or you have access to top pros or not. What's important is vision, talent and dedication. It's not about how long you train. But how good you are. Nobody cares if you have been shooting all your life - you can still be a hack. And you may have only shot ONE film, and delivered "Citizen Kane". There are no rules. There are only results. Get them any way you can, and don't worry about the naysayers, the negative nellies and debbie downers. Do you know why you should not pay attention to all those folks with all those rules - rules which only exist to be broken? Here's why, and let me quote William Goldman, with the most profound observation about the world of film: NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING.

So next time you read some silly assertion, like the one I responded here, just remember that observation. And then go do your stuff, "rules" be damned!
 
Everyone's definitely entitled to their opinion! Personally, I'm seeing it as too much of an effort to encourage through words versus by example. You can tell people lots of things, but even I would want to be shown.

We're using our experience in producing a feature under the nano budget umbrella of 30-50K feature films to hopefully inspire our peers to go out and do it. That's about all we can offer to anyone. In a perfect world these here letters would be placed in a script instead of a forum! haha.

Good thing the world is not perfect, though. :D
 
I can't believe that we are 700 posts in on a thread about uber low budget feature filmmaking and no one has yet brought up Rick Schmidt's "Feature Filmmaking at Used-Car Prices". What's up with that?
 
Dave -- I noticed that you chose to ignore the entire latter half of what I said.

It would be awesome if you could then explain to how an athlete of similar genetics and age could ever possibly lose his/her job to someone working a day job.

Having more *time* just means plainly that you have more *time*. It doesn't mean that you're going to be better or worse at anything. So being a professional basketball player does not mean that you're going to be better than a non-professional basketball player. That is the crux of this argument and, yes, it is silly. Having more *time* to do something does not mean that you're going to be better at it.

8 hours of practice after you get off your day job yields the same results as 8 hours of practice after spending your day at the beach.

Most Olympic athletes are working day jobs while training for the Olympics.

All things being equal, having more time does not make you better.

And just so we have a little science in the mix, from the William Glasser's Institute:


We learn 10% of what we read
We learn 20% what we hear & 30% what we see
We learn 50% of what we see and hear
We learn 70% of what we discussed with others
We learn 80% of what we experienced personally
We learn 95% of what we teach to someone else

So by this estimate the best way to learn something in your chosen profession would be to have a job teaching it to someone else. (e.g. the novelist working as an English teacher).

Additionally, Dr. K. Anders Ericsson (who is pretty much the world authority on human performance) created the “ten-year rule” and “10,000-hour rule” which suggests that it requires at least ten years and/or 10,000 hours of deliberate practice to achieve an expert level of performance in any given domain. His studies address the type of practice inconjunction with the amount of time. (2.7 hours of practice per day on average)

When we look at virtuoso musicians the estimates are 6 hours of practicing per day for non-professionals and 3 hours a day for working professionals. Anything more than that does not necessarily make them better, just as once they cross the 10,000 hour mark, their skills cannot necessarily improve.

So it isn't about working a job or not working a job, it's whether or not you're putting in 6 hours a day into your craft. All the rest is fluff and empty reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Brian_Rice said:
Dave -- I noticed that you chose to ignore the entire latter half of what I said.

It would be awesome if you could then explain to how an athlete of similar genetics and age could ever possibly lose his/her job to someone working a day job.
Click to expand...

Brian, nobody said that there aren't people naturally good at things, or that there are people who are just so good that they don't have to practice.

But if you take two people of the same natural ability, get one to work at something day in and day out, every day, and get the other person to do it only in his spare time, while primarily doing something else, the idea that they'd both have the same level of skill and proficiency at that thing is quite staggering in its silliness.

I mean, really. Come on.

You pull Kurt Warner out of the supermarket and drop him directly into a Superbowl, and that ain't gonna work out very well.
 
David Jimerson said:
Brian, nobody said that there aren't people naturally good at things, or that there are people who are just so good that they don't have to practice.

But if you take two people of the same natural ability, get one to work at something day in and day out, every day, and get the other person to do it only in his spare time, while primarily doing something else, the idea that they'd both have the same level of skill and proficiency at that thing is quite staggering in its silliness.

I mean, really. Come on.

You pull Kurt Warner out of the supermarket and drop him directly into a Superbowl, and that ain't gonna work out very well.
Click to expand...

Again, your argument holds no water. It sounds right on paper, but I've already shown you the psychological facts about training and practice. If you give two people, two IDENTICAL TWINS, 24 hours in a day and No-Job Twin deliberately practices for 10 hours a day and With-Job Twin deliberately practices for 6 hours a day, the results will be near identical.

And taking Warner out of the grocerie store and dropping him in the Super Bowl is a fiction. You can take most players out of the last playoff game of the season and put them in the Super Bowl and 50% of them will lose. Taking Warner out of the grocerie store and having him in his first year as a second string quarter back win the Super Bowl is fact -- and it didn't matter that other people had more amounts of free time and professional training than he did leading up to that Super Bowl.

But I already gave bundles of scientific study that's been done on this subject. 12 hours or 6 hours in a day just doesn't make enough difference to matter.
 
OldCorpse said:
So next time you read some silly assertion, like the one I responded here, just remember that observation. And then go do your stuff, "rules" be damned!
Click to expand...

You can also fall out of an airplane while it's in flight and live, but that doesn't mean that saying that you'll die if you fall out of a aircraft at 20,000 feet (or up) is a "silly assertion."
 
Brian_Rice said:
Again, your argument holds no water. It sounds right on paper, but I've already shown you the psychological facts about training and practice. If you give two people, two IDENTICAL TWINS, 24 hours in a day and No-Job Twin deliberately practices for 10 hours a day and With-Job Twin deliberately practices for 6 hours a day, the results will be near identical.
Click to expand...

Do you have a real-world study with two real people that deal with this, or are you just making a baseless assertion?
 
This is so absurd, it's kind of funny. If length of practice and years of experience were the determining factors, you could never, ever, have a situation, where a guy who is only 25 delivers not only his first film, but one that is considered the greatest of all time on more lists of great films than any other. I mean, how much experience could he have at 25? As an artist? Further, he had NO experience in film - it was his very first. He had some theater and radio drama experience, but ZERO film. And he wore more than one hat in that film - he also acted the main role! He wasn't just concentrating on directing - which is another piece of advice from people, not to wear too many hats... ha, ha, ha! Wow! So it's RUBBISH to say you need to have a lot of experience to succeed in art. I mean, it wasn't merely success - it was the greatest ever! EVER! Take that and smoke it!

Think about the logic of this for a moment. If length of experience mattered, you'd expect that as a director makes more films, he gets better and better - and yet that's definitely not true. Directors frequently decline over the years. Look at Wells himself - he never made another film half as good, and it was downhill from there. All that extra experience bought him bupkas. Baloney. As with many artists - in every field - so very often their early work, or even first work is their best work... so again - total rubbish on the thesis that you need experience. I like the way a certain brilliant music producer made a great record - he asked who had the most experience, and fired them, LOL! He wanted a fresh approach and fresh mind, not invested in their education, but virgin ears and lack of experience was a plus.

Again - throw out the rules! Do you want to do hack work, then follow the rules. Do you want to do ORIGINAL work, GREAT work, AMAZING work? Then don't listen to the "experts" - they can only teach you the old ways.

Reality is that only results count - not experience, not hard work, not a flat stomach, not a big bank account. Results. Get those, in whatever way you can - in fact, I'd say, avoid the "experienced" advice. Some of the greatest breakthroughs were when people were forced to do new things in new ways because of limitations - like "noir" would not have existed, if directors didn't need to disguise a complete lack of funds for elaborate sets and locations, so they shot at night with little visibility, and made up with strong shadows and light to generate atmosphere and obscure the sets. Avoid "experienced" advice - and remember the words of young artists from every field who broke through... "I did it, because I didn't know you couldn't" "I did it because I had no idea what I was doing" "I was ignorant, so I tried something wild". The expert is there to tell you "why you can't". Avoid them.

Now granted, I'm exaggerating a bit for effect, but the spirit is essentially correct: don't listen to the debbie downers, and the squadrons of the "impossibles" experts. Take that $10K limitation and make it work FOR you, not against you - from overcoming limitations come the greatest breakthroughs.
 
You can also fall out of an airplane while it's in flight and live, but that doesn't mean that saying that you'll die if you fall out of a aircraft at 20,000 feet (or up) is a "silly assertion."

And that person invents the parachute, while the "safety expert" can only blather.
 
OldCorpse said:
If length of practice and years of experience were the determining factors, you could never, ever, have a situation, where a guy who is only 25 delivers not only his first film, but one that is considered the greatest of all time on more lists of great films than any other. I mean, how much experience could he have at 25? As an artist? Further, he had NO experience in film - it was his very first. He had some theater and radio drama experience, but ZERO film. And he wore more than one hat in that film - he also acted the main role! He wasn't just concentrating on directing - which is another piece of advice from people, not to wear too many hats... ha, ha, ha! Wow! So it's RUBBISH to say you need to have a lot of experience to succeed in art. I mean, it wasn't merely success - it was the greatest ever! EVER! Take that and smoke it!
Click to expand...

You don't know much of anything about Orson Welles, do you? And besides, even if you were half right about what you were saying about him, some people have natural talent, but not everyone.
 
Gary Huff said:
You don't know much of anything about Orson Welles, do you? And besides, even if you were half right about what you were saying about him, some people have natural talent, but not everyone.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but talent wasn't in debate (though the nature vs nuture debate is always a fun one, especially in the arts).

The debate is simply, "Does having a day job affect your ability to compete effectively?"

And I think it's quite clear that, no, in fact, having a day job does not in any way impede on one's ability to compete (or create) effectively.

What impedes is a lack of discipline or a lack of tools (or, in the case of film, often times $$$). *Time* is the most used excuse and is, essentially, irrelevant as was pointed out in the 6 hour rule (or 2.7 for the purists).
 
Brian_Rice said:
Yeah, but talent wasn't in debate (though the nature vs nuture debate is always a fun one, especially in the arts).
Click to expand...

But the main gist of OldCorpse's response was that Welles was a relative amateur who made what some consider to be the greatest film of all time. That is simply ignorant of the fact that Welles spent a decade living and breathing live theater and radio, both audio and visual aspects of storytelling, and was able to translate that over into the film world. He wasn't a "newbie" and he didn't have a "day job." Just because you can switch from playing a oboe to a saxophone doesn't mean you can just pick up a saxophone and play a song with no prior experience.

Brian_Rice said:
And I think it's quite clear that, no, in fact, having a day job does not in any way impede on one's ability to compete (or create) effectively.
Click to expand...

It's not quite clear. Are there people that succeed in spite of having a day job? Yes. Is having a day job a hindrance to starting another career. Absolutely.
 
Gary Huff said:
It's not quite clear. Are there people that succeed in spite of having a day job? Yes. Is having a day job a hindrance to starting another career. Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Can't really argue with that. Even being in the industry one can find themselves just trying to find work to pay rent next month. That leaves a small window for other things. You really need to be a warrior to beat the odds.
 
Wow. OK.

The boldness of statements in this thread is getting to the point where the expectation of truly amazing footage is reaching a fever pitch.

Fine. You win. Everyone's the exception to the rule and if one person did it, then anyone can do it, and anyone who says otherwise is just . . . what? Deficient? Jealous? A pessimist? A Debbie Downer?

Prove it with footage. Today's May 6th. Let's see some amazing moving pictures by August 1st. Because if it's all truly so easy and everyone's so truly amazing as what I'm getting in this thread, then that should be no problem.

So, go do it. Talk is cheap. Typing wastes valuable filmmaking time. Don't say you're working on it; go do it.
 
Fine. You win. Everyone's the exception to the rule and if one person did it, then anyone can do it, and anyone who says otherwise is just . . . what? Deficient? Jealous? A pessimist? A Debbie Downer?

Prove it with footage. Today's May 6th. Let's see some amazing moving pictures by August 1st. Because if it's all truly so easy and everyone's so truly amazing as what I'm getting in this thread, then that should be no problem.

C'mon folks, we're not children... what's next, take my ball and go home to sulk? We're here having a discussion. If were aren't and it's all "show me", then why even have a discussion? Why use words? Why not say "next fest, deliver, end of discussion.". Just because someone loses in the discussion doesn't mean one can't be gracious. If I'm wrong, I happily and graciously concede the point - I don't sulk and say "well, then I ain't gonna respond to your point, you prove by doing X". Not everyone who listens to a piece of music or sees a film or whatever, has to be a better musician or filmmaker - the audience or critics can have an opinion, and that's legitimate. Now, most on this board have plans or are already actively involved in filmmaking, so it's only natural that their results will speak for themselves, either way. But meanwhile, we are having a discussion as civilized adults.

Someone makes an assertion. It's patently absurd. Should we all look at our fingernails and pass over it in silence? A guy tries to tell us that someone who has exclusively a background in theater and radio drama should be able to waltz onto a filmset never having as much as directed a short, and then not only direct but take the main role in the greatest film of all time? Who would believe that? It disproves - completely and utterly the "experience" nonsense. Time to conceded the point, not try to say "but, but, but he was in theater and radio!!!"... try that, as a claim to "great experience with film", when you have not as much as seen a camera or set a foot on a film set. It's absurd. But there you are, someone is so invested in their theory, that they'll defend the indefensible.

I don't think we should not say anything, just because an authority figure said something absurd. Emperors clothes and all. I respect David, but I think a mark of respect is to actually call someone on their claim that 2+2=5. It would be patronizing to not address this. If I'm making a drastic mistake, I hope my friends actually call me on it, and not politely ignore it. Same here. I think David is a fount of negativity that can affect many young artists - and not least himself. I look at it as a big service to say, "David, you're a great guy, but you got this one wrong". It's like someone honestly telling you their opinion of your script. If all you're looking for is empty flattery, then that's not respectful, IMHO. And if someone feels that I'm not being sincere and trying my very best to help and be encouraging and even inspiring to filmmakers, then I'll shut up and go away and never post again. I'm rather taken aback by attacks, frankly, and it's not cool. We shouldn't be attacking each other, we should be supportive and frank, pointing out both the good and the mistakes. My apologies if anyone feels I'm wrong.
 
It's actually how people will respond when someone's trying to impose their views as facts. Not siding with anyone, really. There are perfectly valid thoughts coming from either side of the fence. There are also statements of outright discouragement and outright encouragement, and I hope each individual can take from it what they need t make a decision to either do now or do later. But, if it's going to get heated then there's no reason to continue the thread...

That's definitely not what we want!
 
OldCorpse said:
C'mon folks, we're not children... what's next, take my ball and go home to sulk? We're here having a discussion. If were aren't and it's all "show me", then why even have a discussion? Why use words? Why not say "next fest, deliver, end of discussion.". Just because someone loses in the discussion doesn't mean one can't be gracious. If I'm wrong, I happily and graciously concede the point - I don't sulk and say "well, then I ain't gonna respond to your point, you prove by doing X". Not everyone who listens to a piece of music or sees a film or whatever, has to be a better musician or filmmaker - the audience or critics can have an opinion, and that's legitimate. Now, most on this board have plans or are already actively involved in filmmaking, so it's only natural that their results will speak for themselves, either way. But meanwhile, we are having a discussion as civilized adults.

Someone makes an assertion. It's patently absurd. Should we all look at our fingernails and pass over it in silence? A guy tries to tell us that someone who has exclusively a background in theater and radio drama should be able to waltz onto a filmset never having as much as directed a short, and then not only direct but take the main role in the greatest film of all time? Who would believe that? It disproves - completely and utterly the "experience" nonsense. Time to conceded the point, not try to say "but, but, but he was in theater and radio!!!"... try that, as a claim to "great experience with film", when you have not as much as seen a camera or set a foot on a film set. It's absurd. But there you are, someone is so invested in their theory, that they'll defend the indefensible.

I don't think we should not say anything, just because an authority figure said something absurd. Emperors clothes and all. I respect David, but I think a mark of respect is to actually call someone on their claim that 2+2=5. It would be patronizing to not address this. If I'm making a drastic mistake, I hope my friends actually call me on it, and not politely ignore it. Same here. I think David is a fount of negativity that can affect many young artists - and not least himself. I look at it as a big service to say, "David, you're a great guy, but you got this one wrong". It's like someone honestly telling you their opinion of your script. If all you're looking for is empty flattery, then that's not respectful, IMHO. And if someone feels that I'm not being sincere and trying my very best to help and be encouraging and even inspiring to filmmakers, then I'll shut up and go away and never post again. I'm rather taken aback by attacks, frankly, and it's not cool. We shouldn't be attacking each other, we should be supportive and frank, pointing out both the good and the mistakes. My apologies if anyone feels I'm wrong.
Click to expand...


I really don't understand your reaction here, because what I'm doing, what I'm reacting to, is exactly this:

Someone makes an assertion. It's patently absurd. Should we all look at our fingernails and pass over it in silence? A guy tries to tell us that someone who has exclusively a background in theater and radio drama should be able to waltz onto a filmset never having as much as directed a short, and then not only direct but take the main role in the greatest film of all time? Who would believe that? It disproves - completely and utterly the "experience" nonsense. Time to conceded the point, not try to say "but, but, but he was in theater and radio!!!"... try that, as a claim to "great experience with film", when you have not as much as seen a camera or set a foot on a film set. It's absurd. But there you are, someone is so invested in their theory, that they'll defend the indefensible.

I don't think we should not say anything, just because an authority figure said something absurd. Emperors clothes and all. I respect David, but I think a mark of respect is to actually call someone on their claim that 2+2=5. It would be patronizing to not address this. If I'm making a drastic mistake, I hope my friends actually call me on it, and not politely ignore it.
Click to expand...
I'm not politely ignoring it, and I'm calling it out. Just like you say you hope.

But there reaches a point where you can only say something in discussion so many times before it truly comes down to "fine, show me."

Because if what I say "holds no water" and apparently I'm a danger to young artists and myself, then what else is there to say?

EDIT: And I wasn't referring to your Welles tangent, which I didn't even SEE until a couple of minutes ago (7:25 pm). But on that note -- how can you say that his experience in theatre and radio offered no experience relevant to making a film?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top