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
David Jimerson said:
I do think there's a serious communication block between those who have done and those who haven't. Part of "go do it" is "see if you still think so when you're done."
Click to expand...

I've made a feature film before for $2,000. It's not amazing, but it's my first feature, and we can't all make The 400 Blows right out the gate. I definitely think it's possible to make an amazing feature for $10, or even less. I was surprised to not only see this topic come up, but go on and on for 77 pages. I've never thought for a moment that it's impossible. I guess that's what keeps me going.
 
Billy Pilgrim said:
I've made a feature film before for $2,000. It's not amazing, but it's my first feature, and we can't all make The 400 Blows right out the gate. I definitely think it's possible to make an amazing feature for $10, or even less. I was surprised to not only see this topic come up, but go on and on for 77 pages. I've never thought for a moment that it's impossible. I guess that's what keeps me going.
Click to expand...

Problem is, NOBODY has done it yet, after 100 years of film making......
 
Tarantino at 2:17 mark asked if it's still possible for a filmmaker to do what he and Rodriguez did to break in. Says that yes there are more people out there doing it but their like waves on the beach. Basically just garbage being produced. He basically sums it up as do a great movie. If you drop some dynamite in the audiences lap or nitro, something badass, they'll all sit up and pay attention. I think that's pretty inspirational.



I think maybe the problem is people aren't even trying to make an amazing film nowadays. I think it can be done if people really tried for it, but most don't. Because if you did, the first thing you'd do is start asking questions like what makes a movie amazing? What movies are amazing? What does it take to make an amazing film? I've thought about all these things and I think this discussion is proof that most filmmakers DO NOT think that way. Maybe it's doubt, maybe it's fear, but you can tell from 77 pages of talk that everyone sort of avoids the topic and keeps saying the same thing "it's subjective" or "it's different to everyone" or whatever other excuse they can use for not knowing or understanding it. I don't think it is that subjective. I think it does take watching enough films however until you can truly see it. If I told you I've seen thousands of films and have experienced hundreds of classic films in cinema, you would likely then sit up and wonder what it is I consider amazing because I've experienced more films that you haven't seen. And vice versa, if you've seen thousands of films and have truly studied and watched the best films out there, I would value your opinion more. I think you have to experience cinema to truly understand the scope of it before you can define what amazing is. It is definable.
 
Last edited:
Billy Pilgrim said:
I've made a feature film before for $2,000. It's not amazing, but it's my first feature, and we can't all make The 400 Blows right out the gate. I definitely think it's possible to make an amazing feature for $10, or even less. I was surprised to not only see this topic come up, but go on and on for 77 pages. I've never thought for a moment that it's impossible. I guess that's what keeps me going.
Click to expand...
Did you get distribution?
 
I think it's worth pointing out that Rodriguez made a pretty crappy flick to break in and get to where he is. He's also made a few crappy flicks since breaking in, so while I think he's great for the topic of books to read and actions to live by as far as breaking into the industry, him in the realm of the "amazing" film discussion is stretching it, no matter how kick-ass Desperado is.

Personally I'd like to think that what makes the INDIE film "amazing" doesn't have a whole heck of a lot to do with the director, it has to do with the script. Most of Tarantino's early stuff had amazing SCRIPTS that, if shot by pretty much any professional director, would have turned out just about as good. I don't think True Romance is somehow vastly visually inferior to, say, Pulp Fiction. What makes Pulp Fiction so much better is that it has a better script. Same reason Pulp Fiction is better than Deathproof or Kill Bill (though I love them as well).

I think *shooting* an "amazing" film has a lot less to do with how it's shot and much more to do with the pages its being shot from.

God, how much would I love to see a 26 year old Tarantino with a Mark 5D II and an NTG3 shoot Resevoir Dogs for 10K.

lol Awesome.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
The thing is, some people here talk from their own hard earned experience. Others here are just arguing for the sake of arguing and might argue differently if they had any real hard earned experience of their own.
Click to expand...

I must agree, but from both sides of the fence and it seems in equal proportions.
 
keylight said:
Problem is, NOBODY has done it yet, after 100 years of film making......
Click to expand...

Primer.

Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it hasn't been done. There could be a totally obscure but amazing film you don't know about. Thing is, films have been made for over 100 years, but they only became really affordable in the last few years or so.

To answer Jawa, no, my film doesn't have a distro deal, but quality has very little to do with what gets distributed, especially by the majors. It has everything to do with marketability. Same goes for major film festivals.

I personally feel like Quiet City is an amazing film. Made for $2,500, and has distribution. I also happen to think Primer is amazing. Robert Rodriguez made me believe I could make a feature for very little money, as it has many filmmakers, but I agree, it's kind of a crappy movie. Primer is a unique take on an old concept (time travel) that's executed well too. And it was shot on Super 16 for about 7 grand. So, yeah, I think it has been done in the 100 years of filmmaking. I think the 10 year old girl in Ohio that Coppola fantasized about could be out there right now, but we just don't know about her because of the BS behind film festivals, distribution, etc.
 
Just added to my queue Primer (to watch it again) and Quiet City (to check it out for the first time).

It's too funny that on Quiet's Wiki page they list it's gross revenue as 15K. lol

Hopefully things have improved since then.
 
keylight said:
Problem is, NOBODY has done it yet, after 100 years of film making......
Click to expand...

I'm just giving one example, there are a few others Known and undoubtedly many that never saw the light of day.

Pather Panchali - by Satyajit Ray - Frequently listed as one of the greatest films of all time by SOME and a 97% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, an 8/10 by 5,421 IMDb users - made for $3,000.

Some will say...yeah but that was back then - But I could turn right back around and say that editng on a computer, and shooting digital is WAYYY cheaper than what he used back then - Let's call that one a wash.
The reason I listed this one is because if you list any other film - someone always says, "that's not amazing". This one is highly praised by many, many people.
 
Loving this thread for the effort people are putting up to use actual facts to debate their position. I say we stop calling these films "exceptions", but instead admit that there is an entity in the film industry called the micro-budget film, and many hundreds of them exist in various instances and of various quality -- just like big budget films. And just as big budget films can cost anywhere from 2 million to 520 million, the micro-budget film can (and has) been produced well from 2K to 50K.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I'm just giving one example, there are a few others Known and undoubtedly many that never saw the light of day.

Pather Panchali - by Satyajit Ray - Frequently listed as one of the greatest films of all time by SOME and a 97% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, an 8/10 by 5,421 IMDb users - made for $3,000.

Some will say...yeah but that was back then - But I could turn right back around and say that editng on a computer, and shooting digital is WAYYY cheaper than what he used back then - Let's call that one a wash.
The reason I listed this one is because if you list any other film - someone always says, "that's not amazing". This one is highly praised by many, many people.
Click to expand...
Pather Panchali was made in 1955. $3,000 in 1955 is over $24,000 if you count inflation. Plus, in 1955 there weren't problems like Dolby Digital licenses or paying money to use the DVD logo on your screener covers. You know, post production costs that usually costs more than $10,000 today.

I'm sure if you counted all that stuff in, Primer would be a lot more expensive than the $7,000 bucks IMDb claims it cost to make (well $8,000 counting inflation).

As I've said before you need more than just equipment and screenplay. Post production and selling the film has costs all on its own.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Selling the film has costs all on its own.
Click to expand...

I thought the title of this thread was "Do you think it's possible to shoot an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?" not "Do you think it's possible to sell an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?"

Now you're just moving the goal posts. That's fine and well as an additional or compounded conversation, but let's not confuse the issue more than it already has been.
 
vcassel said:
I thought the title of this thread was "Do you think it's possible to shoot an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?" not "Do you think it's possible to sell an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?"

Now you're just moving the goal posts. That's fine and well as an additional or compounded conversation, but let's not confuse the issue more than it already has been.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

A proper sound edit / mix with M&Es that will pass QC is going to cost more than $10,000 on its own, but I don't think you need all of that to get a film into a festival and in front of viewers.
 
vcassel said:
I thought the title of this thread was "Do you think it's possible to shoot an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?" not "Do you think it's possible to sell an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?"

Now you're just moving the goal posts. That's fine and well as an additional or compounded conversation, but let's not confuse the issue more than it already has been.
Click to expand...

Exactly....everytime, every example....there's always "yeah but" Even then I still say that comparing the relatively inexpensive digital equipment of today vs the uber expensive equipment of yester year makes the $3,000 Pather Panchali a wash .....even if it's $27,000 today's dollar - we then have to subtract what it costs to shoot on film and edit film, all of that is done faster/easier/cheaper with today's DIY technology - 12 year old kids can put together a home movie on a handycam/IMOVIE that would have cost thousands to do back then.
No matter how you look at it Pather Panchali WAS a shoestring buget.....shot with friends and family as cast/crew.
 
vcassel said:
I thought the title of this thread was "Do you think it's possible to shoot an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?" not "Do you think it's possible to sell an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?"

Now you're just moving the goal posts. That's fine and well as an additional or compounded conversation, but let's not confuse the issue more than it already has been.
Click to expand...
So post-production doesn't need to be taken into account? Just production?

What about the cost of crashed external hard drives during post-production? On "Marianne" that cost was over $1,600 USD, and we used all kinds of brands. We even had a Samsung Blackarmor just completely die after two weeks of use.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top