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

[Gary Huff]

Can't even find a trailer for it to get a glimpse of what it looks like.

 

[Brian_Rice]

Can't even find a trailer for it to get a glimpse of what it looks like.

But after his post, his IMDB meter is goin through the roof!

 

[Kholi]

He posted a comment and the trailer in the thread earlier. Here it is.

My first feature was actually done for 10k. It was the budget the producer gave us. Though it was not the greatest film in the world but it was a feature done for only 10k. With that said, we did have a cast and crew of about 100 and filmed under 2 months in 5 different cities. We got creative and found ways to work around such a tight budget. It was not easy for one bit but I learned many valuable lessons on that film. I'm shock to find the rantings on imdb pretty high. I think it was probably due to our budget and what we had to deal with. People felt sorry for me. I wrote a story about all the problems we had and despite all that, we still managed to complete the film. So it's possible but there's no guarantee it will be "amazing." I've yet to see an amazing 10k budget feature. I admire Rodreguiz and Smith's work but they weren't amazing. to me Amazing is Lord of the Rings done with 10k. Now that's amazing!

2006 Tears trailers

ps: I'm now working on my 10th feature since Tears. I still have sh*t load of stuff to learn.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

I'm with teddybear. This is a quote from a different thread:

You must have heard of the iron triangle in production, GOOD, FAST, CHEAP, and you can only pick two.

 

[pulpfiction007]

I'm with teddybear. This is a quote from a different thread:

If those are the choices FAST, GOOD, and CHEAP and I can take 2 - (and we're not talking lenses!)

Give me GOOD + CHEAP......Anything worth doing will take some extra time anyway.

 

[Brian_Rice]

Agree with Pulp.

Also, giving mention to the Tears trailer, I think it bears pointing out that when we talk about 10K, in the end we're really talking about asthetics. And, asthetically speaking, if Glengarry/Glenross had the same cinematic look as the trailer of Tears, I don't think the movie would have been too much worse off.

And speaking of triangles, I've got one: "Design. Delivery. Execution." Or, "Script. Acting. Photography." In the end, define amazing however you like, if you have a great script, great performers and great photography, you're going to be pretty darn close to having a great film, regardless of budgetary constraints.

Oh, and that pesky sound stuff. Things being audible is always a plus.

 

[Kholi]

Also, giving mention to the Tears trailer, I think it bears pointing out that when we talk about 10K, in the end we're really talking about asthetics.

That's what we've been talking about this entire time???? Not the actual whole/sum of a product? Which means story and acting as well? ??? ? ??

 

[Gary Huff]

Also, giving mention to the Tears trailer, I think it bears pointing out that when we talk about 10K, in the end we're really talking about asthetics. And, asthetically speaking, if Glengarry/Glenross had the same cinematic look as the trailer of Tears, I don't think the movie would have been too much worse off.

You don't think that film would have suffered from looking like it was obviously shot on video instead of film? Are you serious?

 

[ullanta]

I meant of course Seagate Blackarmor, not Samsung. Yeah theyre good, but like I said, even a blackarmor died after two weeks of use. That's their top-of-the-line drive, 7200rpm, 32mb cache, eSata. Two weeks of use and busted.

The great thing about Seagate is that they have a warranty that covers these sort of things, but when you're making a commercial product like a feature film, you can't really send in a broken hard drive to be replaced without comprimising the safty of your footage.

The way it works is this: Your drive dies. You return it to the shop. The drive is then shipped by a third party to Seagate, and this third party (which one it is depends on where you bought it, but it's always a third party) does random tests on all incoming drives just to see if they have the problem the person who bought it says it has.
A common problem for drives like this is the external drive box. Often, it's not the actual drive that dies, it's just the power cable inside the box. Your drive with all your raw footage is fine, but there's no way for you to know this because if you open the box yourself, take out the drive and place it inside a computer as an internal device, the warranty will become invalid. You can't open the case.

So let's say your broken hard drive with your raw footage for your feature film really isnt broken at all, it's just that you can't use it. You give it back to the store, they replace it with a new drive and the old one is shipped off to Seagate by the third party. The third party then sample checks your drive and find it's not broken, and they also suddenly have access to all your raw footage.

You can either spend the money on a new drive or take the chance and hand that to the store.

This is why external drives are a pain in the ass.

I think AT LEAST three or four of the drives that broke were Seagates. They were one of the better brands we used. The best one was La Cie.

EDIT: I got the above information from both Seagate and the store I bought the Blackarmor.

The way it SHOULD work is this:

Your drive dies. You pull out your second-copy drive, and copy everything to a fresh drive, all without touching the third copy. Now you have your three copies and can continue.

If you don't take such precautionary steps, you'll never make a film for under $10000.

BTW, there's a difference between a Seagate drive and a Seagate-branded external drive. In my experience, external drives from major drive manufacturer have been some of the least reliable (next to LaCie). Most of the failures are in the interface electronics, not in the drives themselves. Buy bare drives and a couple of esata drive dock "toasters" and you can have your three copies on high-quality drives for less than the price of a cheapo external drive. They're easy to store, too!

 

[pulpfiction007]

That's what we've been talking about this entire time???? Not the actual whole/sum of a product? Which means story and acting as well? ??? ? ??

If I might try to sum up what Brian's post means in another way....

At 10K a project WILL look different than those films with much larger budgets.....but if the story/acting/execution is top notch....the aesthetics will easily be forgiven by most viewers.
I know this is true for myself - In the first few segments of many lower budget films my eyes need to adjust - but when the other elements are compelling, by the 5 minute mark I'll have forgotten about the "look". (and most of these films were done before newer technology gave indies a bit more of a level field)

 

[pulpfiction007]

You don't think that film would have suffered from looking like it was obviously shot on video instead of film? Are you serious?

Yeah... it would suffer compared to the original but.....
With that acting and that dialogue, it could have been shot on a DVX100 for all I care.

 

[snowleopard]

When you say "shot on video", that depends. If you mean if it were shot on 480i, NTSC, 4:3 (soap opera), I'd agree it would have not been the same, even to the casual viewer. If you mean shot on a PD150 with very almost entire ambient light, like Open Water, that would have been a problem too.

But it were shot it on HD, 1080p, and professionally lit (like many others shot in this format), which I believe was the case with Tears, then I don't think it would have mattered that much on Glengarry Glenn Ross.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Here's an article from Ted Hope about embracing a no-budget aesthetic. If you're wondering who Ted and James Schamus are, look them up on imdb.

http://trulyfreefilm.hopeforfilm.com/2010/07/the-good-machine-no-budget-commandments.html

Back in the day, before I had This is that, I had a production company called Good Machine. James Schamus and I founded it together, and we later partnered with David Linde. Mary Jane Skalski and Anthony Bregman were also partners, and we had the good fortune to work with a host of other talents including my later partners Anne Carey and Diana Victor, and Ross Katz, Glen Basner, Heta Paarte, Lamia Guelatti, Melinka Thompson-Gody, Jean Castelli, Kelly Miller, Dan Beers, Eric Papa, Jawal Nga, and many other later-legends to be.

As good as the films we made, as great as the individuals we got to collaborate with, we also had a genuine fondness for memos and how-to’s. If you come to my office these days, it looks like a FEMA site; we are going paperless, and I am sorting through the files, finding many choice nuggets. My madeleines.

One day, way back when, I went into to speak to a NYU grad class and I felt I would feel more substantive if I had something to hand out (btw I believe The Savages director, Tamara Jenkins was in that class). That was the start of the Good Machine No-Budget Commandments. James and I revised them here and there, and I am pretty sure, that Mary Jane and Anthony tossed more than a suggestion or two.

My surprise in reading them today is that no where do they say “The budget is the aesthetic.” That had seemed like the mantra at times. We get pretty close with #4, but not as dogmatic.

They hold up today. I still subscribe to the full set of notions. Here they are, for your critique and comment, in their dusty glory.

1. Write to direct. A screenplay, especially a no-budget screenplay is a very loose blueprint for a film – ultimately every choice you make will compromise something else.

2. Write for what you know and for what you can obtain. This goes for actors, locations, animals, and major propping or set dressing. If your friend owns something, anything, write it into the film.

3. Remain flexible. Recognize the essential element in a scene and allow it to take place in a variety of locations or circumstances.

4. Choose an aesthetic that will capitalize on the lack of money (i.e. period anachronisms, monochromatic color schemes, etc.). Invest meaning in everyday commonplace things – make an orange a totemic object John Ford would be proud of.

5. Don’t over strive. Don’t try to show how much production value you have (you don’t have it, so you’ll either fail or unbalance your film). A film that people say is “well produced” usually means that the story didn’t have much going for it. Keep the story aligned with the budget.

6. Don’t limit yourself to too few locations – it’s a dead give away of lack of dollars. I like the number eight.

7. Use everything more than once. You’ve already paid for it, so use it, use it, use it.

8. Write for a very limited audience – your closest friends. Do not try to please anyone – crowd pleasing costs.

9. Write to cut it back later. You can trim to subtlety.

10. Contradict the above commandment and only write what you know you absolutely must shoot.

11. Keep it simple. You can learn how to do the impossible on your next film. No dogs. No babies. “Business” is expensive. Keep it controllable.

12. Keep it intimate. Dialogue and close ups are cheap.

13. Make the most of a day’s work. It’s easier to get a commitment for one day than it is for a week. Exploit people’s willingness to give a day.

14. Ignore everything listed above if it doesn’t further the story.

 

[Kholi]

Wow, never saw that from Ted Hope, Zak! Good list, right down to number fourteen.

 

[Kholi]

The way it SHOULD work is this:

Your drive dies. You pull out your second-copy drive, and copy everything to a fresh drive, all without touching the third copy. Now you have your three copies and can continue.

If you don't take such precautionary steps, you'll never make a film for under $10000.

Yessir. In fact, I'd say a third redundancy option isn't a bad idea. I've been meaning to find a way to archive the data one more time, but eight to ten terrabytes is still going to run about 500 if I run it all straight to 2tb drives. Hmm... need to look into this tomorrow.

 

[ullanta]

Not "not a bad idea" - essential to a good backup strategy. A problem can occur (lightning strike? bad crash?) that wipes out both the drive you are transferring FROM and the drive you are transferring TO... so if you have all the data for a project on these drives, you can lose everything during the backup operation. With three drives, only two are ever connected to the computer (or to anything) at the same time, so barring major physical disasters that take out your whole building, nothing is able to take down all your data. Worried about the building? That's what offsite backups are for...

 

[snowleopard]

Great list there Zak. I like #5. I see a lot of people doing that, or pushing the limits of it.

5. Don’t over strive. Don’t try to show how much production value you have (you don’t have it, so you’ll either fail or unbalance your film).

And the older (more experienced?) I get, the more I believe in #8.

8. Write for a very limited audience – your closest friends. Do not try to please anyone – crowd pleasing costs.

 

[Zak Forsman]

yeah, i like number 7 too. use everything more than once.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Also, giving mention to the Tears trailer, I think it bears pointing out that when we talk about 10K, in the end we're really talking about asthetics. And, asthetically speaking, if Glengarry/Glenross had the same cinematic look as the trailer of Tears, I don't think the movie would have been too much worse off.

You don't think that film would have suffered from looking like it was obviously shot on video instead of film? Are you serious?

Yeah... it would suffer compared to the original but.....
With that acting and that dialogue, it could have been shot on a DVX100 for all I care.

When you say "shot on video", that depends. If you mean if it were shot on 480i, NTSC, 4:3 (soap opera), I'd agree it would have not been the same, even to the casual viewer. If you mean shot on a PD150 with very almost entire ambient light, like Open Water, that would have been a problem too.

But it were shot it on HD, 1080p, and professionally lit (like many others shot in this format), which I believe was the case with Tears, then I don't think it would have mattered that much on Glengarry Glenn Ross.

You guys don't think shooting Glengarry Glenn Ross on a 10K budget would have meant fewer shooting days, less takes, longer days, less rest and not using those actors?
The acting and directing would have suffered.


I'd like to see anyone walk up to Al Pacino and ask him to shoot a feature film for free and give a great performance. Or anyone else in that cast.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

The way it SHOULD work is this:

Your drive dies. You pull out your second-copy drive, and copy everything to a fresh drive, all without touching the third copy. Now you have your three copies and can continue.

If you don't take such precautionary steps, you'll never make a film for under $10000.

BTW, there's a difference between a Seagate drive and a Seagate-branded external drive. In my experience, external drives from major drive manufacturer have been some of the least reliable (next to LaCie). Most of the failures are in the interface electronics, not in the drives themselves. Buy bare drives and a couple of esata drive dock "toasters" and you can have your three copies on high-quality drives for less than the price of a cheapo external drive. They're easy to store, too!

Yessir. In fact, I'd say a third redundancy option isn't a bad idea. I've been meaning to find a way to archive the data one more time, but eight to ten terrabytes is still going to run about 500 if I run it all straight to 2tb drives. Hmm... need to look into this tomorrow.

The problem with crashed drives isn't loss of footage. Obviously you always have AT LEAST two drives with the footage at the same time.

The problem is you can't use the warranty on your crashed drive and get a new one for no cost without risking having your raw footage leak.