Brian_Rice
Carbonite Member
That was established forever ago when we spoke about Glengarry, 12 angry men, etc. I think everyone is on the same page with that most basic idea. It's the "details" that everyone has been debating.
Do you think it's possible to shoot an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?
- Thread starter filmmakerguy
- Start date
That was established forever ago when we spoke about Glengarry, 12 angry men, etc. I think everyone is on the same page with that most basic idea. It's the "details" that everyone has been debating.
That was established forever ago when we spoke about Glengarry, 12 angry men, etc. I think everyone is on the same page with that most basic idea.
Yeah, you'd think that. But then it doesn't seem people have actually absorbed that idea, otherwise you wouldn't have posts like this:
Exactly!
And said film may be the most amazing thing ever, but if you can't sell it you can't sell it.
Couldn't agree more. That's why I think 10K is too little to spend on a feature. A mediocre 100K movie with production value should be a much easier sell than a 10K movie with no production value.
As if "production value" is what sells a film. If that were true, you wouldn't have expensive "production value" films that were actually shelved and never released, nor would you have "zero value" films like Paranormal Activities (and a ton more) rake it in the theaters. So why are we discussing production value? Because you'll get more of it for $150K than for $10K? Yeah, that's called mathematics 101, but the relevance of that is another mathematical figure: 0.
Yeah, you'd think that. But then it doesn't seem people have actually absorbed that idea, otherwise you wouldn't have posts like this:
Exactly!
And said film may be the most amazing thing ever, but if you can't sell it you can't sell it.
Couldn't agree more. That's why I think 10K is too little to spend on a feature. A mediocre 100K movie with production value should be a much easier sell than a 10K movie with no production value.
As if "production value" is what sells a film. If that were true, you wouldn't have expensive "production value" films that were actually shelved and never released, nor would you have "zero value" films like Paranormal Activities (and a ton more) rake it in the theaters. So why are we discussing production value? Because you'll get more of it for $150K than for $10K? Yeah, that's called mathematics 101, but the relevance of that is another mathematical figure: 0.
By a ton more, you only mean one more. Blair Witch. Might as well play the lottery with those odds.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
I think a lot of us are on that page, but others are still under the impression that those of us suggesting it can be done are claiming that it could be done with any idea/script/concept. (I echo word for word what Old Corpse said on post #907.)
Also, I don't think ANY of us that voted yes ever said it would be easy to do. Brainstorming on this tells me just how many ideas could not be done "amazingly" well for 10K. But that same limitation is where I think an original interesting concept could come from. What are the two quotes David G Smith has on his posts? Both of them are very relevant to this thread.
"The enemy of art is the absence of limitations" - Orson Welles
"To me the great hope is....people that normally wouldn't be making movies will make them and suddenly some little fat girl in Ohio will be the new Mozart and will make a beautiful film using her father's camera-corder and the "Professionalism" of movie making will be destroyed forever and it will finally become an art form" - Francis Ford Coppola
The spirit of these two quotes should be the mantra for those working on micro/low budget films. Just because you're not independently wealthy or well connected does not mean you should be left out of the art form known as film making. There WERE days when it was perhaps next to impossible to fund and organize your own film. Those days HAVE gone forever - the technology will not make your film, but at least now advancements have made it so you don't have to be swimming in cash just for the opportunity.
ullanta
Veteran
Ummm... you're a sweet kid, Brandon... but WHAT WORLD ARE YOU LIVING IN?
...maybe the world of people who go to film school?
For those lucky enough to have steady employment these days, there are overinflated mortgages, healthcare, children, taxes, retirement, a million things. Look at the papers... statistics released just today show that over half of college grads are moving back in with their parents due to inability to afford their own places.
I don't know what this means... costs come before you make anything. "Potential investing dollars" come from net earnings, not from gross.
While film can be art, it isn't necessarily so. It's not like writing a novel, painting, or sculpture. It requires the assistance of a lot of other people who must be committed to the same goal.
Brian_Rice
Carbonite Member
Why does everyone call me Brandon? lol
Anyway, mortgages, children, retirement? You just listed three easy sacrifices for the artist IMO.
If you're ever lucky enough to make 100% of your income from films then maybe children and mortgages and all that can come into your atmosphere, but I knew when I started writing when I was a teenager that all "normalcy" in life was pretty much out the window. The fact that I have any friends and a wife is mind-boggling to me. I was pretty sure I'd be holed up in a cave somewhere at this point in my life.
And, honestly, if you went out and got a 4 year degree and you've been out of college for more than 6 years, if you're not making at least 50K as an employed person (not a private business owner) or over 90K combined as a married person, I think there may have been some stumbles along the way. Maybe?
Again, I don't know people with 4 year degrees 6 or more years out of college who are living in the situation you're talking about.
And what I meant by my "eaten up by costs" is that you will have never earned that additonal 20K because you're -potentially- investing it in your business (not your 401K or film, etc).
A person 6 years out of college who owns their own business I could see not being in the situation I'm talking about. Starting a viable business can take decades before it becomes exceptionally profitable. That's why most filmmakers aren't distributors.
ADD: I think it's worth noting that I never actually got a college degree. Didn't have a use for one. I'm speaking strictly from observations of the 4 year graduate with 6+ years out of college.
The real world is just waiting to slap you hard across the face.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
we have a long-standing member and mod here named Brandon Rice.
Brian_Rice
Carbonite Member
?
I'm 33 and live in Chicago. I'm not sure where and when "the real world" is located.
Elaborate please?
It requires the assistance of a lot of other people who must be committed to the same goal.
And it is your job as a filmmaker to inspire others to join you in that goal. For little/no money. There are always limitations, no matter the budget, even the highest budget, you still have to know how to inspire/compel/persuade/cajole people to cooperate with you. So what's different? If you don't have the money to buy people's work, you must find other means to get them to work for a common goal. Sometimes you get pushback from old pros - and I understand that, and I even respect that. A guy who has paid his dues, and actually makes a living from doing his work cannot afford to give away his means of making a living, for free, in the prime of his earning years... you wouldn't ask a doctor to operate on you for free, or a dentist, or a car mechanic or whoever - so why do you have that expectation from someone who makes a living from film?
So, if a pro volunteers his services for free, sure, take him/her up on this, but frankly, it's neither expected nor perhaps even solicited. The other end of the spectrum is also understandable. A guy/gal who is just starting out, who doesn't have a resume or experience, and is willing to work for free, just to have something to put on a resume, or just for the sake of experience and connections. Totally understandable.
But then you got the others. Guys who are semi-pro. Get cheesed off if asked to do something for free. Hey, it's a free country, don't want to do it, don't do it - simple. These guys crack me up. Listen, if I was going to pay, I'd hire a guy who has a ton of experience... why would I hire you? You wanna work for free, cool, but if pay's involved, I'm going for the veteran pro. Guys like this get very irate when they hear about others willing to work for free - but hey, that's how it is, and that's how it'll increasingly be. We're in it together. You work on a project, if it goes somewhere, all of us benefit: actors, DPs, production people etc., so great - that's your incentive... you'll get to become a pro in demand, the kind who can expect to get paid, and to make a living from it. Otherwise, don't get irate - it's the same with software programmers who are irate that there are people out there willing to program for free - it's just how it is, and they often deliver apps that are of better quality than the paid ones. So too with film - there will always be people who are willing to do it for free; sure, you often get what you pay for, but that's expected, can't ask for miracles. Where do you come in? Well, you can say: I'll also do it for free, because I believe in the project, but you should hire me, because I've at least got some experience, not as much as a pro, but more than a total newbie; cool, let me see your resume - if I like it, you're hired! But then that's the crux of it, isn't it - you must like the project. And that brings us back to the script - yet again. Most are terrible - so I don't blame you for not wanting to get involved for free, you're 100% right. So note to the filmmaker, if you want to get people to do your $10K feature for free, you better be able to persuade them your project deserves it... and that's very, very, very rare.
So it's back to square one: the script for the $10K. Make it possible to shoot for $10K - also meaning, it's good enough to inspire people to put in some sweat equity.
And it is your job as a filmmaker to inspire others to join you in that goal. For little/no money. There are always limitations, no matter the budget, even the highest budget, you still have to know how to inspire/compel/persuade/cajole people to cooperate with you. So what's different? If you don't have the money to buy people's work, you must find other means to get them to work for a common goal. Sometimes you get pushback from old pros - and I understand that, and I even respect that. A guy who has paid his dues, and actually makes a living from doing his work cannot afford to give away his means of making a living, for free, in the prime of his earning years... you wouldn't ask a doctor to operate on you for free, or a dentist, or a car mechanic or whoever - so why do you have that expectation from someone who makes a living from film?
So, if a pro volunteers his services for free, sure, take him/her up on this, but frankly, it's neither expected nor perhaps even solicited. The other end of the spectrum is also understandable. A guy/gal who is just starting out, who doesn't have a resume or experience, and is willing to work for free, just to have something to put on a resume, or just for the sake of experience and connections. Totally understandable.
But then you got the others. Guys who are semi-pro. Get cheesed off if asked to do something for free. Hey, it's a free country, don't want to do it, don't do it - simple. These guys crack me up. Listen, if I was going to pay, I'd hire a guy who has a ton of experience... why would I hire you? You wanna work for free, cool, but if pay's involved, I'm going for the veteran pro. Guys like this get very irate when they hear about others willing to work for free - but hey, that's how it is, and that's how it'll increasingly be. We're in it together. You work on a project, if it goes somewhere, all of us benefit: actors, DPs, production people etc., so great - that's your incentive... you'll get to become a pro in demand, the kind who can expect to get paid, and to make a living from it. Otherwise, don't get irate - it's the same with software programmers who are irate that there are people out there willing to program for free - it's just how it is, and they often deliver apps that are of better quality than the paid ones. So too with film - there will always be people who are willing to do it for free; sure, you often get what you pay for, but that's expected, can't ask for miracles. Where do you come in? Well, you can say: I'll also do it for free, because I believe in the project, but you should hire me, because I've at least got some experience, not as much as a pro, but more than a total newbie; cool, let me see your resume - if I like it, you're hired! But then that's the crux of it, isn't it - you must like the project. And that brings us back to the script - yet again. Most are terrible - so I don't blame you for not wanting to get involved for free, you're 100% right. So note to the filmmaker, if you want to get people to do your $10K feature for free, you better be able to persuade them your project deserves it... and that's very, very, very rare.
So it's back to square one: the script for the $10K. Make it possible to shoot for $10K - also meaning, it's good enough to inspire people to put in some sweat equity.
Brian_Rice
Carbonite Member
Kholi -- But all we've been talking about is self-financing. Self-financing is all about cost of living vs. income vs. percent invested in craft.
I only made my estimation to act as a gauge as to what an "average" person with a general criteria should (or should not) be expending out of pocket on self-financing IMO.
But you're right, it's probably more PC to say something like, "A person should use no more than X percentage of their yearly income to fund their film."
To re-work it I'll then say that if a film takes 3 years from start to end of marketing, your total out of pocket expenses should not exceed 3 times 40% of your annual income.
There. That's better. And probably clearer.
I only made my estimation to act as a gauge as to what an "average" person with a general criteria should (or should not) be expending out of pocket on self-financing IMO.
But you're right, it's probably more PC to say something like, "A person should use no more than X percentage of their yearly income to fund their film."
To re-work it I'll then say that if a film takes 3 years from start to end of marketing, your total out of pocket expenses should not exceed 3 times 40% of your annual income.
There. That's better. And probably clearer.
Eric Boellner
Well-known member
Wow. Just wow. I mean, I can understand your mortgage and your retirement... maybe even your dog. But sacrificing your children for art? That's cold, man...
(...do I need to include a wink here?...)
ullanta
Veteran
i dunno! Sorry!
I like that!
Holed up in a cave is out... walled compound are all the rage these days...
Umm... sure, maybe. Maybe not. As you say, if you are more dedicated to your pure artistic vision than to earning... then it's definitely possible. There's also grad school, and its potential debt accumulation (for those suckers that don't go into the sciences and get paid for grad school).
But... for example, professors in, e.g., the CSU system, with doctoral degrees, are starting around 50k and having their salaries CUT these days.... and it takes many years out of college to become a professor. Unemployment is high, underemployment higher but not monitored well. Lotsa people are furloughed. As I reported before, college grads are not finding jobs. baby boomers are not retiring (and many can't). The job situation is not rosy.
But the real issue I have with what you're saying is that on a 50k income you have 20k for investing. That's a pretty long stretch. Can you detail that one for me? Anecdotes about young kids who share tiny apartments and eat ramen... well.. I'd rather see hard numbers of what a 50k earners actual taxes, expenditures, etc would be that would leave 20k expendable!
I know plenty! Furthermore, spending most of my time in and around academia, I know what the statistics are for grads these days... not so good!
So... filmmaking isn't a business? And filmmakers are becoming exceptionally profitable within six years? I don't quite understand this. If the business owners aren't making money for decades, how are they surviving?[/quote]
That's fine... we ain't all in the situations we're discussin. I don't even wanna make a feature!
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Oh absolutely, which makes cinema so unique among the arts. However, what hits me about the Welles quote is that sometimes the creativity of the "How" (Making a feature under the constraints of a micro budget) sparks the creativity of the "What" (The content of the film) into something new and different.
After "Citizen Kane" everything he made was with enormous limitations and he still made some great films. My favorite example is his version of Franz Kafka's "The Trial". From his conversations with Peter Bogdanvich (Available here http://www.archive.org/details/InterviewsWithOrsonWelles ) he tells the story that when they were in pre-pro for "The Trial" all of the sets were designed and it was going to be shot in a studio. At the very last minute his producer/financier came to him and told him that they did not have the money to build the sets. Welles had to scramble and put together his locations. He ended up shooting in the Gare d'Orsay, an abandoned train station in Paris. Welles said, "Everything was improvised at the last moment, because the whole physical concept of my film was quite different. It was based on the absence of sets. And the gigantic nature of the sets, which people have objected to, is partly due to the fact that the only setting I had was that old abandoned station." The visuals of "The Trial" are outstanding, and it is among my favorite films, and one of the most influential on me. To think that the visual design was done as a second thought, as Welles' "Plan B", blows my mind. I think that may have been the kind of limitations he was talking about.
ullanta
Veteran
Exploiting them can work, too.
vcassel
Veteran
This is something I didn't quite understand with the majority of fanboy reaction to Aronofsky pulling out of Wolverine due to not wanting to spend near a year away from his children. Is that really, like, unbelievable to some people? For a Wolverine movie of all inane things.
ugafan
Looking for a woman
just for perspective.
median household income = $49,777
households earning below 150k = 91.2%
ullanta
Veteran
I really like this thread, except for all the nonsense about what films cost to make. Let's make this the longest thread! Can we do that, folks? All we need to do is poost a lot more.
i don't mean poost, i mean post, but my Swedish filmmaker accent was showing through.
"We doont need mooney to make a feelm! Sveden makes it all poosible!"
i don't mean poost, i mean post, but my Swedish filmmaker accent was showing through.
"We doont need mooney to make a feelm! Sveden makes it all poosible!"