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
ullanta said:
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!
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?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

The powers that be don't want us to talk much in specifics about finances as was pointed out earlier, but to answer your query I mentioned that I know lots of people who make 30K per year and live perfectly happy lives. If you live the same life they live but you make 50K, you have 20K to invest in your film. I think that's pretty clear.

What I was talking about with business owners would be taking the above scenario and basically saying that the private busines owner (or, videographer) might only make 30K per year after expenses. But like I said, I've no idea how much private business owners of any range make.
 
Yeah...this is a great thread. Basically because it hasn't been about the ONE topic....
Those who haven't been following are probably like "How can this still be going?"
There has been great advice, discussion of films in general, discussion about what makes certain movies stand out, cautionary tales, philosophical discussions, etc. I think the reason it's been going so long is that the topic in general makes all of us (with certainly 2 things in common among EVERY poster...we're all creative and we love films) think about what makes something amazing....and if we disagree that opens the discussion more.
I have certainly welcomed those opinions far different from mine, because within many of those opinions have been valid points that SHOULD be addressed when discussing a film at ANY budget.
 
I think we're getting too far off the topic here with the whole who makes what where and how. Let's try to keep it closer to filmmaking. One reason to keep a budget to $10K, is because that's a manageable sum for many (most?) people to get ahold of. And even more importantly, it's a sum most can afford to lose completely - because let's face it, odds are overwhelming that financially, your $10K will be a dead loss. So why not make a short for that? Well, there's nothing wrong with shorts, but I'd rather spend way, way less on a short, because it's just a way of gaining experience. I'd rather do several $2000 shorts, than one $10K. Same idea here - why do a feature... because a feature is its own kind of experience, not the same thing as a short. So yes, you'll lose the $10K, but it'll be a learning experience. Just like film school is. And if you lose $10K it's not the end of the world. Losing $150, is worse, unless you can easily afford it, and most people can't. And ultimately, I don't believe, despite all the arguments in this thread, that there is a substantially different odds of success with $150K vs $10K - I think in either case the odds are astronomically against you. It's a bit like the lottery - in one case you say, wow, my odds are 10 times as good! Whoopee! Except that it's 1 in a million vs 10 in a million - sure, 10 times better, but still remote. And I don't even believe that spending 15 times as much buys you 15 times bigger chance of making it with a $150K vs $10K. In fact, I'd rather make 15 $10K features than one $150K feature... I think I'd learn more with more films and my odds would be actually better (even though still remote).
 
Brian_Rice said:
The powers that be don't want us to talk much in specifics about finances as was pointed out earlier, but to answer your query I mentioned that I know lots of people who make 30K per year and live perfectly happy lives. If you live the same life they live but you make 50K, you have 20K to invest in your film. I think that's pretty clear.
Click to expand...

Not specifics... and I think it would be OK... just roughly, say... what do you see as the line expenditures for the following in a rough 30k/year budget:
Rent:
Utilities:
Cell phone:
Internet access:
Health care:
Cable TV:
Food:
Student loans:
Taxes:
Cars:
Car Insurance:

Are these "filmmakers" that need to spend money buying/renting equipment, and how much do they spend on that?

I would like to see your answers here, but if not that, give some deep detailed thought to their lives and income sources...
 
OldCorpse said:
I think we're getting too far off the topic here with the whole who makes what where and how. Let's try to keep it closer to filmmaking. One reason to keep a budget to $10K, is because that's a manageable sum for many (most?) people to get ahold of. And even more importantly, it's a sum most can afford to lose completely
Click to expand...

It's not a sum that allows you to pay the group of people you will need to pull this off anything that even comes close to minimum wage during the period that you will need them. That is, in my opinion, the biggest reason not to do it in general.
 
Here's the thing, movies like FOLLOWING, EL MARIACHI and PRIMER were made for around $7,000. However they were all shot on 16MM film. If you do the math on it, pretty much ALL of their budgets was spent on film and processing.

The thing is we live in a new age of film making where the equipment is there that you could either borrow, rent or buy and have better looking HD footage. So in the end, you could put a solid $10k into your project that isn't dumped into film and processing. You could have much more invested IN FRONT of the camera than behind it. So when you think of it in these terms, you'd see how possible it really is to make something great, at least better than those films.
 
Gary Huff said:
It's not a sum that allows you to pay the group of people you will need to pull this off anything that even comes close to minimum wage during the period that you will need them. That is, in my opinion, the biggest reason not to do it in general.
Click to expand...

I think most that are working with very low budgets will work with like minded friends, who aren't doing you a favor ...but WANT to get a chance to be a part of the project using what ever strength they may have. One might be good with computers, one might help with camera work, etc.
This has been true of the most popular low budget films out there....it's usually a group of friends on the same page that makes it work. And actors....well where I'm from they'd PAY to get a decent role!
Also ....I agree with what filmmakerguy said.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
This has been true of the most popular low budget films out there....it's usually a group of friends on the same page that makes it work.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I think the most successful/popular of low budget films have been done by calling in favors, not the "Our Gang" approach.
 
ullanta said:
Not specifics... and I think it would be OK... just roughly, say... what do you see as the line expenditures for the following in a rough 30k/year budget:
Rent:
Utilities:
Cell phone:
Internet access:
Health care:
Cable TV:
Food:
Student loans:
Taxes:
Cars:
Car Insurance:

Are these "filmmakers" that need to spend money buying/renting equipment, and how much do they spend on that?

I would like to see your answers here, but if not that, give some deep detailed thought to their lives and income sources...
Click to expand...

lol

Are you serious? How could I possibly know what my friends pay in their daily debts? And the people I mentioned who are living off of 30K (or less) per year aren't filmmakers. They're just people.

I don't know what you're missing about my statement. You make 30K per year as a non-filmmaker. You are happy and can afford your lifestyle. You make 50K working a job and are a filmmaker on the side, you spend 20K per year on your filmmaking. You are happy and can afford your lifestyle. What's confusing about this?
 
Gary Huff said:
So you are currently making at least $50,000 per year?
Click to expand...

Some years I make more. I'm married, though, and my wife also makes over 50K -- and she works in education administration. If she were in the private sector (like most of her friends) she'd easily be making over 75K doing the same job.

She would speak more to my point than my lifestyle does, though. I dropped out of college and had to make all of my income via investing, sales, poker et cetera. I haven't had a "real" job in about 7 years. I used to make six figures easy before the market crashed. I have to work a lot harder than most people who just get a paycheck every couple weeks, and I might someday return to the private sector just because it's a lot less effort, but the people who I know all make between 30K and 80K annually. The ones with college degrees make 50K+, the ones without (with the exception of myself) make less than 50K.

But I think it's been a better line of thought to talk about percentages.

So, for instance, if you're a person who works a day job and is a filmmaker on the side and you're making less than 30K, it's probably a good idea to live off of someone else because you need to use 40% of that 30K on your filmmaking. I lived off a couple different people when I was younger (back then I was only doing prose). It's a little annoying, but you do what you have to do to make sure that you have the funds and/or time to be able to do what needs to get done.

The first lesson every artist needs to learn is "By any means necessary". If you can't get past that single primary truth, it's going to be a pretty abysmal existence.
 
Look, this is getting outlandish.

Are you seriously suggesting that people should have, on average, a 40% savings rate? Of their pre-tax income? As if that's no big deal?

The median household income in 2009 was $52,029. And yes, that's for married couples with .59 kids. Not $90,000, but $52,000. That's the reality of where people in this country are at.

And the average savings rate in this country is 1.3%. The highest it's ever been, ever, in the recorded history of statistics, was 14.6%. And that's of "disposable" income. That means money after taxes, after rent and groceries and all the mandatories have been paid for. Which means maybe, say, $2,000 per year.

To toss off that anyone can just be automatically saving 40% of their GROSS income, before taxes and rent and everything else, in the middle or (hopefully) tail end of one of the worst economic recessions since the Great Depression of the 1930's, is just ... not defendable. That's probably equivalent to a savings rate of 100% of a person's "disposable" income.

Is it impossible? Not necessarily. But it would very likely mean no car, no entertainment, no vacations, no travel, and living in your parents' basement. That's about the only way someone is going to be able to consistently pack away 40% of their gross salary (which, of course, also means that they're going to be having deductions off that for taxes, and they're saving 40% of the gross even though they're not receiving that full amount because a significant portion has been withheld for taxes).

If that's what you're advocating, then say that -- say that someone must spend zero on anything in their life other than filmmaking, and yeah, maybe someone could save $10k to $20k/year (considering that the average per-capita income in America is $29,000 or so, and taxes and withholdings are going to lop off a good chunk of that). And I would say that the percentage of people willing to live that way is probably as low or lower than the percentage of people who could actually make an "amazing" film for $10k.

But to imply that everyone should just be able to do this... it's profoundly unrealistic.
 
Back to the subject at hand.

For those who've lost track or didn't even know, at least two filmmakers in this thread are getting their films bankrolled because of their participation and their submissions.

So those who want to say it's impossible, you just go right on saying it. We, meanwhile, will be at work doing it anyway.

Those who want to ignore actual accounting and value and think that working a year on a film and spending $10,000 and selling it for $11,000 equals a $1k "profit" -- well, I guess you can go on thinking that too, but it's a gross distortion of what the true accounting is.

Whether either of these two films will be "amazing" or not, is up to the audience to decide.
 
Kinda relevant, me thinks: Anyone with Skype interested in doing a little experiment? Will let 10 people into a Skype Chat with m'self for a test screening of a very rough scene from Superseeds.

Interest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top