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
Anyway, I don't think 100% disclosure is possible. I mean, you have a list of all the risks? I wanna see!

You speak a lot about insurance, but you must not have seen any of those lengthy disclosures written by lawyers... "including, but not limited to" blah, blah, blah. And in plain language you say: "anything and everything can happen, beyond what I or anybody has seen or can imagine". Legally, there are ways around everything. I keep this book with me at all times: "The Pocket Lawyer for Filmmakers: A Legal Toolkit for Independent Producers"

Anyhow, this is one of those things where you take a risk - one of many. You don't want to. Fine, you get to pay and do things differently. But nobody has to do it your way, and you don't have to do it anybody else's way. Everyone has to work to their tolerance level for risk - for me, as I have mentioned in another thread, it's necessary to set up an LLC for the production ($800/year in CA), for someone else it'll be something different. There are always levels of risk to everything you do. For you, the costs don't allow for a $10K feature. For someone else, it does - if they are lucky, they they win, if not, they lose. Measure your risk.

A lot of people don't want to take risks. To me, it is absolutely worth it. I know I'll lose my $10K, but it's worth it to make a feature - for me. Why?

Simple illustration - Quentin Tarantino - "My Best Friend's Birthday":

"My Best Friend's Birthday is a black and white amateur film written by Craig Hamann and Quentin Tarantino and directed by Quentin Tarantino,[1] while he was working at the now shuttered Video Archives in Manhattan Beach, California. The project started in 1984, when Hamann wrote a short 30-40 page script about a young man who continually tries to do something nice for his friend's birthday, only to have his efforts backfire.

Tarantino became attached to the project as co-writer and director, and he and Hamann expanded the short script into an 80 page script. On an estimated budget of $5,000, they shot the film on 16mm over the course of the next four years. Hamann and Tarantino starred in the film, along with several video store and acting class buddies, and worked on the crew, which included fellow Video Archives employees Rand Vossler and Roger Avary."

"The original cut was about 70 minutes long but due to a fire only 36 minutes of the film survived. The 36 minute cut has been shown at several film festivals. It has never been officially released. Several actors in this film later appeared in Tarantino's other films Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Kill Bill. Tarantino has referred to this film as his "film school". Although the film was by his own admission very poorly directed, the experience gained from the film helped him in directing future films."


And that, friends is it, in a nutshell. It was $5K - back in the day. 70 minutes, of which only 36 survived. A total failure artistically, and a complete loss financially. A lot of the debbie downers on this board would say: don't do it, why do it, do you have insurance (bwahahaha!), you'll lose everything, IT CANNOT BE DONE, IT'LL BE WORTHLESS, blah, blah, blabbety blah".

I imagine that QT would look at you as if you were from a different planet if you started babbling about insurance - he wanted to make a film, period. And even though it was both a commercial and artistic bomb of 100% loss, it was his film school, and it led to a huge career.

Meanwhile, the wise guys and the debbie downers, would have instead been sitting around waiting to raise $X. And trying to discourage anyone from going ahead with their $10K feature.

Your choice. Insurance... comedy gold! Actually, to think of it, it would be a great comedy line:

GUERILLA FILMMAKER: and, then this character rushed in with a gun and--
DEBBIE DOWNER: wait, wait, do you have insurance on your production?

CUT TO: reaction shot on GUERILLA FILMMAKER

GUERILLA FILMMAKER: ok, I'll be going now. See ya!
 
Last edited:
Anyway, I don't think 100% disclosure is possible. I mean, you have a list of all the risks? I wanna see!

You speak a lot about insurance, but you must not have seen any of those lengthy disclosures written by lawyers... "including, but not limited to" blah, blah, blah. And in plain language you say: "anything and everything can happen, beyond what I or anybody has seen or can imagine". Legally, there are ways around everything. I keep this book with me at all times: "The Pocket Lawyer for Filmmakers: A Legal Toolkit for Independent Producers"

I didn't say a word about insurance! Not me!

As a rule, all that fine print doesn't hold up in court, especially when the signers are naive young things. Some rights can't be legally signed away, and none can be signed away if a person can make a claim that they were too stupid to understand what they were signing.

Anyway, I don't care about the $10k. But when you have lowest-common-denominator "electricians" volunteering to to "do whatever it takes" to power 4k lights in your girlfriend's cousin's apartment, with said lights duct-taped to the top of a mic stand, and noone whose job it is to address safety or crowd control.. well, big things can happen...
 
Like I said, just cross your fingers and hope for the best. On the short I made we were completely insured and it was great knowing that everyone was covered.

I personally would never be a member of the LLC making the $10K feature without insurance.. If your production makes money you have to share it with everyone. If you get sued, cops bust you for no permits, etc. its all you. Funny how that works. No intelligent producer would touch a production like that because their ass is on the line.
 
I personally would never be a member of the LLC making the $10K feature without insurance.. If your production makes money you have to share it with everyone. If you get sued, cops bust you for no permits, etc. its all you. Funny how that works. No intelligent producer would touch a production like that because their ass is on the line.

"Member of the LLC", LOL! As happens, a lot of thought has to go into structuring an LLC - it's not a cookie-cutter thing done based on some template from the internet; but you are free to assume things without actually knowing. You have your understanding of the legal implications of different structures, and I have mine, and based on what you wrote, I can tell you have not exactly been consulting with real lawyers who specialize in this... I'll stick to mine, thank you very much.

To each his/her own. You, based on your understanding are going to not make that $10K feature, to your great relief, I'm sure. I will concentrate on trying to make one, win, lose or draw. Where you see obstacles, I see opportunities. As I have always maintained - it's about the cast of mind. Some people look at something to find how it's "impossible" to do... surprise, surprise, they find it is indeed impossible! Others look for ways to make it possible and sure enough they find a way - when people set goals and direction, that's where they usually end up. You picked the "it's not possible". I picked the "possible". And we both get our wish - ain't it great?
 
Your choice. Insurance... comedy gold! Actually, to think of it, it would be a great comedy line:

Really, I find this whole line of thinking disturbing. It's not so much about covering the filmmaker's ass, as to being prepared to help out a crewmember (who you aren't paying and are pulling a favor for, BTW) in case of a medical emergency, which could end up being quite costly. You simply don't care if you bankrupt someone due to an accident?
 
"You simply don't care if you bankrupt someone due to an accident?"

Going in circles here... I already answered this the last time you tried that particular straw man; I'm not about to repeat myself here. But you could always try it again, maybe with someone who's never heard this before, like, say Tarantino and his buddies on "My Best Friend's Birthday", or any of the thousands of ethical and successful filmmakers who started with extremely modest projects... you know, the ones who actually decided to do something for themselves *and* their buddies, instead of spending their time trying to see how big a strawman they can build.
 
if you can't treat each other with respect, this thread will be closed. many would say it's gone beyond it's usefulness already. still, i'd hate to see it come to an end because the contributors started taking shots at each other. so please don't.
 
I think if you had a really awesome character driven movie, with no costly Fx etc, I'm sure you'd have a spanking good chance. However I dont know much about trying to market your film and all the costs. So you could have a film sitting there with alot of potential that never sees the light of day because you cant get it seen by the right people. Thats my fear.
 
It's their choice. It's their risk. If they go bankrupt, it's not my fault. They know that something might happen and act accordingly. I'm not holding them at gunpoint.

Trust me, I would love to have luxuries like location permits, insurances, paying full quotes for the cast and crew upfront, water tank with the Black Pearl, Natalie Portman and James Cameron. But on this level, you just can't afford it and if that's "screwing people over" or whatever, then FINE. I would love to have a real budget, instead of $X000, but in the end you have to choose: do you go out pulling all favors you can and make the best film you can with the means you have or do you wait for someone to give you 5 million?

Hey man. I agree you just gotta get out there and do whatever you can to get your film made and seen! Oh and you guys have some great metal bands in finland!
 
It's their choice. It's their risk. If they go bankrupt, it's not my fault. They know that something might happen and act accordingly. I'm not holding them at gunpoint.

Trust me, I would love to have luxuries like location permits, insurances, paying full quotes for the cast and crew upfront, water tank with the Black Pearl, Natalie Portman and James Cameron. But on this level, you just can't afford it and if that's "screwing people over" or whatever, then FINE. I would love to have a real budget, instead of $X000, but in the end you have to choose: do you go out pulling all favors you can and make the best film you can with the means you have or do you wait for someone to give you 5 million?

I think there are two different things conflated here… one is the risk if people losing their investment in the film… that's OK, and sure, let people risk that. That's investing. But there's also the risk of someone losing their equipment, or worse becoming injured or disabled. That's where one should take some responsible precautions.
 
Food for thought:

An actress in Superseeds just settled out of court today for a case where, during a music video, the director had a guy pick her up and carry her across what I think was supposed to be a desert floor. So, it's rocky and dangerous and... you know where it's going. The guy wasn't prepared for the stunt (it's labeled a stunt in the industry, carrying someone) and he ended up dropping her. Her head contacted a rock, she went into seizure mode and had to be rushed to surgery.

Blood in the skull, etc, is on seizure meds and wasn't able to work for a year. Guess who paid for it?

Gary and Snazzy aren't wrong about what they're saying, but you'd definitely better be ready to take full responsibility one way or another when or if someone gets hurt. I went in with that knowledge, but Superseeds was also an insured production the entire way through. Getting great locations is also severely difficult (at least in Los Angeles) without production insurance. That's another reason why I would hesitate to try anything below 20K (which is a stretch).

Opposite of that, Production Insurance isn't too crazy expensive, but it is an expense if you decide to go that route.

I wouldn't let it scare me, by the way, but it's good practice to just know that things CAN happen. Not necessarily WILL, though.
 
Yeah. Something I've watched over and over--not because I have a fascination with the macabre, but because I want to be damn sure I understand the potential risks I ever bring my cast and crew into--is the Vic Marrow death video from Twilight Zone the Movie. It may sound ridiculous because that was such a obviously dangerous stunt, but it really makes you aware of your responsibility to safety and gets you thinking on how even the tiniest inconsequential things can turn deadly serious in the blink of an eye. It's enough to put your ego right in check.
 
It's their choice. It's their risk. If they go bankrupt, it's not my fault. They know that something might happen and act accordingly. I'm not holding them at gunpoint.

Trust me, I would love to have luxuries like location permits, insurances, paying full quotes for the cast and crew upfront, water tank with the Black Pearl, Natalie Portman and James Cameron. But on this level, you just can't afford it and if that's "screwing people over" or whatever, then FINE. I would love to have a real budget, instead of $X000, but in the end you have to choose: do you go out pulling all favors you can and make the best film you can with the means you have or do you wait for someone to give you 5 million?

If people are volunteering their time and effort and risking their safety to help you with your dream, couldn't you at least pretend to care if they suffer dire consequences because of it?

There's nothing so important about making a film that "screwing people over" should be "fine."
 
If people are volunteering their time and effort and risking their safety to help you with your dream, couldn't you at least pretend to care if they suffer dire consequences because of it?

There's nothing so important about making a film that "screwing people over" should be "fine."
Well, I would hope that we are helping the volunteers achieve their artistic dreams as well, otherwise I don't know why they would be volunteering on a zero-budget film shoot.

I mean I don't think we're advocating kidnapping immigrants from the Mexican border and forcing them to work on our films ala Bowfinger.
 
Well, I would hope that we are helping the volunteers achieve their artistic dreams as well, otherwise I don't know why they would be volunteering on a zero-budget film shoot.

I mean I don't think we're advocating kidnapping immigrants from the Mexican border and forcing them to work on our films ala Bowfinger.

Which doesn't do them much good if they're badly injured or bankrupt.

But that's not even the point. The point is, it's your film project, not theirs; you're the one calling in favors from them. If they get hurt and financially ruined, you shouldn't be shrugging it off with "meh, they knew the risks."
 
Which doesn't do them much good if they're badly injured or bankrupt.

But that's not even the point. The point is, it's your film project, not theirs; you're the one calling in favors from them. If they get hurt and financially ruined, you shouldn't be shrugging it off with "meh, they knew the risks."

The attitude is wrong, but what agcohn is saying is within the spirit of this topic. At that budget, it's really everyone's project and everyone should be benefiting in a great way, not just monetarily. Even at 30-50K, the jobs and responsibilities that get credited are greater. When you see someone's name in the credits as "DP" and there is no gaffer, key, etc. .. it makes the DP Credit a lot larger.

Same for producer, so on and so forth. I don't believe people joining in are getting nothing out of it, it's their project as well at those budget levels, or much more than a simple work-for-hire venture. Me thinks, anyway.
 
Yep, it's not just your dream - it's everyone's dream on a project, especially that small. The director's as well as the writer's as well as the producer's as well as the actor's as well as the dp's as well as the composer's as well as every single person's. It's a shared dream. Nobody is doing it for money - obviously. Nor is anyone likely to volunteer the hard work required, if the project is completely unworthy - in their eyes. You do it for no money, for the love of it, because you believe in it and because if it succeeds, you too succeed. You do it, because next time the other people help you. In fact, the project need not even succeed. It could be an utter failure in every way, artistically as well as commercially, and never been released or even the work itself survived - look again at the example I gave with Tarantino's MBFB - only 36 minutes of it even survived a fire (from the original 70), it's never been officially released, and by Tarantino's own admission was a terrible movie. But note this:

"Hamann and Tarantino starred in the film, along with several video store and acting class buddies, and worked on the crew, which included fellow Video Archives employees Rand Vossler and Roger Avary."

So what was in it for them? Well, let me emphasize this part for those of you who seem not to notice:

"Several actors in this film later appeared in Tarantino's other films Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Kill Bill."

This is not at all uncommon. David Lynch did the same thing - he kept employing the same actors from his very early production, even if they weren't exactly stars - often they couldn't get work, except on Lynch's projects. The same goes down the line - dp's who get used over and over again until their own careers get established. This is so common with a ton of directors who come out of these little projects. There's incredible loyalty. People tend to remember. That's why it's done.

Many careers get started from these tiny projects (and funnily enough I have personally witnessed this). This is so commonsensical that I wonder why anyone on this board would question it... I mean, that's what motivates 99% of the indie people out there - you sacrifice now, so you can go somewhere later. And that's what happens - over and over and over again. In fact, anyone who screws over their early buddies, gets a really bad reputation - this is how it is and how it ought to be.

We'd all love to pay and be paid. But when that is not an option, it's down to that age old dilemma. Do I do nothing, waiting for the perfect circumstances, or do I take a chance? And by "take a chance" means do I get involved - in whatever capacity, understanding that I'm taking a huge risk, with completely unknown outcome? To me, I'd be involved for any of these reasons: I like the project, I like the people, I might learn something from this. And if it's a yes to any of these, I ask myself if I can afford it - then I go in. I've done it before, and I have never regretted it. But that's me.
 
Back
Top