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 G. Smith said:
I understand that analogy, but I just don't think it really is appropriate for the production of a micro budget feature film. While, yes, you are asking people to "Work" for you, you may also be giving them an opportunity to do something that a lot of people just dream of doing, such as act in a feature film, or take higher responsibility for some technical aspect of the production of a feature film than they normally do. While a lot of folks may scoff at that, it is definitely an element of the appeal of working on a micro budget feature, for SOME PEOPLE.

I doubt that there are anyone who dreams of working in a factory that would do it for free. However, there are lots and lots of low or no paid apprenticeship and internship programs out there that offer similar opportunities for work experience in the "Real World".

Ok, queue all the, "Trusting inexperienced people will be a disaster" responses.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this post....this has been my contention all along. There are many people in each area - actors/musicians/creative artists who would love to work on a feature film - to the point that just being involved is the payment. Yes, they may be inexperienced, but everybody's been inexperienced. EVERYBODY. Except for maybe Spielberg who probably came out of the womb with a Super 8 in his infant hands.
Some will say - "Yeah but do you really want to do a feature with inexperienced people?" My response would be - "Sure." As long as they are knowledgeable about their part of the creative process. What I mean by that is this: I started a band with four guys who had NEVER been in a band....or recorded, or played live gigs - BUT - each one knew his instrument, and we all cared enough about it to make it a good band. Then we played live, recorded, etc, etc.
Also....I do think if you are the director and/or writer making a few no budget shorts BEFORE you even contemplate a feature would be a wise move.
 
I would generally agree with that Pulp. I think if you treat people right, and if they are dedicated, free can work for pay. I just like paying people at least something in almost everything I shoot. If not paying, then at least feeding them well.

Wow 106 pages.
 
I know for a fact El Mariachi's lab bill was $7500. There was alot of spin about the cost to produce. It was very little but don't believe the numbers that are thrown out.

I wish I knew how to produce a feature for $10,000. Heck you can't get a viable insurance policy for that. I filled our trucks for a show starting tomorrow and our diesel bill for the trucks and generators was 675.00 and that want last a week.
 
What often isn't said about Robert Rodriguez success is that he had already shot probably over 100 short films before El Mariachi. Most were likely really bad, movies with his brothers, sisters and friends on VHS. You cut a lot of teeth that way. It fits the Tom Peters "Fail Forward Fast" mantra. He also didn't tell you that Danny Treijo was his cousin and that opened a few doors in Hollywood. His book(s) are inspiring, but also won't tell you anything about finding investors or distributors, or making any sort of deal, as he was somewhat fortunate with being screened at big festivals and picked up by Tri-Star fairly quickly after El Mariachi was screened. This isn't likely to happen to anyone else even shooting a $100k budget. I'd say the odds of you following Rodriguez path with your $10k film are about the same as winning the lottery.

You may be better off reading Vince Rocca's Rebel Without a Deal. But even his story was laced with hardship, and luck.

I'd say you'd really be better off making a feature film for $10k that has a built-in target audience, and try to sell it to that audience and make $15k from it.
 
Sorry for being absent a while, people. I just got back home from Cannes where MARIANNE played at the market (although we didn't make the official selection).

Brian_Rice said:
The trailer shows one "name" actor and it looks like a horror flick about a werewolf maybe? It's not in English so the trailer couldn't be as informative as would be per usual. No speaking, just some visual pans, etc. Looks completely solid, though. I don't know why he'd have any issues selling it to distributors in the film's native country. US is a different story, though. The trailer doesn't have anything that would "hook" me as you said. Unlike Don't Let the Wrong One In which is from the same region (maybe even a similar budget), but obviously had a very distinctive hook -- distinctive enough to get it remade into an american flick.
Click to expand...
I've released two teaser trailers, but preparing for Cannes prevented me from putting together an actual full trailer. So the two that exists are teasers, only meant to bring attention and interest to the film and give an idea of what it looks and sounds like and what general genre it is.
It's very common for independent genre films made in Sweden to find distribution abroad way before domestically. It happens all the time.

Kholi said:
Wait, there's a monster in Marianne? Like, an actual monster/demon or is it a person that's possessed? That's what I got from the trailer.
Click to expand...
Yeah there's a monster in the film (in the sense that all horror films has a monster in them). The monster in MARIANNE is mare from Swedish folklore.
The film itself is a modern re-interpretation of what the Mare is, and the physiological phenomenon that causes people to experience it (sleep paralysis and hypnopomp hallucinations).

Brian_Rice said:
Huh. I didn't get any of that from the trailer. But, like I said, it couldn't really do much without any dialog or taglines.

You should probably have some of what you just explained in a US trailer. If your hook is some kind of Chupacabra/Bigfoot Swedish ghost story, there are enough people interested in that sort of thing that they'd probably give it a go. As the trailer stands now, honestly, I wouldn't even Netflix Watch It Now except for that I know you so I would. :)

You should give your film to Zak or someone here who can put together a sweet American-ized trailer for you. I can't imagine that one of the better filmmaker folks here would have a problem helping you out. You could even ask a few different people and then take a poll to see what trailer "hooked" users here best. That's what I would do if I were trying to sell an American film to a Swedish audience.

DVXUSER: Sweden.

Hey, where's Kholi?

heh
Click to expand...
Well, like I said, the two trailers we have released are teaser trailers, and not full trailers. There will be full ones too, don't worry.

OldCorpse said:
The way to make a $10K feature is to write a story that's:

1)Engaging
2)Can be shot for $10K

And that means it's in the script. The script. That's why Jawa Ex Machine could not shoot his feature for $10K, because the script didn't allow for it - and that's just addressing point (2) above. I haven't seen Marianne, so I can't speak to (1).

But that's the secret folks. A $10K feature starts with a script that's written to be shot for $10K. Don't go on to the next step, until you've nailed this one. That takes care of 99% of the discussion right there. Everything else is details.
Click to expand...
Uhm no. The reason I didn't shoot MARIANNE for $10K was that I could raise $150K but nothing more.
If I could have raised $3 million, I would have shot the film for $3 million and it would have been a lot better that way.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Let's call her an "apparition".
Click to expand...

Is she clear and floating around with ectoplasm waving behind her, or fleshy?

What I'm trying to discern here, without you spoiling it, is that if you have an actual spectre, ghost, or something spectacular in the movie... something that required VFX or Practical Effects, wouldn't it be important to put it into the trailer for a sale?
 
Kholi said:
Is she clear and floating around with ectoplasm waving behind her, or fleshy?

What I'm trying to discern here, without you spoiling it, is that if you have an actual spectre, ghost, or something spectacular in the movie... something that required VFX or Practical Effects, wouldn't it be important to put it into the trailer for a sale?
Click to expand...
She's in both the trailers and on some of the screenshots released.

It's not a spectacle movie though. It's a character driven psychological drama horror. You don't see her clearly in the trailers because frankly you don't see her clearly in the film. 99% of the time she's in the film she's off screen or out of focus. I'm using A LOT of negative space and sound to create her presence. When she's there you clearly know it, but what works in story doesn't necessarely work on a screenshot taken out of context.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
She's in both the trailers and on some of the screenshots released.

It's not a spectacle movie though. It's a character driven psychological drama horror. You don't see her clearly in the trailers because frankly you don't see her clearly in the film. 99% of the time she's in the film she's off screen or out of focus. I'm using A LOT of negative space and sound to create her presence. When she's there you clearly know it, but what works in story doesn't necessarely work on a screenshot taken out of context.
Click to expand...

Alright, this is kind of what I was saying earlier about experiences being different for everyone. Without naming cases specifically, if you're trying to sell a movie and you go into it with that thought, then we sort of already know that without huge names, we need production value to sell. That means spectacle in most cases. So, in your case, your experiences are that getting distribution is almost impossible without more money or even names. That conclusion is derived from several factors, the largest one though is content. Then down the line in brackets of Production Value, etc.

Then we use another famous case (and now over-repeated,but at least it's not Paranormal Activity) like Monsters or Troll Hunter and we compare and contrast. Just from the trailers of either alone I'd say "sale". That's just recognizing elements that have a paying audience attached, neither of which had names available for posters etc.

If someone asked you how could you possibly sell Marianne to make up the 150K price tag, then how do you step back away from the product as a producer/director and see it as a distributor? How can you spend even eight hundred thousand to promote Marianne in hopes of grossing at least two million within the first two quarters of release?

The "historical" aspect? I think Old Corpse is closer to "right" in that you can't sell on that alone.

In the end, one person's experience can't really be the next unless all things are equal, and they rarely are.
 
FYI to all those who think it's possible to make an amazing feature (or any feature) for under $10K.... Pickup a copy of "How Not to Make a Short Film: Secrets from a Sundance Programmer" and read it cover to cover. Actually, it's a good read for everyone.
RE: Vince's post on what I assume is "Bong of the Dead" (maybe next time you can provide a link?). So the filmmaker spent "3 solid years...plugging away relentlessly on his dreams by creating his film all by himself in his basement" (link) and did it all for just $5000. Assuming he spent 40 hours/week for 50 weeks a year, that means he put a value on his time of 83 cents per hour.

Obviously, since it made it to Cannes he'll get more return for his investment than 83 cents/hour.

Oh, wait. It's not THE Cannes Film Festival. It's the Cannes Independent Film Festival. Different thing entirely. But still. That IS an achievement (but I do wish the press release the filmmaker put out had clarified which festival it really was).

Anyway, I guess we still don't know if it's Amazing. Oh. Hold on. 4.5/10 on IMDB. Okay. Well....

Trailer looks fun though.

It was obviously a labor of love for the guy. If he had a bigger budget, maybe he could have saved a couple of years of his life instead of laboring alone in his basement. Just a thought.
​
Anyway, check out that book. That's the main reason I posted to this old thread.
 
BTW, if you have Amazon Prime, here's a fun little short called "Happiness" (11 minutes) that reportedly cost $15,000 to make. The filmmaker went on to make the feature Cold Souls with Paul Giamatti. Lot of other good shorts in that particular collection on Amazon.
 
keylight said:
FYI to all those who think it's possible to make an amazing feature (or any feature) for under $10K.... Pickup a copy of "How Not to Make a Short Film: Secrets from a Sundance Programmer" and read it cover to cover. Actually, it's a good read for everyone.
RE: Vince's post on what I assume is "Bong of the Dead" (maybe next time you can provide a link?). So the filmmaker spent "3 solid years...plugging away relentlessly on his dreams by creating his film all by himself in his basement" (link) and did it all for just $5000. Assuming he spent 40 hours/week for 50 weeks a year, that means he put a value on his time of 83 cents per hour.

Obviously, since it made it to Cannes he'll get more return for his investment than 83 cents/hour.

Oh, wait. It's not THE Cannes Film Festival. It's the Cannes Independent Film Festival. Different thing entirely. But still. That IS an achievement (but I do wish the press release the filmmaker put out had clarified which festival it really was).

Anyway, I guess we still don't know if it's Amazing. Oh. Hold on. 4.5/10 on IMDB. Okay. Well....

Trailer looks fun though.

It was obviously a labor of love for the guy. If he had a bigger budget, maybe he could have saved a couple of years of his life instead of laboring alone in his basement. Just a thought.
​
Anyway, check out that book. That's the main reason I posted to this old thread.
Click to expand...
Well he clearly didn't spend all those 3 years laboring alone in his basement, as the trailer includes at least 3 actors, a bunch of zombie extras and exterior shots.

I'm not sure why you say "he could have saved a couple of years of his life," when he was likely doing what he wants to do and probably learning a good number of things in the process.
 
108 pages?

omg-cat.gif



cliff notes?
 
Saharanturtle said:
108 pages?

omg-cat.gif



cliff notes?
Click to expand...

Here's my short summary -

1. Epic arguments/debates and good points on both sides.
2. Barry Green was all for it and funded a project or two (sorry if I'm mistaken)
3. Many of us including Barry feel that for $10,000....less gives you more - meaning fewer locations/actors/a story that benefits from small scope.
4. Topics covered included insurance, hard drive/computer issues, marketing, what makes something amazing, the types of films that COULD be done on a micro budget, using family and friends vs pro crews, general working philosophy....like do you pay your crew or are they doing it for the love of the project and considered equal partners.
5. My conclusion is that not any film idea should be tried on a micro budget....some ideas should be saved for when there is more money available. An amazing micro budget film should be built from the ground up with the budget in mind at all stages from concept to script to cast to shooting....that's of course debatable!
 
My favorite discussion was the, "Is it still amazing if no one sees it?"

The answer is yes, of course.

>:)

And you're right -- 108 pages! Might as well just convert this to an Amazon self-pub and call it a day.
 
keylight said:
Anyway, I guess we still don't know if it's Amazing. Oh. Hold on. 4.5/10 on IMDB. Okay. Well....
Click to expand...

Yes, we all know that imdb ratings accurately reflect the objective quality of a film. And all the Oscar winners in history deserved their awards. Now please, take your meds, and stop yelling at the other patients. They're fragile.
 
At first I thought that if you have 10k you should make a feature film, but now that I think about it, the quality you'd get making a feature on a 10k budget won't be very impressive. I'd take that 10k and make and AMAZING short film which (I think) would end up getting much more publicity and attention than a mediocre or "okay" feature film

Quality over quantity I say (at the moment at least :p). I think most people here probably want to become big famous studio directors with big budgets available to make awesome movies, and in my opinion that would be the best direction to take

anyone else agree? disagree?
 
If I was spending 10K on a short, it better be either A) a pilot for a television show, B) a short version of what I hope to be a funded feature film, or C) a fan film --

And I only barely agree with doing B.

Short films, to me, are something you do in school to develop your reel or something you do for bits and giggles once you're a successful filmmaker. Anything else, IMO, is a waste of money.

If you do a fan film you're buying 10K worth of exposure. If you do a pilot, if it fails, you can still transition the pilot to the web and might still have a chance of being discovered by a network you didn't approach or by a non-content based company (like Microsoft, etc) who might want to pick up your show as a web series.

I, personally, am working on two projects right now: An original animated pilot and a fan film. Because I believe in what both products can lead to from a business standpoint.

Short films were fine in the days of 16mm and no internet. These days I just don't see the point outside of school work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top