Does genre matter for a $30k-$50k indie production?

I feel we are starting to walk in circles now.

There are two kind of filmmakers - the ones who are part of the industry or the ones who want to be. The want-to-be guys would do anything for the chance to be part of it including working for free for 6 months. Unfortunately they also are, well, a bit inexperienced so even though they make up a lot with their passion the final result is usually just passable film. This group of people tends to do Hollywood-wanna-be films - that is films with stories and techniques known from big films but for much much smaller amount of $. Here is where most of the genre pictures fall in. Someone likes action films so they decide to make one but for 1/100 of the real budget (often with hopes of making it look at least 10x the budget - which always puts a question mark on my face because it still is many many times less then what the big boys are doing it for). Here it doesn't matter if the budget is $50k or even a bit more - the final result almost always looks pathetic and indeed is quite unsalable - after all why would an audience member chose to see this low budgeter instead of big budget film?

Second group is people with experienced who understand how much stuff cost, what quality of gear and crew they can expect for their money but also, and this is much more important, understand that competing with the big guys is futile on their terms. SO they create their own rules by making films that don't follow traditional rules. Because they don't follow traditional rules they are not really genre pictures - even though they might have elements of those. Those films because they create their own rules can be anything and everything (including the $). On the surface those films seem like being hard to sell but because of their uniqueness they often end up being of interest to a niche market. Because it's a niche market those films can't be really expensive (forget your $1mil film fantasy though there is a whole roster of directors - Lars von Trier and others - doing whatever they want for much more). You won't make much money with those films so your budgets have to be realistic but also becaue you know you won't make much money with those... do what you love but also pay yourself.
 
Patryk, where do you get your information from?

Because, it clashes with everything numbers, data, and research very clearly illustrate.

I could point you to some of the worst content I've ever seen that went on to do, quietly, a few million in sales off of an incredibly thin budget. In 2011. Most of which do have faces in them, but no story, no production value, so on and so forth.
 
Patryk, where do you get your information from?

Because, it clashes with everything numbers, data, and research very clearly illustrate.

I could point you to some of the worst content I've ever seen that went on to do, quietly, a few million in sales off of an incredibly thin budget. In 2011. Most of which do have faces in them, but no story, no production value, so on and so forth.

I'm all ears. Not one of the 8 feature- films i've shot and a few TV pilots ever made money (not even came close to break even).
 
For me to be unemployed for 4 to 6 months MY salary out of the budget would have to be in the 50K range. Though 4 to 6 months is pretty arbitrary. Start of pre-production to end of post production on a feature likely would be twice that. Though you could probably work a day job through some of that and only go full time on the film for maybe a month before and a month after principal.
 
I'm all ears. Not one of the 8 feature- films i've shot and a few TV pilots ever made money (not even came close to break even).

Were you a part of the distribution and delivery process?

You may have worked on projects that were too expensive to move. I do remember seeing a trailer for one of the features you shot, and as good as it looked, it definitely did not look like material anyone would be willing to fork over money immediately for the chance to distribute it.

Festival play, definitely. Sales? If I were an agent I might've advanced a very tiny amount for all rights and hoped for the best.

On the other hand: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046245/

I can tell you that this made quite a decent amount of money worldwide. Can't tell you how much, but I know people who worked on this feature.

I can also tell you that this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mdhLK2DchM

Had a surprising amount of success, the kind that a lot of people would likely sell a few organs for.

That's off the top of my head while I'm working on cutting in pick ups.

The reality is that there is a market for movies that festival critics may not think are the greatest. Asylum and SyFy proves this repeatedly, over and over. You would probably crap bricks if you knew some of the numbers those movies do, which is actually public knowledge now, but even THOSE budgets are inflated depending on the feature.

EDIT: I didn't mean to seem as though I were saying Selling of Scary Manor was horrible, but CROSS?

Yes, I am saying, that is horrible. With the absences of those faces it would look like nothing more than a youtube video.

Hell, it still looks like nothing more than a youtube video.
 
Last edited:
Also... I'm not taking it personally, or being sensitive, but the two types of filmmakers thing... that sounds like something you'd hear a decade ago. There really aren't just two types of filmmakers today, and I can't even figure out how many there are. If we're talking about careers, then there are at least four types that I can think of:

The Spielbergs - Major motion pictures, incredibutt budgets, academy recognition.

The Asylums - really bad motion pictures, incredibutt financial status, backhanded recognition

The Ted Hopes - endlessly upset about the state of "indie motion picture", stuck between not wanting to go major studio and out of touch with nano budget, still making a decent wage and still making a name.

The Self Sustainers - MOdular. Be any of the above or below. Give us 30-50K to build a little system, eventually we'll shoot out 250K budgets with names. We'll utilize every avenue to distro and maximize our efforts. If someone allots to us millions to shoot that dream project one day, cool, if not, we're still happy doing what we love for a living. And some of us will still get noticed.


The growing pipeline that is communication demands more content, which means there has to be more filmmakers of all types to serve the masses. The desire for content, good bad OR ugly, is not dwindling... it's growing so fast it's beginning to fold over unto itself, and it isn't gonna stop.

Now, if you really want to make money... >=P You should be in video games.
 
^ POTY. Seriously, I back the above. There definitely are not only two type of filmmakers anymore.

Kegan
 
Regarding getting paid, here's my thoughts (as someone who's done three feature films three different ways) First, I don't recommend the weekends/holidays gig. It's too easy for actors and crew to lose interest and drop out, especially if you can't pay them what they're really worth. If you're hiring professionals, they'll expect a professional schedule. If you have a job that gives you vacation time, craft a script that you can shoot in two weeks. Then take your vacation time to go shoot it. Now you the filmmaker are getting paid for the time to shoot, and then you can post the flick in your free time. In all honesty, production is the only time you need to be available 24-7, thus needing income. Rather than shoot on weekends, post on weekends. If you're going to raise a 50k budget, figure out how much time it'll take to shoot, then budget the salaries based upon taking that much time off from work. Don't give yourself a bonus, stick that cash on the screen!
 
That would be my approach as well (vacation time). Shooting on weekends causes too many potential issues with losing cast and crew as well as continuity because you're stretching the shoot out for months. I did do a 5 day shoot stretched out over two weekends for a long short, but trying to shoot only on weekends over 3 or 4 months sounds like a nightmare. IMO a feature needs to be continuous.
 
That would be my approach as well (vacation time). Shooting on weekends causes too many potential issues with losing cast and crew as well as continuity because you're stretching the shoot out for months. I did do a 5 day shoot stretched out over two weekends for a long short, but trying to shoot only on weekends over 3 or 4 months sounds like a nightmare. IMO a feature needs to be continuous.

Well, at times like these, I'd ask... "What would Roger Corman Do?"... and since I personally can't ask him... I'd just take some examples... like "Little Shop of Horrors"(1962)... shot in about 2 days... of course according to the wiki, he relied on his cohorts from previous films to fill in the blanks as needed...

But I'm pretty sure most of his other movies did not take 90-100 day shoots... perhaps 2 weeks... ok, maybe 3... ok, ok, maybe 4... but I think that's

On the other hand I'll bet one could make a AVN award winning porn movie for $50K that would pay back, and get such accolades...

Of course porn is not for the faint of heart...
 
How in the heck did he shoot that movie in two days? LOL

I'm wondering how 110 pages can be done in 7~10... sheesh.
 
How in the heck did he shoot that movie in two days? LOL

I'm wondering how 110 pages can be done in 7~10... sheesh.

Well, here's what the wiki has... well just some of the highlights...


---- Casting and cast prep...

The film was partially cast with stock actors that Corman had used in previous films. Writer Charles B. Griffith portrays several small roles. Griffith's father appeared as a dental patient, and his grandmother, Myrtle Vail appeared as Seymour's hypochondriac mother.[2][10] Dick Miller, who had starred as the protagonist of A Bucket of Blood was offered the role of Seymour, but turned it down, instead taking the smaller role of Burson Fouch.[3][8] The cast rehearsed for three weeks before filming began.[10] Principal photography of The Little Shop of Horrors was shot in two days and one night.[14]

-> In otherwords, cast the crew, and their family... and rehears for 3 weeks...

---- Camera work...
Interiors were shot with three cameras in wide, lingering master shots in single takes.[2][8] Welles states that Corman "had two camera crews on the set—that's why the picture, from a filmic standpoint, really is not very well done. The two camera crews were pointed in opposite directions so that we got both angles, and then other shots were 'picked up' to use in between, to make it flow. It was a pretty fixed set and it was done sort of like a sitcom is done today, so it wasn't very difficult."
-----

-> Long, single takes, multiple cameras...

----- Exteriors...

Exteriors were shot by Griffith and Welles over two successive weekends with $279 worth of rented equipment.[3][8] Griffith and Welles paid a group of children five cents apiece to run out of a subway tunnel.[10] They were also able to persuade winos to appear as extras for ten cents apiece.[3][10] "The winos would get together, two or three of them, and buy pints of wine for themselves! We also had a couple of the winos act as ramrods—sort of like production assistants—and put them in charge of the other wino extras."[10] Griffith and Welles also persuaded a funeral home to donate a hearse and coffin—with a real corpse inside—for the film shoot.[10] Griffith and Welles were able to use the nearby Southern Pacific Transportation Company yard for an entire evening using two bottles of scotch as persuasion.[3] The scene in which a character portrayed by Robert Coogan is run over by a train was accomplished by persuading the railroad crew to back the locomotive away from the actor. The shot was later printed in reverse.[3] Griffith and Welles spent a total of $1,100 on fifteen minutes worth of exteriors.

-> Wait, wasn't Griffith the writer... what'd you mean he's shooting the exteriors with Welles... wait wasn't Wells one of the actors... What would SAG say about paying the children 5 cents... what would SP say about bribery of using their equipment via bottles of Scotch???

----- And for the Academy Award for Most Reused Music by a Single Production Company...

The film's musical score, written by cellist Fred Katz, was originally written for A Bucket of Blood. According to Mark Thomas McGee, author of Roger Corman: The Best of the Cheap Acts, each time Katz was called upon to write music for Corman, Katz sold the same score as if it were new music.[16] The score was used in a total of seven films, including The Wasp Woman and Creature from the Haunted Sea.

----- And for the Academy Award for the Most Innovative Use of Cutting Room Debris...

Howard R. Cohen learned from Charles B. Griffith that when the film was being edited, "there was a point where two scenes would not cut together. It was just a visual jolt, and it didn't work. And they needed something to bridge that moment. They found in the editing room a nice shot of the moon, and they cut it in, and it worked. Twenty years go by. I'm at the studio one day. Chuck comes running up to me, says, 'You've got to see this!' It was a magazine article—eight pages on the symbolism of the moon in Little Shop of Horrors.

------------


Hope that helps...
 
Back
Top