Low Budget, B movie, C movie Vs HIGH BUDGET films

J

james d

Member
First off, I couldn't find the forum that best fit this topic... And I really want it to have the best attention for people to add the cents to it. So mods if it needs to be moved then by all means.


The title says it all..

Last year I spent some time doing some proposed budgets for low budget movies $100k to $125+ and learned quite a lot...
I've also been purposely studying low budget movies vs high budgets and as we all know one of the main stakes of a high budget film is the film and crew talent involved in it. In the UK I learned for example the day rate for some well recognizable actors to only be at around £500 a day.

I would like start an on going thread exploring the CLEAR difference between A movies and the rest. What makes a B movie stick out like a sore thumb... There are some really great indie films out there but what if they had just a little more resource's could that have made the difference to pulling in more of a crowd or obtaining decent distribution.

For example It takes a lot more than this I know to make a movie but what if you had no budget for name actors but just putting beautiful looking eye candy (that could act also) in place.

With equipment to shoot films getting cheaper the possibilities are expanding for the individual to finance his own movie.
I'd like to hear ways we can get pass the pit fulls we already know exist to make the best low budget but high in value films.
 
Last edited:
General rule of thumb is: high budget film delivers spectacle while low budget (good) film delivers ideas. There used to be time where directors tried to merge those two but i think it's long gone. The high budget film is a commercial product that just like say a pocket of ketchup needs to be sold in large quantities. If you study how companies are trying to do that (sell ketchup) you will see that they are trying to make the taste as generic as possible so that everyone- and i mean EVERYONE - will like it (not LOVE it but just like it because to one's love means another's hate and thus you loos one customer). Same is true of high budget films. The producers are trying to make the film generic enough that EVERYONE will like it. The opposite is true of a low budget film. Because the stakes are so much lower and the budget doesn't have resources for necessary advertising the ONLY way for that film to stand out is with uniqueness of its ideas or execution. People talking about making $100k film look like $1m film are missing the point. At $1m you are still low budget. So what that you have great locations, great actors, great camerawork if you don't deliver the ideas? Moreover, so what if you don't have another $500k or $1m to spend on advertising? Why would anyone bother watching your $1m (but really $100k) film if they can watch a $50m film instead?

The currency of low and high budget film is different. Yes they are both films with actors, locations, story, cinematography etc. but why people watch each is different.
High budget film's appeal is the famous actors (maybe famous director), vistas, explosions, special effects, the spectacle, grandiose music, emotions that are produced by such devices, certain populist understating about what make the world go (as the film needs to appeal to both young and old).
Low budget film's appeal is intimacy, 2nd and 3rd layer of meaning, poetry (verbal and visual), often lofty ideas (including ambition to tackle those ideas by the maker), maturity of understanding about the world (brought about that low budget films are very specific about its audiences).

In other words to make the best low budget film is not to try to jump over the budget hurdles and somehow making it look like high budget film but rather concentrate on ideas (what are ideas probably requires its own thread).
 
Last edited:
There are tons of low budget high value films being made all the time, but in the midst of that you have four hundred times as many low budget low value low everything films being made.

In high budget low value films you have people who don't know what they're doing and as a result you don't get the value for you money. In low budget high value film you have people who know what they're doing, they're good at what they're doing and they get you great value for your money.
The problem is a lot of low budget movies involve people who don't really know what they're doing which leads to the production bleeding money.
 
And then there is the flip side.... High budget films that flat out suck.

So it's not per say the amount of money you throw at a project.
 
Even if you have an extremely low budget, your competition is still going to be the indies that cost a few million dollars, or even many studio flicks if you're talking about taking a portion of someone's time and entertainment budget away from other options.

Let's say that (art aside) you're interested in making a movie that will actually be profitable, or at the very least, not a complete financial loss. At best, your top notch production value will put you on the same level as higher budget indies. This won't win you accolades outside of circles that care about how much you spent, and just levels the playing field a bit. Delivering a product that punches above it's weight class (visually and sonically) should just be a given if you're serious about success.

The difference in drawing a crowd and getting distribution is all in talent (the cast), and playing to a marketable niche. If you can put a actor with any worth (a suit-term, not mine) in your film, then you will increase your chances of landing worthwhile distribution exponentially. If you can't afford or attract a star, then your best chance at profitability is in targeting and skillfully marketing to a passionate niche audience. "Deuce of Spades" is a great example of a no-budget independent film that actually made some money for it's creator (a DVXuser member) because she reached out to large online communities to whom her film had appeal. There are many more cult-hit independent films than there are in the mainstream, and that's a much more realistic model for success than trying to appeal to a wide audience with no budget.

I think that at this level, many people view a micro-budget indie as less of a financial investment than an investment in their career. There's a lot of hope that a great self-financed feature will lead to bigger opportunities, and while sometimes that works out it can be just as attractive (sometimes more so) to investors and the kinds of people who can advance your career to have made a profitable film as opposed to just a good one.
 
I actually agree with Patryk, and would add that you should still work to create a commercial product within those guidelines. Sound being most important, then consistent tone through directorial and editorial choices, and then overall presentation.
 
Patryck hit it out of the park.

It all boils down to what will keep an audiences interest. Big budget films have the advantage of famous beautiful people, exotic locales, brilliant special effects, explosions, etc. A low budget film simply cannot compete in these areas, and if you do you will only end up looking like a knockoff. Unfair as it is, I believe people do judge small movies against big movies. Therefore the CGI of your $10,000 movie is going to be judged against the CGI of $200,000,000 movies. Unfair? Perhaps. But it's the way it is.

What this leaves you with is concept and emotional depth. Audiences want that too (though arguably to a lesser extent), and if you can nail that you will get people to watch.
 
jghenderson said:
Patryck hit it out of the park.

It all boils down to what will keep an audiences interest. Big budget films have the advantage of famous beautiful people, exotic locales, brilliant special effects, explosions, etc. A low budget film simply cannot compete in these areas, and if you do you will only end up looking like a knockoff. Unfair as it is, I believe people do judge small movies against big movies. Therefore the CGI of your $10,000 movie is going to be judged against the CGI of $200,000,000 movies. Unfair? Perhaps. But it's the way it is.

What this leaves you with is concept and emotional depth. Audiences want that too (though arguably to a lesser extent), and if you can nail that you will get people to watch.
Click to expand...

I think it's important to understand that the audiences differ. People searching out indie films are not the same people going to see the blockbuster advertised on every city bus. Both films have to be exquisite in their own genre. The indie film better have some ideas or it will put everyone to sleep, the blockuster better deliver some explosions and great special effects or people who want those will be disappointed.

Identify what your audiences want. You love blockbusters - well most likely you won't be making one anytime soon. You hate indie films - too bad becaue this is what your first film will be like and doing a blockbuster for peanuts is not a good idea. On the other hand if you love indies then ask yourself what do you love in those films? This in essence will be what your actual indie audiences are looking for.
 
the El Mariachi you saw on the big screen or on DVD was not the original film... Columbia put over 2 mil into fixing it and bringing it to the screen... but still that first film got the attention of the studio...
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
the El Mariachi you saw on the big screen or on DVD was not the original
film... Columbia put over 2 mil into fixing it and bringing it to the screen... but still that first film got
the attention of the studio...
Click to expand...


well, he also made the movie posted below--- which is still better than 99.9 percent of the micro-budget
shorts posted on youtube since. There's almost no money on the screen here, just...mastery of cinematic
language. So again, to the OP, the secret sauce that makes a B-movie transcend it's low budget-- is
talent/skill/craft/really-knowing-what-you-are-doing., which, oddly enough, goes back to filmmaking BASICS.

there's actually match cuts in there- no actors standing around like mannekins like in some Syfy channel
movie...

and...

ALMOST NO FILMMAKING BOOKS TEACH THIS (almost none teach you how to make a picture with a camera either,
tho they do teach the rule of thirds which is the poor mans version to help you get INTERESTING DIVISION OF
SPACE, but thats another story)


I quote:

"in order to obtain the filmic
representation desired, interrupt the natural course
of the action, either by stopping or by repetition.
Almost invariably, in shooting a dynamically con-
tinuous action, we must, if we wish to obtain from
it the necessary details, either stop it by interruption
or repeat it several times. In such a way we must
always make our action dependent on the will of
the director, even in the shooting of the simplest
events that have nothing to do with " artistic "
direction. If we chose not to interfere with the
natural unfolding of the real event, then we should be
knowingly making the film impossible. We should
have left nothing but a slavish fixation of the event,
excluding all possibility of using such advantages
of filmic representation as the particularisation of
details and the elimination of superfluous transitory
points."

although,, admittedly, art being limitless, this is only one style/approach to moviemaking, there are others,
but its still light years ahead of the stiffedy-stiff awkward no-cutty no-movement style of most amateurs who have no grip on the idea of either MONTAGE or STAGING.

anyways..

badass no money movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InHgkJhvT_A

greatest filmmmaking book ever (for free):

http://archive.org/stream/filmtechniqueact00pudo/filmtechniqueact00pudo_djvu.txt

my movies are still amateur but they sure as hell aint stiff like a Syfy flick

have fun
 
Conversely, no matter how good the idea and acting, bad sound and bad editing will kill the production.
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
the El Mariachi you saw on the big screen or on DVD was not the original film... Columbia put over 2 mil into fixing it and bringing it to the screen... but still that first film got the attention of the studio...
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure looking to the past provides only partial clues of the future.

I'm convinced that if a film like "El Mariachi" came out today it would die a painless death at some c-level festivals drown by hopes by being found at some point streaming on Netflix.

To put it simply the times have changed - drastically. B-level action film done for "no money" doesn't hold the appeal because we've seen our share of "no money" films and thus this doesn't have the marketing value anymore. The film in itself, lets be real here, is like a hundred (thousands?) one can find streaming on netflix of even worse uploaded in full to youtube. So without that, now irrelevant, marketing hook the film is just like any other in the sea of mediocrity.
 
Really appreciate these answers, I feel we're starting to get some where behind the true reasons why something works and others don't... I agree if el mariachi came out today it wouldn't have the same effect... Maybe the explosion in visual effects has something to do with this with people's expectation being "more". el mariachi can stand up today in terms of style and holding the viewers attention but it's quite simpleton movie which could be forgotten.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
I'm convinced that if a film like "El Mariachi" came out today it would die a painless death at some c-level festivals drown by hopes by being found at some point streaming on Netflix.
Click to expand...
y'all have GOT to be kidding.... post a micro/no budget movie here that's as well shot/constructed with a story that WORKS (ie the movie is watchable with no apologies for the acting or story). That's the point I'm trying to make--- its very easy to not notice how good the movie is and how high the bar is set, and most no-budgeters simply do not have the talent to make as good of a movie. I have netflix, so recommend something thats on netflix now. you might be right that the distribution landscape is different, but as far as quality, its a DAMN GOOD MOVIE (even now- damn good movies tend to last), and 99.99999 percent of micro-no budget movies made since then, are simply not.



2:18


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVE296BvOj4


We all have the whole world at our feet on the internet, anyone can post ANYTHING on youtube. The question
is simple- which one of us is going to make that KICKASS movie????


it cant be in your best interest as an artist to worry about distribution, who else is making movies, all that jazz, its in your best interest as an artist to believe that CREAM WILL RISE TO THE TOP and fight tooth and nail to master craft. Thats your best strategy, I think.
 
Last edited:
nycineaste said:
y'all have GOT to be kidding.... post a micro/no budget movie here that's as well shot/constructed with a story that WORKS (ie the movie is watchable with no apologies for the acting or story). That's the point I'm trying to make--- its very easy to not notice how good the movie is and how high the bar is set, and most no-budgeters simply do not have the talent to make as good of a movie. I have netflix, so recommend something thats on netflix now. you might be right that the distribution landscape is different, but as far as quality, its a DAMN GOOD MOVIE (even now- damn good movies tend to last), and 99.99999 percent of micro-no budget movies made since then, are simply not.
2:18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVE296BvOj4

We all have the whole world at our feet on the internet, anyone can post ANYTHING on youtube. The question
is simple- which one of us is going to make that KICKASS movie????


it cant be in your best interest as an artist to worry about distribution, who else is making movies, all that jazz, its in your best interest as an artist to believe that CREAM WILL RISE TO THE TOP and fight tooth and nail to master craft. That's your best strategy, I think.
Click to expand...

At some point we simply have to disagree. El Mariach's story is run-of-the-mill, the acting is atrocious and the film - besides the fact of how does no-budget film looks like curiosity - is NOT watchable. Again, maybe your standards are different then mine. Traditional dime-a-dozen stories of king pins, drug lords, shootouts, hero with machine guns don't interest me.

Those films don't interest me because i've gotten older but also because at some point the film's novelty wears out. Maybe when you went to Blockbuster 2x a week to rent a VHS tape you couldn't see the obvious patterns El Mariachi imitates but today when you often watch 2 streaming films simultaneously the films can't simply be the pattern replicator. The ability of the filmmaker to fool the viewer into thinking "you are watching something original" has gotten harder and harder. Replicating patterns - as El Mariachi does well - is NOT enough anymore.
 
It starts with the script. If you've got a good script you have to ask "how much better would this be if I spent another $20M on it". "This is a crap script, I'll spend $20M making it so people will come" should be just a good way to lose $20M. Should be, but you'd have to wonder. It's subjective. Script and technique aside, at the bottom (micro, doable for most of us) end, if you've worked creatively with budgets, you'll know there's very little difference between $100 and $100000. One important thing is to have as many people on the credits as possible. That way, you get good word of mouth marketing, and they bring their families and friends to the premiere, which in turn is a good marketing point for festivals and distribution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top