Glideshot
Active member
At this level, unfortunately, neither do features, just more "cash in the trash".
If you're new to the biz, and in it to make money, your films will suffer...
Make films because you love the art of it, not for the "Cash".
No Budget Feature Advice
- Thread starter mrblue1022
- Start date
At this level, unfortunately, neither do features, just more "cash in the trash".
If you're new to the biz, and in it to make money, your films will suffer...
Make films because you love the art of it, not for the "Cash".
DeSica
Well-known member
The cast wasn't really made up of any big names at the time...Keitel was in a lull, Buscemi wasn't exactly famous, Penn wasn't near any A-list, Roth was just arriving on the scene, and Madsen was a character actor.
Even so, once the cast did come together, it still only cost about a million bucks. If you can do a short version or a rough feature, you might be able to raise those kinds of funds, especially using in-kind services, with the footage you have put together.
Take a look at Cube. It was made through the Canadian Film Centre, which was started by Norman Jewison to help emrging talent up here. It was set in a huge complex made up of coloured cube rooms, and they used gels to change the colour of the different "rooms." Much of the production wasd done on the cheap by people who help out through the CFC programs, and it ended up doing very well.
I believe it made 7 million dollars in France, and everyone who helped out got a cut and made some cash...except the producer, who was employed through the CFC.
Last edited:
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
I think it's okay to make movies with the intent that they be sellable products, rather than strictly some artistic outlet. There's nothing wrong with approaching filmmaking as a commercial venture rather than simply a creative one.
As a producer, the first thing I want to know when considering a project is, "Is there an audience? Can it make a profit?" I'm not in it for my health or as a way to explore my creative side. For me, it's a business. Is it also creative? Absolutely! But I don't make movies just to explore relationships or to make statements or to educate the world. I make movies to earn a living. If I can explore relationships, make statements, and educate the world in the process, that's just icing on the cake.
filmman
Veteran
I coulda been somebody
I coulda been somebody
I coulda been a contenda :kali:
Great advice from everybody. I'm new to this website, but I'm not new to making no-budget movies.
My idea of a no-budget movie is not writing a budget.
Have you ever filled in the blanks in a standard budget? You can't do a movie for under $10,000 no matter what you enter in those fields. Try it. :violent5:
I made a no-budget movie. Here's the trailer: http://www.releasing.net
It's shot in 35mm. It was invited to the Ava Gardner Film Festival on the strength of the trailer.
I think shooting with digital cameras makes it easier to do no-budget movies. The cost of tape is peanuts, but you must have a computer like G5 and FCP.
Even then there's no chance for a theatrical unless you spend over $50,000 to transfer the digital movie to 35mm film. And then technically it's no longer a no-budget movie.
If I had $50,000 I'd make a whole other film. Therefore, no-budget pre-supposes only DVD releasing or other digital releasing.
There are exceptions of course, because it's soon becoming practical to project digital movies. Personally, from the best set-ups I've seen, the quality of the projected digital movie isn't at all close to a 35mm theatrical print.
Acting - story - sound - cinematography - directing - editing - music - sound effects - production value - Hollywood industry standards ... all these are important, and yes, food also :love4:
But the main thing is to make a movie, especially if that's all you ever wanted to do. :love4:
I coulda been somebody
I coulda been a contenda :kali:
Great advice from everybody. I'm new to this website, but I'm not new to making no-budget movies.
My idea of a no-budget movie is not writing a budget.
Have you ever filled in the blanks in a standard budget? You can't do a movie for under $10,000 no matter what you enter in those fields. Try it. :violent5:I made a no-budget movie. Here's the trailer: http://www.releasing.net
It's shot in 35mm. It was invited to the Ava Gardner Film Festival on the strength of the trailer.
I think shooting with digital cameras makes it easier to do no-budget movies. The cost of tape is peanuts, but you must have a computer like G5 and FCP.
Even then there's no chance for a theatrical unless you spend over $50,000 to transfer the digital movie to 35mm film. And then technically it's no longer a no-budget movie.
If I had $50,000 I'd make a whole other film. Therefore, no-budget pre-supposes only DVD releasing or other digital releasing.
There are exceptions of course, because it's soon becoming practical to project digital movies. Personally, from the best set-ups I've seen, the quality of the projected digital movie isn't at all close to a 35mm theatrical print.
Acting - story - sound - cinematography - directing - editing - music - sound effects - production value - Hollywood industry standards ... all these are important, and yes, food also :love4:
But the main thing is to make a movie, especially if that's all you ever wanted to do. :love4:
THRASHNASTY
Member
Just get out there and shoot!
imageonepictures
Well-known member
Not true. You can make a feature for under $10,000.00. I did. Not easily but it is possible if you know what I am doing.I coulda been a contenda :kali:
Great advice from everybody. I'm new to this website, but I'm not new to making no-budget movies.
My idea of a no-budget movie is not writing a budget.
I made a no-budget movie. Here's the trailer: http://www.releasing.net
It's shot in 35mm. It was invited to the Ava Gardner Film Festival on the strength of the trailer.
I think shooting with digital cameras makes it easier to do no-budget movies. The cost of tape is peanuts, but you must have a computer like G5 and FCP.
Even then there's no chance for a theatrical unless you spend over $50,000 to transfer the digital movie to 35mm film. And then technically it's no longer a no-budget movie.
If I had $50,000 I'd make a whole other film. Therefore, no-budget pre-supposes only DVD releasing or other digital releasing.
There are exceptions of course, because it's soon becoming practical to project digital movies. Personally, from the best set-ups I've seen, the quality of the projected digital movie isn't at all close to a 35mm theatrical print.
Acting - story - sound - cinematography - directing - editing - music - sound effects - production value - Hollywood industry standards ... all these are important, and yes, food also :love4:
But the main thing is to make a movie, especially if that's all you ever wanted to do. :love4:
We are releasing our film in May 2008 in the theatre and then off to film festivals and eventually DVD. You'd be surprised what is possible if you have the talent, motivation, energy and drive. You have to believe in yourself no matter what especially when others are not believing in you.
My two cents.
Chris
imageonepictures
Well-known member
So true that is what I did.
Chris, I think what he was saying was that if you try to use one of those budget sheets, it's impossible to fill them out without at least "entering" a $10,000 budget. So his advice was, don't use them. Which I think is hilarious but great advice. I use those things too and whenever I start looking at them and entering numbers I get completely discouraged and realize I don't have enough money to make my movie. But his solution is perfect. Don't look at them in the first place.
imageonepictures
Well-known member
Oh okay...