Zig_Zigman
Well-known member
If you have 130k for a Project, write in a role for a "name" and give him 30k for a week's work...then you can shoot your heart out on whatever you want and if the script is good you'll have a distribution shot...
None of these cameras are for "Indie Filmmakers"
- Thread starter dop16mm
- Start date
If only it were that simple Zig (I guess it is that simple if you want to take the chance....)
We are doing a half million dollar film right now paying our "name" 50K for 6 days and even that (10% of the budget) is really too much (But...the buyers would not give a back end guarantee without it....so alas). But, you can find sellable names for less than that for sure...
Anyway, if nothing else, video helps want-to-be filmmakers learn the craft and for that, I think it's great. And in time, video will become more mainstream for sure. I wouldn't be buying the HVX if I didn't think it would sell...but I do. But I also know I am willing to risk it because I have done it before, have distribution deals and that the use of video on this project is actually a "creative" choice since the film is about Video filmmaking.... I will also use it for the pilot we are shooting for the network as a B camera for the flash backs.
I love the video stuff and what it allows us to do for the money these days. And though I will continue to make films with film and occasionally HD24P with the f900, etc., I will be experimenting with these new mediums to see where I can make it work for the projects....not for budget reasons....but because that medium suits the film.
We are doing a half million dollar film right now paying our "name" 50K for 6 days and even that (10% of the budget) is really too much (But...the buyers would not give a back end guarantee without it....so alas). But, you can find sellable names for less than that for sure...
Anyway, if nothing else, video helps want-to-be filmmakers learn the craft and for that, I think it's great. And in time, video will become more mainstream for sure. I wouldn't be buying the HVX if I didn't think it would sell...but I do. But I also know I am willing to risk it because I have done it before, have distribution deals and that the use of video on this project is actually a "creative" choice since the film is about Video filmmaking.... I will also use it for the pilot we are shooting for the network as a B camera for the flash backs.
I love the video stuff and what it allows us to do for the money these days. And though I will continue to make films with film and occasionally HD24P with the f900, etc., I will be experimenting with these new mediums to see where I can make it work for the projects....not for budget reasons....but because that medium suits the film.
Right now everyone who shoots video wants it to look like film. People go on and on about "film look" "35mm adapters" '24p" etc. etc.
But the best movies shot on video are those that use video to look like...well...not like film. Sin City looked nothing like film, but instead made the most of the flexibility of the digital format. 28 days later looked pretty horrible, but it made the most of the minidv format, using the grainiess and lack of resolution to tell the story and make it scarier. Pretty soon, video will be good enough to pass for film, but that's not what's so exciting. What's exciting is that video allows almost infinite control in post of the image so it doesn't HAVE to look like film.
Cinematography is about to get a lot more interesting. Digital intermediates are already pretty popular, but an entirely video workstream will result in some really visually stunning work, and already has to some extent (even Sky Captain was cool looking).
I wonder what movie will do for video what Citizen Kane did for super-sensetive panchromatic stock? (In that is created a whole new school of cinematography based on technology.) Probably no single movie, since there's no single school of cinematography that dominates now like soft style dominated in the 1930's, but it's still pretty exciting.
That said, it will be a while until a high quality video camera is availible for prosumers. The equipment used by pro photographers and amateurs has always been pretty similar--35mm is an acceptable format for both, as are SLRs. Only the lenses vary.
On the other hand, movies are shot on 35mm, and "home movies" have always been 8mm or video. The technology gap has always been huge, so if it ever does close, it will take much longer.
But the best movies shot on video are those that use video to look like...well...not like film. Sin City looked nothing like film, but instead made the most of the flexibility of the digital format. 28 days later looked pretty horrible, but it made the most of the minidv format, using the grainiess and lack of resolution to tell the story and make it scarier. Pretty soon, video will be good enough to pass for film, but that's not what's so exciting. What's exciting is that video allows almost infinite control in post of the image so it doesn't HAVE to look like film.
Cinematography is about to get a lot more interesting. Digital intermediates are already pretty popular, but an entirely video workstream will result in some really visually stunning work, and already has to some extent (even Sky Captain was cool looking).
I wonder what movie will do for video what Citizen Kane did for super-sensetive panchromatic stock? (In that is created a whole new school of cinematography based on technology.) Probably no single movie, since there's no single school of cinematography that dominates now like soft style dominated in the 1930's, but it's still pretty exciting.
That said, it will be a while until a high quality video camera is availible for prosumers. The equipment used by pro photographers and amateurs has always been pretty similar--35mm is an acceptable format for both, as are SLRs. Only the lenses vary.
On the other hand, movies are shot on 35mm, and "home movies" have always been 8mm or video. The technology gap has always been huge, so if it ever does close, it will take much longer.
honestly,, watching open water i have no idea where they spent 130,000. i could see maybe 1/4 of that for paying the shark wranglers and boat captains and such with food and other expenses.. but 130,000 just sounds like they used a tank to kill a fly.
great films dont have to cost a fortune.. they could be made much cheaper. just like alot of the shorts entered in or festivals here over time have been shot for nothing but have been really good. the only difference for the same people to make a feature would be a commitment of time. there a trillion and one films that I watch and look at the long list of names afterwards and can honestly say that it could have been shot for the cost of food and gas over a couple weeks for about 2,000 or something by a good indy filmmaker and a couple crew members. and been just as good if not better. its all about the story.. independents need to stop trying to do things they cant.. and concentrate on doing things they can do ..and do them well.. if you dont have a 100,000 budget,, doint write a film that would take 100,000 to pull off well. write someting to fit the budget you have.. and then make a great film. i cant recall what blair witch cost.. i think it was like 40,000 or someting.. feel free to toss in the correct figure cause im just guessing at what i remember there. but i remeber thinking.. what on earth did they spend that on? did they eat caviar every day and fly around in a helicopter in between shots? anyway .. bigger budget does NOT equal better film.. simply put .. better filmmaking equals a better film. honestly im getting rather tired of people complaining about their budget as an excuse for a bad film they made.. they knew what their budget was befoire they made the film.. if it wasnt doable then the film should have been adjusted or they should have made a different film. theres no point in setting yourself up to fail by trying to make the next "star wars" with 100.00 and working at the local burger slingers for 6.00 an hour or whatever. and then saying.."well, we didnt have the budget.." a great film can be made at any pricerange.. just tailor the film to the budget.
great films dont have to cost a fortune.. they could be made much cheaper. just like alot of the shorts entered in or festivals here over time have been shot for nothing but have been really good. the only difference for the same people to make a feature would be a commitment of time. there a trillion and one films that I watch and look at the long list of names afterwards and can honestly say that it could have been shot for the cost of food and gas over a couple weeks for about 2,000 or something by a good indy filmmaker and a couple crew members. and been just as good if not better. its all about the story.. independents need to stop trying to do things they cant.. and concentrate on doing things they can do ..and do them well.. if you dont have a 100,000 budget,, doint write a film that would take 100,000 to pull off well. write someting to fit the budget you have.. and then make a great film. i cant recall what blair witch cost.. i think it was like 40,000 or someting.. feel free to toss in the correct figure cause im just guessing at what i remember there. but i remeber thinking.. what on earth did they spend that on? did they eat caviar every day and fly around in a helicopter in between shots? anyway .. bigger budget does NOT equal better film.. simply put .. better filmmaking equals a better film. honestly im getting rather tired of people complaining about their budget as an excuse for a bad film they made.. they knew what their budget was befoire they made the film.. if it wasnt doable then the film should have been adjusted or they should have made a different film. theres no point in setting yourself up to fail by trying to make the next "star wars" with 100.00 and working at the local burger slingers for 6.00 an hour or whatever. and then saying.."well, we didnt have the budget.." a great film can be made at any pricerange.. just tailor the film to the budget.
Walter_Graff
Carbonite Member
Actually Open Water shows a production budget of $500k with 20 million in marketing costs and a domestic gross of $30,610,863 and overseas gross of $22,795,669.
Barry_Green
Moderator
28 Days Later is nowhere NEAR the best that DV can look. I thought the look in the theater was marginal to poor. Not the cinematography or the lighting, mind you, I'm just talking about the overall softness and the extreme edge-enhancement halos around objects. "November" looked easily twice as good, except for the darkroom scenes.Luis Caffesse said:
Barry_Green
Moderator
No, Open Water was shot on an interlaced Sony PD150.
Barry_Green said:
I think they had one PD150 and one VX2000. The sound isn't great either, I believe they used an ME66. There is a clip on the DVD where they flash up their equipment list from the budget... okay, yes, I freeze framed it = geek.
The reason Open Water did well was because of the marketing, like Walter pointed out.
They shot it mainly at weekends, flying the 4 of them (2 actors, 2 crew) out to loads of different places and staying in hotels, so it would soon add up. Although officially the budgeet may have been 500K, I doubt they spent that much to produce a final cut of the film. There is probably various additions to the true budget in order to avoid taxation of the profits. I would think it would be the same with Blair Witch, that only took a week to film and I can't see there being any major expenses there apart from the 16mm filmstock.
Loki
Veteran
when you start paying people to work on your film, it does cost a lot. Student Films can be cheap... feature films that have easy to access sets can be cheap...
I think people have a skewed idea of "budgeting" on this forum... because they can make crummy short film for $200 bucks.. making something good *usually* (notice the stars) costs more money, if not for the talent than for the time spent in doing the production.
to me, $130k seems pretty cheap... for a feaure..
Hey Loki,
You are right, 130K is pretty cheap for a film. And that means for a film that one expects to look semi professional. I agree that one should write FOR the budget you have. This is one of the ways I have been able to make a living at this for over 10 years is because the best films are the ones that are not being made to look "bigger" than what they have financially.
The last film I shot for 97K was set with three actors (two days of 15 extras were used) in one location (a small western town we rented for 12 days). There were no explosions and only two gun fight scenes. Instead, I wrote it around simple things, more "character" driven and used very good actors to do it. Watch Cassavettes in his early work (Faces, Shadows, etc.) as they were all shot in his home, with friends and only dealt with simple things that required little to no money to film.
You are right, 130K is pretty cheap for a film. And that means for a film that one expects to look semi professional. I agree that one should write FOR the budget you have. This is one of the ways I have been able to make a living at this for over 10 years is because the best films are the ones that are not being made to look "bigger" than what they have financially.
The last film I shot for 97K was set with three actors (two days of 15 extras were used) in one location (a small western town we rented for 12 days). There were no explosions and only two gun fight scenes. Instead, I wrote it around simple things, more "character" driven and used very good actors to do it. Watch Cassavettes in his early work (Faces, Shadows, etc.) as they were all shot in his home, with friends and only dealt with simple things that required little to no money to film.
Loki said:
..i made enough films.. and i shoot projects for commercial and non profit companies al the time. i know that thigns cost money .. believe me. my point is that on the average big budget film ste there are ALOT of people standing around at any given time. im sure that if i tried i could spend 500k remaking open water to a "t" .. but im also positive that i i tried i could remake it to a "t without any loss in qulity from the 500k budget with about 50k. i know name brand actors cost money.. but i also know that unknowns do not.. and unknown can be great in films an actor is an actor.. ultimately people go to see a film because they like the concept of it. . not the people in it. although that does play a role.. it doesn make or break a film thats quality and story can stand on its own legs to begin with.
weve seen countless musi vids and shorts here that were better than some big budget features. and the indy ones were shots for pennies. again the only thing stopping it from being great feature is time and a longer screnplay. it doesnt cost more to work for free for a month than it does for 3 days. im not saying that when your in hollywood you should fin people working for free.. im just saying that on the independent level.. there nothing stopping nyone from making a great feature film on whatever budget they have. .. and that hollywood COULD spend Waaaay less if they were more independent minded and make alot of the same films. robert rodruigeuz does his well. give any other studio one of his same films and watch the bdget be inflted at least 10-20x if not alot more.. thats the beauty of art.. you cant necessarily make it any better by throwing more money at it. but money buys talent.. i know this.. ..anyway .. you know what im saying..
wabbit
Evil has Ears
Loki's point is right on.
Pretty much 3 types of independent filmmakers. The one trying to make that one film that will get them discovered in order to go on and make big budget studio films. The one trying to just have a great career making small independent films that pay for themselves. The one just doing it for fun and has no aspirations beyond making something to be viewed by friends and family.
Unless you are the third one, you are going to need to raise at least a moderate budget. The one trying to be discovered is not going to get any studio attention with a film that looks and sounds amatuerish. You need at least some money to make the thing look somewhat professional (afterall if you don't have the interest to make your personal picture the best it can be, what are you going to do with their money?).
If you are trying to have a long time career in making independents, you are going to need to start paying people for their time. Your buddies might work for free for the first couple of projects but eventually they are going to get burned out living off that part-time job that allows them the time to work on your picture.
IMHO, the days of being discovered like Robert Rodreguez are gone. He did an amazing thing on film in the days before DV flimmaking. Now there is a glut of uber-low budget DV flims. Getting your work noticed is going to take more then just a great story.
Fundraising is a too often overlooked part of independent flimmaking. :thumbsup:
(again, no, you don't need a HUGE budget, but some budget).
Pretty much 3 types of independent filmmakers. The one trying to make that one film that will get them discovered in order to go on and make big budget studio films. The one trying to just have a great career making small independent films that pay for themselves. The one just doing it for fun and has no aspirations beyond making something to be viewed by friends and family.
Unless you are the third one, you are going to need to raise at least a moderate budget. The one trying to be discovered is not going to get any studio attention with a film that looks and sounds amatuerish. You need at least some money to make the thing look somewhat professional (afterall if you don't have the interest to make your personal picture the best it can be, what are you going to do with their money?).
If you are trying to have a long time career in making independents, you are going to need to start paying people for their time. Your buddies might work for free for the first couple of projects but eventually they are going to get burned out living off that part-time job that allows them the time to work on your picture.
IMHO, the days of being discovered like Robert Rodreguez are gone. He did an amazing thing on film in the days before DV flimmaking. Now there is a glut of uber-low budget DV flims. Getting your work noticed is going to take more then just a great story.
Fundraising is a too often overlooked part of independent flimmaking. :thumbsup:
(again, no, you don't need a HUGE budget, but some budget).
Ernest_Acosta
Well-known member
Open Water could be made for less $$$, but keep in mind that a major part of your budget can be sucked up in post production. ADR, Foley, Sound Mixing, Color Correction, Titling, Editing, Mastering, etc... can suck you dry. $130K is not a lot of money to make a feature, also keep in mind that a lot of people don't mind doing a short for free, but when it comes to a feature that may take 2 to 4 months or longer, people will want to get paid. Plain and simple, unless your entire cast are your friends who have trust funds and just want to be movie stars or, the preferred, give the actors a deferral, most will balk at a long term commitment. IMHO most of the good talent are SAG or AFTRA and your will still have to pay even if the talent waves their usually fee. Another thing to keep in mind is craft services. Unless you plan on doing a pizza and soda shoot, craft services can easily run $10 grand on a feature with just 15-20 people (cast and crew included). I think proper filmmaking techniques, good acting, great screenplay and good budgeting will get your far in this industry.
There's no doubt that money never goes as far as you think it will on a film.
But you can still make great films if you are talented (or lucky) with little money as well. I don't believe the days of Rodriguez discovery are gone, just the element of surprise he had going for him. Many here in Hollywierd are looking for the next low budget hit. To me the joke is that Hollywood can look at a star studded 20 million dollar film and still call it "an indie" (Phantom Menace was considered an indie by the industry standard).
Anyway, there is no doubt that there is a HUGE flood of low, low budget films making their way to the markets these days and that by nature, most (or at least a lot) are mediocre to bad. There have been times in this industry when all you had to do was make a film and it would be in theaters practicaly. Now, you just have to make sure whatever you do, you do it well to make sure to fight through the pack.
But you can still make great films if you are talented (or lucky) with little money as well. I don't believe the days of Rodriguez discovery are gone, just the element of surprise he had going for him. Many here in Hollywierd are looking for the next low budget hit. To me the joke is that Hollywood can look at a star studded 20 million dollar film and still call it "an indie" (Phantom Menace was considered an indie by the industry standard).
Anyway, there is no doubt that there is a HUGE flood of low, low budget films making their way to the markets these days and that by nature, most (or at least a lot) are mediocre to bad. There have been times in this industry when all you had to do was make a film and it would be in theaters practicaly. Now, you just have to make sure whatever you do, you do it well to make sure to fight through the pack.
Zig_Zigman
Well-known member
IMO, there's certain people you HAVE to pay to make things work on a film set.
DP (+ maybe assistant)
Gaffer
Grip
Sound Recorder
If you can pay even just these people. whatever they need to be motivated ( a great script helps, because it will raise everyone's career) $100 a day, 200 a day, whatever...you could put your film in the can for cheap and still be quality. You still have to feed everyone, especially if they are not getting paid...I feel it's about 30k rock bottom on a 3 week super 16mm shoot to get your film in the can....
Now you've got post to deal with...another 70k can get eaten real quick, unless you want to take 3 years and edit and do sound yourself...
If you've got 5 relatives or friends who have 15-20k each, you could give it a shot. That's the most I'd ask from these kinds of people. is it worth 100k to give yourself a "business card" to make another film?
If you are going to raise REAL money, you have to go to pro investors and they want to see bio's, monetary return projections, business plans, etc. If you've got friends in the biz and they can get you 500k then go that route. (believe me, that is nothing for a studio...they don't even care what you are doing with it practically...)
You simple have to bypass the glut of dvx-type movies hitting the festivals. It just takes money to get over the hump.
DP (+ maybe assistant)
Gaffer
Grip
Sound Recorder
If you can pay even just these people. whatever they need to be motivated ( a great script helps, because it will raise everyone's career) $100 a day, 200 a day, whatever...you could put your film in the can for cheap and still be quality. You still have to feed everyone, especially if they are not getting paid...I feel it's about 30k rock bottom on a 3 week super 16mm shoot to get your film in the can....
Now you've got post to deal with...another 70k can get eaten real quick, unless you want to take 3 years and edit and do sound yourself...
If you've got 5 relatives or friends who have 15-20k each, you could give it a shot. That's the most I'd ask from these kinds of people. is it worth 100k to give yourself a "business card" to make another film?
If you are going to raise REAL money, you have to go to pro investors and they want to see bio's, monetary return projections, business plans, etc. If you've got friends in the biz and they can get you 500k then go that route. (believe me, that is nothing for a studio...they don't even care what you are doing with it practically...)
You simple have to bypass the glut of dvx-type movies hitting the festivals. It just takes money to get over the hump.