"Orphan" - the making of

[EDV]

I mean, sure, digital cameras are now affordable to the masses.. but... do people really realize what it takes to put a film together? And I'm talking low budget, commercially released films here.
Let's take the movie "Orphan" for example. There is nothing in this film that looks particularly costly, or extravagant. The story is original and strong of course, and the cast, particularly the child actors, is exceptional. But a simple story like "Orphan" presents some challenges that the average indy filmmaker would simply find insomountable. Things like a runaway car in the snow storm, the underwater fight scene, the boy escaping from the burning tree house or even the "hide and seek" played at the end in almost total darkness. These scenes scream "commercially released film" when done properly. They can also get someone killed if you're not careful. Thinking now more experience and training in filmmaking would not be a waste of time...
Anyway, here's a "behind the scenes" look at this film, hope you enjoy

 

[kevin baggott]

That is not an indy film in my opinion. It's a low budget commercial genre feature with a niche market. My def of an indy film is usually a writer/director making a film that is personal. Well lots can be said on the subject - I'll leave it at that

 

[Gabel]

That is not an indy film in my opinion. It's a low budget commercial genre feature with a niche market. My def of an indy film is usually a writer/director making a film that is personal. Well lots can be said on the subject - I'll leave it at that

The fun part is that there are many indie-films that are indies, just that the person behind it has resources that other's lack. Great examples are Apocalypse Now and the Star Wars prequels, who are both officially indie-films (as they are independently funded).

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

There is a line between "Micro Budget" (sub say $500K) and "Indie" which is just independently financed and can have budgets of several million. Where that line is, that's debatable. Virtually every one here is making micro budget films, not really "indies".

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

There is a line between "Micro Budget" (sub say $500K) and "Indie" which is just independently financed and can have budgets of several million. Where that line is, that's debatable. Virtually every one here is making micro budget films, not really "indies".

If you can get a meeting with a studio executive, you are not an 'indie'... The fact that someone can raise money for a production 'outside of the studio system'... to me is not an 'indie' production, by that fact alone... To me, everyone here is making 'indie' films... unless there's a studio insider traveling incognito...

I'd quibble on the nolo budget disqualifying of 'indie' status... What many people I think are doing here... myself included is learning how to make a film... and eventually if they (I) make a film it will be in all likelihood an 'indie' no matter what the budget...

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

It's just speaking the same language. When you say "Indie" to most industry people they think "Oh, a sub $10 million dollar film without top shelf stars that got financing outside the studio system".

We can call them whatever we want really, and I guess I do consider myself an "indie" film maker, but in a lot of people's minds a feature under $100K is "no budget" and a feature under $1 Million is "micro budget".

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

You can redefine the term 'indie', however you'd like, but the truth is, it simply means a film made outside the studio system.

Simple as that.


Warren Buffett could make a film for 100m about his favorite dog as a child, and it would be an indie film.

Sure it bends the paradigm, as he can fund as much as a studio film... but hey.

When the term 'indie' first came around, it was during an age where the studios had much more of a tight grasp on the industry. However, even during that time, 'indie' films had large budgets, because as anyone who makes cinema knows, making a film is expensive, big or small. Expensive is a relative term, but if making films were easy and cheap, we'd see many more BlairWitch and Paranormal Activities out there. The real truth is, those are the equivalent to lottery tickets. Making a real film, a good film 99% of the time requires capital investment.

Why do you think Paranormal Activity had a 15k budget, and Paranormal Activity had a 3m+ budget? Because spending 15k on the sequel would have been playing the original odds and the likely hood of striking gold again was one in a million.

Anyhow, I think the term indie film has expanded over the years as video has emerged and filmmaking, to a degree, has been further democratized. More indie films are being made today, and it is easier to make an ultra low indie or micro indie film.

Much revolves around story, but money is still as important today. The more money you have, the more likely the film will have increased chances of survival, as you'll likely be able to hire more talented and experienced people, get better actors, name actors, good locations, production design, sound mixing, etc, etc.

Little Miss Sunshine, an indie film, was made for 8m, and bought by Sony Searchlight at Sundance. Sex Lies and Videotape is an indie film and it cost 1.2m in 1989.


So to bring us back to the beginning... that is what an indie film is. Disagree with the term all you want, but it can include a film that has millions, to a film that has hundreds. Just the way it is.

 

[Kholi]

It's just speaking the same language. When you say "Indie" to most industry people they think "Oh, a sub $10 million dollar film without top shelf stars that got financing outside the studio system".

We can call them whatever we want really, and I guess I do consider myself an "indie" film maker, but in a lot of people's minds a feature under $100K is "no budget" and a feature under $1 Million is "micro budget".

I actually agree with you, but I consider no budget now 5K and under, Nano 10~40, Micro 50~100, low 250K~1M

Too many levels, lol. So ,I just say that I'm a micro budget filmmaker. Indie does carry a different stigma. It's a common topic here, a few of us (I think Barry Green included) were trying to define it as well.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Getting a meeting with a studio executive, is indie. He's interested in buying your film, that is something. That is the goal of indie film makers: To sell it to a studio.

The reason for that is, the studios have a deathgrip on the theater market. In the past, the studios have kept indie films out of the theaters by threatening to pull their films from any theater that plays non-studio films. This is why indie films are made and shopped around big festivals, usually ending up with a studio, or a studio's branch buying up films... ala Lionsgate, Miramax, Fox SearchLight, Sony Picture Classics, etc.

The only way an indie film 'makes it' big, is if someone picks them up. For smaller indie films, distribution via foreign markets, Netflix, Blockbuster, and Walmart shelves are the straight to DVD dream, but the highest level of success is a theater run, and for that you almost definitely need a meeting with a studio exec, sometimes before the film is made.

 

[Ewan L]

I've never seen the BTS! Thanks! Factors vary when you ask different people what makes an indie film. I wouldn't say the orphan is an indie film though.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

You can redefine the term 'indie', however you'd like, but the truth is, it simply means a film made outside the studio system.

Simple as that.

Warren Buffett could make a film for 100m about his favorite dog as a child, and it would be an indie film.

I recall some commentary about 'Sundance' getting back to it's 'indie' roots, and trying to avoid having their slate filled with 'indie', with big budgets, staffed with people who were not 'outside the business', and could only be called 'indie' because they got financing via non-studio means.

Would Dreamworks be an 'indie' company, now that they got bankrolled by a indian entertainment group... not Hollywood exactly... but rather Ballywood...

And sure, Warren Buffet producing a movie of his dog... cat... house grounds... whatever... would be 'indie' no matter the budget by any definition I can think of...

On the other hand, Spielberg's home movies, Lucas' home movies... not really... because they are 'insiders' and where financing comes from, really doesn't matter... in fact, most films are made by 'independent' corporations, specifically designed to protect any 'parent company' from any indemnity that may occur... as well as allow for the company to operate at a loss until the last instant to satisfy tax regulations.

Even with a 'vague' definition, applying it to 'independent' companies that have first look deals, to me is stretching the concept. Especially if the product looks, feels, and smells, popcorn scent included, like a standard Studio product...

Ok... if Spielbert, Lucas, or similar made a film like "Gummo"(1997)... ok. then I'd say even those 'insiders' had made an 'independent film'...

Here I'm appealing to a somewhat vague notion about 'subject and implementation' of a film, that does not conform to current Hollywood standards.

For example, if some insider in Hollywood had produced, via independent financing, "The Artist"(2011), I'd call that 'independent' because of the 'silent' style, which is not a current Hollywood standard... On the other hand "Silent Movie"(1976) is not an 'independent' film... because it was a 'studio' product of that era...

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Getting a meeting with a studio executive, is indie. He's interested in buying your film, that is something. That is the goal of indie film makers: To sell it to a studio.

The reason for that is, the studios have a deathgrip on the theater market. In the past, the studios have kept indie films out of the theaters by threatening to pull their films from any theater that plays non-studio films. This is why indie films are made and shopped around big festivals, usually ending up with a studio, or a studio's branch buying up films... ala Lionsgate, Miramax, Fox SearchLight, Sony Picture Classics, etc.

The only way an indie film 'makes it' big, is if someone picks them up. For smaller indie films, distribution via foreign markets, Netflix, Blockbuster, and Walmart shelves are the straight to DVD dream, but the highest level of success is a theater run, and for that you almost definitely need a meeting with a studio exec, sometimes before the film is made.

Uh? While I'm sure there has been pressure by the distribution arms of The Studios... if they are in fact explicitly threatening in this manner, I wonder why a group of 'independents' have not brought up anti-trust laws, which the Paramount Decision allegedly addressed. In that case, the Studios had not only controlled the production and distribution, but they also owned a large number of the theaters via chains, and had such booking packages as block booking and blind buying, with the threat of not allowing any to be shown, if the entire block was not purchased... even if the theater owner had not seen the film (blind buying...).

Block booking was reduced, blind buying was eilminated, and The Studios required to divest themselves of their theater chains. I th

It would seem a refresh on this would be in order...