Possibly my last post anywhere...

Melvin Harris

Melvin Harris

Black Flag Member
I have searched this forum and others, I have used the search options, and no, this question has never been answered with any finality.

Can someone please explain, definitively, why it is impossible, improbable, unlikely, and/or not recommended for anyone to try to shoot a feature for a sub-100K or even 50K budget again?
And before you ignore me or write the question off as asinine, consider this...

1. Technology is giving most people a leg up, a boost in production value today. Cams are affordable, NLEs are accessable, lighting can be bought, or rented, or MacGyvered (and even controlled to a certain extent), and people can be convinced to participate in if not donate themselves to a vision. Most of what a person needs can be bought or built if they are serious. The look can be achieved, the effects (fx) can be done, and the lessons can be learned because there are 13, 14, and 15 year olds giving some surprisingly complex and sophisticated tutorials on many "professional" work flows, techniques, etc.*

*Now c'mon, before you blast this, think about what I said- I never said it was a replacement for school or other types of high flallutin, fancy book learnin', or that kids know more than adults, or kids should teach us all

2. Talent is a red herring. Popularity is also. Blaming popularity/talent, or lack thereof, for anything is down right lazy. The argument is partially subjective and partially elitist. All "talent" does is makes any given task easier to attain, and all "popularity" does is make it more visible. Everyone can draw, it might take some a million years to learn to do it decently, but everyone can. Just because someone doesn't read Joyce's Ulysses in a couple of days doesn't mean that they are not a talented reader. Now, I am not refuting that talent has it's place and is important, but I am saying that there is a caveat to be expressed in leaving everything up to or boiling everything down to talent.

3. Most will buy anything, and anyone can like something- so there should be an audience for anything- Self Distribution can be lucrative if the initial investment is modest. A thousand dollar film that makes ten thousand dollars has it made. A thousand dollar film that makes a thousand dollars has recouped all of its money- that's 100 copies at 10 bucks a pop; Selling a hundred copies is not only feasible, it should be done by the time the DVD master is encoded.

So what is the big deal? Again I have searched, and read hundreds of pages, and most of the discussions break down into an amorphous blobs of half insults, gear lust, egotistical dismissals, or egomaniacal denigrations of the original poster.

Can anyone answer this with candor, veracity, and once again- finality.
 
Why would you even consider it impossible. You basically just proved how possible it is in your thread. I dont know what you are asking. The most expensive thing that goes into films is talent and film stock. Talent being your DP, crew, A-B list actors. This in itself can be WAY over 50 mil. 35mm film is about $250 for every minute (including processing). Not to mention renting a film camera for 20+ thousand a month.

Now you want to do it under 100k? Pay your crew less then union rates and only have 1 or 2 B list actors. Then shoot RED for $10,000 per month. That is about $50,000 right their. And then you have your lighting and grip rentals, craft services, misc expenses, marketing, score.
 
pharpsied said:
I have searched this forum and others, I have used the search options, and no, this question has never been answered with any finality.

Can someone please explain, definitively, why it is impossible, improbable, unlikely, and/or not recommended for anyone to try to shoot a feature for a sub-100K or even 50K budget again?
Click to expand...

The 'reason' it is not recommended is because it is unlikely, and improbable that the project will be completed, and beyond that, completed well enough that people will want to see it, or at least someone thinks people will want to see it.

Are there exceptions... sure... Robert Rodriguez is the patron saint of nano-budget films...

Here's the story there... film crew was limited to Rodriguez himself behind the camera. There were people in front of the camera, who also worked behind the camera, who were as dedicated to the project as RR behind the camera.

The film was shot in a limited time, on a limited portion of a small town that had little interest in 'permits/rent/insurance/police/fire/whoknowswhatelse' fees and limitations. RR used almost no 'professional' equipment and location preparation.

That got RR a $7K 16mm film onto videotape... That was then picked up, by miraculous coincidences by Columbia, and then Columbia spent another million on 35mm prints and advertisements...

Don't expect this sort of miracle any time soon. Sure, there's a lottery winner every day... but it is not you... nor alot of other people...
 
50K for a real independent film is about the equivalent of 3-4M for a tv production straight to dvd kind of film.

as for the talent part, talent is not a factor to a successful film(returning money), look at the box office for the past few years.

there is a big difference between what a talented person can do, and what an imitator can do.

depending on the assets available to you(locations, talented cast, talented crew, equipment or rental deals), you can make decent movies and make a profit.
 
It can be done, use a DVX. People have shot feature films on a DVX.

Get creative. Have a limitation? Use it. No microphone? Get creative. Maybe no/little dialogue and then wait until you can get a good mic to record sound effects. Don't listen to people who say "But people won't want to see it" because they have no clue what they're talking about. They might be completely right about people not wanting to buy and distribute your film, but the point is you're not making films to sell. At the same time, you'll definately need to spend money on something more important that million dollar cameras- food and transportation for your cast and crew. And also be aware that you may spend a few thousand bucks and nothing will come of it, which is why you have to put your heart and soul into what you do, and do it because you love it, not to hit it big. The people that hit it big weren't trying to, they were just spending money to fufill their passions. And some of the people that did spend their money and made amazing films NEVER made it, and sometimes you don't even hear about it until after they die.

Chris Marker shot Sans Soleil on a 16mm silent film camera with no actors and a crappy tape recorder for sound. It's one of the most creative and personal films I've ever seen. Jon Coulette did the same thing recently with Tarnation. He spent 218 bucks on that movie. Yes, another half a million was spent by a distributor to blow it up to film prints. But if he hadn't of hit it big...so what? He blew a couple of a hundred. That's nothing! And he would have still made an incredibly personal, creative film.

Turn the camera on yourself. Film anything you want. Have a plan and have some perspective. Ok, you can only spend 2 thousand dollars? Have the setting be one room- your room, tear it apart and redocorate it. Technology has made high quality cameras available to EVERYONE, which means it comes down to talent and creativity. 50 years ago, what I'm doing right now, typing, was a privelage. You had to spend a ton of money on a nice typewriter, learn how to type. It was for the elite, the people that typed as a profession. Now, everyone can type. But can everyone write amazing or original novels? Can everyone type up beautiful poetry? Hell, everyone has MSPaint. Is everyone Pablo Picasso? Filmmaking has become democratic. Learn how to speak with the tools, learn everything you can. Think deeply about why you want to make films. Practice with what you have. Stumble until you learn your own techniques. Don't make movies about dinosaurs. Make movies about people.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
1. The 'reason' it is not recommended is because it is unlikely, and improbable that the project will be completed, and beyond that, completed well enough that people will want to see it, or at least someone thinks people will want to see it.

2. That got RR a $7K 16mm film onto videotape... That was then picked up, by miraculous coincidences by Columbia, and then Columbia spent another million on 35mm prints and advertisements...

3. Don't expect this sort of miracle any time soon. Sure, there's a lottery winner every day... but it is not you... nor alot of other people...
Click to expand...

First of all, I have alot of respect for you- read your entire thread, amazing!

But,

1. Eh, why?

2. True, very true. However, you don't need that to be a successful movie maker or film maker. All you need to do is build an audience and serve that audience. Yes, it is that simple. Musicians do it daily; Hell, when I was in a college band, we toured and recorded a couple of projects during classes because a few scattered girls that sat in on rehearsals became a few hundred dedicated fans who ask for projects to this day 8 years later... Death Walks the Streets- no movie, lots of dedicated fans= copies sold (again, with no movie)!

3. No offense, and not taking anything personal, but this is not for you to say. You don't know the cost paid for the ticket, and you don't know the prize they are going for... consider the person who just wants to get it done- if you make a blanket statement like that, you have to consider a spectrum that doesn't conform to the star-eyed paradigm. We are out there.
 
Check out FOLLOWING from Christopher Nolan - his pre Memento debut.
$6K.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0154506/
It's a good film which launched his career. Seeing it you can guess why it cost so little, but that's part of the genius. He only had to keep two actors attached for the duration.

The fact that it's been done means it can be done. It's just going to be harder in some senses. Go for it.
 
don't tell me you cant make bad movies and tv shows like the spoof movies, horror movies, weird comedies, any tv show under 100k, and make a big profit.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
Check out FOLLOWING from Christopher Nolan - his pre Memento debut.
$6K.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0154506/
It's a good film which launched his career. Seeing it you can guess why it cost so little, but that's part of the genius. He only had to keep two actors attached for the duration.

The fact that it's been done means it can be done. It's just going to be harder in some senses. Go for it.
Click to expand...

Thanks,

I have watched your fest entries in particular since I joined the community here, have lots of respect for you as well as a myriad of others...

So if most of the answers are a yes with certain cautions, then why are so many saying that it isn't worth it? I, personally, have such an abrasive and grating personality that I pretty much ignore any less than encouraging ideas unless they are constructive critique or positive criticism, but others would absolutely give up reading some of the posts here and in other places.
 
Can something be done for 50k in cash? Sure. If you (OP) want to make a feature for nothing - do it.

Films cost money because of the sheer scale they hold. The film I am working on now has an official budget of zero. Total assets are near 150,000. That's crew working (free), cameras (borrowed), and a whole bunch of favors called in.

Can it be done, yep.

But here is the issue. It's a short. We are shooting weekends only for a month. And we are a month and change away from principal. My last short, budget of 250 dollars, total assets ~20,000.

To put things in perspective. TV typically burns 110,000 a day while shooting. That's because of union minimums (PS> Whoever suggested paying union minimums clearly has never seen a union minimum sheet - a First AD on a union min. will roll you back a little over 1,000 a day.), rentals. 10 ton grip and electric trucks, trailers, craft services, camera rentals, permits, talent, expendables, props, set dressings, and a whole handful of additional incurred costs.

While I was working in NYC, a film production was shooting down the street from my apartment. Their production trucks took up 6 blocks going down Lexington. And 2 blocks East and West coming off of Lexington. All those streets had police markings that shut down parking for anyone other than the production company.

The scale of most films (DVXuser included) is huge. From pre-production, to principal, to all of the post work. Unless you have good friends, or work the system really well, you won't be able to keep your feature machine running full steam ahead. Sure you can cut costs on principal. But then you are likely to run out of money on the post end. That's in editing, VFX, sound design, mixing, color correction, etc. etc.

And extended weekend shoots don't pan out well for involved people. Your best bet is to go through the week. Can you do it in one week? Yeah - will you be rushing? Totally. Even shooting at tight ratios.

Films are huge, they take a ton of time, they employ a ton of people. That's why they are so expensive. Can you do it another way? Sure. Your success would then be dependent on your ability to negotiate.
 
Well, here's the flaw in your (pharpseid's) original premise:
A thousand dollar film that makes ten thousand dollars has it made. A thousand dollar film that makes a thousand dollars has recouped all of its money
Click to expand...
This is, on the surface of it, completely unsustainable. Do you really value your own efforts at zero? If you were the only person involved, you were the entire crew and the entire cast, and you worked for a year all by yourself to make this mythical $1,000 feature film -- and you sold it for $1,000 -- then you're out a YEAR OF YOUR LIFE, with no profit! Nothing to show for it except bragging rights, I guess. Would you want to do that, year after year? What do you earn in a year? $40k? Yet you'd give that up to work full time for films, spending a thousand and getting a thousand... where does your rent come from? Your power bill? Grocery bill? Electricity/heat/water? A roof over your head?

If you want to make films for a living, they're going to have to make at least enough to support your living expenses, plus their production expenses, plus the crew and the props and the wardrobe and the food and the stock and the labor and the permits and the fees...

A film that costs $1,000 cash and makes $1,000 cash is a monumental loser. Unless you're talking about a situation where you hire someone else and say "here's a thousand bucks, go make my film for me" and when they're done, you take that film and sell it for $1,000. Okay, in that scenario, you're not out much -- but everyone who worked on your film slaved away for free. How likely do you think it is that they'll come back for a second round? Or a third?

I just made a couple of shorts (yes, shorts) with JDS down in Texas, the cash budget so far has exceeded $7,000 and that's without deferrals factored in.

Filmmaking is expensive. Those who don't have cash try to make up for it with labor, but that gets old pretty quickly.
 
pharpsied said:
First of all, I have alot of respect for you- read your entire thread, amazing!

But,

1. Eh, why?
Click to expand...

If you do not acknowledge the potential for loss up front... then sure... why not drive 100 Mph throught LA traffic, since there's 1 in a million chance you could survive...

2. True, very true. However, you don't need that to be a successful movie maker or film maker. All you need to do is build an audience and serve that audience.
Click to expand...

Then did you build into your $100k the expense that it took to 'build that audience'... probably not... and so that's why even with that $100K success... you'll probably feel you are still living in poverty...

Yes, it is that simple. Musicians do it daily; Hell, when I was in a college band, we toured and recorded a couple of projects during classes because a few scattered girls that sat in on rehearsals became a few hundred dedicated fans who ask for projects to this day 8 years later... Death Walks the Streets- no movie, lots of dedicated fans= copies sold (again, with no movie)!
Click to expand...

The expense a musician or band invests into the particular performance event, is far less than a film. For $100K, and reasonably talented musicians, I'll bet you could 'pay venues' to get in front of audiences, perhaps even paying audiences, and make that $100K stretch, for a number of performances to build that audience and their 'expectation' for the next event.

Where as just to get in front of the audience for your feature film, you will have had to have paid someone somewhere something, and only then after the delivery of the 'performance' aka, The Movie, see if the audience likes this performance as well as any audience expectation builder you have produced to date. (In the case of musicians... ok, so the people in Ely Nevada don't like Kiss Tribute Band action... so you paid and lost at one venue... but who knows... maybe Kiss Tribute Bands are big stuff down in Laughlin NV...)

Otherwise you are 'playing' lotto with a $100K ticket.


3. No offense, and not taking anything personal, but this is not for you to say. You don't know the cost paid for the ticket, and you don't know the prize they are going for... consider the person who just wants to get it done- if you make a blanket statement like that, you have to consider a spectrum that doesn't conform to the star-eyed paradigm. We are out there.
Click to expand...

I can make this 'blanket' statement... If everyone got paid out of a lottery, there would be very little financial benefit. The whole point of a lottery is that only one or a limited pool of winners exists, and everyone else are loosers...

Now, if you are independently wealthy, and have nary a care for 'profit', sure, you can choose to dump $100k here, and not go to Monte Carlo in September... mawx nix...
 
In an effort to save space I am referring to the post by Mr. Green.

There are few people here whose words carry the weight yours do, so I'll choose mine very carefully...

Respectfully,

When did I say that? I said that the 1K should be accomplished before the DVD is authored. Nobody values their work, their life at zero- that's just insulting. My comments were pointed toward the "ease" of audience building and the fact that it can be done early. Never did I say anything about making a living breaking even, never. Marketing and Advertisement is as much of the process, the business of movie making as everything else, and I was alluding to that in my statement.

You are absolutely right... filmmaking is expensive, and to an extent so is moviemaking, but moviemaking can be what ever you want it to be; however, if one wants to make movies, or films for that matter, for a living and had the work ethic and business savvy you are attributing to my comments then they would not only be monumentally stupid, but also a complete failure.

Making a living denotes living, why on earth would I presume to waste a year on a film to reach zero? I live in Houston, and here, where you can shoot for pretty much nothing, and we have wonderful vendors and rental houses like VIDINC (Visual Interactive Dynamics) and Texcam, you can get away with a lot. I have had free locations, free actors, and free screenings for my shorts here, and although they have not made a dime, people are still interested in working towards a feature that will. And no matter how exciting that prospect is, I realize that I must practice and perfect many aspects of the process to create a project that is visually pleasing, aurally pleasing, and is simply a well told, relevant and entertaining story that just might make money down the line. There was no flaw in my premise because the preposition that was quoted was incomplete and presupposed an assumption without basis.

I don't know if you were purposely trying to offend me which is not the case, or if you were trying to deflate an inflated and idealized picture of this profession and shoot some reality my way, but I assure you I have my head on straight, have studied, have educated myself (thanks in part to your products- getting the HMC book next week!), and evaluated the cost. Your comments and use of the pronoun "you" might have been insulting, disparaging, even offensive to someone else, but I think I understand the effect it was supposed to have... I thank you for prodding my mind, making me think about these things, and moving the conversation to a new level.
 
Since you clearly have established you can make a film for cheap...why don't you do it?

We have industry professionals, industry beginners, hobbyists, and amateur film makers all weighing in here. The general consensus is that films (read: movies) cost money and a good deal of it.

If you can do it cheap - then do it and prove us all wrong. I don't really see why you are wasting [our] time. The general group has one idea, and you have a different one. Take what we say as personal attack if you really want to. Because us telling you [when you asked our opinion] how [we think/know] things are despite you [phar] not liking what we are saying clearly constitutes as "...insulting, disparaging, [and] even offensive..."

Like I said, if you are educated and have evaluated your costs, do it, post it here, and tell us your underdog story. (No sarcasm intended)
 
You're better off with a budget, but no one here is calling not having much of one impossible. You're arguing with people on a different forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top