Seeking MIcro Budget Feature advice

C

Craig_Tarry

Active member
Hello, I’m writing a character driven, 90 - 95 min. HD feature, which I plan to direct as my first feature. It would be all shot in and around the same big farmhouse.
Much of the action takes place in the family room/kitchen and in two bedrooms. There are some night scenes in the yard and on the porch. (A guy with a gun chases his girlfriend around in the dark)

Production Budget: $100,000 - $150,000.

I’m intending on using non-union actors, listed below:

3 principal actors
3 supporting actors
1 - day player
2-3 extras (for two scenes)

I’ve deliberately excluded crane and dolly shots, although if I got a good deal on a steady cam operator I’d sure go for it. People in the film drive up to the house and drive away, so there are cars involved, but we don’t go with them.

Music: I’d be using solo artists from San Francisco, letting them contribute their own original music.

My primary concern is hiring a quality professional crew when the time comes. Since it’s my first feature, I’d want everyone on the crew to know more than me. I’d also want to pay them what they’re happy with. Asking them to defer salaries or offering points seems like a raw deal, since points are rarely paid.

I live in the Northern California East Bay, about 50min. from San Francisco and I know there are quality actors and crew around, but I’ve never budgeted for a feature before.

Do you think it’s possible to make a high quality 90-95 min. feature described above on the above-mentioned budget, (including post production and submissions to local festivals)?

Thanks - Craig
 
Without question you could make an exceptional film for that budget and even on a SAG budget...your limited knowledge might be the only thing that can hold youy back...it's a lot if you are fairly green. I've seen films made for millions that are disasterous and others that are shot for far less than yours that shine...have a look at this trailer of a film I was in...this film was shot for less that what you are talking asnd has already won a stack of awards...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a_BxRuX6Yc

Cheers,
Stan The Man
 
With $150,000 you can't get some other locations in there to keep me from falling asleep?

I can't stand one-location films.
 
Thanks for the link, Stan. Very impressive and very encouraging! I'd love to get a look at the budget for such a film - Thanks Craig
 
You won't be hiring every crew member yourself. Hire the DP and let them hire most of the other people. $100,000-$150,000 is a lot to work with on a micro feature.
 
Craig_Tarry said:
...

Do you think it’s possible to make a high quality 90-95 min. feature described above on the above-mentioned budget, (including post production and submissions to local festivals)?

...
Click to expand...

Yes its "possible". Its also "possible" to make one for less. (See Faith Granger's Deuce of Spades thread in the User Films section.) Its also "possible" to make a total piece of crap feature for 20 million.

I'd personally rather get out there and make a crappy movie than to never have the experience of making anything! Live life in the game, not in the stands as an observer.
 
If you're still writing the screenplay, you may want to give yourself some distance from the time you finish the script and the time you actually shoot. A few weeks or months in a drawer may give you a better look at the good the bad and the ugly of your script. I'd recomend also sitting down with a couple of actors and having them read it back to you (a table read). It won't cost much if anything compared to shooting the film. Don't paint yourself into a corner, telling everyone you're going to make a film with this kind of budget without a script is tricky. If the script isn't where you want it to be, your stuck. It sounds like you're writing the kind of story that would work on a variety of budgets. I'd explore your goals and objectives. Is this your grad school? A project to learn and grow as a director/filmaker or are you seasoned from directing many shorts/writing assignments and you want to take a chance, roll the dice and take your shot? Is it important to try and make back some money for yourself/investors/family? If thats a factor you would want to look at state film incentives/tax writeoffs or going ultra low budget (microbudget/mumblecore level) . Good luck with your project and it all starts with a good script.
 
Drew Ott said:
You won't be hiring every crew member yourself. Hire the DP and let them hire most of the other people. $100,000-$150,000 is a lot to work with on a micro feature.
Click to expand...

In fact it's not a Microbudget. $150,000 - $250,000 is cable movie money honestly. There's enough money in there to get at least two name actors. Find some good SAG Core TV actors and deal with them (and their agent LOL) directly.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
Craig_Tarry said:
Do you think it’s possible to make a high quality 90-95 min. feature described above on the above-mentioned budget, (including post production and submissions to local festivals)?
Click to expand...

Sure.

Hire the right crew and you'll have $ to spare.

If you do raise that kind of budget, you MUST get NAME talent...Current names. So, Non-Union? Throw that out the window. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to do a SAG movie with that little of a cast commitment.

It's very doable in the manner you describe. However, if you haven't written the script yet, you've got a long way to go before thinking about the rest.

Honestly, work on the script and be sure it's really good before spending that kind of money...especially considering how small you want to make it...a lot of times that does spell unexciting as someone eludes to.

My .02

-M
 
I would say it can be done very easily. Getting a bankable name is a consideration. Whether you do or not you have great potential coming out with a great film. With $100,000 make sure you shoot it on something descent. This isn't the DVX100.

Good luck!
 
Thanks guys!

Thanks guys!

Thanks for the replies, very helpful. And yes, I plan to do a lot of work on the script before I do anything. I'm going to go to some professional people for opinions on the script when it's done.

I've done three short films and a lot of workshops, and written 4 other screenplays to date, but they all kept turning out too big for a first feature. That’s why this one is mostly in the same location. Not an easy task, writing everything for the same house.
For my shorts films, I paid cast and crew $50/day, shared the camera work (DVX100A) etc. but it was at student level, so this is uncharted waters for sure. I'm also going to do another 10min. short film before hand and hire a professional crew - for that 2-day shoot.
Getting a name actor would be great. I just thought at this budget level it'd be impossible. I read that the Cowan Brothers opted for lesser-known actors when they made Blood Simple, so they could put their limited budget towards production value.
So, thanks for the help - Craig
 
Craig_Tarry said:
I read that the Cowan Brothers opted for lesser-known actors when they made Blood Simple, so they could put their limited budget towards production value.
Click to expand...

Well, the indie film world has changed many times since they made that film. Some for the better (like the ability through talent and technology to attain high production value on a budget) and some for the worse (like the inability to garner high return on investment without bankable cast)...so you really have to balance it.

If it's supposed to be a learning excercise...why spend 150K? If it's meant to be a viable film for the market...you better spend it on CAST!

Believe me, it's the 1st question that will be asked by any distributor...WHO'S IN IT?

They judge everything else after that.

-M
 
Belief Pictures said:
Getting a bankable name is a consideration. Whether you do or not you have great potential coming out with a great film.
Click to expand...

Here's a thought, and I don't disagree with what you're saying.

Having a great film vs. having a marketable film...which one is more valuable to a filmmaker who's just starting out?

Also, I believe that your chances of making a better film improve with the addition of marketable talent. I mean there are many reasons for this.

I work with local ATL actors all the time and love to do so and feel there are some supremely talented ones here (and everywhere) who don't have name recognition. However, Local actor A typically will have to be at least twice as good as established name actor B for it to matter to an audience. Audiences already give benefit of the doubt to someone they know and like (or at least respect) in terms of performance. Thus, in the scenario above. If both actors give equally good performances in a film...the KNOWN actor will resonate more with the audience and improve the perception of the film's quality.

With that factor on top of the marketability enhancement makes it more likely a film can be considered great with known actors. At least that's my theory with regard to films and the general audience.

-M
 
If you can get the cast you want from your local area, it may benefit you to work in a rehearsal period like a play, if you have access to the location even better. Film with whatever you have and a boom man and do a rough cut to know you are getting what you want. If you and the cast are well prepared you could probably shoot this in a week, with a full crew and rental package rather than a month or more. Keep your final shooting ratio low and it will keep your post budget manageable as well. Even with digital pretend it is film and only shoot what you need. Consider using a name for a key yet smaller role, as you probably won't be able to get for extended rehearsal time, but a seasoned professional should be able to do it for you as long as you know what you want.

A single location can make a big difference in terms of time. If it is secure you can leave gear set-up and not pack and reset everyday. I have shot a feature in seven days with only 3 locations, not having to move everyday or even half day makes a huge difference.

I also have shot a half hour film in two days with a cast of six in one location, but the director rehearsed with the actors for 3 months prior to the shoot weekend, preparation is key.
 
Get a good production manager and DP. Looking into getting a "Name" is another bit of good advice. With the money you have, you should be able to pull that off.
 
Martay said:
Here's a thought, and I don't disagree with what you're saying.

Having a great film vs. having a marketable film...which one is more valuable to a filmmaker who's just starting out?

Also, I believe that your chances of making a better film improve with the addition of marketable talent. I mean there are many reasons for this.

I work with local ATL actors all the time and love to do so and feel there are some supremely talented ones here (and everywhere) who don't have name recognition. However, Local actor A typically will have to be at least twice as good as established name actor B for it to matter to an audience. Audiences already give benefit of the doubt to someone they know and like (or at least respect) in terms of performance. Thus, in the scenario above. If both actors give equally good performances in a film...the KNOWN actor will resonate more with the audience and improve the perception of the film's quality.

With that factor on top of the marketability enhancement makes it more likely a film can be considered great with known actors. At least that's my theory with regard to films and the general audience.

-M
Click to expand...
Martin, I heard of Battle before. I think it on IndieWire.com, maybe? Great to get your feedback. And yes, I’d love to have a name actor; I just didn’t think it as possible on this size of budget. San Francisco’s about 50miles from where I want to shoot, so when the time comes, maybe that kind of thing could work.
 
If I had 150,000 dollars to spend on a film. I'd have at least 1 name actor, and hire a profressional lighting crew, and I'd probably rent some other production value goodies. I made my film EXIT 101 for alot less than that.
 
Craig_Tarry said:
Martin, I heard of Battle before. I think it on IndieWire.com, maybe? Great to get your feedback. And yes, I’d love to have a name actor; I just didn’t think it as possible on this size of budget. San Francisco’s about 50miles from where I want to shoot, so when the time comes, maybe that kind of thing could work.
Click to expand...

Ha, I wish it was on IndieWire (they've pretty much ignored every press release we've sent thus far) but it is out there on quite a few sites, etc. Thanks for noticing it.

As for your budget, I don't know the particulars but the way you describe it I KNOW you can get a name. If you have that kind of $$ available, and you want me to consult you on your budget and what you'd have available to "offer" a name actor to be in it, just contact me (martin@cinematl.com). Trust me, I've attached names to projects with far less budget than you're talking about and I'm in ATL which is a lot farther than you are from the names.

You just have to spend the budget wisely and with the kind of project you seem to be describing, I think you will easily be able to do it.

Of course, it all goes back to the material like I said earlier. If the material is great, an actor will do all they can to be part of it. Remember, just like you want to prove yourself a great filmmaker, they want to prove themselves to be great actors...and the better the material they work with, the better chance they have to do so. So, a low budget feature that helps them do that is worth the investment to them. You have to shoot it at the right time and may have to work around their schedule but it will be completely worth it in the end.

-M
 
One thing you haven't mentioned, unless I missed it, is concept?

You can make whatever with 150K... Dp you really want to spend that much on a drama?

My first priority would be concocting something decent within the realm of an ultra high concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top