Short or feature?

Hmm

Hmm

Well, if you are going to make a feature for $3-5K, which is such a pathetic budget that it isn't even a budget at all, you better be dang sure you have a concept and script that you can somehow make that work with and have the skills to pull it off.

I think it's all about expectations and what you want to see, too. I am making enough compromises in the sub-$1 million range, a short enough shoot schedule, a tough enough series of decisions based on our tiny budget, and I can't imagine making an entire film for $5,000. That doesn't even get you a good post-sound package. Any given department on our tiny film is still more than that, basically. It just is hopelessly unrealistic for 99.9% of film ideas out there. You simply can't do it well.

It's one thing to be able to make a great film for $100,000. That will impress the right people. But if you expect to make a great film for $5,000, you're basically shooting yourself in the foot before you even start. I totally disagree that a short can't be useful. A good, high quality short will teach you a LOT more about real filmmaking than an absolutely no-budget feature.

What are going to learn at all about professional filmmaking with a budget of $5,000? Honestly. You are not going to have a full crew, or a professional crew, you will almost certainly not have very good actors because even though good actors WILL work for cheap, the project has to have a certain cache and pedigree attached to it first, which comes from the right producers, the right script, and the right team.

I'm sure there are people who can pull it off and have it turn out really great, with the right concept, but I just think it's very shaky ground to be standing on, that's all. And also sometimes on this forum I feel like I'm hanging out in the back alley of filmmaking or something -- $3-5K is nothing to spend on a short guys, seriously here. USC kids spend $50,000 to $100,000 on a short routinely, even more. I had to beg, borrow, and steal to make one for $9,000. $3-5K is ultra tiny budget short level. Sure, I've made shorts for between $200 and $600 in my earlier days, when I was in high school and college. You know what those shorts were? Horrible pieces of crap, or what I call "screwing around with a camcorder." Big difference between screwing around with a camcorder and hiring a real crew to shoot a real movie, short or long. I think anyone who spends $50,000+ on a short is basically insane, it's a horrible investment, but the point is people here talk about $3-5K like it's a lot of money for a short. It isn't. That's probably not even $1,000/minute, which is super cheap.
 
Okay many don't want to make a feature for 5k. Its a great challenge to write a script that works on no budget. I love those challenges personally as a writer.
" What are going to learn at all about professional filmmaking with a budget of $5,000? Honestly."
How does making a good low budget film not help your career? Duplass brothers, Linklater, Kyle Henry, Rodriguez? That's just one town (and I'm forgetting others).
On "Waking Life" the director and the producer both operated ($1500. camcorders). With a sound mixer it was a crew of 3. Their super low budget filmaking efforts translated effectively to a professional set. Everyone doesn't have to roll the same way to be professional feature filmakers. Many filmakers will go into the big budget world and go back into the low budget world (Steven Soderbergh for one) and use their guerrilla skills once again. Many will also use low budget techniques (french new wave, Fassbinder) in major features that they might not have thought of had they not used them on experimental no budget features. We'll just have to disagree as I sit in the filmakers basement on the value of no budget features.
 
There are a *few* directors who started with basically no budget features, yes, but as discussed here there are thousands of them made every year and 99.5% of them are terrible. So I'm not sure that in general you can really recommend someone do that. Even if you are a skilled writer-director, that doesn't mean you can pull off a good project surrounded mostly by amateurs.

The reason I'm confident my feature will be excellent is because I'm surrounded by excellent industry professionals. If I had 3-4 friends and we were just messing around, the results wouldn't be good.

But to each his own, I wish anyone the best who is trying to do it that way, and it can be done with the right project, the right concept, and a lot of creativity. I have a few friends who are doing a really funny fake documentary that is relatively inexpensive, as far as being no crew, but the locations are unbelievable and the travel expenses alone would be extremely high. But they are going to these places anyway, so... it's kind of not an issue.
 
just to chime in:

i really see no equality between seriously making a film and "friends just messing around". if you have a good script, and good people to work with, then making a serious low-budget feature isn't as impossible as it seems.

it all depends on where you want to be, and what kind of director (or writer) you want to be (or are).

when "99.5%" of films don't cut it, the reasons for that can be analyzed and quantified (as can be the success of the other ".5%"). throwing money at something can usually hide imperfections, but if a solid plan is followed by competent people, i can't see how (theoretically) a low budget feature can fail.

i may be an "idealist", and i certainly have to practical experience. but i do think that there are at least two approaches to filmmaking: 1) trying to make great (and successful) art, and 2) trying to make a product that looks (for all practical purposes) like every other product on the market, but with a "unique" quality.

there's no "right" or "wrong" approach. the financial failure of the first type is usually either because the artist doesn't care, or s/he is not so business savvy. the second approach is generally thought of as a safer investment (because of the money spent on professionals).

if anything, i think a writer/director with a good financial and creative sense could probably pull off something worth while.

and, instead of providing anecdotes about filmmakers we generally know about, look at what Richard said:

Richard J. Johnson said:
We shot a feature last year for $1500 and sold it for $10k but it looked like it cost much more to shoot.
Click to expand...

that's incredible. truly inspiring. 567% return after cost.


all in all, it seems you can do a feature on a low-budget with good success. you just really have to be good and careful about how you approach it.
 
Disclaimer: In this post, I'm not addressing anyone in particular.

So, an executive somewhere is going to look at a film and think:

"This director is great. He was obviously surrounded by professionals and the locations/wardrobe/make up/whatever were fantastic. I have never seen such a talented director?!"

Every single piece of crap has a good production, everywhere. Even on youtube lately. If you land a real job on a real film or TV, you will get professionals to cover every single production detail.

The first film is what you use to demonstrate your talent. It's called a directorial debut for a reason. Don't get carried away with the production. Focusing on production details on your first film demonstrates a lack of talent IMHO. Going for a high budget film look is a terrible decision IMHO. So is using a well known actor. You don't care if it looks that good, or if it sells, you don't care if it gets real distribution, you don't care about all that. From a business point of view the first film is not an investment, you don't care about what happens to the film. The only thing you need is someone recognising a talented director in it, ideally a talented writer/director, the most respected breed. There is a 2% chance you actually have talent. Your first film is your vehicle. It should look interesting and it should make you look interesting and different. You want to get noticed. You need a bold stroke on the filmmaking canvas. You don't want it to look like any direct to video film or even a hollywood film. It's Darren Aronovsky's Pi, Christopher Nolan's Following, Peter Jackson's Bad Taste.

Did you see any of these guys worrying about the production? Or doing 100 short films until they were ready for a feature in terms of self confidence or production budget?

Your first film will not rocket you into success. That might take a decade, it did take that long for many good directors, and the odds are against you so success will probably not come. But you only get to shoot one first film. Have fun with it. Express yourself. And don't obsess about the money issues and the production value. You don't want to remember your first film as a negative experience.
 
They spend multi-millions of dollars on complete garbage all the time.

The real question should be: is this two house location "feature" worth shooting at all?

If so, then the 3-5K version could lead to a remake down the line with a real budget.

If not...
 
Wow.

Wow.

That advice couldn't be any worse. Nobody is going to recognize your talent if your production is a complete piece of garbage. No matter how great your story and your acting, if it's surrounded by utter crap, most people won't watch it. That's reality. There is no reason your first film shouldn't be excellent in every way, if you want it to go anywhere, and if you want it to launch your career. It SHOULD have style, though, and should not look like "every other movie" as you put it. A good movie should always have its own sense of style. Familiar, but different, might be one way to put it. Tarantino's first film was Reservoir Dogs and it was still not a cheap production. By Hollywood standards it was, but he still had great name talent and for the script it had good, professional elements. It wasn't a tough script to do as far as locations and stunts and all of that, but it was realistic for a first-time script and they really did it the right way.

If you have such a great script anyway, why are you going to be doing a $5,000 film? If it's great, send it to me, I'll read it, and I can give it to two producers who will make it into a solid indie film. IF it really is that good. But it probably isn't if you think you want to waste a great script on a $5,000 budget. That just makes me sad. It's like wasting your best roundhouse kick on a 90-year-old woman rather than a gang banger trying to steal your wallet. ;)

You may only direct one film in your life, your first, if it sucks you might not get a chance to do that again. You should make it the BEST film you can. And worrying about how good every detail is going to be is vitally important. But ideally you'll have people in place to do most of the worrying for you.

On opposite day, your advice may be great. In reality, a first film very often launches a career or kills a career.
 
Last edited:
Jonathan, my viewpoint just expresses my limited study on cinema so it's entirely personal. I'm not giving anyone advice, filmmakers shouldn't really take advice in these matters, not from me, not from anyone. I'm well known for being opinionated or even dogmatic in things that are not exact science or directly quantifiable. But I do know that my opinion could trigger a new thought and that's why I'm expressing a point of view that is not common in this forum. If we assume my opinion does not have any connection to filmmaking reality, the bare contrast it provides could be useful.

What is "utter crap" in your opinion? A sign of low budget? Cheap lighting? A cheap camcorder? Mediocre sound? A noisy image? Not having 1080p? Not having access to a colorist or an exremely busy and expensive locations? That didn't stop anyone so far IMHO. Nobody will stop watching a film because it's a low budget production. These days, a low budget actually inspires interest, not the opposite. It's stupidity that stops people from watching your film and that's not a neccessary incredient of a low budget film. I believe your opinion on "utter crap" and its connection to the budget is an insult to the low and no budget filmmaking community.

What is "excellent" in your opinion, expresses your skill as a director AND is a direct effect of increasing the budget?

When did an unsuccesful low budget first film ruin a director's carreer? Care to give an example? That barely applied in the age of the $400,000 minimum which was funded by others. Doing a feature on your own money, for any budget, will not ruin your career. It won't even ruin the director financially if you don't fantasize about high production value and you avoid perceiving that as a top priority. The worst thing that could happen is that it could sell some dvds in the future when you get famous.

Why wouldn't you get the chance to do it again? It's your effort, you are funding it. You can shoot 100 of them if you want. You don't depend in a studio or in an externally funded film budget any more. You will make mistakes in your first film. Chances are it will not be great. Investing too much money in it is a bad decision. It will wear you out financially and emotionally. This is what could actually ruin your filmmaking career.

If you have people in place to do most of the worrying for you, you are extremely lucky, as long as you can control them and take them to the direction you need. Having all that in your first film, sounds like a major budget film in the golden age of the studio system. But how did you get to the directing position so fast? After the 80s, most directors tried low budget which dropped even further with the introduction of digital video acquisition, editing and post processing. Nobody will give you the chance to make an expensive film in your first effort. In the digital age they will expect to see some of your work in a finished form, and this can only be done on extreme low budget (below $50,000 for most people). We should use the capability of extreme low budget to our advantage instead of bringing the cost up to pre-digital video figures exaggerated production needs. We have cheap high quality acquisistion, cheap editing, cheap processing, cheap special effects. We should be grateful we live in such great times.

Should a director with $10,000 in pocket wait for that to become $100,000? And when will that happen? Who will pay for that or what personal sacrifice will that require? Who will pay for that time, lost in preproduction of something that is unrealistic? If you use that $10,000 to finish a feature in 1 year, you will be miles ahead the guy that is waiting for the $100,000 to drop from the sky or from somebody else's pocket. You will have finished a film and you will have learned A LOT in the process, you will be better in your art, you will be connected, and most importantly, you will retain your enthusiasm. That's the first thing to go when you hit your head in the wall too many times, and it's a pity if your have built the wall yourself.
 
JonathanLB said:
On opposite day, your advice may be great. In reality, a first film very often launches a career or kills a career.
Click to expand...

*gulp*

I can always be an editor... having the director hovering over my shoulder telling me what to do all my life...

.... screw it, I wanna be hovering over my own shoulder!
 
Haha good for you Rockman! That's the right attitude.

I think a lot of people here think that if they just make like 10 extremely low / no-budget features, eventually one day someone will notice their incredible talent and snatch them up. Honestly anything is possible in this industry, if you really do have the talent, but I would say you have a lot better odds if you just focus on writing really great scripts and get in touch with the right people. I've been absolutely shocked at how much a good script can do, it's like a master key that opens all of these doors. I mean, I heard this before, that if people liked your script you could get all kinds of things you wouldn't otherwise get, but it was so cliche I just assumed that it was a few exceptions, you know, something people just say. "Sure, you could get some name actors for minimum pay, if they love your script." But I thought that kind of thing never happens really, or very rarely I mean, it's just something cute people say.

Instead, though, I've realized that people get very excited about a project they like and legitimately feel is going to be good and they want to be part of it. The script is something that gets people excited when the pay does not. When the pay is basically a joke. That's why I would say to anyone really trying to break in, write a great script! Yeah, yeah, it's said over and over again, I know it is cliche, but wow it's totally true. I had no idea just how powerful that was.

The short summary of what has happened with me I would say is that I wrote a script that people seem to love, and that script first of all got me the right producers, ones with connections and influence and power, and in my analogy here my script is like a sharp weapon and they are like skilled warriors. Give the warriors this great weapon and they can wield it to conquer kingdoms ;) Because that's all it was originally is a script, then it was a script and people who can make things happen WITH that script, and then it became a whole bunch of people attached who I can't believe are working on my low budget film, and then it snowballs to people saying, well if they have all of these other people working on this film, there has to be something there, maybe I should see if I can get involved too! lol. It's like once a small crowd gathers on a street, other people are gathering not because of what that small crowd originally saw but because they are curious what that small crowd is looking at.
 
"If you have such a great script anyway, why are you going to be doing a $5,000 film? If it's great, send it to me, I'll read it, and I can give it to two producers who will make it into a solid indie film. IF it really is that good. But it probably isn't if you think you want to waste a great script on a $5,000 budget." I'm actually very happy with my representation at the moment but thanks. I've tried to be very supportive and will continue to be. If I want to write a screenplay that could be shot for that small amount of money and easily bumped up (budget wise) whats wrong with that? Great scripts get made into crappy movies all the time for tons of different reasons (really not a tragedy). Whats really sad is having somebody put in dire financial position or worse because someone sold them or their family on investing their life savings in a film that went nowhere. That happens more than you want to imagine. So I'll continue to disagree. Best of luck to anyone making a film on whatever budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top