What makes a movie look high or low budget?

mainstreetprod

mainstreetprod

Veteran
I've spent a lot of time lately watching both independent and Hollywood movies, trying to figure out what marks a movie as high or low budget.

1)What just jumps out at you as marking the look (or sound) of a low budget film?

2) Now that low budget filmmakers have great equipment available to them, what are sure fire ways to make your film look and sound like it was shot on a much higher budget?



I'll start the thread with this: Little or no attention to production design , including lack of careful use of color in decor and clothing, tells me it's a lower budget flick.
 
Personally, it all boils down to taste.

you can have a high budget film with a low concept (i.e. bad direction, story, PD and cinematography) and it will look low budget, at the same time you can have a low budget film but with a high production value. I've been on both, mind you. =b
 
Lighting, uses of different focal length lenses. Ive notices that TV shows, which generally dont look as nice as movies, appear to use more telephoto focal lengths for everything, including wide shots (i assume many times these are zoom lenses to make changing shot sizes easier/faster). Movies mostly on the other hand will mix it up and even use wide lenses for CUs many times. When you DONT see this in a movie, and everything is kind of telephoto/flat looking, that comes across lower budget to me.

PS i get the impression OP meant the LOOK/production values of the film, not so much the acting/writing/pacing etc.
 
Lighting
Composition
Sound
Shot stability (unless going for a certain look, must be done right...)
Flow of the actual editing is hugely important (pacing, enough shots, etc.)

It's hard to say what jumps out and narrow it to a couple of things. It's the synergy of many parts working in harmony.

But even a simple apartment with dudes in jeans and t-shirts can be shot well and look professional.
 
I think sound is the first thing that can jump out, but if you're careful and have some sort of budget, even if it is small, it really shouldn't.

So I will say acting. Then art direction and set design. Then everything else.
 
many low budget films with a lot of talend behind and in front of camera look low budget....simply because in many cases they don't have the time nor the resources.

Making a film like the great gatsby which i saw yesterday will take lots of people and lots of resources and lots of time to get that look which i loved by the way. It looks high budget simply because it is.


If you have the talent and have the time to plan everything with somewhat limited resources you can work around things.


Custume design...decor set etc
pro actors
equipment ( not necessarily camera's but other stuf crane...tracks etc )
good post production ( color correction...fx editor )
and all other things necessery for a good film.


But there are many examples of films which are perfect with limited ( very very limited ) budget.

I find having a good story to tell and tel it convincingly is most importnant and i like movies like that.

You cant make a syfy film convincingly without spending millions but a more down to earth story could be done .............
 
I think a great script is the foundation it's all built on. No movie, even a high budget one with experienced actors and crew, will turn out that great if the script is mediocre.
 
The first and foremost is acting talent that, regardless of their chops, THE CAMERA LIKES.

Tied for a distant second are directing and writing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top