Can a indie filmmaker with the right passion make films with virtually no budget?
misc Can a filmmaker with the right passion make films with virtually no budget?
- Thread starter JKierskicine1207
- Start date
100%.
If you have a good story and the right actors and just this mystical combination that makes a film work, then yes.
Just don't try to do Star Wars without a budget, use your limitations to your advantage. IE, if you have a house, make a story that takes place in just the house. Use the restrictions to foster creativity. Example, Paranormal Activity - the writer/director owned a house and wrote the entire movie to take place in it. He was clever in how to make that interesting.
My wife and I have been making low/no budget films as a hobby for several years, including several low budget feature films. The trick is to write a script which allows you to shoot on your own property, and includes props that you already have on hand. We constructed quite a few sets in our garage using lumber from old wooden pallets. Actors were willing to work for free, but we always paid $25-$50 per day to make them feel more appreciated. We also provided good lunches, (no pizza), and never worked longer than 6 hours a day. The features were usually finished in 3 or 4 weekends. So "can a filmmaker make a film with virtually no budget?" The answer is "yes"...but here's the however. Your no budget film will also probably look like a no budget film. First of all, actors who are any good are no longer working for $50 a day. The good actors now have an agent, and demand more money. (And rightfully so). So a no-budget filmmaker is stuck with actors who are beginners...and how many first time actors are any good? Not many. And bad acting means bad film. Then you have to take into account your script. Is it really any good? Is writing your strong point? What about your sound quality? As for the films that my wife and I have made, they're really not very good. They're certainly watchable, but have all of the flaws that you would expect. But at the end of the day, we had a GREAT time making those films. We make films because we love to make films. It's not about money, or fame, or anything else. Our actors always went away happy, and had something to put on their reel. We still try to make one film a year. This year we made a film called They're Trying To Kill Me. If you're curious about what we've done, you can check out our website. http://etheridgeproductions.scriptmania.com/
Have fun!
Have fun!
Last edited:
Yep. Did a movie in 2010 for $2000 that has 1.8 million views on YouTube and has made over $10K through ad revenue. Shot another this summer that while it did have $15,000 worth of gear I bough over the last 13 years, production budget was again only about $2000.
Write the story that you know you can make. Take inventory of what you have and use it in your film. Get creative. Also, find people to work with that have things that add production value. Maybe an aspiring actor has a really nice house, or access to an office building.
The dream is not dead yet.
Oh, and get the book, "Directing Actors". Read it, learn it. Even if you have to cast people with no experience at all, you'll be better equipped to help them help you tell your story.
Write the story that you know you can make. Take inventory of what you have and use it in your film. Get creative. Also, find people to work with that have things that add production value. Maybe an aspiring actor has a really nice house, or access to an office building.
The dream is not dead yet.
Oh, and get the book, "Directing Actors". Read it, learn it. Even if you have to cast people with no experience at all, you'll be better equipped to help them help you tell your story.
Last edited:
Chris, I watched some of your 2 LEAP movies. It true that religious films have a built in audience. It is said that the audience is more interested in the message that anything else. Congratulations on your success!
There's a built in audience until you deviate from the status quo. I got lucky, but will probably encounter more backlash moving forward. The Christians that believe like the new film presents typically don't like movies, and they don't like alcohol and language, so I may be shooting myself in the foot.
My husband has often said that we need to make a movie that pisses off enough people that there are protests and boycotts. That's the kind of (free) publicity that will attract an audience.
I hope you do find one, even if it's not exactly the one you're aiming for.
I've never understood why a very low or no-budget film can't have at least one scene location away from the house or office or whatever the given "free" location is. Just to break up the pace and make it look more budgeted - why can't a setup scene be staged at another location so that the viewer feels like they went somewhere rather than be stuck in a house, apt. or office or garage.
Surely something can be shot for free at a public location, and get it finished before security or the owner asks you to leave? Or a public place that is wide open with no one there for it to be an issue.
example of public place you could grab a pick-up scene quickly and be done before anyone knows what is going on:
Parking lot of a groceries store
Outdoor table at a Starbucks. or restaurant patio
Alley behind a row of stores on a late Sunday afternoon when everything is closed
Fast food drive-through window
totally private places where there is no one to complain:
Outdoors at a beach, lake or desert
Driving in a car to some place - or a stationary car with green screens that show movement (story board out the needed shots to use on screen)
bank ATM machine (screen showing "insufficient funds" or "declined" etc.)
A swimming pool or recreation room
I want to do a $1,500 budget project that has 4 or 5 exterior location shots so that the viewer will really feel that they went on a trip around town.
I don't see how this adds so much to costs. It certainly adds more time and more work, but what does it cost to grab some additional free locations? It simply means more story boarding, more planning, right time of day for good lighting, some food and drinks on ice, and actor(s) who want to cooperate. If you have good camera and good sound and can do both yourself then more power. If you have a good assistant then it's really great.
Why must we be stuck in one location just because the budget is super low? Why not have 4 locations in a 8 min. short and really break the rules? I say keep the fresh new locations coming and take that audience for a ride around town if the story can support it. Even if the actors do not appear in every scene I want those additional places featured.
Surely something can be shot for free at a public location, and get it finished before security or the owner asks you to leave? Or a public place that is wide open with no one there for it to be an issue.
example of public place you could grab a pick-up scene quickly and be done before anyone knows what is going on:
Parking lot of a groceries store
Outdoor table at a Starbucks. or restaurant patio
Alley behind a row of stores on a late Sunday afternoon when everything is closed
Fast food drive-through window
totally private places where there is no one to complain:
Outdoors at a beach, lake or desert
Driving in a car to some place - or a stationary car with green screens that show movement (story board out the needed shots to use on screen)
bank ATM machine (screen showing "insufficient funds" or "declined" etc.)
A swimming pool or recreation room
I want to do a $1,500 budget project that has 4 or 5 exterior location shots so that the viewer will really feel that they went on a trip around town.
I don't see how this adds so much to costs. It certainly adds more time and more work, but what does it cost to grab some additional free locations? It simply means more story boarding, more planning, right time of day for good lighting, some food and drinks on ice, and actor(s) who want to cooperate. If you have good camera and good sound and can do both yourself then more power. If you have a good assistant then it's really great.
Why must we be stuck in one location just because the budget is super low? Why not have 4 locations in a 8 min. short and really break the rules? I say keep the fresh new locations coming and take that audience for a ride around town if the story can support it. Even if the actors do not appear in every scene I want those additional places featured.
Last edited:
I think it's simply a matter of good planning that fits the location. On the broadest level, know exactly how you're going to shoot the scene, meaning which actor(s) will stand where and make sure they know their lines so it goes quickly. Keep it to the fewest possible angles: do you need a shot & reverse shot? Or can you just shoot 2 people in the same shot?
Taking it a step further, consider season & time of day when you pick a location. A parking lot of a supermarket at 7 AM is less likely to attract unwanted attention than at 5 pm. If some stores aren't open on Sundays, their parking lots are a great choice. In my part of the country, beaches are essentially closed after Labor Day although people walk on them, so that's a great time to shoot.
And of course, shoot hand-held.
Taking it a step further, consider season & time of day when you pick a location. A parking lot of a supermarket at 7 AM is less likely to attract unwanted attention than at 5 pm. If some stores aren't open on Sundays, their parking lots are a great choice. In my part of the country, beaches are essentially closed after Labor Day although people walk on them, so that's a great time to shoot.
And of course, shoot hand-held.
These are of course points to remember and not just consider. But I want two angles at least, and once you got your actor(s) there in the parking lot pulling in and getting out of car to go into store (or meet their hook-up, co-conspirator, victim, etc.) , why not have the wide establishing shot and the closer up one (if you do forgo reverse)? The extra angles potentially shot are less work and time involved than it takes for the packed lunch food and drinks with choice of snacks, and wiring up the lavs and turning on recorder. I'd milk this location for all I can get out if it before being possibly asked to leave. Ok so not one person noticed, no one asked what the hell is going on, then grab your reverse shot with two takes.
And the busier afternoon means the store employees might likely to be too busy to be out front asking what you think you are doing. I also think it looks more realistic with lots of cars / people coming and going, normal good stress levels in narrative.
I shoot on a stick thinking I'm getting the best of stability and some nice natural movement like handheld, yet my arms do not fatigue as quickly.
Hiptone, I'm with you on this. Run and gun! Get the shots then get out.
Not really a movie, but did you ever watch the videos on Youtube with the guy in Walmart who goes around fake farting next to people? He has a camera person catching the scene and the reaction on the faces of the people who think it was a real fart. It's hysterical, but my point is, they do this in Walmart all the time. They get the shot. Now, I don't know if they have permission or not but if they do, it means there are a bunch of Walmarts out there that will let you shoot. If they don't have permission, it doesn't stop them. I can't remember the guys name or his channel but he's been doing this for at least a couple of years.
In the 80s The movie, Maniac, was being shot in and around New York City. In one of the scenes, the maniac is stalking a couple at night who were making out in a parked car. While the couple was going at it, the Maniac (Tom Savini) jumped on the hood of the car, pointed a double barrel shotgun at the driver (Tom Savini), pulled the trigger and blew his head off. The producers didn't have a permit tho be shooting there, nor did they have permission to fire a real gun. They 'scabbed' the location. They used 3 or 4 cameras to capture the shotgun blast and the exploding head in one take, then they got the hell out of there. That is a pretty extreme example and some people could possibly have spent the night in jail if caught, but............ They got the shot
Not really a movie, but did you ever watch the videos on Youtube with the guy in Walmart who goes around fake farting next to people? He has a camera person catching the scene and the reaction on the faces of the people who think it was a real fart. It's hysterical, but my point is, they do this in Walmart all the time. They get the shot. Now, I don't know if they have permission or not but if they do, it means there are a bunch of Walmarts out there that will let you shoot. If they don't have permission, it doesn't stop them. I can't remember the guys name or his channel but he's been doing this for at least a couple of years.
In the 80s The movie, Maniac, was being shot in and around New York City. In one of the scenes, the maniac is stalking a couple at night who were making out in a parked car. While the couple was going at it, the Maniac (Tom Savini) jumped on the hood of the car, pointed a double barrel shotgun at the driver (Tom Savini), pulled the trigger and blew his head off. The producers didn't have a permit tho be shooting there, nor did they have permission to fire a real gun. They 'scabbed' the location. They used 3 or 4 cameras to capture the shotgun blast and the exploding head in one take, then they got the hell out of there. That is a pretty extreme example and some people could possibly have spent the night in jail if caught, but............ They got the shot
I agree that shooting on location looks great and adds production value to your film. But if you are shooting ANYWHERE on public property, a shooting permit is required by law. If you are willing to run the risk of getting ticketed for filming without a permit, arrested for trespassing, or discharging a weapon within city limits, then go for it. I was a staff cameraman who worked for a company that refused to pay for shooting permits, and we were getting "shut down" all the time by police and security guards. I can tell you that not only is it stressful for the crew, but doubly embarrassing for your actors. " Why not get a permit", you ask?... It's not the permit that is expensive, but the required insurance, that can often cost more than your entire shooting budget. ("No insurance, no permit"). Most large cities now require $2million liability coverage...some only a million. Have we shot without permits for our own projects?... Yes. But I hate it. If you ever get shut down by a cop, you'll know what I mean.
Last edited:
Jack Vale!!!! Love his stuffHiptone, I'm with you on this. Run and gun! Get the shots then get out.
Not really a movie, but did you ever watch the videos on Youtube with the guy in Walmart who goes around fake farting next to people? He has a camera person catching the scene and the reaction on the faces of the people who think it was a real fart. It's hysterical, but my point is, they do this in Walmart all the time. They get the shot. Now, I don't know if they have permission or not but if they do, it means there are a bunch of Walmarts out there that will let you shoot. If they don't have permission, it doesn't stop them. I can't remember the guys name or his channel but he's been doing this for at least a couple of years.
In the 80s The movie, Maniac, was being shot in and around New York City. In one of the scenes, the maniac is stalking a couple at night who were making out in a parked car. While the couple was going at it, the Maniac (Tom Savini) jumped on the hood of the car, pointed a double barrel shotgun at the driver (Tom Savini), pulled the trigger and blew his head off. The producers didn't have a permit tho be shooting there, nor did they have permission to fire a real gun. They 'scabbed' the location. They used 3 or 4 cameras to capture the shotgun blast and the exploding head in one take, then they got the hell out of there. That is a pretty extreme example and some people could possibly have spent the night in jail if caught, but............ They got the shot
There's another dude too that does the same thing with a wet fart device
I'm not understanding why you think a very low budget or no budget can't
have at least one scene location away from the one, primary location. You
have pointed why it's very possible.
Low/no budget films do not need to stuck in one location. There are no
rules to break.
You make great points and support each one with reasoned options. You
prove that there are no rules when it comes to low/no budget film making.
As I write this I suppose your "why" is just rhetorical.
Because when one reads up on making low or no budget films, especially shorts, the lists of tips so often includes keeping the shooting locations to a single place. I've read this over and over again. So it's not a rule, but a very common suggestion.
Well there could be something I'd not thought of yet. Some limitation or expense(s) cropping up.
Another thing I noticed is how many low budget and shorts do indeed keep the shooting to one location, or at least all actors at the one location with some (so called) establishing shots done elsewhere. It might not be a written rule but a practice that seems quite prevalent. And for me it's a (major) obstacle to keeping the picture interesting going forward. But that could just be me, and others might disagree. Story (script) and casting would be my top concerns. And then next I want (as many as I can afford, or snatch up for free) locations that keep it interesting. And that third priority for me - might certainly not be for another director.
And if locations a-plenty it is not that important for some experienced film makers, then I'd be interested in hearing why.
So yes, the "why" is rhetorical, yet there might be something I've not considered.
btw, I've worked on quite a few film and tv shooting locations on major shows over the last 7 or 8 years. I know I won't be able to do any shoots of my own along those types of budgets, I won't get a lot things period. But I obviously feel that the location(s) are of the (important) stars of the film shoot.
Thanks for commenting.
It isn't always about the cost of a location. The advice is often
based on time.
As you point out not all productions are the same, but often
when shooting a low/no budget film equipment is being rented.
If you have the budget for, say, five days of rental and you
have several locations, the time to pack up, transport and
set up can really cost you in terms of time at a location.
Rather than a 12 hour day at one location you get, maybe 5 or
6 hours before you have to pack up and move. Then 4 hours
at the next one.
If one location is a (major) obstacle for you then a one location
story is not a good fit for you. Yet the advice to keep to one location
for a low/no budget shoot is still good. Not for all productions under
all situations, but good advice to consider.
There have been some great stories told that do not use many locations.
Locations-a-plenty are not needed for some stories. Some writer/directors
like to challenge themselves buy limiting the locations. Especially for short
films: I made a short (6 minutes) that takes place in a closet. And one (5 minutes)
that takes place on a restaurant patio. Won a bunch of awards. My first feature
was in one house.
As with all "rules" or advice about making a movie, there is some wisdom considering
them - but not every rule or advice fits all productions.
takes
I'm not a fan on 'one location' indie films, but I understand the need to do it that way. I think you need to have other locations, even if just for a quick insert, to break up the monotony. Maybe during the story a character needs to go to the store or pick something up from her brother's house. Get some shots of the car going down the road and the driver driving the car. Movies take you places otherwise they're sort of like watching a play.
August: Osage County is essentially a 1 location movie though there are a few brief scenes at other locations. The movie was adapted from the play by the same name. In the movie, a handful of characters interact in and around a house. That's it. But the writing was fantastic and the actors were mostly A list actors- including Meryl Streep. I don't think a lesser group of actors could have pulled it off.
I use to pontificate about how making an Indie film with no real money is like solving a Rubik's Cube. You need to find the right combination of moves to solve it. If you only have 1 location then it needs to be a great location. If you don't have great actors, you probably want to cast people to essentially play the parts as themselves. Personally, I've never been able to solve the Indie Rubik's cube..
August: Osage County is essentially a 1 location movie though there are a few brief scenes at other locations. The movie was adapted from the play by the same name. In the movie, a handful of characters interact in and around a house. That's it. But the writing was fantastic and the actors were mostly A list actors- including Meryl Streep. I don't think a lesser group of actors could have pulled it off.
I use to pontificate about how making an Indie film with no real money is like solving a Rubik's Cube. You need to find the right combination of moves to solve it. If you only have 1 location then it needs to be a great location. If you don't have great actors, you probably want to cast people to essentially play the parts as themselves. Personally, I've never been able to solve the Indie Rubik's cube..