Correct my misconceptions!

[Lleu]

Until a couple days ago, I thought indie filmmaking was just working insanely hard on a film for fun with your friends as cast and crew. Then I get here and start reading about hiring composers, actors, distribution, and even acquiring funding.

So I guess what I'm asking, is how the process works for you. What's a typical budget? Are there actors, composers, etc. that you routinely use? How do you show your films to others?

My current screenplay costs only a camera and probably won't be shown to anymore than a handful of people, but I do have bigger ideas, and I'd like to have a realistic expectation of what the process of filming them would look like.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I don't think there is a typical budget, etc for indie film. It's a continuum stretching from someone with just a camcorder and an idea to multi-million dollar budget projects that more closely resemble traditional studio productions, and literally everything in between.

I think for most successful indie filmmakers though the process starts out as you've described yours - grab a camera, and some friends, and make a movie. Once you've done that you'll know what you could do better next time, and you'll have a better idea of what that will require in terms of budget, people and other resources.

 

[that1guyy]

Well Indie basically means that the majority of the funding doesn't come from a major studio.

And indie films can have varying budgets. Depending on how much money you have, you figure out where you're going to spend it. Obviously if you have like a $500 film, you're not going to paying actors, composers, etc.

Note, I'm just guessing about all this. I don't really know.

 

[rayw]

"Indie Filmmaking" largely has two subgroups of fairly equal stature when slinging that term about, neither in any particular higher standing than the other.

1 - Indie filmmaking in it's purest sense is the production of content the major and mini major studios are not commercially interested in. So the interested parties gotta go do it outside of the major and mini major studio production and distribution system. Thus - they are "independent" from the studio system.
Often these films don't have story structures or outcomes the studio's relatively conservative profit generating criteria can support as being "likely" profitable.
They don't know how they'd make money of producing it so they're going to pass on it.
Without the economic economies of scale benefits of the studio financing system, independent producers must grovel for financing, often resulting in relatively/considerably lower production budgets with corresponding production values following.

2 - Because of the relatively/considerably lower budgets ASSOCIATED with independent filmmaking, a broader definition which has come to encompass a broader sense of the term de facto implies "a low budget film". A more technical, generally accepted industry definition would be a film whose production budget comes from <50% financing by a major/mini major studio, thus giving rise to "boutique production houses", which are sham studios supported by the studio system just to weasel their way into some competitions and awards reserved for those outside of the studio system.


Short sweet:
1 - Studio system doesn't like the story, go do it yourself.
2 - >50% of the financing comes from the studio system, often it's 100% of the producer's financing.

 

[Alcove Audio]

If you and your friends are having fun you don't need to do anything else. If you want to make a career out of filmmaking then there is a lot more you need to learn.

There will be the endless debates over whether or not you should go to film school, whether or not you should self fund a feature project, what types of films may actually earn a profit, etc.

There will be endless discussions about how to do things on a very skinny shoestring, and folks like me telling you that the smaller your budget the better your technique will need to be.

There will be debates over camera A versus camera B versus camera C, and lighting, and audio, and preferred editing platforms (both hardware and software) and dozen other topics - and all at varying budget levels.

All I will say to you is that, if you think you're working hard now, just wait until you decide to make filmmaking your career - you've had a picnic up until now.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with being a hobbyist and having fun; about a third of the people on this forum will end up just like you. Most of the rest will give up in disgust and never touch a camera again. The remainder will find some niche in the entertainment industry and have a nice little career. And who knows, maybe someone from IndieTalk will become a big time director; and we'll all say we knew him (or her) when.

 

[Lleu]

I think I understand. Thanks everyone!

 

[Cracker Funk]

There really is no such thing as "typical". You can make it as "serious" as you want it to be. You wanna jump in the deep end? You wanna play in the wading pool? It's up to you.

If you ever doubt that dreams can come true, remember that the most profitable movie of all time had a production budget of $15K.

Welcome to the Thunderdome!

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

There really is no such thing as "typical". You can make it as "serious" as you want it to be. You wanna jump in the deep end? You wanna play in the wading pool? It's up to you.

If you ever doubt that dreams can come true, remember that the most profitable movie of all time had a production budget of $15K.

Welcome to the Thunderdome!

Yep, it like most of the "They made a movie for 10K and it made blah blah millions" are "gimmick" movies.

My experience is the more films you make the more you want to do, the better you want them to be. Generally that means spending more money. On the other hand, the more you learn and the better you get, the better you are at doing more with less.