Could I have a budget this low for this type of movie?
- Thread starter Princess
- Start date
It is... but you either have to be the right person to get it offered to you.... or have the ability to run very, very fast! But in all seriousness, it depends on your track record to be able to deliver a profit. It's usually, no track record, no money.
Those are very strong words. How do you know for a fact that movie was delivered to the studio with a Dolby tack? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know if this is your assumption or not.
When people are talking the low budgets for these films, I'd assume they're talking the original budget before the studio's pumped more cash into them cleaning them up, fixing up the deliverables for cinematic release and so on.
Can you? Should you?
Yes you can if you know what you are doing. You can even make a horror movie that makes money. But the tenor of the question and thread suggests that you don't know enough to spend the $$ wisely. Is it really a good idea to just throw away $85K of Daddy's money?
To get distribution and esp international you need to spend a chunk of that money on the right names and pull in some knowledgeable people -- OR you need to approach it as a very expensive learning experience.
Yes you can if you know what you are doing. You can even make a horror movie that makes money. But the tenor of the question and thread suggests that you don't know enough to spend the $$ wisely. Is it really a good idea to just throw away $85K of Daddy's money?
To get distribution and esp international you need to spend a chunk of that money on the right names and pull in some knowledgeable people -- OR you need to approach it as a very expensive learning experience.
I’m all for clarity.
The movie was shot for $15,000. That version was shown at Screamfest, Sundance
and Telluride. So it’s not ridiculous to say that the film was made for $15,000. It is
not a lie to say the film was made for $15,000. When Paramount bought the rights
they spent money on reshooting the ending and audio. I have never seen the number
but knowing the business as I do it is reasonable to figure 10 to 20 times the initial
budget - $150,000 to $300,000 - to get it to the movie we all saw in the theaters.
In all cases I know of - like the films you mention - the low budget, independent
filmmaker makes the movie for very little and if it is picked up by a studio or distributor
they pick up the tab for everything else. It’s reasonable to bring that cost into the over
all picture of bringing a film to the market, but is does not make the initial cost of
making the movie a lie.
I don’t even think it’s misleading. There are two, distinctly different phases a movie
like the ones we are talking about go through. The actual cost to the filmmaker and
the cost to the studio after they pick up the distribution rights.
Exactly, we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the film's budget, how much it cost to make the finished film, you are talking about how much Rodriguez spent to make an essentially unfinished prototype. If you like, Rodriguez spent $7k making the materials required to attract an investor (distributor) to put up the film's actual budget.
What is a lie is to put up on IMDb and advertise that your $7k film grossed $2m, it didn't, it was incapable of grossing anything, same with Paranormal Activity, Blair Witch Project, etc., etc. The problem is one of double standards, if we are saying that a film's budget is what the film makers spend to create something which can attract the full funding required to make a finished product then we've also got to say that the vast majority of the major film releases and blockbusters have a film budget close to zero. For example, Zemeckis probably spent a few hundred dollars, maybe $1k or so in travel expenses, lunches, printing the script, taking some test footage or whatever other materials he needed to sell "Flight" and get Paramount to invest $31m to make the finished film. So should IMDb and Zemeckis himself be listing Flight as having a budget of $1k?
Unless you and everyone else present at the "Screemfest" that day paid $1m each to see Paranormal Activity then listing the budget as $15k means that you also have to list what the film grossed as $0. If they are going to list the gross box office as $193m then they also have to list the budget of what that $193m grossing film actually cost to make. To do otherwise is a deliberately misleading lie! By all means advertise and even write a book about how you made a prototype for $7k or $15k but don't lie about grossing millions from films which only cost a few $k make!
I'm not belittling Rodriguez or Peli's amazing achievements, just telling the truth about what those achievements actually were.
G
or maybe we should go the other way?
While we're at it, should we also be adding the marketing expenses into the budgets too? Without them, you don't have a distributable product. What about the costs of the prints? What about the freight costs? What about above the line gross and net percentages? Deferred fees? Distributors fees? Exchange rate conversion fees? What about advances? Foreign translator fees? Storage fees? What about the production costs for the DVDs and Blurays? Where does it end?
It's all a conspiracy and you helped uncover it! Next you'll be telling me Santa Clause doesn't exist!
I believe they were up front and said that Paramount bought that copy from them for $375k or a figure in that range. From what I remember, they were going to reshoot the entire thing from scratch and then just decided to, shoot another ending, tweak some things, pay for marketing and release it.. $175 million later.
I do want to ask something. Are you saying that an independent filmmaker cannot take $15k, make the next Paranormal Activity and sell it to a studio?
I think it's an amazing feat that these guys took $15k, developed the movie, developed and executed the viral campaign that went with it, sold it to a studio which ran with it, invested some more in it and took $175mil at the box office, spurring multiple sequels in the process. It's inspirational that it can happen and for that reason, I say keep the $15k there as the budget to show what can happen when talented filmmakers develop an idea into reality. It's a real killjoy to hear you say it's not possible and that they spent millions, not $15k.
While we're at it, should we also be adding the marketing expenses into the budgets too? Without them, you don't have a distributable product. What about the costs of the prints? What about the freight costs? What about above the line gross and net percentages? Deferred fees? Distributors fees? Exchange rate conversion fees? What about advances? Foreign translator fees? Storage fees? What about the production costs for the DVDs and Blurays? Where does it end?
It's all a conspiracy and you helped uncover it! Next you'll be telling me Santa Clause doesn't exist!
I believe they were up front and said that Paramount bought that copy from them for $375k or a figure in that range. From what I remember, they were going to reshoot the entire thing from scratch and then just decided to, shoot another ending, tweak some things, pay for marketing and release it.. $175 million later.
I do want to ask something. Are you saying that an independent filmmaker cannot take $15k, make the next Paranormal Activity and sell it to a studio?
I think it's an amazing feat that these guys took $15k, developed the movie, developed and executed the viral campaign that went with it, sold it to a studio which ran with it, invested some more in it and took $175mil at the box office, spurring multiple sequels in the process. It's inspirational that it can happen and for that reason, I say keep the $15k there as the budget to show what can happen when talented filmmakers develop an idea into reality. It's a real killjoy to hear you say it's not possible and that they spent millions, not $15k.
Audio Post, your argument is perfectly logical, and a good thing to keep in mind.
The thing is, your argument doesn't really apply to many people on this forum. Nobody here has millions to spend. We have $15K. So, we're not really looking at how to make a movie that will gross $100mil. We're looking at how to make a movie that we can sell to someone else, for a price that was more than we spent on it. What they do with it, afterward, is their business.
Though your argument is sound, you're pretty much just arguing semantics. We understand that there is a big difference between the budget for the movie that made it to fests, vs. the movie that actually made it to theaters. Yeah, we get that. It just doesn't really matter to us.
The thing is, your argument doesn't really apply to many people on this forum. Nobody here has millions to spend. We have $15K. So, we're not really looking at how to make a movie that will gross $100mil. We're looking at how to make a movie that we can sell to someone else, for a price that was more than we spent on it. What they do with it, afterward, is their business.
Though your argument is sound, you're pretty much just arguing semantics. We understand that there is a big difference between the budget for the movie that made it to fests, vs. the movie that actually made it to theaters. Yeah, we get that. It just doesn't really matter to us.
I won't speak for anyone else, but this is what drives me forward. If you're saying it's not possible, then all of the advances I've made with the last decade of struggle and learning to get to the point I am now has been a pointless exercise as the budgets down here won't make a film that I can turn into a modest profit.
I argue with your stance because for it to be true, filmmaking has to be an unapproachable field that no one can enter other than as a paid laborer. I fundamentally believe that to be incorrect. In the established industry, perhaps that's true, but the world is changing / has changed. The Majors all have smaller arms that do nothing but purchase mostly finished products from filmmakers to distribute without having to take on the risk associated with the development and production of a project.
Searchlight, Spyglass, etc. are my targets. I'm not looking to try to compete with the Majors, I want to feed them. I'll be one of those little fish who clean the teeth of the bigger fish, I'm perfectly comfortable with that.
I'll never have budgets like the ones you're talking about (or the OP for that matter)... so I'm working toward an achievable goal at my budget levels. At this point, I'm looking at El Mariachi numbers (4 digits), not Paranormal numbers (5 digits). As with everything else in filmmaking, it's not wishing you had more/better, it's figuring out how to make work what you have access to.
I'm saying the opposite, I know for a fact the movie was NOT delivered with a Dolby soundtrack. What you seem to be saying is that the cost of including a sound mix in your film is not part of the film's budget!
If that's how you wish to define film budget that's up to you but it's different to how the industry and the public define a film's budget. What you seem to be saying is that the money invested by a studio does not count in the film's budget. If that's the case, surely the vast majority of major releases and blockbusters should be listed as having a budget of somewhere around $0?!
That's exactly what I'm saying! A indie filmmaker can make a prototype film for $15k like the Paranormal Activity prototype and possibly sell that to a studio, although the chances are vanishingly small. But a filmmaker cannot make a film like Paranormal Activity for $15k and gross $193m from it.
I disagree that they are being "up front". If they were being up front they would list their film as having a budget of $15k and selling for $375k, not having a budget of $15k and grossing $193m! If they were being up front, people here and in other places wouldn't keep quoting the film's budget as $15k.
But it does matter to the industry and it does matter to the public. And, obviously it does matter to indie filmmakers, otherwise why lie about it?
I of course realise that the indie filmmakers here do not have the money to make theatrically distributable films. The solution to this problem is to make films which are distributable through other cheaper channels or to find an investor who will provide the money. The solution isn't to state or imply that you can make a theatrically distributable film for $15k, which is patently impossible and very misleading to those who understand a film's budget to mean how much it cost to make the film (which they saw, read reviews about or heard their mates discussing)!
Which brings us back to the OP and the answer to her question, which is that her film could cost anywhere between about $0 and $100m+ depending on her definition of "good" and by the type of distribution she intends for it.
G
Audio expert you are obviously not a filmmaker. The hard grind that a director puts into it during those months of shooting and post is all relative to the budget he had at hand and everything in that film reflects that budget. That was the initial cost to make the film and always will be. A studio may buy and polish it and that may cost a bundle but they are still buying and polishing a 15k movie.
So where you may feel cheated when you see these initial budgets on IMDB, well imagine how the director and crew would feel if they saw, after grinding on 15k, and then succeeding to make great film that is picked up, that their film was actually made for 7 million (by the studio who picked it up). Probably cheated, insulted and discredited.
So where you may feel cheated when you see these initial budgets on IMDB, well imagine how the director and crew would feel if they saw, after grinding on 15k, and then succeeding to make great film that is picked up, that their film was actually made for 7 million (by the studio who picked it up). Probably cheated, insulted and discredited.
Last edited:
This statement raises at least 2 questions:
1. If the film is so great why does the studio need to spend 7 million (or more commonly a few hundred thousand) on it? Studios have to spend so much money fixing the film because the quality has been compromised by budget and/or incompetence to the point that it is undistributable. We're not talking about a little "polish", we're talking about the difference between commercially acceptable quality and commercially unacceptable. I can't see how a film which doesn't achieve basic professional standards can be described as great, the very best it can be described as is potentially great. We must have a VERY different concept of what constitutes a "great film"! I would say that a filmmaker who feels "cheated, insulted and discredited" by the fact their film needs huge amounts of additional financing to raise it to commercially acceptable standards is either delusional or simply has no idea what a commercial quality film is.
2. If a new filmmaker or someone thinking about being a filmmaker reads that you can make a film for $15k which grosses $200m and then finds out that actually you need a minimum of several hundred thousand, how cheated do you think they will feel?
On the contrary, it's obvious that you're not a professional filmmaker! Quite a few times I've earned very good money fixing mixes for film/program makers who've tried to do it "on the cheap" and end up costing themselves much more. I have a friend who makes a very good living almost exclusively from fixing incompetent quality mixes. Of course, for every filmmaker who manages to raise the extra cash to have their film/program fixed and brought up to commercially acceptable standards, probably 50 or more don't and therefore end up never being distributed or broadcasted.
G
I have written, directed and edited a feature film for 17k and unless a distributor pulls all the actors back in to re-shoot each scene then this film was canned for 17k no matter what spit shine job they give it for commercial release. Granted, people like you work hard on presenting what's deemed poor quality audio to a level that is theatrically acceptable and maybe you guys don't get the credit you deserve but please don't try and tell indie filmmakers that they cannot make a no budget film that can eventually become a commercial success because history has proved otherwise, no matter how much you bend facts to fit your argument.
P
I know of no examples of a no budget film eventually becoming a commercial theatrical success. So unless you can provide me with some, history has in fact proved the exact opposite of what you are suggesting! What history has proven is that exceptionally rarely a very micro budget film can become a commercial success theatrically, providing major changes are made and someone can be found to pump in at least 10 or more times the film's original budget to make those necessary changes.
The implication here being that either you don't believe sound is part of a film or that a film without commercially acceptable sound is still somehow commercially acceptable?! Which brings us back to the last sentence in question #1 of my previous post and your understanding of the difference between "spit and polish" and a commercially acceptable film. It's obvious that you have little regard for sound quality, which is likely to cause you serious problems if ever you wish to enter the filmmaking profession because the film industry and the general cinema going public most certainly do!
G
FYI, no budget=25k and under. And examples have been presented numerous times in this thread. So let's move on from that fact. The argument you seem to be making is about the 'add ons' after the shoot that you feel should be reflected as the real budget of a film that is not able for commercial success without, fair enough, point taken. But the fact of the matter is still that films have been 'shot' on no-budget and became commercially successful (albeit after considerable post-production investment).
Most filmmakers know (despite the condescension from techno geeks) that their films needs to be at festival level to be presented to a distributor who can then enhance the presentation to be digitally sound, so to speak. Only an absolute novice believes that an investment of 15k can jump strait into movie theaters. It's a silly notion to even mention.
As a "professional" (the term's becoming dated and useless, all of us "professionals" know that) and someone who wants to feel like they grind on nothing, AND has a sweat-blood-and-tears feature nearly under their belt--finishing stereo mix and on to 5.1, I'll say...
To the OP: You can do it with less. It's more important to make connections at your stage than to have the money. HOwever, you'll likely only learn this after you've spent it all and want to reshoot or shoot more.
And on the topic of budgets: It doesn't matter how much anyone spent. Numbers are arbitrary. HOWEVER, if you are a producer or a director with no name but a decent product you search for ANY angle you can to slice through the noise.
It is not a lie to say that Paranormal Activity was produced for Fifteen THousand, no more than it is a lie to say that Paranormal Activity was produced for One Million. Both are true, it cost the original filmmaker fifteen grand to bring that property to life.
It cost Studios however much (don't know the number) to add whatever shine and spin on it to make the millions that it did, marketing included.
Calling either a lie? Nah. Sorry, that's business 101.
To the OP: You can do it with less. It's more important to make connections at your stage than to have the money. HOwever, you'll likely only learn this after you've spent it all and want to reshoot or shoot more.
And on the topic of budgets: It doesn't matter how much anyone spent. Numbers are arbitrary. HOWEVER, if you are a producer or a director with no name but a decent product you search for ANY angle you can to slice through the noise.
It is not a lie to say that Paranormal Activity was produced for Fifteen THousand, no more than it is a lie to say that Paranormal Activity was produced for One Million. Both are true, it cost the original filmmaker fifteen grand to bring that property to life.
It cost Studios however much (don't know the number) to add whatever shine and spin on it to make the millions that it did, marketing included.
Calling either a lie? Nah. Sorry, that's business 101.
You can take "the point" however you like. The fact remains that no serious filmmaker should ever and certainly no professional filmmaker would ever consider the sound to be an "add on". It is rather shocking to keep hearing people who profess to be serious and aspiring filmmakers saying that they consider the sound to be an "add on" or a "whatever shine". This approach/belief is so far from the approach of the great filmmakers, as to not appear to have anything in common!
Not only an absolute novice but also the public. I agree with you and at last you seem to agree with me, that it's a silly notion to mention, so why mention it?!!! On IMDb and many other places why say the budget was $15k or $7k in the case of El Mariachi when by your own admission that is "a silly notion"?
I can understand that knowing how much a prototype or initial festival version of a film cost to make might be useful for other no budget indie filmmakers but how is it useful for anyone else, especially as everyone else has a different understanding of the term "film's budget"? The OP didn't ask if $85k was enough to make a good entrant into a local film festival, she asked if it was enough to make a good film. If the OP is talking about a theatrical feature, the answer is most probably "no" but for some other commercial distribution channels the answer could be "yes".
G
Robert Rodriguez had 7k in his pocket and found the story, actors, crew, equipment and shot the film El Mariachi. People like you enhanced it. One thing I will suggest is IMDB have post production cost figure by a studio and then another initial production cost by the filmmakers . But a filmmaker should always and probably is always only interested in the latter figure. No matter what 'level' of filmmaker there is, ALL indie filmmakers I know of EVER only cares about the latter. And that's why it's silly to even mention, especially on an indie forum.
Last edited:
Absolutely true, people like me turned El Mariachi from a silent and virtually unwatchable movie into a product which people were prepared to pay for. If you consider that to be an enhancement (or "add on" or a "whatever shine") rather than a basic requirement, chances are you will struggle greatly to ever produce anything of near commercial quality.
G
Last edited:
Tell Rodriguez and his little seven grand that! Who, by the way, gave your people a paid work opportunity to enhance, add too and shine a no budget piece of cinema that was sold because people wanted to see it and those who did see it when it was an "unwatchable movie" liked it so much that they paid hard cash for a spit shine.