Could I have a budget this low for this type of movie?
- Thread starter Princess
- Start date
I have to disagree somewhat. Advances in technology are allowing the no budget filmmaker to 'get away' with certain things, but more importantly, making them feel they can 'get away' with much more than they really can.
When you could only shoot on film, you had to know how to light and expose for film, and how to make film look good. These days, you still need to know how to light and expose, and it's not too different to lighting and exposing for film. But no/lo budgeters tend to see something like raw as their saving grace - you can shoot raw, sure, but you still have to light your scenes properly. You still have to design your scenes, shots, and sets properly. Production design is more important in digital. In fact, with digital's high resolution, you can actually get away with a lot less in terms of makeup, set design, and production design in general.
The only really difference is the cost of image acquisition is slightly cheaper, but that drop in cost has led to a mindset in some that they don't have to put in much effort to making the film as 'we're shooting raw'.
Well, with 5k you can technically get the spatial resolution necessary for theatre projection. Other than that, it doesn't really mean anything, and even then - there were films acquired in both SD and HD being projected only a few years ago.
As APE has pointed out, a good script is not the only thing important in a film. Even to bank on the 1 in 12,000 chance that you get accepted into Sundance, and then picked up by a dsitributor, you need much more than a good script and one DSLR to make a film worthy of being picked up - a film like Like Crazy was a simple dialogue movie that one would assume would be cheap, and yet the spent $250,000 on it, to ensure the quality was of a certain level, despite the fact they were shooting on a 7D.
And I'd suggest that in fact as technology becomes cheaper, it does produce more competition. The festivals still only accept and program the same amount of films, but that doesn't mean you have 20,000 films submitted versus 15,000 the year before. The more the technology drops in price, the more people think they can be the next Paranormal Activity.
The point has never been don't make a film because you can't afford to make it viable. The point has always been make the best film you possibly can for the budget available to you. But you also need to keep in mind that it's a 1 in maybe 12,000 chance that you are the film that gets picked up - and you also need to keep in mind that the higher your production values, the higher the likelihood of you being picked up. AS has been stated previously, it's okay that you don't have a commercially-viable product, as long as you're okay with not having a large range of distribution options open to you, if you don't get picked up at Sundance.
Last edited:
I would like to know who these hypothetical filmmakers are. Youtubers? I have certainly not met a single indie filmmaker who dare not hire a DOP with lighting.
Yes the cost is the main benefit when it comes to production value. Slightly cheaper is an understatement. And when I mention technology I also mean for post production too. And again a bad filmmaker is a bad filmmaker so lets assume from here on in that when we discuss film making we are speaking of good ones who make the best everything.
My point was not that it should be done if can be avoided. My point is that it can be done if there are no other options and if the filmmaker and script is good enough. If a script is all it takes we'd all be shooting on our I-phones (which was kind of done with Festen BTW but again a major exception)
Correct.
Um, yes that's a given.
Last edited:
I know several, in fact one of the people I consider a mentor Directs, Ops, DPs, and he works consistantly for major record labels shooting music videos. I also know a few who Direct, Op, and DP their own narrative and commercial content. Some get hired because of that.
What I think you mean to say is that most people hire a gaffer and gear, that's not the same thing as a DP.
Personally, I just Directed, OP'd, and Gaff'd a short film two weeks ago. Pull focus by myself, offload hundred gigs of data by myself, had someone helping me as a PA moving light stands after I set them. I'll do it for the next no budget feature I shoot as well.
It's more about practice and lots of it, and of course something always suffers but sometimes you have to do what you have to do.
I'm not even suggesting they don't hire 'DPs'. I've seen those who call themselves DPs buy a camera body, charge themselves out for cheap (a bargain for the indie filmmaker) and create absolutely mediocre looking shots. The lower cost of technology is breeding this new line of younger (and older) people who call themselves DPs simply because they own a camera. The old owner/operator title is gone, with people now calling themselves DPs even though they can't light, or can only flat light and simply assume that someone else will make the decisions later if they have the time and money to get a half-decent grade.
It's happening.
Really? Perhaps if you're comparing the cost of a DSLR to the cost of 35mm. But there are a range of options in the middle, and when you actually get to a level where you're looking at the 5k you hold so highly, or a camera system that can actually be projected on a big screen and not look horrible, the price differences aren't that huge - in fact, you can hire 16mm cameras really cheap from those rental companies who now have 7 sitting on the shelf not getting used, the lens rental for 16mm is <1/2 the price of S35 lens rental, and the stock and telecine is 1/2 or <1/2 the price of 35mm. You could quite easily shoot something on 16mm for the same price as RED, assuming an average budget, and that you'll be hiring both camera and lenses.
If you do the math, 35mm can actually work out cheaper than renting and shooting on Alexa, assuming you're hiring the Alexa, and using short ends on the 35mm.
In fact, if you take into account that you're not hiring a Data Wrangler or DIT, and that your 2nd AC will be loading, then you've just eliminated an entire person's pay from your budget.. so it can end up actually even cheaper if you budget right.
Post production is a different kettle of fish. When it comes to editing at least, it doesn't really matter what software you use; most edit 2k from just about any camera. You could easily have edited Skyfall or The Avengers on Sony Vegas on your PC at home and no-one would tell the difference.
You shoot Avengers on a DSLR, or try and mix the audio on your home computer, and people will immediately pick the difference.
But, the good ones who make the best everything are generally the ones who spend the money on getting proper grades and mixes done..?
That's correct, I'm not arguing with that at all. But to assume your film is going to be the one picked up is a great assumption, and it would be folly not to use part of the budget getting it to a commercially acceptable standard to make it a) easier for a distributor to pick up and b) easier to market and distribute if it doesn't get picked up, or worse - doesn't get accepted.
Last edited:
This is where I fail to understand what type of filmmaker we are speaking of again. If a production is completed a good filmmaker will know if it is at a 'commercially acceptable standard' or not, and nobody in their right mind would even think of pushing a film that is sub-par in quality and production. There seems to be a very low opinion of filmmakers on this forum. Or maybe the ones you speak of are not filmmakers but film-fakers.
Oren Peli knew how to make a quality product for 15k that can be enjoyed and considered 'Commercially acceptable' because that is what a filmmaker does. It can then be mastered by x y z. Granted it takes a special idea to sell a 15k film to the masses but that's a given but that does not mean we should disregard the fact that it has been and can be done if-IF- the filmmaker is savvy enough, good enough and the script is strong enough. The type of filmmaker that knows his limitations and uses it to his advantage like those that we speak of. IMO this is the very essence of filmmaking and cinema and those pioneers deserve to be celebrated and definitely deserve a production budget on IMDB letting indie filmmakers know that 'this is how it's done.'
I think you're missing the point - commercially acceptable standard is not a film missing an audio mix or colour grade.
I'm not really sure what your point is anymore, before you were saying it's okay if a film isn't at a commercially acceptable standard, because distributors should tip in hundreds of thousands of dollars to ensure it is at a commercially acceptable standard. Now, you're saying that a filmmaker should get it to a comercially acceptable level, including sound mix and colour grade etc. but a distributor should tip in money to 'master' it?
I'm not really sure what your point is anymore, before you were saying it's okay if a film isn't at a commercially acceptable standard, because distributors should tip in hundreds of thousands of dollars to ensure it is at a commercially acceptable standard. Now, you're saying that a filmmaker should get it to a comercially acceptable level, including sound mix and colour grade etc. but a distributor should tip in money to 'master' it?
I see your confusion. I took your words of 'commercially acceptable standard' and thought it to mean the low end of professional standard good enough for festival showcasing. commercially mastered on the other hand is a different kettle of fish. Semantics. The point is a film can and has been made on no budget and the quality has been high enough for top festival showcasing. From there it is bought and mastered BUT that budget to which it found it's buyer is still the initial budget the film was made on and that will never change and should be reflected. That was the original point.
This comment about thinking a film doesn't need an audio mix or a colour grading has been projected onto me.
I'm okay with your Ferrari analogy, and here's why -- you can do that. If you felt like owning a Ferrari would make your life better, you can do that. There are people who do that.
It's not that I'm ignoring the important details, it's just that I don't labour over them. Both you and I know how incredibly difficult it is to successfully pull-off what I and countless others are trying to do. It's just that I choose not to focus on the negative, because I have a belief in myself that I can do it.
And if we go with the Ferrari analogy, here's the conversation we're having:
CF
I want to buy a Ferrari.
APE
They're really expensive.
CF
I know.
APE
They start at a quarter of a million dollars, and that's without any options.
CF
I know.
APE
That's a lot of money. It's going to be really difficult to save up for that, and you will probably fail.
CF
I know.
APE
You might as well just play lottery.
CF
No, the lottery is random chance. What I'm doing is not random chance, because I have a lot of control over the outcome.
APE
You can't do it.
CF
Watch me.
Seriously, I don't understand why you want to be such a Negative Nancy. What you're doing is coming on to a forum that is overflowing with dreamers, and you're shouting at us to stop pursuing our dreams. Why do you do that?
Besides, I think your numbers are way off. Making an ultra-low budget feature will only open doors for 1-in-50,000? 1-in-100,000? Wow, your pessimism is impressive.
To satiate my own curiosity, I took a look at the highest grossing narrative films of 2012. From the top-50, a total of 5 directors made their first feature film on a next-to-nothing budget:
Chris Nolan
Peter Jackson
Steven Spielberg
Henry Joost
Ariel Schulman
Just in case you're bad at math, that's 1-in-10.
And those mentioned were on no-budget using film. The OP asked if 85k could make a good horror and she/he was told no. Ridonculous. Hell, Evil dead was made for 400k in 1981 with film and the OP is told (On an Indie forum) that in 2012, a time when you can BUY your own redcam for 10k, that a good horror (the one genre that actually suits low budgets) cannot be made on a micro-budget. Hmm there is realistic then shortsighted then downright negative.
The confusion here and all along with your replies is your confusion! The standards of no budget festival showcased films are absolutely nowhere near commercial theatrical standards, not even to low end professional standards. Just because you paid $5k for your sound does not mean it is of a professional standard, even a low end professional standard. As jax-rox said with regard to people buying themselves a camera and calling themselves a DOP, the same is true of sound design. To achieve low end professional standards requires a small team of audio post personnel to work on an average feature for about 3 months, how are you going to afford a team of professionals for 3 months with a budget of $5k? High end professional standards would typically be an audio post team of 30-50 people and as much as 4-5 months.
You seem to believe your standards are acceptable and that the standards I'm talking about are just geeky, unnecessary spit and polish. What you fail to appreciate is that my standards are not due to me being geeky, they are the standards dictated to me by the market (the distributors, broadcasters and the public) who have employed me for so many years. The confusion here is as I've said all along, that you don't understand what commercial or professional standards actually are! Without even understanding the standards the market demands, let alone trying to achieve them, IMO you are not only dramatically reducing your own chances of success but also giving poor advice to others who are asking how to make a "good" film.
Your post makes it obvious that you don't understand what I am saying! I'm not being negative, in fact I'm being the exact opposite! I'm being realistic about what it costs to make a theatrically distributable film, about the odds of success and most importantly, how those odds can be made more favourable for the filmmaker. I see this as far more positive than advising someone you can make a "good" film for a fraction of $85k but not telling them that in addition, this advice is also dependent on a 1 in 10,000+ chance of someone else coming along and pumping in the rest of the money which is actually required to make a "good" film!
I appreciate the immense difficulties lo/no budget filmmakers face and the accomplishment of getting accepted into a film festival. However great this accomplishment, the overwhelming majority of the public and of the industry still won't consider such a film as "good" (!), although exceedingly rarely someone from the industry might consider it to be potentially good. The solution to this problem by many here appears to be to stick their heads in the sand and redefine the rest of the world's understanding of "good", which is of no help to the OP, who at this stage in her endeavours is still essentially a member of the public. You can take my statements as negative if you wish or you could use them to possibly inspire and give yourself a better chance of success, your choice entirely!
G
That's quite a bold statement that really shows a major underestimation of no-budget entries and is a theory that is proven wrong time and time again and I'm sure will continue to do so with advances in technology and ingenuity.
The standards of no-budget film should be acceptable at festival level and what you are speaking of is a geeky necessary spit and polish. Once again you are voicing to a hypothetical filmmaker who believes an i-phone film can go worldwide. We need to up our opinion of filmmakers a bit.
We seem to be circling back to our original argument which was that no-budget can (with ingenuity) carry a film to major festivals (where standards are very important due to major showcasing) where it can then be picked up and mastered - it's not a mugs game, that's the game.
The OP has a micro-budget, fair enough if she can get alot more money from her dad, then listen to APE by all means, get a few million and get that baby squeeky clean. However, I'm sure her daddy will probably say no (or throw another 15k at the problem
but she will still need to do what she can on 100k. So she makes a horror that takes place in two locations with a couple of pro actors and maybe even a name. They wrap, mixdown, colour grade, package and ship to festivals and distributors over the world. That film cost 100K. Further interest and investment is always a good thing and will enhance the project invaluably, nobody is debating that, but the project was still initially produced for 100K and that was the budget that all the creative workflow from directors to actors to crew to post all worked around to make that film come to life. This is the budget that counts to a indie-filmmaker on a very limited budget.
What is a bold statement is for someone with no professional experience of sound to say to someone with 20 years professional experience that he essentially doesn't know what he's talking about. I am not working to a "theory", you are, I'm working to market requirements! Completely contrary to your statement, time and again history has proven that the number one most common technical cause of failure at film festivals (and with finding distributors or broadcasters) is sound quality. While there are some films at the major festivals with decent and occasionally even good sound, they are generally the films with a budget of around $1m or more. I've never seen (or heard of) a no budget film with even decent sound.
Advances in technology will not improve the quality of sound for no budget theatrical movies, in fact the opposite is more likely to be the case! Just stating what you have demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of theatrical film sound. There are partial solutions to this problem for the lo/no budget filmmaker but they would be wasted on you because you can't accept there is a problem!
I realise you are going to come back with some thinly veiled insult about me never having worked on a film with a good script or ingenious filmmakers, which is hilarious in light of who I have worked with. It's obvious you are absolutely convinced, almost to the point of religious fervour, that your view of acceptable standards is correct and everyone else, including a professional in the field, is wrong. Good luck with that!
G
I think, stilly, you're still not quite understanding that commercially acceptable standard is actually set out as market requirements.
You seem to be suggesting that simply because a movie looks and sounds good enough to you that that makes it of a commercial standard. It doesn't.
What you still seem to be implying is that you shouldn't worry about getting your film to that level, because you should instead bank on the fact that you will be the 1 in 10,000 who gets picked up and has the distributor tip the money in for that.
You seem to be suggesting that simply because a movie looks and sounds good enough to you that that makes it of a commercial standard. It doesn't.
What you still seem to be implying is that you shouldn't worry about getting your film to that level, because you should instead bank on the fact that you will be the 1 in 10,000 who gets picked up and has the distributor tip the money in for that.
Last edited:
What other option does a No-budget filmmaker have but this? He isn't no budget out of choice. If by your rationale the standard needs at least a million then how else can he get it? And if he does get it then, like you say, it is so rare that the initial budget should be stated because anomalies are always very interesting by nature.
Dude, you're coming through loud and clear. Nobody misunderstands you. And yes, what you're professing, at least in this thread, is rather negative.
The OP did not ask how to get a job in the entertainment industry. The OP asked if a good movie could be made on her budget. Myself and a couple of others have encouraged her to say that yes, she can definitely make a good movie with that budget. And she CAN!
By now, I doubt the OP is even reading. But I hope she is. And I hope a whole lot of other aspiring filmmakers are reading it. Because the disagreement we have is the difference between merely wanting to get a job in the industry, vs. wanting to shoot to the top.
One of the people you've given advice to in this thread is already working professionally in this industry. I can't speak for him, but I would venture to guess that his motivation in making an ultra-low budget movie is not just to turn profit on that film, but to rocket himself to the top of the field of competition. And I believe he stands a good chance to do just so.
What's my motivation? It's not to get a job in the industry. If I simply wanted a job in the industry, I'm confident that I could just go get that. I'm also confident that I'd be cutting my income in thirds.
Perhaps you're not considering personal motivations. I have no interest in starting at the bottom of the entertainment industry. I don't want to PA. I don't want any of the other jobs that I might be able to secure for myself. I want to direct. Big movies.
Those are my reasons for taking a gamble. Other people have their own reasons for taking a gamble. At the end of the day, we all know that we're taking a gamble, and every single one of us believes that we have a legitimate chance of pulling it off.
You don't understand that. You take the safe route. That's fine and dandy. For you. You're not a gambler. One of the things you don't seem to get is that big risks offer big dividends. That's why you take the big risk, because if it pays off, you win big. You'll probably lose, but hey, that's life. Some of us take risks, willingly, gladly.
There's nothing wrong with taking the safe route. It's the smart thing to do. But that's not even slightly what the OP was asking about. The OP asked about the dangerous route. The OP asked if it is even possible, on her budget. And hell yes, it is definitely possible!
Plenty of people have done it, plenty of people continue to do it, and I see no reason why that should change. Yes, an ultra-low-budget feature can blast an aspiring director's career into the atmosphere! Fucking do it!
Again, you are failing to understand and are looking at what I'm saying backwards! You're the one playing it safe, there is little risk in what you are doing and little chance of any sort of pay-off, let alone of hitting the big time! I'm not talking about playing it safe, I'm talking about the opposite! I'm talking about taking a risk by putting yourself on the line and measuring yourself against commercial requirements and professional standards. You on the other hand appear to be advocating taking the safe route, to make films to the same amateurish standards as every other no/lo budget filmmaker and dreaming about being noticed amongst these tens of thousands of other amateurs. So in a way, you are correct, I'm not taking into account your personal motivations, which appear to be; Make films to the same standards as every other no/lo budget filmmaker and dream of being noticed! Where's the risk in that?!! To get noticed you've actually got to take a risk and do something different/better than the masses of other amateurs, isn't that obvious?
Ah, now we get to the crux of your views. The film business, by the definition of what the term "business" means, requires films which can compete commercially and turn a profit, if you can't do that then you're not even in the film business (or at least not in it for very long), let alone at the top of it. You seem to think that turning a profit and getting to the top of the field of competition are two different things, they are not, in the film business they are the same!
No, that's not the difference at all, that's just how you wish to justify the disagreement to yourself! The difference is between just dreaming of shooting to the top and really wanting to shoot to the top by giving yourself the best chance. It's simple really, put yourself in the position of a film investor, studio, broadcaster or distributor then ask yourself these questions: 1. Would you rather use/hire a director who is capable of achieving commercial quality or one who doesn't even know what commercial quality is? 2. Given two films which are roughly the same in other respects, would you rather distribute the film which requires a small investment to bring it to market or the one which requires a large investment?
I would point out that the original post does not mention anything about a "dangerous route"! In fact, she specifically stated she was a novice so wouldn't know that there was such a thing as a "dangerous route"! The OP did not ask how to make another film festival failure, she asked if it is possible to make a "good" film for her budget. As a member of the public at this point, her definition of a "good" film is not defined by any experience of how difficult it is to make a film but by her experience of watching commercials films!
G
As I have said all along, there are options for the no/lo budget filmmaker (providing that by no budget you don't mean literally $0). If, as your last post suggests, you are genuinely interested to know, I will set out some of those options but after your prior posts, I'm not convinced you aren't still being snarky and defensive about your views and that I wouldn't therefore be wasting my time.
G
Wow, APE, you're something else. I love how much you know about something that you've never done.
You're right. The ultra-low-budget feature is actually the safe route.
Please tell us, oh wise one, how do we make a great movie, on a nothing budget? One that lives up to your high standards.
I'm not surprised that you've ignored the fact that, among the highest-grossing directors this year, the following all made their first feature film on a virtually-nothing budget:
Chris Nolan
Peter Jackson
Steven Spielberg
Henry Joost
Ariel Schulman
There are MANY reasons why an ultra-low-budget production can benefit not just the director, but the entire cast and crew, regardless of whether it lives up to your Nazi-like production-quality standards.
Might it be possible that the reason you recommend a different route is because you've never imagined how this route might work? Might it be possible that the reason you've never imagined it is because YOU'RE NOT ONE OF US? Might it be possible that the reason you recommend what you do is because the only directors you know are those who played it safe?
I'm swinging for the fence, dude, and I'm happy to know that there are countless others doing the same. I'm not discouraged by the competition, but invigorated by it. As far as I'm concerned, this is what keeps the art alive. Fuck the world!!!
You're right. The ultra-low-budget feature is actually the safe route.
Please tell us, oh wise one, how do we make a great movie, on a nothing budget? One that lives up to your high standards.
I'm not surprised that you've ignored the fact that, among the highest-grossing directors this year, the following all made their first feature film on a virtually-nothing budget:
Chris Nolan
Peter Jackson
Steven Spielberg
Henry Joost
Ariel Schulman
There are MANY reasons why an ultra-low-budget production can benefit not just the director, but the entire cast and crew, regardless of whether it lives up to your Nazi-like production-quality standards.
Might it be possible that the reason you recommend a different route is because you've never imagined how this route might work? Might it be possible that the reason you've never imagined it is because YOU'RE NOT ONE OF US? Might it be possible that the reason you recommend what you do is because the only directors you know are those who played it safe?
I'm swinging for the fence, dude, and I'm happy to know that there are countless others doing the same. I'm not discouraged by the competition, but invigorated by it. As far as I'm concerned, this is what keeps the art alive. Fuck the world!!!
Judging by you reply to Cracker funk it seems as if your suggestion will be to spend some money on hiring a director who understands commercial quality. But this seems to miss the point of being an aspiring filmmaker and seems like a advice more suited for producers. Agreed that OP sounds like she should hire a director but for people who have spent their lives making and editing films - making a feature no-budget film (To the highest quality) is an invaluable experience.
I understand where you are coming from, there are some crap no-budget films out there because any fool with a camera can shoot a film, but hell man, please stop thinking everyone who intends to make a no-budget movie is a spotty faced 18 year old who has a low standard about quality. e.g
I get 15k, I know off the bat that most of that is needed for post, therefore I come up with a concept that literally costs nothing to shoot. I also know that quality will be shaky so I also need a concept where low quality can be used as a storytelling tool or add to the effect of the film. I decide to make a film that involves the characters cam cording from home to record the events of paranormal activity.
This is film making ingenuity that has concept, story and commercial quality in mind. Your views seem insistent on believing that for no-budget filmmakers quality isn't a factor. I understand the importance of sound in a film, it really does make the difference to get a talented sound team on board to record and mixdown, and yes, anyone who doesn't do this is commuting no-budget suicide. But even the ones that do can still benefit from top end mastering if the film gets picked up. If not then yes, self distribution is an option because the quality is at least 'acceptable'.
Last edited: