Could I have a budget this low for this type of movie?
- Thread starter Princess
- Start date
Obviously I know nothing about the film industry, how to get into it or how to maintain a career in it but you on the other hand have decades of professional knowledge and experience?!!
The ultra-low-budget feature is actually the safe route.
... I'm swinging for the fence, dude, and I'm happy to know that there are countless others doing the same.
Where did I say lo/no budget was the safe route? Have you even read what I've written or are you just inventing new arguments to make yourself look big? I said that making lo/no budget films the same as "countless others" is hardly a risk and hardly a recipe for getting noticed! If you want to follow the herd, play it safe by sticking to an old model (which is proven to fail at least 9,999 times out of 10,000) and convince yourself that this somehow makes you a rebel keeping the art world alive, good luck!
BTW, I'm sure there are many other directors you could add to that list. I ignored it because it's completely irrelevant!
Wow, aren't we defensive?! I've already dealt with my "nazi-like production quality standards". If you don't like the "nazi-like production standards" required by the industry why on earth are you trying to get into the industry? Please show some common decency and at least try to read and understand what has already been written and cut out the childish insults.
There are two obvious choices, hire a director who understands commercial quality or learn to understand commercial quality yourself. As a lo/no budget filmmaker I'm assuming the latter would be more appropriate!
Please don't invent assumptions and then tell me they're my assumptions! There are of course various levels of amateurism, just as there are various levels of professionalism. By definition and pretty much without exception, all no budget films are amateurish (good amateurish or poor amateurish). I am suggesting that if one wants to make it into the profession, it makes much more sense to learn and aim for a low level of professionalism than it does to aim for a higher level of amateurism and then hope for someone to come along with 6+ figure sum to fix your amateurism!
If you're convinced that's the way to make film then go ahead and do it, your choice. IMO though you will fail because not only has Paranormal Activity already been filmed (6 years ago) but the herd has already made countless rip-offs and derivative films. I am talking about working smart and I would not consider that throwing all of a film's $15k budget at the audio post to be smart!
Huh? That was your view, not mine! Your view previously was that commercial quality is not a consideration for you because someone will spot you in the herd and pump in shed loads of money to take care of all that. Furthermore, having "commercial quality in mind" is nothing more than lip service if you don't understand what commercial quality is in the first place! And, if you don't know what commercial quality is, how are you able to judge that you are hiring "a talented sound team ... to record and mixdown"? From your comments, I'm not sure that you even know what mastering is. Again, I am suggesting that you work smart, not just blindly throw every penny you've got at a sound team!
G
Last edited:
And there you go projecting your view again. Read and see if I ever stated 'commercial quality is not a consideration'. The argument started about no-budget films initial budget vs the after it was picked up budget and which was more relevant. And by stating that I believe the initial budget is more relevant to filmmakers you take this as a slur on commercial quality. But all I am saying is that these filmmakers took it as far as they could on NO BUDGET and had no choice but to pitch it that way. And if that is the case then all these filmmakers can do is hope for further investment to enhance the quality of a product that is at a standard for festival viewing which is still good enough to allow the 'general public to enjoy or the festival would never have accepted the film.
And maybe when these films do get picked up and mastered but still called No budget is because even after mastering that 15k movie still shows. A 60 year old woman with a facelift to make her look 40 is still a 60 year old woman and if her boyfriend tried to lie and tell people she is forty then he would look a fool.
Last edited:
I know you're being literal when you say "film", but the industry is a bit more vast than just film. Film Business and "Industry Professional" (both silly classifications, really) are also two different things. The industry includes broadcast media as well.
Also, there aren't many but there are few directors that are still working that actually do not turn a profit, and are still considered top of their field. So it's not completely cut simple. As for the rest of it...
Are these options all in regards to audio? because it isn't the most important thing... not by a long shot. Do you have any advice for the rest of the process? What about obtaining a name or creating a great poster?
Market Standards exist indeed, and you should take the time to examine what that means and learn it so that you have the knowledge.
Market Standards, however, should never stop you from applying that knowledge even in a limited application.
This entire conversation seems to be about audio, it's not like you can't fix a lot of budgetary issues with audio, anyway. Yeah, everyone would love to get it right the day of, even major motion pictures result to a vast amount of post correction, but you know that.
Far more important than Audio and Visual today is concept and overall execution. While you may not create a product that's immediately ready for theatrical distribution and heck, even Blu Ray from a distributor, strong concept and execution will increase your chances of a greater success story than any camera choice or audio sweetening could.
That and a name, sweet poster, and some facebook fans. =P
By the way, for those reading, I'd advise you get to learnin' yerself about independent distribution methods. If you can't get theatrical, these days it's almost better to go straight to the feed bag yourself, instead of lettin' someone else in on your grub. Educate yourselves, so much information right at your fingertips (keyboard)... take advantage of it.
Ah, I think I see where you're lack of understanding is. Are you using the term "mastered" as it is used in the music business, IE. To master a song or an album? If so, you are way off the mark for two reasons:
1. There is no mastering in the film world as there is in the music world. Mastering in film or to be more precise print-mastering, is the process of recording the finished mix on to a Dolby MO disk for transfer to 35mm film. Mastering (print-mastering) does not involve any changes to the sound mix, unlike mastering a music product which does.
2. In the case of El Mariachi, it wasn't a case of just a bit of sweetening (as would be the case when mastering a music product). All the sound, every second of it, had to be binned and then everything (all the dialogue, sound FX and Foley) had to be recorded/designed again from scratch and then a new mix created from all this new audio material. So, when you say just a bit of "spit and polish" you actually mean all the sound, half the film. In reality there was no "spit and polishing" it was all so bad it had to be thrown away because you can't polish a turd! I don't know for certain how much of the sound from the festival version of paranormal activity was re-cycled but my understanding is again none of it, pretty much the same with Blair Witch and all the other examples I know of. Obviously, having to do masses of ADR (plus all the rest of the sound) to professional standards is extremely time consuming, hugely expensive and why many hundreds of thousands needed to be thrown at all these no budget "successful" films. A simple re-mix and print-mastering would have taken a week rather than several months and cost a few tens of thousands rather than several hundreds of thousands!
You are therefore saying that the furthest a lo/no budget filmmaker can get is no commercially acceptable sound whatsoever. Of course, you don't believe this is what you are saying because you seem to think that no budget filmmakers are making acceptable sound (that just needs a bit of extra polish).
Get the picture yet?
G
I'm loathe to butt in on a thread that has this few participants but I think that this will get nowhere unless the fundamental differences of opinion are accepted.
Most (by which I mean in excess of 50%) of Indietalkers are not professional filmmakers. They have other jobs, or are students, or are trying to break into the industry.
I'm a university student but this summer I made a film. Could I have made the film to a professional, distribution ready standard? No. Have I made the film to a professional, distribution ready standard? No. But in order to do so, I would've had to wait forever and ever, and, frankly, I wanted to go out and make a film. And it's not going to be a bad film, even if it's not ready for distribution.
And I think that's the crucial thing. It is better to actually go out and make an imperfect, not distribution ready film than to make no film at all. It's not even about the 1 in 100,000 shot, it's about making something that you're proud of as a filmmaker and which might open doors for you, your cast and your crew.
Of course, there are a million and one things that are required before a movie is at a professional standard, no one is disputing that. But if the alternative is to sit and wait until you have the money to get things perfect then I'd say just go out there and make your movie. A 1 in 100,000 shot means that there are 99,999 films that don't make it- are the people who made those movies not proud of what they achieved? Do none of them go on to greater things? Chances are that we, and most people, will be in that 99,999 but instead of that being a source of discouragement, that should be liberating.
We are trying to make good films, yes, but, first and foremost, we are trying to actually make a film, by any means necessary.
Most (by which I mean in excess of 50%) of Indietalkers are not professional filmmakers. They have other jobs, or are students, or are trying to break into the industry.
I'm a university student but this summer I made a film. Could I have made the film to a professional, distribution ready standard? No. Have I made the film to a professional, distribution ready standard? No. But in order to do so, I would've had to wait forever and ever, and, frankly, I wanted to go out and make a film. And it's not going to be a bad film, even if it's not ready for distribution.
And I think that's the crucial thing. It is better to actually go out and make an imperfect, not distribution ready film than to make no film at all. It's not even about the 1 in 100,000 shot, it's about making something that you're proud of as a filmmaker and which might open doors for you, your cast and your crew.
Of course, there are a million and one things that are required before a movie is at a professional standard, no one is disputing that. But if the alternative is to sit and wait until you have the money to get things perfect then I'd say just go out there and make your movie. A 1 in 100,000 shot means that there are 99,999 films that don't make it- are the people who made those movies not proud of what they achieved? Do none of them go on to greater things? Chances are that we, and most people, will be in that 99,999 but instead of that being a source of discouragement, that should be liberating.
We are trying to make good films, yes, but, first and foremost, we are trying to actually make a film, by any means necessary.
Have I read this correctly - you are saying that paranormal activity, blairwitch and all other no-budget hits had all it's dialogue re-recorded in ADR? If you can prove this I will buy the picture and hang it on my wall.
I know El Meriachi did because the sound was so awful but didnt he use on camera mic or something. Man without a crew and all that.
So hypothetically you are saying that hiring:
1) a Sound recordist with a Rode NTG-3 Sound Devices 744T digital 4 track recorder, Sound Device 442 location sound mixer, 2x Micron explorer 100 radio microphone devices equipped with one Sony ECM-77 and one Sanken COS-11 lavalier michrophone.
2) A sound mixer who works in broadcast TV and uses top end equipment-
and all for 5k and alot of nice smiles is all pointless because the sound will be so crap that it will all have to be re-recorded in a studio after a 30k investment?
By the way, let's pretend this is for a gritty kitchen sink drama.
Last edited:
The future is changing, the way films get noticed is changing too, everything is becoming digital and online.
Anyways I don't care what anyone says whether your budget is 1p - £200,000,000 if its a crap film it's gonna be crap, ain't no amount is gonna change that.
For me it's about the story, if its told well and kept interesting and alive with decent acting and good enough audio that I can enjoy then so be it, Iv watched some million pound comedies which were absolute crap not even funny.
Iv watched a bunch of teenagers who were troublesome in and out of jail then make a 3 minute comedy video which was hilarious on a budget of a packet of skittles and a bottle of coke.
Budget helps but isn't essential, you don't need a professional to tell your story, anyways I would want my film to be captured by me, not some DP that doesn't know me well enough no moated how professional they are.
Then again that's just for low budget.
If I got into hundreds of thousands then I'd probably just make my own crew and go from there.
Anyways I don't care what anyone says whether your budget is 1p - £200,000,000 if its a crap film it's gonna be crap, ain't no amount is gonna change that.
For me it's about the story, if its told well and kept interesting and alive with decent acting and good enough audio that I can enjoy then so be it, Iv watched some million pound comedies which were absolute crap not even funny.
Iv watched a bunch of teenagers who were troublesome in and out of jail then make a 3 minute comedy video which was hilarious on a budget of a packet of skittles and a bottle of coke.
Budget helps but isn't essential, you don't need a professional to tell your story, anyways I would want my film to be captured by me, not some DP that doesn't know me well enough no moated how professional they are.
Then again that's just for low budget.
If I got into hundreds of thousands then I'd probably just make my own crew and go from there.
In one sense it is because unless the audio meets the specifications, delivery requirements and market expectations the film will be rejected by festivals, distributors and broadcasters regardless of the quality of cinematography, acting, etc. And, the most common technical reason for rejection by film festivals, distributors and broadcasters is sound issues.
However, in the greater sense and providing the sound meets all the technical requirements, then the sound is obviously not the most important thing. The most important things are 1. How all the elements (script, cinematography, acting, sound, music, etc.) in the film work together to make it as good a story telling experience as possible and 2. The marketing.
In a word, no! I am specifically talking about the audio for two reasons: 1. History has proven time and again that audio quality is the Achilles heel of no/lo budget filmmakers (and yes, low budget film makers for broadcast too) and 2. The budgeting and planning for sound from the development phase onwards is woeful in no/lo budget films and even when there is a budget for sound it is virtually always spent unwisely. Obviously I'm not talking about all no/lo budget filmmakers, in my experience and that of colleagues, I'm talking of somewhere in excess of 99% of no/lo budget filmmakers. Of course, planning during development and pre-production is often quite weak for many or all of the film crafts/elements but however poor the planning is for the other crafts, the planning for the sound is almost always the poorest and usually by some considerable margin!
While a lo/no budget filmmaker cannot hope to create a commercially competitive theatrical feature, there are many, many things a no/lo budget filmmaker can do to dramatically improve their sound, the commercial attractiveness of their film and therefore improve their chances of getting noticed. I'm not talking about just throwing money at the sound, I'm talking about playing smart, gaining the knowledge and putting in the time and effort!
I agree entirely. Wherever we are (or aren't) in the film industry, we all had to start somewhere and part of learning has to be trail and error and the gaining of experience. If everyone waited until they had the budget to make a perfect film, probably no films would ever get made! I know that films with 7 and even 8 figure budgets have to compromise and I presume even those with 9 figures probably have to, although I've never been directly involved in a $100m+ budget film so I can't say for sure. I believe all filmmaking at just about every budget level consists of compromises, what the latter part of this thread has been about is what some of those compromises are. I would like to discuss how to mitigate at least one of those compromises but we've got bogged down by some who either don't see that a compromise exists or aren't interested in mitigating it because they believe someone will miraculously come along with enough cash to solve any problems which might exist.
G
Did you bother to read what I have written, even the part you quoted? If I could prove it, why would I say "I don't know for certain"? What I can say is that I have heard this info directly or indirectly from those involved and it is entirely in line with what I would expect from my experience. Is it possible some of the sound was salvaged for these, sure. The question for audio post in this type of situation is always, is the dialogue (or other sound) fixable to the required standards and if so, how much time and effort (and therefore money) will it take? If the amount of time and effort to fix it exceeds the amount of time and effort to bin it and re-record it, then it's binned.
With regard you your hypothetical situation: Honestly, are you serious? It's obvious from your question you don't know much about sound, so what do you hope to achieve by being so snarky and argumentative with someone who does? If I'm discussing a subject I don't know much about with someone who has a great deal of professional experience in that field, I tend to question politely and try to understand their answers (which I don't always succeed in accomplishing). I don't argue with them, act snarky or state or imply they don't know what they're talking about if I don't understand though. That would just be childish, make me look like a fool and dissuade them from providing any further answers which might help me to understand. That's just me though!
G
That's where you said it. In the immediately prior post that you directed towards me.
Look, we've obviously reached a major impasse. It might be the case that we won't reach any common ground, but I'm going to make one last attempt to do so. I absolutely understand what you're advocating, but I don't think you really grasp where I am coming from.
There are two things I take issue with here. First, I think it's really big-headed of you to think that your professional experience makes you an authority on all things film-related. You might as well start giving electrical advice to gaffers, because that's how much you know about directing and producing.
Secondly, I think this post of yours is a clear indication that you don't really get the motivations of somebody who produces an ultra-low-budget feature. This is not something that is done in order to simply start a career in the entertainment industry.
The entertainment industry is like any other. If you want a job, you can get one. Without experience, you'll have to start with an entry-level position, but like all industries, entry-level positions are out there to be filled. Even in my small city, there are three TV stations, and one of the largest advertising agencies on the East coast. There are internships and apprenticeships that can lead to full-time employment. I personally know three people who transitioned from waiting tables to working in the entertainment industry, full time.
I am aware of the opportunities that are out there. As of now, I'm not interested in pursuing them, but who knows what the future may hold. If I ever want to explore these options, I won't do so by producing a feature film.
Likewise, a great deal (perhaps a majority?) of the people who produce ultra-low-budget feature films are already working professionally in the industry. Obviously, their motivation is not simply to get a job in the industry they already work in.
In both instances, the feature film is an attempt to shoot to the top. It is an attempt to get on the short track to making a career of directing feature films. I have absolutely zero disrespect towards the countless numbers of people who make a career out of working for the local TV station, or an advertising agency, or the college AV department, etc. They have a career doing what they love to do, and that's more than I can say. But pretty much every single one of them, like me, wishes they were making a living by directing feature films. At least that's true of the handful that I know, and my instincts tell me that it's true of most.
Your comparison to playing the lottery is valid, in but one way. Though the odds of success are minute, the payoff would be HUGE! We know the odds. We know that it is a gamble. Forget the production budget -- to endeavor in this is such a monumental investment of time, that alone makes it a gigantic risk to take. But we take the risk because we believe in ourselves, and if things go our way, we'll literally be living our dreams.
You say that it is irrelevant for me to name the directors who jump-started their careers by making an ultra-low-budget feature? How is that irrelevant?! They are our heroes, and they are not as uncommon as you'd lead us to believe. Heck, just selecting from directors with major blockbusters this year, we've got Spielberg, Jackson and Nolan. Each one of them made the incredibly risky decision to just go out and make a feature film, without having access to the resources needed to be able to meet the production values that you are so strenuously insisting on.
That's F-ing awesome! Those are the people I look up to, not just for the amazing movies that they are making today, but for the fact that when they were in my shoes, they made decisions very similar to the ones I am making. I am trying my best to follow in their footsteps, how do you not grasp that?
For a much more recent example, I personally draw a great deal of inspiration from the Duplass brothers. Not only did they not come even close to attaining the production values that you insist on, they didn't even try. They made a number of movies with nothing more than a camcorder. A camcorder, that's it! How do you explain the success of this movie?
Yeah, when it was picked up for distribution, extra work was done in post, but only so much could be done. Because they shot the whole damn movie with nothing more than a camcorder! The movie sounds like shit. Nevertheless, it turned a tidy little profit at the box office, and more importantly, launched the careers of two individuals who now work on major Hollywood productions, as actor and director.
You mentioned that you think I'm getting defensive. Are you really surprised? You've come onto a website called indietalk, and you're vehemently attacking a practice that is widely revered and cherished within the indie community. We admire people who throw caution to the wind, and we take great joy in seeing the rare exceptional filmmaker who is able to become a breakout success.
In the end, the bottom line is that what you're recommending is simply unapproachable for most of us. The production standards you're advocating are simply out of reach, financially, so we make the absolute best movie we can, with what we've got. It's worked before, and it will work again.
I agree in part with your last post, my biggest exception and the one most relevant to what I've been saying in this thread is:
You seem to think that my advice has been: Achieving commercial theatrical standards costs at least hundreds of thousands so if you don't have hundreds of thousands, give up filmmaking! This is obviously not what I am saying!! Unless you think that I'm a complete moron, what I'm recommending is approachable for lo/no budget filmmakers otherwise what would be the point of me recommending it?
I am saying that commercial standards can be reached even with very low budgets, just not commercial theatrical standards. I am saying that achieving any level of professional standards is more likely to get you noticed and potentially more profitable than not achieving professional standards. I am also saying there is a truly massive amount which can be done to improve the use of sound in lo/no budget films by being smart, at least learning what professional standards are, learning how to use sound and learning how to spend wisely what little budget for sound you do have.
What you seem to be saying is that any professional standards are out of your reach financially, so why bother learning anything about professional standards, how to achieve them or even how to spend your sound budget wisely. When you then say, "so we make the absolute best movie we can with what we've got", I'm going to have to say that either you're fooling yourself or just plain lying because you're most certainly not making the absolute best movie you can with what you've got and you're not even trying to!
G
You seem to think that my advice has been: Achieving commercial theatrical standards costs at least hundreds of thousands so if you don't have hundreds of thousands, give up filmmaking! This is obviously not what I am saying!! Unless you think that I'm a complete moron, what I'm recommending is approachable for lo/no budget filmmakers otherwise what would be the point of me recommending it?
I am saying that commercial standards can be reached even with very low budgets, just not commercial theatrical standards. I am saying that achieving any level of professional standards is more likely to get you noticed and potentially more profitable than not achieving professional standards. I am also saying there is a truly massive amount which can be done to improve the use of sound in lo/no budget films by being smart, at least learning what professional standards are, learning how to use sound and learning how to spend wisely what little budget for sound you do have.
What you seem to be saying is that any professional standards are out of your reach financially, so why bother learning anything about professional standards, how to achieve them or even how to spend your sound budget wisely. When you then say, "so we make the absolute best movie we can with what we've got", I'm going to have to say that either you're fooling yourself or just plain lying because you're most certainly not making the absolute best movie you can with what you've got and you're not even trying to!
G
Last edited:
If this is the case then I fail to understand why you told OP that 85K was not enough to make a decent film. Which is what pretty much sparked this debate.
This is pretty much everything that I have been saying and yet was met with hostility and projection about having low standards. I mentioned a filmmaker on no-budget should aim for festival quality (commercial standards) and if it is received well then it can be taken to mass market (commercial theatrical standards - or what I called mastered)
Ok, we seem to be speaking about that hypothetical filmmaker again and so (without being snarky) for all the no-budget filmmakers can you list exactly where this Hypo-filmmaker went wrong with a 15K budget and how he could make it right (or at least to a high enough standard for commercial viability).
I think we need to find out what you imagine is the typical no-budget filming mistake because as this post proves, you believe there is a way with this budget, just that there is a common mistake and misuse of the money.
Already answered!
If you had been saying the same thing, why on earth would I be wasting my time disagreeing with it?
There are two problems with this: 1. "Festival Quality" runs the gamut from shockingly bad to already at commercial quality (although almost always only from a technical point of view), so what you're saying is too vague to be useful and 2. In virtually all cases, raising the film to commercial standards (mastering as you insist on incorrectly calling it) is far more expensive and results in far lower artistic quality than should have been the case.
Of course I can't list exactly where the filmmaker went wrong! Without knowing what the filmmaker did, what budget they had, how they spent it and what they ended up with, the best I can do is create a list of generalities containing the mistakes made by virtually all no/lo budget filmmakers.
Again, rather than questioning what these mistakes might be and possibly learning something from the answers, you seem far more interested in trying to prove I don't know what I'm talking about. The mistakes I'm talking about are not based on what I "imagine is the typical no-budget filming mistake" they're based on years of professional experience dealing with those typical mistakes. So I say again, in the vain hope that you understand this time: "If I'm discussing a subject I don't know much about with someone who has a great deal of professional experience in that field, I tend to question politely and try to understand their answers (which I don't always succeed in accomplishing). I don't argue with them, act snarky or state or imply they don't know what they're talking about if I don't understand though. That would just be childish, make me look like a fool and dissuade them from providing any further answers which might help me to understand. That's just me though!"
G
Last edited:
A quote that simply has a air of pessimism passed off as good logic. To which you then edited as a more optimistic:
"I am saying that commercial standards can be reached even with very low budgets, just not commercial theatrical standards. I am saying that achieving any level of professional standards is more likely to get you noticed and potentially more profitable than not achieving professional standards. I am also saying there is a truly massive amount which can be done to improve the use of sound in lo/no budget films by being smart, at least learning what professional standards are, learning how to use sound and learning how to spend wisely what little budget for sound you do have."
So basically what you meant to say was yes you can make a good film with that money however if you are intending theatrical release it will take a much higher investment for that kind of quality.
If the latter quote was stated it would of saved us this long debate and maybe sparked inquisitive discussion however your general lack of optimism and negative condescending tone compromises your entire knowledge and skill base which makes any filmmaker wary of you and has you scratching your head as to why.
So now you want to find a new angle of attack and to prove yourself right by attacking the tone and level of optimism in my posts rather than their factual accuracy? I have to say, making it my fault that you were snarky and insulting really is very clever, well done!
G
everyone needs to agree to disagree and leave it at that, the constant arguing is getting boring and not adding anything to the thread.
there are many ways to be successful if there was just one set way then im sure we would all be on the same page.
there are many ways to be successful if there was just one set way then im sure we would all be on the same page.
I am snarky because of your level of pessimism (on an indie filmmaking forum where optimism is fuel for life) about what one can achieve with lo-no budget.
To say to an indie filmmaker that 85K will not, could not, get you into cinema (and not elaborate) seems antagonizing to this entire forum. I like level headedness and reason, I enjoy listening to realistic points of view and especially technical expertize but I cannot let the OP think that you are absolutely correct in your POV because I believe it could be damaging for a filmmaker. That's just my opinion and I may be wrong.
Last edited:
And this debate has flushed out alot of information that I feel can probably be very useful for OP and others who have some money and want to know the possibilities of what they can acheive - whichever way they go.
not saying it hasnt however its slowing turning into an insult fest which should be kept at bay and remain a point proving/ fact proving conversation.
but i do prefer your optimism in the flight of argument.
is there anyone on the forum who has made a successful film in terms of actually making sales? and i mean it being theirs and not something they worked on for someone else?
perhaps they could share their budget etc so we could have a hands on insight into things.