Could I have a budget this low for this type of movie?
- Thread starter Princess
- Start date
Definitely! That's loads of money. Insidious was made with 1.5 Million and Paranormal activity was made with $15,000 !
That depends on what you mean by "good" and on your intended method of distribution. $85k would not be enough to make a film for widespread theatrical distribution for example, almost regardless of your definition of "good". Even a million might be a pushing the boundaries!
No it wasn't! Try 50-100 times that figure and you'd be closer to the mark!
G
According to everything I've seen "Paranormal Activity" was made for $15,000.
I was at the "Screemquest" screening in 2007 before Paramount expressed
interest after the 2008 "Sundance" screening and he said he spent "around
$15,000". Do you have any articles that show it was made for $750,000 to
$1,500,000?
Or are you adding the fee Paramount paid ($350,000) for the rights and the
money they spent on prints and advertising - which according to "Variety"
(10-6-2009) was "in the $4.5 mil neighborhood"?
Made and distributed are deinfitely 2 separate beasts. If not, there would be no reason for FOX Searchlight or other companies like that that purchase and market films that are already made - polish them up and release them. That's their business model, not the initial filmmakers. In the corporate accounting world, it would be considered separate cost centers, therefore, separate budgets.
To the OP, yes, absolutely, you can make a good indie horror filme for that budget.
To the OP, yes, absolutely, you can make a good indie horror filme for that budget.
Thank you to all those who gave SERIOUS answers and replies to my question. I'm 19 and a beginning filmmaker and I HAVE about $85,000 that I can get from my father, to make a film but I just wanted to know if I needed more or not....so but thanks for the replies and answers 
Thank you to all those who gave SERIOUS answers and replies to my question. I'm 19 and a beginning filmmaker and I HAVE about $85,000 that I can get from my father, to make a film but I just wanted to know if I needed more or not....so but thanks for the replies and answers
i hate people who get given things for nothing.. makes me sad as everything i have i earned myself coming from a really poor background.
nothing against you of course if i was in your position id be riding daddies money too...
just one thing, make 3 films for less than $5000 post them on here, if they are good enough that almost everyone likes them, then go ahead splash the cash.
otherwise i fear you will be producing a shiny polished turd because you thought money makes a film look good.
in other words prove yourself that you should have the right to spend that amount know what i mean?
You are 19, that's old enough to understand that asking a question like yoursThank you to all those who gave SERIOUS answers and replies to my question. I'm 19 and a beginning filmmaker and I HAVE about $85,000 that I can get from my father, to make a film but I just wanted to know if I needed more or not....so but thanks for the replies and answers
on a public message board is going to bring some sarcasm. It sure seems as if
you have not any personal research. I'm sure you have, you're 19, but you
made it seem you were unaware of other horror films.
My SERIOUS advice is to put together a full, detailed line item budget and
work from that rather than work from the money available to you backwards.
Some films cannot be made for $85,000. Many can. Many have been made
in that range.
When are you gong to do a complete, line item budget so YOU know if
$85,000 is enough to make your movie?
curse my life
To be honest I can't remember where I read they had spent about $1m on it, I just remember reading they had re-filmed the ending and re-made the audio. I can't vouch for the accuracy of this figure but it's inline with similar projects and what I would expect. For example, just mixing and cutting the Dolby printmaster would have probably cost at least double the stated $15k budget and that's not even taking into account whatever it cost to create and edit the audio which was presented for mixing and printmastering! The sound alone could easily have cost 10-20 times the stated budget. So I know without a doubt that a total budget of $15k to make the film is a lie.
I'm kind of getting more than a little annoyed at people quoting a film's budget as some ridiculous and infeasibly small amount and then profits in the millions or in this case hundreds of millions. Blair Witch Project, El Mariachi and a number of others. BTW, I'm only talking about the cost of making the film, not the cost of marketing, duplicating or distributing it, which would have been many millions more.
I'm not sure why some filmmakers are making ridiculous budgetary claims for their films, maybe there's some marketing advantage to it or they feel it increases their chances of further employment. But whatever the reason, it's extremely misleading to new or inexperienced filmmakers and to the public.
G
The reality is that most of us can't get the money required to even look at the projects you normally work on even at the low end of your budgeted projects. I shot a feature for $250. Still being edited, but there were no other costs -- at all. It's nearly unwatchable and the story is poorly told (my fault)... but it's in the can, 47 hours of unlogged and unclappered footage. But it cost $250 to shoot a feature. FACT. If I polish that turd, I'll invest time into it, not money. When it comes to getting it seen, that's a different horse, not part of the production budget.
Rodriguez shot el mariachi and edited it on $7000. There was tons more spent on it, but to get it to the point where he was shopping it around, he spent $7000 to hold the product in his hand and be able to shot it to people. You've never seen that version. It was picked up, the audio redone and a blowup from the negatives paid for by the company that picked it up... but he spent $7000 to get that single VHS copy in his hand to show people and try to sell it. Well documented. No, it's not the final cost. But you're the only talking about the final cost (which if you get someone to distribute for you is generally on their pocket book, not ours as the content creator). Your world that you operate in is different than the one I do. I have 40-50 people who will show up on set for a 8 weekend engagement with a single phone call and work for food. They would be doing community theatre for free if they weren't working with me. We're not diving into the deep end of union shoots with paid everybody and expensive locations and paid permits and insurance... we're basically a large group of friends getting together and making movies. We hope to get them distributed at some point, but for now the act of creating is driving most of my company.
The last piece we did will end up at about 20-25 minutes and cost $2500. It's the strongest piece we've done and is monumentally more watchable than what we've produced in the past. Locations and equipment and time volunteered.
From my viewpoint, I fundamentally disagree with you arguing that the final cost is the only one to be considered as not all that money comes directly from the filmmaker in many cases. I'm sure with the projects you generally encounter, what you're saying is entirely correct. Distribution and Marketing are budgeted up front... but that's not the only reality. It's certainly not my reality. It's not the reality of many of the other folks here at the same level where I'm operating, and it's not necessarily the same reality that other filmmakers are working under...
- citation from the wiki: Shone, Tom (November 25, 2009). "Paranormal Activity and the myth of the shoestring shocker". The Guardian (London). Retrieved May 1, 2010.wiki said:
So no... the initial budget isn't always the only thing to look at and it's certainly not what we see on screen for the on in a million that gets picked up by a distributor... but those initial budgets are no less real for that fact.
I've learned to do enough of what you do to be able to produce a project (certainly not as well as you could do -- I don't have the equipment or experience for that) because you aren't in my budget... I am. Beginning to end, I have done all of the jobs on set - because it's what I can afford and you wouldn't believe how much a filmmaker can save by simply not hiring anyone else to work on the development, preproduction or post production... not a dime spent there... and for us in production, just craft services.