Could I have a budget this low for this type of movie?
- Thread starter Princess
- Start date
I think what's being discussed is two different arguments.
You could certainly make a film for $85,000. In fact, you might even find an audio facility to do audio post on it cheap if you have the right connections and friends.
Even if you don't, you can still make a viable film for that amount of money. Now, a distributor would then have to pick it up and spend $xxxxx for it to be distributed, but that's their worry.
If it were to not be picked up, you'd then have to look at doing it yourself and picking up the cost if you wanted to distribute it theatrically or on television.
Realistically, you could go direct-to-dvd by yourself without any of the rest of the process if you really wanted to.
So yes, you could make the movie itself for $85,000 a standard part of a budget would be marketing and distribution, so you'd perhaps set aside $xxx for distributing and selling your own DVDs.
I would highly advise against selling DVDs of your film without such things a complete audio mix, but I've certainly seen it done (these things often make the difference between acceptable and great). So, yes you can make a film for $85,000 and you can sell it too, it just becomes a lot more viable if you front up for things such as an audio mix before you put it up for distributors (it's easier to distribute something that's already finished than have to buy, and then finish something), plus it makes it easier to sell, and makes your overall product better. BUT, there is the possibility of a distributor 'finishing' your movie, and when you have no budget, IMO you're better off making the best movie you can, than saying 'screw it I can't make the movie unless I have another $200,000'
You could certainly make a film for $85,000. In fact, you might even find an audio facility to do audio post on it cheap if you have the right connections and friends.
Even if you don't, you can still make a viable film for that amount of money. Now, a distributor would then have to pick it up and spend $xxxxx for it to be distributed, but that's their worry.
If it were to not be picked up, you'd then have to look at doing it yourself and picking up the cost if you wanted to distribute it theatrically or on television.
Realistically, you could go direct-to-dvd by yourself without any of the rest of the process if you really wanted to.
So yes, you could make the movie itself for $85,000 a standard part of a budget would be marketing and distribution, so you'd perhaps set aside $xxx for distributing and selling your own DVDs.
I would highly advise against selling DVDs of your film without such things a complete audio mix, but I've certainly seen it done (these things often make the difference between acceptable and great). So, yes you can make a film for $85,000 and you can sell it too, it just becomes a lot more viable if you front up for things such as an audio mix before you put it up for distributors (it's easier to distribute something that's already finished than have to buy, and then finish something), plus it makes it easier to sell, and makes your overall product better. BUT, there is the possibility of a distributor 'finishing' your movie, and when you have no budget, IMO you're better off making the best movie you can, than saying 'screw it I can't make the movie unless I have another $200,000'
Last edited:
In response to this edit: I could not agree with you less!! In 20 years working in this business I have worked with more producers and directors than I could count and the vast majority were independent filmmakers. Without exception they were preoccupied with the quality of the finished product and the available budget for making that finished product. Furthermore, every producer and director I've ever heard of was the same. Are you sure you are talking about the film industry and indie filmmakers because it doesn't sound anything like the industry I know?! A minute fraction, probably considerably less than 1% of all commercial films/programs have a budget for a prototype and then another budget for turning that prototype into a product. In virtually all cases there is a contract with a budget for making a completed product, end of story. That completed product budget is what the industry understands, what the public understands and even what the professional indie film/program world understands. In all my years working for customers from Tokyo to LA, plus much of Europe, the ONLY place I've heard of this prototype budget being referred to as the film budget is by a handful of filmmakers trying to pull a fast one for marketing purposes (Rodriguez, et al) and here on indietalk.
G
Yeah, I agree - every Director I've ever worked with has an entire plan for their production from the word go - for everything from the earliest pre-production to the sound design, sound mix, marketing and distribution options. Every Producer I've ever worked with factors everything into the budget, including distribution costs (how do you think used to pay to make 100,000+ film prints?).
These filmmakers do quote their small budgets for marketing hype, I believe. Which I don't necessarily mind so much. What is important is to keep in mind that there are other costs associated. To think you can have a film for $15,000 that you yourself can take and get into cinemas or TV is folly, just as it's folly to assume your film is going to be the 1 in 10,000 that gets picked up at Sundance.
However, you can make a film for $15,000 and self-distribute. The level of audio, colour grading, etc. won't necessarily be at the level of that of a film you see in a cinema (again, depending on the friends you have), but it's not to say that you inherently can't make a cheap film. Make the best film you can with the budget available to you.
And that is my point. It's the indie way to make the best film they can with sometimes no buget and more often than not, it's with the intention of appealing to distributors and studio's. If it fails to do so then self distribution is an option (or just move on). But if it does then enhancements are to be expected but as they say, you can't polish a turd, it has to be of decent quality in the first place. The budget up until then is all the indie filmmaker cares about and that figure should be a celebration of ingenuity when the film succeeds. To forget that figure after a distributor invests in post production, marketing and distribution is a crime.
I feel that is also to miss the point. Some of the best indie productions that have succeeded start out with at least a very decent, if not complete audio mix, colour grade etc.
Admittedly, more often than not the indies that do well are the million-dollar indies (though still classified low budget), but there is a certain level.
Of course, there are indies that are made for $100,000 and indies that are made for $10,000,000. The most effective way of guaranteeing an ROI (and a movie venture is an investment) is to make sure that everything is up to a certain standard. If you do so, you open up a bevy of other distribution options available to you apart from traditional cinema, including DVD, local and international TV, aeroplane, Netflix, Hulu, even Vimeo's new service. If aspects of your film aren't at that level, that's okay - often you can't afford a proper sound mix or colour grade or whatever. But, you have to realise that your film doesn't have the same distribution options available to it, failing it being picked up by a distributor. You have, at best, pressing your own DVDs, or perhaps Amazon's DVD service, and maybe some online channels.
Putting the money into getting your film to a certain level is worth it in the long run, but that isn't to say you can't make a good film without lots of money.
I guess it depends if you're looking to make a film, or a commercially-viable film that will be able to produce some sort of ROI.
Admittedly, more often than not the indies that do well are the million-dollar indies (though still classified low budget), but there is a certain level.
Of course, there are indies that are made for $100,000 and indies that are made for $10,000,000. The most effective way of guaranteeing an ROI (and a movie venture is an investment) is to make sure that everything is up to a certain standard. If you do so, you open up a bevy of other distribution options available to you apart from traditional cinema, including DVD, local and international TV, aeroplane, Netflix, Hulu, even Vimeo's new service. If aspects of your film aren't at that level, that's okay - often you can't afford a proper sound mix or colour grade or whatever. But, you have to realise that your film doesn't have the same distribution options available to it, failing it being picked up by a distributor. You have, at best, pressing your own DVDs, or perhaps Amazon's DVD service, and maybe some online channels.
Putting the money into getting your film to a certain level is worth it in the long run, but that isn't to say you can't make a good film without lots of money.
I guess it depends if you're looking to make a film, or a commercially-viable film that will be able to produce some sort of ROI.
Rodriguez did not "give my people" a paid work opportunity because he had no budget, he didn't even have enough budget to record any production sound, so El Mariachi was filmed MOS, completely silent! Who is this "they who liked it so much"? One man from Columbia Pictures saw El Mariachi at a Mexican film festival, calculated how much it would cost to convert it from a virtually unwatchable festival exhibition into a watchable, commercial product and decided El Mariachi represented an acceptable investment risk.
You can't say "it's the indie way to make the best film they can" with a limited budget because that's how all filmmakers work, virtually regardless of the budget. I've worked on 20+ projects with budgets in the several million range and on many more with budgets in the tens or hundreds of thousands, without exception all of them required careful planning, great ingenuity and ultimately some level of compromise due to budget limitations. There was a thread on here not long ago discussing the limitations and compromises Zemeckis had to make with lenses and the shooting schedule for "Flight" and that was with a budget of $31m!
Secondly, I could not agree more with jax_rox's last post! Making a feature well below acceptable commercial standards with the intention of attracting hundreds of thousands in investment from a studio to fix your film's shortcomings is a mug's game (!), for two reasons: Firstly, it's never been a standard business model for film studios, distributors or broadcasters to do this. There are precious few examples of this ever happening, as evidenced by the fact we are discussing a 20 year old example and Secondly, if anything, studios and distributors appear to be moving even further away from this already exceptionally rare business practise. Advances in technology are opening up new distribution channels and making the creation of completed lo/no budget film products more viable. As started happening with the music industry 20 years ago, distributors are no longer looking for demo tapes and to sink hundreds of thousands into re-recording and developing bands/artists, that business model is long dead! Today, costs to the distributor/label are little more than the cost of cloud hosting or printing up the CDs. Virtually all artists trying to break into the business today not only have to create a completed product out of their own pocket but usually also have to pay for their own marketing!
If you want some ROI or to make it into the profession, take jax-rox's (and my) advice and play smart, don't plan or base your hopes on a miracle occuring! Instead, learn and understand what an acceptable commercial quality product actually is and then plan from the outset to create a viable commercial product! In doing so not only will you dramatically improve your chances of some ROI but you'll also increase your chances of a miracle!!!
G
APE writes this:
but a no-budget filmmaker reads this:
Those are YOUR words. YOU have publicly stated that history has PROVEN that a no-budget film can become a commercial success. All I did was remove the details that I don't care about.
We're not dummies, we're dreamers! You're not educating us, you're just raining on our parade! Oh really, what we're trying to do is very difficult? Thanks for the news flash, Debbie Downer!
From the Duplass brothers to Christopher-motherfucking-Nolan, the battle plan we're trying our best to follow has been shown to open many doors for aspiring filmmakers. If somebody doesn't have the budget to make something "commercially viable", that shouldn't stop them from making their movie. To do so would be to rob themselves of not just an incredible learning experience, but also the hope and opportunity to perhaps become the next director to successfully transition from no-budget filmmaking into Hollywood.
This movie:
"Dark Knight Rises"
would not exist, had not some hopeless dreamer gone out and made a no-budget film about a stalker.
All it takes is one example as proof that it is possible, and we've got much more than that. To the OP, yes, it can be done, and you should do it.
but a no-budget filmmaker reads this:
Those are YOUR words. YOU have publicly stated that history has PROVEN that a no-budget film can become a commercial success. All I did was remove the details that I don't care about.
We're not dummies, we're dreamers! You're not educating us, you're just raining on our parade! Oh really, what we're trying to do is very difficult? Thanks for the news flash, Debbie Downer!
From the Duplass brothers to Christopher-motherfucking-Nolan, the battle plan we're trying our best to follow has been shown to open many doors for aspiring filmmakers. If somebody doesn't have the budget to make something "commercially viable", that shouldn't stop them from making their movie. To do so would be to rob themselves of not just an incredible learning experience, but also the hope and opportunity to perhaps become the next director to successfully transition from no-budget filmmaking into Hollywood.
This movie:
"Dark Knight Rises"
would not exist, had not some hopeless dreamer gone out and made a no-budget film about a stalker.
All it takes is one example as proof that it is possible, and we've got much more than that. To the OP, yes, it can be done, and you should do it.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a point that only adds to a no budgets commercial success. Advances in technology are hightening the production value of no budget filming. It is now possible to produce festival quality with a few right 'friends' as Jay put it. El M was 20 years ago in a time with film and it was still done. Now in a digital age it seems as if it is being stated that it's even harder but this is simply not true.
As I stated very high quality productions are now possible (and yes you must hire a good sound recordist) as long as the premise and story is told in relation to the budget then production value can look and feel 10 times the original budget and this presentation will always be a viable investment opprotunity for distributors to take the work, master it and ship it. Yes the business model is tougher the lower the budget but the model is still viable amongst the entire budget spectrum.
I dream of owning a Ferrari 458, unfortunately removing the details I don't care about (the price) doesn't get me any closer to actually owning one! Being a dreamer is a good thing, providing you're not relying on just dreams to get you into the film industry. Being only a dreamer will end in certain failure in the film industry unless you can learn balance and also be objective and realistic.
That depends on what your parade is. If your parade is to be happily churning out the same amateurish films as everyone else, to then be "discovered" and suddenly become a rich and worshipped Hollywood director then yes, hopefully I have just rained on your parade! If your parade is to start earning some ROI and eventually become a professional filmmakers then just possibly I've shined some light on your parade.
That battle plan has been shown to open doors for what, 1 in 50,000 aspiring filmmakers, 1 in 100,000? That's not a battle plan, it's not a plan at all, you might as well go out and buy a hundred lottery tickets and "plan" to fund your next film from your winnings!
I never said it should! I said if you want to earn some ROI or enter the profession you need to start producing commercially viable products. If you're making films only for the art, a learning experience or as a hobby and aren't interested in the profession or ROI of course there's no need to consider commercial viability!
Uh? I think you are arguing against yourself here! As the technology gets cheaper and easier more people are attracted to film making and more films are being made with higher production values. So the established festivals become more competitive which raises the bar and makes it more difficult to get noticed. An excellent argument I would say for producing a commercially viable product, even for the festival circuit!
From your previous posts in this thread I'm not convinced you really appreciate what a high quality production is, a good sound recordist is only one piece of the puzzle. I am not saying your approach cannot possibly work, just that in my opinion the chances of it working are vanishingly small and getting smaller all the time, and while there are no approaches which guarantee success in the film industry there are approaches which are more likely to succeed than others. If someone is serious about making it in the film industry they will do their utmost to maximise their chances, sticking to an old formula which is proven to fail at least 9,999 times out of 10,000 and hoping for a miracle is NOT in my opinion maximising your chances!
G
I can't say that I agree with your analogy.
And honestly, most of the hero stories come from the fact that noone told them that they could not, or they were too ignorant to know better. So they did what they wanted to.
That's not even limited to filmmaking, that's EVERY walk of life.
Doesn't mean everyone will succeed by that fearlessness (or idiocy, depending on the person) but I can guarantee you that you will not succeed if you do not do.
In that light, and again this is all I do for a living if that REALLY means anything today, I would still go out and shoot a 25K out of pocket feature film. And I would probably still say it cost 25K for ME to make if someone asked me that question.
High quality production is becoming more of a reality with smaller budgets thanks to advances in technology and that is simply a fact. With 5k I can get a decent sound recording and mix down for a feature. That is a fact. Will it be Avatar? No. Will it be good enough quality to get the techno umpa-lumpas working on it to make it presentable on big screen...yes. I think you underestimate the ingenuity of filmmakers because a) you aren't one yourself and b) maybe the ones you've worked with were not very good hence your long shot statistic about filmmakers making it with a no-budget business plan.
Yes technology will increase the entries to festivals but this doesn't mean that the competition increases. Technology does not change the fact that a good script makes a good film and good script continue to be as hard to churn out as ever!
If a great script takes place in one house and has to look 'home-made' to sell the reality feel of the piece then 15k should be enough to do the trick so it is at a level to be presentable to buyers who can master it. This is film-making ingenuity and good economic screenwriting. Something that I'm guessing you've never done and therefore cannot grasp. I'm sorry to say it sounds like most no-budget films you've dealt with probably were poorly produced because they were bad screenplays.
Thanks for playing and proving everything I said. Good luck believing a film is only about the script, that competition is not increasing and good luck finding your miracle!
I think you've misunderstood my analogy, I was referring to stilly's editing of my quote. I agree that a certain amount of fearlessness is essential in film making because in most cases the odds of success are very much stacked against the filmmaker and considerably more so against the low budget filmmaker. What I am suggesting is certainly no guarantee of success, the odds will still be heavily stacked against the filmmaker, who will still therefore require considerable fearlessness. What I am suggesting is to play the game more intelligently by stacking the odds of some ROI and of getting noticed as much in the filmmakers' favour as possible.
What Dr Stilly appears to be saying is that understanding anything about professional standards, commercial viability and film products is irrelevant because someone will come along, give him hundreds of thousands to take care of all that and make him successful! He could be right, there is historical precedent but is that how you approach your filmmaking career and how you would advise others to?
G
No, that is not how I approach my career. I also do not believe five thousand dollars is enough to get you a theatrical ready sound mix and certainly design by any measure unless you have amazing friends and incredible favors.
I do believe that sound is the most difficult part of the entire no budget process and likely that's why it's often put last.
It's good to know that you recognize fear/stupidity/bullheadedness etc are prerequisite and sometimes you just have to do what you can do. In the end, while its important to note how much money it takes to turn those often overused examples of success into sellable products...
Its far more important to learn how thEy originated, and that means knowing that the filmmakers cost was x amount of dollars for x quality during x time period.
I do believe that sound is the most difficult part of the entire no budget process and likely that's why it's often put last.
It's good to know that you recognize fear/stupidity/bullheadedness etc are prerequisite and sometimes you just have to do what you can do. In the end, while its important to note how much money it takes to turn those often overused examples of success into sellable products...
Its far more important to learn how thEy originated, and that means knowing that the filmmakers cost was x amount of dollars for x quality during x time period.
I agree entirely, although it is possible with say $10k to make a sound mix which does meet acceptable commercial standards and contributes to making a viable product, just not a theatrically viable product.
I also agree that fearlessness is essential in this business, if you knew the risks I have taken I'm sure you'd be at least reasonably shocked but even so, I never approached the risks completely blindly and always stack the odds as much in my favour as possible.
I can of course see at the lo/no budget end of the market why it's useful to know that the filmmaker's investment was x dollars for x quality, during x amount of time. Unfortunately, only a handful of people know the real values of x because the filmmakers are quoting x dollars for y quality, during x amount of time for y box office receipts! How useful is that?
G
Speaking of theatrical quality, I think it's sort of subjective in its own category: I'm watching HAYWIRE for the first time and I'm very surprised at how low quality the sound mix is in general. In some scenes, character dialogue's very uneven.
It's a Soderbergh film, his material's always slightly rough around the edges tobegin with. Yet he still gets theatrical release and continues to work as he chooses.
My point is, it's not exactly straight forward even at the top of the heap. Michael Bay's sound design and mix are crazy, Soderberg's are not. They both get work.
You also have to factor in having no idea what favors were pulled. IT's safe to say that one filmmaker's 25K budget is another's 250K budget. So, we fall back to numbers as a whole being arbitrary in many regards.
Ah well. I guess the only choice is to ignore it all and shoot somethin'. =P
I haven't seen Haywire so I can't comment but some of his other films have top class sound and Solaris was bordering on a sound design masterpiece. Maybe the DVD/BluRay remix of Haywire you're watching is not up to scratch? I believe I heard somewhere that Soderbergh started in the business as a sound editor? I agree Bay's mixes are crazy and I'm personally not a great fan of his use of sound but both of them are in my opinion generally highly conscientious and competent when it comes to sound.
G
G
Nope, apparently it was this way in the theater, as well. It's on Netflix (if you have it)... check it out. I always thought BUBBLE wasn't up to sound so to speak, now that I understand more about the process I'd be interest in checking it out again to see what I think.
SOLARIS is definitely world glass, I forgot that was his.