Could I have a budget this low for this type of movie?
- Thread starter Princess
- Start date
This goes to the heart of my posts on this thread. I believe that it's far more damaging for a filmmaker to be told that he/she can make a "good" theatrical film for say $15k, when in reality $15k doesn't actually get you a good theatrical film but just the opportunity to compete for a 1 in 10,000 chance of a good theatrical film.
G
Agreed!
I only pointed out Puffy Chair as an extreme example, to show that just because a filmmaker doesn't have the budget to get the production quality that they want, that shouldn't stop them from making their movie. I do agree with you that you increase your odds of success by increasing the quality of both video and audio. And you can only do that by taking the time to learn and practice the skills needed to accomplish the best quality that is within your reach.
Sorry about getting to this party so late, but I just joined this forum a couple days ago and just now found this thread. Here's my take on it:
Some people could make an excellent movie for $85K, while others would never even attempt it. I guess it all depends on what you're used to working with.
But for the horror genre, and assuming you have a really good idea or finished script that would get key people on board, an $85K budget would allow you to at least hire an experienced DP and sound person, and maybe even a Hollywood name or two in the starring roles. Seriously. There are plenty of name actors out there who will work for scale if they really believe in a project.
What's more, with today's digital technology, you can buy all the equipment and software needed to produce a cinema-quality picture for less than the film & processing budget of a traditional 35mm film production. But, you still might be better off just hiring a good DP and sound person who already has their own equipment. With an $85k budget, I don't think you'd have any problem getting a DP with a RED or similar.
Another big decision is whether to go union or not. Going union will entail a lot of added red tape and expense that will not directly enhance your on-screen production value. However it will probably allow you to attract a higher level cast and crew, and that will add production value. It's a catch 22.
On the other hand, that same $85K would also put you through a good film school. Something to think about.
Some people could make an excellent movie for $85K, while others would never even attempt it. I guess it all depends on what you're used to working with.
But for the horror genre, and assuming you have a really good idea or finished script that would get key people on board, an $85K budget would allow you to at least hire an experienced DP and sound person, and maybe even a Hollywood name or two in the starring roles. Seriously. There are plenty of name actors out there who will work for scale if they really believe in a project.
What's more, with today's digital technology, you can buy all the equipment and software needed to produce a cinema-quality picture for less than the film & processing budget of a traditional 35mm film production. But, you still might be better off just hiring a good DP and sound person who already has their own equipment. With an $85k budget, I don't think you'd have any problem getting a DP with a RED or similar.
Another big decision is whether to go union or not. Going union will entail a lot of added red tape and expense that will not directly enhance your on-screen production value. However it will probably allow you to attract a higher level cast and crew, and that will add production value. It's a catch 22.
On the other hand, that same $85K would also put you through a good film school. Something to think about.
That's not really true, unless you're comparing the cost of a 5DmkIII to 35mm, in which case you're comparing apples and oranges. You could shoot 3-perf or 2-perf on short ends, and you'd get a great deal on camera rental and it would work out cheaper than renting an Alexa, let alone buying one. And if you want to talk about RED, show me a film on RED that looks anywhere near as good as something shot on 35mm that doesn't have an ASC name attached to it.
I also take issue with this idea of 'get a DP with a RED'. What you're really saying is 'hire an owner/operator'. An operator is not a DP. An owner/operator is not a DP. You should be selecting the camera and format based on discussions with your DP. Your DP might suggest 16mm. He might suggest Alexa. He might suggest RED. But, to hire someone as your DP simply because of the gear he owns is not hiring a DP at all - you're hiring the gear with an operator.
You can make A indie horror film for $200: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AHLjjZbIKw
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765488/business
Largely, it really depends upon WHERE you have intentions of distributing your film or WANT it distributed.
True, to an extent. The only major flaw in your argument is that a cinema-quality film isn't just a picture, a modern film also has sound! Even if you spent every cent of your hypothetical $85k on audio post-production, you still may not achieve a cinema quality film.
As rayw says though, if we are not talking about theatrical release, say releasing only on YouTube, then you can make a film for relative peanuts.
G
We're talking low budget indie horror films here, not Hollywood Epics. Horror can look just fine shot on a RED or even a 5D. I've even seen decent horror flicks shot on an XL-1s. It all depends on the context.
My point was that just a few years ago filmmakers didn't really have a choice. If you could not afford 16mm or 35mm film, then basically you couldn't make a movie, unless you wanted to go the ultra low-budget route and shoot analog video, and have your movie look like a cheap porn video. But as Francis Ford Coppola said, speaking on the digital revolution, "cinema is escaping being controlled by the financier." Nowadays entire productions can be made for less than the film budget of a few years ago.
And why is it always the sound guys who harp on sound? Job security, maybe?
I agree about technology freeing up no/low budget directors and I don't think 85k can only stretch a horror flick. If used wisely and within a certain minimalist script I think just about any genre is on the table e.g drama, thriller and even sci-fi (if u consider films like primer).
Granted its gonna be a real stretch but really depends on how smart the script is in relation to its budget
If only that were true. The public complain about sound quality more than any other technical problem, TV networks and distributors fail more films and other programming during QC for sound issues than for any other reason, film festivals reject more films on technical grounds for sound than for any other reason and all the decent (and better) professional directors I've ever worked with over the last 20 years harp on about sound endlessly. So really you have asked the question backwards, it should be: Why is it only some no budget amateur filmmakers who don't harp on about sound? Ignorance maybe?
One of the main differences between no budget amateur filmmakers and decent professional filmmakers is the quality of sound and sound design. So many amateur filmmakers are so oriented purely on the visuals that they'll never become professionals, some will probably never realise why and the others will find out the hard way!
G
It seems like you're all on the same page really. Obviously sound design is incredibly important and any director with talent and intelligence would know that right off the bat, so the whole discussion of "amateur" filmmakers that don't understand the importance of sound design is irrelevant as those types of filmmakers are not the kind that would ever find success anyway.
I think this whole discussion really stems from creativity vs. technicality. I've found that creative types and technical types can clash very often due to each of them wanting to over-emphasize the importance of their field, when in reality they're equally important.
A technically proficient film is nothing if it's not also a creative, great film (which many aren't). And a creative film cannot become great until it's technically proficient, the same way a collection of potentially great songs can't be turned into a great album until it's professionally mixed and mastered.
I can only begin to imagine what I would be capable of doing with $85,000.
The OP is a complete troll.
Yes, I understand that his movie appears to require more special FX but don't think you can't go the traditional minatures route.
Why the hell do you need computer imagery really? Every sci fi situation you'd want to create can be done without computers.
The OP is a complete troll.
Yes, I understand that his movie appears to require more special FX but don't think you can't go the traditional minatures route.
Why the hell do you need computer imagery really? Every sci fi situation you'd want to create can be done without computers.
Mmm, not sure I can agree with this. My role/s in filmmaking is a creative role, I would say one of the most creative roles in the entire filmmaking process but what I create has to also meet the technical requirements of whatever distributor or broadcaster I'm delivering to. Without exception, these technical requirements are a pain the a$$ but that's the way the film and TV business operates, so neither I nor anyone else have any choice but to comply.
A "technically proficient film" is NOT nothing, it's a film which can in theory be distributed or broadcast commercially. Without considerable creativity though it's probably an exceedingly boring and un-entertaining film, so no one is likely to want to distribute or broadcast it commercially. Without meeting the technical requirements a creative film is effectively "nothing" (commercially), at best it has the potential to be something, maybe even something "great".
I'm not "over-emphasising the importance" of technical audio requirements, actually the exact opposite but creating a film to professional standards means you cannot be ignorant of, avoid or ignore the technical requirements. It's like designing and building a road car, regardless of how creatively brilliant the design and construction is, unless the finished car meets certain technical requirements it cannot be driven on the road and is therefore not a road car but effectively an ornament which just looks like a road car!
G
OK, Mr. Audio Post Expert, you win. We admit it: We writers, directors, DPs, general renaissance men, and other creative types NEED YOU. Although we've managed just fine with all the other aspects of filmmaking, your job is the one important part we will never be able to accomplish on our own. We humbly realize that all our films would be a total piece of unwatchable crap without your gracious services. Tell us where to send our $100,000 check so that you can turn our $10k movie in to a work of aural art deserving of theatrical presentation.
Last edited:
You're obviously one of those filmmakers who is only capable of finding out the hard way. All the sarcasm in the world is not going to help you, neither is trying to spread your ignorance to others! Good luck with that.
G
G
Yeah again I think we're on the same page. A technically proficient but creatively void film is still worth something since it can be distributed (and we see plenty of these films every year). When I said it would be nothing I meant from an artistic standpoint simply.
And sound design is of course a massive part of the creative process, I just thought in this discussion you were referring to simply the technical aspects
I've been reading posts by APE and loving them. His point (in my interpretation) isn't that we need him... it's that we need to take sound as seriously as we take image. We are wired to react to sound more than picture... it bypasses reason and goes straight to our lizard brains that hit emotions directly.
We react to sound. Bad sound over pretty picture will be less acceptable than great sound over bad image. The sound guys here sell their skills short at "audio is half the experience."
I don't think he's flat out saying we can't succeed without their specific services... but we amateur filmmakers need to address the deficiencies that exist in our sound track (even if we're often too stubborn to think that it's relevant -- or in the thick of the battle on set forgetting about it because we can't see it). Limited number of people on set also means we're splitting our focus amongst jobs, which is most often a disservice to our films as a whole.
I've watched so many shorts here and elsewhere on the internets... and most of the ones I stop watching without finishing are due to one of two things... bad editing or bad sound. I'll stick through crappy writing if it's cut well, but I won't sit through a film voluntarily with crappy sound anymore. It's too fundamental a thing to ignore.
I'm a cinematographer and I firmly believe that audio is more important than what I do.
We have access to pros here who are willing to answer questions... so take the opportunity to learn from them. They are valuable resources that we wouldn't otherwise have access to. Hire them; don't hire them; whichever... but heed them. Take the time to learn what they do and apply it to your films, you can only improve your output doing so.
We react to sound. Bad sound over pretty picture will be less acceptable than great sound over bad image. The sound guys here sell their skills short at "audio is half the experience."
I don't think he's flat out saying we can't succeed without their specific services... but we amateur filmmakers need to address the deficiencies that exist in our sound track (even if we're often too stubborn to think that it's relevant -- or in the thick of the battle on set forgetting about it because we can't see it). Limited number of people on set also means we're splitting our focus amongst jobs, which is most often a disservice to our films as a whole.
I've watched so many shorts here and elsewhere on the internets... and most of the ones I stop watching without finishing are due to one of two things... bad editing or bad sound. I'll stick through crappy writing if it's cut well, but I won't sit through a film voluntarily with crappy sound anymore. It's too fundamental a thing to ignore.
I'm a cinematographer and I firmly believe that audio is more important than what I do.
We have access to pros here who are willing to answer questions... so take the opportunity to learn from them. They are valuable resources that we wouldn't otherwise have access to. Hire them; don't hire them; whichever... but heed them. Take the time to learn what they do and apply it to your films, you can only improve your output doing so.
Admittedly - a Director without key HODs is going to struggle to make a commercially viable film. Certainly such films have been made, but how many do you know that don't have a DP? A Production Designer? Even a 1st AD?
Sound is just as important as any of the visual aspects (and I'm a DP!
), and to ensure you have a DP, Production Designer, AD, Gaffer, Key Grip, Sound Recordist... but then no Sound Designer, and no thought to the sound design process or what you're going to do with it... well that's folly really, and you'll simply end up with a sub-par sounding film - the same way you'd end up with sub-par looking images without a DP, and without putting any thought into the imagery of your film.APE simply points out that to make a commercially viable film, sound is one of, if not the most important overlooked aspect. To help secure all sorts of distribution, including the deals made at Sundance, a proper sound mix will help. Most of the big deals at Sundance this year will have had proper sound mixes.
To overlook sound design and mixing and hope someone picks up your film, is almost akin to exceeding broadcast safe colours in your colour grade, and simply 'hoping' that the broadcasters you send your film to will fix it.
They won't.
Admittedly - a Director without key HODs is going to struggle to make a commercially viable film. Certainly such films have been made, but how many do you know that don't have a DP? A Production Designer? Even a 1st AD?
Sound is just as important as any of the visual aspects (and I'm a DP!
APE simply points out that to make a commercially viable film, sound is one of, if not the most important overlooked aspect. To help secure all sorts of distribution, including the deals made at Sundance, a proper sound mix will help. Most of the big deals at Sundance this year will have had proper sound mixes.
To overlook sound design and mixing and hope someone picks up your film, is almost akin to exceeding broadcast safe colours in your colour grade, and simply 'hoping' that the broadcasters you send your film to will fix it.
They won't.
I totally respect how important sound is and some great advise from sound designers on this forum has helped me see how much attention it actually needs and that specialization is needed. Nobody on this thread has ever doubted or disputed that fact. What is being discussed is at what price can a clever filmmaker get a decent kind of quality for.
I, for example have a pro soundy working on my film with co-workers for pretty much nothing which he'll then take to a friend who works in BBC studio's to master. My Budget was 15k. Will the quality be great...perhaps not. Will it be good. I think so. 15K. So I just imagine what I can make happen with 85K.
I'm going back to the same mantra I've used for years... Time = Money. Spend the time to get it done and done right... do the education (free or paid), do the homework, do the practice, do the planning, make sure it's important on set, then take the time to do it right in post... take the time to figure it out. Do It Yourself, but don't just slap it together and hope that it'll be OK. Give it the time and attention it deserves.
Surprised this thread is still going... then, again, maybe I am not.
Here's a reality that's as true as "sound is important"... sound is expensive. In my opinion, it's far more troublesome to do a decent post audio job than it is to do anything else aside from decent visual effects. If you really want a reason as to why noone harps about sound? That's it.
The one thing holding back a "quick" short I shot? The need to find someone that's actually decent when it comes to sound design and mixing. I can color fine, I can cut, I can shoot, I can cast, I can direct (well... er well anyway), I can do nearly everything else, but I cannot wear the hat of a sound designer, mixers, foley artist.
It's the biggest headache in the chain, right up there with finding a great location in Los Angeles that doesn't run the entire tiny budget that I have.
So, yeah, audio guys can keep jumping down our throats and trust me I recognize the importance of it, but jumping down our throats doesn't make it any easier to digest. We, as a community of no-money filmmakers are just now getting to the point where the "cinematic" look is a DSLR away.
ALong with great audio, we need a decent script, so on and so forth. There're a lot of things that need fixing.
That was definitely a disjointed post... I'm fried from outlining.
Here's a reality that's as true as "sound is important"... sound is expensive. In my opinion, it's far more troublesome to do a decent post audio job than it is to do anything else aside from decent visual effects. If you really want a reason as to why noone harps about sound? That's it.
The one thing holding back a "quick" short I shot? The need to find someone that's actually decent when it comes to sound design and mixing. I can color fine, I can cut, I can shoot, I can cast, I can direct (well... er well anyway), I can do nearly everything else, but I cannot wear the hat of a sound designer, mixers, foley artist.
It's the biggest headache in the chain, right up there with finding a great location in Los Angeles that doesn't run the entire tiny budget that I have.
So, yeah, audio guys can keep jumping down our throats and trust me I recognize the importance of it, but jumping down our throats doesn't make it any easier to digest. We, as a community of no-money filmmakers are just now getting to the point where the "cinematic" look is a DSLR away.
ALong with great audio, we need a decent script, so on and so forth. There're a lot of things that need fixing.
That was definitely a disjointed post... I'm fried from outlining.