Crowd Funding ?? How much do you need to make a feature ??

IndieBudget

IndieBudget

I'd love to hear other's viewpoints on this issue. How much do you need to make a feature ??

If you do not have much $$, then why try and make a movie that requires a lot of investment. Im not needing Lindsey Lohan and a posse of babysitters or a lot of FX.

Im finishing up on a short..Im thinking of doing a feature out of it.. Not 100% sold yet if it is what I need to do. I have next to nothing invested in this but my eqt. I have the cam, sound eqt, lighting and a whole bunch of stuff to do this from other projects.

Im thinking of another project, a feature that I know I can do on the cheap . Im thinking $500 out of pocket at the most, I can do it. Im used to being a one man production company so I am thinking I shall do it again.. My way ! I will try very hard to get crew, but heck I can do it myself if need be.

Im thinking money is not what I need to make a feature.. I can do it w/ creativity, networking and hard work. I hate the idea of begging for money. Why do I need money to make a movie ?? I have all the tools needed. I just need the effort, the talent and the desire to do it, IMO

HOWEVER.. I will give it a try at crowd funding with a high energy pitch. I will project a fun, entertaining pitch that I hope will get a few bucks. If I get some $$, great, if not.. I will make my vision come to life. I think my time ill be better spent creating rather than looking for $$$

I'm a broke ass barely working guy and I know I can do my next project using pocket change. Im thinking mebbe put together and all I need is eight wardrobe outfits and I'm set. bring a case of water & ice for each shoot and go ! If the talent is committed..go 4 it !

My next feature will be a super campy, low - no budget rehash of an old horror movie. I am sure I can market the next project and get some sales cuz there is a following on the original idea AND I have a feature that I'm making a few dollars off w/ no promotion whatsoever.

Please lemme know your thoughts. I'm sure there are many who don't have a lot of $$ and want to create.





.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I couldn't think of anything worse than trying to do a feature with no money. I agree you can do it all yourself but is it really worth all the extra work and headache? Then again with the right attitude and connections anything is possible.

Owen
 
Getting a definitive answer to this is going to be impossible.

How much do you need to buy a car? Well, it depends what you need from that car. An old banger to drive you to work and back in the countryside might cost £500, whereas if you need a Range Rover with endless customisations it'll cost £70,000. I guess for a super campy low budget horror we're looking more at an old banger than a Range Rover, but it's still impossible to get one answer from this question.

I agree with Owen that there will be nothing worse than trying to make a feature with not enough money. You can make money stretch a long way, but trying to spread too little butter over too much toast is not only difficult but also frustrating.

Crowd funding is a nightmare. But I do know people who have raised in excess of $10,000 that way. I'm not saying you need to raise $10,000 but if you say that you are going to contribute $500 of your own money, why not look at raising $2000 through Crowdfunding? If you use Kickstarter then you know that you'll only get that money if you reach the target and if you've reached that target then you can definitely make your film.

Just thoughts, but if I were to answer your question in a simpler form I'd say $2000+
 
How much do you need to buy a car? Well, it depends what you need from that car. An old banger to drive you to work and back in the countryside might cost £500, whereas if you need a Range Rover with endless customisations it'll cost £70,000. I guess for a super campy low budget horror we're looking more at an old banger than a Range Rover, but it's still impossible to get one answer from this question.
Click to expand...


Ok...YES, I might as well ask "How long is a piece of string ?" I think why think about a mile long piece of string when you are on a short string budget ?

If you are on a small budget, why think big ? Is your art about the budget or the art? I'm an artist, I must create. I hope my creativity will be my efforts, with simple tools as a camera, and a computer, I can create. Look at the best art ever produced, was it the cost of production that mattered or the expression of the artist. great artists have made great art with only words and ideas. painters have done much with simple lines and colors. Can we create with our easily available yet common tools like the computer and the camera ?

I must have the tools and the resources to create. That is a given. My stance is that the message, the expression and the talent of the artist is what we are judged on. Does it take money or creativity to express your art ?
 
Last edited:
Ok.. some of the best art in the world was simple paint pastels or charcoal on a piece of paper, cardboard or canvas. Yes, making a motion picture shooting J Lo, Liam Neeson, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston and a coked out rock star in 3D along with getting Walter Murch to edit and have the good fortune to license music from all of the top 10 musicians is one financial arena. Do we need that to get our vision out ??



$2,000 thanks,,, That is easily doable if you are driven.

Range Rover guy, huh ?I d still like to have a barely running 1967 MGB or a 1949 BSA with a sidecar and a ton of Whitworth wrenches. Ok even a 1965 Alfa Guiletta convertible.






.
 
Last edited:
IndieBudget said:
Ok.. some of the best art in the world was simple paint pastels or charcoal on a piece of paper, cardboard or canvas.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know what you're referring to here?

Most of the art that people consider 'the best art in the world' (even though that's hugely subjective) was painted using, at the time, extremely expensive paints. If we look at the top modern art then we see that there's a massive emphasis on sculpture and installation art, both of which cost a great deal. I actually can't think of the name of a single piece of art which is just pastel on paper...

I know this is getting off the point somewhat, but I'm just saying that art tends to be fairly expensive...
 
NickClapper said:
I'm curious to know what you're referring to here?

Most of the art that people consider 'the best art in the world' (even though that's hugely subjective) was painted using, at the time, extremely expensive paints. If we look at the top modern art then we see that there's a massive emphasis on sculpture and installation art, both of which cost a great deal. I actually can't think of the name of a single piece of art which is just pastel on paper...

I know this is getting off the point somewhat, but I'm just saying that art tends to be fairly expensive...
Click to expand...

ok..I stand corrected, there is no art of value or note that was ever created using pastels on paper.. none have sold for millions ???? None using watercolor ? Google Miroslav Tichy, he made his own cameras using paper tubes and cardboard and some of his photos are selling at $50,000 . Sold a movie for $50,000 ? Im not attacking you, I'm attacking my attitude I need money to create. the tools we have now are amazing. the Beatles recorded with systems no better than a DSLRs audio system ( OK not that small, but you know what Im talkin bout ) , they did well.


Amadeo Modigliani for one.. prolly worth millions.. have you created higher value ?? Im nowhere close. Modigliani did not spend much to create that.


Caryatid

1913-1914. oil on cardboard. 23 5/8x21 1/4 ins(60x54cm). Musee National d'Art Moderne, Centure Geoges Pompidou, Paris,


Amedeo%20Modigliani6.jpg


Since the 1800s simple working man can easily afford simple tools and materials as Modigliani had. Is a computer and a camera as useful as a brush or an oil pastel ?
 
Last edited:
A.) It depends on the feature and what the script requires.

B.) There are ways to shave down a budget. But, once it is down to bare bones, you still need x amount of dollars to go from point A to point B.

C.) Getting friends to work in your crew is WAY cheaper than bringing in outsiders.

D.) Have a backup plan if all crowd funding fails.

E.) If funds run out, can the production be continued a year later or so when ways around finances are available?

F.) How much of your budget goes into new equipment that is essential to what you are shooting? For my new production, I MUST buy a greenscreen kit to shoot greenscreen. I lost a crew guy who provided the production with his own greenscreen equipment to my last production. If your script requires stuff that doesn't exist or you have no access to and it can be added in as stock footage or 3D art, you need to greenscreen. Stock footage can be cheaper than shooting something yourself too, if you do the math.

Example, I greenscreened Galina a.k.a. Gail Storm into the cockpit of a jet fighter where it looked like she was piloting a cgi spaceship that was leaving the Earth. I matched the moving clouds to the moving clouds of the cgi ship leaving the Earth. I also greenscreened a moving star system on her computer screen. With the control panels moving around her, it gave the illustion of a moving shot that lasted mere seconds. But, it gave the effect of a panaramic spaceship cockpit. I paid $75 for the stock footage and I have it forever to reuse in future projects if need be. Imagine the cost of getting permits for shooting footage inside of a real jet fighter? So, this was $75 well spent. The cgi spaceship cost more than the stock footage.

If you are making a short to entice investors to invest in what you can do, is a camera and a computer enough when they are spoiled with Hollywood productions? You have to figure cost on a project by project basis.

$2,000 may be good for one filmmaker. But, it may not work for another. Breakdown your script. What does it call for? What do you already own. What MUST you buy to make your feature happen?
 
Last edited:
You seem to forget that we are living in modern times- a loose term, but undoubtedly true beyond measure when technology and inflation are concerned- whether bound to a revolutionary standpoint or not, the expression of an Artist should not be brought to question as to the scale, or as you put it "Canvas".

It's often looked upon as a misdemeanor when an Artist expresses an "Ideal" for his/her art, an ideal which consists of grandeur, or at the least to reach a place beyond the contempt.

There'll always be the guy who plays football in the street, there'll always be the guy who plays for a weekend team, or college. Then, the guy that we all know, will play professionally, and make a living out of it.

It's all football.

Can you make a film from $500? Yes. It's been done.

But is it your "Ideal", is it what is best for the material?

Personally, I wouldn't. There are too many hidden costs.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6ALySsPXt0

You gotta do what you gotta do, brother.

But don't do it that way as a first choice. Only do it that way if there are no other alternatives.

Random expenses like gas for transportation, batteries for your audio recorder, PB&J sandwhiches for your cast, random inexpensive props -- these things add up, quickly. $500 won't last long.

The biggest problem I see with this model is what you're going to get in the talent department. When it comes to volunteer weekend-warrior acting, there is a great deal of variation, and what you get depends on how established you are. On one end of the spectrum is the troupe that M1chea1 works with. They've made a number of features, and as far as I can tell, the level of dedication seems rather high, across the board. On the other end of the spectrum, you'll find a great deal of low-budget indie filmmakers practically begging their non-trained actors to just show up for the shoot. Unless you've got a talented group of actors that you've been working with for a while, whom you know will take their jobs seriously, I really think you need to pay your talent.

A lot of weekend-warrior features go un-finished, and a great deal more are required to undergo constant rewrites, to adapt to the ebb and flow of which talent chooses to actually show up.

On top of that, if we're talking the ultimate bare-bones filmmaking crew, you at least need a boom-op.

Again, if we're talking about this ultra-low-budget bare-bones crew, it's not something you should want. It's something you can make work, but only if there's truly no other choice. Filmmaking is a collaborative process for good reason. There's lots of shit to do. You need lots of people to do that shit.

If, indeed, it looks like you're going to have do this alone, you'll have to get real creative with the screenwriting. It's hard enough to write a captivating story, let alone having to put shackles on it, with all of the things that you can't shoot by yourself.
 
I agree that it just depends on what you want to make. How many big budget movies are there that are absolute rubbish and simple unknown independent films that are freakin awesome?

I'm not really adding anything new to the conversation I know, but I just thought I'd throw my thoughts out there :)
 
I reckon you have a good attitude Indiebudget. That counts for a lot. Sure, being broke would slow you down to a crawl, but there are tons of options we have that filmmakers 10 or even 5 years ago didn't have.

- With this forum, and the net in general, you could get location shots and exteriors from collaborators all over the world. You could shoot your interior in Houston, and paste in an exterior door shot in Prague.

- You could build up an amazing, dense, totally free soundscape from freesound.org

- You could get feedback on the script from a ton of people all over the world.

- If you worked it into the script, you could have actors film themselves in different locations and collaborate with directors from different places. I always thought fake news reports would be a good way to work multiple directing styles into a single script.

- Ton's of creative commons music out there.

All of that would cost you zip. Hundreds of hours of time, sure. But cost = nada.

*

Re: Kickstarter, I think you'd be a lot more successful if you shot a full 15 minutes before doing the pitch. Before I gave any money I'd want to see some talent. They allow for multiple fundraising rounds though, so you could do it like that. I think micro-budget would lend itself to something dense, claustrophobic and psychological. Like someone trapped...
 
Last edited:
Who are you making your feature for? That has to be factored into your budget. Where will it be shown? How will you promote it? Expenses for promotion have to be factored into the budget too.
 
My bottom line (and my DP thinks I am crazy to believe I could do it for this) is 30K. It would be very hard, but I think it's possible. That's a movie with no real effects, but probably a couple of days from a name actor. I'm only on the second rewrite of the script, so haven't done the budgets yet, but I intend to budget it at 30K, 60K, 125K, and 250K, with a complete business plan written up at all those levels. Then the search for money begins.
 
but I intend to budget it at 30K, 60K, 125K, and 250K, with a complete business plan written up at all those levels.
Click to expand...

Multi-level budgeting is a great idea. I was thinking of that myself... It shows pragmatism + vision at the same time. I'd probably budget at 1k, 3k, 5k and 10k at my level. I don't know how common this is in the industry.
 
PositiveFuture said:
Multi-level budgeting is a great idea. I was thinking of that myself... It shows pragmatism + vision at the same time. I'd probably budget at 1k, 3k, 5k and 10k at my level. I don't know how common this is in the industry.
Click to expand...

Mw either. I'll start at the top and work down. Go to some filmmarket type things, pitch BIG money people. If no success drop down to 125K and hit up the car dealers and dentists. If no luck drop down again, and try to do it on small contributions.
 
IndieBudget said:
ok..I stand corrected, there is no art of value or note that was ever created using pastels on paper.. none have sold for millions ???? None using watercolor ? Google Miroslav Tichy, he made his own cameras using paper tubes and cardboard and some of his photos are selling at $50,000 . Sold a movie for $50,000 ? Im not attacking you, I'm attacking my attitude I need money to create. the tools we have now are amazing. the Beatles recorded with systems no better than a DSLRs audio system ( OK not that small, but you know what Im talkin bout ) , they did well.


Amadeo Modigliani for one.. prolly worth millions.. have you created higher value ?? Im nowhere close. Modigliani did not spend much to create that.


Caryatid

1913-1914. oil on cardboard. 23 5/8x21 1/4 ins(60x54cm). Musee National d'Art Moderne, Centure Geoges Pompidou, Paris,


Amedeo%20Modigliani6.jpg


Since the 1800s simple working man can easily afford simple tools and materials as Modigliani had. Is a computer and a camera as useful as a brush or an oil pastel ?
Click to expand...

I might note that Modigliani died in terrible poverty (of something horrid like consumption) and his works have only become of value in the years after his death. Somehow I doubt this is your plan ;)

It's not that I think you 100% need money to create art. It's just a case of what sort of foundations you want to build on. There are probably some great filmmakers out there who will never be noticed because they can't afford equipment. There are probably great sculpters who will never be seen because they can't afford to do bronze casting or whatever.

I would always assume that you need more than you think. $500 sounds like an aneurism inducing budget to me...

At the moment I'm budgeting a 7-10 minute short film for my film school course and I don't think there's any way I can do it for less than £500. Sure, I live in one of the most overpriced cities in the world, but still, that's 7 minutes, not a feature.
 
Funny, I saw the movie the Room the other night. It had a 6 million dollar budget and was so freakin bad, it was funny to watch. I got the Rifftrax version.

I could make movies for the rest of my life w/ 6 million dollars ! The movie The Room has a cult following ( a small one, I'm sure ) I do not know if Tommy Wiseau has made his $$ back.

My current project is a thriller which is about halfway done. The second will be a lowdown cheesey horror crapfest with ultra low production value on purpose. Barring a major uncontrollable event in my life, I hope to have my current project done by mid April or so and will start on the second feature in May with a week of shooting I suspect with post being completed by August at the latest.

Both films will cost less than $500 each. Sure I spent more than that on lenses, sound stuff and lighting lately, but that is not part of a film's budget IMO. I would have bought that stuff whether or not I was making a feature. If I can get money for my second feature and add to the production value, great. I do want to hire a sound person or at least a boom op along with a grip. I will not let funding be an issue, the films will be made.

Thanxx for the input. I see that there are obviously different amounts people think they need to do a feature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top