Filmmaking is too damn expensive

[HermitCrab]

Unlike (I think), most users here filmmaking is not my main goal/ambition,(it will be hopefully part of my career though), but I am learning it to make a micro-budget documentary so I am interested in the topic.

As someone pointed out, with the advent of digital era filmmaking became cheaper, nowadays for a few hundred dollars u can buy a camcorder and film, no costs for film or bulky and expensive equipment. Will the result of that work win an Oscar?Perhaps no, will it make 100.000 views on Youtube?Maybe, but I think the main problem when we talk about filmmaking is not the costs related but what you want to do with the final product (and the reason why you want to make it) and your budget (and the risk you are willing to take to increase it).

I am a filmmaking newbies, i am writing the script of a microbudget documentary (few thousands dollars), is that amount a huge amount?It is, Am i going to take a bank loan for it? No, i just save up money, and you know why? Because it is not worth (at the least for me) going in possible bankruptcy for a documentary that might never become a success (despite my hopes).

Am i aiming to win the prizeforthebestdocoftheyear? No i am not, because i am realistic and i know that despite my efforts my first work has high chances of not going anywhere...and money is not the ultimate goal of the project.

The cases of people who made a film for few thousands pounds (el mariachi, the blair witch project, paranormal activity and so on), did not wake up a day saying "lets take a camcorder, a bunch of friends make a film and make millions", it just happened that they made millions, it wasnt their plan.

Hollywood movies are a different story, but they make millions mostly because of the good promotion they receive, not (just) because they are made with expensive equipment or have millionaire budgets.

My 2 cents

 

[Claude]

How would you definte, "feature film"? To me, that would be one that cost at least $250,000.00.

That's about reasonable in my eyes too. I'd try to add 33% more just in case unexpected costs arise.

Also, I don't necessarily want to start my own production company because that would take money too. I'd rather use that money for making an actual film. That's what I'm here for, or at least aiming to be here for.

 

[Claude]

and I just discovered that Chris Nolan's The Following was made for only $7,000. So that definitely puts a dent in my preconceptions.

There's actually a very interesting production detail regarding Nolan's The Following. That being, the guy channeled a lot of this 7000 budget into the first 8 minutes of audio in the film. He understood the importance of sound in filmmaking (what was the saying? "the moment there is something wrong with the sound, you lost half of your audience", I choose to believe this as an accurate statement).

After the first 8 minutes, the audience was hooked onto the story and implicitly focused so that any further mistakes in sound design weren't THAT noticeable. Don't know if I explained in the best way possible but I hope you get the drift.

 

[mlesemann]

As much as I dislike talking about how much anything that I made cost, I WILL chime in here that my feature Surviving Family cost roughly $250,000 to make. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Are the actors good? Absolutely. I posted a discount for this weekend on another thread, and I'm going to post the link to that thread here.
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=58707
You can also watch it on Amazon Prime (free if you're a member) & itunes.

Instead of discussing abstractions - which seems all too common around here - why not check out an actual feature made by a real member of this community? Then ask me questions if you have any.

 

[Sweetie]

I'll only accept something as a legit feature-length film if it is simply good and entertaining to watch.

Besides which, all film is subjective. All art is subjective. Shouldn't that be a given by this point?

This contradiction is where I suspect many filmmakers are having troubles.

I have no doubt that at least a few dozen people out there have made feature length films for surprisingly low amounts of money.

There's about 10,000 films made every year. Most of those are made for very little money. The majority of those suck.

There are other examples. El Mariachi by Robert Rodrigues with a reported budget of $7000.

The question is, are these films actually worth watching? Are they shot well, acted well, and can they hold your attention and play as well as films with solid stories that are made for $250,000 or $5,000,000?

Whether a film is worth watching comes down to personal preferences. There are over 7 billion people in the world. The biggest box office film in the world didn't achieve total saturation. Lets extrapolate with simple numbers. 2.5billion in box office sales, with lets assume $10 a ticket, that's about 250mil tickets in the box office. That's only 10% saturation. A tiny film doesn't need a large audience to recoup their budget.

Down to the other topic of budget. A part of the problem with these reported low budgeted films is there's a lot of unaccounted sweat equity that goes into them. Assuming those numbers are even accurate, they're only counting physical money the filmmaker spent. It often doesn't include the costs assumed by the cast and crew, locations and everything else donated to the film.

An example I brought up above, Robert Rodrigues is a very talented filmmaker. He can wear many hats. This helped him make a decent movie for very little cash, along with his charming steamrolling personality (you either jump on or get out of his way).

I personally find it hard to accept something as a (feature-length) film, made for a low budget, if it doesn't reach a certain level of quality, success in representing its director's vision, and personal enjoyability. Though these three criteria do not have absolute values.

There are some really good no budget films out there that many people do like. I do share your view that it's extremely rare for me to enjoy a low/no budget film, though I acknowledge that's my personal preference coming through. Just because I have that view, doesn't mean everyone has to share it.

You can spend a lot of money making a film. You don't have to spend a lot of money to make a film. The no-budget method is what some filmmakers who are trying to establish themselves. You don't have to follow it. There are many paths to success. You simply need to choose yours.

 

[sfoster]

guys it's called Following, not "The Following" you're going to drive me crazy lol.

I'm going to assume none of you have seen the film since the title you've given it doesn't make sense with the story.

 

[FilmmakerJ]

guys it's called Following, not "The Following" you're going to drive me crazy lol.

I'm going to assume none of you have seen the film since the title you've given it doesn't make sense with the story.

That's true. Sorry about that.
I noticed that mistake after trying to look it up and I got the Kevin Bacon tv series.

 

[writersandfilmmakers]

How would you definte, "feature film"? To me, that would be one that cost at least $250,000.00.

This depends entirely on the script. How many locations? How many actors/extras? How much CGI/SFX needed? Dogville and Burried are perfect examples of movies which CAN be shot for less than 250k. (not saying they actually were)

When food is your biggest expense (other than time/effort) then you know you have a good script (budget wise).

 

[Cracker Funk]

How would you definte, "feature film"? To me, that would be one that cost at least $250,000.00.

That's an odd definition, one that I've never heard before. To my understanding, the commonly accepted definition of "feature film" only references how long it is. Some people say at least 45 minutes, some say 60, some 70. Whatever, budget has nothing to do with it. You can make a feature film with an iPhone and a laptop. And a lot of people have done that.

And it doesn't require cajoling or taking advantage of anybody. All it requires is finding like-minded people who are equally interested in trying to create something great without a lot of money.

Definitely not saying it's easy.

 

[Cracker Funk]

guys it's called Following, not "The Following" you're going to drive me crazy lol.

I'm going to assume none of you have seen the film since the title you've given it doesn't make sense with the story.

This is a filmmaker's board. Of course many of us have seen the film that launched the career of one of the most powerful people in Hollywood today. There is a popular TV show called "The Following". I think mixing up the two titles is an easy thing to do.

 

[sfoster]

This is a filmmaker's board. Of course many of us have seen the film that launched the career of one of the most powerful people in Hollywood today. There is a popular TV show called "The Following". I think mixing up the two titles is an easy thing to do.

I don't make assumptions like that. Bruce Willis doesn't even watch movies. When asked what the last film he saw was, he said "Yoshi dreams of sushi"

 

[Cracker Funk]

I don't make assumptions like that. Bruce Willis doesn't even watch movies. When asked what the last film he saw was, he said "Yoshi dreams of sushi"

You don't make assumptions like what? You're not willing to assume that filmmakers tend to watch a lot of films? But you will assume that a bunch of filmmakers have never seen a film just because they made a minor mistake in referencing its title? Dude, I forget titles all the time. The mere fact that Bruce Willis knows that the title is "_______ Dreams of Sushi" makes it seem pretty likely to me that he's seen it, considering the fact that it's a relatively unknown movie.

Besides, he's not a filmmaker, and we digress. Filmmaking is only expensive if you want it to be and are capable of making it so. It can also be inexpensive.

 

[sfoster]

You don't make assumptions like what? You're not willing to assume that filmmakers tend to watch a lot of films?

About their taste and the kinds of films that they watch. It's not exactly a mainstream film now is it

 

[AudioPostExpert]

To my understanding, the commonly accepted definition of "feature film" only references how long it is.

Maybe I'm just getting old but I have a different definition of "feature film". At one time or another a theatrical presentation included one or more: Trailers, commercials, news reels and short/medium length films (documentaries or B-movies for example). The term "feature film" differentiated the main (or featured) film in the theatrical presentation from all these other types of theatrical content.

[1] Career wise, I make my own films hoping to control it well enough to become an established director. [2] I cannot do this by being a service to market companies.

1. If I understand correctly, you are talking about being a largely DIY filmmaker? If this is the case then the statement I've quoted is a contradiction! It seems to me that you are confusing the term "filmmaker" with the term "director". The director is by definition the person who directs the creative process rather than the person who physically makes the film. "Established directors" are therefore those who have a successful track record of managing/directing the creative personnel who physically make films. I'm not sure there even are any established professional feature filmmakers. The singular role of "filmmaker" does not exist in the film industry because virtually no one can afford all the required equipment and no one person can master all the skills necessary to make a commercial quality feature film.

2. One way or another you cannot avoid being in service to some form of market company, if you want to be an established director.

But film as entertainment only defo shouldn't be one's goal.

I can't agree with this statement. Film is not essential to survival and as feature films cost a lot of money to make that means one has to make films of high enough entertainment value for enough people to pay to watch them, so that investors find it an attractive enough investment proposition. The real question, is not whether entertainment should be one's primary goal but: What is the definition of "entertainment". Obviously in the case of Hollywood blockbusters we're talking about a necessarily fairly formulaic definition of entertainment in order to appeal to the widest possible paying demographic. However, there are much smaller paying demographics which have highly variable/different definitions of entertainment.

I call these people who do it set coordinators, can't call them directors, since if it is so, they "filmmake" with conventions as the guiding principle, never through a certain vision.

1. Your definition of director is bizarre and certainly not in line with the film industry. What happens after filming when there is no longer a set to coordinate, do these people who you can't call directors just call it a day and go home or do they continue to direct the post-production phase?

2. There are certain conventions in filmmaking which are essential to producing a feature film of sufficient quality to have any commercial value. Additionally, there are artistic conventions, techniques and skills which combine to form the language of film. These elements of the language of film can be used in innovative or different stylistic ways but they can only be ignored by the most experimental/abstract filmmakers aiming to entertain an extremely small, specialist demographic. I also don't think you can say that these people who you can't call directors never have a certain vision. Successful directors pretty much always have a certain vision for every particular film, although it maybe a vision which you personally don't like, value or find entertaining.

The cases of people who made a film for few thousands pounds (el mariachi, the blair witch project, paranormal activity and so on) ...

This is an interesting point, are we talking about films the same length as feature films or are talking about actual feature films? Feature length films can be made for ridiculously small amounts of money, feature films are expensive though. These oft quoted examples of successful feature films made with nano budgets are extremely misleading. In reality they are examples of feature length films made with nano budgets which then had hundreds of thousands of dollars pumped into them (by studios) to turn them into actual feature films. Misleadingly the budgets quoted/listed for these films is the budget for the original feature length film, not the budget for the feature film which was distributed to cinemas! The one real exception I know of is Primer, although it should be noted that it had very limited theatrical distribution and wasn't particularly successful financially, the filmmaker stated that sticking to the same quoted budget as El Mariachi was his biggest mistake and even though I personally enjoyed it and think it was an amazing feat of DIY filmmaking, it's really more like a modern day b-movie than a feature.

I personally wouldn't like to put a figure (say $250k) on how much is needed to make a decent feature, there are simply too many potential variables. But personally, few features hold my attention for very long which have less than 7 figure budgets.

As someone pointed out, with the advent of digital era filmmaking became cheaper, nowadays for a few hundred dollars u can buy a camcorder and film, no costs for film or bulky and expensive equipment. Will the result of that work win an Oscar? Perhaps no, will it make 100.000 views on Youtube? ...

This comes back to what I said above, are we talking about a feature length film or a feature film? A feature length film can do very well on youtube (in terms of views) but only a feature film can win an oscar.

Hollywood movies are a different story, but they make millions mostly because of the good promotion they receive, not (just) because they are made with expensive equipment or have millionaire budgets.

Not sure I agree with this, depends on what you mean by Hollywood films. Certainly good promotion is an essential ingredient but it's not the only essential ingredient, expensive equipment/facilities is also an essential ingredient, as is the skill and experience of those who operate it and of those who supervise/direct it's use.

There's about 10,000 films made every year.

That might be an accurate number of feature films, although I believed the actual number to be about 3 or so times higher. If we include the number of feature length films it would be considerably higher again, at a guess maybe around 60,000 or so.

G

 

[Sweetie]

If we include the number of feature length films it would be considerably higher again, at a guess maybe around 60,000 or so.

Holy moly. There has never been this much competition. Ever.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Holy moly. There has never been this much competition. Ever.

True but obvious when you think about it. I remember when Avid were the only NLE in town and cost $60k, what's the cost of an NLE today? What was the cost of film stock, lab processing/telecine? Even the cost of camcorders and tapes were relatively high compared to the cost of a smartphone, which is effectively zero (for filmmaking purposes)! It's not really surprising that as the cost of making feature length films has plummeted so more and more people have the opportunity to make them. To be honest, compared to the number of people who can now afford to make feature length films, 60k films a year is a tiny number. As even a crappy feature length film takes time, effort and dedication to make, I don't think we'll ever see millions of them being made a year but 60k is not so much of a surprise.

G

 

[Alcove Audio]

slowing down all the main three stages, pre-production, production, and post. It was so so that I KNOW I have nailed every single detail down to the way I wanted it to be.

That's how it's done, patience and attention to detail.

I feel I'd waste money on festivals which may reject the film on the basis of too many factors that might or might not even have anything to do with the quality of my film - I have read too many things about how these festivals go so I'll allow myself a healthy amount of skepticism.

The quality of your film? Which aspect? ALL the aspects need to be quality. As a sound guy I have to add my weasel words... Bad sound is the primary technical reason most films are rejected.

Maybe worth mentioning that this was all out of my pocket, since I kind of feel that it is the only serious way to produce high quality work in a personal style, not letting go of a said personal vision.

That's how most artists finance their work when they start out, out of their own pocket, so you are not unique. I built my audio post facility, modest as it is, out of my own pocket.

I'm sure there's at least a few out there who are downright stubborn like me and prefer to make their own films and hope for the best rather than work for others, for different reasons.

I guess another question would be, am I right in thinking that in order to get on high grounds for investors to take one seriously as a director, one would need to somehow invest as much as possible of their own money to build up that killer portfolio beforehand?

No, you need to convince investors that you can deliver a product that the consumer will buy.

a programmer needs to only invest their time and (not much) money in a computer to code in

they also had to spend to ton of money on their education that needs to be paid off.

after which they start earning like mad

If they are any good at programming.

whereas us the insane people who chose filmmaking instead need to invest the same amount of time but also so much money

It was your choice to be a filmmaker, and as an artist you will indeed suffer; again, you are not unique.

what jobs do we generally manage to get? I'm kind of betting it's bartending or something along these lines.

Again, your choice. You went to film school and you have chosen not to work with other film professionals on projects not your own but instead want to create your own works. That's fine, but you could work as a PA or some other "menial" job on a film set so at least your working life dovetails nicely with your personal ambitions - not to mention the experience and contacts you could acquire. Hey, I wanted to be a Rock Star, but I still played piano for cocktail parties, dance schools and various types of rehearsals & auditions as well as being a church organist/choirmaster every Sunday morning plus weddings, baptisms and funerals - and practiced at least two hours very day in addition to familial obligations. And yes, I've held a lot of crappy jobs as well - pumping gas, waiting tables, gutting fish, shoveling shit (manure) and others. I worked my way up the ladder the traditional way and put in my 10,000 hours until I was musical director for a band that played in some of the most famous venues in the world.


Filmmaking is not too expensive, you just haven't found a creative way to achieve your goals. You seem fixated on buying a lot of gear ($3k invested already, something like that, right?) and want to spend three of four times that in the near future. Why? Why not hire the people and rent the equipment you need? As a mentor told me, if you don't use it every day you can't afford it. After all , you want to be a director, not a rental house with gear that is becoming outdated by the month.

 

[kirestananderson01]

They're also the areas in where the equipment (and people - at least in my area) are less willing to work pro bono.

 

[writersandfilmmakers]

How low can it go?

True but obvious when you think about it. I remember when Avid were the only NLE in town and cost $60k, what's the cost of an NLE today? What was the cost of film stock, lab processing/telecine? Even the cost of camcorders and tapes were relatively high compared to the cost of a smartphone, which is effectively zero (for filmmaking purposes)! It's not really surprising that as the cost of making feature length films has plummeted so more and more people have the opportunity to make them. To be honest, compared to the number of people who can now afford to make feature length films, 60k films a year is a tiny number. As even a crappy feature length film takes time, effort and dedication to make, I don't think we'll ever see millions of them being made a year but 60k is not so much of a surprise.

G

That is some interesting analysis. You think there will be a leveling off soon? How can filmmaking get any cheaper is the answer i guess.

There are about 300m people in Africa who still can't afford the technology who want to make a movie.

I wonder what the number of films will when the price drops even more....if it ever does.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

You think there will be a leveling off soon? How can filmmaking get any cheaper is the answer i guess.

Actually, I think they are two different questions or at least two different questions potentially. Filmmaking can get cheaper, at the moment you probably need a high end smartphone at least. When very cheap computers can handle the editing with ease and even very cheap phones have the necessary image acquisition, even more people will have the means. However, there are some other sides to this coin:

1. The amount of time and effort it takes to make a feature length film compared to the rewards. If more people are making them, there are fewer rewards to spread around and less incentive to go through all the hassle of making one.

2. Certain areas of filmmaking are not cheaper now than in the past and some are more expensive than they've ever been. This only really applies to feature films though, rather than feature length films.

It's impossible to say with any degree of certainty when these "other sides" will balance with the increased access and the number of films being made will level off.

G