Films I Think I Should Be Able To Shoot

Do you ever watch a relatively technically simple film and think "You know... I should be able to shoot something like this"?

Never mind the actor paychecks and union rigmarole.

No helicopter shots.
No exotic locales.
No freaky special effects.
No CGI-fests.

Just some straight forward camerawork + audio collection in sensible settings with straight forward acting between plausible characters, largely due to your (excellent) writing.

I've a small list of films that when I watch them I think I should be able to do.
Or at least aspire to become that good at a minimum.

In no particular order:
  • Juno : $7.5m budget, Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL, Panavision Primo Lenses
  • The Messenger : $6.5m budget, Arricam LT, Cooke S4 and Angenieux Optimo Lenses
  • Winter's Bone : $2.0m budget, Red One Camera, Zeiss Master Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses
  • Defendor : $3.5m budget, Panavision Cameras and Lenses
  • Super : $2.5m budget, Red One Camera
  • Silent House : $2.0m budget, non EOS 5D Mark II, Zeiss Compact Prime Lenses
  • 50/50 : $8.0m budget, Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2, Panavision Primo Lenses
  • Martha Marcy May Marlene : <$1.0m budget, Arricam LT, Zeiss Master Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses
  • Like Crazy : $0.25m budget, Canon EOS 7D, Zeiss Ultra Prime Lenses
  • 127 Hours : $18.0m budegt, Canon EOS 1D Mark IV, 5D Mark II, 7D, Moviecam Compact MK2, Zeiss Ultra Prime and Cooke Panchro Lenses

With a "modest" budget:
  • Valhalla Rising : ~$6.0m budget, Red One Camera
  • A Mighty Heart : $16m budget, Sony HDW-F750
  • Margin Call : $3.4m budget, Red One MX, Zeiss Standard Speed and Angenieux Optimo Lenses
  • Whip It : $10m budget, Arriflex 235, Panavision C-Series Lenses, Panavision Panaflex Platinum, Panavision C- and E-Series Lenses
  • Be Kind Rewind : $20.0m budget, Arricam ST, Cooke Xtal Express Lenses

I'm sure I'm forgetting some others, but it's the idea that grates me at times.



What do you watch and think "You know... I should be able to shoot something like this"?
 
Last edited:
I think this about a fair few dramas or some thrillers, more specifically I often feel I could create a film along the lines of Danny Boyle or Shane meadows. Basically a film were the script and acting is more important than the vfx! Although if it were that easy everyone would be getting paid for making big cinematic releases haha
 
I think it's kind of like saying, 'I've got two arms, two legs, an upper body, eyes, ears...etc', so I should be able to play football like Lionel Messi. Or Winston Reid, at the very least. It kind of misses that step between what, yes, I could do with a camera, and what it takes to make those movies.

Occasionally, I see something which I feel is stylistically and creatively very close to something I might shoot. Something like Thomas Vinterberg's The Hunt which, when I saw it, I thought to myself- that's the sort of movie that I can see myself making in 10-15 years time. But I think it kind of misses that moment of alchemy if you're simply looking at a film and saying, 'I could do that camera move, in that location with that quality sound'.
 
Although if it were that easy everyone would be getting paid for making big cinematic releases haha
Definitely.
But the WHOLE process is waaaaay more complicated than simply hitting the button for final render.
Too many of us think just getting SOMETHING in the proverbial can is enough.
It isn't.
So, I was interested in what others thought they simply WANTED to get in the can before calling it Miller time.

I think it's kind of like saying, 'I've got two arms, two legs, an upper body, eyes, ears...etc', so I should be able to play football like Lionel Messi. Or Winston Reid, at the very least. It kind of misses that step between what, yes, I could do with a camera, and what it takes to make those movies.
How about "I've got two arms, two legs, an upper body, eyes, ears...etc', so I should be able to get a job or get groceries or mow the lawn"?

The Hunt. Thanks. I'll go look for that. ;)
 
Hmmmmm. I could shoot anything with the arms, legs, eyes, ears, upper body, belly button lint, fingers, toes, and nose hair I have... It's the brain I'm missing. Heck those 17 year old kids that did "Everwhen", they're the ones that are just doing it. My brain doesn't seem to wrap itself around the "get off your fat arse and shoot a scene every day so one day you'll have a real movie like ...... (insert your choice here)". I am working on it though, almost every day. I'm getting there and when I do I think I can do something along the lines of Cast Away. High hopes for an old mechanic, father of four? Sure, but why shoot low. What if you hit what you aimed at...
 
rayw, I think all those movies you list could be shot on almost no budget at all. What may differ is your ability as a director/cinematographer and your cast's ability as actors. All these films are heavily dependent on quality acting, and that is often the hardest part to find and especially to finance, as good actors don't (usually) work cheap.
 
I actually appreciate this thread very much. Many of these are titles I haven't seen.

Of course I understand Nick's and Fiveacres' points, but this is all very new to me, and while great actors are about as far out of my reach as multi-million dollar vfx and elaborate blockbuster set facilities-- as a newbie it is very inspiring for to watch things that seem more within the realm of possibility.

I wonder if you could do something like Sean Penn's Into the Wild cheaper than $15 million?

Also, there's always Festen or the other Dogme 95 flicks.

Croupier might also fall somewhere closer the fringe of obtainability as well.

I just watched Following and it reminded me that Memento was the film that first planted the idea in my head that storytelling through movies would be a really, really fun thing to do.
 
Mannie, forget Dogme 95 and all that non-sense. That's all a load of crap and goes against 99% of what filmmaking really is and should be about.

I'm of the mind that any film can be made on just about any budget if enough creativity is involved. I'm actually kind of proving that point with my current feature production, which is a period film-noir set in the 1940s, with an A-list Hollywood cast. The only real expense so far (with about 1/3rd of the film "in-the-can") has been wardrobe and hand props totaling less than $1000.

If you can find decent actors, or can direct non-actors well enough to get the performance you need out of them, that along with a good sound person and good editor will make a film.

And speaking of actors, here's a word of advice: Unless you can afford GOOD actors, I mean REALLY GOOD actors, hire non-actors. They will give you a better performance than local people who fancy themselves actors.
 
50/50 was only 8 mill?

is this not including salary? cuz i thought seth rogen was at the point where he could demand 20million a film. maybe i overestimated him.
 
I saw a very brief clip of Curse of the Jaggar Moon online and I see what you mean by creativity.

I don't mean to derail this thread, but by A-List actors do you mean actors like Lee Van Cleef from public domain footage, or A-List actors from relationships that you have forged with folks who are now willing to travel to Alabama and donate their work for your film?
 
HA hA! Mannie, A-list actors culled from Public Domain clips is exactly what I mean. I have a whole slew of Hollywood A-listers who make an appearance in my film, most of them despite being dead for years. I won't be able to give them top billing of course, because their estates still own their names. But they will be listed in the final credits, along with the films they were taken from.
 
50/50 was only 8 mill?

is this not including salary? cuz i thought seth rogen was at the point where he could demand 20million a film. maybe i overestimated him.

Just because an actor can demand 20 million a picture doesn't mean they always will. Many top actors will sometimes agree to work for scale, or even for free, if they believe enough in a project.
 
"You know... I should be able to shoot something like this"?

If you are talking about shooting, then yes it's surprising what some can do with contemporary technology, experience and skill, even with a very modest budget.

I'm of the mind that any film can be made on just about any budget if enough creativity is involved.

Ah, now you're talking about making a film rather than shooting a film and there are certain aspects of making a film where you can't get around the need for a decent budget, regardless of the amount of creativity involved.

G
 
Such as? Please elaborate.

I am assuming the OP is referring to shooting a film of equivalent standards to one of the releases he lists. However, making a film is not just shooting (production) but also post-production. For theatrical release and for broadcast there are audio specifications which have to be met and this requires employing a team of suitably equipped audio post professionals. A team of pros suitably equipped is where it gets expensive and where all the creativity in the world won't help. For example, a relatively cheap theatrical mix room costs at least $1m to construct and equip and is therefore not cheap to hire.

G
 
I am assuming the OP is referring to shooting a film of equivalent standards to one of the releases he lists. However, making a film is not just shooting (production) but also post-production. For theatrical release and for broadcast there are audio specifications which have to be met and this requires employing a team of suitably equipped audio post professionals. A team of pros suitably equipped is where it gets expensive and where all the creativity in the world won't help. For example, a relatively cheap theatrical mix room costs at least $1m to construct and equip and is therefore not cheap to hire.

G

Sorry, I just have a hard time buying that. Audio is really not that difficult. Further, I don't believe those costs should be part of the original equation. If a major studio does pick up your film, let them foot the bill for conforming it to whatever theatrical standards they require as part of the deal.
 
Sorry, I just have a hard time buying that. Audio is really not that difficult. Further, I don't believe those costs should be part of the original equation. If a major studio does pick up your film, let them foot the bill for conforming it to whatever theatrical standards they require as part of the deal.

AAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
 
Sorry, I just have a hard time buying that. Audio is really not that difficult.

I'm glad to hear this, honestly! I've made very good money in the past and I have friends who run very profitable business based entirely upon filmmakers with exactly the same belief as you. There's very good money to be made from fixing audio QC failures. Not so good for the filmmaker of course, who either has to find the additional money to fix their failure, shelve their film or distribute it for free on the net.

Further, I don't believe those costs should be part of the original equation. If a major studio does pick up your film, let them foot the bill for conforming it to whatever theatrical standards they require as part of the deal.

Of course, it's your choice whether you make a distributable film or whether you make a film which is un-distributable and then rely on a 1 in 10,000 or so chance of a studio investing the money to make your film distributable. The films mentioned by the OP were all of distributable quality, so to make a film of equivalent standards means that it too would have to be of distributable quality. But then the OP only mentioned shooting a film. whereas you are talking about making a film, two different things entirely.

G
 
Back
Top