> Lo/No Budget Review
- Thread starter rayw
- Start date
Seriously - I'd support and encourage you to do just that!I'd say your last post alone is worth one whole year of film school ($15,000).
Unfortunately, the people that NEED to read this will never click on this tread.
Don't be such a pessimist.
They could stumble upon it! LOL!
-----
Off topic, you ought to make a doc based your last post. Show a short clip from the films you listed followed by a head shot of you making the exact comments you wrote here (the film clips would be allowable under "fair use").
Hmm...
Although I disagree with the fair use gambit, I might just go ahead and give it a whirl in the next few weeks.
It'll be technically simple to do, just suck up about a full days effort I'd guess.
Hmm...
If you don't do this, I might steal my own idea, seriously!
C'mon, let's both make one!
Seriously - it would appear so.
Now - let's first add a smidge of context here:
- Aside from $150,000 for 'Storm of the Dead' and $ 96,000 for 'Daydreamer' all of these films are about as cheap as you can reasonably expect to make a feature length film.
- And just like I can promise you that film festival screeners watch no more than ten minutes of sh!tty submissions, likewise, I promise that a lot of these reported and guesstimated budgets fail to include the VALUE of a lot of freebies and donated labor+materials.
- DIRECT costs are largely what are being guesstimated and reported.
- INDIRECT costs and ADDED VALUE are both largely not being included.
For technical execution (and NOT for entertainment) purposes only, I'd also recommend a sober watching of:
- 'Ruben's Place' - Looks fairly decent, just a boring story to me.
- 'Daydreamer' - Well acted, ugly images
- 'New Low' - Remarkable production for the estimated budget
- maybe 'ThanksKilling' - Great example of A LOT of non-reported value added to the LOUDLY PROCLAIMED BUDGET!
- 'Evidence' - Great execution and usage of resources, unfortunately the story kinda goes off the tracks for the last half.
- 'Breathing Room.' - Same as above.
YAY!
What can I do with one of those?!
>> HOW ABOUT THIS: Everyone reading or referring back to this thread consider donating a little Christmas money from Grandma to IT!
Thank you, sir.Thanks rayw. Super post and thread.
Hugely appreciated.
Just trying to earn my keep around here.
Maybe not get kicked off IMMEDIATELY for the next transgression (or two) I'm sure to commit.
Last edited:
Huh. I'd like to do that too.... good material....
Ray said: "Although I disagree with the fair use gambit . . ."
Here's how you can comply with "fair use" in this instance: Rather than approaching it as 'filmmaking critique' piece, you proceed with it as a 'film review' video, a la Siskel and Ebert -- show a clip, give it thumbs up or down, THEN proceed to rip the filmmaking techniques used in the film. With the right title, it'll be considered a review of films -- legal under "fair use".
However, as you know, when it comes time to market it, anything goes -- "RAY'S 101 WAYS TO AVOID MAKING A TURKEY" will sell the thing for you!
Here's how you can comply with "fair use" in this instance: Rather than approaching it as 'filmmaking critique' piece, you proceed with it as a 'film review' video, a la Siskel and Ebert -- show a clip, give it thumbs up or down, THEN proceed to rip the filmmaking techniques used in the film. With the right title, it'll be considered a review of films -- legal under "fair use".
However, as you know, when it comes time to market it, anything goes -- "RAY'S 101 WAYS TO AVOID MAKING A TURKEY" will sell the thing for you!
Hmm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Been a while since I last looked over this.
It'd definitely advance knowledge of the arts through the addition of a new perspective.
And we'd only use a small amount from each of the one, two, three, four... twenty-five films to fit into a fifteen minute youtube video (factoring in our obligatory four minute credit roll intro, of course. AHEM!)
By jolly-jingo, GA, I think you're onto something here that I can definitely get into trouble with!
You still wanna make one, too?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Been a while since I last looked over this.
"To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative.
If the work was not copyrightable, the term had expired, or the defendant's work borrowed only a small amount, for instance, then the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case of infringement, and the defendant need not even raise the fair use defense."
If the work was not copyrightable, the term had expired, or the defendant's work borrowed only a small amount, for instance, then the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case of infringement, and the defendant need not even raise the fair use defense."
It'd definitely advance knowledge of the arts through the addition of a new perspective.
And we'd only use a small amount from each of the one, two, three, four... twenty-five films to fit into a fifteen minute youtube video (factoring in our obligatory four minute credit roll intro, of course. AHEM!)
By jolly-jingo, GA, I think you're onto something here that I can definitely get into trouble with!
You still wanna make one, too?!
Last edited:
I've already copied your list and giving it some pre-production thinking . . . but have to wait for a few things to clear off my plate.
Cool.
Very cool.
* * * * * * * * * * *
More fodder:
Zombie Women of Satan (2009) 85 min - Comedy | Horror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPeh9TrVhWY
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1468757/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Budget: £40,000
Road Kill (2010) "Road Train" (original title) 87 min - Horror | Thriller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikjtgLegsOE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1241330/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Budget: $1,000,000
Rise of the Undead (I) (2013) 70 min - Horror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7FjvoezupQ
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2805110/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2805202/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Budget: $100 - $1,000
The Book of Zombie (2010) 61 min - Action | Comedy | Horror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99lSKktb6V8
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1590190/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Budget: $15,000
* * * * * * * * * *
Horror Film of Cultural and Historical Significance:
CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSXpaWHzagA
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078935/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_in_film
* * * * * * * * * *
Some brave soul threw this out here: http://digthetunnel.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/green-hell-a-jay-crimson-film-now-showing/
Very cool.
* * * * * * * * * * *
More fodder:
Zombie Women of Satan (2009) 85 min - Comedy | Horror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPeh9TrVhWY
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1468757/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Budget: £40,000
Road Kill (2010) "Road Train" (original title) 87 min - Horror | Thriller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikjtgLegsOE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1241330/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Budget: $1,000,000
Rise of the Undead (I) (2013) 70 min - Horror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7FjvoezupQ
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2805110/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2805202/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Budget: $100 - $1,000
The Book of Zombie (2010) 61 min - Action | Comedy | Horror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99lSKktb6V8
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1590190/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Budget: $15,000
* * * * * * * * * *
Horror Film of Cultural and Historical Significance:
CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSXpaWHzagA
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078935/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_in_film
* * * * * * * * * *
Some brave soul threw this out here: http://digthetunnel.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/green-hell-a-jay-crimson-film-now-showing/
Last edited:
Beat ya to it, GA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFbGDtlaNTQ
Please pursue.
Headzup, in the next week or two (or three) I plan on posting a version of this examining the "as is" audio variances + what I did to level them all out & how I did it.
I imagine that video will be a greater PITA than this one was, probably an honest 40hr week's worth of time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFbGDtlaNTQ
7,751
I'd still be VERY MUCH interested in your production approach.Please pursue.
Headzup, in the next week or two (or three) I plan on posting a version of this examining the "as is" audio variances + what I did to level them all out & how I did it.
I imagine that video will be a greater PITA than this one was, probably an honest 40hr week's worth of time.
Left a comment on the video.
It really would be neat if you started a channel/site for this and posted videos every once and a while. I'm almost 100% certain other filmmakers would benefit from it, and perhaps you'd build up a fan base.
It's amazing the lack of competence or basic knowledge of filmmaking that filmmakers can have. Some of those overexposed shots, audio levels, VFX, and the whole trailer to Sabbath were mindnumbing.
YES DUMB#@&%! ANDREW!
It really would be neat if you started a channel/site for this and posted videos every once and a while. I'm almost 100% certain other filmmakers would benefit from it, and perhaps you'd build up a fan base.
It's amazing the lack of competence or basic knowledge of filmmaking that filmmakers can have. Some of those overexposed shots, audio levels, VFX, and the whole trailer to Sabbath were mindnumbing.
YES DUMB#@&%! ANDREW!
Thumbs up Ray. I watched this twice! I'm sharing the link with some of my filmmaking collegues!
re: production approach . . . lets say there's a book on it coming . . .
re: production approach . . . lets say there's a book on it coming . . .
Left a comment on the video.
Very much appreciated!
Thanks for the "like", too!
It really would be neat if you started a channel/site for this and posted videos every once and a while. I'm almost 100% certain other filmmakers would benefit from it, and perhaps you'd build up a fan base.
OMG, I would almost like to, but I fear that it would become an unpaid part-time job to pump out even one a month of these things, which would be a step down from the two films a month I've been averaging here in text only - and I'm already a month behind making this "Review-Review!" video!
It's amazing the lack of competence or basic knowledge of filmmaking that filmmakers can have. Some of those overexposed shots, audio levels, VFX, and the whole trailer to Sabbath were mindnumbing.
Yeah.
I'm just at a loss for what to productively say beyond what I already pointed out in those brief, on average 40 second snippets of feature length films.
Maybe that... many times filmmakers make films just because they can or for 90% selfish reasons, without any real regard for the audience?
I mean, if you wanna scare up a game of back yard or public park flag football or skins-and-shirts B-Ball at the court that's fine and all.
But to organize teams, jerseys, official positions and rosters, workout schedules, and leagues for a single game is just absolutely retarded to me.
And we often see the equivalent of just that here!
To me filmmaking is a gigantic hassle and production.
Not just the *relative fun and easy* casting, shooting, and editing part, but also the PITA financing, marketing, and distribution aspects which ought to be wrapped up inside of a greater "ongoing interest" business plan.
I look at these no-budget films and recognize and respect that some legitimate money is reported being spent on most of these and... I gotta say that I'd rather have braces on my kids, a car in the drive, two cars in the drive, kids' college paid for, or even a rental house for what these films cost - instead of the film.
I like/love movies and stories and all... but... some of these are just crazy "redistributions of wealth" to satisfy no commercial interests.
The opportunity cost has got to be worthwhile to me before blowing this kind of dough.
YES DUMB#@&%! ANDREW!
LOL! In-f**cking-credible, right?
Seriously, this looked good on paper, good on set, and good in editing? Right?
Dumb f**cks.
Seriously, this looked good on paper, good on set, and good in editing? Right?
Dumb f**cks.
Thumbs up Ray. I watched this twice! I'm sharing the link with some of my filmmaking collegues!
Thank you, very much, GA!
Been a li'l stretch since 'Lexie Cannes' got out of the box.
If you had to do 'LC' all over again with the same budget - would you change it's production a fair bit?
You working on another story project now?
re: production approach . . . lets say there's a book on it coming . . .
Well, other than a daring print publication?
YouTube said:
I guess I'll have to check this out at a later date (via a proxy, I guess). Was looking forward to it too. Stupid YouTube.
I think you're just nicer than I am.
I guess people got's what they gots.
Lesson #7: The director's filmography is mostly a cr@pfest, but it's gettin' done, and
because of it's sheer volume will have an anthology life longer than all of the
pie-in-the-sky stories many filmmakers will NEVER get done and out there.
because of it's sheer volume will have an anthology life longer than all of the
pie-in-the-sky stories many filmmakers will NEVER get done and out there.
WTH?
Gimme a half hour or so and I'll have it up on Vimeo.
D@mmit!
I wanna provide quality service around this joint! Earn my keep!
UPDATE EDIT:
Via Vimeo:
Waiting in line
Your video will begin converting in approximately 00:41:08. If you have other things to do besides stare at this screen, you can leave this page and we’ll email you when your video is ready to watch.
Your video will begin converting in approximately 00:41:08. If you have other things to do besides stare at this screen, you can leave this page and we’ll email you when your video is ready to watch.
UPDATE EDIT:
And when it finally does come out of the oven in a few minutes it'll be at this link:
https://vimeo.com/85370272
Vimeo tells me I uploaded a sub-optimal 3k bitrate 720p version.
Deal.
Last edited:
Ray sez: Been a li'l stretch since 'Lexie Cannes' got out of the box.
If you had to do 'LC' all over again with the same budget - would you change it's production a fair bit?
For the budget, I'm thinking there really isn't much more I could have done. I had all the time in the world to fix filmmaking blunders in post. Crap and bad acting did not get to the final cut. Deleted entire scenes and killed off characters that were not giving believable performances. Post is where my film shines.
That said, I might have rewritten some of the dialogue -- or at least allowed actors to overlap themselves on a different take.
Had I $5,000 more, I'd get a HD camcorder, faster computer, and one crew member to go to exterior locations and set up lights in advance of my arrival with actors. Other than that, I'd shoot basically the same film with even more attention to lighting than before.
Ray: You working on another story project now?
Savvy filmmakers always have projects on the burner in the event a rich dentist wants to make a movie.
Ray: Well, other than a daring print publication?
The key to doing this is to write the script to the locations you have available to you at at no cost. Your script should never involve having to fork out more than $5 per scene for costumes, props, etc. etc.
Write a story arc that involves two actors from beginning to end, with yourself being one of the actors. This way you only have to find ONE actor that will stick with you for the entire project -- maybe a year or more. All the other characters in your script will be roles that can be shot over a weekend one at a time and just that character only (along with with the two main actors). Once the weekend is over, you can say goodbye to that actor forever, then plan the next weekend shoot for a new character. And so on.
Yes, this involves creative writing, planning and editing, but you will not need to rely on the good will of anyone (save 1) for the entire shoot.
My film involved about 15 actors, most have never met themselves until AFTER the film even though many of them appeared in the same scene together, talking to each other!
It's all an illusion people!
If you had to do 'LC' all over again with the same budget - would you change it's production a fair bit?
For the budget, I'm thinking there really isn't much more I could have done. I had all the time in the world to fix filmmaking blunders in post. Crap and bad acting did not get to the final cut. Deleted entire scenes and killed off characters that were not giving believable performances. Post is where my film shines.
That said, I might have rewritten some of the dialogue -- or at least allowed actors to overlap themselves on a different take.
Had I $5,000 more, I'd get a HD camcorder, faster computer, and one crew member to go to exterior locations and set up lights in advance of my arrival with actors. Other than that, I'd shoot basically the same film with even more attention to lighting than before.
Ray: You working on another story project now?
Savvy filmmakers always have projects on the burner in the event a rich dentist wants to make a movie.
Ray: Well, other than a daring print publication?
The key to doing this is to write the script to the locations you have available to you at at no cost. Your script should never involve having to fork out more than $5 per scene for costumes, props, etc. etc.
Write a story arc that involves two actors from beginning to end, with yourself being one of the actors. This way you only have to find ONE actor that will stick with you for the entire project -- maybe a year or more. All the other characters in your script will be roles that can be shot over a weekend one at a time and just that character only (along with with the two main actors). Once the weekend is over, you can say goodbye to that actor forever, then plan the next weekend shoot for a new character. And so on.
Yes, this involves creative writing, planning and editing, but you will not need to rely on the good will of anyone (save 1) for the entire shoot.
My film involved about 15 actors, most have never met themselves until AFTER the film even though many of them appeared in the same scene together, talking to each other!
It's all an illusion people!
Last edited:
That's great Ray! Very insightful. It gives a great benchmark for the sort of stuff that people like me can aim to (hopefully greatly) surpass!
Thanks for getting back to my probing questions, GA!
Glad to see you got another iron in the fire.
It's perfect for lo/no budget filmmaking.
Fantastic!
It truly is.
Excellent, MH!
Glad you were both able to see it and that it had useful/actionable information in it.
Glad to see you got another iron in the fire.
Oh, I LOVE this approach!
It's perfect for lo/no budget filmmaking.
Fantastic!
Indeed.
It truly is.
Excellent, MH!
Glad you were both able to see it and that it had useful/actionable information in it.
Last edited: