Micro-budget horror films vs. microbudget action films.

chilipie said:
That is something to bear in mind, but it's certainly not the case in Sweden.
Click to expand...

I would agree in general about things like food and collapsible furniture but I don't think that's true of the film industry.

Because of the amount of English language imports coming in to Sweden the market for Swedish language films (in Sweden) is quite small, especially for cinematic releases. Let The Right One In is based on one of the biggest novels in the country's recent history and, at $4.5 million, had a huge budget. Similarly their (might I add crap) version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, at $13 million, is, to my knowledge, the biggest blockbuster ever to come out of Sweden.

Sweden's not a film producing country and I'm sure you could rent a camera crew and put together the expenses of a film production out in Sweden for a fraction of the cost of shooting in the US, here in the sunny UK or any other English speaking country.
 
harmonica44 said:
This is an example of, leaving action up to the imagination, similar to low budget horror. Is this possibly good?
Click to expand...

Why leave it up to the imagination? Go guerilla.

Cast yourself as the lead bad guy. Drive around until you find a couple of cops in a car, throw a brick through their car window, give them the finger and you'll have yourself an authentic looking car chase.

You'll have cop cars galore and that 'real' feel everyone is always trying to achieve. In addition, if your bad guy does not escape, get him to pull a gun with blanks, fire it off in the general direction of the cops and you will have yourself a gunfight, again, with that 'real' look that even the biggest budget movies struggle to get.

If you / your 'bad guy' actually manages to survive the ensuing bullet storm and surrenders, you will have a real-looking arrest, possibly involving real handcuffs and half a dozen real-looking whacks to the head. Remember, even if it hurts, suck it up as every film maker has to make sacrifices in the name of art.

The benefits are your research time will be cut practically to zero, you will achieve a level of authenticity even Spielberg would struggle to get and you will automatically have two follow-up movies. One will be a courtroom drama called 'it was an honest mistake, judge,' while the other will be a prison drama set over, say a ten year stretch with maybe two years time off for good behaviour. You might find yourself starring in a gay pornographic movie called 'I dropped the soap in a prison shower' but remember the bit I wrote about making sacrifices for your art. It'll be worth it.

This is the ultimate guerilla movie. The publicity it will generate will be worth a fortune. Try it tonight.
 
Last edited:
NickClapper said:
I would agree in general about things like food and collapsible furniture but I don't think that's true of the film industry.

Because of the amount of English language imports coming in to Sweden the market for Swedish language films (in Sweden) is quite small, especially for cinematic releases. Let The Right One In is based on one of the biggest novels in the country's recent history and, at $4.5 million, had a huge budget. Similarly their (might I add crap) version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, at $13 million, is, to my knowledge, the biggest blockbuster ever to come out of Sweden.

Sweden's not a film producing country and I'm sure you could rent a camera crew and put together the expenses of a film production out in Sweden for a fraction of the cost of shooting in the US, here in the sunny UK or any other English speaking country.
Click to expand...

But by the same token, British films (and I mean British funded and produced, not huge franchises like Harry Potter) are generally done on a much lower budget than American films, but making a film in Britain isn't really any cheaper than in the states. I wouldn't say not having as large a budget means things are cheaper… besides, Fincher's shot Tattoo in Stockholm, so that argument doesn't really hold up.
 
gorillaonabike said:
Why leave it up to the imagination? Go guerilla.

Cast yourself as the lead bad guy. Drive around until you find a couple of cops in a car, throw a brick through their car window, give them the finger and you'll have yourself an authentic looking car chase.

You'll have cop cars galore and that 'real' feel everyone is always trying to achieve. In addition, if your bad guy does not escape, get him to pull a gun with blanks, fire it off in the general direction of the cops and you will have yourself a gunfight, again, with that 'real' look that even the biggest budget movies struggle to get.

If you / your 'bad guy' actually manages to survive the ensuing bullet storm and surrenders, you will have a real-looking arrest, possibly involving real handcuffs and half a dozen real-looking whacks to the head. Remember, even if it hurts, suck it up as every film maker has to make sacrifices in the name of art.

The benefits are your research time will be cut practically to zero, you will achieve a level of authenticity even Spielberg would struggle to get and you will automatically have two follow-up movies. One will be a courtroom drama called 'it was an honest mistake, judge,' while the other will be a prison drama set over, say a ten year stretch with maybe two years time off for good behaviour. You might find yourself starring in a gay pornographic movie called 'I dropped the soap in a prison shower' but remember the bit I wrote about making sacrifices for your art. It'll be worth it.

This is the ultimate guerilla movie. The publicity it will generate will be worth a fortune. Try it tonight.
Click to expand...

Post made me laugh but it was mean.

I would ban you if I had mod powers.
 
If you want to make low budget action, you should read up on H.B. Halicki. He produced, directed and starred in the original "Gone In Sixty Seconds". The movie was made in 1973 for "about $150,000.00". Bear in mind that almost every single vehicle on screen was owned by Halicki, purchased for (or because of) the movie. Before you attempt to emulate him too far, you should keep in mind that he did all of his own stunts and died as a result of it (while filming "Gone In Sixty Seconds 2").
 
Location is easy. A park that looks like the woods.

A hunter who likes human prey is pretty popular.

The plot for Frozen Ground is very interesting.

The real problems are insurance costs and finding a stunt coordinator at the non-union level who isn't an egotistical SOB who will make your cast's livess miserable. I had to fire 3 stunt coordinators who were just too full of themselves over the last 10 years. The latest one was in my last production. For my next production, I'm bringing in a pro from the studios. Not everyone can be that well connected to have that option.

You need a good action script, action that is sellable, and a stunt coordinator and cast of team players. That is a hard combination to put together.

Weapons usually requires have a cop around to supervise in case a bystander wants to call the cops. That also means permits that cost money.

You need good breakaway props. That requires someone who can make custom ones from scratch. Breakaway bottles can run you $15 to $70 a bottle and you need a supply to reshoot takes at different angles.

Also, you need a DP who has shot action before. Most non-union DPs have nothing to show in their demo reels of action. All they shoot are dialogue and drama scene. There is a certain cinamatic style to shooting action.

These are just some things to consider.
 
Thanks, I know what you mean for my short I am doing now, there is an action scene and it will be DPs first one. But I figure we all have to get to get experience somewhere I guess.

I don't know if I can afford a cop to be on standby for shootouts, depending on how much the cop will cost of course. This may sound like a bad idea, but I could have a police radio scanner, near me while shooting, cause that way I know if the cops are coming or not and we can be ready to explain, even if we have informed them we are shooting a movie. I mean if someone called the cops, then having a hired cop stand by won't make a difference, if the cops are coming anyway, would it?

Another thing is the coordinator. Since most newcomers have to learn to do everything themselves perhaps I could do the coordination? I am taking some martial arts classes, mostly to help with the future film, so hopefully I can learn some coordination from that. I wrote my script so that almost all the villains where masks, in the action scenes, so that way it will be easy to have someone willing to do the stunt, without having to worry about them looking like the actors they are impersonating, with masks on. I am hoping to shoot all of the breakaway prop scenes in one take each though, and have the shots all planned out beforehand, to limit having to reshoot.
 
Last edited:
There is more to being a stunt coordinator than martial arts. There is a knowledge of stage fighting, camera angles, and actor safety.

My favorite episode in the Le Femme Nikita series would make a kick butt micro budget action movie.

A game hunter who wants a bigger challenge begins hunting women in the woods around his house for sport. Little does he realize that his latest capture for sport is a highly trained government assassin who can turn anything into a weapon. She ends up in his hands after she missing her extraction time on a mission. She knows a killer when she meets one and doesn't trust his hospitality. And, she does not eat the food or drink the drinks he offers her. She sees in his living room, he hunts game. She is set on foot to leave and try to find her way back to civilization before he can find her. Once she is away from the house, she sneaks back in to find trophies from his previous human victims. She takes knives and tools and leaves. She makes traps in the woods for him. She hides away from his dogs and throws off her scent.

In the final battle, she kills him in hand to hand combat. As an assassin, she is trained to kill with her bare hands when necessary. She finds her way back to civilization and uses a phone to schedule a pickup by her black ops group.

Nice plot and my favorite Le Femme Nikita episode.
 
Okay thanks. Well I would have to learn some of that coordination myself then. Any books that are good for that? My plan was to keep shooting a take till it looked real enough in a fight. It seems that horror requires coordination too. Making a person look like the got slashed, making a zombie look like they got killed or just killed someone. How is that easier?
 
Last edited:
You should go to an acting school and make sure you take stage fighting classes, beside martial arts classes. The better the acting school, the better they can hook you up with real studio professionals and give you very valuable experience doing stunts in a big production. NYU Tishman school is one of the best schools in the country. Most of their graduates end up working for Hollywood.
 
chilipie said:
But by the same token, British films (and I mean British funded and produced, not huge franchises like Harry Potter) are generally done on a much lower budget than American films, but making a film in Britain isn't really any cheaper than in the states. I wouldn't say not having as large a budget means things are cheaper… besides, Fincher's shot Tattoo in Stockholm, so that argument doesn't really hold up.
Click to expand...

*Blissfully ignoring all subsequent posts*

Right, but Fincher's cast and crew are all American (and a little British).

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (combined films) had a production budget of approximately $260 million dollars. Now I'm no mathematician but, having seen the films, I'd say that the split is likely to be $100 for part one and $160 for Part Two (roughly of course). Captain America- a real Hollywood special effects movie- cost $140 million, the abomination that is Sucker Punch cost about $80 million and Pirates of the Extremely Cost Effective Carribbean cost between $150 and $250 million.

I forget the point I'm making, other than to say that blockbusters tend to cost the same wherever you're shooting then (aka USA or Britain).

Locations in Sweden are not the expensive thing, which is why I think the fact that Fincher's shooting there shouldn't affect it being seen as a Hollywood production. Sure they could've shot in the barren North of the USA but if I know Fincher (and I don't personally) then I would imagine he wants to shoot in Sweden to capture the spirit of the novel.

Again I forget the point I'm making. I guess what I'm saying is that the big Swedish productions will always cost less money because the big Swedish productions still only have a small core of Swedish speakers as an audience. Once in a while they'll have a break out hit but if you're budgeting for a Swedish language production, in Sweden, then you're budgeting for a much smaller audience than The Dark Knight Rises.

Ergo it is cheaper to make a movie in Sweden :)
 
I tried but there are no mentors I could find where I live to work for an an apprentice. I'll keep looking though. There are acting classes, and I'll look into that. But I doubt they would have any big connections. I couldn't afford to go to NYU or anything like that though.
 
Last edited:
NickClapper said:
*Blissfully ignoring all subsequent posts*

Right, but Fincher's cast and crew are all American (and a little British).

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (combined films) had a production budget of approximately $260 million dollars. Now I'm no mathematician but, having seen the films, I'd say that the split is likely to be $100 for part one and $160 for Part Two (roughly of course). Captain America- a real Hollywood special effects movie- cost $140 million, the abomination that is Sucker Punch cost about $80 million and Pirates of the Extremely Cost Effective Carribbean cost between $150 and $250 million.

I forget the point I'm making, other than to say that blockbusters tend to cost the same wherever you're shooting then (aka USA or Britain).

Locations in Sweden are not the expensive thing, which is why I think the fact that Fincher's shooting there shouldn't affect it being seen as a Hollywood production. Sure they could've shot in the barren North of the USA but if I know Fincher (and I don't personally) then I would imagine he wants to shoot in Sweden to capture the spirit of the novel.

Again I forget the point I'm making. I guess what I'm saying is that the big Swedish productions will always cost less money because the big Swedish productions still only have a small core of Swedish speakers as an audience. Once in a while they'll have a break out hit but if you're budgeting for a Swedish language production, in Sweden, then you're budgeting for a much smaller audience than The Dark Knight Rises.

Ergo it is cheaper to make a movie in Sweden :)
Click to expand...

I think we're pretty much in agreement… just slightly differ on the reasons why :yes: I shall leave it there before we wander too far off topic!
 
Well I don't necessarily have to make an action film. But I would like to still use the script I am writing, as it is my best story I've come up with so far. So it doesn't have to be an action film, but if I take out the action scenes that's around 20 pages gone. Either way, the villains will have to engage the good guys in altercations to escape, and achieve their goals for the plot. So it doesn't have to be the action genre, but there has to be a good percentage of altercations either way.
 
Last edited:
You could just test out your action sequences before you do a full on shoot to see if they will work. You could do test footage and see if you can make it work in editing and post. Once you are happy with the look and the fact you can pull off the effects then you could use the idea in your production with the full crew and cast. By doing this you can come up with ideas that are feasible within your budget.

Just remember to be safe as possible when filming your action scenes.
 
Last edited:
TheNoob said:
Post made me laugh but it was mean.

I would ban you if I had mod powers.
Click to expand...

I was once banned for cracking a "that's what she said" joke. Oops, I better stay on-topic!

No matter the genre, ultra-low-budget tends to look silly. You can embrace the silliness (like almost all ultra-low-budget horror movies), or you can pretend your audience doesn't notice (like almost all ultra-low-budget action movies). Either way, your movie is going to be silly. The only question is whether or not the silliness was intentional.
 
I know what you mean. I watched some clips of movies done on a very low budget. A lot of them the characters look like actors, rather than characters if you know what I mean. The trick is to get them to actually look like the characters they are portraying. For example I saw on where a cop was chasing a thug of some sort, and it looked like an actor in a costume, rather than a real cop. Same with the thug. How does a low budget get it to look convincing? What are they doing wrong? It's not obvious enough, to immediately put my finger on, but I know it's there. If I could put my finger on it, then I'd know where the problem was and perhaps how to solve it. Some maybe could argue that the characters and locations looking like real people and real everyday locations could argue that it adds to the realism but it's a fine line, I think.

Well since my script deals with very dark serious and controversial subject matter, silly would be out of the question.
 
Last edited:
I directed an action feature film with a budget of $25k, and believe me it was difficult to do on that amount of money! We had to compromise on a lot of things, including shortening the fight scenes as well as severely limiting our vehicle (car/motorcycle) work.

It can be done, but you just have to decide how much action you NEED to have in the film to tell your story. :)

Link to my film's website if you want to check out the trailer: www.houseofcardsthefilm.com
 
It's certainly possible to do micro-budget action. These guys are doing it:

http://thestuntpeople.com

This is the trailer for their recent second feature, "Death Grip", budget under $100k:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yFnYFZqdGY

No car chases or explosions, etc. Light on the gunplay, heavy on the fighting. Very heavy on the fighting, because it's the one thing in action you can really do well without a big budget - if you've got the skills & time.

But here's the thing H44 - just because they can do it doesn't mean you (or anyone else) could. You see, they didn't decide to make action films because they thought it might be easier than horror.

They make action films because they are huge fans of action films. Such big fans that they were inspired to go out and learn martial arts, and gymnastics, and fight choreography, so that they could emulate the action they liked. They've trained for years to do that stuff - and that was before they started learning filmmaking so they could translate what they'd learned on to the screen. So then they spent years making short films just to figure out how to make it work before making their first feature... and then another five years of practice, shorts, improvement, writing and saving before they made Death Grip.

So the question isn't is it possible - it's are you passionate enough about action to spend a decade or more learning how to make ultra-low-budget action films?

harmonica44 said:
A lot of action fans complain about how movies like 2 Fast 2 Furious had CGI cars. However since that movie was a multi-million dollar one, and the one I wanna make a micro, would action fans therefore be more forgiving, with much more limited resources?
Click to expand...

There's one other aspect to what they do that's important - they aren't just trying to do 'action'. Because they're such big fans of classic action and martial arts films they're unhappy with the way hollywood does fight scenes now - shaky-cam, fast cuts, wires and cgi. Their goal isn't to do hollywood-style action on a low-budget, their goal is to do better than hollywood, period - and they do. Their writing, acting, cinematography, etc is all good - not academy-award winning, but good enough. Their fight scenes are better than anything I've seen in a hollywood film in years. Movies like The Expendables make me wish they'd get the Stunt People to choreograph, shoot and edit the fight scenes, because as it is now they waste the talents of actors who can fight well like Li and Statham.

So the answer to your question is sure, action fans will be more forgiving if your budget is low. They'll be more forgiving of acting, writing, etc - but not bad action. That's what they're watching for, that's what they're passionate about. If you're passionate about it too, and can deliver better action than hollywood can on a micro-budget, then you'll get the action fans on board.

But if you're thinking you'll take a few martial arts classes and then make an action movie because it's easier than a horror film you're going about it all wrong.

Stop casting about for what you want to make. Figure out what you're most passionate about in film and pursue that relentlessly. Then figure out how it could be done better, and do it - and then you'll win over the fans who are passionate about it as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top