Minimum crew

[Kingda Ka]

Crunching the numbers for a low-budget ($100k) non-SAG period horror film I wrote to be filmed at a buddy’s property down in Belize.

Very simple premise, I think it’s like 9-10 shipwreck survivors on a deserted tropical island. Same costumes the whole time, very simple creature. No sets to speak of – just improvised shelters and stuff. No major stunts. I already own all the period firearms. One scene might require renting a wave tank back in the states.
Any guesses at a minimum crew? Lots of local help available for general labor. If people were willing to double-up, etc.?

We could send the cast home as they get killed off.

I’m guessing the Director could double as DP? An additional operator? A sound person? A couple make-up people and/or SFX people? I would fetch coffee and whatever else was need. Who else would need to be there the whole time?

 

[Kingda Ka]

Thank you all for turning my $100k project into $250k!

 

[Sweetie]

Thank you all for turning my $100k project into $250k!

They didn't do that. They helped you from running out of money 40% way through your project. It's a good thing! Ignorance is bliss until it bites you on the ass.

 

[Kingda Ka]

That's not the message I got. We could still shoot the picture for $100k, we could shoot the picture for $10k in the woods behind somebody's house if we wanted to. I think what the other contributors are saying is there's a balance between budget and quality. If you want the audience to enjoy a Big Screen experience instead of a cheesy student film, it costs more money to pay the pros who know how to create that experience for them.

The beach difficulties, for instance, might be tough and expensive, however, that tells me everybody else is avoiding it so it will be cool and fresh for audiences to see it. The ocean is very visually interesting.

 

[Sweetie]

That's not the message I got.

Truth be told, you turned the project from a 100k to a 250k. You just didn't know it. That's also assuming you're correct when you're saying it was 100k and it now is $250k.

there's a balance between budget and quality

There is, and there isn't. Some are able to take $100k and make a beautiful movie where others are able to take $250k and flush it down the toilet. You are going to need certain professional work done to get your movie to a point where the quality is great.

As to the beach. The message I'm seeing is warning you of the issues you'll run into if you shoot at the beach. They're also nice enough to explain the fixes to your situation. It's up to you (assuming you're the producer) to determine if that added expense is worth the added production value. You can still make your film, now you have an informed choice to make. I'd consider that better than making an uninformed choice and coming up $150k short on your budget.

As for tough and expensive. Welcome to filming. It's both tough and expensive.

I wish you the best of luck for your film.

 

[WalterB]

The more crew the easier it will get.
A beach is not only a sound challenge: sand gets everywhere, so the camera/lenses can and will get dirty. Sand is heavier to walk on than solid ground. Getting coffee will take twice the amount of time than normally
And feet leave traces in sand, so after take 10 the beach might look like being frequented by millions of tourists instead of some almost deserted island.

(I'm not trying to make your project cost more
I'm helping you think of what you will run into, so you can anticipate on that )

PS.
handheld can work in any era, because only 1910-till now has motion pictures anyway.
If you think handheld can't be used for a 1700 piece, than you should paint your movie
Or you just want to choose for a non-handheld approach, which is perfectly fine

 

[AudioPostExpert]

1. If you want the audience to enjoy a Big Screen experience instead of a cheesy student film ...
2. The ocean is very visually interesting.

This raises a couple of interesting points:

1. The "big screen experience" is not only about what you project on to that screen, it's just as much about what's behind that screen (and all around the walls), namely, about $100k of theatrical sound system! In other words, if the film looks stunning but sounds like a crappy home video won't the "big screen experience" essentially be a cheesy student with a great camera?

2. The Ocean is just as interesting (if not more so) aurally as it is visually! Furthermore, due to the changing rhythm and intensity of breaking waves, it potentially provides a number of extremely useful sound design tools/options. However, as directorik and Alcove mentioned, the requirement for clean production dialogue would likely mean ADR, and even for experienced professional actors that usually results in relatively flat, unemotional (or conversely overacted) dialogue, which again, is a "big screen experience" killer! I'm not saying it can't be done, it can and the result could be exceptionally impressive but you're going to need some well equipped, good, experienced pros and an exceptionally good plan which includes both the PSM (production sound mixer) and the audio post person/team as well as the DoP!

G

 

[mlesemann]

For my new feature that's in post-production ("Detours"), we shot a couple of scenes on the beach & a major scene in a boat on Tampa Bay. Even with experienced crew, along with lavs & a boom, it was challenging. And a ton of hard work for my post-prod sound guy (he's almost done & it sounds great).

You can see a few photos of those scenes in these links to our Facebook photos:
https://www.facebook.com/DetoursFeatureFilm/photos/pb.261643700672243.-2207520000.1432919916./345961202240492/?type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/DetoursFeatureFilm/photos/pb.261643700672243.-2207520000.1432919893./363775873792358/?type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/DetoursFeatureFilm/photos/pb.261643700672243.-2207520000.1432919893./354933618009917/?type=3&theater

 

[directorik]

That's not the message I got.

That's too bad. Because the message everyone is sending is "go in
prepared." If you want to use a crew of four or a crew of fifteen you
can. If your budget is $100k then that's what you spend. We were
all offering advice on how to spend it wisely. I'm sorry that isn't the
message you got.

 

[Kingda Ka]

It's all good. I've managed multi-million dollar projects in the real world a hell of a lot more complicated than making a film. Where written performance guarantees mean if you don't do what you said you were going to do, it costs real money and a lot of it. Sweetie seems to be the only one who thinks I'm a complete imbecile out to throw my money away, which is all in good fun and god bless him/her.

There are few constants in the universe, one of them is I can guarantee I will not be unprepared for any project I undertake and it will have a distribution outlet or I simply won't do it and I am not going to have my name attached to anything cheesy, as I'm making the film in the first place to find production partners for some big budget tentpoles.

 

[Kingda Ka]

Just kidding about the $100k to $250k, I have no idea what the budget will be. It's just 15 people at $6,000 is $90,000. I was just thinking the cast might want at least as much money as the crew. Figure transportation for 30 people, it would be in the $250k range.

BUT, again, I am not interested in filmmaking to make money. There are much easier ways to do that. I'm interested in filmmaking to create art.

 

[Sweetie]

I didn't call you an imbecile. I called you ignorant. I guess in those multi-million dollar projects understanding English isn't a requirement.

You're all over the place. You come here asking for advice on your $100k film. You get it. You belittle those contributors claiming they're responsible for raising your budget from $100k to $250... or is it $6k or $90k? Meh... who knows. You're the expert in running big projects. I suppose you should be teaching us.

I am not interested in filmmaking to make money. There are much easier ways to do that.

Yep. Just ask this guy:

I still wish you luck in your film.

 

[Kingda Ka]

Sweetie, I certainly hope your real world demeanor is friendlier than your online persona if you are interested in a career in filmmaking. Or it could be a while between projects for you. Nobody wants a clubhouse cancer on their crew.

Nobody would hire a wedding videographer who constantly argued without contributing anything helpful, much less trust a six-figure feature film to them. Just my two cents. Work on whatever has you so bent out of shape.

 

[Kingda Ka]

Here's a picture for you, Sweetie. I built that.

 

[Sweetie]

Nice picture of two penis tips in the sand. Seriously, Grats to "Bob The Builder"

One thing I've learned over time. Smart people are often their own downfall. They think they know it all.

Imagine some computer programming genius who tries their hand at building those penis tips. No matter how smart they are, they're going to screw it up. They're better off spending the cash, paying the right people to do the job and get out of their way.

That may be your approach to making a film. If it is, you probably have a chance of succeeding at creating some art. At the moment, it's appearing that you're flailing. While there is nothing wrong with being at the start of the learning steps, your process of blaming others for your own ignorance and short comings is never a good sign.

Once again, good luck with your film.

 

[Kingda Ka]

All I can do is strive to one day achieve your level of competency, Sweetie.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

... I am not interested in filmmaking to make money. ... I'm interested in filmmaking to create art.

I hear this statement quite often, the problem is that in practice it's incredibly hard to separate one from the other. To make good films costs a lot of money, so unless you're related to a generous billionaire, who would invest that kind of money in a film (or anything else) which is not even designed to make it's capital back, let alone make a profit?

I've managed multi-million dollar projects in the real world a hell of a lot more complicated than making a film. Where written performance guarantees mean if you don't do what you said you were going to do, it costs real money and a lot of it.

1. Ah, but have you managed projects where the outcome was expected to be as good as any other multi-million dollar project but your actual budget was 10-100 times less? That's the reality of the situation for a micro-budget filmmaker. Furthermore, I could be wrong but I believe that there's a basic expectation with multi-million dollar construction projects that the end result successfully fulfils it's design brief? I'm sure there are exceptions but in the film industry, until you get to the 8 or 9 figure budget level, it's only the exceptions which are successful!

2. With all due respect, you seem to be at the very early stages of understanding how budgeted films are made, so I don't see how you can make an informed judgement about how complicated they are to make.

3. The film industry operates on many of the same basic principles as other industries/businesses; there are contracts and consequences (often severe ones) if the agreed conditions in the contracts are not met.

Sweetie seems to be the only one who thinks I'm a complete imbecile out to throw my money away ...

I believe you're misinterpreting what Sweetie is saying. You don't need to be an imbecile or even marginally unintelligent, even the major studios who've been doing this for over 100 years and employ the best/most experienced professionals on the planet sometimes end up throwing their money away. At the lower budget levels, where one can't afford the very best personnel or even a full complement of competent professionals, the odds of throwing your money away are dramatically higher. Add to this, the situation where the producer and director are not themselves highly experienced professionals and the odds of throwing your money away are dramatically higher again.

There are few constants in the universe, one of them is I can guarantee I will not be unprepared for any project I undertake ...

The implication of this statement is that you don't intend to start making your film for at least 5 years and probably more like 10? If you're talking about a considerably shorter time-frame, then you simply don't have the experience (of budgeted productions) to realistically make that guarantee.

-------------

I'm not trying to insult or discourage you Kingda and I don't believe that was Sweetie's original intention either. You don't have to take my or Sweetie's word for it either of course, you can continue on your path regardless and find out for yourself, but IMHO, that would be a shame.

G

 

[Kingda Ka]

I get it. I completely, 100% understand how the world works. The most transferable skill of all from the business world to the filmmaking world is the ability to spot talent and hire the right people. I am not going to sit down and learn every single aspect of film production, that's not my job as producer. Making sure those pros have everything they need to do their jobs is.

I am just here to learn the lay of the film-making world. I will be hiring pros to do everything, including a line producer to break the budget down, but honestly, until I visited here I didn't know the person who broke budgets down was called a line producer. You can't hire somebody without knowing what positions you need to fill.

My goal is to help build the independent TV and film industry in the Pacific Northwest because I have no desire to live anywhere else. Eugene, Oregon has the biggest sound stages north of San Francisco at Chambers Communications. Unfortunately, 90% of the time they sit empty. It was a Field of Dreams thing and nobody showed up. I would like to see the PNW an attractive place for filmmakers and film school students.

I really don't need every question I ask to get blown into a diatribe about how hard it will be. If it was easy it would be boring.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

The most transferable skill of all from the business world to the filmmaking world is the ability to spot talent and hire the right people. I am not going to sit down and learn every single aspect of film production, that's not my job as producer.

You're right, there are so many different filmmaking crafts and sub-crafts, it's completely unrealistic for any one person to learn how to do them all with any decent level of competency. On the other hand, if you don't have a reasonable appreciation and understanding of all these different film crafts how are you going know what represents "talent" and "the right people" for your particular film?

Making sure those pros have everything they need to do their jobs is [my job]. I will be hiring pros to do everything...

You complained about some of the earlier responses turning your $100k budget into a $250k budget but with these two statements you've multiplied your $100k budget not by 2.5 times but closer to 50 times! Knowing where to cut corners and by how much takes considerable knowledge, skill and experience on the part of the Producer if one is to avoid either a complete disaster or a "cheesy" theatrical experience.

G

 

[trueindie]

I really don't need every question I ask to get blown into a diatribe about how hard it will be. If it was easy it would be boring.

Fair enough.

I'm with you in spirit. You don't have to accept what all the filmmakers are saying regarding your budget and other requirements. But in order to reject what they're saying, you have to have some understanding of why you can reject what you can reject. There's nothing exceptional about filmmaking. I couldn't make those buildings in your picture. That takes way more precision than most art does. But before you spend a massive amount of money making your period horror film, spend $5000 and shoot a completed scene. It most definitely doesn't sound like $5000 would be a problem for you. So do it.

Shoot something for one day. You don't have to buy a thing. Hire people with their own equipment. DPs and audio guys with professional gear are all over the place. Plan the day, plan the scene you want to shoot. Shoot it. Then edit it and hire the people to do the post work on it and see what it looks and sounds like for $5000 all in.

It'll be a very good reality check on what's possible.

If you want to hire people who know what they're doing, then you have to pay that kind of rate. If you pay them the rates you're planning to, you're going to pick up people, who may have been at it for a while, but never worked in a professional setting. You could get lucky, regarding their expertise, but I'm guessing you want to bet on a sure thing.

To me, it sounds like you'll make your film. You've got the financial means. You've obviously got the passion as you've been working on your projects for a while in your downtime. In my opinion, and it's only my opinion, the only thing for you to know is this: two people can direct the same scenes, based on the same script, with the same actors and the same crew and the scenes will come out looking completely different. The key is to understand the reasons for the difference. How we interpret the script and the story and translate it into actor behavior and how we shoot those actors will be different. Understanding the reasons for the difference, as to why the same scene can look and sound like film, or a student project, will get you on your way.

But I'd maintain the general attitude you have of not readily accepting everything filmmakers tell you. It can protect you in some instances. We are making art. What works for me, surely may not work for you.

Cheers

 

[Kingda Ka]

Trueindie, your words are 400% true and I am absolutely undertaking a small project at this time - a 3-minute sizzle reel for a TV series. Using a local film production company and theater talent.

The difficulty is in the US Pacific Northwest is we do not have the deep talent for TV or film. We don't have people who can do CGI or SFX - those people have headed down to LA as soon as they were able. With the notable exception of Vancouver, BC where many shows are shot and/or post production.

The point of contention with me personally, I think, is the conventional wisdom says one must relocate to LA to produce a major drama. God bless Los Angeles, I have never had anything but wonderful experiences there, but I ain't moving there, period. Like you say, I don't have the financial necessity to do it, I'm not going to.