Trying to come up with a budget.

[harmonica44]

I am wanting to a make a feature film, possibly next year. I have a budget of $50000-75000, at the most, but would like to spend the least amount that I can, and certainly not go over. I was thinking of making a list of sets and action scenes I will need, and the experienced ones on her can tell me how much I can make that for the least amount more likely. Or can that not be hypothesized, simply by discussing it? If it can here is the list of settings of action scenes.

1. About half the movie takes place in different parts of a police station and/or government criminal investigation buildings, depending on when I'm done the script.

2. A courtroom for a couple of scenes.

3. A bar for one scene.

4. Two houses and an apartment building, but I could probably get those sets from friends for free.

5. Outdoor city settings for media and news coverage scenes.

6. Two buildings of some sort for the plot but haven't decided what kind of buildings yet. One will be used for the shootout below.

The Action scenes.

1. The freeway and highway streets for a car chase. Possibly the city too, but not sure yet. The chase involves a few cars, and a speeding fire engine, for the plot specifically.

2. A building of some sort that I haven't decided on yet. Gunshots will be fired to and from the building towards several police cars, as well as several shots fired into the building. Doors will be kicked down and walls possibly broken into. Significant damage.

3. The villains cause a car to crash to kidnap someone inside, followed by the driver trying to run them over as he frees himself from being stuck.

4. A chase and attack sequence throughout a house, involving fists and blunt objects.

Thanks.

 

[harmonica44]

Yeah but it's hard at least for me, to come up with a plot with only one character. At least for a whole movie. So far for the new script I am writing, I have been able to get it down to about nine main characters minimum, plus all the cameos and extras.

 

[Kholi]

Yeah but it's hard at least for me, to come up with a plot with only one character. At least for a whole movie. So far for the new script I am writing, I have been able to get it down to about nine main characters minimum, plus all the cameos and extras.

For a short, one character and one location deals are fine.

For a feature, IMO, don't do it. Especially if you're spending in excess of 10K to do so. Might as well chalk it up to learning experience if you do and, hey, film school costs more so it's not a bad thing.

Just don't expect to recoup any sort of money. Big concepts and big ideas often take home the prize.

 

[brianluce]

Yeah but it's hard at least for me, to come up with a plot with only one character. .

You don't have to make it with one character. My short has two characters but there isn't a requirement for a 2 shot, so I don't need both actors together on the same day.

Another good way to do a short is find a cool location that's unique and interesting and that you can secure. Write your story on that location -- it's easier than staring at a blank piece of paper. A lot of indie shorts and features have decent stories and acting but dreary sets. Bottom line though, is make life easy on yourself.

 

[harmonica44]

Of course, I thought for some reason you meant a feature. Yeah I have noticed the sets look dreary, on shorts. However when I make practice shorts, I don't want to write a new story for each short. It's hard coming up with stories, that short, since they are over before they start. I have written one short though which is pretty good I think. So I will practice shooting that one multiple times maybe, changing up the shots and direction each time. Plus I will practice non-story scripts like fight scenes I wrote or challenging things like that.

 

[knightly]

H44: I like that plan. No need to get all crazy writing stuff. If you reimagine and examine all of the possible ways to do a single script... you'll find your groove just as easily - and you have plenty to compare to for the results!

 

[brianluce]

I don't like the idea of "Practice shorts" or "Practice scripts", make the things as good as you possibly can and throw it out there and see what happens. If you posted something here that said "Okay guys, check out my practice short" I wouldn't be interested in clicking, but if it said "Okay here's my first short..." I would check it out. To say it's a practice short is hedging and makes it sound like you're not giving your all. Your script might really be killer, it could develop into something positive if you execute it to the best of your ability. Shooting test footage is one thing, but Practice Shorts? To me it just sounds like you're aiming low. Aim high.

 

[Alcove Audio]

I don't like the idea of "Practice shorts"

So, in other words, you think he should dive right in without ever having written a script, shot a frame or recorded a sound and do an entire feature?

Would you hire a guy to build your house who has never read a blueprint or held a hammer?

How about a surgeon with no experience?

If I put a Chopin etude in front of you could you play it perfectly with no practice?


Obviously you do the best job that you can, but 99.99% of the time first (and third and tenth) efforts are pretty bad; you write them off as a way to gain the necessary experience.

 

[harmonica44]

So, in other words, you think he should dive right in without ever having written a script, shot a frame or recorded a sound and do an entire feature?

Would you hire a guy to build your house who has never read a blueprint or held a hammer?

How about a surgeon with no experience?

If I put a Chopin etude in front of you could you play it perfectly with no practice?


Obviously you do the best job that you can, but 99.99% of the time first (and third and tenth) efforts are pretty bad; you write them off as a way to gain the necessary experience.

Well no I won't post a practice short on here. What I mean is I wanna practice shooting a lot of shorts, before doing a real scripted short, then putting that on here. The practice shorts are for practice only. I have written scripts so I think I got the script thing down and don't need to practice that near as much as shots, editing, and sounds. I will storyboard it, but as far as writing goes, I think I can just practice by shooting scenes, from my previous scripts. Plus once I find people to work with me, they can read the scenes, and we can come up with which ones to experiment on. Then once I get better, I will shoot a short film I wrote, and post it for analysis.

 

[Kholi]

So, in other words, you think he should dive right in without ever having written a script, shot a frame or recorded a sound and do an entire feature?

Would you hire a guy to build your house who has never read a blueprint or held a hammer?

How about a surgeon with no experience?

If I put a Chopin etude in front of you could you play it perfectly with no practice?


Obviously you do the best job that you can, but 99.99% of the time first (and third and tenth) efforts are pretty bad; you write them off as a way to gain the necessary experience.

It's true, my only objection is that this is filmmaking and honestly, it's pretty easy. It's not like surgery where lives are dependent, with the right amount of money you can make things happen.

The director of "Just Go For It!" had never shot a single thing in her life, but in a few years she went straight to a feature after saving up. Granted, her husband and she read up on and learned as much as they could and watched movies, so you should definitely learn one way or another.

I would, however, suggest that someone at least work under others before attempting. That way you can form a nice amount of contacts and experience on another person's project before you go onto your own.

In the Op's case, where he lives might be a hindrance to being able to do that.

 

[harmonica44]

Yeah I've done the budget several times on how much it would cost to move to a city where more filmmaking goes on and it would eat away at my savings to move. Plus it's more of a guarantee if I have money, then if I don't of course. I haven't heard of Just Go For It. What's that one?

 

[Jamster]

H, why not shoot a scene of your feature?

You'll get some much needed experience plus use it as a teaser/trailer for your movie win-win ...no?

 

[brianluce]

So, in other words, you think he should dive right in without ever having written a script, shot a frame or recorded a sound and do an entire feature?

Would you hire a guy to build your house who has never read a blueprint or held a hammer?

How about a surgeon with no experience?

If I put a Chopin etude in front of you could you play it perfectly with no practice?


Obviously you do the best job that you can, but 99.99% of the time first (and third and tenth) efforts are pretty bad; you write them off as a way to gain the necessary experience.

Flawed analogies. The analogy should be if you were building your own house, would be write it off as practice building or make it as good as you possible could?

Point is, if you proceed from the premise that what you create will be bad, then for sure, it will be bad. I can think of no reason to hedge, bet against yourself, or expect to fail. IMO, the hardest thing in the world is to write a feature length screenplay. Creating a dramatic, emotional experience over 120 pages and within the limiting confines of a screenplay is difficult. The odds of selling one, even for a 20 year WGA guy, are astronomical. Yet, first time writers sell their scripts much more frequently than you'd expect. I'll wager the single common denominator among that group is that they all believed that what they'd done was good and going to be good before they started writing it and not the proverbial "Crap plus one".

I don't see an upside to such defeatist thinking, only a recipe for mediocrity.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

"The analogy should be if you were building your own house, would be write it off as practice building or make it as good as you possible could?"

Of course you'd build it is as good as possible. It's just that "as good as possible" has a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of being really, really shitty.

Not to sound TOO egomanical, but I am a rare breed in that my first short only kind of sucked (some pretty bad acting, REALLY bad pacing) mainly because I was paying several pros as DP, sound, etc.. who stopped me from making really obvious errors.

I must almost be a genuis (HA!) because my second short was actually pretty good, got into multiple festivals and won some awards, but it's still very much a flawed movie. Better than my first, quite a bit, a full realization of the kind of work I hope to do, nope, not even close.

You don't have to go in with the intention that it's a "practice" movie, just the realization you are going to make a lot of mistakes. The pont is to learn from them and get better.

I'm in pre-pro on my third short now. The hope is to have it be better than my second, maybe even rising to "wow, this is a pretty darn good little film".

 

[directorik]

So, in other words, you think he should dive right in without ever having written a script, shot a frame or recorded a sound and do an entire feature?

I know this question wasn't asked to me, but I say yes.

The problem I have with your analogy is two of examples you
use could result in injury or death.

I would never hire a guy to build my house who has never read
a blueprint or held a hammer - but I see no problem with someone
with no experience making a film. I would never go to a surgeon
who has no experience but I see no problem with someone with
no experience making a film.

harmonica will harm no one if he jumps right in and makes a feature
with no previous experience at all. He may even learn something.

Those of us you have made features know from experience that
there is a high likelihood that his move will be terrible - unmatchably
terrible - so all the advice to make short films is good advice. However,
there is the possibility that he could make a good movie. And there
is no possibility that he will harm or kill anyone while doing it. Perhaps
there are better examples than a house builder or surgeon.

 

[Kholi]

I know this question wasn't asked to me, but I say yes.

The problem I have with your analogy is two of examples you
use could result in injury or death.

I would never hire a guy to build my house who has never read
a blueprint or held a hammer - but I see no problem with someone
with no experience making a film. I would never go to a surgeon
who has no experience but I see no problem with someone with
no experience making a film.

harmonica will harm no one if he jumps right in and makes a feature
with no previous experience at all. He may even learn something.

Those of us you have made features know from experience that
there is a high likelihood that his move will be terrible - unmatchably
terrible - so all the advice to make short films is good advice. However,
there is the possibility that he could make a good movie. And there
is no possibility that he will harm or kill anyone while doing it. Perhaps
there are better examples than a house builder or surgeon.

Yes sirrrr. Short Films are fun, but spending money on them? Not so sure about that. No matter how many short films you make, as well, they really can only prepare you for a feature as a director so much in the sense that you must know how to weave together several events over the span of seventy-two or more minutes.

That means consistent tone, rising and falling arcs at key moments, consistent acting, production, etc etc.

There's nothing wrong with jumping right into a feature, at least it has potential to recoup investment if executed competently.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Different things work for diffferent people. If you want to make a feature first, make a feature first. There is just a VERY higjh probablility it's going to be a complete train wreck. I'd rather blow a couple grand on a short train wreck to learn how to not have a train wreck next time instead of spending 15K or 20K, or 100K to have a feature train wreck and learn how to not have a train wreck next time.

You don't give shorts enoough credit. You are limited in a 10 or 12 minute short, but I have made 25 and 35 minute shorts that are fully realized three act narratives.

 

[Kholi]

Different things work for diffferent people. If you want to make a feature first, make a feature first. There is just a VERY higjh probablility it's going to be a complete train wreck. I'd rather blow a couple grand on a short train wreck to learn how to not have a train wreck next time instead of spending 15K or 20K, or 100K to have a feature train wreck and learn how to not have a train wreck next time.

You don't give shorts enoough credit. You are limited in a 10 or 12 minute short, but I have made 25 and 35 minute shorts that are fully realized three act narratives.

Yeah, different strokes for different folks of course. You're right that there's a high probability it'll be a train wreck, but shorts are no different; pick your poison.

But, at 25 or 30 minutes, I still think why not just do a feature and at least try to sell it. But, I know what I can pull together for a few thousand so it's a different story.

The most important thing, IMO, is to shoot for others or work for others to gather experience without having to pay for it. At least to me.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

As we have both said it's different for everybody. I'm in my 40's. I don't have time, I have money (not a ton, but some). In my situation it makes much more sense to spend 15K making 3 to 5 shorts with professional crews and accelerate the learning process than it does to spend the time learning by working on other people's stuff and observing. Somebody else might have no money, but be 24. It's totally different situations.

I wouldn't even begin to entertain the idea of a feature for less than 20K, just production and post cost, no promotion in that budget, I'd rather have more like 50K or 75K. That's a lot of my own and other people's money to risk unless I feel petty damn confident I can pull it off. That's what the shorts are for.

I have zero interest in making a feature for $1500, the material, and the production values, the time needed (because when you don't spend money you have to spend time) required by a budget like that just do nothing for me. When I make one, I'm going to do it right.

 

[Kholi]

As we have both said it's different for everybody. I'm in my 40's. I don't have time, I have money (not a ton, but some). In my situation it makes much more sense to spend 15K making 3 to 5 shorts with professional crews and accelerate the learning process than it does to spend the time learning by working on other people's stuff and observing. Somebody else might have no money, but be 24. It's totally different situations.

Sorry, didn't mean YOU in specifically, but still sort of talking to the OP (rehashing the same suggestions).

At forty years, yeah, it's going to be pretty difficult to go any other way other than paying for the knowledge. OP sounds younger, so that's where the suggestion came from.

I wouldn't even begin to entertain the idea of a feature for less than 20K, just production and post cost, no promotion in that budget, I'd rather have more like 50K or 75K. That's a lot of my own and other people's money to risk unless I feel petty damn confident I can pull it off. That's what the shorts are for.

20K would be my lowest denominator as well. Wouldn't try it below that, and wouldn't go above 75K right now due to experience. We want to do another 30-50K feature before we go on to larger budgets.

I have zero interest in making a feature for $1500, the material, and the production values, the time needed (because when you don't spend money you have to spend time) required by a budget like that just do nothing for me. When I make one, I'm going to do it right.

Guys like Edward Burns, they do smaller features, people talking/chatting etc. He can pull those off for nine-thousand or so. I can't do what I want on less than 20-ish, and that's with favors. And your equation is spot on: the less money you spend, the more time you spend.

Can't really escape that.

 

[brianluce]

You don't have to go in with the intention that it's a "practice" movie, just the realization you are going to make a lot of mistakes. The pont is to learn from them and get better.

I".

I agree, I'm not advocating self delusion. And I believe in test footage, but not test movies.