Why do even the smallest films cost thousands?

[WYG1Productions]

Exactly what the title says, I don't get it.
We are producing our first film on a little over $1000, I don't understand where all the big bucks come in?
Personal cameras have come a long way, and so has digital recording.
With a good story and a small crew I don't see why something like what we're doing can't compare to something you might see at Sundance?
Can someone explain to me where the real cost comes in, and is anyone going to take us seriously even if the movie is good?

 

[CamVader]

Great post, gpforet.

 

[Zensteve]

i am arrogant and blunt and rude, so for the most part i'm just gonna disregard the majority of it.

Good luck with your film, dude.

 

[rayw]

any response i have left in me is going to be arrogant, blunt, and rude...

the "i failed at this, you will too" attitude upset me, but people who think money is everything, or even the biggest part of it upset me even more.

IFC and some making-ofs told you to get a big budget, a big crew, and a catering service.
so where's your big bad movie? did all that money turn your idea in to a good one?

i come from nothing, watch me turn it in to something....

i do appreciate some of the advice i've gotten from this thread, and i've learned a few things.
but i am arrogant and blunt and rude, so for the most part i'm just gonna disregard the majority of it.

I'm hoping you're still following this thread and haven't really run away.

Exactly what the title says, I don't get it.
We are producing our first film on a little over $1000, I don't understand where all the big bucks come in?
Personal cameras have come a long way, and so has digital recording.
With a good story and a small crew I don't see why something like what we're doing can't compare to something you might see at Sundance?
Can someone explain to me where the real cost comes in, and is anyone going to take us seriously even if the movie is good?

Honestly, one of the more frustrating things as part of the general IT culture here is that there's little expression or even inquiry as to "what level" each other is playing at.
No one seems to want to establish
- who's playing with their cell phone's video capabilities
- who's playing with a mini-DVD camera and Windows Movie Maker
- who's vacillating between a 5D and a XHA1 before working on After Effects or Vegas
- who's jumped the audio gap to boom pole and sound guy
- who's renting guys to do camera, sound, lights and whatnot
- who's actually running a business.

The concerns of one are not addressed by the answers for others.

FWIW, I can't stand the defeatest "It's all so impossible. I should just quit before trying" attitude myself.
Solidarity, bro.
Dumb f#cks.

You got your DIY script.
You got your volunteer buddies and contacts in front of and behind the camera.
You found your guerrilla locations and provided your own props.
You got your scenes DIY shot and chopped and now you're ready to rock and roll the festival circuit.

I respect there's a big expense difference between a day on the set of Michael Bay's TRANSFORMERS 3: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON and Ben Dover's TRANSSEXUALS 3X: DEEP INSIDE THE MOON.
There's just no equitable comparison, sensibly.

Have you just wrapped up a production front-to-back, script-to-screen and are wondering WTH are others were spending their cash on?
What sort of limitations, if any, relevant to budget are you running up against?
What did you spend that $1K on, if I may?
Where are you looking for distribution? Results?
(Yeah, I'm kinduva dork. No subterfuge or snark here. Just trying establish some context because I think this is a legit consideration you have posed in this thread).

Thank you. Ray
(Blunt and Rude away, BTW. I gotta thick skin).

 

[Alcove Audio]

IFC and some making-ofs told you to get a big budget, a big crew, and a catering service. so where's your big bad movie? did all that money turn your idea in to a good one?

You asked where the money goes, and you got several responses as to where the money goes. In my post I mentioned that you spend money to obtain equipment and expertise. I also mentioned that you can do it yourself, but now all of the responsibilities fall squarely on your shoulders. You now also have to worry about actors and crew flaking out on you if you don't show them the proper respect that they are due by at least covering their travel expenses and feeding them well.

No amount of money will guarantee a good film; that is up to the script and the talents of the director, cast and crew. But nobody is going to care about your film if they can't understand the dialog. Can you capture great dialog on the cheap? Sure, but you have to put A LOT of time and effort into getting the best audio out of your consumer toys. Your Home Depot lighting kit will work just fine, but you'll have to put in extra time and effort to get the look you want, especially if you're using a cheap camera. And YOU are the one who has to remember and account for every last detail.

So get off your high horse and curb your attitude; you asked, we answered. It's not our fault you don't like the answers. If you think that you can make a Sundance worthy project with no money, good for you. I did the audio post for a micro budget (well under $10k) film that made it to Sundance, so I know that it can be done. But it's the old economic rule; time = money. If you don't have the funds you have to compensate for your lack of funding by expending huge amounts of your personal time/effort and having to keep track of all of it.

Good Luck!

 

[WYG1Productions]

So get off your high horse and curb your attitude; you asked, we answered.

you're right. i'll admit it, i got side tracked. i asked a question and i was vague about why i asked it.
so i apologize for that. you're totally right man i did NOT like what i heard. but i think you guys can understand getting defensive about your ideas, even irrationally

my bad guys.

 

[WYG1Productions]

Good luck with your film, dude.

thanks

I'm hoping you're still following this thread and haven't really run away.

no no, i was just having a bad morning and a worse day.

AS for your question.

We've got a sony HDRCX160 and a Nikon DSLR type, a tripod, grip pod, a zoom H2 and a dead kitten...
we are currently trying to find a solution for lighting, we need something battery operated that will light up an area outdoors, if we can't we will film at dawn and dusk and use filters in post.

Everything is very DIY, we are all close friends and family that started this, and the other people involved, albeit charity work, are very good at what they do and reliable.

We have some money left to work with, enough to cover what we need.
As far as a lead role? Nice to meet you.
Supporting actor? My best friend.

There are only 2 actual characters in this story and it all takes place in one outdoor setting.
We are funding, acting, filming and editing this thing ourselves. w00t.
As for distribution, we are going to self distribute. I live in Austin, TX so I'm in a perfect, although flooded, area for this. We are also filming some halloween commercials for a restaurant in my area.
We figure with a good portfolio of creative stuff, we could get a small loan or funding to do our next project.

SO yeah, i guess I never did ask the right questions and showed my ass a little, but hopefully we can continue this discussion...

 

[directorik]

In that case...

With a good story and a small crew I don't see why something like what we're doing can't compare to something you might see at Sundance?
Can someone explain to me where the real cost comes in, and is anyone going to take us seriously even if the movie is good?

How many films that screened at Sundance have you seen?
I'm not sure that should be you litmus rest because you CAN
make a good movie for under $1,000.

As you now know the real cost comes in treating your cast
and crew with a little respect.

seems like a good chunk of the budget goes towards luxuries like catering etc.

I have made many movies (even a few features) in which I have
not paid anyone. I don't see "catering" as a luxury - I see it as
something necessary when asking people to work for me for free.
I just can't see asking even a cast and crew of five people to pay
for their own food when donating their time.

Three day shoot - five total people.
Breakfast of donuts and coffee - $90
Lunch - $130
Pizza/soda day one - Subway day two - Chicken day three
Snacks - $80
Water, chips, fruit, ice, soda, cookies

And you're at $300

I'm sure you can see how that can get up to $400 maybe even $500
if you feed them a little better or you use a larger crew. That's where
the real costs come in.

On a small movie I use a crew of at least 8 and prefer at least 12. That
allows for more coverage and faster shooting and less stress on each person.
8 crew and 3 cast for three days and you can see that just providing a little
food and water for them can easily get up to $1,000.

is the mindset really money based, money = success?

Not here.

But there is a realistic aspect of making a movie that should be - at the
very least - considered. Of course you can make a good movie with a
total of three people. And I guess you could all pay for you own meals
and water throughout the shoot and not count that as part of the budget.

Just as you don't need to count the money you have already spent on the
camera, mic, lights, computer and editing software. But if you do (as many
people do) you can now see how a movie can cost more than $1,000.

As you make your movie keep track of every single expenditure. You don't
need to count it towards your film but it will help you understand where the
real costs come in.

 

[DirtyPicturesTV]

In addition to all of the excellent comments here, I would add that budget is also dependent upon how expansive your vision is, and how far you're willing to go (and spend) to get there.

I directed a 25-minute silent film, which is now in post. We shot intermittently over a year and a half. Total film cost approached $1000 per minute. That's including donated labor and tons of free equipment.

It was a period piece, shot on numerous locations, with a cast and crew of dozens. Misc expenses included coal to fire up and run a steam engine for 5 hours ($2000), hauling a rented 1920s car 50 miles to park it in front of the perfect period mansion, and lots of costume and prop rental or manufacture -- in addition to travel and food costs to schlep all over Northern California.

Sure, if you shoot in one location with three characters, costs will be much lower. Aiming higher costs more.

 

[rayw]

Some genius spent $3M on a plywood box and found objects like cellphone and flashlight.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1462758/business

Ka-CHING!

 

[Caritasfounder]

I haven't read everything here but I think it is definitely possible for $1000 to be a good budget for a very short film, if you have the right factors in place.

In my experience, spending more money doesn't always equal better. There's a difference, in my belief, between necessary and unnecessary spending that is relative to the attributes of the film you're making and the way you're making it. For instance, do you want to spend several hours a day for a couple of days or weeks shooting the film, or just have your cast show up for an hour every Saturday for months and months?

There are many different ways to make a film, and sometimes it might be best to do it your way.

 

[Caritasfounder]

In addition to all of the excellent comments here, I would add that budget is also dependent upon how expansive your vision is, and how far you're willing to go (and spend) to get there.

I directed a 25-minute silent film, which is now in post. We shot intermittently over a year and a half. Total film cost approached $1000 per minute. That's including donated labor and tons of free equipment.

It was a period piece, shot on numerous locations, with a cast and crew of dozens. Misc expenses included coal to fire up and run a steam engine for 5 hours ($2000), hauling a rented 1920s car 50 miles to park it in front of the perfect period mansion, and lots of costume and prop rental or manufacture -- in addition to travel and food costs to schlep all over Northern California.

Sure, if you shoot in one location with three characters, costs will be much lower. Aiming higher costs more.

I hope this question doesn't come across as snappish; I was just wondering, in your view does shooting in one location with three characters always mean aiming not as high as shooting in many other locations with many other characters? Considering some major films, I would think shooting in one location with a few characters can be artistically on the same level as a film in many locations with a large cast.

 

[rayw]

I hope this question doesn't come across as snappish; I was just wondering, in your view does shooting in one location with three characters always mean aiming not as high as shooting in many other locations with many other characters? Considering some major films, I would think shooting in one location with a few characters can be artistically on the same level as a film in many locations with a large cast.

I'm pretty sure he meant shooting 3 actors in 1 location is likely cheaper than 3 actors in 3 locations and possibly cheaper than 1 actor in 3 locations.

The issue was of expense rather than artistic achievement.

Just guessing.

 

[SHD]

np

 

[DirtyPicturesTV]

Caritasfounder, the clarification that rayw made is correct -- sorry my words were imprecise. Should have said something like "logistical complexity."

Yes, you can make a fantastic film in a small, single location. Just saying that if you're trying to re-make "Lawrence of Arabia" on the cheap, it's not going to happen.

 

[WYG1Productions]

I hope this question doesn't come across as snappish; I was just wondering, in your view does shooting in one location with three characters always mean aiming not as high as shooting in many other locations with many other characters? Considering some major films, I would think shooting in one location with a few characters can be artistically on the same level as a film in many locations with a large cast.

yeah man i have to agree here. i will not divulge any information about my film, and i'm sure you guys can understand why. but a few characters and the one location, that's all we need... trust me.

as for 3 MILLION (good lord...) dollars on Buried, I'm guessing that was mostly Ryan Reynolds.

That was a great movie that I would have enjoyed regardless of the actor in it, but i can see where the premise was only appealing because of the actor (to gen pop, anyway)

 

[ctrechter]

Wow! Awesome thread guys! I guess I'll add my own two cents because I've had my hand in several low budget films.

I completely agree with WYG1 on how there are some Indie Films out there that are kind of crappy with a budget of more than 10K. I was not a fan of Open Water for example. I thought there audio was shoddy at best and the some shots were not great. However they still got there film into the theaters. Good or bad they did somethings right and got it into the public eye.

After much research and trial and error though I have come to realize that a film people will pay to see is really hard to do for around 1k. Many reasons have been mentioned but maybe I can relay some of my experiences from trying to keep within that budget range.

First thing that I have found is that audio is very important. I find that a lot of indie films lack in trying to give quality to Dialog and Foley production. I consider myself a hobbyist Sound person (as I don't make a living at it). The films that were 1k budgets that I have worked on we did ADR for the entire movie. Yes it cut down on cost but we spent 16hr days for two weeks replacing dialog from actors and then doing Foley work. The sound was higher quality but it was a pain and some of the ADR and Foley work sounded a little off. Since then I have picked up a couple of Shotgun mics, mixers, recorders, pole, blimp, carry bag, and protective carry cases which has pushed my audio kit up about 5k. Right now we get better sounding audio a lot less Foley work and we don't have to deal as much with actors coming for ADR. Then the 1k I spent in making my own audio booth w/studio mic. As of right now The entire setup cost is 6.5k and sounds Awesome! The thing is I am doing the job of around 6 different people and I need to become proficient enough to have quality sound. And this is just Audio set up.

You could shoot the film on a t2i but that right there is $600 without the lens and between $200-1k for a lens. Combine a self built 20ft jib, self built dolly with cheaper matte box, batteries, memory cards, and a cheap steady cam system from ProAim and your still talking around 5k. Then cheap lighting and accessories will be 1k.

This also doesn't include gas, food (as mentioned), getting your actors excited enough to keep showing up on time for shoots or ADR, and other crew members your looking at another 2.5k minimum for a full length movie shot "quicker than a jack rabbit on a date".

All of this is very time consuming if you are trying to learn the equipment.

As for your idea of a 1k movie I would say go for it! As others have said your chances are slim for making it into the theaters but wouldn't it be awesome if you proved everyone wrong? Besides you might not need some of the equipment that I mentioned which cuts down on the cost.

More than anything use it as a learning experience. Every movie (even hollywood movies) can be better. You may be able to find you are able to get around some of the costs I have previously mentioned and spend money on other equipment that you need. I for one think a movie can be made very cheap but your time is worth money too. Even if you master all of the equipment I have mentioned you will need at least two other people who know it too.

Good luck!

 

[rayw]

Maybe we need some business-head accountant-like IT member to step in and 'splain & clarify this a little better than I can, but the one-size-fits-all word of "cost" or "costs" can be further divided into:

DIRECT COSTS - Expenses generated by a single project, in this case, a film. Permits, film festival entry fees, DVD prints, promotion & advertising, unique costumes and props, one-time-use-only special effects (like fake blood), payment for services rendered, gas & travel, craft services, etc.
Things that cannot be utilized for more than one film project.

INDIRECT COSTS - Commonly referred to as overhead, these expenses are amortized (spread out) across multiple projects. Reusable costumes (cop/lab coat/gas mask) and props (weapons usually), camera(s), audio capture, recording media (somewhat), lights/reflectors, computer w/ editing software, etc.
Things easily used on multiple film projects.

Volunteer labor and common, found objects (ubiquitous cell phone or cigarette lighter) with no assignable expense are not recognized even though they do present value to the film project.



Depending upon if a filmmaker is making a one shot deal film project or is a production team making serial projects, expenses can be perceived differently.

Mom & Pop/Student/Avid Amateur with Buddies! with a single or first project may (inaccurately) recognize only direct costs unique to the project (festival DVDs, DIY PVC camera jib & boom pole) while not attributing indirect costs for things used otherwise (home computers with free/inexpensive software, household lamps, drive to HomeDepot/Lowe's).

Serial Film Project Enthusiasts/Filmmaking Novices plunk down cash for tailored NLE equipment and software, various airsoft prop weapons, maintain a box or closet of zombie costumes, etc, all in addition to the above mentioned direct costs.

Pre-Pro/Pro run projects too big to rely on convenient scheduling of noticeable talent for a project to gel on multiple locations in any sensible time frame. Financial incentives become favorable opportunity costs to get talent to block out time dedicated to the film project. DP, audio capture, set designers, transportation for cast/crew/equipment, SFX teams, location scouting and permits, post production FX, editors, score, actors & extras, marketing, etc.



FWIW, I find it frustrating that this community all openly recognize objects such as 5D v. GF2, DR100 v. H4n, or 8GB RAMM w/ 1.5T storage v. 16RAMM w/ 1T internal + 1T external but routinely fail to understand at what playing level each other is at to tailor answers appropriate for those seeking perspective.

Q: Where the h3ll does the money go?
A: Depends upon what you're doing and how your counting it (or not counting it).

Q: Why won't festivals accept my 90min feature? It looks great! I shot it with a 7D+VideoMic.
A: I dunno. How does it sound? Is it color corrected? Let's see a sample of some acting/lighting/editing.

Q: Okay, festivals won't take it, but neither will NetFlix. And the DVDs ain't flying off the shelf either. What gives?
A: What are you doing for P&A? Maybe it just plain suxaweenie. Show us your trailer.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

yeah man i have to agree here. i will not divulge any information about my film, and i'm sure you guys can understand why. but a few characters and the one location, that's all we need... trust me.

as for 3 MILLION (good lord...) dollars on Buried, I'm guessing that was mostly Ryan Reynolds.

That was a great movie that I would have enjoyed regardless of the actor in it, but i can see where the premise was only appealing because of the actor (to gen pop, anyway)

Name actor = distribution, period end of story. A film without a name actor will have a VERY hard time getting distributed, it can be done, but it's tough. A name actor can get you distribution before the film is even made, which can get you the money to finance the movie (loans against the money from the signed distribution contract).

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

I spent right at $1000 Saturday (Sunday was a little cheaper) on my new short. That's with getting virtually all the grip gear for free, shooting on my own camera, and only paying 2 of the 10 crew members (and none of the actors). Over the course of my three "no budget" films that's been about the going rate for me to shoot, about a grand a day.

 

[rayw]

Over the course of my three "no budget" films that's been about the going rate for me to shoot, about a grand a day.

Were those direct costs only or both direct and indirect overhead costs, as well?