how low is low?

[Kim Welch]

what does the starting budget have to be and what equipment would you need to start and where would you get it or rent it and where would you get your crew and what does"crew" include? what is a recent low budget film that made it to the theaters besides "lost in translation?" I am wondering if something can be done for less that $250,000. After it is done how do you get it distributed?

 

[Digigenic]

Where to begin?

Where to begin?

Oh my...somebody suddenly feels inspired?

Where to begin...?

I'm not trying to sound condescending, but they cover most of this stuff in introductory courses. If your intro. courses failed to cover this I'd suggest getting in contact with the local film commission to get some assistance. The Houston Film Commission offers tons of information for free in their booklets for local filmmakers, so I’m sure you’ll have the same.

So much of what you're asking depends on so many different circumstances, the circumstance of the movie in question, what length? What genre? Types of locations? (That’s an important and often costly circumstance), if done legitimately, each of these circumstances are tied to insurance issues, and insurance leads to a whole different can of worms that I don’t' even want to get into at this time in the morning.
Budgets can be decided based on so many different factors it's ridiculous.

For me, $250,000.00 is a pretty nice advance towards making an indie, but that's just me. There are plenty of other people who require greater expense to quench their imaginations' thirst. Ideally though, half to a whole million is considered the best jumping off point, and when I say jumping off, it’s more than just figuratively…because that kind of financial commitment can often lead to thoughts of actually jumping, for joy if done well, or for Harry Carrie if done poorly.

 

[DannyG]

while being tought in most intro courses, i think the opportunity we have here is great. i have always been a firm believer in the fact that just as much can be learned outside of conventional school, if not more. So I know you were trying to be helpful, but I think it would be even better if we can start answering some of these topics here instead of yet another case of referring knowledge to a classroom. I have always felt more motivated by my own independent learning and felt if I sought the answers thoroughly enough, I would find them. The Spielbergs (i know he went to school but the point is he started his knowledge base as a kid) and Smtihs and everyone else who figured it out on there own have always inspired me in a way. Now having said that, I have full understanding of its context and don't mean to come accross as a philosophizing thick headed teen. i really think that holds some weight.

 

[MarkG]

A huge amount depends on marketing. If you produce a commercial product with a strong marketing hook you can be very successful with a minimal budget, like 'Blair Witch' (even if, like that movie, it's not actually very good). Otherwise, if you want to compete with Hollywood, the more money the better.

 

[Aparna]

Wow... There is no bottom limit for "low". I'm about to make my first feature film (begin shooting in a couple of months) with NO budget at all, except what I and my crew can spare from our own pockets. Everyone is being offered a percentage of the profits, I have a (3 CCD) camera and Final Cut Pro 3, the rest of the equipment I'm getting from my school (for free, thank goodness!).

I live in South Africa and recently found out something very useful if you're a director looking to distribute your films: In 1998, Ster Kinekor (one of the two major movie houses in the country) guaranteed local filmmakers a distribution deal. This deal takes the form of a certain number of screenings guaranteed at the cinema. I'm going to take advantage of that to get it distributed.

If it makes money, then great. If not, I'll still be the only student at my school who's shot a feature film this year.

 

[Digigenic]

That's cool,
Did you grow up in Africa!?

 

[Aparna]

I did. I was born in India, then lived in Ethiopia with my parents, then Kenya and finally South Africa.

 

[Digigenic]

That's awesome...do you use PAL in that region?

 

[MarkG]

Wow... There is no bottom limit for "low". I'm about to make my first feature film (begin shooting in a couple of months) with NO budget at all, except what I and my crew can spare from our own pockets.

I worked on a DV feature whose official budget is about $1 (everything else the director scrounged for free). The downside is that five years after we shot the first scene (and three years after we shot the final scene), they're still trying to finish post-production... the rate they're going I'm not expecting to see the finished movie until 2010.

The other problem was that during the two years we took to shoot the movie the lead actress got pregnant, and that led to some interesting problems with camera angles when shooting the final scenes (particularly as they were set early in the movie, so we couldn't pretend she just got fat during the course of the story ).

 

[Aparna]

Digigenic: Yes, we do use PAL here. What about you?

MarkG: Don't they have their own post-production stuff? What did you shoot on? Film or digital? What are you editing on?

I tried to shoot a movie in my first year, and two days into a four- or five-day shoot, two of my actors cut and dyed their hair without asking.

I abandoned the project.

 

[Aparna]

Sorry... Memory shot full of holes.

So you shot on DV, what are you editing on?

 

[DerekEastham]

Low is low, and there's no where lower than low

Low is low, and there's no where lower than low

My first attempt at a film... which went rather astray from it's intent... was an absolute 0 budget film.
I shot on Beta, traveled to the desert in Washington State... everything was too big for 0 budget... and my bank-account suffered greatly for it.

For my second and third attempts, both of which turned out successful, I put away some money for the important elements that would cost me money. Then I pre-produced the living day-lights out of the films, and when it was time to shoot, everything was ready.

I spent a total of around 600 dollars of my own money to make them, and they're both three minute shorts.

Where they stand now, one of them is nearing completion... it is awaiting completion of an original film score from a musician I know.

The other one is in audio post production with a brillaint sound-design artist, and is awaiting a festival license for the music. (which will hopefully only cost me around 300 dollars).

It's not about how much money you have, or even the format you shoot on... it's about the story and the way it's told. You can shoot on film and produce terrible movies... while others shoot on somethign as low as VHS and produce something truely enjoyable.

In the end though... if you've go tthe story, try and get the money to go with it... it'll improve your production values imensely!

 

[Digigenic]

Aparna: I'm using an NTSC Canon XL1 and GL2, but hopefully HDV pretty soon. I've already got access to Final Cut Pro HD.

Anyhow, I can totally relate to "actors" or I should say "wanna-be" actors and their tendancy to show disregard for a production. I have quite a few friends who can assist me in different ways. They can write, direct, co-produce, compose music, etc. But the hardest issue is when one of my friends suddenly develops the urge to act, when I know that the only real performance they'll ever give me is when they're drunk and desperately trying to explain how good they'd be in one of my movies...

What's tragic is that the ones who don't take it seriously are usually the best performers...because they're naturals, but if they can't make it here or there because of this or that, then I simply can't involve them in a production. I did it once, and it bit me, luckily the project was salvagable, but it was hard, primarily because it was my first time.

I don't know if I'd ever abandon a project, I know for sure I'd never abandon an idea or story. If it meant that much for me to do in the first place, I'd like to see it through to completion one way or the other. That is unless I have producers or investors who feel differently, then I'd have to side with them and cut my losses.

 

[MarkG]

So you shot on DV,

Yeah, a couple of XL1s for the main footage, and my TRV900 for when we needed an extra camera.

what are you editing on?

For my own stuff I use Premiere or Avid; for that movie, the last time I saw them they were editing on Premiere, but that was about 1999 . I know the movie is edited now, last I heard the director was trying to scrounge ADR facilities for free because the sound recording was pretty bad due to not having the right equipment and not having the time to set things up properly when shooting... all of which goes back to not having a budget.

For a movie that was supposed to be shot in 16 days, it's sure taken a long time .

I tried to shoot a movie in my first year, and two days into a four- or five-day shoot, two of my actors cut and dyed their hair without asking.

That was the other thing I forgot, after a few weeks a couple of the secondary actors dropped out, so there was a lot of reshooting involved, and, even then, some of it couldn't be reshot due to losing access to sets and locations... I'll be interested to see how they work around the actors changing part-way through .

 

[laurent.a]

I don't see any consideration here for what i consider as the major point for starting to answer the question : how is the document going to be seen.

The end of the process is actually the starting point, from which everything sets up. I you plan to show on a tv set, video, and even semi-pro formats and budgets are ok. On my point of view, cinema i mean a film showed in a theater, needs a better quality, wich is basicaly provided by film. It may be a short film shot in super 16 mm, or even 16 or super 8 if one likes the "effect look" it gives. Video gives a good looking image if you shoot at least in digital betacam or dvcpro 50. DVcam or DVCPRO 25 is to be considered as a low cost tv format, and doesn't give as good results after postproduction shooting on film for the screen as more expensive formats do. DV (conon XL1, XM1, XM2 or GL2) is not good enough for being print on film for the large screen, unless you like crappy image.

There is, I think a dangerous philosophy in thinking that just any format would do, as it is just not true ! try to sell something shot on dv, you'll find it quite impossible (i mean theater or broadcast tv programs).

The point with this philosophy, is to make people think they can make "movies" (do we speak about moving images only or theater films ?) with just a low cost camera and become a movie director with it. This purpose comes out from the builders of these cameras, as a selling agument, that's all.

It's the same bullshit with digital in general, (as we find the famous debate film or digital) though it's becoming clear now what can be done with it or not. The purpose is to sell this new technology, that costed so much to devellop. the "public" was the first aim in this commercial "war", then they tried to involve pros in this. But if you ask a dop what he would use if he had the choice, you wouldn't find one to prefer video ! I think it would be the same with directors, if they didn't have to care about the price !

That makes some people pretend they "like" the crappy look of non professional standards, but would they think the same if they had the money or/and knowledge tu use 35 mm for instance ?

Some "big" movies where made with digital shooting technology but it's HD where talking about then, and this choice doesn't affect quality much then and the cost of these film is very high however. They actually involve 35 and digital for technical reasons and not budget ones !

The "good" films shot on crappy video would have looked so much better if shot on film !

The new selling technics now, is to pretend that these materials are "pro". look at the canon marketing. See the last version of avid express DV, that is now called "xpress pro" as the professionnal version of avid express existed long before the "dv" version, and never was called "pro" !

So the question of budget is linked to that. When you have a better quality image you need a good set and a good make up artist and so on just because it's seen much better.

I don't pretend to answer to the question of "how low is low", it's been done, the answer is 0 $. I just try to think about ways to answer the question of "how low a budget can be if I want a quality product, that can be either seen on tv or a screen and sold" I don't have the answer either. The question that someone should ask himself is "how can i make my movie be of the best possible quality as to best serve my talent of writer and director ", and find the money to do it, or, better, find someone who will find the needed budget. This is what feature and short films makers do. Don't fall in the trick "i can make my film with no budget" because it's a fake ! If you have talent, you'll find the money ! someone's gonna believe in you and give you the money for it ! This is why i believe super 16 is a very good low budget support.

 

[MarkG]

You certainly have a point: many, many movies I see being made are basically unmarketable, but that's true of most low-budget shorts and features being shot on film, as well as DV... in fact, in the UK, with our corrupt government film funding system, most of the good low-budget shorts and features I've seen have been made on DV, not film. Getting money here generally means you have mates in the government film funding bodies who shovel money at you, not that you're any good.

But then I largely disagree about what shorts and low-budget features are for. Sure, a few are successful and get cinema or TV distribution, but, to me, they're primarily a calling card to get real funding for your next movie. As such, when I get around to making my first feature in a couple of years, it will probably be shot on HDV, since that will give me complete control over it, without having to compromise with financiers.

try to sell something shot on dv, you'll find it quite impossible

That's odd, because I know people who've sold lots of DV-originated shows to TV stations. In drama, yes, it's hard to sell a DV-originated show to TV, but it's hard to sell _any_ drama show to TV, at least in the UK... for more documentary work, DV is fine and regularly used for broadcast TV.

The "good" films shot on crappy video would have looked so much better if shot on film !

The difference is, if they'd been determined to shoot on film, most of them would still be looking for funding.

 

[laurent.a]

Ok,
May be the situation is a little bit different in uk than in in france, too.

You've tempered my arguments, and completed them. Thanks.

 

[elton_lytle]

I don't know if there's any point at all with what I'm about to write, but it may helps some lost soul somewhere reading these forums.

You're talking about making a movie.
For no budget.
You need examples:

Slacker
El Mariachi (like duh.)
Clerks

We all know the tale of "El Mariachi" and done for $7,000.
I don't know the cost to make "Slacker", but if you look at it, its pretty cheap to do. The director, basically when to unkown actors in Austin, TX and promised them exposure.
People would do anything to be recorded, as long as you don't bring up the topic of money. When you watch the news and a reporter is at an explosion or murder scene and there are people making faces in the background, are they getting paid for it? No. They just want to be on TV.
"Clerks" was made for $10,000. You see it and you wonder what it was spent on. With digital filmmaking, you can do that for even less. Probably for even $1. Kevin Smith also brought in friends to play the parts.
If you don't know anyone, sweet-talk-em with the camera and don't bring up a mad world out there. Most of the people you ask already have a paying job. You don't. They can give you 5 seconds of their time to help you out(If you ask nicely).

 

[MarkG]

Well, a lot of people claim that the $7,000 budget is bogus, but as I understand it he had a complete master tape of the movie that he was planning to sell to a Mexican movie distributor and had had some interest in from a couple of distributors. So, yes, the movie seen in the cinemas cost more than $7,000, but he did have a finished movie that he could sell for that price.... and, from what I remember of his book, Columbia's $100,000 or so that they spent on finishing the movie for a cinema release included a lot of money that he thought was wasted, like redoing the subtitles multiple times.

 

[Rogue Crew]

Re: how low is low?

what does the starting budget have to be and what equipment would you need to start and where would you get it or rent it and where would you get your crew and what does"crew" include? what is a recent low budget film that made it to the theaters besides "lost in translation?" I am wondering if something can be done for less that $250,000. After it is done how do you get it distributed?

How about a straight-forward, non-hair-splitting answer?

Charlotte Sometimes was out the door for $40,000. To date it has grossed $2.5 million and picked up some kudos along the way. It's not a Robert Rodriguez story, but it's also a bit more realistic and a much better film.

As for crew, well that really does depend on what your talents are, but let's assume you want to produce and direct. Then you will need:
- DP/cameraman
- Grip/assistant camera/assistant sound
- Gaffer
- Sound dude
- Unit production assistant/line producer/continuity (you can't do everything!)
- Makeup/wardrobe (part-time)
Everything after that will have to be part-time volunteers or paid for on an as needed basis - catering or a carpenter to knock something together for the set.

Equipment:
- A 3 chip camera preferable w/24p (DVX100A)
- A sturdy tripod and fluid head, say Manfrotto 525MVB w/ 503 head (since you already know that most of your shots are going to be locked down and you're only going to be doing a little bit of panning, the 503 will do just fine)
- A couple of 650 fresnels w/doors, scrims, stands and gels
- A couple of 300 fresnels w/same
- A couple of softboxes
- 2 or 3 C-stands w/bounce cards, silks, reflectors, cutters and clamps
- An Audio-Technia AT897 mic w/shock mount, boom pole and a couple of headsets
- An inexpensive mixer

Take all the time and care in post that your project deserves then burn 100 DVD's and enter every festival for which you can afford the fees.