David Mullen ASC
Active member
Don't forget "Brothers McMullen", made for about $27,000, not including the blow-up to 35mm. Of course, with all of these no-budget films there are extra post costs in preparing it for theatrical release. "Blair Witch Project" cost about $30,000 to make and another $30,000 to transfer to film. I believe the budget of "Clerks" was more like $25,000, not $10,000.
"Pi" was made for about $60,000, I think...
Of course, in the straight to home video camp, there are even cheaper films that found distribution (of a sort.)
Some notes:
(1) Marketability is everything -- i.e. a distributor will buy anything no matter what the technical quality IF he feels he can sell it because of the name cast or popular genre or special awards, etc., anything that suggests there's an audience out there, even a limited one, and the material can be promoted in some way.
However:
(2) The vast majority of movies sold are for home video, broadcast, cable TV, not theatrical. In that world, depending on the market, technical quality can be a factor in how well the film can be sold. Some markets just want filler for broadcasting AS LONG AS it meets their technical requirements. In other words, you make a poor video transfer of "Titanic" and anyone will buy it and broadcast it because they all want "Titanic" -- but if your little film doesn't meet their broadcast standards, they'll use it as an excuse not to buy it because they can take it or leave it. They don't want it THAT much. In that world, it IS easier to sell something shot in 35mm with decent production values rather than something shot in DV, all else being equal (semi-name cast, genre film, etc.) Some markets like German television have still been resistant to buying movies shot in 24P HD, which is why some producers like Roger Corman shoot in 35mm just to be covered (although itching to switch to 24P HD to lower costs.)
So make your movie in the best format you can afford to make it in, but just be aware that some markets are pickier than others. Unfortunately most indie films make their money back one market at a time, so even a little sale to Indonesian TV, for example, is welcome.
The cheapest movie that I shot that got national theatrical release was "Jackpot" (budget was about $350,000 / 24P HD-to-35mm) although in Los Angeles, it only played for one week. I've also shot some films for even less money that got very limited theatrical releases (one or two theaters in a few cities.) A 35mm production called "The Last Big Thing" was one of them; also two 24P HD features, one called "The New Suit" and the other called "A Foreign Affair." "The Last Big Thing" was made for about $150,000. I also shot a $100,000 Super-16 feature called "Soulmates" that played in a few theaters.
I've shot maybe a dozen features that went straight to home video, but most were genre films (thrillers, vampire flicks, etc.) with budgets between a half-million to a million dollars, and almost all were shot in 35mm.
"Pi" was made for about $60,000, I think...
Of course, in the straight to home video camp, there are even cheaper films that found distribution (of a sort.)
Some notes:
(1) Marketability is everything -- i.e. a distributor will buy anything no matter what the technical quality IF he feels he can sell it because of the name cast or popular genre or special awards, etc., anything that suggests there's an audience out there, even a limited one, and the material can be promoted in some way.
However:
(2) The vast majority of movies sold are for home video, broadcast, cable TV, not theatrical. In that world, depending on the market, technical quality can be a factor in how well the film can be sold. Some markets just want filler for broadcasting AS LONG AS it meets their technical requirements. In other words, you make a poor video transfer of "Titanic" and anyone will buy it and broadcast it because they all want "Titanic" -- but if your little film doesn't meet their broadcast standards, they'll use it as an excuse not to buy it because they can take it or leave it. They don't want it THAT much. In that world, it IS easier to sell something shot in 35mm with decent production values rather than something shot in DV, all else being equal (semi-name cast, genre film, etc.) Some markets like German television have still been resistant to buying movies shot in 24P HD, which is why some producers like Roger Corman shoot in 35mm just to be covered (although itching to switch to 24P HD to lower costs.)
So make your movie in the best format you can afford to make it in, but just be aware that some markets are pickier than others. Unfortunately most indie films make their money back one market at a time, so even a little sale to Indonesian TV, for example, is welcome.
The cheapest movie that I shot that got national theatrical release was "Jackpot" (budget was about $350,000 / 24P HD-to-35mm) although in Los Angeles, it only played for one week. I've also shot some films for even less money that got very limited theatrical releases (one or two theaters in a few cities.) A 35mm production called "The Last Big Thing" was one of them; also two 24P HD features, one called "The New Suit" and the other called "A Foreign Affair." "The Last Big Thing" was made for about $150,000. I also shot a $100,000 Super-16 feature called "Soulmates" that played in a few theaters.
I've shot maybe a dozen features that went straight to home video, but most were genre films (thrillers, vampire flicks, etc.) with budgets between a half-million to a million dollars, and almost all were shot in 35mm.
