You really want it?

Filman

Filman

Let’s talk about making a hit-movie for no money. It happens, so it is possible.

I’m politically pursued, so I can’t be making movies. It would be noticed and I’d be locked up. It is my reality and am trying to get around it but can't. What I have been doing is teaching myself how to write scripts. And I tell you, that is the part that takes a long time to learn, because you need life experience. But here’s the point: besides from the writing, you can learn everything fairly quickly. So, if I would be dreaming about a career as a director I would look up a writer who can write a killer script that is shot pretty much entirely in one apartment. Something very simple, but powerful that works with very few characters. Especially when the story is simple the director will be declared as a genius, especially as it was all shot without a budget and it works. Think Reservoir Dogs, for instance.

Other reasons: Producing doesn’t break anyone’s neck if it’s all shot in one apartment, no energy lost on crowd-funding, no shooting permits needed, the apartment is like a studio etc, so you invest all you have on shooting and getting everything out from your actors. With this kind of focus, you’d make a whole team of amateurs look like professionals. Right or wrong?

Let me tell you, I’m pissed as hell for not being allowed to live a normal life, so as a revenge and a fuck you to the politics I’ve been thinking about a program to help unknown movie makers come out with a bang. Therefore I’m asking for your opinion about what I say above. Would this sound like something that could work for you?
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
Filman, your personal situation sounds like an interesting story, in itself. :yes: Your project is going to require some very good actors for it to work.

Some examples of mostly limited space scenarios:

ROPE
REAR WINDOW
CLOSET LAND (Alan Rickman, Madeleine Stowe)
DEATH AND THE MAIDEN
BURIED (Ryan Reynolds)
CUBE
PARANORMAL ACTIVITY
1408
DEVIL
PONTYPOOL
THE DISAPPEARANCE OF ALICE CREED
PHONEBOOTH
MOON
MISERY
BREAKFAST CLUB
FROZEN (The Ski lift flick)
BUG
FUNNY GAMES
THE MAN FROM EARTH
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nice to see the reactions here.

@directorik
Good locations and exceptional skills can be used as main attractions for the movie, yes. The end result is related to where your skill-level is at the moment. By aiming for a good result you give your motivation a push and learn faster. This program is designed for film makers who want to work hard to do great once they’re ready. Some are ready as we speak.

@ ItDonned
It is a program taking form. I started this thread to ask what people think of the idea. The test is to write for an apartment and 3-5 characters, all 20-30 years, simple storyline, still entertaining all the way. I’ve sent the script to a competition to see what the paid review says.
THEME
That is a trademark not a theme. It gives the viewers something to recognize and expect in an upcoming release, if this develops so far.
SCRIPTS
I don’t know how good I am, but the writer’s-test is pretty tough and I do it because it helps me to develop faster. I probably will write more one-location scripts ready. It’s good for teams when they can start to shoot right away. And especially if they are for an apartment. But, the chances to land a hit movie is bigger the other way, because it is a bit less dependent on great writing.
GOOD
You shoot a test scene. If everything looks perfect, but it isn’t entertaining you have two possibilities: 1. The script sucks 2. The director sucks.
I do say, the better the director is, the less genius the script has to be. Here’s the opening:

http://studios.amazon.com/projects/56077#storyboard/74060


@ sfoster
Thanks.

@ Scoopicman
True, you need to be good. I’ve acted and I suck. But, with lots of takes and a total focus, even I have carried a feature with grace. That means, if you take your time and don’t run around dealing with stress while you shoot, almost anybody has the potential to do great when the role is written for you.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Filman said:
It is a program taking form. I started this thread to ask what people think of the idea. The test is to write for an apartment and 3-5 characters, all 20-30 years, simple storyline, still entertaining all the way.
Click to expand...
You first post was so confusing. this one is more clear.

I like the idea of a program where filmmakers make films using limited
locations. What will set your program apart from every film school and
film program that already exists.

Filman said:
I’ve acted and I suck. But, with lots of takes and a total focus, even I have carried a feature with grace.
Click to expand...
I would love to see the movie. I'll even pay to buy it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Filman said:
Let’s talk about making a hit-movie for no money. It happens, so it is possible.
Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't happen, so there is no precedent or evidence that it is possible.

The only example you gave was Reservoir Dogs but as has been mentioned, that had a budget in excess of $1m. Do you have any examples of hit movies made for no money or are you saying that you consider $1m to be "no money"?

G
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks directorik.

@ AudioPost
Yes, sorry my mistake with Reservoir Dogs. I was talking about SIMPLE STORYLINE or something and it got very unclear. Didn't mean the budget, just came out that way.

But, don't be so money obsessed. Nothing is that simple. Projects can start out as no-budget projects and when the script is credible an actor comes aboard an suddenly the budget explodes. Reservoir Dogs, wasn't that supposed to be made with a 200.000 budget? As Harvey Keitel came along things changed.

If you shoot at home, will you need 200.000? Can you shoot the movie for nothing and offer it to a distribution company and they market it? Yes, you can. If it is good they will be interested.

http://www.hypable.com/2014/02/11/10-block-buster-movies-with-tiny-budgets/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
I would bet money that you know exactly what he means by "no money".
Click to expand...

No, I really don't know of any "hit movies for no money". I know of 3 films in a 15 year period (1992 -2007) which cost about half a million dollars to make where the filmmakers originally spent only a few thousand or a few tens of thousands and a distributor picked picked them up and invested the rest. But the indie film industry has changed a lot since the crash and Paranormal Activity in 2007 was the last time I heard of this happening. Maybe there's some recent examples you or the OP know of which show that it still happens?

Filman said:
But, don't be so money obsessed.
Click to expand...

I'm not, you're the one who said "no money" and "hit-movie".

Filman said:
Can you shoot the movie for nothing and offer it to a distribution company and they market it?
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, no you can't.

The films you linked to are up to 40 years old and all had budgets of well into the 6-7 figures. Do you have any examples from this decade which show a major distributor taking a no/lo budget amateur film and pumping in the cash to make it a "hit-movie"? If not, then all you have is evidence that on very rare occasions this has happened in the past but you have no evidence that "it happens" in today's film industry.

G
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Filman said:
"But, don't be so extremely money obsessed."
Click to expand...

It was possible at one time to make a film with no sound or music with a black and white hand cranked camera and have a "hit-movie". Try that today and you won't even get an appointment to meet with a distributor, let alone get a hit-movie!

You're the one making financial claims, then posting links of film budgets and gross box office receipts (which don't support your claims) and then you tell me not to be so money obsessed?! I don't mean to be rude but is there something wrong with you? You don't have to answer that, I'm bowing out of this thread anyway. Good luck.

G
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AudioPostExpert said:
It was possible at one time to make a film with no sound or music with a black and white hand cranked camera and have a "hit-movie". Try that today and you won't even get an appointment to meet with a distributor, let alone get a hit-movie!

You're the one making financial claims, then posting links of film budgets and gross box office receipts (which don't support your claims) and then you tell me not to be so money obsessed?! I don't mean to be rude but is there something wrong with you? You don't have to answer that, I'm bowing out of this thread anyway. Good luck.

G
Click to expand...

I have no idea what I am doing but can write from my personal experience. My plan has been in 3 stages:

1. Get to a certain level. For me, this meant getting to the stage where an 'international' level fest with a good name accepts a short from me and I get paid as a director for a project. I'm still not quite happy with my level but have achieved the goals which indicate I am now not completely useless and can attempt to embark on a pro project.

2. Get a small body of work together (shorts etc...) which I can use for all the usual reasons. This is everything from demonstrating I can be considered as a 'credible' individual.

3. Shoot a commercial project (next year) with marketing as an organic part of the process.

Strangely enough, although the kit owned by me and like-minded individuals costs thousands, hiring locations, actors etc..., buying editing software cost money, I still think of this as 'no budget' film making. So even before creating a 'commercial project' which I would attempt to monetize, I am spending thousands.

'No budget' sometimes does not mean 'no budget.'

As an anecdote, one of my shorts was playing at a good-level film fest. The best short I saw was absolutely amazing and shot by a professional director will a full crew and access to multi-million dollar post facilities. We were talking and I asked him how much his absolutely amazing location cost. He told me it was $800 USD (500 quid). I said '500 quid for 2 days?' and his response was to look at me as if I was an idiot and said: 'No, 500 quid per hour shooting continuously for 2 days...'

Is it possible to shoot something amazing, incredible, fantastic etc... for next-to-nothing? Yes, anything is possible, just extremely unlikely. If you can do it, please let me know how!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Extremely unlikely?

The first thing you have to do is not to challenge the multi-million boys in their own game.

Make your movie shine, not the location. Let them money-boys focus on their locations and you focus on what the audience is willing to pay for.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Filman said:
The first thing you have to do is not to challenge the multi-million boys in their own game.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this. I'm just not clear how your plan fits into that model.

Make your movie shine, not the location. Let them money-boys focus on their locations and you focus on what the audience is willing to pay for.
Click to expand...

So, what exactly is it the audience is willing to pay for?

I was thinking about this thread the other day while I was watching Glengarry Glen Ross. It's a great example of a single-location film - while there are a couple scenes in the bar across the street, it essentially takes place entirely in a single drab office location. It depends entirely on writing & performance to make it compelling - and succeeds spectacularly.

But here's the thing - it's got a script written by someone who's widely regarded as one of the best dialogue writers of our times, and it's based on his pulitzer-winning stage play. It's got an ensemble cast of some of the greatest film & stage actors alive today. It's scored by one of the top film composers around. It's well shot, edited and directed. It got an academy award & golden globe nomination. It's critically acclaimed with great reviews from dozens of top critics. It received a wide theatrical release backed by a national marketing campaign. And it was essentially a commercial failure at the box office.

So what is it about your program that you think will enable a team with far less resources (and likely less talent, on the whole) to do any better commercially than they were able to?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ItDonnedOnMe said:
So, what exactly is it the audience is willing to pay for?

I was thinking about this thread the other day while I was watching Glengarry Glen Ross. It's a great example of a single-location film - while there are a couple scenes in the bar across the street, it essentially takes place entirely in a single drab office location. It depends entirely on writing & performance to make it compelling - and succeeds spectacularly.
Click to expand...

12 Angry Men. Fantastic.

Outstanding script, strong actors and decent technicals.

It's possible just highly unlikely.

And let's not forget what it costs to get to the place where we are competent enough to get something to work.

I'm trying a not dissimilar trick - making something low budget next year and trying to sell it. Even with a little experience, I doubt I'll succeed and the OP has not indicated any experience at all!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
@ ItDonned
I see what you’re saying. You talk about profiting, without A-list actors. Or do you honestly think that I think that this program is a miracle worker that turns amateurs into superheroes? To answer you: There are things that influence the audience’s behavior. We use the ones we’re aware of.

The idea is to work on the script as much as it takes until we’re convinced that the movie has high potential. After this the test scene is shot and evaluated. If everybody still think that the project has potential, only then are you supposed to go on. Without the “smell” of a success, it's often too hard to keep the team motivated. If not motivated you can try to show the test scene to a production company and get them to finance the movie. But, then they will own it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
RULES (very briefly)

To order a custom written script, inform about:
1. Locations, where you also easily can re-shoot. The same with actors.
2. Possible strengths or talents in the team that have potential to attract that little extra attention.
3. Your movie taste.

As the script is ready:
Shoot a test scene for a test audience. And when everything is confirmed to have a good enough quality for a cinema release, shoot the rest of the movie.
This test scene also tells others that your team is actually shooting the movie and not just talking. And the audience will get a first glimpse.
Or you can show the test scene to a production company and ask if they like it enough to fund the whole movie.

ALSO AUTHORS can be initiative takers, as they follow the principle "simple but entertaining." They are asked to pass a test:
The following, mustn’t be followed slave-like, but optimal for the teams would be: one main location, which is an apartment, place at least 83% of the story there, 3-5 roles, all 20-30 year olds, a 90 pages script and true to the trademark. No props expenses.

THE TRADEMARK: Different Men Priorities that make women proud to be women. Men do what one shouldn’t do, and the women next to them feel as the better sex.
The trademark is there to give the audience something recognizable to look forward to and if more movies get made it will market your movie for free.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There seems to be a 'less costs = more profit' 'logic' behind it
Click to expand...

Fiduciary responsibility. I like it, though I too doubt this is really the focus. I'd bet the OP is in the same situation that I'm in. Oh, look, I have a dollar in my pocket. Yep boys, the budget is $1. Go to town and lets make a movie! It's still a good idea, though financial failure it almost assured, the experience and future opportunities that may stem from the project if done well may be priceless.

production company and get them to finance the movie
Click to expand...

ummm, errr.... what?

it's often too hard to keep the team motivated
Click to expand...

Yep, it's often hard to keep a team motivated - FULL STOP. With or without a smell of success. Doubly so if you're not paying them. The plight of no-budget filmmaking.

Shoot a test scene for a test audience. And when everything is confirmed to have a good enough quality for a cinema release, shoot the rest of the movie.
This test scene also tells others that your team is actually shooting the movie and not just talking. And the audience will get a first glimpse.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see where you're going. Do up a teaser, blah blah blah... Yeah it works, though I suspect you're thinking about this a slightly wrong way. Your expected sources of finance probably won't care about your teaser that much. I do think you're on the right basic track.

give the audience something recognizable to look forward to and if more movies get made it will market your movie for free.
Click to expand...

If only that was true. The truth of the matter, success breeds success. The hardest part is that initial success. Figure that first step out and you've worked out the location of the mythical pot of gold.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I like one location films, but don't see many. When they are done right they are really great.

For example:

Carnage
Bug
American Buffalo
Oleana
Tape
Rope (mostly)

---as was noted. The talent in all of these were exceptional. And I think they were all commercial failures (not sure about rope/carnage)

I recall lots of single room stuff in Fassbinder. I don't care for it, but you've got your political message and he does have his fans.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Filman said:
I see what you’re saying. You talk about profiting, without A-list actors.
Click to expand...

I'm really using profit as a proxy, in the case of a film like Glengarry Glen Ross, for audience interest. I'm saying if a film like that with A-list everything can't generate enough audience interest to recoup it's modest (by hollywood standards) budget it suggests there may not be a very large segment of the audience who is interested in films driven purely by dialogue & performance.

Or do you honestly think that I think that this program is a miracle worker that turns amateurs into superheroes?
Click to expand...

Well, you were the one who originally said:

With this kind of focus, you’d make a whole team of amateurs look like professionals. Right or wrong?
Click to expand...

Now maybe professionals !== superheroes, but it still seems like you're suggesting that your program would somehow allow amateurs to achieve something that they otherwise couldn't.

To answer you: There are things that influence the audience’s behavior. We use the ones we’re aware of.
Click to expand...

Ok, so that's audience research, marketing, segmentation/demographics/niche targeting, etc. All that comes before the filmmaking or even screenwriting stage. You haven't really talked much about that yet as far as where this information is coming from and why it's valuable, if it's based on solid research and practice or if it's just your own observations of what you think might work.

The idea is to work on the script as much as it takes until we’re convinced that the movie has high potential.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you've just described the basic process of screenwriting. Does anyone stop working on their script before they think it has high potential? Isn't that why most people decide to turn a given story into a script in the first place?

And what makes your perception of the level of potential more accurate than anyone else's? I'm not asking this to challenge you in particular, just to try and convey the idea that what you're describing doesn't seem any different than the usual way of doing things.

People rarely write scripts if they don't think they have some potential. They even more rarely take them into actual production if they don't think they have a lot of potential. Of the many hundreds or thousands of films that passed those two steps of potential 'assessment' and actually get made each year, very few find a significant audience - despite the high level of potential the filmmakers obviously felt they had. Clearly most people's assessment of the potential of their own projects is incorrect.

So again, what is the basis for your assessment of potential, and why is it likely to be more accurate than everyone else's?

If not motivated you can try to show the test scene to a production company and get them to finance the movie. But, then they will own it.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you're basically saying "if we don't see the potential in this project, we should try to sell it to someone else". How does that make any sense? Why would someone else invest money in a project you don't see any potential in? Do you walk in the door and say "look, we've got this script, and we shot a test scene, but it just doesn't seem to be very good. Do you want to fund the production?". That's probably the worst pitch ever; if your test scene doesn't convince you it's worth it then how is it supposed to convince someone else to invest in it?

The far more realistic scenario would be you shoot a test scene and it just blows everyone away with how amazing it is, so they're eager to invest in the potential you've shown.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top