Question About A 1.5M Budgeted Film

I don't think most people here have ever dealt with that kind of budget.

sfoster said:

I don't think most people here have ever dealt with that kind of budget.

Click to expand...

Now I feel like a dick.

Hot Sauce said:

Now I feel like a dick.

Click to expand...

Didn't come across like one to me.
There might be one or two people that can address your question with experience.

Hopefully you'll stick around and maybe we can learn from your experience with this project

Out of curiosity what is the genre of the film?

sfoster said:

Didn't come across like one to me.
There might be one or two people that can address your question with experience.

Hopefully you'll stick around and maybe we can learn from your experience with this project

Out of curiosity what is the genre of the film?

Click to expand...

I will be happy to let you all know how things go. It's a crime drama.

Does your funding come primarily from the Canadian government? I know the whole film-funding structure is significantly different in Canada. I see lots of ads on screenwriting forums requesting writers who have to be a Canadian resident.

Hot Sauce said:

Is it really just about hiring a great (but affordable) director, cinematographer and other key creative people to make your movie look and sound like it's a Michael Mann film, even though you only have 1.5M? I just want to avoid feedback from the audience like this: oh this looks like a no budget film or is this a Canadian movie?

Click to expand...

In theory "yes" but your question raises several points. 1. It all depends on the scenes and locations; the number and diversity of locations, the complexity of the scenes and the time allotted. Action scenes for example will usually eat huge chunks of budget and are likely to be compromised or cause compromises elsewhere. 2. There is nothing easy about trying to find/hire a "great"; director, cinematographer, Sound Designer/Audio post team with restricted financial resources. Not to mention actors and other crew, all of whom to a greater or lesser extent influence whether or not a film ends up being perceived as big budget or cheap. 3. I don't think Michael Mann's films are necessarily a good aiming point, at least as far as sound is concerned. A number of his films have received a huge amount of criticism for their sound, both from within the industry and from the public. Public Enemies is widely regarded as the worst sounding 'Hollywood" film of the modern era!

Hot Sauce said:

I am more of a creative producer as opposed to one that deals in film financing and the like, so I am not very familiar in this regard.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, your question indicates that you don't seem to know much about the creative aspects of filmmaking either. Also, I can't think of any aspects of the Producer's role off the top of my head which don't directly or indirectly "deal with film financing and the like". You mentioned that you are "one of the Producers" and with this type of budget I'm hoping/presuming that at least one of the other producers is very experienced? If so, they would know more about the specifics of the project and would be a far better source of information. If not, I think it's extremely unlikely that you will achieve your aims, either in terms of your aesthetic aims or in terms of distribution/return on investment. If this is the case, I would very strongly advise you to get an experienced Producer on-board as quickly as possible or at the very least, a highly experienced Line Producer.

Hot Sauce said:

Now I feel like a dick.

Click to expand...

You shouldn't! There are some of us here who have worked on films with this type of budget, I've worked on several myself and even a few films with budgets several times larger. And, even though most here are amateur filmmakers used to working with tiny/no budgets, many of them are very serious amateurs and I'm sure they would be extremely interested in the progression of a low budget indie.

G

Watch indie films, and then watch small budget studio films, and then watch those indie films again.

1. First giveaway: Sound
2. Second giveaway: Actors are acting. The acting is not believable to the extent it is on professional films
3. Visual giveaway: Set dressing. Does this really look like someone's house? are there pictures on the wall, etc.

Director and Cinematographer are also important, as anybody directing without a proper idea of what they want will never really know if they have it. A good cinematographer is also necessary as s/he raises the level of the game, even if it's ever so slightly. All you're really trying to do is cross that "indie" threshold to the point where the average viewer cannot tell the difference between your film and a studio production.

But without good actors, everything else will be wasted, if the performance is not believed.

Stay away from the ideas of perfection (but try not to compromise on location audio. As I said, it's the first giveaway). Stay away from doctrinaire ideas of filmmaking that suggest things have to be one way or another. You will be chasing ghosts you'll never find, because you can talk yourself into any level of complication you desire. Seek advice from non-filmmakers, the viewers, the audience.


Anyway, these are the principles I'm using on my ultra-ultra-no-budget movie.

Good luck with your project. You're making me jealous with your 1.5mil budget.
cheers
aveek

I have to agree with trueindie. At a time when almost anyone can get access to a Red One or, at the very least, a high-end DSLR, it's almost always poor sound and the amateur quality of the acting that give away a cheap production.

My advice? Get with your screenwriter and cut back on the underwater harpoon fights, the giant crowds, the car chases through Toronto, and the Supercobra Attack Helicopter dog-fights.

AudioPostExpert said:

In theory "yes" but your question raises several points. 1. It all depends on the scenes and locations; the number and diversity of locations, the complexity of the scenes and the time allotted. Action scenes for example will usually eat huge chunks of budget and are likely to be compromised or cause compromises elsewhere. 2. There is nothing easy about trying to find/hire a "great"; director, cinematographer, Sound Designer/Audio post team with restricted financial resources. Not to mention actors and other crew, all of whom to a greater or lesser extent influence whether or not a film ends up being perceived as big budget or cheap. 3. I don't think Michael Mann's films are necessarily a good aiming point, at least as far as sound is concerned. A number of his films have received a huge amount of criticism for their sound, both from within the industry and from the public. Public Enemies is widely regarded as the worst sounding 'Hollywood" film of the modern era!



With all due respect, your question indicates that you don't seem to know much about the creative aspects of filmmaking either. Also, I can't think of any aspects of the Producer's role off the top of my head which don't directly or indirectly "deal with film financing and the like". You mentioned that you are "one of the Producers" and with this type of budget I'm hoping/presuming that at least one of the other producers is very experienced? If so, they would know more about the specifics of the project and would be a far better source of information. If not, I think it's extremely unlikely that you will achieve your aims, either in terms of your aesthetic aims or in terms of distribution/return on investment. If this is the case, I would very strongly advise you to get an experienced Producer on-board as quickly as possible or at the very least, a highly experienced Line Producer.



You shouldn't! There are some of us here who have worked on films with this type of budget, I've worked on several myself and even a few films with budgets several times larger. And, even though most here are amateur filmmakers used to working with tiny/no budgets, many of them are very serious amateurs and I'm sure they would be extremely interested in the progression of a low budget indie.

G

Click to expand...

Thanks for getting back to me.

Heat, The Insider and Collateral are fantastic as well as his earlier films Thief and Manhunter - Public Enemies and Miami Vice are disappointing for various reasons. Just wanted to get that out of the way. I don't think when any filmmaker says that he is influenced by Michael Mann, it is due to Public Enemies. Mann dropped the ball there.

There are different kinds of producers and while I am dealing with financing and the budget, it is not my main area of knowledge. Yes, there is a producer/line producer where that is their main focus. When I say that I am a creative producer, I was referring to the fact that I developed the project myself, worked with the writer to make the script better, attached name actors and a name director that I wanted, attached a high profile Exec Producer with a distribution deal attached based on the quality of the script, etc. All aspects in this regard were done by me.

Similarily, some directors know all the technical camera jargon and equipment and other directors rely on the cinematographer for that, because they don't know that stuff. So since the bottom fell out of our budget, I am in the position of having to make creative decisions with much less money and thus we can't afford the kind of talent and director that I would normally want to go to. Sure I can talk to the other producers on the film and do - just wanted to get an outside opinion, since their focus is on the money and not the creative aspects. We don't always agree.

Thanks again.

HS

Adeimantus said:

I have to agree with trueindie. At a time when almost anyone can get access to a Red One or, at the very least, a high-end DSLR, it's almost always poor sound and the amateur quality of the acting that give away a cheap production.

My advice? Get with your screenwriter and cut back on the underwater harpoon fights, the giant crowds, the car chases through Toronto, and the Supercobra Attack Helicopter dog-fights.

Click to expand...

It is mostly a dialogue heavy film in only a couple of locations with 2 action scenes - one at the beginning which isn't big and one at the end which is. Think Glengarry Glenn Ross with a heavy shootout at the end ultimately - there is no car chaes or underwater harpoon fights here

If we are to believe the budget - Swingers cost $200,000 - but they had Doug Liman and some good actors. Sure it looks lower budget or independent, but that film spoke to audiences much like Reservoir Dogs. I am aiming for this with the 1.5M budget. I would be happy if I made those film creatively regardless if they made a dime or not.

I don't know if you have seen a lot of low budget Canadian films - but I cannot stand how bleak, cold, and lifeless so many Canadian films look - get a cinematogether to put some color and life into this thing.

Hot Sauce said:

So since the bottom fell out of our budget, I am in the position of having to make creative decisions with much less money and thus we can't afford the kind of talent and director that I would normally want to go to. Sure I can talk to the other producers on the film and do - just wanted to get an outside opinion, since their focus is on the money and not the creative aspects. We don't always agree.

Click to expand...

Obviously my expertise is in the area of sound, so I'll cover that a little, although I'm only going to be able to provide very generalised info as of course I don't know the specifics of your film:

Most moderately knowledgeable filmmakers assume great sound starts with a highly skilled production sound team and is then created in post production by a great Sound Designer and Audio Post team ... it doesn't and it's not! Great sound starts with the script and is then defined by the Director. All the great directors are not only well versed in the process of designing sound for film but far more importantly, demonstrate great foresight and talent in designing the film for sound! In fact, this talent is one of the features which defines the great directors and differentiates them from the not so great. If the film doesn't provide the opportunities for great sound design to aid in the storytelling then it doesn't matter how good a sound designer or audio teams you manage to hire! Low budget narrative indies have to be mainly dialogue driven (rather than action driven) but without the opportunity for sound design to help tell the story, to create/aid the pace and tension, most low budget indies end up feeling like low budget indies; slow and/or lifeless and ultimately boring (or at least, not gripping) for general audiences. You might find this thread worth a few minutes of your time, "The Principles of Sound Design", particularly posts: #11, #12, #24 and #29. Incidentally, the example used is also from a relatively low budget crime thriller.

With a total budget of $1.5m I'm presuming your sound budget is going to be somewhere around $50k - $100k. This should certainly result in a competent theatrical sound mix but is quite a few times lower than the amount required to guarantee the level of sound design required to differentiate your film from the standard low budget indie fayre. For that kind of budget you might be able to afford some high quality film audio pros, you just couldn't afford them for long enough to do much more than a job of basic competency. That's not to say it's going to be impossible for you to achieve substantially better than usual low budget indie standards, just highly improbable! To improve your odds, you're going to need a very talented director (and a script) which provide the sound design opportunities mentioned above and then you've got two options: 1. Get someone involved with a big name/great contacts, who's reputation can get top pros on board for much less than usual. This is the route taken by Tarantino in the film you referenced, Reservoir Dogs. Or 2. Do a considerable amount of research to find a sound designer/audio team who is knowledgeable, experienced and very talented but not yet charging the type of rates you can't afford. This is not going to be at all easy (!) and you're going to have to take some risks if you're to buck the trend of "you get what you pay for".

I haven't mentioned music but that's another area which all on it's own can make your film feel like a cheap indie. Similar problem and potential solutions to those I've discussed for sound.

G

Assuming you've got a good script, I'd focus on getting a good casting director and/or using contacts that you and/or your colleagues have to get the best possible cast. If you can target actors for whom this project would be something different from how they're usually cast, that will give you some leverage in pitching them.

AudioPostExpert said:

Obviously my expertise is in the area of sound, so I'll cover that a little, although I'm only going to be able to provide very generalised info as of course I don't know the specifics of your film:

Most moderately knowledgeable filmmakers assume great sound starts with a highly skilled production sound team and is then created in post production by a great Sound Designer and Audio Post team ... it doesn't and it's not! Great sound starts with the script and is then defined by the Director. All the great directors are not only well versed in the process of designing sound for film but far more importantly, demonstrate great foresight and talent in designing the film for sound! In fact, this talent is one of the features which defines the great directors and differentiates them from the not so great. If the film doesn't provide the opportunities for great sound design to aid in the storytelling then it doesn't matter how good a sound designer or audio teams you manage to hire! Low budget narrative indies have to be mainly dialogue driven (rather than action driven) but without the opportunity for sound design to help tell the story, to create/aid the pace and tension, most low budget indies end up feeling like low budget indies; slow and/or lifeless and ultimately boring (or at least, not gripping) for general audiences. You might find this thread worth a few minutes of your time, "The Principles of Sound Design", particularly posts: #11, #12, #24 and #29. Incidentally, the example used is also from a relatively low budget crime thriller.

With a total budget of $1.5m I'm presuming your sound budget is going to be somewhere around $50k - $100k. This should certainly result in a competent theatrical sound mix but is quite a few times lower than the amount required to guarantee the level of sound design required to differentiate your film from the standard low budget indie fayre. For that kind of budget you might be able to afford some high quality film audio pros, you just couldn't afford them for long enough to do much more than a job of basic competency. That's not to say it's going to be impossible for you to achieve substantially better than usual low budget indie standards, just highly improbable! To improve your odds, you're going to need a very talented director (and a script) which provide the sound design opportunities mentioned above and then you've got two options: 1. Get someone involved with a big name/great contacts, who's reputation can get top pros on board for much less than usual. This is the route taken by Tarantino in the film you referenced, Reservoir Dogs. Or 2. Do a considerable amount of research to find a sound designer/audio team who is knowledgeable, experienced and very talented but not yet charging the type of rates you can't afford. This is not going to be at all easy (!) and you're going to have to take some risks if you're to buck the trend of "you get what you pay for".

I haven't mentioned music but that's another area which all on it's own can make your film feel like a cheap indie. Similar problem and potential solutions to those I've discussed for sound.

G

Click to expand...

Thanks again for all your feedback and I will read the thread you posted.

Since I am the one picking the director, it will be someone who is passionate about the screenplay and will bring much to the table creatively and otherwise...for less. I know that we will find the right director for this project and that he will do a great job with the actors and the dialogue like a great David Mamet film, but my concern is more for the action scenes that we do have. Maybe it's better to show you what I mean.

While I was disappointed with the film overall, watch this scene here from Miami Vice. I saw this in theatre at the time and my rib cage shook from the incredible sound from the gun shots. Just amazing. It's like they are in the room with you and Mann does this sort of thing better than anyone else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooGf99HGmeI

Now this is the technical aspect that I don't know. For the two gun fights in the movie on a 1.5M budgeted film and finding talented people on the cheap - can we have our guns sound like canon's and rattle the cages of an unsuspecting and nice Canadian audience expecting another boring Canadian film?

Is it really just about hiring a great (but affordable) director, cinematographer and other key creative people to make your movie look and sound like it's a Michael Mann film, even though you only have 1.5M? I just want to avoid feedback from the audience like this: oh this looks like a no budget film or is this a Canadian movie? I want to give the illusion like the budget is higher, but then when people ask - they are floored that we did all that for 1.5M.

Click to expand...

First, congratulations on securing 1.5mil. That's a feat in itself.

When you say creative producer, I'm going to assume that you mean you're a writer (or similar) who's knows a few people with money and is trying to push this project forward.

You may be in a bit of trouble there. The trap you have to avoid is hiring the wrong people due to your reduced budget. What you NEED to avoid is needing to redo anything. Get it right the first time, means you don't have to pay twice. Why you're in trouble, is you don't know the financial side of filming.

You can do a lot with 1.5mil. There is a lot you can do to bring down your budget. Locations is the most obvious. Ensuring you're working with a great director and crew who can work fast and still get great results.

If the script is as strong as I suspect you feel it is, my suggestion would be to hire the best casting director you can. Reduce the shooting days for the really interesting roles to a minimum. Get the casting director to attach the most marketable people you can within your budget for as cheap as you can. Get some names in for a day or two if possible. You may be surprised on how little you can get some of them for with the right casting director. Follow this advice and it may save your skin if you do run out of money and need finishing funds on a film that is marketable as opposed to a film without names and no one cares about.

Meh.... there are many other areas to pay attention to. I think you really need to find yourself a producer that has worked in your genre, your output quality you expect and your budget level. I also suggest grabbing yourself a film specific membership (and a few books) and quickly getting up to speed. It'll help reduce headaches in the long run.

Hot Sauce said:

For the two gun fights in the movie on a 1.5M budgeted film and finding talented people on the cheap - can we have our guns sound like canon's and rattle the cages of an unsuspecting and nice Canadian audience expecting another boring Canadian film?

Click to expand...

That's up to the audio post budget. Most of us have decent to excellent sound libraries, and what we don't have we can acquire. But big budget "Hollywood" films usually custom create a very large percentage of their sound effects to take advantage of real theatrical surround sound systems. On a (comparatively) small budget like yours the audio post team will have to rely on library sounds. Depending upon whom you choose the sound editor may do a very nice job of layering multiple sounds that the rerecording mixer can mix for maximum "impact" but it's not going to have the same depth as a film that has three or more time your budget for audio post alone. BTW, "Miami Vice" was an action film, and required those kinds of gunshot sounds; from a storytelling perspective your film may not need such huge gunshot sounds.

Always remember that your project will only look as good as it sounds, because "Sound is half of the experience." You only have visuals and audio to tell the story; be sure that you don't ignore half of your story telling tools. Make sure that you director understands the importance of sound.

When you look for your director see if s/he has anyone they like to work with - DPs/Cinematographers, production sound teams, editors/CGI/color grading, Sound Designer/Supervising Sound Editor, etc. The comfort and communication factors will definitely improve your final product.

Get your Sound Designer and/or Supervising Sound Editor on early; have him/her go over the script from a sonic storytelling perspective before you start work on the shooting script.

Hot Sauce said:

can you still make a 1.5M dollar movie LOOK like a 3.5M movie in terms of visual and other production values.

Click to expand...

Yes, it can be done, but it requires thinking outside the box and this especially includes ignoring regular Hollywood conventions re: director, DP, crew, et al., and gear.

You'll need to find a name actor or two willing to work under unconventional conditions. You can't afford to babysit anyone. This is a key.

You'll need to be able to be flexible with the script to take advantage of high production value locations available to you at no costs as opposed to the other way around. Likewise for most elements of the film.

Your entire crew has to be willing to work unconventionally. If you've people arguing with you over "how things are supposed to be done", they're wrong for you.

Critical elements such as a scene that requires large crews, and only one opportunity to pull off, need to be written out of the script -- you can't afford a failure.

You want to make a film that is reliant on creative editing in post -- something you have great control of.

What is critical for you now before you do anything else, find that one person that is able and willing to pull this off for you. It may be in the form of a producer or director, but most importantly, this person will have experience working against convention.

Good luck.

This reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns hires Steven Spielberg's "non-union, Mexican equivalent," Señor Spielbergo. I need to find the same.

GuerrillaAngel said:

Yes, it can be done, but it requires thinking outside the box and this especially includes ignoring regular Hollywood conventions re: director, DP, crew, et al., and gear.

You'll need to find a name actor or two willing to work under unconventional conditions. You can't afford to babysit anyone. This is a key.

You'll need to be able to be flexible with the script to take advantage of high production value locations available to you at no costs as opposed to the other way around. Likewise for most elements of the film.

Your entire crew has to be willing to work unconventionally. If you've people arguing with you over "how things are supposed to be done", they're wrong for you.

Critical elements such as a scene that requires large crews, and only one opportunity to pull off, need to be written out of the script -- you can't afford a failure.

You want to make a film that is reliant on creative editing in post -- something you have great control of.

What is critical for you now before you do anything else, find that one person that is able and willing to pull this off for you. It may be in the form of a producer or director, but most importantly, this person will have experience working against convention.

Good luck.

Click to expand...

Thanks very much for your feedack.

Hot Sauce said:

I know that we will find the right director for this project and that he will do a great job with the actors and the dialogue like a great David Mamet film, but my concern is more for the action scenes that we do have.

Click to expand...

That wouldn't be my concern or at least wouldn't be my main concern! For sure, action sequences need skill, care, a lot of resources and a lot of work but they also intrinsically provide a great deal of sound design opportunities and options to engage the audience, drive the pace and maintain interest. Action sequences are the "obvious face" of sound design, the area of sound design which the audience most consciously notice. However, my main concern (or at least my equal concern) as a sound designer, is not just the obvious action sequences but the other sequences, those sequences where the audience are not consciously aware of the sound design and which need the most help to push the pace, intensity or tension, to maintain interest and audience engagement/involvement. Indeed, the very fact that the audience is not consciously aware of it, is what gives sound design it's power to manipulate that audience! All this is especially true for indie films, which generally do not have the budget to maintain pace and interest through the use of numerous action sequences. Of course, as directors/producers/filmmakers we not only have to be aware of this aspect of filmmaking/storytelling but we have to plan, shoot and edit the film to facilitate it! Something which is sadly lacking in the majority of low and very low budget indies but a defining feature of the great films/directors.

It's this aspect of sound design, the pacing/intensity/more sub-conscious audience manipulation aspect, which the thread I recommended mainly addresses and why I think it would be more than worth your time to read/study.

GuerrillaAngel said:

Yes, it can be done, but it requires thinking outside the box and this especially includes ignoring regular Hollywood conventions re: director, DP, crew, et al., and gear.

Click to expand...

While on one level I agree with this statement, it is also potentially extremely poor advice! Most Hollywood conventions exist for a reason, namely, because trail and error over the years have proven them to be the most effective, reliable and cost efficient means of achieving a certain result. Furthermore, although good quality pros are generally able to think on their feet and adapt, this is only true within a certain framework. Get too close to the edge of that framework or step outside of it and you're likely to run into issues which increase the workload, compromise the quality, spiral the cost or commonly all three!

I'm not saying that you shouldn't try to be innovative or fresh in certain respects, I think it's important to try and do so, to differentiate your film from the masses of competing low budget indies but at the same time one has to be extremely careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater! In other words, breaking the "rules" can be a very good thing but one has to have an intimate understanding of the "rules" in the first place and of why they exist, if one is to avoid catastrophically breaking something else (unforeseen) further down the line.

Extremely lo/no budget filmmakers can afford to experiment and take risks, they've little to loose and being largely DIY, if they run into a problem they can simply go back and do it again, spend extra time to solve or work around the issue and/or accept certain things which are "good enuf" (relative to other amateur filmmakers). This is not the case with budgeted productions, where things need to happen in a certain way, a certain order and to a schedule, as otherwise you'll find yourself paying teams of expensive professionals to sit around and do nothing, waiting for some upstream problem/issue to be sorted out or just as bad, wasting valuable time trying to fix some other person or department's problem/s. This type of scenario is not at all uncommon, even with the best planning, very substantial budgets and highly experienced directors/casts/crews. With less experienced directors/crews or with more restrictive budgets, it's even more common and seriously compromises many indies or even proves fatal to some!

G