How does writing a horror script, save on budget exactly?

A lot of indie filmmakers are into horror. It's been said on here a lot and I went to a film festival this year, this being the second festival I went to. Almost every movie there was a horror. Accept for some bigger budget foreign films, which were showed for less cost possibly, almost every domestic one was a horror.

Mostly genres such as slasher, found footage, zombie, and not really slasher, but crazy ex lover stalker genre, unless that counts as slasher too maybe. The general consensus among filmmakers at the festival, or even some on here maybe, who all agree that horror is better for very low budget.

However, I am not sure quite how writing a horror script myself, saves on low budget. Here's part of a sequence I wrote:

EXT. ALLEYWAY -- NIGHT -- CONTINUOUS

Kimble pulls up aways from the house, in the alley, quietly
so Tyler cannot hear --

KIMBLE (V.O.)
Okay, I'll help you back into the
window.

INT. CAR -- CONTINUOUS

KIMBLE
(puts the car in park)
Quickly--

Tyler kicks in the window, nearly hitting Kimble with his
foot -- Kimbled ducks back from the glass shatter -- Tyler
reaches in and unlocks the door -- Kimble opens and shoves
the door, knocking Tyler away --

Sheila puts the car in drive,
and attempts to get to gas, but cannot --
Tyler jumps back into the car, on top of Kimble -- Kimble
accidently floors the gas --

Shiela opens the door and gets
out, just before the car speeds off down the alley -- Tyler
and Kimble try to stear the wheel while struggling and hit a
tree -- Sheila lays on the ground hurt --

As you can see, I am not sure how this saves on budget, since I would still have to write things such as people falling down, getting hit by a door, etc. That stuff causes injuries, and therefore will cause quite a bit of money I am guessing for insurance, so how exactly is writing horror, cheaper? Or did I miss the concept?
 
A lot of indie filmmakers are into horror. It's been said on here a lot and I went to a film festival this year, this being the second festival I went to. Almost every movie there was a horror. Accept for some bigger budget foreign films, which were showed for less cost possibly, almost every domestic one was a horror.

Mostly genres such as slasher, found footage, zombie, and not really slasher, but crazy ex lover stalker genre, unless that counts as slasher too maybe. The general consensus among filmmakers at the festival, or even some on here maybe, who all agree that horror is better for very low budget.

However, I am not sure quite how writing a horror script myself, saves on low budget. Here's part of a sequence I wrote:

EXT. ALLEYWAY -- NIGHT -- CONTINUOUS

Kimble pulls up aways from the house, in the alley, quietly
so Tyler cannot hear --

KIMBLE (V.O.)
Okay, I'll help you back into the
window.

INT. CAR -- CONTINUOUS

KIMBLE
(puts the car in park)
Quickly--

Tyler kicks in the window, nearly hitting Kimble with his
foot -- Kimbled ducks back from the glass shatter -- Tyler
reaches in and unlocks the door -- Kimble opens and shoves
the door, knocking Tyler away --

Sheila puts the car in drive,
and attempts to get to gas, but cannot --
Tyler jumps back into the car, on top of Kimble -- Kimble
accidently floors the gas --

Shiela opens the door and gets
out, just before the car speeds off down the alley -- Tyler
and Kimble try to stear the wheel while struggling and hit a
tree -- Sheila lays on the ground hurt --

As you can see, I am not sure how this saves on budget, since I would still have to write things such as people falling down, getting hit by a door, etc. That stuff causes injuries, and therefore will cause quite a bit of money I am guessing for insurance, so how exactly is writing horror, cheaper? Or did I miss the concept?

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here; if you write a script that is expensive to produce in any genre then it will (surprise surprise) be expensive to produce. I would guess the reason horror does well on low budget is because a lot of the best horror movies thrive on what they don't show rather than what they do show, and a good director can create something very atmospheric, suspenseful and stylish that stays true to the genre with just a handful of locations, a few actors and some skilful camerawork.
 
I've never heard that horror is better for making a low budget film because it would actually lower the budget; usually it seems to be done because there is (was) a market for low budget horror so it was more likely that you could sell the film and actually make some money from it. It's certainly cheaper and easier to make a low budget drama than a horror, but it's harder to sell/market the drama to an audience.

The market seems to have changed quite a bit though - there's been a glut of low budget horror, and probably less demand for it as well, so I doubt distributors are paying as much for it now as they might have a decade ago. I don't think it's really as safe a genre choice as it once was.
 
The biggest cost savings of producing a horror film would be that it is a genre where name actors are not needed for the film to do well. A great poster and trailer can sell a horror movie while a drama or an action movie generally needs name actors to succeed.
 
It's a combination of a talent issue and an audience issue. B Grade horror audiences are more tolerant of lower production values and don't require big names before they'll be willing to see said movie. B grade horror films have quite a large(ish) following. They're used to those films not having an advertising budget so they seek out new material.

There's a fair bit more to the topic (like an established director being the main talent), but that's the general gist of it.

Dramas, comedies and (most of the time) thrillers tend to require talent to attract finance and an audience.

Sci-Fi tends to need a large sfx budget.

Action/Adventure tends to either need a large sfx/stunt budget and/or talent.

and so on.
 
Okay thanks. When it comes to writing though, I am more of a drama or thriller kind of writer. I just for some reason can hammer out better stories in those genres, than I can horror. For some reason horror limits me in storytelling.

So should I even bother writing a drama or a thriller if I am going to use unknown actors, or should I perhaps buy a horror script, or hire someone to write it, if there is a higher cult following for it, when it comes to using unknown actors?
 
So should I even bother writing a drama or a thriller if I am going to use unknown actors

Given the preceding information, what do you think the best answer is?

higher cult following for it, when it comes to using unknown actors?

What's going to happen when you make a horror movie when your heart is just not in it?

The best selling horror is still talent driven. It just tends not to worry about actors as the talent as much. As I said, there's a fair bit more to the topic.

What I said is just what is typical way producers look at the genre's in combination to film financing. It's not law, just a rule of thumb based on years of their observations. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of unknowns making great dramas or thrillers to move on to bigger and better things. I'm equally sure there are plenty (probably way more) examples of B grade horror makers who went on to obscurity.

There are more factors into the equation than just the basic requirements. Budget levels, per-sales, expected sale levels, salability of each genre given specific attachments in each territory and so on. The talent are used both as ways to attract investors through mitigation risk and marketing factors.

It's not as simple as picking horror as a genre. You still need to make a great movie in the minds of your target audience. You also need a method of promoting the finished product to your target audience.
 
However, I am not sure quite how writing a horror script myself, saves on low budget. Here's part of a sequence I wrote:

EXT. ALLEYWAY -- NIGHT -- CONTINUOUS

Kimble pulls up aways from the house, in the alley, quietly
so Tyler cannot hear --

KIMBLE (V.O.)
Okay, I'll help you back into the
window.

INT. CAR -- CONTINUOUS

KIMBLE
(puts the car in park)
Quickly--

Tyler kicks in the window, nearly hitting Kimble with his
foot -- Kimbled ducks back from the glass shatter -- Tyler
reaches in and unlocks the door -- Kimble opens and shoves
the door, knocking Tyler away --

Sheila puts the car in drive,
and attempts to get to gas, but cannot --
Tyler jumps back into the car, on top of Kimble -- Kimble
accidently floors the gas --

Shiela opens the door and gets
out, just before the car speeds off down the alley -- Tyler
and Kimble try to stear the wheel while struggling and hit a
tree -- Sheila lays on the ground hurt --

As you can see, I am not sure how this saves on budget...

I’m confused. Is the above a sequence from a low-budget horror script you’ve written? It certainly doesn’t seem like a horror. After this, you’ve written...

...I am not sure how this saves on budget, since I would still have to write things such as people falling down, getting hit by a door, etc...

You don’t have to write anything! You can write whatever you want. You’ve chosen to write an example of a “low-budget” script, that includes a car crash! You want to make the sequence above lower budget, remove the car crash. Simples. If the scene can’t possibly work without the car crash, remove the scene.


Speaking as a fan of no-budget horror, I don’t need recognisable actors to enjoy a film. I don’t even need particularly talented actors. In fact, I’ll look past pretty terrible acting. I’ll also look past shoddy lighting and mediocre sound, although I do like to see and hear what’s going on for most of the time. What I do want is a cool, interesting story. Some nice special effects are good too (but I’d still accept the film if the blood’s a bit too red...). What I absolutely, categorically don’t want is any cheap and nasty VFX. If it’s only for a few frames, ok... Maybe. But when people decide to do full-on DIY CGI monsters... Urghhh... No thanks.


As stated above though, I don’t think you should make a horror film. If you’re not making something you’d enjoy, how can you even hope to make something others would enjoy? Stick to what you do best (whatever that may be).
 
You can write whatever you want. You’ve chosen to write an example of a “low-budget” script, that includes a car crash!
That's because he's an idiot "developing writer."

Like Sweetie said above:
Action adventure is expensive
Scifi done well is expensive
Drama has no market


Write a ghost story, H.
No guns.
No fights.
No car crashes.
No blood.
Nothing on fire.

Make up
Costumes
Location
Acting
Dialog
Writing
 
Last edited:
Okay thanks. My heart is into the story though, regardless of genre. I don't mind writing a horror as long as I have a good feeling about the story.

How do write it without car crashes or things like that and still have it be logical? I am rewriting the script to be even lower budget, but it seems that the less physical confrontations, I write, the more illogical the story becomes. Or it becomes to the point where I don't think audiences will be satisfied. Basically when it comes to confrontation between the protagonist and antagonist audiences want to be some sort of physical fight going on.

I mean if I wrote it so that the hero points a gun at the villain and says don't move, and the villain surrenders himself right there, audiences will hate that. Audiences like villains where they are able to confront the hero and escape.

For example, in Skyfall, in the subway sequence Bond points a gun at Silva, and tells him not to move. Silva then presses a button, causing a bomb to go off, distracting Bond to have to take cover. This causes Silva to be able to escape. However, if Silva surrendered right away, no contest, audiences would hate that, and the movie would be ruined for them.

So how do I write it so that the villain can beat the hero, without having to go overbudget exactly? I don't need explosions or car crashes necessarily, but the villain is going to have to do things to incapacitate the hero, in order for the script not to be over, and also so the audiences does not feel cheated.

Are they any movies to learn from that are written for such low budget where it can work, without having to throw logic out the window because of budget?
 
Now I’m even more confused...

Are you talking about horror films? Or action? Or thriller? Or what...?

We were talking about horror. If you think that anything you’ve said above is relevant to horror, you need to go and watch more horror movies.

Somehow though, I’ve got a feeling you’ve switched back to talking about action films (since Skyfall isn’t a horror film… (and if you are still talking about horror films, you shouldn’t be looking to action films for the tropes of the genre)). In that case, my advice would be watch more action films. Take the bits you can do, use them. Discard the things you can’t do. Simple as that.

Write within your own limits!
 
Okay thanks, your right I should have used a horror example. Does The Last House on the Left count? In The Last House on the Left remake (2009), the two cops are transporting a killer in their car. The killers friend's and crash into the police car, with their vehicle. They then kill the cops, and free their comrad.

However, how do you shoot a horror scenario like this on a low budget. The reader is not going to want to see the cops get scared and surrender the villain without a fight. Cops have to be crashed into and killed practically, cause that's what audiences expect. Also in the same movie, the parents want to kill the villains to avenge their child. The villains do not surrender themselves quietly to be murdered though. They put up a fight, as most would and audiences expect that.

There has to be physical confrontation, and so I am wondering, when writing horror on a very low budget, how I do that, with having it make sense, and appeal to audience expectations cause audiences want physical confrontation.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you should have used a horror example. If you want to think of audience expectations of any given genre, think about that genre, not another.


Cops have to be crashed into and killed practically, cause that's what audiences expect.

That’s absolutely not what the audience was expecting. That was the point. It was supposed to be a surprise. It’s a horror film; it was supposed to make you jump...

Regardless, with a scene like the opening of “Last House...”, you’d just need to find another option. If the producer had told the director that they didn’t have the money to shoot that one element of that one scene (the car crash), do you think that they would’ve cancelled the entire film because it wouldn’t meet audience expectations? That scene could easily be changed. The cops stop at a level crossing; the criminals could just ambush them and shoot them through the windows. It might not be as exciting, but it still works.

With the ending scenes, the fights, the stabbings and the shooting, you can do all that with a low budget. It may be better if you could afford stunt people, but filmmakers do without all the time, especially at the no/micro-budget level. That’s part of the creativity. In “Last House...” Krug jumps out of a window. Later, he throws a guy off of a balcony. Perhaps you’d need to cut those elements, but you can always come up with something else.
 
Yeah. I thought about things like throwing someone off a balcony. Perhaps a person could just land on a bunch of matrices and then we do another shot of them hitting the floor right, and then cut them together.

As for a car hitting a tree, I have figured out a good way to fake it on a low budget, through editing tricks as well.

The reason why I am finding it difficult to right sequences such as these, is I do not know what actors are willing to do when it comes to fight and that stuff. Some people may not be willing to take a fall down a few stairs or pretend to fall to the ground after being punched, since you still risk getting hurt. Perhaps I should aim for Last House on the Left limitations and not go higher.
 
Yeah. I thought about things like throwing someone off a balcony. Perhaps a person could just land on a bunch of matrices and then we do another shot of them hitting the floor right, and then cut them together .

That’s kind of how editing works, yeah...

But that’s still dangerous. You should hire stunt people. You shouldn’t expect your actors to put themselves in danger. Would you jump off a balcony onto a mattress? Just cut the ‘person-being-thrown-form-a-balcony’ sequence.


The reason why I am finding it difficult to right sequences such as these, is I do not know what actors are willing to do when it comes to fight and that stuff. Some people may not be willing to take a fall down a few stairs or pretend to fall to the ground after being punched, since you still risk getting hurt.

You’d have to ask them. You write your script, then ask the actors if they’d do the simple stunts (like falling over). If they won’t, they might not be right for the role. Or you could compromise. Or, they may be right, if you’re asking them to crash cars and jump out of windows.
 
I think ever since Blair Witch made a ton of money there was a resurgence of interest in horror for people working with a micro-budget. Everywhere you looked, people were asking for found-footage scripts.
 
The reason why I am finding it difficult to right sequences such as these, is I do not know what actors are willing to do when it comes to fight and that stuff. Some people may not be willing to take a fall down a few stairs or pretend to fall to the ground after being punched, since you still risk getting hurt.

The reason is they don't trust you. They don't trust you'll be able to deliver what you promise. You promise you'll keep them from harms way, though, any intelligent person can see you being a train wreck a mile away. No one in their right mind would put their life in your hands, especially in a situation as dangerous as a falling stunt without the appropriate equipment and personnel.
 
I'm still confused as to why any of the sequences you describe necessarily have to be in a horror film. Just because a particular film has a scene with a crash or a fight doesn't mean yours has to. I'm not a director by any stretch of the imagination, but I reckon I could create a pretty scary horror short with one actor in one room. It's just a matter of matching scale to budget.

I would argue that audiences don't demand anything from horror films other than that they be creepy/scary/shocking/disturbing/whatever. Getting that with the resources available to you is down to your own skill and imagination as a filmmaker.
 
I don't think that there has to be a confrontation necessarily, but there the story still has to make logical sense. There is a scene in my script as well, where a person has to escape police custody. But if I don't have the budget for any of the actors to get hurt, if they do not trust, me, how do I write a villain breaking out of custody, if he cannot really hurt of the cops?

Things like that are difficult to write and still have make sense, if no one is allowed to get hurt or at least to a very minimal degree. But as long as they do not have to take falls, I think the actors may be game. A short film I acted in a few years ago, I did a fight scene, and the actor nailed me in the face with a punch. It was accident and she was suppose to have missed, but I didn't care, and glad it happened cause it made for the best take to use.

However, a lot of actors would probably get turned off after accidentally being punched and leave right there. So just so long as actors realize that in scenes like prison breaks and things like that, they can gain enough trust to put some risk into it, if that's acceptable.
 
Back
Top