Filmmaking is too damn expensive

Claude said:
Well, they do make profits too on top of really being unique directors, that's where the trick was.

I do recommend you to watch Oldboy by Chan Wook Park. Just give it go. If that isn't one of the best cases of balance between entertainment and personal touch I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

Ahh okay I did see old boy. I just didn't like it :lol:
taste is a peculiar thing, it does seem to have a wide fan base
 
Here's how I would do it.

I know you want to start your own studio - so do I - but wait a few years to get the necessary experience. You may want to get a job in your field, and work a few years until you know the tools of your trade. After that, move to a smaller company so you can learn how a business is run. By this time, you may feel the need for more education, and, if so, get an MBA and/or upgrading courses. After that - you guessed it - work a few more years to put your new knowledge to work.

Then, when you have the knowledge and experience, as well as (hopefully) some money saved up, you can make the leap.

In general, it takes about 2-5 years to learn a profession and 5-10 years to learn how to run a business.This may seem slow, but, if you do the math, and you take the MAXIMUM time I have suggested, you will only be forty when you start your business. But you probably won't have to wait that long anyway - many people start their businesses in their 30's and do quite well at it.

I'm a middle-aged lawyer, and, as everyone here knows, I've been waffling for several years, but the time is coming for me to start filming. I've waited this long because I already have a different career, and so I'm working at that while I pursue my dream. You're luckier, because you are in your dream career, so you can start earlier. But, as I said, get the necessary knowledge and experience before you start.

Good luck! :)
 
sfoster said:
maybe they should focus more on entertainment, because i've never heard of any of them
Click to expand...
It's unfortunate but most Americans are uninterested in movies made
in foreign countries. Haneke is an Austrian director who made an English
language version of one of his most interesting films "Funny Games".
He was nominated for several Oscars for his movie "Amour".

Chan Wook Park's three films known as his "The Vengeance Trilogy" are
wildly entertaining and very creative. Also very, very successful.

Kim Ki Duk is more "art house" so I'm not surprised you haven't heard
of him but he has made some really terrific movies.

But to dismiss them because you have never heard of any of them seems
a bit closed minded. I'm not saying you have to have heard of all directors
(especially non-Americans) but there is a vast world of very entertaining
movies out there. Even though you have never heard of any of them.
 
I watch foreign films, making my way through the time magazine top 100 films list lately.. it's been boring the hell out of me. Smiles of summer night. chunking express. ugh.
 
This thread is too long, sorry didn't read it. But that's not gonna stop me from saying the following:

Filmmaking is less expensive than it has ever been before, and it continues to become more accessible to regular people, at an exponential rate.

Are you capable of holding down a job at McDonalds? Then you are capable of self-funding a feature film.
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
How would you definte, "feature film"? To me, that would be one that cost at least $250,000.00.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the lowest amount a feature can feasibly be made for: at least when you want it to easily compare visually and production-wise with something in the $4 million range of independent cinema. I saw a great drama/mystery film at the Savannah Film Festival last year called The Sound and the Shadow. And it was made for about $200,000, but with plenty of favors and lucky breaks though.
 
The AMPAS, AFI and BFI defines "feature film" 40 minutes or
longer. SAG as 80 minutes or longer. Most festivals have a
50/60 minute minimum.

Many features have been made for far less than $250,000. And
today when a theatrical release is unlikely there are many non
traditional outlets for "feature" films.

CF is correct. He didn't say it was easy. But if you have a minimum
wage job you are capable of self-funding a feature film.
 
sfoster said:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/


$7,000 in 2004
Winner of the sundance grand jury prize.
Click to expand...

But isn't that like the only one that's managed to do that? How many other feature length films have actually been made for the same price as a typical short film? And how many have actually become cult-classics or well-known in some capacity?

Because it doesn't make much sense to make an argument based on one miraculous circumstance such as Primer.
 
FilmmakerJ said:
But isn't that like the only one that's managed to do that? How many other feature length films have actually been made for the same price as a typical short film?
Click to expand...

I think rayw has a thread around here somewhere with a myriad of low budget feature length films.

I'm not going to do your research for you ;)
 
I think there is big different between movies where every one gets payed salary and with indie movies where people work free. You can always make movie with 10 000 and force all people who you know to work free and give some favors to professionals to come make film. Like if you have company and you are making for example commercial. Then you rent cameras, light.. and use them on the movie too. I think then you can't say that every thing was free because you have worked to get those in use. That my opinion. Some time some people make movie with 100-200 000 and say that was budget. Then there is written that they used 1 million to marketing. I think that marketing is part of the movie making process.

It depends where you live, but I think with 600-800 000 euros you can make tolerable movie and still pay for most of the people what they deserve. All movies don't have to be Oscar winners.
 
FilmmakerJ said:
But isn't that like the only one that's managed to do that? How many other feature length films have actually been made for the same price as a typical short film? And how many have actually become cult-classics or well-known in some capacity?

Because it doesn't make much sense to make an argument based on one miraculous circumstance such as Primer.
Click to expand...
Of course "Primer" isn't the rule - it is the exception. But it
does show that a feature film CAN be made for under $250,000.
There are even a few more made for under $10,000.

What is your criteria, FilmmakerJ? I know of many others. Will
you ONLY accept movies that became cult classics? Only movies
that have actually become well known in some capacity? As a
filmmaker you should always be informed on what types of movies
are being made for very little money.
 
directorik said:
Of course "Primer" isn't the rule - it is the exception. But it
does show that a feature film CAN be made for under $250,000.
There are even a few more made for under $10,000.

What is your criteria, FilmmakerJ? I know of many others. Will
you ONLY accept movies that became cult classics? Only movies
that have actually become well known in some capacity? As a
filmmaker you should always be informed on what types of movies
are being made for very little money.
Click to expand...

Subjectively, I'll only accept something as a legit feature-length film if it is simply good and entertaining to watch.

Because a short film (depending on the concept) can be made by anyone for almost any or no budget. It doesn't take a lot sometimes to make a fantastic short. But to attempt to make an hour long or a 100 minute feature on a micro-budget does not give me much hope that the final product will be able to hold my attention. The lack of funding and lack of useful and sometimes necessary grip and lighting equipment will likely lead to shot design and cinematography suffering in the long haul: which will likely (unfortunately) make the final film reflect it's lower-budget. And believe me, I care deeply about story. Story is paramount. But if the film doesn't look good despite how well the story is written, then I just won't care very much. Why sit and watch a weak looking film when you could probably just read the script itself and get a better experience out of it?

I have no doubt that at least a few dozen people out there have made feature length films for surprisingly low amounts of money. Especially back in the 1960s through the 1990s, when super-8 and VHS were very popular indie formats. The question is, are these films actually worth watching? Are they shot well, acted well, and can they hold your attention and play as well as films with solid stories that are made for $250,000 or $5,000,000?

Any of the micro-budget films I'm aware of--primarily made decades ago--are only known about now and watched by anybody because they have achieved "cult" status. They are known about in certain circles of film buffs and passed around often because they are usually the "so-bad-they're-good" kind: very rarely because they are actually well-shot and compellingly written. If a film hasn't achieved a certain amount of notoriety, then I don't think anybody would know about them, right? Cult-status doesn't mean it's some unattainable achievement, because "cult-status" could mean a myriad of varying degrees of exposure and familiarity with regards to its audience.

Not every filmmaker who has a good idea and good film skills will get lucky enough to be picked up by a producer that believes in their project enough to help fund it. But as far as I have been aware, the 100 minute projects that work on micro-budgets don't do the best job at hiding what their budget actually was, for whatever reason. Whereas films that have been shot for around $2-$5 million do an amazing job at hiding their budgets: making them indistinguishable from any other feature you might see if you're used to watching all sorts of genres.
 
Last edited:
Okay, you have set an impossible criteria; YOU have to like it. So I
cannot even offer any examples.

Someday you may open your mind to the broader work of filmmakers
out there. Not all entertaining films need a multi-million dollar budgets.
There are a lot of excellent feature films out there made for under a
million; many made for under $250,000. Made by filmmakers who are
passionate about story, hire the best actors they can find and shoot to
the best of their abilities. When you look at the glass half full instead of
needing to prove to yourself that it can't be done a world of movies will
open up to you.
 
directorik said:
Okay, you have set an impossible criteria; YOU have to like it. So I
cannot even offer any examples.

Someday you may open your mind to the broader work of filmmakers
out there. Not all entertaining films need a multi-million dollar budgets.
There are a lot of excellent feature films out there made for under a
million; many made for under $250,000. Made by filmmakers who are
passionate about story, hire the best actors they can find and shoot to
the best of their abilities. When you look at the glass half full instead of
needing to prove to yourself that it can't be done a world of movies will
open up to you.
Click to expand...

Seems I misrepresented my point.
I am open to watching and giving anything a chance, ~directorik. I watch something new nearly every other day. I always build an opinion of a film based upon its individual merits, as well as its pros and cons compared to similar cinema, along with what the behind-the-scenes story was. Because I want to consider the director's struggles along with what the final product became. I also thoroughly enjoy plenty of films that are classically disliked, and some that people even loathe. Although the Star Wars prequels are not one of them.

Besides which, all film is subjective. All art is subjective. Shouldn't that be a given by this point?

If I watch a film that someone else made, or that someone else likes but I don't end up liking, then that is my choice. Giving a film a chance and trying to see if I will enjoy it is a different matter entirely, and one I am more than happy to partake in.

I can even think of a film that was ultimately made for only $60,000, and has actually gone on to inspire and influence numerous sci-fi classic movies and television projects: John Carpenter's Dark Star, from 1974.

But generally speaking, yes, I personally find it hard to accept something as a (feature-length) film, made for a low budget, if it doesn't reach a certain level of quality, success in representing its director's vision, and personal enjoyability. Though these three criteria do not have absolute values.
 
Last edited:
As perhaps a response to this whole thread in general, and as a more reasonable response to ~directoric, I just came upon this article covering 5 myths about Micro-budget filmmaking.

http://www.cinema-zero.com/2014/10/5-myths-of-micro-budget-filmmaking.html

I also just saw some trailers for Diamond Flash and Layover, and I just discovered that Chris Nolan's Following was made for only $7,000. So that definitely puts a dent in many of my preconceptions.

There might still be more of the "home-video" looking micro-budget feature films out there than the "cinematic" looking ones, but at least I have a much better sense of just how many are genuinely well-executed.

I'm glad this prompted me into researching this more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top