Micro-budget horror films vs. microbudget action films.

H

harmonica44

A lot of indie filmmakers believe in making horrors rather than action since action is harder to do. But I think making a microbudget action film is just as do-able possibly. I mean look at high budget horror compared to low budget horror. Which would be like Sleepy Hollow compared to Paranormal Activity. One had a lot of special effects, and the other had to compromise. Look at high budget action compared to low, such as True Lies compared to El Mariachi.

So why is that a lot of indie film makers seem to think that action is un-doable when you can just shoot it very low budget. Unless a lot of audiences prefer to low budget horror as oppose to low budget action.
 
Come back and have this conversation after you've actually shot an action scene.

Also, low budget horror has a much larger dedicated audience.
 
First of all, a micro-budget severely limits the things you can do, in an action movie. Forget that car-chase. Forget blowing up that building. Forget pretty much anything, except for fist-fights and a little gun-play.

Just as importantly (if not more so), action is extremely time-consuming to shoot. Even the "simple" stuff. At a bare minimum (and realistically, more), you need to double your production-time, for action sequences.

More time = more money spent. And now your budget ain't so micro, anymore.

Also, micro-budget horror is intended more as comedy. The cheesy effects are supposed to make you laugh. But micro-budget action, with shitty stunts, and shitty fight-choreography? Your audience isn't laughing with you, but at you.
 
Can't microbudget be scary though for action? Such as gangsters coming towards someone with baseball bats, and that he tries to fight them, and then they beat him to death with the bats as he tries to get away. That can be quite traumatizing to watch if made well, can't it? Scenes like that. What about the fight scene in Eastern Promises? A brutally exciting fight to death action scene, and seems like it can be done on a microbudget, unless I'm wrong.

I know a car chase is very hard. Me and a student who is learning CGI are trying to do a car chase now, for expirementation, with CGI cars, on real roads that were filmed while driving, then speed up to look faster. Don't know if we're doing it right, so far, I'm just taking his advice.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. First of all, like stated earlier, there's car chases, pyrotechnics, stunts, fight choreography. And action movies are more fast paced, so locations change fast. More shooting in action sequences from different angles. A low budget action movie is definitely harder to make.
 
Losers is a great example of "Low Budget" Action. I put low in quoted because they still had a bigger budget than most here I'm sure. They also had great DVD distribution because of a couple of B list actors.

With it all set up, let me say it is a TERRIBLE action movie. Story aside, the effects were a joke. We came in expecting Hollywood flash and they include zooms and all sorts of word composited effects. We tried really hard to get into it for a half hour then we just had to give up. We ended up fast forwarding to the end which paid off with
the hero chasing a business jet with a dirt bike, jumping off of something and then jumping off the bike in mid air to fly through the plane's windshield and have the bike crash and explode in the engine.
haha. The whole thing was 2d composited effects that basically looked like cut outs. 12 year olds on YouTube do better effects.

With that example given, I agree with everyone else on why horror is done more om the cheap end. One of the cheapest genres to shoot.

Anything can be done though if you're good enough to do it.
 
A lot wanna do zombie movies, but I figure that all that zombie make up will be possibly more difficult to do, then shoot cheap action scenes, or just as difficult. I agree The Losers had bad action, but I like it a lot more for the comedy. Most action comedies have bad action anyway, and you have to turn to a serious one to get the good stuff.
 
PaulGriffith said:
Losers is a great example of "Low Budget" Action. I put low in quoted because they still had a bigger budget than most here I'm sure. They also had great DVD distribution because of a couple of B list actors.
Click to expand...

25 million dollar budget? By B-List actors you mean Zoe Saldana, Captain America himself and national treasure Idris Elba???

Losers aside, micro budget and low budget are two different things. There are certain bits of action movies (including baseball bat fights) that you can just about scrape by at low budget provided you have good sound design and the budget to hire stunt people. To be honest, at micro budget level, it's not just explosions that will be unconvincing but all fights (unless you can convince your actors to actually fight one another).

Horror's easier, cheaper and the audience is impressed with a lot less than the Blockbuster savvy action audience. Try and think of a big budget horror movie? I reckon it's budget is probably still smaller than the Losers which has been used as an example of low budget action.

And start using Eastern Promises as an example of how to do 'cheap action sequences' once you're David Cronenberg.
 
I knew someone would gig me on that haha. I didn't realize $25 mil.. What I read earlier was under $10. And to be fair, this was shot before Avatar and Star Trek came out (but released after) so Zoe Saldana wasn't who she is, and Chris Evans had only done Fantastic Four. Both weren't leading roles.

But yeah, again, horror=cheaper.
 
TheNoob said:
I disagree. First of all, like stated earlier, there's car chases, pyrotechnics, stunts, fight choreography. And action movies are more fast paced, so locations change fast. More shooting in action sequences from different angles. A low budget action movie is definitely harder to make.
Click to expand...

Prime element of an effective action sequence (fight scene) is location change IN the scene. This comment is spot on.

harmonica44 said:
A lot wanna do zombie movies, but I figure that all that zombie make up will be possibly more difficult to do, then shoot cheap action scenes, or just as difficult. I agree The Losers had bad action, but I like it a lot more for the comedy. Most action comedies have bad action anyway, and you have to turn to a serious one to get the good stuff.
Click to expand...

Just as difficult. Good Zombie make-up is not cheap, and cheap is only worth it if it's part of the planned execution.

Horror is easier because it doesn't really have to be good for someone to watch it. As said, there's an undying audience for scary material, and you can do it pretty cheap.

Doesn't mean you'll get a decent distro, though.
 
It seems that the action essentials DVD program can provide good explosions, if you want those effects. I just started trying it out so I'm not sure of all it's capabilities and draw backs, but it comes highly recommended.
 
harmonica44 said:
It seems that the action essentials DVD program can provide good explosions, if you want those effects. I just started trying it out so I'm not sure of all it's capabilities and draw backs, but it comes highly recommended.
Click to expand...

Action Essentials is stock footage, not a program. It's great for what it is, but don't overestimate it.
 
Yeah I know it's stock footage, I just didn't know what to call it so I used program, since it goes into the computer and all. My bad.

What about an action movie where the locations do not often change? Would people like a micro budget action film, if the action scenes, relied a lot more on the suspense and brutality, rather than explosions and pyrotechnics?

I wanted to make a micro budget action feature. But if people like horror better I suppose I could do that using the same, script but make the scenarios more of horror, slasher scenarios, rather than action, if more audiences are attracted to that. It would still be serious and not a horror comedy though.
 
Last edited:
Microbudget movies are a mistake in general. I've never seen a microbudget movie in my entire life that I actually liked (counting release features only)

Maybe "I'm gonna get you Sucka" wasn't a 100 million dollar film, but it wasn't 5 grand either.

Whoever came up with the idea that you could put together a feature film for less money than a Hank Willams cover band was looking at their wallet and not at the screen.

Maybe Red Dwarf is an exception, but it's not actually a movie, and that was 30 years ago.

A reality tv show costs over 50k an episode these days, I certainly wouldn't watch "The Bachelor: the movie"
 
Well us newcomers trying to break in have got to start small. I was hoping to win audiences over with a compelling script and sequences of terror and suspenseful violence of survival, rather than pyrotechnics and higher budget. I was in inspired by El Mariachi, but the only microbudget action film that seemed to do as well, was that one. Plus with todays technology, you can beat El Mariachi on a microbudget. Are there any more examples of microbudget done just as well as a good serious micro horror film?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top