Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

 

 

Honestly, I've done a lot of budgeting as of recent and the minimal you can spend on a feature is around $250 - $300k.

 

Those're the sort of numbers I've seen thrown around for absolute-bare-minimum features.

 

The question, as many people have said, is what the point is in doing that.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the sad reality is that most of us weren't meant to create at the capacity that we would like to. I look back at all the great films and filmmakers that inspired me, and at the same time it makes it impossible to live up to their great work. In a way it shrinks you, it's a pit of despair that sucks all the fun out of the work, because you know you'll never be as good as they were. Introspectively, the medium should be left alone if there's nothing that we truly need to say, if we're not burning with desire to tell a story- then film should be respected and left alone. That's certainly my situation, I can't speak for anyone in here. I don't care about making money, if I had money I'd probably spend all of it making films- the sad part about the art form is that it requires a lot of money- even if it's a 50k dollar indie film- how the hell do you raise that kind of money? It might as well be a million.

 

So have you pitched even one of your scripts? I'm reading about people like you, pitching on Skype everyday. Everyone can't live in LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reading about people like you, pitching on Skype everyday.

 

My writer friends describe their pitches as 'performances', to the point where they actually get together and rehearse it, beat by beat. It's hard to see how that would work over a Skype call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Those're the sort of numbers I've seen thrown around for absolute-bare-minimum features.

 

The question, as many people have said, is what the point is in doing that.

 

P

It's possible to make money off those features.You need to conform to a saleable genre, and then you need to put a semi recognizable face in the movie. How do you afford that? You cut corners and you don't pay your crew properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Those're the sort of numbers I've seen thrown around for absolute-bare-minimum features.

 

The question, as many people have said, is what the point is in doing that.

 

P

 

The problem is that there is such a glut of movies on the market that movies in this category are very difficult to sell unless you've got the next Paranormal Activity, which Oren Peli reports he did for $13, 000.00.

 

AFM starts tomorrow, anyone in LA should have a walk around, there are hundreds of movies for sale.

 

If you're going to start off in this category you need to look at the movie as a resume piece first, and business second.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
don't pay your crew properly.

 

If by "properly" you mean something like PACT/BECTU or IATSE rates, respectively, then at $300K you aren't doing that anyway. And as I understand it, SAG scale for a feature was the best part of six figures in the late 90s, let alone now, so you aren't getting anyone recognisable.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would be no way possible to sign any union contracts on a 300K budget. In fact, once you tell the union bosses what the budget is, they'll simply put the phone down, they have no interest in 300K movies. In Ontario no union has any interest until you hit 1.3M, after that...they start to circle.

 

All of the technical unions allow their members to work on non-union shows for any rate they choose BTW.

 

SAG and ACTRA, well they are a different story, they do not allow their members to work on non-union shows, period end of story. And the rate card is the rate card. The other unions use a sliding scale based on the budget.

 

Now, none of these unions are needed to make a high quality low budget movie as many a filmmaker has proven. I know a guy here who had his first feature screen at Cannes to much critical acclaim this year. His budget was 60K and he used all non-union first time actors.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If by "properly" you mean something like PACT/BECTU or IATSE rates, respectively, then at $300K you aren't doing that anyway. And as I understand it, SAG scale for a feature was the best part of six figures in the late 90s, let alone now, so you aren't getting anyone recognisable.

 

P

By properly, I mean more than the minimum wage that productions like these generally offer to all but senior crew. As for actors, there are PLENTY of recognizable actors that will come out for a cameo role for $20-30k. I can think of a couple of $250k films that have spent nearly half their budget on getting a 'name'. Everything and everyone else suffered as a result of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

 

the minimum wage that productions like these generally offer to all but senior crew

 

I don't know if you remember, Stuart, but back in the old country you're lucky if anyone's getting minimum wage, possibly including the producer!

 

If there's an upside it's that at least the American stuff is likely to be distributed, go on IMDB, and contribute meaningfully to people's credit lists. Round here... frankly, these Asylum shows would be a panacea.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If by "properly" you mean something like PACT/BECTU or IATSE rates, respectively, then at $300K you aren't doing that anyway. And as I understand it, SAG scale for a feature was the best part of six figures in the late 90s, let alone now, so you aren't getting anyone recognisable.

I think Union rates are ridiculous and don't do anything for the quality of the film, but that's just my opinion.

 

On a $50k feature, you aren't paying the crew.

 

On a $150k feature, you can pay the crew, but can't afford equipment or post production.

 

On a $250k feature, you can afford the crew and equipment, but post is a struggle.

 

With $300k, you can pretty much do everything without too many issues.

 

In terms of cast, SAG waiver is $135/day I believe, right around there. Schedule F (which is what low budget films would do) is $60k. So put two decent SAG actors in your film, you increase the budget by $120k, which isn't crazy.

 

Names help sell, but if the product is crap, it's not going to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If there's an upside it's that at least the American stuff is likely to be distributed, go on IMDB, and contribute meaningfully to people's credit lists.

That's about all they are good for, because they certainly don't pay enough to live on. The crew that come through these shows join the union as soon as they can so they can start earning a living wage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it's not Stuart, quite the opposite. I'll tell you why in a minute. I have spent hundreds of hours in casting, hiring actors, dealing with lawyers, agents, unions, you name it. Have you ever done this BTW?

 

A lot of low budget filmmakers hear this myth that some "name actor" will come onto their set for 20K for a day, but this simply does not happen. When it happens it is so infrequent it can't even be counted. No "name actor" needs 20K for a days work and unless there is a SAG contract in place they would be violating the SAG agreement.

 

Now David Caradine used to come to Toronto and appear in low budget movies for 20K USD for a days work. His belief was that since he was in Canada SAG didn't apply, he was partly right there.

 

But in LA, how often have you seen this happen?

 

Anyway, reality is that I am the only forum member who has produced and sold movies entirely as an independent producer, and had all four titles placed in top distribution outlets, and sold globally.

 

So this really is my area of expertise.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure your vast experience gives you bragging rights up there in Canada, but I've worked in these kinds of films right here in LA. I'm friends with many producers, some of whom still work in that world, and some whose resumes and experience are considerably more impressive than yours. I know the deals that are made, and the people who are approached. These movies never have a problem casting a recognizable name in a cameo.

 

Your experience does not make me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever.

 

And my movies penetrate the US market in every category and make the DVD sales charts in the US, so you can spare me the, "your movies don't get anywhere in the US" argument.

 

R,

 

One thing is for certain....if you and I worked on the same set, the screaming matches would be of such an epic proportion, they would be recorded by the crew with their cell phones and posted to YouTUBE. Maybe there's a revenue stream there for us? They do split money with content providers on click throughs now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never heard of your films.

 

There are some set of films that don't go 'wide' made in Canada. Don't know how wide anything Richard has made has gone, but he has an IMDB list.

 

Every hear of "Kissed"(1996)... with my luck you have, but it is not a widely known film out of Canada... the lead role is played by Molly Parker who has 'come to Hollywood' with some success...

 

I could also rattle of a number of German films that few outside of Germany have seen. Fassbinder, Herzog, of course are internationally known... Bernd Eichinger for years headed Constantin Film, and produced many international films... but many were just for the 'german' market...

 

I would say that most English speaking productions have the potential for getting a market in the US, and at the less than blockbuster level there is a certain amount of cross pollination of actors and production crews. Then there's New Zeeland... Lord of the Rings put New Zeeland on the map to the stars, and since then quite a bit of special effect, 'wyrd' props, etc... along with other films have come out as well... but they don't get super wide saturated distribution... unless of course a Hollywood production was renting out the production space...

Edited by John E Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Your point is?

Even my little self-financed documentary has better IMDB reviews and has been seen around the world at festivals and has been picked up by Criterion for VOD/DVD release. Yet I don't come on here bragging; "I am the only forum member who has produced and sold movies entirely as an independent producer, and had all four titles placed in top distribution outlets, and sold globally." In my eyes, I'd rather have a really good product that very few people see, then a crappy product that very few people enjoy.

 

It's great to have people on here like yourself with a lot of experience making films, I applaud your ability to put deals together and make a product. However, just because you've made a bunch of direct to VOD/DVD movies, doesn't make you the forum's only decent feature filmmaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...