Thoughts on Film and Digital

[George Ebersole]

George, this is not an accurate depiction of the state of film work in the Bay Area at this time. Corporate and commercial work here have the highest rates of anywhere in the country. Producers from NYC and LA are routinely surprised to find that they have to budget more to shoot here. It's certainly not the most glamorous work, especially corporate. But it pays the bills for a lot of folks.

 

Meanwhile, actual narrative film and television work here is slim but does exist. There are about three union shows right now sucking up a lot of local technicians. Many local Gaffers, Grips, ACs, DITs, Sound Mixers, HMU, Wardobe, VTR, Teamsters, Coordinators, ADs, and PAs are all quite busy right now. And I know a lot of them are buying homes, getting married, having babies, sending their kids to college, or just retiring based on only film work. So it is still possible to make a living doing this work up here...

 

Satsuki; I guess it's more accurate to say that I don't know what things are like in the LA area, because I've never had to work there, but everyone I knew who relied on indy features here as a source of revenue, were starving artists or had financial reserves. When I worked on industrials, even as a young undergrad, it was many times the then current min-wage, but I still wasn't getting crew rates as an unskilled grunt. It wasn't until I had some mileage under my belt that I started to nose towards $20/hr. or $500/day rates.

 

But work wasn't constant. I understand it may be a little different now with the continue tech boom, but the cost of living up here is many times that of LA.

 

P.S. but yeah, I guess I've just been out of the loop way too long.

[Alex Lindblom]

Can you remember a really good drama from 1995? 1999? 2000? I can't.

Ah come on 1995 was a great year for movies. It produced at least four classic films that year…

 

Leaving Las Vegas

Casino

Heat

12 Monkeys

Other honorable mentions are… To die for – Little Odessa – Mighty Aphrodite – The basketball diaries – Braveheart – Nixon

 

Now what's a “Drama” can be a bit subjective so if you want to strike some films of the list, that's fine. Now compare and contrast that to 2015, what do we have – The Hateful 8, and if I'm nice, Southpaw maybe. So something has definitely happened in 20 years, what that something is, I don't know.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Alex Lindblom

[Mark Kenfield]

I've done dozens of budgets and have recently spent a lot of time learning from some pretty decent UPM's. What I've learned is pretty interesting and for sure changes my opinion on the matter.

 

$400k with no real cast, is absolutely doable. Heck, you "could" squeeze a few days of an A lister in there if you wanted AND probably have a decent B+ actor.

 

My personal philosophy also doesn't jive with most filmmakers. I tend to pace myself during production, rather then rush through scenes just to get the shot. So I tend to schedule/budget 18 - 20 day shoots, rather then the typical two week shows we see so much. Obviously if you can make a feature in two weeks, the budget will be a lot less. However, the reduced stress on the crew AND attention to detail you get by adding a few days, really pays off in my opinion. It's far better to have a slightly smaller crew that's very mobile and in-tune with what the director wants on a slightly longer schedule, then a huge crew on a shorter schedule trying to bang out scenes as quickly as possible. That's just my opinion, having worked on both sides of the fence.

 

If you want me to send you some budgets, I'd be more then happy to show you what I'm talking about. I have a pretty decent spreadsheet and you can see where the money goes. It's the little things that kill budgets, the "creature comforts" which bloat them. If you've got a script that's set in one location and everyone drives in every day to set, that's going to cost a lot less then a show that's set in many different locations all around the place, with potentially hotels and travel involved. So the "scope" of your picture makes a huge difference and it's part of the issue when writing a script. You can keep it very simple, but will it be interesting enough to be bought?

 

Finally, I don't believe in freebee's. So I budget for everything from storyboard artist through sales agent. From pre-production days to four wall private and public screenings once finished. These are ALL critical parts of your budget and a lot of people just flash right over them like they don't exist. Again, if you don't care about your movie ever going into theaters, NONE of this is even worth discussing. Go make your little digital movie and put it on iTunes for a few grand. I'm only discussing theatrical.

 

I'd love to take a look at a couple of those budgets Tyler, would be a very handy resource for me to show to some of the Producers I work with.

Could you PM them to me please?

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[Michael LaVoie]

While I tend to steer clear of these debates, I beg to differ on the point that digital is more environmentally friendly than film. Cameras are mass produced and succeeded constantly by new models. Lots of circuitry that perpetuates e-waste. The great thing about film is that the cameras can be 50 years old and do the exact same thing as one that is 10 years old.

That's an entirely different argument as you can say that about any electronics, TV's, computers etc. Yes, film cameras were not made under the premise of "planned obsolescence" the way that digital cameras are today but that's more a discussion of our flawed market economy moreso than a format debate.

 

Comparing apples to apples, 10 new Panavision Millenium DXL cameras vs 10 Panavision 35mm XL2's, the DXL (digital) is going to be easier on the environment after shooting 50 features.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The ever-changing inventory of rental houses these days is only a sign of that, and the current rate of it is about three years.

 

Panavision is a very very small part of that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the manufacturing process for digital cameras is not really an environmental boon.

 

10 Panavision DXLs is very different from 100 Sony/RED/Panasonic cameras every few years.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Kenny N Suleimanagich

[Tyler Purcell]

I've been told many rental houses including Panavision, have lease deals with manufacturers directly. This is what keeps the start up costs lower.

[JD Hartman]

in the end, leased or owned, it's still E-waste. I hope California has a better system for collecting E-waste than NJ.

[Tyler Purcell]

I'd love to take a look at a couple of those budgets Tyler, would be a very handy resource for me to show to some of the Producers I work with.

Could you PM them to me please?

I'll just post a budget here! Why not! :)

 

http://tye1138.com/stuff/forposting/standardbuget.pdf

 

This budget is for a local Los Angeles film, without any "hookup's". So it would be all location shooting with a pretty small, no-name cast and not a very long shoot... 18 days booked as it sits.

 

The only real way to reduce the cost is to produce it in less time, using lower end equipment, as those are the two biggest areas that could be trimmed. I've been able to get this budget down to the 300k range by simply decreasing the amount of days. However, it's a complex story (lots of locations) that really needs to be shot creatively, so in my view it's better to let the DP have time and do it right then rush through things.

 

Ohh and yes, there are some minor mistakes in there, but the "numbers" themselves are pretty sound.

[Jan Tore Soerensen]

I live in Scandinavia. Where would I send a 16mm film for scan? Which camera would you recommend for a start? Never shot on film before.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I'll just post a budget here! Why not! :)

 

http://tye1138.com/stuff/forposting/standardbuget.pdf

 

This budget is for a local Los Angeles film, without any "hookup's". So it would be all location shooting with a pretty small, no-name cast and not a very long shoot... 18 days booked as it sits.

 

The only real way to reduce the cost is to produce it in less time, using lower end equipment, as those are the two biggest areas that could be trimmed. I've been able to get this budget down to the 300k range by simply decreasing the amount of days. However, it's a complex story (lots of locations) that really needs to be shot creatively, so in my view it's better to let the DP have time and do it right then rush through things.

 

Ohh and yes, there are some minor mistakes in there, but the "numbers" themselves are pretty sound.

$850 a day for food? What is the size of your cast to warrant that?

[Bruce Greene]

Andrew made Sleeping Giant with about $60, 000.00. Far from 1.5M.

 

But he learned his craft before he dove in, and that made all the difference. I'm seeing a lot of guys dive into a first feature with so little film experience, and they are ending up with total garbage.

 

R,

I think this has always been the case. In the pre-youbube days, we just never saw these projects, but they were made, and ignored.

 

But with many film schools costing into the hundreds of thousands of dollars today, why not make a film or two that fails? It doesn't cost anymore than going to school :) You might learn more than if you went to school...

 

 

Oh, my response is to the "total garbage" films, not to Sleeping Giant...

Edited July 13, 2016 by Bruce Greene

[Matthew W. Phillips]

But with many film schools costing into the hundreds of thousands of dollars today, why not make a film or two that fails? It doesn't cost anymore than going to school :) You might learn more than if you went to school...

Like x 1,000,000

[John E Clark]

$850 a day for food? What is the size of your cast to warrant that?

 

The 'behind the camera crew' consists of 25 or so people. There were 8 principles, 2 of which were there for most of the 18 days, with others coming in for typically less than 8 or so. And about 6 extras, for 16 days. Don't know if they changed extras or what, but there were 6 of them for 16 days.

 

Anyway, looks like the 'average' for the number of people was about 35 per day. So 850 / 35 = 24 per person... for 3 meals...

 

I think GSA schedule for per diem 'meals' is about $50-60 for Los Angeles.

 

An army marches on its stomach... Napoleon or Fredrick the Great... take your pick.

Edited July 13, 2016 by John E Clark

[Tyler Purcell]

$850 a day for food? What is the size of your cast to warrant that?

Yea John hit the nail on the head. Plus, I believe in hot breakfast for ALL members of the cast, crew and extras, in the morning. This means people don't need to eat food at home at all, we can provide them all meals. Plus, vegan options are becoming more and more critical, which adds a substantial amount of money to each meal.

 

Honestly if anything, I find my food budget LOWER then it COULD be. We spent $12,000 on the last show for food and it was pretty bad.

[Chris Burke]

I live in Scandinavia. Where would I send a 16mm film for scan? Which camera would you recommend for a start? Never shot on film before.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Yea John hit the nail on the head. Plus, I believe in hot breakfast for ALL members of the cast, crew and extras, in the morning. This means people don't need to eat food at home at all, we can provide them all meals. Plus, vegan options are becoming more and more critical, which adds a substantial amount of money to each meal.

 

Honestly if anything, I find my food budget LOWER then it COULD be. We spent $12,000 on the last show for food and it was pretty bad.

Haha, ok then. If you say so. I do not know what ":industry norms" are but any restaurant manager can tell you that, with economy of scale, your costs are way too high. When I was a teen, I managed a Jack in the Box and we spent less than that on raw food cost and we had hundreds coming through our door. One would think it would be better to hire a student chef and have them manage costs as you would probably get a better turnout. But if you two say this is how it is done then it is just another example of why films cost so much.

[Tyler Purcell]

Honestly, the catering budget is WAY lower then I'd normally run. I'd generally be up around $1800/day for food including staff.

 

Food is what drives your crew and if you have crap, they will not work as hard. If you want a happy crew, give them happy food, stuff that makes their bodies feel well.

 

This way, there isn't a mid-day sleepy cycle. Everyone will be energized and ready to work, thanks to being fed properly.

 

Also... good luck finding someone to work every day to prepare three meals, setup tables, chairs, pop up tents to protect from sunlight. Then have a multi-course meal for both meat eaters and vegans. Deal with the trash, left overs, wrap everything on your own and leave at the end of the day. I mean, very few people have the resources to do all of that AND do a good job, certainly no "student" chef.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Also... good luck finding someone to work every day to prepare three meals, setup tables, chairs, pop up tents to protect from sunlight. Then have a multi-course meal for both meat eaters and vegans. Deal with the trash, left overs, wrap everything on your own and leave at the end of the day. I mean, very few people have the resources to do all of that AND do a good job, certainly no "student" chef.

Wow, you really have a low opinion of people, dont you?

 

Feeding 35 people isnt that hard for even for some mothers in this world. But throw other people's money away if you want.

[John E Clark]

Honestly, the catering budget is WAY lower then I'd normally run. I'd generally be up around $1800/day for food including staff.

 

Food is what drives your crew and if you have crap, they will not work as hard. If you want a happy crew, give them happy food, stuff that makes their bodies feel well.

 

This way, there isn't a mid-day sleepy cycle. Everyone will be energized and ready to work, thanks to being fed properly.

 

Also... good luck finding someone to work every day to prepare three meals, setup tables, chairs, pop up tents to protect from sunlight. Then have a multi-course meal for both meat eaters and vegans. Deal with the trash, left overs, wrap everything on your own and leave at the end of the day. I mean, very few people have the resources to do all of that AND do a good job, certainly no "student" chef.

 

 

You could have probably dropped the Mariachis for the lunch/dinner entertainment... and avoided having them show up 2-3 hours late anyway...

 

In any case, the Daughter for her wedding in February had contemplated using a food truck, which has a certain vogue in wedding catering these days. They found it was more expensive than one would 'expect', perhaps $3-400 for a 'limited' menu, and happened to find a local bar that had a 'beer + pizza' event package, and went with that.

 

But for a project, film or not, where everyone has to be in a certain place at a certain time, having meals provided eliminates tardy arrival, or the 'lunch/dinner scatter'.

Edited July 13, 2016 by John E Clark

[John E Clark]

Wow, you really have a low opinion of people, dont you?

 

Feeding 35 people isnt that hard for even for some mothers in this world. But throw other people's money away if you want.

 

While the wedding business has probably a higher dollar per plate, I can't imagine getting 35 people fed for $25 for 3 meals... and as mentioned that includes tables and sundries for a meal, as well as setup/breakdown and area cleanup.

 

It has zip to do with an opinion of people, just knowing the catering business, and at some point, it's as 'cheap' as one can get, and still have people not 'sick' from whatever is provided for less of a price.

 

I personally became a gourmet of wedding catering... it was the only pay I got from supporting the Wife in her business...

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

While the wedding business has probably a higher dollar per plate, I can't imagine getting 35 people fed for $25 for 3 meals... and as mentioned that includes tables and sundries for a meal, as well as setup/breakdown and area cleanup.

 

It has zip to do with an opinion of people, just knowing the catering business, and at some point, it's as 'cheap' as one can get, and still have people not 'sick' from whatever is provided for less of a price.

 

I personally became a gourmet of wedding catering... it was the only pay I got from supporting the Wife in her business...

Okay, so I suppose all of the churches that put on functions weekly across the whole world are dying or getting sick from food poisoning because they arent spending absurd amounts on food catering. :rolleyes:

 

Fair enough...you know best for your project so go ahead and spend half Kevin Smith's budget on Clerks to feed people. RR could almost make El Mariachi twice on that total. But I guess those guys are hacks who make "total garbage."

[Tyler Purcell]

Wow, you really have a low opinion of people, dont you?

I'm sorry, but even though a "student" could cook the food, that doesn't mean they have a box truck ready to go with all the KEY accessories necessary for catering.

 

Feeding 35 people isnt that hard for even for some mothers in this world. But throw other people's money away if you want.

I see your confusion, John touched on it above. You don't grasp/understand the complexity of catering a meal what so ever.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I see your confusion, John touched on it above. You don't grasp/understand the complexity of catering a meal what so ever.

Of course I don't. Because you are the only person that understands anything around here, Tyler. Get over yourself, dude.

[Tyler Purcell]

Okay, so I suppose all of the churches that put on functions weekly across the whole world are dying or getting sick from food poisoning because they arent spending absurd amounts on food catering.

Right, so when you're on location somewhere random, there is a huge building to protect the crew from the sunlight during that ONE half hour break they get every 6hrs? Ohh and surly crew will eat soup and crackers, that's the "standard" meal eh?

 

Fair enough...you know best for your project so go ahead and spend half Kevin Smith's budget on Clerks to feed people. RR could almost make El Mariachi twice on that total. But I guess those guys are hacks who make "total garbage."

You had to pick two movies with pretty much no crew, being shot on weekends for fun, in places where nobody cares, more then 20 years ago. Times have changed and I have no interest in making a feature with my buddies on the weekends for payment in pizza. You pay to make it right, or you're not ready to make it.

[John E Clark]

Okay, so I suppose all of the churches that put on functions weekly across the whole world are dying or getting sick from food poisoning because they arent spending absurd amounts on food catering. :rolleyes:

 

Fair enough...you know best for your project so go ahead and spend half Kevin Smith's budget on Clerks to feed people. RR could almost make El Mariachi twice on that total. But I guess those guys are hacks who make "total garbage."

 

Perhaps church socials have changed since my youth... but most church 'meals' were potlucks and the support/service provided 'for free', and if problems arose, like food poisoning, or perhaps even all the 'mothers' decided not to cook for the potluck, no great difficulty would ensue... unless it was an e-coli outbreatk... or the like...

 

I'm sure many nolo budget filmmakers would love to have 'free' support... not everyone has a Mother. Scorsese to cook for the crew...

 

 

I've eaten at restaurants with a 'B' rating... I've eaten at food stands in Mexico... I would not recommend such for meals for a crew were work was expected post meal...