No-Budget 35mm feature

Will Montgomery · January 8, 2006

The majority of 3-week features tend to be crappy genre movies for straight-to-DVD and cable TV, women-in-prison flicks and whatnot.

Not that there's anything wrong with women-in-prison flicks... :D

This forum is a great mix of pro and hobbyist. Topics like this really show what a pro knows.

Phil Rhodes · January 9, 2006

Hi,

> if I read one more article that says "shot for litererally no money", then later it mentions that it was $150K,

> I'm just gonna mail vomit to the person.

You may include some of mine.

Phil

Sidney King · January 9, 2006

I thought I addressed this in an earlier post, but I'll clarify: in this context "no budget" does NOT mean shot for "no money," it does NOT mean "shot for nothing," etc...

"No budget" is an industry term used by American distributors, sales agents, producers reps, and the like to discuss the ballpark budget of a film and the baseline expectations and assumptions of all parties involved.

It is a useful shorthand for people who rarely (if ever) discuss hard figures regarding production budgets. For instance, some distributors will say they carry "no budget genre films and low-budget dramas," sales agents may tell a producer they'll rep a film for a different percentage if it is "no budget" as opposed to "low budget," etc...

Generally anything produced for less than about 300K (especiallly if it's 35) is considered a "no budget" film. These terms are quite common and standard among American film sales professionals; they may or not correspond with broader ideas about what constitutes a low-budget film or a film "shot for nothing" (an irony i pointed out in an earlier post; i also think it's stupid to call something that cost a couple hundred g's "no budget." That doesn't mean it's not a widely-used and recognized industry term, and as I mistakenly assumed, acceptable to use in a forum such as this).

In the case of my film in particular, I would also point out I never said the film cost 200 or 150K, I simply said according to the SAG contract it was less than 200K. It could well be $23.16, and everyone here would be happy and upset over nothing.

I apologize for any anxiety caused by the introduction of American film industry parlance into a cinematography discussion board...it won't happen again!

Sidney King · January 9, 2006

But semantics aside, just to re-direct a little to what my original intention was with this thread: in the current marketplace, "no budget" 35mm features that sell are very, very, rare. I was simply offering an example of such a film and hopefully giving some encouragement to DPs working with producers who may be fairly rigid in what they think is possible to accomplish visually on a tight budget.

I think it's a shame that more low-mini-no-budget films (or whatever you prefer to call them) aren't shot on 35, because it is possible and can even make good business sense in the long run, which is always language producers like to hear. I was just offering my experiences for anyone looking to shoot a big format on a small budget...

Jeremy · January 9, 2006

I applaud you for doing so! We're currently doing the same thing; shooting 35mm on a very small budget. What are your plans for distribution? Just festivals and sending copies to distributors? Do you have any other routes you're taking?

The film looks good! I wish you the best!

Trevor Greenfield · January 9, 2006

Sidney also followed through on his original promise to talk about his film with those curious (ie me) and gave me a lot of good info... not numbers as he said he can't do that but lots of info on what it takes to pull one off in this budget range. A real professional, thank you.

And it may be hard to digest but the industry deals with a plethora of films per year since its inception. There are hundreds of low budget, some high budget, a lot of shoestring budgets and a few no budgets. Its just a term, and its all relative. When a sales rep represents a film that has a budget of $40mil and then takes on another film of $200k, yes, that does seem like no budget.

Personally, I agree though that business wise it obviously makes the most sense to shoot a film like Napoleon Dynamite for $400k and have it gross $44mm in box office. Or shoot one for $200k like Sidney and have it do $2mm in limited release and 800k in rentals/dvd sales, or more.

I looked at the estimated business for Cecil B. Demented last night on IMDB and its a wonder how that guy keeps getting to make movies. $10m budget, $2m box office.

Jaan Shenberger · January 9, 2006

sidney, no need to apologize. i think we're all better off after your posts, which were very informative and well written. Any real world insight into the often murky business side is greatly appreciated, at least by me. thanks dude.

Hal Smith · January 11, 2006

How about "minimum budget"? From the posts in this thread, it looks to me like producing a 35mm feature with any quality at all takes $100-200K.

I've got a short film project cooking and this thread does have me thinking that maybe 35mm is the way to go. Certain below the line costs go up but, if the Muses are kind, one has a chance of producing something that is visually superior.

Is it possible to buy short ends that all come from the same batch number? "Pearl Diver" does look pretty damn good but I did notice what looks like small timing variations and was wondering if that could be due to shooting with the same emulsion but from different batches.

Edmond, OK

Sidney King · January 13, 2006

Hi Hal,

Yes, I am a huge proponet of 35 (and Scope in particular) for low-budget productions, when it's appropriate for the story. Keep in mind when you're working with 35, it is possible to pull off a great-looking production with a miniscule budget, but if and when you decide to finish on 35 your costs can double. So keep the end-use of your film in mind (how important is it to finish on film?) and plan accordingly.

I don't think you'll have much luck getting short-ends with the same batch number; depending on the stock (for instance, the Vision2 is a very hot stock and short-ends dealers don't have much of it sitting around), the time of year, how much footage you're planning on shooting, and what length you're looking for (150-250, 250-350, etc...) you may even have trouble even getting everything you need in a single stock.

Of course there's an inherent risk with using shortends, but you can minimize that by working with reputable dealers who guarantee their work (and of course careful handling of the stock). We shot around 300 camera rolls and had no problems, the DP and I were both happy and didn't notice any problems in post with emulsions, matching, etc...not sure what timing variances you're seeing, we (and the labs involved) never felt that was a problem, and we were keeping an eye out for it.

Of course you can always call the folks that handle short ends (Dr. Rawstock, Media Distributors) and ask about stock from the same batches, but I doubt they can do it. Best of luck with your project!

Mark Allen · January 13, 2006

A note about budgets. The minute you pay for anything, you've opened a can of worms. Either you're doing it Primer style where no one gets paid and no one is really on the set and your Mom is preparing cheap food for your friends and you're finishing all the post on your own or you're literally looking at about 200,000 - maybe 150,000 if it is DV. I know three filmmakers who started out doing "30,000" DV movies which ended up hitting the 150,000 plus mark by the time they were done. It all starts when you pay for anything. Not that paying for things is bad; it's just when it all starts. Even at the (semi-standard) lowest possible favor payment of $100/day. A 10 person crew is racking up 1000/day plus meals (another 15/day). An 18 day shoot and you've hit 20,700 for crew alone.

In the last decade there's been a lot of gloating on how low someone has shot a film - but credit never seems to go to the people who helped him or her. And people working for free isn't necessarily a viable economic model. Now, if someone wants to gloat about making a movie for nothing and then making a big profit and then sharing that profit with everyone who helped on the film... then I'll be really impressed.

Maybe there is some of the future of things to come - group filmmaking efforts. Most crew members though would prefer the $100/day to a piece of a percentage of back end. Perhaps wisely.

Travis Cline · January 13, 2006

I shot my first feature a few years ago on 35mm shortends. It was a pretty bad idea using really shortends most were 250-400 feet. We ended up wasting tons of film because we would run out mid takes and then obviously you're going to do another take, meaning more film than if you hadn't rolled out. As for quality of shortends, they are usually good. I've bought a few hundred thousand feet of short ends and only two problems with rolls and semi-fortunately one was during testing. I did have a slightly noticeable difference between different rolls of the same stock, but only when we made a print. A slight color shift which only made the timers job harder, but contrast could be slightly different, which was noticeable when we had multiple rolls(which you are sure to have with shortends) within a single scene. The other thing to consider with shortends is, when you are paying crew, is that it takes more time on set if you are reloading two, three, even four or five times as much as you would with full loads. Plus the time it takes to redo takes because you roll out. All-in-all though, it is worth it to shoot 35mm and not just asthetically. At filmmarkets around the world potential buyers ask two questions to decide if a film is even worth their time to look at it.

One, who is in it. Two, was it shot on 35mm. Honestly, its hard to get anyone to even watch a video even if it is good. Sorry for the pessimism, but still good luck and you should try and get your film made because it is so much fun and rewarding, even without a budget.

Travis

Hal Smith · January 14, 2006

emulsions, matching, etc...not sure what timing variances you're seeing, we (and the labs involved) never felt that was a problem, and we were keeping an eye out for it.

Hi Sydney,

Thanks for the encouraging words about using 35mm. I dabbled with 16mm in the past but got discouraged because my best work just couldn't match what I could do with a still camera. Now I'm older and have a few extra dollars so I'm going to have a fling at it in 35mm.

What I was noticing was slight shifts in skin tone, but please don't take my word as coming from some incredible "look' guru, I'm not. My only expertise in this area is gained from a fair amount of theatrical lighting design experience on and off over the years - not years of sitting in screening rooms. I think I owe you the courtesy of trying to see your film properly projected some day before commenting further since all I've seen is what you've got on the web - not the best way of looking at things. The monitor I use on this computer is a 19" Viewsonic with their Ultrabright mode which does help a bit - but it's still a computer monitor.

Sincerely,

Hal

Edmond, OK

Lav Bodnaruk · January 14, 2006

Hi Sidney,

i think the film looks great and I admire the efforth of going 35mm... i am soon to commence the pre-pro of my first real feature (meaning on film) which we were going to shoot on super 16mm as the best possible option. I own 16mm gear but found there may be too many fall outs in doing standard 16mm ... never mind this topic now...

Only recently did i start thinking of 35mm... why? Well, i put the costs down - and after we deduct the cost of crew and the film itself and looked at only the cost of camera hire, film stock, development and telecine, the difference was going to be in somewhat $40K AUD. Of course, should there be distribution on the end of the super 16mm path, they would have to blow it up and that needs to be take in the count; Also, i think that distributers will find the package much more attractive if shot on 35mm even if they pay that $40K extra...

($40K difference may only apply to our production as we are getting certain deals on gear, stock, etc... I don't mean to put any formal numbers forward)

If you dont mind i might foward your site onto my co-producer who might have some questions regarding how you found working on 35mm... legit questions, not realting to the budget;

Best of luck with it Sidney!

Regards,

dd3stp233 · January 14, 2006

There are many ways to cut costs. For example, if you do almost everything yourself (film processing, printing, sound, lighting, sfx, etc) it would cost about 2% of what it would if you payed someone else to to do it. (if you don't count your time for learning how to these things and the time to do them). I did this on a 16mm short (25 minutes), shooting at a 13 to 1 ratio. Total budget was about 1000$ (excluding final print). I am in preproduction for a 35mm feature. I think I could make it for less then 4,000$ with the same techniques.

Sidney King · January 14, 2006

Mark, you're absolutely right about the slippery slope/snowball effect of paying crew, and how the sweat and effort of the entire crew (not just director and actors) who made it possible often get overlooked. One interesting model has been InDigEnt, who started out producing $100,000 features (like "Final" and "Tadpole") on miniDV with name talent/directors, with true profit participation for cast/crew.

They had some stunning success early on ("Tadpole" was sold I think for 5M), you had crew like script supervisor and best boy walking with $30,000-$40,000 checks (or so I heard). I worked on a recent feauture of theirs (2nd AC), and the budget for that was back up to $600,000, they were basically paying everyone $100/day (including actors), but I doubt there will be any backend monies coming in. So, it has happened successfully, but it's tough to make it work consistently.

Travis, you are right about the drawbacks of working with shortends. It can be very frustrating for the actors (and ACs) to deal with constant roll-outs and re-loading. You have to be honest with all of them upfront about the hassles that will be involved (and try to plan using the appropriate footage for the appropriate takes).

You're also dead-right that shooting 35mm has a huge impact in how seriously your film is taken; it's much easier getting reps and distributors to at least take a look at it (especially if you don't have name actors involved). And in my experience, it can even be easier to crew a film on 35 because certain crew positions (especially folks like gaffer, key grip, art department, etc...) who haven't done a 35 feature will do it to build their resume as opposed to working on yet another DV feature that may pay them more. This is an often-overlooked advantage to shooting on 35.

Lav, you're right that having a 35mm print ready to go will make your project much more attractive to a distributor. A lot of people have the idea that distributors simply pick up the tab to cover the blow-up of something from 16 or DV to 35; that kind of thing is actually quite rare. Most distributors (I'm not talking about the Big Ones, just most of them) will expect the filmmakers to cover the costs of all major deliverables (including any blowups/transfers to 35) if they are serious about any theatrical play. So, that's a lot of money you could have applied towards shooting on a bigger format in the first place.

anyway Lav, I'd be happy to talk to you or your co-producer in more detail, just drop me a line.