Just how hard would it be to make a movie on a shoestring which didn't look or feel like it?

[Overmind One]

This has come up more than a few times for me in the past couple of years. I look at some of my favorite films of the past and the recent past, and notice how primitive they seem compared to the new stuff. Still, the "primitive" nature of the filmography or effects doesn't seem to take away from the complete enjoyment of the movies. A good example is The Panic Room with Jodie Foster. And there was 12 Angry Men. Here is a link to a list of notable films shot in one location:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/112/1122946p1.html

Then, you do not have to limit yourself to one location. You can purchase a relatively cheap green screen and the stands to erect them (as I did two years ago), learn how to light them and use them and to do some basic video editing, and VOILÀ, you have any locale your creativity can take you to. Here is a video from Stargate Studios (not related to the series or the production). Very cool, worth a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k

Ah, but that video shows relatively large scale use of green screen, including blocking out entire building facades, streets, and very large green and blue screens. We don't have that sort of budget or space, right? I sure don't. So, what can you do with a very basic 6'x9' green screen, basic lights and a fan? Take a look at this easy effect. Perhaps you might want to have some flying in your flick:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y0wd91z4Kg&feature=related

For a more advanced enthusiast (but still using modest equipment), try Adobe After Effects which is also made for Windows. There are free alternatives like Magix. But check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA3WEFJGrNk&feature=relmfu

I envy creative ability like many artists have. CGI artists like OMNI, writers like Illiterati, and you many creative people here. But I think that the right story could be told with simple equipment. EVEN A CELLPHONE. Imagine that, an entire movie shot using green screen, compositing software and filmed with the HD camera of a CELLPHONE. It will be done someday! You can subscribe to many different independent producers instructional videos on YouTube.

 

[YoshiKart64]

One thing I would say is that there is a world of difference between the first video and the following two. While movies and TV shows can be made on a budget, even the cheapest media costs millions to make.

Even when your not including big special effects you have to have a a decent camera (and they don't come cheap) a trained camera man, a director, actors, a lighting specialist, a writer etc. For example the cheapest film I remember seeing in recent times was Buried, which was set entirely within a coffin. That film cost

$1,987,650 t​

o make.

That's not to say I'm dismissing self starting directors as I think making something, even when it might look relatively awful, still allows for creativity to shine through. I just don't think we'll see homemade movies rivaling the independent film market and community.

My one exception to this would be to look at Paranormal Activity. If you want to make something very specific like that you can do it for the $15,000 that director Oren Peli used. That isn't in my opinion a sustainable budget for anything other than a suggestive based movie.​

 

[shavedape]

One thing I would say is that there is a world of difference between the first video and the following two. While movies and TV shows can be made on a budget, even the cheapest media costs millions to make.

Even when your not including big special effects you have to have a a decent camera (and they don't come cheap) a trained camera man, a director, actors, a lighting specialist, a writer etc. For example the cheapest film I remember seeing in recent times was Buried, which was set entirely within a coffin. That film cost

$1,987,650 t​

o make.

That's not to say I'm dismissing self starting directors as I think making something, even when it might look relatively awful, still allows for creativity to shine through. I just don't think we'll see homemade movies rivaling the independent film market and community.

My one exception to this would be to look at Paranormal Activity. If you want to make something very specific like that you can do it for the $15,000 that director Oren Peli used. That isn't in my opinion a sustainable budget for anything other than a suggestive based movie.​

I know it seems like I'm always beating up on you but I'm really not. Sometimes I just have to point out the mistakes and lack of logic in your posts. Case in point, in the above post you claim that it's nigh impossible to make a quality film without spending millions of dollars, you then proceed to name a quality film that was made for $15,000 and claim it is an "exception". It's not an exception, it's a harbinger of things to come in terms of quality film production by average Joes with economically priced equipment.

As for "suggestive based" movies, I can only assume you mean movies that don't use a lot of SFX. You seem to think this limits producers and directors and that only by spending millions and millions of dollars can they make a quality film. That, sir, is limited thinking. Countless films have been made with economical budgets and few SFX and yet they are still successful. The return on the limited investment is well worth it. Plus the lack of money forces the producers and directors to find ways to be creative. It's actually a good thing in many respects.

So, as OM1 was pointing out, the technology exists (and/or will soon exist) that is economical enough for the average Joe to make a quality cinematic film or episodic show without spending millions. The only hurdle that exists now is distribution to a large market, but as we discussed in a different thread even that area is changing rapidly so that anyone can get their production widely viewed.

 

[YoshiKart64]

I know it seems like I'm always beating up on you but I'm really not. Sometimes I just have to point out the mistakes and lack of logic in your posts. Case in point, in the above post you claim that it's nigh impossible to make a quality film without spending millions of dollars, you then proceed to name a quality film that was made for $15,000 and claim it is an "exception". It's not an exception, it's a harbinger of things to come in terms of quality film production by average Joes with economically priced equipment.

As for "suggestive based" movies, I can only assume you mean movies that don't use a lot of SFX. You seem to think this limits producers and directors and that only by spending millions and millions of dollars can they make a quality film. That, sir, is limited thinking. Countless films have been made with economical budgets and few SFX and yet they are still successful. The return on the limited investment is well worth it. Plus the lack of money forces the producers and directors to find ways to be creative. It's actually a good thing in many respects.

So, as OM1 was pointing out, the technology exists (and/or will soon exist) that is economical enough for the average Joe to make a quality cinematic film or episodic show without spending millions. The only hurdle that exists now is distribution to a large market, but as we discussed in a different thread even that area is changing rapidly so that anyone can get their production widely viewed.

Paranormal Activity had the 'home camera' set up going for it though, therefore mitigating the cost of a lot of things. I'm not disagreeing that things like Youtube and Netflix are opening up venues for new directors BUT I don't think it's going to be as easy as OM1 suggested. $15,000 is still a lot of money and that's to make a bare bones film; who has that to risk? Without advertising and promotion how will somebody get a return on that; it still took a big studio to make Paranormal Activity profitable.

Again I'm not saying good films can't be made on a budget, I'm just saying that budget is still a lot more than you'd hope for and that studios still have to be involved eventually.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Low budget? How about this hunk of shit:


It's a real movie:

http://www.afterlastseason.com/

It got a theatrical release and DVDs. The acting was probably free and the sets were someone's basement with props made from cardboard and really nasty effects, like boxes being pulled "telepathically" across the floor with fishing wire and an CGI generated on an old Commodore 64.

 

[shavedape]

Paranormal Activity had the 'home camera' set up going for it though, therefore mitigating the cost of a lot of things. I'm not disagreeing that things like Youtube and Netflix are opening up venues for new directors BUT I don't think it's going to be as easy as OM1 suggested. $15,000 is still a lot of money and that's to make a bare bones film; who has that to risk? Without advertising and promotion how will somebody get a return on that; it still took a big studio to make Paranormal Activity profitable.

Again I'm not saying good films can't be made on a budget, I'm just saying that budget is still a lot more than you'd hope for and that studios still have to be involved eventually.

And what OM1 and I are saying is that this paradigm is changing. I don't know how I can make it more clear. The cost of film making equipment, cameras in particular, is coming down drastically with the rise of layman's digital technology. And independent distribution sources are becoming more prevalent also.

The day will come where theaters will be rare and mostly obsolete. Why drive to a theater when one can stay home and "dial up" whatever they want on their big screen, surround sound TV? With streaming technology getting better and servers getting bigger it's only a matter of time before independent film producers can offer their wares right on their own websites. Charge people .99 cents to watch your film directly from your site and if it takes off and gets good reviews you will easily recoup your investment of several thousand dollars. Or, simply join a site that features independently produced films and get exposure that way. There are myriad ways that the Internet has changed and will change how we view films and episodic shows. The studios will have to change with this new economic paradigm or perish. It's that simple.

 

[Overmind One]

And what OM1 and I are saying is that this paradigm is changing. I don't know how I can make it more clear. The cost of film making equipment, cameras in particular, is coming down drastically with the rise of layman's digital technology. And independent distribution sources are becoming more prevalent also.

Yoshi and many other people really believe that those millions being spent on movies and series is actually necessary. Just LOL! The fact that something COSTS a certain amount of money does not mean that it is WORTH that money. Case in point, high fashion. Women routinely spend $200 or $300 on a dress made of synthetic materials which are WORTH only a few dollars. But the designers slap their names on them, and they limit the number of copies and suddenly they COST hundreds or thousands to buy. Jimmy Choo shoes. They START at $700, $800 and go well into the thousaands. But the men's shoes can be had for a mere $400.00 because these crooks know that men will NOT pay over a certain amount for any clothing item. Men generally do not buy diamonds or pearls or handbags. Men do not buy designer names unless it is a suit or shoes or other dress items which will not see great usage.

The point I am making, is that Yoshi said it cost 1.9 million for the example he used. So, how does it break down? Lets say that you shoot 50 hours of footage which will later be condensed to 2 hours. Even if you pay somebody $100.00 per hour to shoot the footage, that is only $5000.00. If you go to a location to shoot, you can do it in your car and carry all the equipment, food and drink, as well as give your actors a ride to the location. Cost = gas, price of sandwiches and sodas/water, and whatever time you spend. Say, $100.00 per location shoot and you do 5 of those. We are now at $5500.00. Pay your actors each $1000 to work in your film, and you have 5 actors. That is another $5000.00 for a running total of $10,500.00. After you have filmed the footage and done the location shoots, you do not need the actors or video people, and it moves to editing. If you pay somebody say, $500.00 to do it, then we are still at only $11,000.00. If you do it yourself, then you can save that. Finally, your canned and edited film is ready for distribution. Today, that costs little or nothing if you use Amazon, YouTube, or even Netflix. More venues are opening every day. You can even show them in independent theaters which now have digital/laser projection systems. The idea that productions cost millions is an illusion.

The day will come where theaters will be rare and mostly obsolete. Why drive to a theater when one can stay home and "dial up" whatever they want on their big screen, surround sound TV? With streaming technology getting better and servers getting bigger it's only a matter of time before independent film producers can offer their wares right on their own websites. Charge people .99 cents to watch your film directly from your site and if it takes off and gets good reviews you will easily recoup your investment of several thousand dollars. Or, simply join a site that features independently produced films and get exposure that way. There are myriad ways that the Internet has changed and will change how we view films and episodic shows. The studios will have to change with this new economic paradigm or perish. It's that simple.

Theaters are already obsolete. But the masses are still behind the technology curve as always. I have a client whose employees still use TYPEWRITERS! The masses simply go wherever the marketers want them to go and they blindly pay the escalating costs because they are naive. The Blair Witch Project cost $22,000 to make and made $240.5 MILLION.

Cut out the actor trailers, the makeup artists, the costume crews, the caterers, the personal trainers, the special Haagen Dazs truck, the mobile disco, etc....the prices go way down.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

Low budget? How about this hunk of shit:


It's a real movie:

http://www.afterlastseason.com/

It got a theatrical release and DVDs. The acting was probably free and the sets were someone's basement with props made from cardboard and really nasty effects, like boxes being pulled "telepathically" across the floor with fishing wire and an CGI generated on an old Commodore 64.

Isn't that what they show repeatedly to terrorists in Guantanamo Bay with their eyes taped open?

 

[OMNI]

Yoshi and many other people really believe that those millions being spent on movies and series is actually necessary. Just LOL! The fact that something COSTS a certain amount of money does not mean that it is WORTH that money. Case in point, high fashion. Women routinely spend $200 or $300 on a dress made of synthetic materials which are WORTH only a few dollars. But the designers slap their names on them, and they limit the number of copies and suddenly they COST hundreds or thousands to buy. Jimmy Choo shoes. They START at $700, $800 and go well into the thousaands. But the men's shoes can be had for a mere $400.00 because these crooks know that men will NOT pay over a certain amount for any clothing item. Men generally do not buy diamonds or pearls or handbags. Men do not buy designer names unless it is a suit or shoes or other dress items which will not see great usage.

The point I am making, is that Yoshi said it cost 1.9 million for the example he used. So, how does it break down? Lets say that you shoot 50 hours of footage which will later be condensed to 2 hours. Even if you pay somebody $100.00 per hour to shoot the footage, that is only $5000.00. If you go to a location to shoot, you can do it in your car and carry all the equipment, food and drink, as well as give your actors a ride to the location. Cost = gas, price of sandwiches and sodas/water, and whatever time you spend. Say, $100.00 per location shoot and you do 5 of those. We are now at $5500.00. Pay your actors each $1000 to work in your film, and you have 5 actors. That is another $5000.00 for a running total of $10,500.00. After you have filmed the footage and done the location shoots, you do not need the actors or video people, and it moves to editing. If you pay somebody say, $500.00 to do it, then we are still at only $11,000.00. If you do it yourself, then you can save that. Finally, your canned and edited film is ready for distribution. Today, that costs little or nothing if you use Amazon, YouTube, or even Netflix. More venues are opening every day. You can even show them in independent theaters which now have digital/laser projection systems. The idea that productions cost millions is an illusion.



Theaters are already obsolete. But the masses are still behind the technology curve as always. I have a client whose employees still use TYPEWRITERS! The masses simply go wherever the marketers want them to go and they blindly pay the escalating costs because they are naive. The Blair Witch Project cost $22,000 to make and made $240.5 MILLION.

Cut out the actor trailers, the makeup artists, the costume crews, the caterers, the personal trainers, the special Haagen Dazs truck, the mobile disco, etc....the prices go way down.

WRONG! especially in a project that includes ALOT of CGI and MANY MANY MANY man hours to make said CG.

however i will say this the usual 250million budget hollywood movis these day 200 million of those 250 is PROMOTION and add related ie advertising the product so it gets seen.. only 50 of those went into actually making the goddamn thing..

 

[shavedape]

WRONG! especially in a project that includes ALOT of CGI and MANY MANY MANY man hours to make said CG.

however i will say this the usual 250million budget hollywood movis these day 200 million of those 250 is PROMOTION and add related ie advertising the product so it gets seen.. only 50 of those went into actually making the goddamn thing..

Actually, you are the one who is wrong. OM1 laid out how easy and economical it is to produce a film today. If anything he went overboard by paying actors which you can get gratis very easily these days. There is no shortage of actors willing to donate their time to puff up their resume. Craigslist has "gig" requests all the time here (don't know about Sweden).

As for CGI, well you of all people should know that the technology is becoming easier to procure and use these days. After all, it's "computer generated imaging". It's done on a computer. And you don't need a bank of Cray super computers to do it. Yes, I'm sure it's time consuming and takes a lot of effort to do convincingly, but, that doesn't mean that a dedicated person couldn't do it if given enough incentive.

Will one person be able to make a CGI abortion like the Star Wars prequels right in their own home in 2012? Doubtful (but in the future probably), but there's no reason one can't use CGI when producing a low budget film right now. Hell, Apple makes a film editing program (Final Cut pro) that is quite good and has been used for studio produced films and it only costs about $1000. So with all these software features available to everyone it stands to reason that they will be used by independent film enthusiasts more and more.

Now go and make that great Swedish film you've been talking about for eons -- Lars, the Anarchist from Space!

 

[Overmind One]

WRONG! especially in a project that includes ALOT of CGI and MANY MANY MANY man hours to make said CG.

however i will say this the usual 250million budget hollywood movis these day 200 million of those 250 is PROMOTION and add related ie advertising the product so it gets seen.. only 50 of those went into actually making the goddamn thing..

CGI, yes. Regular movies, no. My cellphone and any iPhone takes full HD video and could EASILY be used to film an entire movie. Yes, a cellphone. . I do not see where cheap equipment could be used to make a fully CGI film. The manhours alone would be prohibitive, even if being paid a ridiculously low wage like $50.00/hr, it would still take HUNDREDS of hours do do one. But think about this: if YOU decided to make your own movie, had the story and the time, you could make it FOR NOTHING AT ALL. Your Atlantis and Iron Man renderings/models/animations are ON PAR with the studios whether you realize it or not. The "imperfections" and rendering flaws you may see in your own work are not noticed at all by viewers who know nothing about CGI.

The point is that it simply does not require the millions and millions of dollars being spent on movies today to make one.

 

[Overmind One]

Actually, you are the one who is wrong. OM1 laid out how easy and economical it is to produce a film today. If anything he went overboard by paying actors which you can get gratis very easily these days. There is no shortage of actors willing to donate their time to puff up their resume. Craigslist has "gig" requests all the time here (don't know about Sweden).

As for CGI, well you of all people should know that the technology is becoming easier to procure and use these days. After all, it's "computer generated imaging". It's done on a computer. And you don't need a bank of Cray super computers to do it. Yes, I'm sure it's time consuming and takes a lot of effort to do convincingly, but, that doesn't mean that a dedicated person couldn't do it if given enough incentive.

Will one person be able to make a CGI abortion like the Star Wars prequels right in their own home in 2012? Doubtful (but in the future probably), but there's no reason one can't use CGI when producing a low budget film right now. Hell, Apple makes a film editing program (Final Cut pro) that is quite good and has been used for studio produced films and it only costs about $1000. So with all these software features available to everyone it stands to reason that they will be used by independent film enthusiasts more and more.

Now go and make that great Swedish film you've been talking about for eons -- Lars, the Anarchist from Space!

Last night, I watched Star Trek: The Final Frontier. I swear, most of the effects used in that film are in Adobe After Effects now. Even the CS3 versions could make that film EASILY. Go back further, and look at films like the original The Blob, or Mysterious Island, or later on series like The Six Million Dollar Man, Wonder Woman, the original V, Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, etc. The cost of those shows was the sets and the soundstages and the use of film. Today, you could duplicate all of that (except the sets) for a week's paycheck. You do not even need sets! Pinnacle Studio 12 has digital sets you can use, and you can make your own easily. I have done it.

Perhaps we should REALLY explore this....a contest perhaps? One with a prize of say....$100.00?

 

[Joelist]

Things like plot, tone, characterization and acting performances make something worth watching at least as much as or likely more than the visual effects. This is not to say that in talented hands wonders cannot be worked with CGI - they can. But awesome CGI coupled with poor plot, acting and directing still gives you a bad film.

Look at a film like 28 Days Later. It's total budget was less than what AMC shells out for 2 episodes of The Walking Dead but the end product is so superior that it isn't even funny. It shows well the difference a taut script coupled with great direction of good actors makes.

 

[OMNI]

Actually, you are the one who is wrong. OM1 laid out how easy and economical it is to produce a film today. If anything he went overboard by paying actors which you can get gratis very easily these days. There is no shortage of actors willing to donate their time to puff up their resume. Craigslist has "gig" requests all the time here (don't know about Sweden).

As for CGI, well you of all people should know that the technology is becoming easier to procure and use these days. After all, it's "computer generated imaging". It's done on a computer. And you don't need a bank of Cray super computers to do it. Yes, I'm sure it's time consuming and takes a lot of effort to do convincingly, but, that doesn't mean that a dedicated person couldn't do it if given enough incentive.

Will one person be able to make a CGI abortion like the Star Wars prequels right in their own home in 2012? Doubtful (but in the future probably), but there's no reason one can't use CGI when producing a low budget film right now. Hell, Apple makes a film editing program (Final Cut pro) that is quite good and has been used for studio produced films and it only costs about $1000. So with all these software features available to everyone it stands to reason that they will be used by independent film enthusiasts more and more.

Now go and make that great Swedish film you've been talking about for eons -- Lars, the Anarchist from Space!

big talk from someone who OBVIOUSLY doesnt know jack shit about this topic.

as for bolded F-U

 

[shavedape]

Last night, I watched Star Trek: The Final Frontier. I swear, most of the effects used in that film are in Adobe After Effects now. Even the CS3 versions could make that film EASILY. Go back further, and look at films like the original The Blob, or Mysterious Island, or later on series like The Six Million Dollar Man, Wonder Woman, the original V, Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, etc. The cost of those shows was the sets and the soundstages and the use of film. Today, you could duplicate all of that (except the sets) for a week's paycheck. You do not even need sets! Pinnacle Studio 12 has digital sets you can use, and you can make your own easily. I have done it.

Perhaps we should REALLY explore this....a contest perhaps? One with a prize of say....$100.00?

As long as the rules don't allow Dutch porn I'm all for it.

 

[OMNI]

Last night, I watched Star Trek: The Final Frontier. I swear, most of the effects used in that film are in Adobe After Effects now. Even the CS3 versions could make that film EASILY. Go back further, and look at films like the original The Blob, or Mysterious Island, or later on series like The Six Million Dollar Man, Wonder Woman, the original V, Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, etc. The cost of those shows was the sets and the soundstages and the use of film. Today, you could duplicate all of that (except the sets) for a week's paycheck. You do not even need sets! Pinnacle Studio 12 has digital sets you can use, and you can make your own easily. I have done it.

Perhaps we should REALLY explore this....a contest perhaps? One with a prize of say....$100.00?

and what you would end up with is a steaming pile of crap so vile it would be painfull to watch... :faceplam:

but yeah sure im up for a competition but not fullength rather a short 5-10min and ill smoke your asses...

 

[shavedape]

big talk from someone who OBVIOUSLY doesnt know jack shit about this topic.

as for bolded F-U

Enough with your subliminal flirting OMNI. I'm not Rac80 after all.

 

[OMNI]

CGI, yes. Regular movies, no. My cellphone and any iPhone takes full HD video and could EASILY be used to film an entire movie. Yes, a cellphone. . I do not see where cheap equipment could be used to make a fully CGI film. The manhours alone would be prohibitive, even if being paid a ridiculously low wage like $50.00/hr, it would still take HUNDREDS of hours do do one. But think about this: if YOU decided to make your own movie, had the story and the time, you could make it FOR NOTHING AT ALL. Your Atlantis and Iron Man renderings/models/animations are ON PAR with the studios whether you realize it or not. The "imperfections" and rendering flaws you may see in your own work are not noticed at all by viewers who know nothing about CGI.

The point is that it simply does not require the millions and millions of dollars being spent on movies today to make one.

obviously you dont know shit about shooting on film or real lenses and real equiptment.. the fact of the matter is no matter how high the rez of you shitty phone cam it could NEVER compare to cameras such as the red scarlett etc...

 

[OMNI]

Enough with your subliminal flirting OMNI. I'm not Rac80 after all.

overall the same category tho..

 

[shavedape]

Things like plot, tone, characterization and acting performances make something worth watching at least as much as or likely more than the visual effects. This is not to say that in talented hands wonders cannot be worked with CGI - they can. But awesome CGI coupled with poor plot, acting and directing still gives you a bad film.

Look at a film like 28 Days Later. It's total budget was less than what AMC shells out for 2 episodes of The Walking Dead but the end product is so superior that it isn't even funny. It shows well the difference a taut script coupled with great direction of good actors makes.

Right. A good director can work miracles despite the limitations of a small budget. Compare this to some big budget productions that use such cheap effects such as shaky cam viewpoint not because of a lack of money but because the directors simply aren't talented and creative.