Just how little does it take to film a feature?

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostWed Dec 13, 2017 6:42 am

I put this out there, because we get people trying to talk up the millions needed to film anything significant. But I've heard of a feature by a collective in the American south once (but can't find the name again) and it makes me wonder just how much it can be done, and how little relative effort.

This is considering that a good film is a lot of good scripting and good acting, which can be refined through a lot of effort before shooting, reducing re-takes.
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
Offline

Ryan Payne

  • Posts: 264
  • Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2017 6:48 am

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostWed Dec 13, 2017 9:08 am

I'd say the number one cost is time. Those willing to give the time will save a lot of money, those willing to spend will save time but where do you find talent and crew that are willing to put in a ton of time for very little money to maybe or maybe not make something great especially while they most likely have other jobs to focus on.

You'd need a lot of favours and a lot of time. Have you seen the end credits to some the movies that are being produced creating thousands of jobs. Everyone needs to get payed over a long period, different locations etc. I know not a film but look at the scale of game of thrones, you can find behind the scenes on YouTube and the effort put in is such an amazing sight and why I really love this industry. From chef to DoP everyone in multiple roles come together.
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 2012
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostWed Dec 13, 2017 7:20 pm

If your ultimate goal is to make a feature, a better question is: How many short films does it take before a filmmaker has built up both the skill set and the network of trusted collaborators that it takes to pull off a successful feature length film?
www.cinedocs.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostWed Dec 13, 2017 9:11 pm

Thanks guys. So good scripting, good rehearsal, time and experience, skill, network and favours vs money so far. Good how to directions to start with, but what sort of figures for what sort of films, and favours, have people achieved?
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
Offline

Howard Roll

  • Posts: 2506
  • Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:50 am

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostWed Dec 13, 2017 10:18 pm

Back in 2003 I shot and co-produced a feature in San Francisco and the North Bay Area and we got stellar locations for almost nothing. A block of motels, a defunct Amtrak train, niteclubs and bars galore, a small warehouse for sets, we had shots from the cockpit of a small plane in flight because a friend was an amateur pilot. I got 30-40 extras from my grandmother's retirement community. We got a deep discount from a post house because they wanted to use our footage for one of their tutorials on how to cut an action sequence. We got the camera package for $1000 bucks for the entirety of production so long as it wasn't needed on a rental. The hustle never stops from the stable to the table, you're always working an angle. However, the climate was different then, people were excited about the idea of a "film" before everyone and their brother became a filmmaker.

Ultimately you need to start by being a great producer and know how to get people excited about your idea. The better the pitch the better quality of talent you're going to attract. A good script is paramount, it is the foundation of everything that follows.
Offline

jefferypeterson

  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostWed Dec 13, 2017 11:21 pm

I was able to do 3 features for under 10K each. My next one is around 12K. Just independent style films with local actors and a small crew (me and a boom op).
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostThu Dec 14, 2017 8:28 am

Great examples guys. There are lots of negatives now days, and I've tried to advocate a collective to film locally, where people form loose associations and people serve on each other's projects, a film makers film making. As a government sponsored training ground (the government provides facilities and some equipment, and somebody to manage it) where people who are good could take their skills and move onto proper paid work elsewhere (which brings back features to an area eventually, with some ready hands to hire). But GFC, and the bottom fell out of the film industry so much due to a dollar rise, that, ironically, such a program might be one of the ways left to actually make a film). My life went south, and the indirect feedback comment from LA was it's been tried before, does not work, yada, yada. But I think we have to encourage people onto better things, and to do better things. Make less, but make it better, and crew in the meantime. This is talking about the bottom end, not people regularly employed on set.

I'm watching the documentary Saving Capitalism, and it's better to watch than most feature films. Take away the extensive travel and interviewing, flashy graphics, and if on a less research heavy subject, how expensive is such a thing. I say this because the dramatic equivalent, is something like the short film, "Marla the movie" done for 450 euros, maybe over a weekend or a week, on a ff35mm depth of field adaptor (spinning CD type I think). It's really good for what it is. It shows you how little you need to make something that good. Stunts and special effects can really drive things up, including comedic stunts, but you don't strictly need them, you need talent, charm and flavour. Now times that budget by 9 or 18, which ever it would be to get 90 minutes. But realise, that to do 90 minutes might even be half that much. So, when you are prepared and you know what you are doing, go and do it. In the meantime, everything else is a living and practice.
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostThu Dec 14, 2017 8:40 am

If anybody has any really good quality examples, I encourage them to put links to them here, their trailers, and their streaming services. I encourage them to also write their thoughts on how they achieved it, and resulting budget.

If the guy that did "The Full Fist" TV series is a memeber around here, I encourage him to share what he found on those shows. They were cheap but special effects stunts heavy.

But, as above, their are hundreds and even thousands involved in making shows these days, but you don't always need too, and there is YouTube. :)
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 2012
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostThu Dec 14, 2017 10:47 am

Don’t forget about the cost of E&O Insurance:
http://www.frontrowinsurance.com/articles/articles/bid/66030/film-and-tv-producers-errors-and-omissions-insurance-cost
Just that alone can cost $10K (or more) on a feature. No distributor or broadcaster will touch your film without E&O.
www.cinedocs.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostThu Dec 14, 2017 12:26 pm

That would be right (one reason to avoid stunts is workplace health and safety, and insurance) insurance for merely existing. How many people on youtube have this? I'm being humourous, they would have an indemnity clause in there. All the talk about free markets, it's rigged against free markets for small enterprise.

Any sources below $10k.
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
Offline
User avatar

Robert Niessner

  • Posts: 4946
  • Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:51 am
  • Location: Graz, Austria

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostThu Dec 14, 2017 1:16 pm

Our team of 5 has made a feature from 2004 to 2006 - called "Jenseits". Back then we started quite inexperienced, so we made a lot of mistakes and the outcome could've been better.
Shot on a Canon XM-2 Mini-DV camera with an anamorphic adapter lens to use the full resolution of the 4:3 sensor. We had a schedule of 85 shooting days, got most locations very cheap (including a historical farm house from the 17th century). But the cost of transportation and catering alone raised over the €10k mark. It took us almost two years to finish the feature and bring it into the cinemas.
We spent a another €15k for sound and music, we even got an orchestra and a choir to record the soundtrack. All in all production cost of the movie had been around €35k EUR.
Then the film premiere and marketing ate another €15k. Back then there was no DCP and most cinemas had lousy digital projectors, used for playing local ads before switching to the 35mm projector.

Once I'd calculated that if we would have had to pay everyone involved, it would have cost €500k to make the feature.

After touring the cinemas I had to do the DVD authoring which took another 3 months, because we had lots and lots of extras and making ofs.

All in all it was an experience worth it, but it left me totally exhausted and burnt out. Our director has finished two other features since then: "Tartarus" and "Biest" and is currently in the edit of his latest feature "Marlene".
Saying "Thx for help!" is not a crime.
--------------------------------
Robert Niessner
LAUFBILDkommission
Graz / Austria
--------------------------------
Blackmagic Camera Blog (German):
http://laufbildkommission.wordpress.com

Read the blog in English via Google Translate:
http://tinyurl.com/pjf6a3m
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 4267
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: Los Angeles California

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostThu Dec 14, 2017 1:39 pm

Wayne Steven wrote:... and it makes me wonder just how much it can be done, and how little relative effort.


Wayne Steven wrote:This is considering that a good film is a lot of good scripting and good acting, which can be refined through a lot of effort before shooting, reducing re-takes.


Making any creative work is a substantial effort. You might not pay for it with cash, but the emotional energy it takes to deliver something like this is often vastly underestimated.

The true costs of filmmaking have indeed plummeted substantially over the last 20 years. Movements like Dogme (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95) and Mumblecore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumblecore) show that you can even brand a film with the shortcomings your work may have when viewed against other audience competing work and indeed that if the film is successful, it will find an audience.

And that's the thing.
If the film is successful.

I can't answer to what a successful film might be, but a heck of a lot of films get made that are unsuccessful. A lot of films are total garbage. And for every garbage film you've seen there are likely three more that got started but never got finished.

That shouldn't stop you from telling a story, but many many seem to not be able to make a film that people want to watch.

Just because you CAN make a film, most people don't interrogate IF they should make a film. Just because you have the means to do something, to "be a director" doesn't mean the world wants to hear your story.

Are you making a film that people will want to watch ? Are you telling a story that people want to hear ? I don't mean that it has to even mean anything or be worthy (they're usually worse!), but the work has to find an audience. That to me is the measure of success of a creative work.

I've always believed in the spirit of independent cinema, because I do believe that good story telling always trumps the window dressing that a lot of modern filmmaking can be.

JB
John Brawley ACS
Cinematographer
Currently - Los Angeles
Offline
User avatar

timbutt2

  • Posts: 2835
  • Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:32 am
  • Location: St. Petersburg, Florida, United States of Amercia

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostThu Dec 14, 2017 3:06 pm

Go forth and make the next The Room!

"I'm well trained in the art of turning **** to gold." - Tim Buttner (timbutt2)

Cameras: URSA Mini Pro G2 & Pocket 6K Pro
Past: UM4.6K, P6K, BMCC 2.5K
Computers: iMac 5K (Mid 2020) & MacBook Pro Retina 15.4in (Mid 2018)
Offline

Chris Tempel

  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:09 pm

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostThu Dec 14, 2017 5:52 pm

I've shot three features, all for low budgets, and I only lost money on the first. My first feature was a $600 slasher film in 2007 and it was horrible, but a great learning experience in long form story telling. My second cost $200 on a Canon ZR800 in 2009 and I made $2000 on DVD sales. I took the $2000 and made feature three in 2010, buying a T2i. Made $1000 at it's premiere and have made about $6000 off DVD and ad revenue on YouTube.

Yes, these are really low, micro budgets, but they allow me to guarantee I'll make the money back.

Here's the BTS from the DVD of the last feature, "How to Shoot A Feature Film for $2000"

Offline
User avatar

Stephen Press

  • Posts: 243
  • Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:38 pm
  • Location: New Zealand

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostThu Dec 14, 2017 9:51 pm

"Event 16" was every Sunday for a year of my life. It cost about $70,000 in the end with over 200 FX shots.
https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/event-16-2006
"A cameraman with out a camera is just a man"
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 17173
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostFri Dec 15, 2017 3:45 am

When there’s little money, little crew, no special effects, minimal sound, I think of how impressed I was the first time I saw “My Dinner with André” in a local small theatre. No idea what it cost, but it was likely less than some of the features discussed here. It plays like it was shot in a week and edited in another week. It was fascinating and I went into the movie with very low expectations but was captivated by the dialogue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostFri Dec 15, 2017 2:18 pm

Thanks guys, that was encouraging and some hilarious. Particularly your comments Chris.

John, you are right. Creative effort. It is why I discourage people, who are not making a regular living doing good stuff, from doing more on a crowded market, but instead, to concentrate and refine it while they work on other things.

I wanted to do a near zero budget feature myself (equipment and electricity). Maybe I could rush out and do it all today winging it, it would not really be worth watching, let alone pay to watch. But for experiment and refinement, we should still do stuff for ourselves (shorts). I actually like the flow of John's sample clips for the pocket. That camera had a lovely expanded image. I would be testing each shot and tecnique over months for my micro feature. Like the old days, where the camera man would know from a good eye and experience, what the image would look like on film with nothing but a optical viewfinder. Plus rehearse, so it flows out. Not to hit points, but to "flow" through them is about the biggest tip I can think of with my limited experience.

Anyway, I'm more of the mind at the micro low end, to prepare and do it, and see if it is really good enough for people to watch and for it to be picked up, then invest more in and polish enough to show that you have something worth picking up, and then seek money to complete the post steps. Having to have $10k insurance from day one before a distributor/investor will pick it up, is a major pain to doing this. But, look at it this way. Clerks was said to be this cheap film, but I've heard many times more money was spent on it in post, to get it to where it was for screening. People say, oh, it wasn't that $25k or whatever (this was film too in the 80/90's I think) it was whatever amount. But the reality was really, they did it for the $25k to such a level that it was picked up, because the studio saw the value in what had been done so far, and obviously what could be done with the raw product. In a micro budget you might spend thousands to do what turns out to be a real stinker, and either drop it there, or reshoot for thousands more. No great loss, chalk it up to practice (however, the cast, presumably, might want to reshoot, as not to waste their opportunity). A test. But when you know you really have something, then go through the process of getting someone to spend the tens of thousands completing it. The problem in today's market, is getting it in cinemas. The cinemas are much booked with the high earning features, and dross, of major studios. So, apart from some opportunities (like independent cinemas), or being adopted by a major distributor/studio, where do you go? I would like to say something like YouTube, but unless you get something like a hundred million views a year, you probably aren't going to make much on microbudget even just from that, and who gets a hundred million views? The issue with online, is that they have over advertised and killed the consumer attention value of advertising, and the revenue, plus, not enough if the revenue goes to the content hoster of the advertisements. So, where do you go for a better deal for online distribution. Your own hosting and advertising is one avenue, if you can line up a higher return advertising around the world. But something occured to me the other night. Amazon does electronic books, and you pretty much rock up with your content formatted the right way, and book ID number arranged etc, and publish, and hope you get more than you and your five family and friends to buy your book. One of our writers have seen their books skyrocket up the ranks with meager sales, which tells you a lot of self published stuff might not sell well. But one of my friends has a best seller on there. She is still doing her primary job I believe, but is making money. So, good stuff, does sell. Which made me think, if they did that for film and video that would be a distribution model. We don't have prime here, from what I know, but is it possible to self publish video on there like they do the books?

From the writing side, there is another lesson I can share. It is very hard to get a publisher, plus there are many little publishers and a number with unusual tactics, where you pay them to publish, and it takes up heaps of time doing the rounds. A number of us have concluded, to publish on Amazon, and if it is good and gets around you can make some money, but if it is good and gets around, you maybe more likely to be noticed by a publisher and get a deal. So, who are they more likely to publish, somebody with 6 sales in a year, or somebody outselling 90% of the ebooks above 1000 in sales. It is a potential way to get published for people with good readable content, but not much for bad content (I put "much" in there because sometimes rubbish gets picked up and actually sells).
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostSun Dec 17, 2017 6:52 pm

Chris Tempel wrote:I've shot three features, all for low budgets, and I only lost money on the first. My first feature was a $600 slasher film in 2007 and it was horrible, but a great learning experience in long form story telling. My second cost $200 on a Canon ZR800 in 2009 and I made $2000 on DVD sales. I took the $2000 and made feature three in 2010, buying a T2i. Made $1000 at it's premiere and have made about $6000 off DVD and ad revenue on YouTube.

Yes, these are really low, micro budgets, but they allow me to guarantee I'll make the money back.

Here's the BTS from the DVD of the last feature, "How to Shoot A Feature Film for $2000"



Chris. I finally got to look at your film and behind the scenes videos. Pretty good for $2,000 and some nice looks there for a lut free canon rebel footage. I've had to skip through most of it at the moment. But the only thing there is the polish in the acting. What sort of rehearsals did you do? Did you do much blocking out rehearsals with the actors?
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostMon Dec 18, 2017 1:18 am

Tim, thanks for the clip of the Disaster Artist. I think I want to see that. What was the relevance of that, is that one of your own?
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostMon Dec 18, 2017 2:02 am

Stephen Press wrote:"Event 16" was every Sunday for a year of my life. It cost about $70,000 in the end with over 200 FX shots.
https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/event-16-2006



Stephen. Interesting. What sort of camera did you use? Where the FX shots most of the film?

You know, one of the networks should run a season of small films. Maybe South Pacific Small films. Something like your own would go nicely, as long as people are told what type of film (SciFi here say) is coming up on the schedule with extracts, they can tune in. Even just an Australian New Zealand one.
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
Offline
User avatar

Stephen Press

  • Posts: 243
  • Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:38 pm
  • Location: New Zealand

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostMon Dec 18, 2017 5:41 am

It was actually shot on Sony DXC-537 with DVcam back. My god the endless FX shots, some felt pointless as we could have done them practically on the day... but that was the look they wanted.
What hurt the film most in my opinion was the sound. Most of it was ADR with the Director voicing 7 characters in the end and to be honest he wasn't a voice actor.
Apparently it did really well in illegal downloads... an Asian distributor told us in their region it was the most pirated SciFi movie for a week in 2006.
"A cameraman with out a camera is just a man"
Offline

Chris Tempel

  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:09 pm

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostMon Dec 18, 2017 3:57 pm

Wayne Steven wrote:
Chris Tempel wrote:I've shot three features, all for low budgets, and I only lost money on the first. My first feature was a $600 slasher film in 2007 and it was horrible, but a great learning experience in long form story telling. My second cost $200 on a Canon ZR800 in 2009 and I made $2000 on DVD sales. I took the $2000 and made feature three in 2010, buying a T2i. Made $1000 at it's premiere and have made about $6000 off DVD and ad revenue on YouTube.

Yes, these are really low, micro budgets, but they allow me to guarantee I'll make the money back.

Here's the BTS from the DVD of the last feature, "How to Shoot A Feature Film for $2000"



Chris. I finally got to look at your film and behind the scenes videos. Pretty good for $2,000 and some nice looks there for a lut free canon rebel footage. I've had to skip through most of it at the moment. But the only thing there is the polish in the acting. What sort of rehearsals did you do? Did you do much blocking out rehearsals with the actors?


Thanks for checking it out. I feel like the acting could of been a lot better, aside from the lead this was everyone's first time. Like we show in the making of, the actors would run lines for the scene while I was setting up the lights or anything else. Then we'd shoot, usually trying for 3-4 lines at a time. I feel like keeping it natural and not as rehearsed actually helps when working with non-actors. Whoever wasn't in the scene would be feeding the lines and I think it worked out okay. It definitely allowed us to shoot fast.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostTue Dec 19, 2017 6:26 am

Stephen Press wrote:It was actually shot on Sony DXC-537 with DVcam back. My god the endless FX shots, some felt pointless as we could have done them practically on the day... but that was the look they wanted.
What hurt the film most in my opinion was the sound. Most of it was ADR with the Director voicing 7 characters in the end and to be honest he wasn't a voice actor.
Apparently it did really well in illegal downloads... an Asian distributor told us in their region it was the most pirated SciFi movie for a week in 2006.


Lol!

I'll tell you what, sound is a biggy for me. I can't stand bad sound in movies, its like everything else is acceptable, but it's still rubbish. Some of these moviesz you wonder what they were thinking not just tweaking the audio a bit fur voices. Funny how people obsesse about Colorado grading, but not the same for audio.
Last edited by Wayne Steven on Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostTue Dec 19, 2017 6:34 am

Chris Tempel wrote:
Wayne Steven wrote:
Chris Tempel wrote:I've shot three features, all for low budgets, and I only lost money on the first. My first feature was a $600 slasher film in 2007 and it was horrible, but a great learning experience in long form story telling. My second cost $200 on a Canon ZR800 in 2009 and I made $2000 on DVD sales. I took the $2000 and made feature three in 2010, buying a T2i. Made $1000 at it's premiere and have made about $6000 off DVD and ad revenue on YouTube.

Yes, these are really low, micro budgets, but they allow me to guarantee I'll make the money back.

Here's the BTS from the DVD of the last feature, "How to Shoot A Feature Film for $2000"



Chris. I finally got to look at your film and behind the scenes videos. Pretty good for $2,000 and some nice looks there for a lut free canon rebel footage. I've had to skip through most of it at the moment. But the only thing there is the polish in the acting. What sort of rehearsals did you do? Did you do much blocking out rehearsals with the actors?


Thanks for checking it out. I feel like the acting could of been a lot better, aside from the lead this was everyone's first time. Like we show in the making of, the actors would run lines for the scene while I was setting up the lights or anything else. Then we'd shoot, usually trying for 3-4 lines at a time. I feel like keeping it natural and not as rehearsed actually helps when working with non-actors. Whoever wasn't in the scene would be feeding the lines and I think it worked out okay. It definitely allowed us to shoot fast.



I get you. I would prefer to block everything with real actors for a long time and let them improvise around that on the day. So, they just sort of float through there lines. Non actors, are another thing.
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostWed Dec 20, 2017 2:11 pm

timbutt2 wrote:Go forth and make the next The Room!



Just seen it, a great movie. Within the first 5 or so minutes, I knew he was the real deal in his no holds barred intent. Great show.

But no, we aren't talking about spending $6 million US, worth $10 million-12 million today. You are welcome to try to produce something like that for that much. Go ahead, I might even come to a mid-night screening if you have one here. :)

I will have to watch the original. I think Tommy may have real talent. I can understand some of the choices in the script that were questioned. But the voice maybe from birth, or a car accident. To dismiss so much is so disappointing.
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
Offline
User avatar

Jason R. Johnston

  • Posts: 1615
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:05 am
  • Location: Nashville TN USA

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostWed Dec 20, 2017 5:33 pm

Ima stop you right there. The Room, indeed The Disaster Artist, are terrible movies. If you’d like to watch a good movie about the making of a bad movie, watch Ed Wood.
JASONRJOHNSTON.COM | CINEMATOGRAPHER | DIRECTOR | EDITOR | COLORIST
RED Komodo | DaVinci Resolve Studio 18.5 | 2023 MacBook M2 Pro 14
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostThu Dec 21, 2017 12:33 am

I have seen that one before. But I have to disagree that the Disaster Artist is a terrible movie (and I never said the Room wasn't). You have to wait out to the end of the movie to get past it. If you are saying it wasn't exact to real life, I don't know but that's LA. Out of respect I want to leave it there.
Last edited by Wayne Steven on Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostThu Dec 21, 2017 12:38 am

On second thoughts. He could have turned right around and have done retakes of the parts he thought weren't working right then and there, while people still look the same. On the dailies he could have received advice and reshoot. Things come out rough, that's why you rehearse and reshoot. You could almost use the current actor from the Disaster Artist and morph the face towards the original. Voice overs are another thing. So a new director's edition could be done. You could even redo the movie, and morph the lead to look like their younger self, which is something given the present movie, they could have offered to do. But that's life. It is what it is.
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
Offline

Lee Gauthier

  • Posts: 941
  • Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:51 pm

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostThu Dec 21, 2017 9:48 am

Some suggestions to consider before making your feature:

The less a picture costs, the more planning it takes. Plan everything. Plan every shot meticulously.

Pre-shoot the whole film. Shoot it on a phone if you have to, but test out your script and your shot list by shooting a one-take version of each scene. It doesn't have to be at the proper location. Don't light it. Just shoot a rough animatic. Then cut it together, and you'll have a much better idea of the changes you need in the script, and your shot list.

Plan for reshoots and pickups. Once you've wrapped and you edit the assembly, you will have a list of shots you absolutely must get. If everyone knows you've planned for this, it will be easier to get them to come back and do it.

Spend more on the sound than the image. Sound informs picture. If you have good sound, your film will look more expensive and professional.

Good luck!
Last edited by Lee Gauthier on Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Just how little does it take to film a feature?

PostThu Dec 21, 2017 11:14 am

Lee, I agree 100%, this was my plan and to practice the shoot and lighting look too. Proof of concept of look continuarity in shooting is important. The bar is maybe a 100 times higher these days but I was interested in the challenge. But I started the thread to discuss in general for everybody. Not what I may do.
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 98 guests