Colin, now that's low budget and it's at Cannes

[OkayWrite]

Why isn't there more of this going on especially in this economy? Aren't there tons of talented people with some free time to devote to a good script they all believe in without any "suits" to screw it up?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/21/Colin/index.html

Trailer and clip

http://www.nowherefast.tv/index2.html

Someone should create a web site to match people up who are interested in doing this kind of thing. Maybe match them up by the genre they are interested in and their skill set. Maybe it's a nutty idea.

[wcmartell]

There are zillions of these things out there - most suck big time. Though his budget is unbelievably low. Out of the thousands of back yard films (there are 27,000 indie films made every year - but some of those cost more than $70) one or two are good and break through - PRIMER from a couple of years ago is a good example - and 100x this guy's budget.

Nothing at all stops you from making a movie like this. Nothing.

I'm doing one later this year (or early next - depends on my studio remake project).

http://sex-in-a-sub.blogspot.com/2009/03/bills-little-movie-experiment-part-one.html

The biggest problem with anything like this - how can you be sure you are the one that ends up at Cannes and not the twenty-plus thousand that end up nowhere?

- Bill

[Signal30]

The biggest problem with anything like this - how can you be sure you are the one that ends up at Cannes and not the twenty-plus thousand that end up nowhere?

- Bill
Connections.

[wcmartell]

Then I'm screwed.

[Fortean]

"We bought a crowbar and a couple of tapes, and I think we got some tea and coffee as well -- not the expensive stuff either, the very basic kind," Price told CNN. "Just to keep the zombies happy." ~ " (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/21/Colin/index.html)Hollywood eyes $70 zombie movie wowing Cannes," CNN News (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/21/Colin/index.html)
Hmmm? So, if someone had brought along a crowbar, and if he'd gotten the tapes for his birthday, and if Mom had made the tea and coffee, this would have been a zero-budget film?

For COLIN, there are four producers, four other people for props in the art department, and another two people credited for original music. When PRIMER boasted of its low budget, (about $7,000), it was easy to figure that the raw film and its developing cost more than that, (if bought at retail prices). To get it to Sundance took an extra donation to have the film blown up from 16mm to a 35mm print, (at a cost that was more than its original budget).

Mr. Price is boasting of a $70 budget, (which I'd suppose was shot on a mini-DV camera), and simply not counting any of the expenses borne by the actors, make-up artists, crew, etc., (nor many of the incidental costs).

"In the event of the policeman reacting unfavourably to shooting without a permit Marc Price removed the tape and handed it to a crew member then approached the policeman, empty camera in hand, in order to save the footage that had been shot." ~ IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1278322/trivia)Before too long, I expect to hear of "negative-budget" films. Someone, like Mr. Price, will make a film and charge for actors a fee to appear in it, or sell tickets for gawkers to watch the film being shot. Maybe, a group of teens can get the news media to help them solicit donations for their film's budget by selling "producer" credits at the end of the film.

Instead of this incredibly low budget being touted, I'd be interested in finding out how a mini-DV feature film, (with two minor film festival awards), gets selected for viewing at Cannes.

Did Mr. Price hitchhike to Cannes, and is he staying at a friend's apartment, (in keeping with his film's micro-budget)?

[wcmartell]

Someone, like Mr. Price, will make a film and charge for actors a fee to appear in it,

Both LOVE AND THE MIDNIGHT AUTO SUPPLY and SWIM TEAM were made by charging the actors a fee to be in the film, and using that fee to finance the film. Made for much more than $70 (both were shot on 35mm film with an actual crew). The producers ran an "acting school" which guarenteed the students land a role in a 35mm film. Who could pass up that?

But the films still cost *somebody* money. The budgets weren't zero (or zed), they just found someone else to pay for it.

If my mom gives me $1 million does that make my $1 million film actually a $0 budget?

- Bill

[Why One]

From what I gather, any film can be entered into Cannes just as long as it meets their rules and regulations. It's just a question of whether it gets officially selected for competition.

And from what I see, COLIN isn't such film. It's an out-of-competition film that turned up to the festival along with the other thousands to get market screening, hoping to attract buyers. Kinda like the Short Film Corner (http://www.shortfilmcorner.com/Home_us.html).

There are many filmmakers touting about having their films shown at Cannes, but what they really mean is the marketplace outside the official competition. It is a big festival.

I can only assume that Colin is getting attention it's gaining due to its ultra-low shoestring budget and the surprising quality and interest from prospective buyers. Whether it's gonna be a "Hollywood career-maker", we will have to see, I guess.

This, of course, is all speculation. I stand corrected.

Festival worthy feature films can be made on mini-DV. 28-Days Later was shot on the Canon XL1. And Crank 2 was shot on the Canon XH-A1.

[Kevan]

Maybe, a group of teens can get the news media to help them solicit donations for their film's budget by selling "producer" credits at the end of the film.


Your referring to the three British lads here aren't you?

Just be careful when using them to make a point in your argument that you don't condem these talented kids for trying...

If you would have this idea when you were their age you may have actualy got somewhere.. Me too for that matter..

We all have to start somewhere and selling "producer" credit is what everybody else in the industry does these days anyways..

Those teenage kids didn't invent this phenomena - they've adopted it from a trend and run with it..

Give 'em a little credit.. Jeez...

As you were...

[Why One]

I think the digital revolution is great. It has given people like Mr. Price the opportunity to make films on practically zero budget. They just need a camera, a computer, and the software. The rest is all leg work and getting people to do favors for you.

Cutting, developing, and transferring film is an expensive and time consuming process. Film stock isn't that cheap either. Digital mini-DV -- and soon-to-be solid state -- technology cuts away that expense.

[Code7Films]

Yep, it looks like it was shot for $70.

[OkayWrite]

I guess I was wondering if it's possible to make a good movie using talented experienced people who donate their time. I guess one main problem is commitment - if anyone in the group especially your actors gets a paid gig in the middle you might lose them and it's hard to rewrite them out (it's not a soap opera where you can kill them off)

[Cycstorm]

I really don't like this kind of marketing gimmick. It's disingenuous.

If you're films good then fair enough. Let people talk about your film because its good. Don't generate faux hype with doctored budget numbers. Of course your film didn't cost $70 to make so please stop pretending that it did.

"Right...What we're going to do here today is make a horror film that's not really any different to the thousands of other horror films that get made every year except that we're going to lie about how much it cost to make it."

Sorry, but f*ck off. Thanks.

[Why One]

I think it's because the way gorilla films are made these days, people don't really keep track of how much they actually spend. Filmmakers usually perceive "costs" as money spent on props, talent, hiring equipment, and paying for locations. And, from what I gather, Mr. Price didn't spend any. He probably owned his own equipment, everything else was borrowed or made himself.

Expenses such as refueling the car a couple of extra times or treating some of the talent to the occassional drink or lunch aren't usually factored in. They become a guess'timate of costs.

[Rantanplan]

I think it's because the way gorilla films are made these days, people don't really keep track of how much they actually spend. Filmmakers usually perceive "costs" as money spent on props, talent, hiring equipment, and paying for locations. And, from what I gather, Mr. Price didn't spend any. He probably owned his own equipment, everything else was borrowed or made himself.

Expenses such as refueling the car a couple of extra times or treating some of the talent to the occassional drink or lunch aren't usually factored in. They become a guess'timate of costs.

Shooting in that blurry fashion is a good way to save on lighting and makeup crew... :)

But yeah, totally dishonest. Things like mini-DV tapes, food and drinks for the crew (a crew might work for free but NEVER without food), gas for the car etc etc, all that gets counted into what is called --a production budget.

Still, I admire the initiative and it certainly seems to be paying off, looks like at the very least he'll get a direct to DVD deal, so good for him.

I've only ever made one short (hoping to do another this fall), but it was a lot of fun doing it professionally.

But the low cost of a film has certainly become a marketing tool, that's for sure.

[Fortean]

Your referring to the three British lads here aren't you?

Just be careful when using them to make a point in your argument that you don't condem these talented kids for trying...

If you would have this idea when you were their age you may have actualy got somewhere.. Me too for that matter..

We all have to start somewhere and selling "producer" credit is what everybody else in the industry does these days anyways...

Certainly, the "lemonade stand" method of financing one's film isn't the best; but, personally, I don't care much for people who'll boast about their frugality, when the truth of the matter is that they've relied for the most part upon the generosity of others to pay their way.

Many film students in Canada are taught how to get government grants, sponsorships, and other funding; and, I worry they'll never use their own money to finance any of their own projects. When I hear that someone (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1918281/) spent three years, working to save up $25,000 to make her short film, I'll admire her tenacity and cheer her on, now that she's making others; but, when someone gets $30,000 in grants to make a ten-minute short which isn't very funny, I'll wonder why he's hired onto the staff of the university's film school. That's why I'm digging into my own pockets for some hard-earned cash to make my first feature film. You'll not see me outside the bus terminal with hat in hand and a sign: "First Feature Film: Spare Change?"

I began writing screenplays about several years ago, (an old ambition of mine), and, more recently, began to buy film equipment to shoot my own shorts and features. To rent equipment incurs a great deal of expense and advance planning. If I have my own stuff, on hand, I only need film for the camera and can go after whatever opportunities are present. And, that "minty" Eclair NPR camera which sold for my annual salary, when new, was bought on eBay, a couple of years ago, for my month's free-spending allowance.

My own budget is CAN$3,300. It's an arbitrary figure of comedic origins (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0131325/combined). I figured $1,000 for film, $1,000 for telecine, $1,000 for music, and $300 for incidentals, (most being for a French Canadian translation of the screenplay's dialog and narration, as it's bilingual). I've probably exceeded my film and music targets; but, I bought a new telecine for 16mm, (at a discount, on eBay, from Clive Tobin (http://www.tobincinemasystems.com/)), so I freed up the money that would've gone to a telecine lab. Technically, the film's budget would be under $1,000, but I'm including post-production, too.

This past month, I may have just spent more than that budget on some new DSLR equipment, (Nikon D90 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D90), lenses for same, two intervalometers, Meade DS 2000 motorized telescope mount with Autostar 497 controller, two 16gb SDHC cards, etc.), to do some time-lapse work, (for an inspirational example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yp_2noZPjg)). I can trim $100 dollars off of my film's budget for two special effect shots, using the DSLR camera and equipment instead of film. I plan to use the DSLR camera for other projects and to help set up time-lapse shots with Bolex Super16 and Eyemo 35mm cameras, (shoot first with DSLR to test all the settings, as Polaroid film isn't made anymore, then commit it to costly film). The Nikon D90 will also do 720p NTSC clips, (for up to five minutes), so it could actually be used to shoot a HD video.

"What budget, eh? It was shot on my DSLR. I burned it onto a Blu-Ray disc, which cost $10, but that's post-production! Let's do lunch at Cannes. I've got enough Air Miles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Miles) points to get there, too."

How much did you donate for a "producer credit" in DARDENTOR (http://www.buyacredit.com/)?

"About half an hour later a reporter with a professional cameraman (the one with the big camera) turned up and interviewed some of our fellow pupils - the first ones to pledge their pounds. They then filmed us walking across the school grounds with sunglasses, giving the simple direction to 'look cool'. It was all slightly surreal." ~ May 21, http://www.buyacreditblog.com/Hey, Kevan, stay cool.

[Laura Reyna]

Some people are under the impression that there are loads of talented filmmakers out there & all they need to make great movies is cheap technology &/or some money.

I don't think so.

The reason there aren't more good no-budget or low budget movies isn't the lack of cheap technology. Cheap technology has been around for a while now. Anybody with a cam corder can go out and make a movie.

What is missing isn't money. There are zillions of movies made each yr of varying budgets. Everything from $100 movies to $100 million movies. People are saying there're already too many movies out there.

And to get your movie seen there is You Tube, Film Festivals, D2DVD companies, mainstream distributors etc...

The reason there aren't more good no-budget or low budget movies is b/c filmmaking is hard and talent/skill is a rare thing.

A quick story...

I took a filmmaking class at a community college back in the early 90s. The instructor had been teaching filmmaking for many yrs. Someone asked him if he'd seen an increase in quality since the advent of video cameras. His answer was a definite NO.

Video cameras hadn't improved the quality of the student films... in fact, he seemed to inimate that video had made them worse.

[Arroway]

This past month, I may have just spent more than that budget on some new DSLR equipment, (Nikon D90 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D90), lenses for same...

just curious, why you bought the D90 with the 5DmarkII out, and the Panasonic GH1 arriving shortly?

[Fortean]

just curious, why you bought the D90 with the 5DmarkII out, and the Panasonic GH1 arriving shortly?

The Canon EOS 5D Mark II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II) would have been much more expensive than the sale price obtained for my Nikon D90 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D90) package; and, while the 5DII has a better 1080p HD video, the extra pixels would have been overkill for what I want. The alternative Canon would have been the EOS Rebel T1i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EOS_Rebel_T1i); but, please note that its 1080p HD video is limited to 20 frames per second, (like old "home movies"). The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EOS_Rebel_T1i) is a smaller camera, and, thusfar, the lenses available for this camera aren't very fast. The Nikon D90 has its venerable F-mount for lots of old, fast lenses, (including the new Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G that I added to my kit); and, tho my Eyemo cameras still have their original Eyemo mounts, Eyemos are often modified to have a Nikon F-mount. I have adapters for F-mount lenses to fit onto a C-mount for my Bolex cameras.

"The large variety of F-mount compatible lenses makes it the largest system of interchangeable flange-mount photographic lenses in history. Over 400 different Nikkor lenses are compatible with the system." ~ Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount) SanDisk's Extreme III SDHC cards are also said to work better in conjunction with the Nikon D90. With a 16 gb SDHC, I think it could hold about 2500 exposures of 12.3 megapixels, (4K), and a five-minute 720p HD video would use about 600 mb. With two, I can swap them or use one as a back-up spare. And, for time lapse, that'd let me get five exposures every minute for eight hours, (plenty for some all-night astrophotography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera_astrophotography)), or a daylight exposure every second for 40 minutes, on one SDHC card. I'll be more concerned about carrying extra batteries but did get a battery grip that holds two battery units.

"The D90, along with SanDisk's upcoming ImageMate Multi-Card USB 2.0 Reader/Writer, has been designed to utilize an additional mode unique to these new SanDisk memory cards, a mode that ups the speed rating to the SanDisk-specified 30MB/second level. Manufacturer speed ratings are at best only a rough guide to actual in-camera performance, but at minimum it looks like SanDisk, by working directly with Nikon on the development of the D90's memory card support, may have ensured they're Extreme III 30MB/s Edition SDHC cards are the quickest in Nikon's newest digital SLR." ~ Rob Galbraith (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-9314-9569)I want to use the Nikon D90 to test shots, (before using film), and decide upon the best settings. Then, too, I'd have have a nice daytime camera for still shots and short HD video shots, (not recommending its on-camera mic). Whether sunrises, sunsets, the Moon, star trails, satellites or a space station, the Meade DS 2000 mount and Autostar (http://www.meade.com/autostar/autostars.htm) controller can provide tracking for celestial objects, and it has a "landmarks" feature to slew the camera's POV from one place to another at various speeds, (letting time lapse shots do a slow pan).

"Altazimuth mounts, even if motorized or computerized, are unsuitable for photography due to field rotation. On the other hand, it is easily possible to adapt the mid-range equatorial 'go-to' mounts to digital camera use." ~ WikipediaWith this equipment paid for, (and using public domain music, that I'd arrange and produce via Sibelius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibelius_Software), for example (http://www.resologist.net/Aquarium.mid)), my shooting budget might appear ridiculously low for some time-lapse work: gas in the car to get to the set(s), and self-catering. Of course, it gets more expensive with 16mm or 35mm cinema film, (when the Nikon D90 gets used to give me a decent preview and good exposure settings).

Hey, does this post qualify me as a nerd?

[ScriptShadow]

Yep, it looks like it was shot for $70.

lol

[sasqits]

Hey, does this post qualify me as a nerd?


Qualify? You've won the nerd olympics by an unprecedented mile. Very impressive, given the level of competition on these boards.

[minty_fresh_uk]

Unless they screened a Quicktime at Cannes, the cost of making a physical screening copy would have exceeded £45 on its own, so yeah the budget thing is pure marketing. Although it clearly was a guerilla film made with very little money. Good luck to 'em.

Incidentally, the film is from a zombie's perspective. That's the twist.

[minty_fresh_uk]

This movie has got a distributor!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1202293/Zombie-movie-costing-just-45-snapped-film-company-hit-big-screens-time-Halloween.html

[carcar]

Charging money from actors to get them to appear in films? :eek:

Heinous. Vile. Those guys deserve the performances they're likely to get. Next they'll be charging screenwriters to shoot their screenplays.

And people wonder why there are unions.