Hey Everyone,
Guess I should clarify... I always assume everyone in the movie poster
business works in the film industry (perhaps it's only 90% of us).
Yes, you do need money to make a movie! A LOT of money. As I mentioned,
there are tens upon tens of thousands of movies made every year (just
because someone here is still living in the 1980's, doesn't make it any less
true). So, Hollywood has a vast selection in front of them, so they get to
pick and choose. It basically comes down to this. They don't want movies,
unless they have the following:
1. The proper, Hollywood cookie-cutter story (I won't go into it here, as
I'd literally ruin every movie for you from this point forward - let me just
say that Hollywood is far, far, far less original than anyone thinks, every
movie follows a very exacting pattern from start to finish that 99.99% of
viewers don't even realize).
2. Stars. Doesn't matter if they can act, they just have to be somewhat
famous.
You can do number 1 on a low budget, somewhat. But, only a few hundred
people in the world know the exact pattern and how to use it properly (about
50% of Hollywood writers don't seem to know it). Number 2, however, is
impossible on a low budget.
I was at AFM last year. I wasn't selling a movie, so I just got to
observe - and everyone was freaking out how nobody was buying anything. All
the buyers were doing was going from room to room, asking what stars were in
each movie, then turning around and leaving. And, to give you an idea of
how many films are made each year... AFM takes over two hotel towers on the
beach in LA. Every room in the entire hotel is reserved for a different
distributor (we're talking hundreds if not thousands of different movie
distributors). Buyers walk room to room and make deals for the movies that
are in each room (each distributor has from around half a dozen movies - up
to hundreds or thousands - and remember, multiply that buy hundreds of
rooms). None of the movies are big budget and none of them are really low
budget. They're all mid-level, straight to DVD type fare (the only
memorable title being 301 a spoof of 300 - typical of the kind of film at
AFM) - not one of the movies being one you will ever hear of again! Just
the worst movies ever made (yet, oddly, a lot of them have big stars).
Virtually every single one is a movie that you would never watch in a
million years. Only a few hundred movies get major releases each year - so
the competition is utterly staggering. To give you an idea of just how
ridiculous the competition is for lower-budget films - this whole thread
should give you an idea! Craig claims to have worked with the best
directors in the business for decades - and he can't even comprehend how
many movies are truly out there! The numbers are sooooo huge, that he can't
even believe it - and that's someone who's in the business! Now, I should
point out that AFM is mostly US movies, so they are by no way representative
of ALL the movies that are made on Earth (and, as I mentioned, the movies
there mostly fall into one thin category of direct to video). And, there
are different shows like that all over the world, all year long (so, for
instance, if you miss AFM, you go to Cannes instead), so AFM will only have
a tiny fraction of all the movies that are available.
So, back to the question at hand... To make a movie, you have to have a
crew of at least 20 (preferably closer to 100). You need to rent equipment
that costs at least $10 or 20 thousand a day (bare minimum, unless you're
shooting on cheap video). You need at least 30 days of shooting. And, if
you want a chance at ever selling it, you need stars. But, when you hire
stars, all of a sudden your entire production becomes unionized (with the
lowest position on set above PA getting $350+ a day).... So, yes, you do
need money. You don't need as much as Hollywood spends (unless you're
shooting a sci-fi or action movie - there's absolutely no reason why
Hollywood dramas should cost $65 million nowadays), but you still need some
(preferably $1 mil and up).
And, that's what makes me so frustrated with the system. A $30,000 movie
sells for $20 - the exact same price as a $100 million movie. So, people
compare your $30K film to Hollywood movies - when there's no way you can
compete. Just producing something that's close is quite the coup in itself.
How could you ever compete - when they get to spend $5,000 for every $1 you
get to spend? Of course your movie's not going to look anywhere as good.
It's not a level playing field... I have absolutely no desire to ever work
for Hollywood (I've had chances and turned them down). I'd much rather make
crappy little indie films for the rest of my life. But, of course,
Hollywood has so thoroughly (and illegally) removed all their competition
from the marketplace, and the competition is so fierce to begin with, that
it's impossible to survive doing indie films (Troma is the ONLY indie film
studio to ever survive in this business in the long-run - that should tell
you something about the level of competition - every single other indie film
studio has gone belly up). So, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.
My indie work is extremely popular (average viewership somewhere between 50
and 100 million), but it doesn't matter because Hollywood crushes all their
competition. So, I can't just make indie films like I want (unless I want
to lose a lot of money) - and I don't want to go over to Hollywood (as
they're one of the most crooked industries in existence). Plus, my
preferred genre is NC-17 - and Hollywood has illegally repressed those
movies for decades (Hollywood doesn't distribute NC-17 films, yet the keep
people who do out of the market - not indirectly but DIRECTLY through the
MPAA which is owned and controlled by them - a textbook case of a major
anti-trust violation). And, to make matters worse, I have absolutely no
desire to make cookie-cutter movies (the only kind Hollywood wants)...
Of course, there will always be movies like Blair Witch and Open Water.
But, those are the exceptions to the rule (and everyone forgets that yes,
you may have seen Tarnation or El Mariachi that year, but that's the only
one of 20,000 movies in the same budget-range that you had even heard of, so
you're only seeing the best of the best of the best of the best). And, to
make a movie like that, you have to write the script knowing your budget
level in advance. All Blair Witch was was 3 kids going into the bush with a
camera - no expenses there. Open Water required nothing more than 2 actors
and a couple boats (and still that increased the budget into the hundreds of
thousands or millions I'm guessing). But, it's hard to write movies like
that, as you have to give up all the Hollywood conventions (no stunts, no
stars, no cgi, no large crowds, no explosions, etc...). And, when you can't
afford to shoot anything exciting, there's a good chance that your movie
won't be exciting either...
Whenever a client asks me how much a project will cost, I always say that
you can shoot Titanic for $250 million - or you could shoot it for $250,000
(and every level in between). It'll be the exact same movie. The only
difference is, the more you spend, the better it gets, bit by bit. The
$250K Titanic would be awful (and not an epic). A $5 million Titanic would
be pretty bad (and still not an epic). But, the $50 million version may
still have won an Oscar... So, it's really more of a range: If you want to
make something that can compete with Hollywood - you really need to spend
about $5 to 10 million (although, as I said, I could probably do it for
around $1 mil. as I'm probably one of the very best directors on Earth at
shooting quick and cheap). You don't need nearly as much money as Hollywood
to make a good movie - but you do need more than most all indie films have
access to...
OK, I guess I've babbled on long enough...
Cheers,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Michael Tupy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert D. Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an "epic" on a low budget?
Hey, Bob, I thought it significant that you note that with 1 to 5 million
you and others could shoot an 'epic' that was at least close to
"Oscar-worthy." But doesn't that support the argument that $$ is central
to a great film? Granted, you are still speaking of very low budgets by
Hollywood standards, but the emphasis of your post was sort of an "if
only I had the money..." which is just the opposite of the original
question posted, which could be summed up as "If these great Director's
DIDN'T have the money they're used to, could they..." I hope some of
that made sense.
Bottom line, in MY OPINION, most every great director could make a film
on a small budget as they likely have had to in the past which is what
made them notable and commercially viable as a film storyteller in
Hollywood (true, many came out of commercials and Music Vids as well).
Now, it wouldn't be their first choice but they certainly didn't start
out with massive budgets. But, with all due respect, it's insane to say
that the reverse is always accurate: that a low-budget filmmaker, who has
not caught the eye of commercial Hollywood through the years could
instantly make a hit or possibly win Oscars due to a budget of 5 or 100
million +. It could happen, but it's not automatically a two-way street.
If they're truly great filmmakers, it shows at all budget levels.
However, if they're not great filmmakers, money won't automatically make
them so.
And as you SO rightly pointed out, it's not all about the money...it's
the quality of the story, and it's the quality of the Writer.
Patrick
On Jul 22, 2008, at 11:28 PM, Robert D. Brooks wrote:
Bob, I hardly think you are suggesting that your Doc is an epic
(though I certainly appreciate the epic nature of all filmmaking and
the problems therein). Still, what is YOUR opinion on the issue? Do
you believe a Spielberg or another A-Lister could make an 'epic' on a
low budget?
No, of course it's no epic (the 82 minute film was shot in less than 5
days). It wasn't even supposed to be a movie (we shot it as a free
internet video). It's actually a mockumentary (so I guess that's a
pretty good sign if it fooled you into thinking it was real). I wasn't
talking about epics per se, just what constitutes a low-budget!
If I had between one and five million dollars, I could probably shoot an
'epic' that was at least close to Oscar-worthy (and I know lots of other
directors that could do that too, but will never be given the chance to
try). But, I guess it all depends on what you mean by 'epic?' If
you're talking epic, as in Lawrence of Arabia or Ben-Hur, you couldn't
even shoot those for $500 million nowadays. Anything on that grand a
scale would be far too expensive now. Just try finding 15,000 racing
camels and the jockeys to ride them - heck, just try finding the
insurance to cover the production! They'll shoot those scenes in CGI
instead, and it won't look quite right or feel like a true 'epic,' since
you can't really move the camera in a CGI shot without it looking
horrible. We'll never be able to return to the epics of old (not for a
couple decades anyways, until either the world's economy collapses or
computer graphics technology gets much better)...
But, then, if you're talking 'major director' as well, most of them are
too used to the Hollywood way of doing things (the ridiculously
expensive way) that they'd never be able to shoot a true epic on a low
budget (what, no private trailer complete with personal chef, automatic
cocaine-dispenser and crew of assistants???). You're probably more
likely to get that epic out of a new or younger director... But, then
again, it's hard to compare. If Spielberg shoots a $1 million movie,
he'll still have his choice of the best actors and crew-members in the
business (willing to work for nearly free) - any other director with the
same amount of money, won't have nearly the same amount of resources, so
it's hard to really compare...
Night,
Bob
----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Michael Tupy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert D. Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an "epic" on a low
budget?
Good Lord, this is so far afoot from the original question!
Craig makes the point that 'Low Budget' is a relative term and arguing
it is absurd because it is relative to the original proposition of the
post. Can a MAJOR DIRECTOR shoot an 'epic' on a low budget? Bob, I
hardly think you are suggesting that your Doc is an epic (though I
certainly appreciate the epic nature of all filmmaking and the
problems therein). Still, what is YOUR opinion on the issue? Do you
believe a Spielberg or another A- Lister could make an 'epic' on a low
budget? Enough with the 'devil in the details' of who knows what,
etc. Docs are generally cheaper to make, which is no sin, but to
compare an 'epic' type drama to a doc or the 10 zillion films made in
the last quadrillion years doesn't answer the question.
I suppose what's inherent in the original question is have these
titans become too fat and are incapable of filming on a diet? I think
it would be fantastic to get three or four A-List Directors, give them
each $500,000 and have them make separate films then compare the
outcomes. What you have to understand is that Tom Hanks will show up
for free just like your pals will show up and do something gratis.
Those are the perks of being in their positions. Okay, Hanks would
show up for nothing 'up- front'...lol
It might be called TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE
Patrick
On Jul 22, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Robert D. Brooks wrote:
So, if $20 million is a 'low budget,' this is what I did with about
1/8th of 1% of that amount (meaning I would have to make this movie
almost 1,000 times - just to have a budget high enough to be
considered 'low')... Although, I'll warn anyone that dares click:
NSFW (it is a Troma-film after all, so don't come crying to me
if...)! ;o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTMoKB9Zk0E
Cheers,
Bob
PS. Note to Craig: You may just notice a couple names in the
credits there: one is currently the chairman of the Independent Film
and TV Alliance and the other is the head of the oldest independent
film studio in existence, so while I may not have your 30 years in
the business (only about 20 here), understand that I do know what I'm
talking about! And, just to prove I'm right:
http://www.imdb.com/List?year=2008
You'll notice that there are about 12,000 movies listed there - just
from the last 6 months (and they only list a fraction of all the
movies made - very few student films, foreign films, ultra-low- budget
films, etc...). I guess I should be expecting an apology?...
----- Original Message ----- From: Craig Miller
To: Robert D. Brooks
Cc: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an "epic" on a low
budget?
You're missing the point. You're wrong about the number of movies
made.
Your numbers all seem to be wild guesses and you haven't specified if
you're talking about feature length films or including all lengths
and formats.
I can only believe you're doing the latter because your numbers are
just
way, way off for the former. (And what makes you think each film
festival
gets applications for a completely different group of films? Sundance
requires it hasn't been shown anywhere else before them but most
festivals have no such rule. And they don't say films can't play
other
festivals after them.)
Please don't insult us by suggesting that only you are so smart as to
know
about films not made by the Hollywood studios or that we don't know
about
low budget films. I assure you, that isn't the case.
And if you think the super low budget filmmakers all make wonderful
movies, you clearly haven't seen a significant enough percentage of
them.
A large percentage of the indies are godawful. As are the majority of
studio pictures. But they don't suddenly become good because they're
made with low low budgets.
I've been in this business over 30 years now and I've worked with and
seen
pictures at all different budget levels. The budget -- high or
low -- isn't what
makes them good.
Craig.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is
solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is
solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
