Hey, Mark here from Indie/Outie Productions. We are in Gainesville Florida (where? exactly, it's where the University of Florida's main campus is) and we are finishing up shooting our first feature film.
We are shooting on the Sony PD150 with flood lights bought from Lowe's.
We cast 43 speaking roles (including 6 people over 60). We shot at 12 locations (both public and private) including car scenes on the interstate.
We are using original and copyrighted music from bands all over the nation.
We got all our props at various stores and returned them.
And including tapes, various expenses etc. we are scheduled to finish the movie having only spent $248.27 and 55 hours of total shooting time. And, the movie is not crap, it looks great.
I am interested to hear how fast and how cheap other people have shot their feature films. Let us know.

And check out the short films we have on our website at www.indieoutie.com

Mark

Can I ask why you pride yourself on doing things quick and cheap? This doesn't seem like an attractive quality; the best work usually takes a lot of time and a bit of money.

_________________________
http://www.jswfilms.com/

one time i shot movie in twenty seconds and it cost 4 dollars!!! do i win the fast and cheap award?!?!?!

What's the deal guys? Let the man have his glory for awhile! Sheesh! It's great that he was able to accomplish that so now he can say, "Hey I can make a feature length movie." now this guy can improve and build on it. Personally, I think it was great that he kept the buget low, I would probably be too extravagent. As for the quality of the final product, you don't know how good it is yet. So who says you have the right to judge his project before you see it? Back off.

" . . . Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve . . . but as for me and for my house, we will serve the Lord." - Joshua 24:15

Saw a couple of your shorts. I'll refrain from critiquing them aside from suggesting that the money and time spent on them directly reflect the final product. Which is not a bad thing, necessarily...soemtimes run n' gun filmmaking can be fun.

I'm assuming the feature film you shot, for 250 bux, in a total of 55 hours, resembles your previous works, albeit with a nicer picture quality due to the PD-150. I can't say much as for the positives of this: filmmaking shouldn't be about rushing. Nor should it be about how little you spent. Granted, if you're a gifted organizer and director, one could opt to save as much money and time as possible, but not at the expense of the final product.

We shot a feature length film last year on MiniDV as well. It cost us $3,000, and was shot over a one year period. The film runs 112 minutes. If you'd like to see some clips from the movie, visit www.joshuacalling.com

Now, if we were to tally up all the things we DIDN'T pay for...our budget would skyrocket up to the mid 30G's. But the point is, that out of pocket, we spent 3K...on things we couldn't get hooked up with for free...necessary things. We did everything humanly possible to make our movie look, sound and feel completely professional, pushing the limits of the 3chip cam we used. We knew we'd be showing in several theatres, be it through festivals, or private screenings, and subjecting our audiences to a 112 minute long film, so if it didn't measure up, we'd be screwed. Also, our shooting ratio is something like 30:1, which means that we shot footage about 30 times the running length of the actual film. That ratio for professional feature films is usually a bit smaller, due to film stock costing so much. But, because we ARE working with digital...whats the big deal in spending a few hundred dollars on 30 miniDV tapes? The idea is, since shooting digital is cheap as all hell, why not take advantage of it? Shoot more coverage...keep retaking every darn shot until the performances, the camera movement, the lighting, etc. is all just the way you want it. I certainly wouldn't take any pride in saying that I cheaped out on everything I possibly could and moreover spent very little time shooting anything.

Anyhow...my final thoughts are, if you're going to take on a feature length film, the last thing on your mind should be saving time. Money is another issue...the best advice I can give for filmmakers on this site is not to have a mentality of "I'm not gonna spend a single dollar", but to say to yourself "maybe that dollar can be put to better use somewhere else in the production." It's managing your resources efficiently, is what it ultimately comes down to.

The end all be all, of course, is the audience, as sad as it is. And the biggest thing to worry about is respecting them, when making a film, especially a feature. By spending litte to no time, and no money, you're disrespecting your audience. You're essentially saying "sit down and devote the next hour and half of your life to something I didn't take much time or care in." You're selling a gimmick by saying "I spent 250 bux and 55 hours", not a film.

But that's it for me. Post some pics of the film, maybe even a completed scene, with all the post work done...color correction, sound work, etc. I'd like to see what you consider "great", when all's said and done. I apologize if I seem a bit cynical, but I know firsthand what it's like to make a feature film, from the ground up. A year of shooting, 6 months of post, organizing and micromanaging every last detail of the film personally- so you'll have to excuse me if 250 bux with 55 hours of tape doesn't sound all that impressive to me. Seems like a quick and easy way to be able to say "hey, I made a feature film."

P.S. Anyone in the Gainesville are is more than welcome the screening will be at the Reitz Union Cinema on Tuesday, December 11th at 8pm and will be free and open to the public. Feel free to come check it out.

Brian

[This message was edited by Brian on December 03, 2003 at 03:47 PM.]

Uh, Brian, it was 55 SHOOTING HOURS, not 5 hours. That's got to be at least a couple weeks including break time of production.

" . . . Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve . . . but as for me and for my house, we will serve the Lord." - Joshua 24:15

I re-read, and accordingly updated my post. I still stand by what I said. A few weeks is far too little time to put together a well made feature film. Moreover, the initial post contained no informaton on the film itself, which further leads me to question the overall quality of the film, in addition to the previous works of the filmmaker. My criticism contained in the previous post is meant to be constructive. Please take it as such.

Brian

[This message was edited by Brian on December 03, 2003 at 04:06 PM.]

You might try to be constructive, but your post was too assuming. You write that just because someone spends little time filming, they don't put pride or effort into their work. Why do you say that a feature shot in short time really is'nt one? You only seem jeleous or spitefull that someone could complete a feature in this time. I mean, you instantly assume that it's not a quality product. I've had to complete some of my films in extreemly tight constraints. Sometimes my actors can't be there but for just 1 or 3 days, and its definately pressure on me. On one film, an actor of mine kept pushing the day he could help farther and farther back. It was 2 days before the submission deadline, and I had only shot half of the 5 minute film. It rained, so I ended up shooting the next day, and had to edit all night so that I could finish, and I did. Whatever time I had I cherished, because the actors were spectacular and things finally went right. Maybe you should goto www.nycmidnight.com the host of the 2 week video contest. I was in it, and had to do a 10 minute film in 2 weeks from a topic given. Look in the discusion forums for some links to some of the amazing talent that arose in this crunch time. If you progress and one day get funding from a studio or producers breething down your neck, you'll have to work in very tight situations. The guys at Project Greenlight only had 30 days to do their feature. I try to make great films with my close friends, and sometimes I have all the time I need to get it good. But next month, I'm going to be shooting a 30 page script over 3 days. It's all the time I have to rent the dvx100 and some boom equipment with my money. I've been planing for this film for about 6 months, and I'm sure it's going to be great. So if you tell me that just because I'm shooting over a 3 day period that I instantly don't have a good product, then you don't understand pre-production. The first poster didn't even say how long they were planning for.

Its fine to do a movie cheap - cheap doesnt mean that alot of work isnt put into the film. The film I'm working on now is entirely free - locations, actors, equipment - it doesnt mean that I'm going to do a scrappy job on it. I definitely have to say that TIME is important. You have to give yourself and everybody involved enough time to create something that is complete.

Mark - Indie/Outie - Can you give us some details on the movie? What it's about? Etc?

I found the post (and subsequent replies) interesting. Congrats on completing the shooting.

Mark M
Sugar Free Productions

You're right. I am making a judgement...but I'm not assuming. I'm inferring. I infer that the film can't be anything to brag about for several very valid reasons: first, the post contained boasts about a film that we've yet to see a single frame from. Secondly, the post, if you read it thoroughly, says "this what I did, for zilch time and zero money, and that's what I'm proud of." It doesn't go into a shred of detail about the production, the story, pre-production...there is nothing on this film that exists beyond a very assured and cocky post. If the filmmaker posted anything aside from a very detailed brag, I'd have been less inclined to reply the way I did. It was snooty...it was "hey, i ran the race in 10.5 seconds...i bet nobody ran it shorter!" So yea, I replied, and quite thoroughly as I recall. Oh, and please, before anyone else assumes that I'm assuming (...)take a look at the films on the filmmaker's website (the feature is mysteriously MIA on the webpage.) All the shorts represent the run n' gun, careless filmmaking style that the filmmaker boasted about proudly in his initial post. Which is why I stick by my guns: he's proud of just making the film quick and cheap. That's not something to be proud of. And until I see any proof to sway me otherwise, I'm left with a bad initial taste in my mouth from that post. That's all I'm saying folks.

P.S. Somebody mentioned me being jealous or bitter...? About what? I had my first feature (which I'm proud of, in both the final product and level of committment put into it by countless people, including myself) completed before I was old enough to buy alcohol legally...hehe. I'm too happy with where I am and certainly far too young to be bitter or jealous. Gimme 20 years...if I still haven't had any success at that point, then I can be called bitter and jealous when I give a negative opinion out

Brian

Brian, I agree with you. You did mention you've based your concern for the quality of their work on their past works so your views are solid. Judging from their past work, they seem to suffer bad camera angles, poor cutting, and not enough coverage. From that, I too think these might need more than fifty-five hours to shoot a decent feature. But, if it's available for download, I will check it out with hopes that it doesn't suck as their previous showcased work.

-Elliott

Screenwriter 14...just so we're clear, I understand pre-production just fine. What I don't understand is people (in general, and I've met quite a few) who say they can shoot their epic 100 page saga in 6 days, with a 10 cent budget spent on some bubble gum and a paperclip. Be realistic folks...that's all I'm saying. A normal human being isn't going to be able to shoot more than 10 hours a day, 7 days a week. Figure if you PUSH it, you can crank out a solid 6-8 pages a day, and I mean REALLY push. Screenwriter...30 pages, 3 days? It's not impossible, but it's still quite the task...but I'm sure you already know that. Good luck, sincerely bro. Back to the topic at hand...bottom line, a rush job will, for the most part, never be as good as something that had some deliberate time taken on it. I have this argument with peers constantly: just because you CAN crank out short after short doesn't mean you should. It's simply quantity over quality. Sure, you need to keep your practice up, hone your skills in such. But that's another story. Don't mix practice and production up. It's like taking a practice test and saying "hey, I'm done. that's it." You take all those pracitce tests so you can be ready for the real deal...something you've devoted yourself to and taken time with. Don't expect to throw stuff together in your spare time and have it fare as well as you hope.

Brian

[This message was edited by Brian on December 03, 2003 at 10:34 PM.]

I didn't get the sense that Mark was being "snooty," just excited. Back in the 80's, when I was a fine arts student, I had friends who made films with similar resources in terms of time and budget. None of them expected to win any awards, and their craft was far from refined, but they were proud of their work because it meant something to them. Furthermore, they felt like they were thumbing their noses at the "establishment."
Flimmaking is such an elitist pursuit in this country. Every book I've ever picked up on independent filmmaking has a line toward the beginning that goes something like, "if you don't have $250,000, don't even bother," or "you can't do anything meaningful for under $30,000." Meaningful to whom!?
I checked out the clips on Mark's website. (BTW, he says in his post "if you read it carefully" that his current production isn't finished yet- geez give the guy a break.)
He's no Steven Soderbergh, but if it makes him happy then great for him.
Art is subjective, and I'd rather he was creating movies with the time and money he has at his disposal (and steadily improve his craft with practice) rather than not make movies at all.

Ok first off, I thank D.E.W., Mark M., and Rellik for being resonable and actually reading what I wrote, not assuming what I meant.

Brian - wow is there enough room in here for your ego? Man, I love the fact that someone else is shooting films in Gainesville but wow man you are gone. My dad was right, "Opinions are like *******s, everyone's got one and some of them stink."

In rebuttal, I wasn't bragging, I was excited. After working on many films (big-budget, indie, etc) in LA as a Stand-in, Principal, 1st A.D. etc I realized how slow they move and how much money is wasted. I realized that I could do things quicker and faster, like Robert Rodriguez, and look at his films I said to myself, they make money and they are good.
Now, I grant you, the short films I have on my website aren't top notch, but if you read the description for them it wasn't because I was being serious about them, I was doing it to test various editing techniques and to see what I could really do with technology. And, they were entertaining enough and all that I had, so I put them on my website (MTV Cribs has been viewed over 10,000 times in 4 months, so it goes to show that you never can predict what will be popular.)

In the MTV cribs thing, which we shot completely IMPROV (no script, no nothing) you have to admit, it came out pretty decent with the speed-ups and slow downs.
The 28 Secs Later, we did simply to try out editing techniques. We shot it in 3 hours one night and I will be the first to admit, it jumps, it has shadows, the lighting isnt great, but if you think that we made it for $3 and EVERYONE in the film was drunk and either passed out while filming or after filming, and one kid (who keeps appearing 3 different times) wouldn't stop following us around and was so drunk he didn't even know what we were doing, I will be the first to admit, I am damn happy with how it came out.
The Grand Theft Bike thing I shot 2 years ago before I went to L.A. and learned anything, so that doesnt even count, it was just an Ode to my favorite game that lots of other people who love the game could enjoy.

But the WHOLE point of that last paragraph was to simply state that the feature film is completely different. It's not run-n-gun. We spent 3 months planning out the shoot and I spent 6 months writing the script. It is by no means rushed just very well planned. We shoot 12 hours in one day, then 3 hours the next day and we are shooting it over 13 shoot days (a schedule most people in Hollywood would drool over.) Obviously, because of time conflicts here and there with actors and crew I feel rushed and we don't get as much coverage as I would like sometimes but, whatever I am fine with that cause we can always do pick-up shots. This is the first film I have worked on, not to mention, also my first feature, where there is an actual crew, not just me, some friends who act and a camera person. I got a crew of 15 people, who have never worked on a film before, to understand their jobs, do them well, and contribute to the film. Obviously novices arent as experienced as veterans but our crew is so close-knit and tight that we can say anything we want and no one takes offense to it.

The one thing I can say about this feature is, it is very hard to Direct and to star in your own film and I probably won't ever do it again simply because I'm too much of an OCD that I can't stand not seeing the frame to see what goes wrong. So in that sense, I have to trust my D.P. and I do, blindly, but nevertheless, lovingly.

About the mysterious MIA of the feature from my website, I have been to busy still shooting the movie (the 55 hours was an estimate as we still have 2 more days left of production but basically we are done in my mind after 6 months of my life being invested) to post up pictures. How can I put up a trailer when I haven't finished shooting?

Also, Brian, in retort to your responses, $250 is very do-able and brag worthy if you ask me because it means that we got a lot of things donated or free (lights thanks to Lowes, the camera thanks to the D.P., food thanks to various Pizza, Sub, and Grochery Stores willing to help out) which takes people skills (something that egos really mess up). And we are just smart with our dollar, that whole "Where could that dollar be better spent elsewhere?" is crap and you know it. No, my motto is, "Hey, if we can return it, max out the credit cards and if you need something let me know ahead of time, I'll ask around and get it for free or hey, we can charge it and return it." If I spent an extra 10 dollars a day on crap like food, drinks, and "a couple hundred bucks for 30 more tapes" I would have a budget in $3,000 like yours. Instead, I thought everything out and ordered 50 tapes directly from Malaysia (sp?) for $160 with shipping that took 5 days.
Now, not to finish this post as an *******, but I went to your site and saw the trailer for your film. And you know what? Your film still looks digital, just like I bet mine will. But see, I didn't write a crybaby drama where it mattered and would take away from the film. I wrote a script that was digital friendly, a romantic comedy with a grittier feel, because you see, I thought that up to.
Your film is being shown Dec 11 I think you said on campus at UF right? I havent heard anything about it, NOTHING, and there is no buzz on campus about it. Plus, you are showing it for free.
Good for you, that's cool and all get it out there, but I already have a professional editor lined up in Texas who will do the editing (so I can shoot my next feature and have it done by the time this first one comes out), a Professional composer in New York doing the score, and distribution for my movie at many, many venues where they all charge. I have over 1000 people on my email list who want to get updates about the movie, and you know what, if I get just a dollar from everyone, we made money.
So a first-feature film, that made a profit. Not a bad deal if you ask me.
The difference between you and most of the other people on this site is that, we are trying to help each other out (the original purpose of this post was to see how cheap and fast other people have been doing stuff so I could compare to them and see if I was doing o.k.) and I would be more than delighted, as I bet they would be too, if one of our movies did well.
But, I bet in your case, if your movie does well you will become too good for us indie filmmakers, and if it does bad, you'll still be here in our "ranks", farting out bitter statements.

And I'm out this motha...
Mark

Sounds interesting, Mark. I spent 3.5 months prepping a 9-minute short that ended up "ok", but never made festival. I shot it in one day because we were able to get this really neat old house for free from the real estate company that I rented from.

Just curious, but what kind of camera did you use? Any other equipment at your disposal? How about locations? Did you scout them out? Ask permission or just show up and shoot?

Congrats again. I'm finishing up a documentary and it will definitely be difficult to get my money back - though I've had a few things discounted/donated. If I broke even, I would jump for joy - this making this doc is my college/film school!

Good luck.

Mark M
Sugar Free Productions

I have the philosophy to put as much money I can get in a film that is as short as possible

example: for 4000 dollar I can do a technically awesome 16mm color short that is 4 min, and with a good story, i can get into a lot of festivals


well..first I need the story:O

D.E.W., dude, I hate to say this but I think you're reading the wrong books. Most of the indie book I've read have talked about how to make movies that are cheap and fast. Are you only reading books that are about making prestigious movies?

WOW $248.27 on making a movie is LOW BUDGET???? geez we spent exactly $0 by using props that we already had to make our movie (Revenge of the Scooter-Still in the making)

------------------------------
Shaun Roke
Cracker Jack Films

If you're original post was anything like your last, I might have replied differently. But it wasn't. And you're still hung up on spending nothing, and being proud of it. I keep reitterating that it's not about the money, but about the final product. And hey, you know, if you managed to turn our a good product for 250 bux, more power to you. Secondly, in my reply, I didn't rape and attack your film...I gave an opinion as to your mindset. I didn't say "your film, that I haven't seen, is ****e." I said that if your attitude going into this film is anything like your attitude that you display publicly, then you should take time to rethink things. As for calling my film sappy crap...thanks. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm proud to be able to say I shot a professional looking feature, that pushed the limits of shooting miniDV. All I know is that the 3,000 spent on my film wasn't spent on a single bit of nonsense...it all went towards things we could not possibly have gotten otherwise. I played the Wal-Mart game too, believe me. They're a rental house for me too. But certain things just cannot be done without a little bit of money. Sure, you can tone down some ideas, scale down sets, scale down scope, and MAKE DO...but we were determined to shoot everything we wrote, as it was written, without skimping on the final product, and that's where 3000 bux eventually goes. And yes, it does look digital...but it's a far cry from picking up a camera and just shooting.

Do me a favor, please look at your original post. Can you at least admit, that regardless of what your intentions were, the post came off as cocky? I never came on this board and said "hey, I made a feature cheaper than anyone out there, and I did it quicker than anyone else...who challenges me?" In so many words, you asked that. And I answered. And my ego, for your information, is quite small. I may have a bit of experience in making a feature, but that in no way should be confused with an ego. I know what I'm doing, and what I'm talking about. Sue me. Is it a crime to be informed and experienced?

I live in the real world, and I look at projects like these in a real light. You put your cards on the table, so did I. You posted, I replied. I never once called your film garbage, like you did mine. I critisized your attitude, which is an entirely different thing. And again, you further reaffirmed you attitude towards filmmaking...you're bragging about how you'll be in all these different venues, and how you'll be making money off folks. Is that what it's about? Making money? So because you plan on making a decent profit off your film, you feel like you've accomplished something? That's a poor way to look at filmmaking. I spent a year and a half of blood sweat and tears making this film, not to mention stretching my 3,000 dollars as much as I possibly could to make my movie...and I'm showing it for free...just trying to get it SEEN. You spent 250 dollars, and yet plan to bank off of it as much as possible, with the film itself being almost an afterthought, as you made it so clear. That's insulting, to more than just your audience.

You and I are clearly two very different people. We're of 2 very different schools of thought. You look up to Robert Rodriguez, I look up to James Cameron. The former shoots his stuff as quick as he can, the latter usually runs way over budget and time. I chose my rolemodels based on their product...Rodriguez is a gifted filmmaker, who I happen to admire, but his flicks are hit and miss, due largely in part to his aggressive, expeditious attitude when shooting. Which is why I favor taking more time, and if necesarry, more money.

Bottom line- I'll do things as cheap as I can, but not at the expense of quality. If you can tell me that with a little more time and money, your film wouldn't have been better than it is right now (in your opinion, naturally, since everyone is their own worst critic) then I have nothing further to say. I believe you get out what you put in...take that as you will.

No hard feelings.
Brian