Uncategorized : Theoretically what would be th… by Stephen Melling

You mean for the whole movie or as an actress?

I mean for the whole thing, including marketing etc.

depends on the story too. A romantic comedy is much less expensive that an action movie. For sure it requires talented negociator to get the best out of it.

The budget of course, depends on the scrip, locations and number of cast and crew. Travel, accommodation, food and drink are some of the major costs of filmmaking. You will need professionals in all departments from DoP, lighting, make-up, sound etc and shouldn't cut corners in post-production either, remember that sound is just as important as picture! A typical low budget shoot would be 20-25 days. Sound location crew would be around £20k in the UK. Average freelance rates around £300/day, the edit could take 12-15 weeks. Sound post typically 10 weeks/£20-30k. Your marketing budget should then be 2-3 times your production budget (Full Monty £6 million production, £18 million to advertise! = £240 million at the box office!) As a rule of thumb, I would suggest you aim not much lower than £200-£300k for a low budget British film, this would make for a small, efficient crew, that doesn't cut corners, where the cast and crew will be paid a modest amount. The film industry is a business and it's up to the production teams to work in a way that's sustainable, produce high quality films and grow as a team and as an industry. I'm sorry but I feel making a feature on a £25k budget, just wouldn't be realistic, at least not for a feature film in the UK. Maybe a very small team of documentary filmmakers, even then your pushing it! I'm not saying it can't be done, of course it can, but we have to think about the future of the UK film industry, it's important to be efficient, this is where technology can really play a huge part, but we need to be realistic and let's face it, if your in the industry for the long run, your not going to work for free, forever!

I do agree with your comment above though Matt: "My opinion, you either find a story that can be done for next to nothing and hold its own against the studio competition or you find a way to half a mill... otherwise what's the point... no point trying to do an action film for next to nothing unless you can borrow the serious amount of resources. So many films made for less than what they realistically needed... and trouble is it will show." Also just checked out GIn and Tonic Productions and your Vimeo clips, good luck my friend. If you need sound post, let me know. Happy Friday, MAK

OK, lets give you a situation; if an exec producer came to you and said 'I want to make a feature film with you, whats the lowest you could go on the budget costs?' What would be your answer?

I agree with Jeff...Too many variables. For starters, it depends what you can sacrifice from the script without completely compromising the story. And I mean, that's one thing of a thousand to consider.

I've seen films made on huge budget variation worldwide, but I'm with Matt on the generalisation above and ball-park figures of uk filmmaking. Of course, there are many variables to take into account that directly affect the budget. Of course, the digital revolution has meant that you can make films incredibly cheap these days (without extortionate 35mm costs saving 4:1 on materials immediately) and with such a huge number of people wanting a piece of the film industry, there are many up and coming, talented people to choose from in an over saturated market. However, if you want to make a film that's going to stand out and hold its own, then you have to be realistic and to get a good, professional team, you have to pay for a decent crew or else you really are taking a gamble with the small amount of money you have. I would play it safe, cost up from the scrip, location, cast & crew, pre/post production and budget for marketing and distribution (this is also changing drastically!). As a minimum, you should be aiming to pay for food, drink and transport. You then have 'basic costs', 'minimum' rates and then 'going' rate, which varies per territory (sound team in uk = £20k, India £9k) Again, there's only so many times you can defer payment, ask for freebies and in the end, your looking for a professional crew that's going to invest their time, effort and knowledge, creating a high quality film and for that film to at least break even, re-invest with bigger budgets, same crew and more profit. Easier said than done I know! I say whatever the budget, whatever you decide to do, do it well. You never know where it may end up.

Even though the films estimated cost was only $15,000 (note, I've seen films that have been made for 2 million and the studio put out that it was made for 5k - what's the point of that!), Paramount spent about $10 million attempting to let people know about the film. However, the film current gross sits at $193 million, so you can strike jackpot, but it's rare and certainly not sustainable! Paranormal Activity 2 was made for 3 million and PA3 made for 5 million, ironically the highest ever budget for a horror, how does that work? Maybe the studios getting greedy as always. If your going to shoot on a budget, minimise location, cast and crew. I still think that you cannot realistically make a 'quality' action film of with a team of professionals (i.e everyone gets paid) for 100k. Although I'd like to see it.

I'll agree with that, with a great story and a good crew, you'll be fighting them off ;-)

5000 $ or lower.

Just think Blair Witch Project.

Or the zombie horror film Colin. They claimed it was made for only GBP 45,- and as the film became a bit of a hype at some festivals it was given a very limited cinema release here in the UK. Another film that didn't cost a lot to make was El Mariachi by Robert Rodriguez which was made for $ 7,000 Neither of these films were a huge box office success but they did more than well enough to earn more money than was spend and it certainly put Robert R. on the (film) map).

Ed Burns just did Newly Weds for $10,000 so it can be done. He has a history, but I think it can be done. Vincent D'Onofrio did a slasher flick on his family's property for about $9,000, slasher films are cost effective. The variables involve script, cast, sets, locations and a few favors. If I had my own equipment I think one of my own screenplays could work for $25,000 and a few favors.

you don't need ANY money to make a film, but you need LOTS of money to market the film make money on it!

I honestly do not care. I would take any amount of money to do what I love. Plus, it would be more money than I'm making at the moment. :)

Hello, I dont know. I will start by removing this theory there ...? Excuse my English ..

it depends on the crew and equipment you get for instance if its all guild you would most likely need over 10,000 but if I were to do a feature using college students and equipment I could make a pretty kick ass film for nothing but then the costs come in for getting the film seen and stuff but your question does not mention this so my answer is anything from 0 up

I might be wrong here but the aim should be to get the film you made into a film festival because getting your film screened at a big festival is what can lead into finding a distributor to get it in the cinema. Printing press kits to send it to film festivals doesn't cost a lot. Creating a website and poster etc to start a hype around your film doesn't need to cost a lot either as there are plenty of young designers eager to build their own name and CV. Some festivals doesn't even accept a whole press kit, they just want the CD and a short synopsis. There are the costs of entering a festival but they are not even close to 25,000. Once your film got into a big film festival and a distributor wants to pick up your film I think they will then get an additional budget for you to market the film for the cinema (as this would also be in the distributors own interest). But this budget is an additional budget on top of the one you were given when someone asked for how much you could make a low-budget. So without worrying too much about marketing yet, I'd say 5,000 - 7,0000 is enough to make a low-budget feature length film.

Unfortunately, the film industry is ultimately a distribution (retail) industry, not an exhibit industry. And though every now an then a zero budget gem slips through, you can most expect that you will get back what you put into it. It's cinematography, art wise. That's where the investment counts. Writing and editing do the story and movie. Cinematography makes the film quality. The story and movie will only be as good as the cinematography makes it. Period. That and Name Attachment. Somebody's gotta bring box office. That's changing, thankfully.

Of course it depends on a billion different things... But I'm just asking what your lowest price would be. You can find an easy, logistical script to do if you like - its up to you! For me, I wouldn't want to do any feature for under £100,000. No matter how 'easy' it is to do.

Personally I would definitely consider making feature under £ 100,000. It can be done with the right script in hands. The film Pi by Darren Arranofski was produced for $ 60,000 and made over $3 million at the box office. Not bad at all and it put him on the map and opened many doors for him.

Yeh, actually you changed my mind. I think it could be done for less. Its just that would be my ideal amount. But realistically if someone gave me a budget of $60,000 I'd do it.

It depends really. I have seen people making a feature for even less than 60.000. More like 15.000 and went pretty good. Its only based on talent and commitment to make things happen! See paranormal activity ;)

The last feature I worked on had a budget of around £30,000, and I'd agree that micro budgets are workable for some features, but I really wouldn't want to do it on any less than this. Not without a great deal of favours and friends at the ready! It's comes down to a subjective argument, and I suppose none of us can generalise too much...

A good show generates its own income. Lowest budget? ...naked inspiration.