Anything Goes : Noticing a Trend by Ray Anthony Martinez

I can agree with that. $5k maximum. Anything more and you might as well make a feature.

I'm with you on this, Ray. Many filmmakers are so jaded anymore! What the crap makes you all think you actually need that much money to make a short? If you're shooting on actual film stock, then sure I can see the justification... but you're all shooting digital. I've produced 6 shorts ranging in run times of 15 to 30 minutes long and I have NEVER spent over $250 on any of them! These are festival quality, high production value short films... several of which are award winners. If you're gonna tell us that you need that money to pay for your actors and crew... the you haven't mastered the fine art of producing indie movies. There is NO justification for spending THAT kind of money on talent or crew for your short film unless you have some notable TV or film person involved who is demanding to be paid well. If you're gonna say that you need the money to buy a RED camera or some other high priced fancy shmancy HD rig... again, you're not master of the producer's craft. It's NOT the equipment that makes a good movie... it's the talent behind the camera. All the equipment in the world will not make a great movie if the filmmaker has no talent for storytelling. Otherwise, it's all for show and about vanity and ego. All of my 6 shorts were shot on Canon GL2 DV cams that were either borrowed or I owned it already... and it's only a $2500 camera. I used $20 shop lights that I got at Walmart and created my own cookies, scrims, flags and reflectors. I used a shotgun mic I bought at a pawnshop for 30 bucks and built my own boom pole using a telescopic broom handle or just put the mic on a mic stand with a boom attachment. Lack of expensive equipment forces you to be creative during your production process. If you have to surround yourself with high dollar stuff just to impress your crew and talent so they'll work on it with you, then you're just selling yourself short and should probably give it up. I shot my movies over periods of 3 days to several weeks, talent and crew schedules permitting. AND WE ALL WORKED FOR FREE! I did, however, buy dinner a few times for everyone. But my actors and crew are always ready to work with me on anything because they respect me and trust that my talent won't turn out a bad production. I, turn, respect and trust theirs. I have actually told actors "Nevermind" when they have told me they wouldn't do it unless they got paid. You're not THAT good. On my very first movie, I turned down 7 actors for the lead because they all demanded to be paid. As if I needed them or my movie wouldn't work. HA!!!! I found an actor at a local college who said he would do it just for the sake of being in a movie to expand his experience as an actor. The 30 minute movie was the first indie film released in our local movie theater (it had 8 sold-out showings) and went on to win several awards. A few of the actors I had passed on for the movie offered to do my next one for free. I told them to go find another filmmaker because they had burned their bridges with me. You either get on the train when the doors are opened or stay at the station. However, I'm with Ray, I'm curious why so many of you are seeking so much money to shoot a short. Below is the link to 2 of the shorts I produced, each with less than $200. The horror movie is a shortened version of the original 25 minute movie and was shot for about $200, the comedy was shot, edited and ready for show in less than 72 hours for $75... the cost of the Santa suit and a few trips to McDonald's. http://www.myspace.com/jbo_filmmaker/videos

I remember back in the day, thesis films would cost $15-20K to make. Seems reasonable to me to make great content, it costs money. Pay your crew, your cast, and secure locations, get insurance. Filmmaking it not cheap if you do it right. I've made a feature for $15k. I'm making a web series called Magehaven, for $10-15K. Everything is possible, but paying people will be difficult.

Thesis film shot on film?

Ok, I have to write more. I get paid to shoot movies. I get enough to live in California. For me to show up with my epic, it's typically going to cost you $1000 a day. If you short is more than a day's shoot, I'll be taking of a lot your budget. i often take a percentage in lieu of payment, if the project has potential. I will also jump on a producer, if I think the project is right. But even if you are not paying anyone, it still costs money to make movies. Equipment rentals, location fees, permits, insurance, food, water, costumes, props, post production, storage, etc. Nothing is cheap. If you're getting it for free, you better be very grateful. I am incredibly grateful when people join our projects, for what little compensation we can offer. I will return the service when I can as well. With Magehaven, we are doing it ultra low budget, but we hope we end up competing with projects with 100x our budgets. Check out the pilot at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k92DwLF009E&feature=plcp

We're talking about short films. I know some people actually putting together a 10 minute movie that they want to spend $10k to make. I don't get it. They keep talking about these expensive HD cameras and $1000 lighting packages and paying their actors and crew all kinds of money for a 10 minute movie. And they've been trying to get the money for this for over a year now. I would have shot the thing and moved on to the next project long ago. It's really silly to think that someone needs that kind of money to shoot a movie that could made over the course of a few days. You don't need a lot of money to make a good movie.

No offense Thomas, but that's the thing... $1000 a day to shoot on an Epic, average... Say you are shooting 5 days, that's $5k that could be spent in front of the camera instead of "the camera". I'm not a dslr guy, I hate them, but you get a great image with that... Since the movie is shot digitally, I assume it will be projected that way, in which case 4k projection doesn't mean a thing. Say what you will about "Crank: High Voltage", but it was shot on a Canon XH-A1, and the Canon H10... Both of which are 1080. If by chance you are lucky enough to get distribution ( not vod ), but a theatrical release, they will pay for the blow up. So back to my initial point, why would anyone need that much to shot a SHORT???

*shoot

Thomas, I'm sure you're worth every penny, but there are 1000's of very high quality shorts produced without ever paying anyone. Dishing out $1000 a day for someone to work on my short film doesn't mean it's going to be the cream of the crop. I've charged up to $1000 a day to just direct, but only on commercial projects. I would never think of charging that much, if anything, just to shoot a short film. There's so much more that the money could be used for. A good director doesn't mean a good production. It only means the movie will look good. But that's only a fraction of the production. There's sound, editing, visual effects, makeup effects, etc... but I know I don't have to explain all that to you. I would rather see the producers spend some money to put the short on the festival circuit and get my work seen by an audience instead of just their family and friends.

Twenty thousand dollars could go a very long way in the production of a short film, I for one prefer to pay cast and crew as much as possible, even if it is only a slice of a deferred full amount their skills deserve. Insurance is the first thing I pay for because accidents can happen and liability is not something to be ignored. First and foremost a producer should respect and appreciate the skills and contributions of everyone involved in his/her production from the lead to craft services. If you do not respect them why are they on your shoot? I have been asked to do many projects for free and have accepted some and turned down many, burning a bridge would or should have only been possible if I was rude in turning them down, if your ego is so large that you want to hold it against someone who would not give you their skill set for free I suspect you are going to have trouble in this people business. Sometimes we forget that is what the "biz" is, people coming together to create the tangible from imagination and dreams. My sets are crucibles for creative collaboration where everyone has a role to fill so our mutual goal of a successful production can be achieved, while growing and having a good time. With the long hours you have to commit to completing a project isn't it the best idea to have a positive good time while doing it? Respect your crews, respect your cast, respect your craft, pay them what you can and let them know you appreciate the true value of their contributions to the project and that twenty thousand dollars will take you long beyond a short film.

Robert, I think you're missing the point. Yes $20k will go far on a short film, but WHY would you need that much? It's only a short... What are the chances of making any money on it? Slim to none. "It's a way to show skills as a filmmaker"... Wrong answer, it's a way to show how to spend other peoples money. Again Robert, I mean no disrespect, I agree that you should pay your cast/crew, but for $20k, you should at least 1 "A" list actor...

I'm shooting my first real short. I did one of those 24 hour film challenges and it sucked. So, I decided to shoot a two minute short. I did not pay for actors, I used friends and family and some of those have acting skills, some not so much. My lighting sucks. I've rigged stuff myself and it'll have to do. I've spent maybe $50 on lighting. I used a $17 skateboard and swapped in rollerblade wheels. I put it on two 8' long metal channels as a dolly. Worked great. I'm shooting with a Panasonic AG-HMC40. Even though my raw footage looks good I'm pretty sure that this short will NOT win any awards. I'm using this as a learning experience. I'm making all kinds of mistakes, but I'm learning from them and won't make them again. That's why my budget for my two minute short is under $100. I'm sure there are valid reasons for someone to spend big money on a short, one being that you get what you pay for. When my short is done, regardless of how good I think it looks, people will definitely be able to see the 'low budget' feel. Bottom line is that I won't spend big money to learn, have fun, build a reel...it just doesn't make sense for me. It might for someone else, probably someone with lots of money to burn.

Ray, Although we might not agree point by point I doubt if I missed the point, my comments were meant to illuminate the fact that even in short film production certain real world costs must be considered and covered on a professional set. I could have gone down the list of required expenses starting with workers comp, liability insurance, permits, script rights, taxes, costumes, set design, transportation, makeup, hair, payroll, music rights, color grading, editing, gear rentals, sound rerecording mix and so forth that would have to be in place before most “A” list actors would consider working on a short film project with anyone other then a personal acquaintance. It goes without saying I would hope that a budget of twenty thousand dollars would be inclusive of “A” listers on camera, as script supervisors, doing sound, as assistant directors, and as department heads. The “A” listers should be seeded through out your production working shoulder to shoulder with the future “A” listers that are still refining their craft because doing so will certainly increase the chances for more quality in your final product. Both SAG/ AFTRA and the DGA have smaller budget contracts that enable legitimate access to their “A” list talent pools and more short films should take the time to investigate the viability of using those contracts for their productions. My assumption was and is we are discussing professional short film productions and not hobby/ amateur films, for the latter gather your pals and any video capable camera and have fun, for the former getting every penny of that twenty thousand dollars to show on the screen is both your challenge and your goal.

A word of advice to those inexperienced filmmakers who may be following this discussion and are working on their first few shorts... JUST MAKE YOUR FRIGGIN SHORT and stop worrying about raising a butt load of money to shoot it! Worry about learning how the real biz works later. Just go shoot your movie and learn all you can about how to do it. You wouldn't give a brand new $50,000 car to a 16 yr old kid who has never driven before (unless you're just absolutely insane), so why expect to shoot a an award winning short film for $20k or more on your first outing or two as a filmmaker. @Robert, you're talking about getting "A" list celebs to be in a short film. We're not. I can't speak for Ray, since he was the 1 who started the discussion, but I am speaking to everyone out there who actually has realistic goals of shooting a short film and may not have access to "A" listers. You don't need them to make a compelling short that will get noticed by the big shots, anyway. Furthermore, there are lots of celebs who will do a movie for next to nothing or even free if they like the script. I have 2 at the moment who aren't "A" list, but have massive sci-fi followings, many oversees, who have agreed to star in a feature I'm producing for much less than they would normally charge just because they are so in love with the script. I can't go into detail about what they are being paid, but I'll just say that I will have them both for less than $50,000 I know the logistics of movie production, as I'm sure most people here do. And @ Ian... My 1st 26 minute short was made with just $250 (if even that much) and has won several awards since I produced it in 2003. I was just learning, too, and it was an honest effort and the production values were high enough. The reason I won the awards was the way I was able to tell my story, not because of the quality of the movie itself. Everyone is so wrapped up in the idea of having to spend loads of money making a movie, it's ridiculous. And to call someone a hobbyist just because they aren't seeking $20k to shoot a short is a total insult. There are many talented people out there who can't even scrape together 2 pennies, but don't think for a second that they wouldn't be able to produce a short film worthy of competing with against bigger budgeted ones. My 1st $250 movie won its first award at the 2004 New York International Independent Film and Video Festival. I not only showed in New York, but in the Miami, Chicago, Las Vegas and Hollywood legs of the festival, as well. I won Best Horror Short at Las Vegas and when the president of the Fest called me personally to congratulate me, he was in shock when I told him how much I spent to make the movie. My competition were films in the $5k to $35k cost ranges. I was invited to send the movie to Cannes, as well. So, the cost of the movie doesn't mean crap in the long run if you can effectively tell a compelling story that will keep audiences talking about it.

J. Brian, you are the only one who really gets this post! @Robert, I fully understand the cost of making a movie, and a "professional" set doesn't mean we need to spend "Hollywood" dollars. My point is this: WHY spend that much money for a short????

IMO, short films are a way to learn your craft. Nothing more. There is a very high possibility that you won't make any money from it. So, if the story is that good, compelling, needs to be told, etc.... Write it as a feature and save your $20k for that!

I believe it is all about where you are in your career. Some people have the kind of infrastructure it takes to attract money and talent, but that takes years. Most of us have to leverage our talents and work together. It doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg but remember how much time, talent, and money you invest will be evident in the final product.

If you have "what it takes to attract money and talent".... Why would you waste your time on a short?

Mariquita, that is exactly the point. If you are shooting it for " learning the craft, thesis, wanting to see a story told." as you stated, then why waste the money? Especially with all of the digital cameras out there!!!!

I agree with you, Mariquita. For something as important as a thesis, yes. It is wise to spend some good money. But if it's only for the sake of saying "Hey look what I did", it's a little much. After all, a short film is more or less a "Look what I did" project anyway. You're not gonna make lots of money, if any, on it. It seems that there are people who associate "professional" with the notion of spending money. Just because you have lots of money to make a movie, whether feature or short, doesn't make you a pro. I have been paid to work on feature productions that were COMPLETELY unprofessional is every way: the script was complete, incoherent garbage or the producer had no clue what he was doing or the crew couldn't seem to be able to get anything right or the actors were all divas or the editor f*cked up everything in cutting the movie together. The way I see it, shooting a short for that much money is more of a vanity issue than anything else. It's completely foolish to spend that much money to produce something that may never see a return. If your actors and crew demand to be paid, tell them to take a hike. It's a short film. If they are demanding payment, then they don't seem to understand simple economics... if you aren't going to make money back on your product, why would you invest the money on them. I did everything on my 1st 3 movies because I had "crew" who demanded payment. SCREW THEM!!! That was my school of hard knocks... I'm glad they decided not to work with me because I was able to learn every job on my set - sound recording, set design, script supervising, gaffing, gripping, sound design, editing, casting, directing, makeup effects, visual effects, location scouting and management, director of photography, camera ops, etc... So now, as a professional who gets paid to produce or direct, I know if someone is not doing their job correctly and I can jump in and pass on my knowledge to them. Personally, I refuse to produce any short film that is less than 15 minutes long because to me, you can't really sink your teeth into learning how to manage a set with a 2 or 5 minute video. But, that's just me. I like to be able to schedule my call times and allow my AD (if I use one) to learn to make the phone calls and get the callsheets to everyone. I want my crew to feel as though they are really getting the most out of the best they can give me, it's rewarding for all of us. NEWBIES.... don't be afraid to screw up or shoot your first few movies with just a few bucks. So what? There's tons more to film making than just managing money, being able to manage your set and be the boss is just as, if not more, important. If you can't do that, then you're just wasting that $20k anyway. Just learn and do the best you can. Having tons of money at your disposal will not make you a good storyteller because you can't buy talent... either you have it or you don't.

Ask yourself this question. Where is a sold marketplace to sell shorts and recoup funding with a decent ROI? Another question to ask yourself. Why on earth would I expect someone else to pay for my OJT film school education, AKA my short film? Here is where I encourage anyone who decides, over night, that they are a film maker to, a) go to a legitimate film school, or b) get a job on a legitimate signatory set and learn. "Learning" the business of film making on someone elses dime is, well, uncouthe. I hear so many times, "I have to start somewhere, so I am producing my own movie." And that starting point is not getting a film school 101 education, at the expense of someone else. Shorts actually were news reels ran before the feature. Film school students use them to display their discipline and experience gained from schooling. Get the education first, either through schooling or on the job, THEN master your short.

I think there are two things going on here. The first post, I thought was about "why would anyone ever make a short for $20K" Not, if you are starting out, you should raise $20k before you shoot anything. What I'm saying, is yes, there are times when you want to spend $20-100K on a short film. Why? A) because there are Academy Awards for short films. B) It's going to be a lot easier to make an impressive short with funding, than without. If you are making a short to make a feature, or get a job, you want it to be the best it possibly can be. So you want to work with the most talented people. Those people often cost money. This is all after making 20 or 30 or more shorts for no money and learning the craft. I've made a feature for $15,000. I'm making essentially another feature for $10,000. I'm paying something ( a little) to everyone because I respect them all for their time. I wish I had $100,000. The only difference would be the amount I paid everyone, and better CGI. Go out, make lots and lots of shorts. Make a web series. A web series, where you crank out a feature over the course of 10 or 15 episodes is hugely valuable. I learned so much from producing my first web series, "Exit: Stage Left" We had a plan, shot and episode, changed the plan and adjusted when things weren't working. We started with shooting two cameras, and expanded to three when we realized that would speed up the process. Those 2nd and 3rd cameras were manned by people who were just starting out, and they learned a great deal about shooting on the production. And that was all out of pocket expenses and as cheap as we could go. Subway for lunch, bagels for breakfast, and coffee. it can be done. But that's not the only way to do it.

If you want to make a piece of crap, than by all means go ahead and do it. If you want to make something that stands out than you will need a budget. The truth of the matter is, it costs a lot of money to shoot anything of VALUE. If you are going out for a fun little shoot with your friends, than it shouldn't cost much at all. But if you are going to be serious about it, than the whole crew must be paid, locations, craft services, catering, and all the technical equipment needed for a shoot. It costs a lot of money.

$20,000 is a good budget for a worthy short. And yes, we all should be striving to make Oscar worthy work because there already is enough shitty work out there it is getting too saturated.

That the problem. It doesn't take money to make a great short. It takes talent. Someone could have $500K budget for a short, but if they don't know what the hell they are doing, it doesn't matter. Maybe that's what "Hollywood" does, but it's pointless. As I stated previously, if the story is that good, turn it into a feature and use the $20k for that! Say you are shooting for 5 days, if you really need $4K a day doesn't seem very practical. That's the problem with Filmmakers nowadays.... Instead of using creativity, they use money...

I think the problem with filmmakers today is that they all think they can pick up an HD camera and make something people will want to watch. This digital age is a catch-22. Filmmakers can afford amazing cameras like RED for really affordable prices rather than spending $250,000 on an Alexa, but even with a proper camera and accessible editing software; this doesn't qualify one to be a "filmmaker". Even with your sentiments above, no one on the crew would get paid. And who does the editing? If someone owns all the equipment needed and they are doing the editing themselves, than $5,000 might be feasible. My point is, it is a luxury to have a nice budget so everyone can get paid and well fed on set. If you have the skill set and the ability to acquire a crew who will work for free, than by all means go ahead and do it. I had to this before and I have vowed to always pay everyone and get paid myself from now on.

Plus $20,000 for a feature is absurd. Like I mentioned above, unless you would be doing all of the sound, color and timeline editing; you would never find an editor who would work for that long for free. You have to think about it, a true independent feature needs at the very least 30 days of principal photography. That would allow for less than $1,000 per day of filming. Enough to cover food only. What about paying people man? That is another huge flaw with filmmakers these days. They don't want to work for free, but they want everyone to work for free for them. I wouldn't touch a feature unless it had at the very least $100,000 and that would even be pushing it.

Just reading through some of these comments is disgusting. How can some of these people call themselves filmmakers if they aren't even willing to pay actors? This is why the independent film community gets a bad wrap.

$20,000 for a feature wouldn't be easy, but it could be done. I'm shooting principle photography in 13 days. You can pay cast/crew per day instead of for the whole shoot. Plan your days, know what shots you need, and don't waste time. Just do it. If there is a solid plan in place, cast/crew are dying to work on a great film. As for needing 30 days? Rodriguez shot Road Racers in 11 days, edited himself in 15. El Mariachi was shot over 14 days. Rocky was made in 28 days.

The reason the the Indie film community gets a bad rap is because a lot of times, they take the first draft of a script and shoot it. They wing the whole shoot and cross their fingers and hope for the best. Also, you don't need a "Red" to shoot a movie.

Film making is a collaborative art, if you are doing it all yourself it's because you don't understand the concept, in my humble opinion. My perspective might be a little different from people who have never worked in Hollywood and who think because they can operate a camera or press record on an audio recording device they know it all, you don't. Talent, skill, and creativity of course can not be paid for and delivered in a box to your set, but let's not be completely thoughtless here "Billy Bob's Low Budget Productions" is not vastly more creative then a major studio released feature. You are either dishonest or don't have a clue about the biz if you imagine that your low budget projects with the intern on the "B" camera are far more creative and pleasing to the viewer then the ace studio camera operator with his top of the line camera mounted on his dolly being pulled along the track laid perfectly by the crew, on a set lit by the DP and the gaffers, with an AC pulling focus ever step of the way. In that horse race you are on a burro. So let's not get so impressed with ourselves that we forget reality, having worked both no budget volunteer projects and numerous major studio feature films i respect them both for the different things they are but for those of you who think you are going to win a NASCAR race with that used car you have parked in front of your house cause you are "using creativity" and not money it's not going to happen. The skills you will see demonstrated with mastery on "Big Budget" shoots will make you want to cry, those people are damn good! You'll want to work with and have them work for you. So let us cease with all the nonsense about twenty thousand dollars being wasted on a single short film production, music videos, the good ones can cost way more then that, ad agency commercials that are 30 seconds long cost way more then that. Appreciate the skills of your peers in the biz do not disparage their success.

So Robert Rodriguez doesn't understand the concept? He does everything but act. Or Kevin Smith? Jon Favreau?

There is more than one way to skin a cat. I'd love to have a multi-million dollar budget, but I don't have any rich uncles. There are several people chasing Hollywood, begging to get in. Instead of begging to get in, let yourself in. Make the best with what you have and have them knocking on your door instead of the other way around.

Ray perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong, please link the Robert Rodriguez film where his name is the only one listed in the credits, besides the actors, I must have missed that film. If you can not simply acknowledge the fact that perhaps some concepts do honestly elude you.

I never said you needed a Red. It is just a nice touch to a production. I am a huge fan of Red Epic and that is what I just shot a comedy pilot on.

Robert, I think we are thinking alike. I love larger productions where a person has 1 (maybe 2) jobs to complete. This makes for more solid production where people can focus on their tasks rather than 5 or 6 other people's jobs. Appreciation of jobs from PA's to Dp's and Directors is where the indy film community lacks.

Robert, just about every Rodriguez film was written, directed, edited, camera operated, scored.... Obviously you need cast/crew... I'm not saying you don't. I gave you examples of what has been done. Sean, so what you are saying is that having a Red will increase production value?

Also, Sean... What if you don't have rich uncles to give you money to make your movie? If you are the writer, why can't you also be the editor? Director?

Yes. A Red will increase production value. It looks better than most any camera out there and just by stamping that your project was shot on Red gives it more credibility in the producing world. Thank you Laura! Exactly my sentiments. People deserve to be paid fairly. If you don't have rich uncles to "give you money" you need to show people you have good scripts. Maybe you will option a few and get a better name as a screenwriter. This business isn't about hand outs. It is about investments. If you get people to believe in your work as a writer, director, etc. etc. they will want to hire you or give you money for your projects. You won't be turning any heads with a $20,000 feature, but hell; prove me wrong.

So what everyone is saying is that they are in it for the money? Not for the passion of movie making? What if you need to, ( don't have rich relatives, or friends ), why not make the best movie you can for the lowest amount possible?

I do not mean to sound harsh so kindly excuse my sometimes too direct style of saying things, Ray I truly admire an indy producer who maximizes what ever sometimes meager resources they have to complete their vision. I hope on that we can all agree, just doing it is better then waiting for the cash to get a better camera, or an expensive RF mic. That being said while there is no shame in working with lesser resources it in no way makes you better then those who toil with the best gear and large budgets. Let's be honest for all of us who multi-task on productions, it's the rare day when we can give 100% to all the hats we have to wear. Working with other talented skilled people allows the overall competence of a shoot to increase, film making is a collaborative art!

Bellflower was turning heads.... at $17,000. Paranormal Activity was turning heads.... at $15,000..... Christopher Nolan was turning heads with Following... at $6,000

I am a very passionate person and I do work with people for free if there is a project that I believe in, but in the end; I have two kids, a wife, a mortgage, and bills to be paid. I love films and filmmaking. I make it a point to study 3 to 5 new films a week, I am constantly writing, collaborating on new projects, etc. etc. There is nothing wrong with getting paid well for something you love to do. Thanks for pointing that out Robert! I agree 100%!

You are absolutely correct Sean. WHEN I make it to the point of making serious money at it, I will bring along those who helped to support me along the way!

Ray, then go make the next one of those movies. If you can make a feature length for under $20,000; then all the more power to you. I don't see in any way how it could be done now a days.

As for the RED... I'm not a fan. I shot a local commercial with the Epic and wasn't impressed with the camera at all. Who cares if it shoots 4k? More than likely it will be shown digitally, in which case that's 2k....

That is where I am at too Ray. I have people who have worked with me on many shitty low budget commercial shoots, shorts, pilots. I too, can't wait to make it big and get paid well for making amazing film!

I see the problems with the Red you are pointing out. I absolutely love the camera and would use it again in a heartbeat.

Finally, we agreed on something! LOL!

The cool thing about convos like this is no one loses their cool. Too many times I get into discussions (not arguments) with people and they just get angry and shut you out. Thanks for sticking around for some actual dialogue. That is another problem with many artists and filmmakers, they are stuck in their ways. It is always good to listen through peoples points of views (non political in my opinion) and go from there.

Ray Rocky might have been shot in 28 days but having been one of the people involved in the post production of that film in my MGM Studios staff days I can assure you it took considerably longer to make "Rocky" then 28 days. I just love it when myth and lore smash head long into actual eye witness hands on experience!

I would love to see the same passion expressed for paying everyone required to make a film as there is pride in how many people could be induced to work for free in the independent film community. In the long run it would make for more and better films as more and more people would be able to earn a living doing what we love. I am not suggesting "Hollywood" budgets for every production but if you can't scrape together pay and legitimate deferred payment for your crew and cast you just might be more flim flam then filmmaker.

Robert, as for Rocky... I meant principle photography. That's coming from Stallone's mouth in the special edition DVD.... No one said work for free... but isn't deferred payment considered "free" in most indie films? What I mean is that it's rare to see any type of profit from an indie. I have a friend who has a couple features that have been picked up for distribution, however: he still has yet to ROI his investor. I'll tell you what. Give me a couple weeks and I'll send you the link to my indiegogo campaign, ( still working behind the scenes ) and tell me what you think! Am I crazy? Have I lost my mind? Or am I that insane that I just might be genius? Sean, I too love it! As THEE anti-dslr guy... I can sure stir up some things! LOL! But, unlike some, I listen to everyone's opinions and thoughts... That's how we all learn and grow as filmmakers.

Well said Brad! LOL!

I have a 10 k short going... yes, I could do it for 3 k, it won't look the way I want it to look, but it could be done.

I agree with you, and I'm assuming you're getting those numbers from kickstarter/indiegogo projects. Those are mostly pipe dreams anyways, most kickstarter projects do not get funded, it's more of a "I dream" and they like to dream big.

@Laura, I have seen several SAG actors who are, well; they suck.... But they are considered professional. So yes, it's a waste. As for a producer raising money, that is true... but how do you raise money for your first feature? That you wrote and will direct, and edit????????? The money isn't there for those people. So, we make the best we can with a tight budget.

LB, this wasn't meant for you... You're my favorite Stage 32er!!!!!

I directed a lovely short for less than $100. It can be done; there's no doubt about that. However, I have also produced shorts with budgets of $8,000 and $17,000. It seems that your budget increases exponentially with the scale of your production. The first we shot on a 5D mkII, and the second one we shot on an Arri Alexa. That meant a pretty significant jump in price (camera package plus insurance) for a small increase in video quality. Also, as your crew grows bigger on every production, that means more of your budget is going towards crew stipends, and if you are also paying to relocate those people and house them, it adds up. My next big production will be a short period piece which we are filming in Pittsburgh in Fall 2013. I am aiming for a budget of $40,000. Could I do it for less? Yes. So why such a big budget for a short? Because I want the best for my film, and I like the challenge.

Laura, obviously you audition, and pick the best. There are A LOT of talented actors/crew members who aren't "professional" by you standards; however, everyone has to start somewhere. I don't think Tom Cruise started out making $20 million a movie. When a filmmaker uses money as a way to solve a problem on the set, that's a waste of money. As Brad stated above, "What one person can pull off for 5k may look like sorcery. Another team can waste $500k and have nothing to show for it." Don't take it so personal, it wasn't directed at you. There are many filmmakers who can make a smaller budget look big! That's the point, take what you can and make it the best you can with what you have or have access to. Jon Faverau filmed the movie "Made" on $5 million, a small budget by "Hollywood" standards. Kevin Smith pulled in "Red State" for $4 million... again, a small budget. Nicolas, I'm glad someone here stated that an expensive camera package isn't much better than what most of us have access to! However; for your period short, you stated that you wanted a challenge? How about shooting it for half? That's a challenge!

I produced my first two comic film shorts for $500 each. Worked with grad film students, who were all building their demo reels and happy to be part of it. Actors worked for free. Now, I'm going to be releasing a film short that might be groundbreaking. Produced for $2000, and everyone is thrilled. If it's a good project everyone benefits, so doesn't have to be expensive.

Hot damn I missed a bunch! I went to go watch "Argo" tonight and will have a review up by tomorrow for the film. Laura, I am beginning to like you even more! Ray, I think the point a few of us have been trying to make is, that you can't do low budget and not pay people a respectable rate. That is why bigger budgets trump smaller budgets. Yes, we can look at films like "Half Nelson" which was shot on $700,000 and say "wow, what an accomplishment", but in the long run, why does everyone have so much animosity towards projects that have bigger budgets?? Is it Envy? What is it? A bigger budget, 935% of the time will result in a better overall production. And yes I made up that percentage.

Ditto Laura. Also, if you make a damn good short film, a studio might want a feature length and give you an actual budget. Take a look at District 9. Started off as a short scene from the film and Peter Jackson took it into a studio for a feature length. Making a great short is better than making a nearly impossible, non crew paying feature length.

Laura, would you work on a project for a small/reduced rate if you LOVED the script? Or knew that it could be your break? Or to work with filmmakers who were passionate about a project? The problem with people in the "INDUSTRY" is that they all think the same. You have to have this, you can't do that, that won't work..... Since I am the writer/director/producer/editor, I have broken down the script and planned it so that my main cast is getting an agreed upon day rate up front, as well as a deferred rate. The actors are all scheduled for 5 days each. Not a lot of time at all, but because I have already storyboarded the movie, and I am the editor as well, I don't need to waste time getting coverage shots or retakes. I'll get what I need and move on. So, the cast isn't working for "free". Everyone involved in this film WANTS to be a part of it because they believe in the script, and they believe in my vision and what I am going to do with this film. Being in Florida, away from the madness of Hollywood is great because there are so many talented people here who can't afford to move to Cali, or go to Miami to try and get work. Those passionate, driven, talented people want to know that they can be a part of a project like this. And they are excited for this movie. As far as "crew" goes, I am using a very small crew, and because they believe in this movie, they are working for a small up front rate, and deferred. Also, everyone on my crew was picked because they doing more than one job. Because they want to help keep the costs down in order to see this movie come to life. My DP is also my Gaffer. My audio guy is also my post audio guy. One of my lead actresses is also working grip. My Producer is also the script supervisor. As far as PA's go, I have talked to the local college, and they are going to provide "Digital Media" students to help, and it counts as credit for them. Being the writer/director/editor/and doing the special fx, I have been able to save money there because I am not getting paid for my part in this! That's how much I believe in this movie. Is this the "Hollywood" way? Is this the right way? Absolutely not, but being this is my first feature, no one is busting down my door with a million dollar check. So, instead of chasing Hollywood dreams, I'll make movies they best way that I can, and make Hollywood come to me.

Sean, why do you assume the crew isn't getting paid?

What about the other factors which I stated? Love of the material? or believe in the project? You didn't respond to those, only the "big break" statement.... For one, it's non-union, and the people involved WANT to be a part of this... Have even said, I'll do it for no pay because I love the script... But I wouldn't agree to that, so a figure was agreed upon. How am I taking advantage of them if I'm not even getting paid? As far as back end being non-existent, I agree with you there, which is why I scheduled them for 5 days only. 5 days isn't a lot of their time, and it's a chance for them to work on a project they believe in. And it doesn't take them away from other projects either. Here locally, there isn't a large number of films being made. So it's not like anyone is sacrificing another 'higher paid gig" to work on this.... I would love to eat and pay my bills as well for my professional work, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices to get to that point.

Let me clarify then and agree with Laura's sentiments. The crew wouldn't be getting paid fairly on a $20,000 nor would they be eating healthy meals on set. Doing something for the love of the project is great if you can sacrifice that for yourself, but other people (including myself) work in the industry for a living and thus need to be paid a reasonable rate. Like I mentioned prior to, I have two children, a wife, a mortgage, etc. that I can't sacrifice anymore. If I was single and lived in a shitty apartment, I could understand the desire to work for free (or little to nothing pay) for the love of the project.

I understand about getting paid fairly, I was in the Army for 10 years! LOL! As far as eating healthy meals on the set, I have an agreement with a local caterer to handle the means, she is giving me a reduced rate, because I am a veteran. I am only shooting for 13 days. SAG rate for ultra low budget actor is $268 a day/ $933 for a week (5 Day).... So, if you give the actor $200 a day up front and defer the rest, how is that taking advantage of them?

The great thing about low budget filmmaking is that everyone works together as a family, as opposed to "it's a job". We all want to get paid the big bucks, but are willing to make sacrifices to get to that point. Take Kevin Smith's "Clerks" for example... Shot in film for $27,000.... Made him a household name... He was then able to pay the cast/crew what they deserved. Also, it allowed him to use them again in different projects that had real budgets.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

We all have to start somewhere.

It appears to me Laura, that it doesn't matter what the pay is, because if it doesn't fall into your idea of "decent" pay, then it's taking advantage of the cast/crew. As I stated earlier, we will just have to agree to disagree. Not a big deal. You are right, " Kevin Smith there are thousands of 20K productions that go nowhere. That don't get distribution, don't get into film festivals. Don't do anything. So all that deferred money never comes to fruition. " So then, a short film made at $20k will??????????? Again, that's the mentality of Hollywood, make your movie for $10 million, dump $50 million into P&A.... I highly suggest you listen to Kevin Smith's Red State Sundance speech. It puts everything you are saying into perspective. By the way, it took 7 years for Clerks to see a profit! 7 years! Doesn't sound like a well thought out plan by the "Industry Professionals".... 7 years to see a profit on a $27k movie! How do you know that I don't have the next Clerks? Or am the next Kevin Smith? You don't even know me, or what it has taken to get my script to the point it's at now. Who says I even care about distribution, or doing a festival run for my film?

Again, as I have stated in previous posts, we have to agree to disagree. There is nothing wrong with that. Bellflower was made for $17k and picked up distribution. I have a friend in L.A. that made a feature for $10k, and it picked up distribution. This friend also gets paid to rewrite scripts and told me not to change a thing on my script. As far as distribution for my film, I have a different plan that I am not going to go into at this time. Let's just say, it's not the "traditional way for an indie film". Meaning, I'm not going sending it out to festivals. There is a such thing as self distribution. Again, as far as being compensated for your work, well let's just say that you keep buying your Bentley's, and I'll stick to my Chevy, until I can afford Bentley's. Both of them will get you from point A to point B, one is just WAY over-priced!

Also, my friend from L.A. shot his movie over 10 days.

Ray further up the production food chain if everyone has your attitude about giving the least amount possible how does independent film making every evolve beyond hobby status? If you are not making enough to pay your crew & cast a living wage you are unafraid to quote here in public I'd venture to say that you're not making any money at film making. Instead of railing against the "Hollywood" mentality when would you tell someone that their dreams perhaps way surpasses their abilities? There is so much more to making films then point light & focus. Managing the business part is every bit as important as having a good script, crew, and cast. The allure of being an indy producer sometimes blinds people to the cold harsh facts of life, in a competition with some of the most creative innovative and risk taking people on the planet, the filmmaker who scorns what is good for the industry, good for his employees, and good for his project more then likely does not have a promising future imo.

As stated earlier Robert, I will be shooting my FIRST feature.

I'm not railing against Hollywood mentality. I am saying that there are different ways to get the same effect. While some people need a lot of money to do it, some people don't. Brian Taylor and Jason Neveldine shot Crank 2 using a Canon XH-A1. Not an expensive camera, but being a filmmaker also means having to be innovative, or using other methods to accomplish your goal.

and I don't call myself an indie producer. I am a Writer/Director.

Ray would I be wrong in thinking you fundamentally don't get the whole "we are the industry" concept? I read that your interest in screenwriting was triggered by your watching a bootleg copy of a film, piracy is a disease that steals from everyone trying to make a living in this biz. I don't watch bootleg films, to me it represents theft pure and simple. Although when they are offered to me, as they all to often are, I do take some pleasure in the look of surprise on their faces when I tell them I work in the business and i'm one of the people they are stealing from also. I'm not saying we can change attitudes overnight, but as the "Filmmakers" we have to start by insisting that we pay our employees. Because when you try and negotiate the distribution for that twenty thousand dollar feature you shot without paying people the distributor will at best peg you as a one shot with a cheap product he might make some cash off. That means crumbs from the table and no chance to pay the deferred salaries.

Robert, I was stationed in Germany, deployed to Kosovo, guarding mass grave sites for UN forces to dig up the sites. Excuse me if I couldn't run to Walmart and pick up a copy. And I don't know where you keep getting that no one is getting paid. All fees are agreed upon by the cast/crew. Again, Robert Rodriguez shot El Mariachi for $7000..... was that a cheap movie? ASure it was inexpensive to make, but I wouldn't call it cheap. The production value was relatively He told his story, with the resources he had available to him. Did any of you receive the type of pay that you are now getting when you were first starting out? I didn't think so.

We all have to start somewhere. If you all are so concerned about my project, I suggest you come on as a Producer and raise the amount of money you believe necessary to make sure the cast/crew are paid enough, as well as deliver a great flick. If not, then don't try to speak as if you all are better than anyone else here. Put your money where your mouth is! This is a networking site where we can all learn from each other. I don't care if you have been in the industry for 100 years, you should still be learning. We all are here to learn from each other, not put each other down and try to discourage someone from accomplishing their goals...

That's the reason everyone thinks it's so hard to get in, because everyone tries to make them believe it is.

Chirp. Chirp. And then there was silence.

Ray my intention is not to put you down. You are laboring under some of the same common misconceptions about the industry as many other people do. It is hard to get into the industry because like any other desirable thing there are only so many seats on the bus. I was trying to convey to you that this is a people business, a collaborative art that functions best in my opinion when everyone making a contribution to the project is appreciated and fairly compensated. You pointed to a project that took seven years to see a profit and I find that outrageous. When you sit down with a completed feature I hope you will demand a fair and timely schedule to reach profitability that is far shorter then seven years. Talent and creativity are things you may have been blessed with, I certainly hope so, nonetheless exchanging ideas with your peers here in an industry forum is a lot less intimidating then negotiating with a distributor, toughen your skin up some. I want you to be a successful filmmaker, not just another person who believes the stories about Hollywood and thinks he has to be as cold hearted as many have been by exploiting the creative community in pursuit of the all mighty dollar. As the current generation of filmmakers I hope we demonstrate that it is possible to exploit talent without exploiting the talented.

Robert, my point for bringing up a film that took 7 years to profit is because the Hollywood way of doing things doesn't work for indie film in the same way. I pointed it out because it is outrageous. It was picked up for distribution, and the industry professionals dumped millions into P&A for the theatrical release. Dumping millions into a $27k movie is silly. As for distribution, I'm not going the typical route. I am self distributing. I'll send you a private message and explain, as I'm not ready to release the info here, just yet. I am not exploiting the creative community in pursuit of the all mighty dollar as you put it. I've already said that in order to keep the budget low I am not getting paid. That's for writer/director/editor/and special fx.... Those who are with me now, will be with me when I do make it. Not if, WHEN.

Well we both agree that seven years is an outrage. Dumping millions into a twenty seven thousand dollar film can indeed make sense so I might have to disagree with you. Print costs for wide distribution, advertising, promotional tie ins, could easily justify that kind of an investment. But my point would be the filmmaker should have demanded to be made whole for the value the distributor placed on the film in the negotiations, imo that was a mistake on the part of whoever represented the filmmaker. However if both the filmmaker and the distributor made money at the end of the day it is hard to say that the money invested was silly.

Guys... you both have very valid and passionate points. But we're way off of the point of the discussion. Let's take off the gloves and part as friends with varying opinions. People who have a vested amount of time and experience in then industry can't expect everyone trying to break into the industry to understand where they're coming from... just as those of us trying to break in can't expect the experienced to get it, either. Just because we aren't as far up the chain as others doesn't mean we don't get it. We just understand that there are many different ways of getting there and we are only following the paths of those who have paved the way. Not everyone can go to film school or move to LA. We are taking the route that we've seen others map out, and if it worked for them, it's bound to work for a few more. Kevin Smith, Robert Rodriguez and others like them are inspirations to those of us struggling to make our mark and carve out the path for others to follow. There is no right or wrong way to get in. Criticizing the way some are doing it is counterproductive. I can understand where Robert is coming from having been associated with unions and the industry for so long, but I can also sympathize with Ray's plight, too, because I'm down here in the trenches with him trying to get a foothold in the industry that Robert so proudly represents. However, just imagine if someone had barked at Smith or Rodriguez for doing their way all those years ago before they made their first films. Would they be where they are today or would they have become discouraged?

Laura, it was a metaphor. Big budget vs. small budget. Everyone is getting paid at least $100 per day. To keep the costs down, I'm only shooting for 13 days.

Ray, For most people seeking that kind of money for a basic short, I would lay it up to the lack of creative ability and lean towards them just being just too lazy to bother with working the process. This is often the type of thinking that ends up with an over bloated productions and committee ways of producing, which all too often ends up with a giant, expense, over produced, piece of crap that the talent has to drag behind them to try and make fly. Truly sad, but all too often happens with those that are ingrained into thinking along those lines.

Wow. Scott, have you ever been on a successful large budget shoot? They run very efficiently and money doesn't buy you a good film, but it gets you a solid crew of experienced filmmakers. Maybe read some of the previous posts.

"Self-criticism nigga" BOOK OF JEAN PIERRE JAIR BUY THE EBOOK ON GOOGLE SMASHWORD https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/231244 Haiti was the greatest power in the world BOOK BY JAIR JEAN PIERRE BUY THE EBOOK ON SMASHWORD AND GOOGLE https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/231228 "Haïti était la plus grande puissance du monde" LE LIVRE DE JAIR JEAN PIERRE ACHETER LE LIVRE SUR SMASHWORD ET GOOGLE https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/231219 "Love explosif Israël et Palestine" ENFIN LA PAIX LE LIVRE DE JAIR JEAN PIERRE ACHETER LE LIVRE SUR SMASHWORD ET GOOGLE https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/229544

Sean, Before you ask a question like that you should find out a bit about the person by looking at there profile. I have been on hundreds, as a matter of fact, since I've been in the industry for over 30 years. Both in front of and behind the camera. There is too often a massive amount of waste and lack of forward thinking. As too good crew, often that has nothing to do with the waste of money, rather it is the producer/director who lead the production down the financial path to hell. Yet, I have seen plenty of experienced people waste a ton of money as well.

To be fair, Scott, your profile page clearly doesn't showcase "hundreds" of LARGE budget shoots nor does it reflect 30 years in the industry. So, my fault indeed for assuming something with my direct question. Yes, there are productions that "Waste" money on a project, but for every project there wastes money; there is a few that will succeed. People forget to realize that this industry is all about investments, very much like the stock market. People on the Stage 32 site, as well as Indie filmmaking in general, are so anti-Hollywood and it is annoying. Let me leave everyone on the thread with a quote that should explain my process of thinking. I am all for Hollywood as a structure and it obviously has proven itself over the course of the years by being one of the most successful industries in the world. "Hollywood is still the mecca for good or bad, but it isn't the beginning or end for filmmaking." ~Robert Duvall Sorry for the delayed comment. I spent the day with my son and took him to a Seattle Seahawks game (which they beat the Patriots).

And Jair Jeane Pierre, What the fuck does your post have to do with anything? I am going to send your comment to the administrators.

I believe in shooting your movie as a filmmaker it's never a bad idea to shoot with whatever budget you have. As for distribution or getting someone to buy the movie, then, yes, you need to have a realistic budget -- depending on what you're shooting. Here your experience is important, because you know for which market or target audience you're making your movie. So by all means shoot at whatever budget you have.

I went out of my way and took the time to email one of the "professionals" here and have yet to receive a response. Let's me know that not all professionals are as professional as they claim. I'll just continue to do things my way!

Being one of the "professionals" you took the time to email on the weekend I feel safe in responding to your published cheap shot. #1 The fact that I have been paid to work on films & television programs for perhaps longer then you have been alive is not something I am ashamed of. I hope that someday your skills will allow you to be a "Professional" and not just another wannabe angry flim flam indy hobbyist with dreams of taking Hollywood by storm. #2 The "ways" that you reject aka the "Hollywood" way has created thousands of films and billions of dollars in revenue, unless I have misread your statements you've not made even one feature, and you are not able to pay full salaries to even a tiny film crew. #3 Attitude does not equal ability. I have lived long enough to know the difference between hope and hard work. #4 Popularity amongst those who do not have a legitimate clue has never been a goal of mine. That being said i wish you the best of luck with your reinvention of the film industry!

Everyone has to start somewhere. Agree to disagree. No, I haven't made one feature yet. Spent a good portion of my youth serving in the US Army. Now I could have gotten out and started making crappy movies, but I decided to work on my craft by working with other filmmakers on their sets as an actor, producer, PA.... and learning as much as I could. That way, when I was ready, I would make a great movie. I don't reject Hollywood, if you did go back and read my posts, you would see that I don't believe in doing things the way Hollywood does on a low budget film. By the way, I too have been paid to work on films in the recent years. I wish this was a hobby, then I'd have more time with my family. It's not even a passion, it's a must. As far as "reinvention" of the film industry, well that isn't the case. I am taking knowledge from fellow filmmakers who have gone the festival route, and gotten distribution. If everyone took the same path, at some point, it would bottleneck and hold up traffic. Still trying to get to the same place, just taking a different route.

Wonderful comment Robert! I hear too often on this site, anti-Holywood rhetoric, and how the www is going to change how film is done for the Indies. I have, time and time again, admonished that there is a business model in Hollywood, and that it is open to anyone who dares. I have assessed that most of the folks here shooting shorts on crowdfunding have not gotten familiar, nor intimate with the history of cinema, nor understand it is a business industry, first off. And forbid anyone with some experience attempt to tell them differently. Because then they want to attempt character assasination. Good job! And like you, I also am not here after a popularity contest, nor a pissing match. Cheers! Folks, Robert is another Old Schooler! Might want to take care and listen up. He used a word in his comment twice......WORK!! And I will add to it, DISCIPLINE and SACRIFICE.

Great! As a VETERAN, I know all about work, discipline and sacrifice!

Agree totally. Just shot a teaser trailer for a feature, the scene runs about 3-4 mins, total cost about $200, most of which was for zombie make-up and pizza!

Finally! Some people who think outside the box! Here's a little joke about Hollywood as told by Robert Rodriguez: A young couple is making ham and the wife is cutting all the edges off. So the husband says, "Why do you cut the sides off of the ham before you bake it? It seems so wasteful". The wife responds, "I don't know, that's the way my mother always did it. Let's go ask my mom." "Why do you cut off all the ends of the ham". "Mother says, "I don't know, that's what my mom always did." So they ask the grandma, "Why did you cut all the ends off the ham before you baked it?". She replies, "That's the only way I could get it to fit in the pan back then." Sometimes in Hollywood, things are done because that's the way they've always been done. Not realizing there are different ways of doing things.

Basically, quit questioning "tradition" and start embracing "technology".

Money is the duck-blind for no talent.

Ray, allow me to pose a question. IF the banks, studios, theaters thought it necessary to re-invent the business model they would have done so by now, correct? It is not a matter of questioning tradition, it is not a matter of "I don't know, let's ask grandma.", either. There is a functioning business model that has been in place, and still is there to this day. I will present this model as a wheel with a hub, six spokes and the rim. The hub is Hollywood, the six spokes to that hub are the banks, studios, theaters, Bond Co.'s, Guilds and Unions. The wheel cannot be re-invented. The system is in place, has been, and will be. What one can re-invent, or expand upon is what the whell can move. Embrace technology, but when it comes to entertainment, thank the Porn industry for digital advances in cinema. Sony Beta Cams? The Porn industry was the first to utilize them. My point is this. Embrace the business model and embrace new emerging technologies along with it. Believe me, it works and when others see and are aware that you are moving along with it, you are given more credibility, as one that "gets it". You get the "nod" from folks. The new technologies and world wide web will never change the business model practices and applications. they just make budgets more flexible and accommodating.

Daniel, I never said anything about changing the business model. What I said was, as "low budget indie filmmakers", we can't follow the same game plan. For their business model, it makes sense. Make your movie for $20 million, dump another $50 million into P&A, and get people into the seats. That's a perfect plan if you have $70 million. Until I can make a movie with those type of budgets, I am going to blaze my own trail. Does it mean that I loath Hollywood? Or people in Hollywood? Or Professionals who work there? Absolutely not. I spend just as much as everyone else going to enjoy the movie in a theater. Your analogy was a perfect example of cutting the edges off the ham, it consists of an old wagon wheel. And that's fine for those large budgets, but I'd rather have Z rated, radial tires mounted on 17 inch wheels. As for embracing the business model, I absolutely will, when I get there. Until then, I'm embracing Guerilla filmmaking and those individuals who have proved that you don't have to be sheep.

I'll give you an example. I could take my truck to a mechanic to do the brakes. They charge me parts and labor, and tell me that my tie rods and shocks are bad. Now I owe them $1500 in repairs. That's fine for someone who has enough money to afford that, but luckily.... I am a mechanic and can change my own brakes, shocks and tie rods. I just saved about $1200 doing the same job!

I've been on a shoot the past week and am currently attending a festival I'm speaking at tomorrow, but I thought I would jump in here comment. I remember when I felt the exact same way as Ray. I no longer feel that way. It's extremely common to enter a market and say, I can make that video or movie for way less than the established guys can. But then you start looking at the real costs of doing the work. How much is your time worth? For me, my time is much better off spent shooting or writing than it is fixing my car. I'm not an expert at fixing cars. It would take me a long time to do and eventually would cost me more in time than just getting it fixed with an expert. Those costs add up. yes people will work for $100 a day. I've done it. At one point in my career $100 day to do PA work was awesome. I could pay my rent and continue working on other projects. Now that I have a lot more experience, my time is worth more than that. I want to work with people who have experience. I want to hire the expert. I don't want to hire the guys who don't know anything and have lots of time on their hands. Food costs money. I try not to have people on my set that will get in the way, or not be fully up to speed on what has to be done. I need my P.A.s to be thinking ahead, seen these situations before, and not standing around asking what can they do to help. To get that level of talent you have to pay. With that said, it's hard not to fall into that, "i can do this" trap. I'm working on visual effects, both supervision and the actual hands on doing it part. It's taken me a long time just to get a minor amount of skill. It pushed the release of Magehaven back further than we wanted. But, not that I've done it, and continue to do it, I'm getting better and faster. But even on set, I can't do the VFX supervision and be the cinematographer and camera operator. it's too much work at the same time. I can be the cinematographer and vfx, if I can trust my Gaffer and my Cam Op to be skilled and talented. But then I need an Assistant Camera to be johnny on the spot, with the camera setting and reading, height, f-stop, lens, tilt, etc. So, I guess, I hear you, I understand, and sometimes I feel the same way. (VFX,) Other times, I know i just have to pay an expert. Each of us here has their expertise. We need to work together to get projects made. So, if there is an executive producer out there with $100,000, I've got a web series for you!

Guys I have been a producer for 36 years the money raised is the money needed in the budget. its 20 grand cuz of cg's or 2 grand cuz it's 20 min's of talking it is what it is

Thomas, thank you. I think you get it. I'm not saying that I want to fix my own brakes, but I can, saving me a crapload of money. WE ALL HAVE TO START somewhere, and you did too. NOW you can have the luxury of saying, sorry I can't work on this project for "x" amount of money. But being away from Cali.. ( I was born and raised in L.A. so I'm not knocking it ) you can get away with so much more in terms of "production value". I live in Florida. My backyard is literally Tampa Bay. I have the Gulf about 15 minutes away. People come here to vacation.

Wow... I don't log on to the site for several days and when I come back, you are all STILL ripping on Ray about this? Give it a damned rest people. You're all trying to make a point that none of us are ignorant to. It's pretty obvious that most of you believe that the only people who should allowed to make movies are the ones who can afford to. That's Bullsh*t. Take a hint from Daniel Myrick & Eduardo Sanchez... for those of you are totally ignorant as to who they are... they gave us The Blair Witch Project for about $35,000 and changed the landscape of indie film production. Do ya think those actors got paid during the production? Perhaps fed and given a stipend for gas, but the bulk of the money that went into production was for camera cost, film stock, etc.Whether or not you liked the movie doesn't matter, what matters is that they went and did it. I wonder what you all would have said to them if they had brought this topic up before they made that movie. You probably would have ripped on them and their methods... and you know what? They would have laughed their a**es all the way to the bank right in front of all of you with a measly little $35,000 movie that made a $500 million return. Get off you high horses and soapboxes and leave the issue alone. I am putting together a $2.2 million dollar production right now, and yes, I believe people should be paid, too. But until I get the money for this project, do you think lack of funding is gonna stop me from making another one? Think again. Bottom line is, there are those that believe in doing it the Hollywood way and those that are going to do it the Guerilla filmmaker's way. Just let it go.

Ah the fabled "Blair Witch Project" once again floats to the surface of a filmmaking discussion. I was very tuned in to that project because at the time I had been the only person to cut a feature on the Media 100 edit system when that pic came out also cut on the Media 100 so we rebels not cutting on Avid were pulling for it to do well. It's ROI was incredible for the distributor, for the filmmakers i'm not so sure, but I do not know so I can only speculate. How much do you suspect they actually earned? I have not followed their careers did their film making expertise continue in the next few films they have made? Have they made anymore films? a successful film is always a plus on a film makers resume but for investors to pony up their hard held cash they often look for people with the demonstrated skills to manage a budget and deliver a quality product on time. I suspect that is the unfair hurdle that really talented guerilla filmmakers can't always show in advance that they can pass. I suspect that is a contributing factor in why some clearly talented indy filmmakers often go unfunded, the filmmaking skills are evident but the management skills are not. Honestly you need multiple skill sets to be a filmmaker who can attract solid investors. Being able to manage the money is just as important as being able to direct a cast and crew, and it all has to be handled from pre-production thru the festival circuit and hopefully into advertisement for theatrical release.

They didn't make much on the first one but did well on 2. 4 is really getting panned.

Robert, have you heard of Christopher Nolan? James Cameron? Kevin Smith? Brian Taylor? Jason Neveldine? Sofia Coppola? Darren Aronofsky? Spike Lee? And, last but certainly not least, the one and only Robert Rodriguez? That is just to name a few "really talented guerilla filmmakers".... and they "show in advance that they can pass"..... I "suspect" that until you can prove that you can carry a film, "some clearly talented indie filmmakers often go unfunded." So, how does someone start to be able to prove themselves? It's the whole catch 22 thing. But never fear, I'm not asking ANY ONE of you to work on my movie, so you don't have to worry about MY budget. If the people attached to my movie didn't agree to the terms, they could have said no, just as you all have done. If I offend any of you because I don't think like you do.... too bad. If I offend any of you because "back when I was a kid, we used to....." blah, blah, blah.... Well, I'd apologize, but it wouldn't be sincere. All of this negative time spent on this post could have been used to ENCOURAGE people to be who they are and go for it. Instead you all have proved my point about Hollywood's traditions. Those of you who are "there" say, you can't do this, or that.... and those of us trying to get "there" agree with me. This post was posed a simple question, that obviously only a handful could answer. I'm not great with good-bye's, so.... I'LL SEE YOU AROUND!

*This post posed a simple question...

who cares? there is no absolute template for inspiration, talent, perseverance and DRAMA.

Well,well,well! If you put all these comments together,share out the different characters,shoot it in wonderful HD iPhone with a 'Wow' lens on a Greyhound 8 hour bus ride,edit it with iMovie during the trip on a laptop and punch in your Vimeo codes to see it 'Liked' by thousands before you get off the bus! So what's the price of a Greyhound bus ride these days?.......and that's your budget. Of course you could rent the bus for the shoot,or squat one and simply put up blue or green screens around it....or forget the bus and shoot it in your living room,no cut that,in the toilet;lights = one bulb,sound = echo,make-up = sweat,editing = one take,actors = Ray,Mark,Billy,Robert,Thomas,Daniel,Nick,Donald,Vick,Sean,Scott,Jair,Laura and Brad. Okay,the location might need to stretch the budget to using the bathroom and the toilet,but you've got a film that would hold together in any festival....and it'll get applause! The remaining 9,580 dollars you can transfer to my bank just for the idea,and everyone will be happy!

Reality television is a flash in the pan. Web series and most low budget material will be boring after you have seen it a couple of times. Films will get bigger and the studios will get a tighter grip on the business. Don't stop what your doing. Artists don't care so much about money and you may may be the .001 percent who gets a break. But when I do something I have to make money from it. I live as a film-maker so the deal ... the work has to be right and not "dust in the wind", I'm not saying it's right for everyone but my attitude has made it so I don't have to work at 7-11.

Ray .... you mad bro? My last post was not in anyway negative, perhaps you should reread the word "unfair" and look up it's definition. You seem to enjoy listing filmmakers who have completed indy features as if they are your peers, they are not. You have not joined that club yet. Wannabe does not count and is much closer to groupie. You are so upset that perhaps someone might actually know something that you don't you can't see the forest for the trees. You think it's negative when someone tells you to follow the proven path, you say oh no i'm going to do it the way a few LUCKY filmmakers have done it! You are going on foot over the mountains and all some of us have done is to tell you you can take the train and get there a lot faster and with a much better chance of arriving. But with your machete in hand you want to hack your own trail .... good luck with that. Telling someone proven better ways to accomplish their goals is actually the best way to encourage them, now if they are so hard headed they do not heed advice given I still wish them the best of luck. You can go ahead and carry 10 thousand dollars in pennies up the mountain and i'll still tell you it would be easier just to take a credit card with you instead of the weight of all those copper pennies. But what do i know i'm just a guy who has made a decent living doing this stuff.

If anyone is smart enough to raise 20K for a short film, then they would be far smarter to take that 20K and invest it in Full Sail University and get an education, versus educating themselves while shooting a short film. Common sense is free, folks!

Everyone has there own wa ..y thou .. as always Daniel makes a lot of sense. I'm Dutch and Rembrandt was always broke and many didnt like his style. Van Gogh couldn't live without the support of his brother and people thought his work sucked... until is was dead.

To me educating yourself by making movies is the better way to learn than going to a trade school. Some people (like me) do not do well in school environments. I respect those who need school, but it should be taken ing consideration that not all creative people thrive in school. I have made my sole living in entertainment since I dropped out of high school at age 17. Am I really the exception? Was I not smart to spend all the money I had making short films and not going to Full Sail? Rhetorical questions. I did the far smarter thing by educating myself while shooting a short film. Common sense.

I've said this before, you think your teaching yourself but your teaching yourself how to do everything wrong. I went to hollywood at age 19 got a low job at the studios and lived there 24 hours a day watching learning talking with the masters.

Everyone has their own way thou .. as always Daniel makes a lot of sense. I'm Dutch and Rembrandt was always broke and many didn’t like his style. Van Gogh couldn't live without the support of his brother and people thought his work sucked... until is was dead.

Mark, there is no wrong way to accomplish the same goal.

However, it's extremely likely the wrong way, will stop you from reaching the goal. Let's put square tires are cars. It's totally outside of the mainstream automobile system.

Well, if you wanted to put square tires on a car, you should have taken a different route! You guys make everything so difficult. It's not that hard, you can take a Bentley on a trip, or a Chevy, either way, you'll end up in the same destination!

if you guys spent as much energy on writing your damn screenplays instead of frittering away your time in the service of impotent ejaculation, you might actually discover something that is of use to you as a screenwriter.

I've done many years of creative work on TV production and set design,often using objects and props from trash,transforming and building things into very successful award winning shows,on the other hand I've seen huge budgets spent on shows that were flops....and the same rule goes for films,just like music,painting or any form of art.Success is in actually getting your creation out there to be shared,not the commercial success or box office returns.A film is like a shop window,some people are attracted immediately,others walk past....but in the end it's 'Word of Mouth' that gets popularity through others sharing their experience.So I really don't think the viewer cares on how much was spent,or what sacrifices were made to finally get a film on screen,either they enjoyed it or they didn't.And lastly,anything and everything can be made,produced and distributed for free,but in an industry that has trained and skilled workers,dedicated staff,talented casts and enthusiastic crews,being PAID is an essential part of the exchange,so a healthy budget does get you people to turn up for the shoot,and stay till the completion.How many films and TV projects are there out there that are STILL in editing or post production............lorry loads!