Writing Small
Eric Anderson
Just had day one of Dov Siemen's Hollywood Film Institute today, and
although I don't agree with all of it and thought he tends to over-simplify
the film making process, he did have a nice piece of advice on making
indies: Whatever you can spend/raise (or think you can) is your budget.
If you think you can get it done for $200k, yet you have access to $300k,
get the extra and make a better movie.
Hope this helps.
Eric Anderson
TonyBoy74 <tony...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990925200239...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
>
>
> Working on indy script that I'm gonna produce myself. No budget. I've been
> trying to spec out studio scripts for almost a year and now can't seem to
write
> anything that could be done for under the 20mil mark. How do you keep your
> budget in mind when you write? After doing the first act three times, I'm
> finding out it's harder than it seems. Any tips?
>
> Peace,
>
> Tony B.
Mike Shields
>
> Working on indy script that I'm gonna produce myself. No budget. I've been
> trying to spec out studio scripts for almost a year and now can't seem to write
> anything that could be done for under the 20mil mark. How do you keep your
> budget in mind when you write? After doing the first act three times, I'm
> finding out it's harder than it seems. Any tips?
>
Yeah, don't write to budget, write a film with few locations, and few actors.
And you can shoot any movie for a million below.
Mike
Huntress: You taught Batman how to box? Could you teach me how to stay
sane around superheroes?
TonyBoy74
Working on indy script that I'm gonna produce myself. No budget. I've been
trying to spec out studio scripts for almost a year and now can't seem to write
anything that could be done for under the 20mil mark. How do you keep your
budget in mind when you write? After doing the first act three times, I'm
finding out it's harder than it seems. Any tips?
Peace,
Tony B.
BettrDuck
Well, I just parody other people stuff, the character parody offsets the plot
and location/prop importance. All the weight then comes upon the performance of
the cast instead of production value.
Rodriguez had a nice eye for action when he shot his no budget film, so he used
his talent to its best. He's really like a director/camera guy.
K Smith's on the other hand had funny characters in a lame setting. But the
lame setting gave him the opportunities to expose the characters to their
advantage.
To make a good nobudget film you gotta know your best dunk before you jump.
BD
Steven Weller
Tough to say without having seen any of your writing, but the short
answer is, don't write anything that costs money to shoot.
More parctically speaking, a little production experience will help.
The cheapest thing to shoot whould be one person, in a park, in the
daylight not saying anything. All you need is some film and a camera
to run it through. If it's two people and they're talking, you'll
need a sync sound camera, and a sound recorder, and some audio media.
If the scene takes place at night, you'll need lights and the gear to
position them, and the power to run them. If one of the two people
is supposed to be a cop, you'll need a uniform.
It sounds simplistic, I know, but writing for a budget means cutting
out anything that you can't get for free or neary so. The reason no
one ever takes the bus in films isn't because busses aren't glamourous,
it;s because it's cheaper to rent a cab for a day than it is to rent a
bus. Same with locations - shooting in a bnk or a post office is usually
rather expensive. Chain restaurants cost more than mom 'n pop operations.
Crowded public places cost more than secluded private ones.
You can make te cheapest film possible by just writing it all to take
place in your house and yard (don't laugh TOO loud - I've seen it done).
The trick is to squeeze as much production value out of what you can get
for free. In some of Mark Pirro's no-budget wonders, he managed to get
some incredible high production value for no money at all - a film that
cost (literaly) $2,500, shot on S-8, featured a haunted castle, a bar/
nightclub, a movie theatre, and at least a couple of otherwise expensive
element. How? He knew a guy who owned a bar, and someone else who managed
a movie theatre, and worked at Universal Studios Theme Park and so was
able to steal a shot or two of a castle exterior, and so on.
As an experiment, take your most recent $20 Million wonder and do a quick
rewrite - for every element that costs money, try and replace it with a
no-cost alternative. Lunch in the park instead of dinner at Le Dome. A
foot chase instead of a car chase. Daytime action instead of night. See
what you come up with, and how you'd need to change the story to make the
new elements work. That should give you a starting point for your no-budget
script.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary,
Steven
Jeff S Miholer
: Working on indy script that I'm gonna produce myself.
No special effects, limited number of locations, limited number of
characters, good enough writing that you don't fluffy stars. It's
discipline. Maybe you should work in a small theater for awhile.
**What specifically have you been having trouble with?**
Don't try to raise money until you've got a script. If you do, you'll
burn all the good prospects you've got.
--
Screenwriting partners and critique groups --
Mike Shields
>
<snippage>
> Tell me more about your film. Are you planning to direct? The cost of
> purchasing your own digital editing suite AND camera can be under
> $15,000. I'm no expert on the digital thing. But I'm excited because my
> new screenplay has a home. A production I'm going to be a part of.
> Thanks do digital.
>
Actually, Christy, if you wait 'til the new G4 comes out, your price
drops to under 10K.
Mike
I haven't seen Act II.
Of course not. I haven't written it yet!
NMS
> trying to spec out studio scripts for almost a year and now can't seem to
write
> anything that could be done for under the 20mil mark. How do you keep your
> budget in mind when you write? After doing the first act three times, I'm
> finding out it's harder than it seems. Any tips?
>
>
> Tony B.
Not tips, but questions.
How much of a budget is "no budget?" $100,000? $50,000, $10,000, $5,000?
Do you need to shoot on film or can your movie work with the "look" of video
(and no matter what anybody says -- you can't shoot video that really looks
like film. Sometimes the difference doesn't matter. Sometimes it does)?
Who do you know that will work for free or on deferred payment (which is
working free plus a little self-deception)? Often graduating or recently
graduated D.P.s fresh from film school will be looking for opportunities to
build up their reels -- and sometimes own their own equipment.
Who do you know who will give you free stuff, of any kind? Free stock. Free
editing services. Free food, free locations, free equipment? Free anything?
Can your story be told with a minimal cast -- two or three featured roles,
no more than four or five other speaking parts?
Can your story be told with limited locations? Can the locations all be
within spitting distance of one another to avoid lengthy break-down and
set-up time, which can eat up your production schedule?
Can you maximize the scenes that can be shot in day, exterior in controlled
(and free) locations, where lighting is not going to eat up your shooting
time?
If interiors are needed, can you pre-light, so that once you start to work
at the location with your actors, you don't need significant re-lighting
time between set-ups?
But finally, and most importantly -- skimp everywhere, but not with your
actors. This doesn't necessarily mean that you have to spend big bucks to
get the right actors. As somebody once said to me -- there are 50,000 actors
in New York, and on any given night, 49,500 of them are out of work.
But there is an unfortunate tendency, with low budget film makers to do
things like "casting their friends" -- and it is always a disaster, unless
your friends happen to be talented professional actors who are right for
your movie.
As an unfortunate frequenter of the IFFM, I've seen my share of movies that
had really quite good production values but were unwatchable because the
performances were so obviously amateurish.
On the other hand, I've seen many movies with frankly dicey production
values, things which have clearly been shot on the cheap, but when the
writing and performances work, the movie, somehow, still works.
NMS
christ...@my-deja.com
tony...@aol.com (TonyBoy74) wrote:
>
>
> Working on indy script that I'm gonna produce myself. No budget. I've
been
> trying to spec out studio scripts for almost a year and now can't seem
to write
> anything that could be done for under the 20mil mark. How do you keep
your
> budget in mind when you write? After doing the first act three times,
I'm
> finding out it's harder than it seems. Any tips?
>
> Peace,
What is the market for your film? I highly recommend shooting your film
digitally. I know a lot of purists are going to say it's not a real film
blah, blah, blah. But if your funds are low and you really want to make
a film it's a great way to go. It cuts down on a lot of costs in
post-production, too. If you light it well, you can apply for completion
funds to have it transferred to film. I forget the title, but recently a
digital film went all the way to Sundance. And festivals like ResFest
are dedicated to digital filmmmaking. Filmmaker just recently had a
special section dedicated to digital advancements. It's really exciting.
I loved film and the way it looks, don't get me wrong. I just can't
afford it.
Tell me more about your film. Are you planning to direct? The cost of
purchasing your own digital editing suite AND camera can be under
$15,000. I'm no expert on the digital thing. But I'm excited because my
new screenplay has a home. A production I'm going to be a part of.
Thanks do digital.
christycomic
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Craig Franck
>
>Tough to say without having seen any of your writing, but the short
>answer is, don't write anything that costs money to shoot.
>If one of the two people is supposed to be a cop, you'll need a
>uniform.
OK, Mr. Kevin *Cost*ner. What you need here is an undercover cop:
normal street cloths will do. Also, homeless people make great
extras. They only get the bottle of MD 20/20 if they have speaking
roles and put in at least half-a-day's work. No exceptions. And
puking on set does not count.
>In some of Mark Pirro's no-budget wonders, he managed to get
>some incredible high production value for no money at all - a film that
>cost (literaly) $2,500, shot on S-8, featured a haunted castle, a bar/
>nightclub, a movie theatre, and at least a couple of otherwise expensive
>element. How? He knew a guy who owned a bar, and someone else who managed
>a movie theatre, and worked at Universal Studios Theme Park and so was
>able to steal a shot or two of a castle exterior, and so on.
Joe Carnahan did a great job with $8,000 in "Blood Guts Bullets And
Octane." The key is to surround yourself with people who just want
to be a part of a project.
--
Craig
clfr...@worldnet.att.net
Manchester, NH
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Steven Weller
>What is the market for your film? I highly recommend shooting your film
>digitally. I know a lot of purists are going to say it's not a real film
>blah, blah, blah. But if your funds are low and you really want to make
>a film it's a great way to go. It cuts down on a lot of costs in
>post-production, too.
All true, right up to this point:
>If you light it well, you can apply for completion
>funds to have it transferred to film.
This has got to be the most popular urban myth on the internet. The sad
truth is, there's no place to 'apply' to get completion funds, practically
speaking, and shot-on-video material (even really well-lit shot-on-video
material) has VERY limited market potential. A few documentaries and
documentary-style projects have made it across the line, but even Sundance
has started to ghettoize digital filmmaking (they're restricted to a separate
category starting this year). There's a market for digital material, sure,
but if you're planning on getting halfway finished and then finding someone
else to pony up the money for completion, you're likely to be severely
disappointed and in real financial trouble.
christ...@my-deja.com
Bat...@icnt.net wrote:
> christ...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
>
> Actually, Christy, if you wait 'til the new G4 comes out, your price
> drops to under 10K.
>
> Mike
Funny you should say that, the director called me yesterday telling me
she got funding to buy a brand new G4!
Oh and as a reply to the guy who said that movies shot on video can't
look like film. I admit digital will never look as good as film BUT the
only good thing about the new Star Wars was the way it looked. DIGITAL!
(Partially anyway and the next two are supposed to be shot entirely
digital. And some scenes in The Matrix were entirely digital, too) Don't
be a dinosaur people. New stories. New technology. And if you light it
well you can transfer it film! With digital there's no problem with sync
to sound. You have playback. No shipping fees to get film developed and
most importantly, your actors can have more than one take. If you've got
the money, by all means shoot on film, but if you don't, do it any way
you can. Be on the cusp of a filmmaking revolution people. Long live
DIGITAL!!!
christy
Eric Anderson
> look like film. I admit digital will never look as good as film BUT the
> only good thing about the new Star Wars was the way it looked. DIGITAL!
But it was shot on film.
Don't be confused with shot on digital and created digitally. Big
difference.
Jacob Solomon Weinstein
small budget might want to watch "Cube." (If possible, rent it on DVD so
you can listen to the commentary by some of the filmmakers.) They came
up with a creative idea that enabled them to shoot virtually the entire
movie on one set, and still have it feel like the characters were moving
around.
Similar but less extreme is "The Imposters," which takes place (in part)
on a cruise ship; since most rooms on a ship look pretty similar, I
suspect that many of the sets were actually the same set with different
furniture.
Best,
Jacob Weinstein
------------------------------------
To reply to me by e-mail, swap the last two letters of my e-mail
address.
Mike Shields
>
> One quick tip: anybody who is interested in seeing a creative use of a
> small budget might want to watch "Cube." (If possible, rent it on DVD so
> you can listen to the commentary by some of the filmmakers.) They came
> up with a creative idea that enabled them to shoot virtually the entire
> movie on one set, and still have it feel like the characters were moving
> around.
>
Yeah, that's all fine and good, but the movie sucked. I was so let down
by the ending. And the middle. And the beginning wasn't that great either.
Now, if it had been shot on digital...
It still would've sucked.
Mike Shields
>
<Snippage>
>
> Star Wars: Episode II has already started shooting (a friend in on the FX
> crew) in 35mm. Sorry.
> --
Steven, I've been waiting for you to fall into this trap. Would you mind
explaining to me how they are doing shots for Ep II, when they don't
even have a script yet? They aren't even doin' test shots yet.
From my friend, on the fx crew.
Mike
"...a stretch worthy of Reed Richards...."
Steven Weller
christy wrote:
>Oh and as a reply to the guy who said that movies shot on video can't
>look like film. I admit digital will never look as good as film BUT the
>only good thing about the new Star Wars was the way it looked. DIGITAL!
>(Partially anyway and the next two are supposed to be shot entirely
>digital. And some scenes in The Matrix were entirely digital, too) Don't
>be a dinosaur people. New stories. New technology. And if you light it
>well you can transfer it film! With digital there's no problem with sync
>to sound. You have playback. No shipping fees to get film developed and
>most importantly, your actors can have more than one take. If you've got
>the money, by all means shoot on film, but if you don't, do it any way
>you can. Be on the cusp of a filmmaking revolution people. Long live
>DIGITAL!!!
Didgitally created images and DV (digital video) aren't the same thing. The
line 'And if you light it well you can transfer it to film!' is kind of sad,
in a way. If you're so excited about shooting new stories on new technology,
why are you worried about lighting for kinescope? You can get a better video
image by lighting for video than you can by lighting for a transfer. Why
copromise your new vision for the technology of the dinosaurs?
If it's just to get ahold of some of the lovely money that comes with
theatrical distribution of films, then the whole 'new stories, new technology'
argument is a crock - just some much balloon juice to try and justify the
decision not to raise the money and shoot film in the first place.
Star Wars: Episode II has already started shooting (a friend in on the FX
crew) in 35mm. Sorry.
--
Dstrbd042
>>
>> One quick tip: anybody who is interested in seeing a creative use of a
>> small budget might want to watch "Cube." (If possible, rent it on DVD so
>> you can listen to the commentary by some of the filmmakers.) They came
>> up with a creative idea that enabled them to shoot virtually the entire
>> movie on one set, and still have it feel like the characters were moving
>> around.
>>
>
>Yeah, that's all fine and good, but the movie sucked. I was so let down
>by the ending. And the middle. And the beginning wasn't that great either.
>
>Now, if it had been shot on digital...
>
>It still would've sucked.
>
>Mike
>
Yeah.
I don't get why everyone likes it so much...some of the most ricidulous,
stereotyped characters I've ever seen.
As soon as they "announce" what they do for a living they each become this
stupid ass, walking caricature.
Revoltingly bad.
Steven Weller
They're shooting background plates, in high speed 35mm, for later FX
work.
Not much of a 'trap,' as I've been saying this for weeks (ever since
my friend told me they'd started shooting).
MwsReader
> Steven, I've been waiting for you to fall into this trap. Would you
> mind explaining to me how they are doing shots for Ep II, when
> they don't even have a script yet?
That's never stopped GL before. (Steven later said they're shooting
plates at this point, which sounds logical and likely.)
> They aren't even doin' test shots yet.
I'd be very surprised if that's the case. Test shots happen early in
the game up there.
> From my friend, on the fx crew.
"The" fx crew? "One of the" would be more like it on this show.
Ken
Martin Kelley
writes:
>If you're so excited about shooting new stories on new technology,
>why are you worried about lighting for kinescope? You can get a
better video
>image by lighting for video than you can by lighting for a transfer.
Why
>copromise your new vision for the technology of the dinosaurs?
what if you're wanting to tell stories that aren't considered "New"
something that would look better in the classic medium (or a close
facsimile) than on DV.
>argument is a crock - just some much balloon juice to try and justify
the
>decision not to raise the money and shoot film in the first place.
Well, it's not a decision not to raise money. It's a question of time.
I don't know. I agree with your sentiment, but I'm very impatient and
inexperienced in the aspect of raising the money.
Especially daunting is the fact that I'm in Atlanta not a "film town"
yet.
anyway,
Martin
Mike Shields
>
> They're shooting background plates, in high speed 35mm, for later FX
> work.
>
> Not much of a 'trap,' as I've been saying this for weeks (ever since
> my friend told me they'd started shooting).
> --
> Evidence to the Contrary,
>
> Steven
Actually, your friend is feeding you false info. How can they shoot
something, when they don't know what it's gonna be?
No script = No shooting.
Mike
Dr. Evil: As the French say, that certain "I don't know what."
Mike Shields
That's true. And coincidentally, his name is also Ken.
Mike
Austin Powers: You know what's remarkable? That England looks in no way
like Southern California.
Steven Weller
>Actually, your friend is feeding you false info. How can they shoot
>something, when they don't know what it's gonna be?
>
>No script = No shooting.
First day in Hollywood, eh?
MwsReader
> Actually, your friend is feeding you false info. How can they shoot
> something, when they don't know what it's gonna be?
>
> No script = No shooting.
Never stopped 'em in the past!
Ken
Mike Shields
>
> >Actually, your friend is feeding you false info. How can they shoot
> >something, when they don't know what it's gonna be?
> >
> >No script = No shooting.
>
No, I've been in Hollywood all my life, Steven. And while there are
exceptions, this is the general case.