How to make a full length feature film for 100 pounds!

[PMiddy]

I’ve just finished authoring to DVD a full length feature film that I made for approx. 100 pounds!

See the trailer:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wRQhcpDab8w

See an extract:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDVDy0JBayU

My full channel can be found at the link below and features making of documentaries, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/PMiddy001

Any further questions or advice, please email at
internationalpictures@fsmail.net

Cheers,
Pete Middleton - Director

[reflex]

How to *really* make a film for 100 dollars/rubles/pounds/euros/galactic credits...

1. Steal a few thousand feet of film stock from the back of a Kodak of Fuji truck
2. Get your friends to work for free. Remember not to cast both girlfriends in roles, lest they discover that you're a two-timing lout.
3. Borrow camera(s), lights, audio gear, etc. from a kindly filmshooting.com member.
4. Shoot primarily outside or in run down old buildings
5. Get a lab to process the film for free by holding the owner's family hostage
6. Get the film Telecined by a buddy at a transfer house in the middle of the night.
7. Talk a friend with FCP into editing it.
8. Convince a starving composer to write and record the soundtrack for free.
9. Post it on YouTube.
10. ???

Sorry, couldn't resist. Congratulations on your achievement.

[PMiddy]

Amazing mate! I've just printed that out - gonna frame it!
Thanks for the reply!
Pete

[PMiddy]

I know it sounds unbelievable that a feature film
can be made for that amount. Of-course this message
was sent out to film-makers who already have the BASIC equipment.
So excluding the 1 camera, tripod and PC that I already had, I can
honestly say that my film could have cost 100 pounds if I was
on a tight budget, however instead of doing 1001 things to cut
the costs down ie: re-using tapes once captured into the PC,
I could have managed to get the same results as I did with this
amount of money. Like previously mentioned, email me at:
internationalpictures@fsmail.net including any problem from
starting your film to authoring it and I will try my best to
support you. IE: Hiring professional actors, locations, special FX
Thanks for your reply,
Pete

[christoph]

pete,

i have no idea why you are doing this (other then maybe generate marketing hype) but there is no way you could make a film of this scale with a budget of 100 quid. unless you had your cast and crew paying for food, phone calls, petrol etc..
and if you have done that, shame on you.
++ christoph

[mattias]

unless you had your cast and crew paying for food, phone calls, petrol etc.. and if you have done that, shame on you.

i think it's ok as long as everybody knows the deal, but i don't think it's ok to exclude these expenses from the budget just because the filmmaker doesn't pay from his own pocket. your friends are actually investors in this case. :-) ok, that was tongue in cheek but i'm actually very serious.

i'll check out the trailer now...

/matt

[mattias]

ok, looked pretty cool, interesting even, but the trailer really sucked. way too many cuts that i guess were supposed to look cool but only looked stale. too much talking as well but most of all it's way too long. cut to the chase. i have a very short attention span but even though i *wanted* to see it i didn't manage to get to the end, what about those who have no interest in filmmaking or your film?

/matt

[christoph]

i think it's ok as long as everybody knows the deal, but i don't think it's ok to exclude these expenses from the budget just because the filmmaker doesn't pay from his own pocket.

hmm, so you think it's ok to invest less then 100 pounds in your own film while each crew member has most likely spent more then twice as much of their own money for it? and then brag about it on the world wide web?

but apart from that, you're right that even if it's other peoples money, it still counts towards the budget. otherwise michael bay could claim that he made transformers with a zero budget ("hey, we even got *paid* for doing it")

++ c.

[PMiddy]

pete,

i have no idea why you are doing this (other then maybe generate marketing hype) but there is no way you could make a film of this scale with a budget of 100 quid. unless you had your cast and crew paying for food, phone calls, petrol etc..
and if you have done that, shame on you.
++ christoph

Hi Christoph,

Shame on me. What are we doing here, "trying to make a cheap film that is fit for viewing - and at times, quite entertaining" - Of course the actors paid for their own dinner, petrol, etc. We did this a rock bottom level so that we had the chance to be able to promote a full length feature film that doesn't look that bad. I would like to say that I didn't make the movie for profit and will not accept a penny from its existence. I made it from day one for promotion and funding for a much bigger film.
Thanks for the reply,
Pete

[PMiddy]

ok, looked pretty cool, interesting even, but the trailer really sucked. way too many cuts that i guess were supposed to look cool but only looked stale. too much talking as well but most of all it's way too long. cut to the chase. i have a very short attention span but even though i *wanted* to see it i didn't manage to get to the end, what about those who have no interest in filmmaking or your film?

/matt

Hi Mattias,

Thank you very much for your reply and watching err, "half" of my trailer. It is quite a long one with some very tight cuts. Come to think about it, I can't really think of any other trailer in the last five or six years without any tight cuts to be honest but hey! The film was made on a shoestring budget basically to prove to everybody that it could be done. We understood that not everybody, like yourself would like it - but some people dislike the multi million pound box office smash Titanic, so enough said.
Thanks again for your reply,
Pete

[christoph]

hey pete,

hat's off to your good reply, and sorry for my rambling..
if everybody had fun doing it, then that's an achievement by itself.
still that doesn't change the fact that the budget was by no way 100 bucks (even if you only had to pay that much from your own pocket, which i still doubt).

bests and no offence
++ christoph

[mattias]

hmm, so you think it's ok to invest less then 100 pounds in your own film while each crew member has most likely spent more then twice as much of their own money for it?

yes. it's not unlikely that they had jobs during the production period, or were on paid vacation, thus being able to afford it, unlike the filmmaker. people have hobbies and gladly pay for them, that's not strange, so why not act in a film or operate a boom for a couple of weeks?

it starts getting ugly when you lure people into it by saying that it will be great for their career and/or could make them rich if the movie becomes a hit and so on, that's what i meant by letting everyone know the deal. no money. no fame. maybe not even fun. take it or leave it. :-)

/matt

[mattias]

I can't really think of any other trailer in the last five or six years without any tight cuts to be honest but hey!

as an experienced editor or trailers and other fast things like music videos and action sport shows i can tell you that there's a huge difference between a tight cut and what you have in your trailer. sorry, but it's the truth and i can assure you have a lot to learn from listening to me.

and like i said, i think i would enjoy the film, it's the trailer i'm worried about. it's supposed to sell the film, that's all it's for, so if people don't like it that's a much bigger problem than whether they like your film, because as you say that stands for itself as an achievement and a piece of art. you know what i'm saying?

/matt

[escubria]

It looks like a good, well executed low budget film but...

Speaking as a full time editor myself, Mattias is right. The white flashes, fast cuts and odd black frames don't really work, especially when it's got a flat video look and set completely in the same location for almost it's entirety. It will just come across like a cheesy promo for an "Emmerdale" special to most punters; your audience.

It's also way too long. People won't take in all that dialogue in 2 and a half minutes. Keep it simple, take one angle of the story and run with that for the trailer, allow people to wonder what else it's about rather than try and fast spoon everything to them in such a short burst, let people take in the essence.

There are just things you must be clever about when you are presenting a low budget flick and clever in simple, effective ways. Don't try and fool the audience too much into thinking that it can compete with big budget thrillers, they are almost always ahead of you and won't believe you, and try and avoid cliches.

Otherwise, it's no mean feet to shoot a film on any budget, on your own and others steam, so well done. The acting looks quite good and it seems to be shot well enough so I'm sure there's a film there just not sure the trailer sells it.

Be creative, exploit the fact you shot it cheap -without making it look thrown together of course- you can't compete with Hollywood on our scale, so it's better to leave the flashy trailer cliches to those who have the big money and can afford expensive grading et al.

[PMiddy]

i think it's ok as long as everybody knows the deal, but i don't think it's ok to exclude these expenses from the budget just because the filmmaker doesn't pay from his own pocket.

hmm, so you think it's ok to invest less then 100 pounds in your own film while each crew member has most likely spent more then twice as much of their own money for it? and then brag about it on the world wide web?

but apart from that, you're right that even if it's other peoples money, it still counts towards the budget. otherwise michael bay could claim that he made transformers with a zero budget ("hey, we even got *paid* for doing it")

++ c.

Hey Christoph,

Excellent post. Made me smile. But please remember that now this film is being spoken about (a little like were doing now) was probably why I managed to get so many fine actors on board for nothing! Cheers mate. Great to chat.
Pete