Short film costs

[mirkoj]

Could you be kind to give more contact info? Or please email me?
Address is mirkoj@anigraphstudio.com
Thank you

[hellgatemedia]

I can be reached for now at Hellgatemedia@aol.com, and
in the near future at hellgatemedia@hellgatemedia.com, which is not up and running yet.
If I have been in any way too vague or if I am not being clear enough in my postings, please forgive my newbiness, and let me know what else I need to provide.

Thanks,

Marc

[Megalodon]

Okay... not exactly an answer to your query, but checking out this site may help you out a little:

http://www.panicstruckpro.com/ and http://panicstruckpro.com/revelations/revelations_EVENTS.html

They created a short film - live action and CG - on a very miniscule budget and the FX looked VERY good. It was a Star Wars fan film, but it was quite impressive. The one drawback it had (IMO) was poor sound. That said, the editing was good and the overall feel of the film was professional.

In addition, I've also purchased the DVD film school course at:

http://www.webfilmschool.com (http://www.webfilmschool.com/)

This is VERY good at giving you the real nuts and bolts of making your own feature film. Now since you've already been to film school, this may not be completely necessary but I think it cuts through alot of BS and gives you an incredible amount of info. And there's always:

http://www.webfilmschool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=321

which gives much of the info in the DVD film course and is also very helpful.

None of these deal with a complete CGI feature. This book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1556222270/qid=1137457538/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8460875-6839237?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

deals with the making of a complete CGI short film (20 minutes) from start to finish. While it doesn't go into much financial detail, it IS helpful and very inspiring.

Ultimately I will be doing the same thing as yourself - making a full-length CGI feature film. Though I plan on doing this myself without financial backers. It will take a great deal of time, but I've also got a background in 3D CGI using Lightwave and want to create this myself. I figure if one person (albeit a professional) can create a 20 minute short film in 6 months, I could make a feature even if it does take much longer!

Best of Luck!

Megalodon

[markdc]

The costs will vary depending on the type of animation, time frame, etc. If you already have a script and/or storboards, or even animatic you could start contacting studios or freelancers directly for estimates. That will give you exact numbers that you can take to your investors.

[hellgatemedia]

Thanks for the replies,

I made an ASSUMPTION, and I should know better. In film, everything is pretty much set in price, if I want too shoot somewhere, and make it an official shoot, I have to use SAG actors, and the whole crew across the board has to be union. Film costs, and other set equiptment costs are fairly consistent across the board.
Unless of course, I wanted to do a total guerrila shoot.
So it's pretty obvious what the minimum expense to shoot is, and what it costs to do a major shoot in regards to live action.
As I've already been told, it's a lot more complicated than that in this industry.
It makes total sense, just a noob mistake on my part.
I suppose a more appropriate question would have been to ask what a ballpark figure would be on the low end to shoot about 5 to 10 minutes of CG footage, but even than I've seen that there's a big variation on cost based on several factors.
So I'll take everyone's advice so far, and go from there.

Thanks,



Marc

[Megalodon]

Thanks for the replies,

I made an ASSUMPTION, and I should know better. In film, everything is pretty much set in price, if I want too shoot somewhere, and make it an official shoot, I have to use SAG actors, and the whole crew across the board has to be union. Film costs, and other set equiptment costs are fairly consistent across the board.
Unless of course, I wanted to do a total guerrila shoot. Marc

Marc, this is NOT true. I guess that's why you should take a look at the link DVD film course above and/or the book link immediately below. After reviewing the DVD's, you don't need to belong to ANY guild or deal with ANY unions. I think you need to look into this much more in depth. The DVD teaches how to buy film (among MANY other things) and at VERY reduced rates - NOTHING is set in price. :) I learned SOOO much from viewing that course it was well-worth the price. I also recently bought the Hollywood Camera Work course which looks really good and shows how to use the camera in standard AND creative ways.

http://www.hollywoodcamerawork.us (http://www.hollywoodcamerawork.us/)

Although rather expensive, it teaches quite a bit. Though... you may already possess this knowledge.

I suppose a more appropriate question would have been to ask what a ballpark figure would be on the low end to shoot about 5 to 10 minutes of CG footage, but even than I've seen that there's a big variation on cost based on several factors.
So I'll take everyone's advice so far, and go from there. Marc

And unfortunately there is no set answer here either. Five to ten minutes of CG footage can be ALOT more than a comparable live-action shoot. It all depends on who you get to do the CGI, how efficient they are, what they want to charge, etc. You can always check out these forums and toss out your idea and see who bites - if THAT ends up not working out you can always go back to the live-action idea. And if you just want to practice you can always shoot miniDV and see how you are at editing.

There are MANY ways to do what you want to do - but it does come down to what you have access to and what you are willing to spend.

Megalodon

[hellgatemedia]

Besides Sin City, in which Robert Rodriguez stepped down from the Director's Guild to shoot, can you think of any other commercially successful projects shot non union?
I am not saying there isn't, I just don't know of another one.
I'll definitely take a look at that link, because I'd like to see what those DVD's have to say.

Maybe it's just what's been ingrained into me from film school, but I was always told that going non union might save you money, but it will cost you because various people in stages of the film making process, not just the crew on the set, would be reluctant to work on a non union deal. And in film school, they teach you repeatedly, non union is BAD.
If I was going to do a guerrila film making shoot, like something like an uber low budget horror flick, I could understand going non union, but if was going to try to make something for commercial release, why wouldn't I want to go Union, instead of risking pissing off SAG, or other unions, and risk losing actors and crew members? Especially in a big union town like Chicago.
As far as expenses go, in Chicago, I'm fairly certain of how much it costs. I know where to buy the film at a reduced price, if I shot on film, and where I could rent high end Digital cameras if I wanted to go that route instead. Since I am an alumnus of a local film school, I get a special rate at certain shops. This applies to film, equiptment rentals, editing, and sound work. I know who to call to rent trailers for actors, security for the set, craft services, and everything else you need to factor in for a shoot.
I know what agency to call to contract out SAG actors, and I know how much I can get them for. I know the expenses involved in obtaining permits to shoot in the city as well.
So within 30 minutes, I could make a few phone calls, and tell you within a few dollars what it would cost to shoot a certain type of movie live action in Chicago.

I'll look at what the DVD says, there are definitely people on these boards that know more than me, and I'll gladly accept if I'm wrong.


Marc

[Megalodon]

Marc,

Non-Union films are all over the place. Essentially all of Roger Corman's films are non-union - which is why he was able to make so many VERY low budget films. Are they blockbusters? No. Did they all make money? Yes. Is Roger Corman in trouble or "blackballed" in the industry? No. Robert Rodriguez "El Mariachi," Spike Lee's "She's Gotta Have It," Kevin Smith's "Clerks" and the "Blair Witch Project" weren't guild or union, yet they were bought AND made money. As Dov Simens says: Studios don't care if your production is union or non-union. They only care if it'll make money.

Unless you've got LOT's of money to make this first feature, you've got to think realistically. And this is not ME saying this, it's someone who knows and understands how the industry works. I cannot stress enough how good those DVD's and Dov Simens book - Reel to Deal - is. Of course film schools want you to sign with a union, they can't tell you NOT to. Do you realize that were you to sign with the unions/guilds, you would have to pay a writer $23,540 for the treatment; $20,460 for the first draft.... etc. The DGA begins with paying directors no less than $7,874/week with a minimum of 8 weeks. If you've got the money, then I would definitely sign with all guilds and unions. But as a first-time feature-film maker.... I really doubt you've got the cash. And the unions require minimums too so NOTHING is inexpensive with regards to a low-budget feature film.

By the way... Dov also explains how to get investment money for your feature and the true nuts and bolts of getting that feature completed. And just so no one here take this the wrong way.... I am not affiliated with Dov Simens in ANY way - I just purchased his book a couple of years back and JUST got through this DVD course. It was incredible and VERY eye-opening.

And you say you get special rates regarding rentals and film stock..... Dov also addresses these items as well. The people who sell these things see "Film Students Coming" and you don't get as good a deal as you might think. The truth is... I have no intention or desire to work the "Hollywood Scene" making a movie using film. I will create my own feature within the computer with no buying film and renting lighting, dolly's, camera's, etc. is not where I'll be going. That said, I still learned so much from that course that even though most of it were things I won't use, it was still VERY much worth it to buy. I think that someone in your position would get MUCH more out of this course than I did - and I got alot out of it!

Megalodon

[hellgatemedia]

Megalodon,

Thanks again for your insight. I actually have no desire whatsoever to do anything live action at this point, which is why the turn to CG.
I actually gave up on film making altogether, after 10 grueling years of getting just a few things out, and pretty much not accomplishing what I set out to do creatively.
But sitting around at my 9 to 5 job, which pays the bills, drove me so nuts, that I basically set out to find a way back into the game. I'm a very creative person, I write, paint, whatever not because I have to, but it's kind of like mental exercise for me. I'm not looking to be a millionaire, just looking to make enough to pay for the next feature, and hopefully some equiptment along the way. And while I am talking to investors, it's because I simply haven't got the cash flow on my own to do what I'd like to do, the more money I have, the better quality work I can solicit for. And I really don't want to half ass anything. They won't hose me, and I won't be forced into a deal that makes me work for free. I really hate the movies out now. I feel like there's been a gigantic creative vaccum, and all that's happening is remakes and sequels are being shoveled out left and right. CG is where it is at, CG is where all the innovation is. As an artist, I can't simply do something for the sake of doing it, I have to feel a passion and excitement for what I'm doing, and I just don't feel it with traditional film making any more. I remember sitting down in the Imax and watching Polar Express, and thinking to myself, this is what I want to do.
Again, thanks to everyone for their insight, I'll keep everything in mind and move forward

Thanks,

Marc

[Megalodon]

I actually gave up on film making altogether, after 10 grueling years of getting just a few things out, and pretty much not accomplishing what I set out to do creatively.
But sitting around at my 9 to 5 job, which pays the bills, drove me so nuts, that I basically set out to find a way back into the game.

I know EXACTLY how you feel! :) Fortunately I ended up getting a job doing architectural visualization some years back and the company went belly-up - then I started my own company (just my wife and myself) and we've been doing the same thing now for five years. Not as rewarding as making my own movies, but a hell of alot better than working retail for 18 years! ;)

CG is where it is at, CG is where all the innovation is. As an artist, I can't simply do something for the sake of doing it, I have to feel a passion and excitement for what I'm doing, and I just don't feel it with traditional film making any more. I remember sitting down in the Imax and watching Polar Express, and thinking to myself, this is what I want to do.

If you really want to get into CG... now is a great time. Why? So many of the really good packages have come way down in price - check out Lightwave, XSI and C4D - all great packages. 3DStudioMax is good, but way too much money as is Maya. And along with one of those packages, Project Messiah or Motion Builder are great for Character Animation! Since I use Lightwave, my vote is for that app - which would be VERY good for you since there are tons of learning material "out there," more so (for the time being) than XSI or C4D. I'm waiting for Lightwave 9 to see how good its character tools are, but chances are I'll be upgrading from Motion Builder 6 to v7 for character work.

CG is ALOT of work, but it can also be alot of fun and incredibly rewarding - just plan on taking quite a bit of time to learn. Fortunately there are forums (such as this one) that can help you when you get stuck!

I wish you only the best. Good luck!

Megalodon

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.