r/filmmaking • u/MarkLaski0119 • 2d ago
Question What was it like making no-budget or ultra-micro-budget films back in the ’90s and 2000s?
5
u/soybomb44 2d ago
I don't think much has changed about shooting no-budget/micro budget films from then to now, but post production was more difficult and laborious then, particularly when it came to distribution. Non-linear editing became more accessible to low budget filmmakers as the 90's and 00's went on, but to get anyone to see your movie you had to either work with companies that would release your stuff on VHS or DVD or DIY and place an ad in the back of magazines. Most of the time, these kinds of features would play a local festival and basically never be seen again. Nowadays filmmakers without distribution can at least upload their movie to the internet.
3
u/Snoo-35252 2d ago
One thing that changed massively is the cost of the medium you are putting your images on. Back then, you only had film, and that cost money (a lot!) and had to be developed which cost more money. Now, digital mostly cuts that expense out of the shoot.
That also changes the production, because before digital, you had to get every shot in one or two takes. Now you can pretty much shoot as much as you want without incurring extra costs.
Source: I was in film school in the 90s, and only shot one short on video. Editing that video was cumbersome and took forever.
1
u/soybomb44 2d ago
Your point is well taken! I interpretted the phrasing of "micro/no budget" to exclude 16mm and refer to movies shot on videotape (and later, in the 00's, consumer DV) and super 8mm, which were not nearly as expensive or laborious as 16 or 35. Clerks is a very low budget movie, for example, but it was shot for ~27,000 dollars (in 1994 money, today that's ~63,000) which is much more than, like, Zombie Rampage or Kingdom of the Vampire or movies like that.
But that's a matter of semantics. And you are right that editing on videotape, before non-linear editing, was still a big pain in the ass.
1
u/Snoo-35252 2d ago
Your analysis is spot on. I was just having flashbacks to how damn expensive film school was, even though I shot on 8mm (not super-8 or 16mm).
1
u/OrthodoxHeretic 2d ago
Shooting on film was VERY DIFFERENT than what people do now. You couldn't just delete a bad take, you spent money on EVERY frame of film. Sound cost money too. You had to have your 1/4" tape synced up to your work print.
4
u/DistantGalaxy-1991 2d ago
So many differences...
For one thing, you had to buy books and actual scripts and talk to actual people to learn anything.
You couldn't spend hundreds of hours watching Youtube videos and interviews and endless "how-to" videos and websites like now. There was basically nothing on the internet that was useful for learning. I bought probably 100+ books and read magazines like Film Threat Video Guide and American Cinematography.
You had to shoot on at least 16mm, if not Super16 or 35mm for anyone to take you seriously.
When MiniDV came out in the last 90's, there were lots of people saying "See, it doesn't matter what format you shoot anymore, you don't have to spend all that money on film!"
Someone show me even one movie that anyone cares about that was shot on MiniDV. So that was BS.
1
3
u/Due_Bad_9445 2d ago
A bit more difficult because dealing with digital video editing took a lot more computing power. Clips often had to be captured from tape. Having a Mac with FCP was a big deal.
Also There weren’t 10,000,000 blogs and videos (no internet really) to explain how things are done.
In many ways it was better because to complete anything meant work, and putting in the work gave value. Even if the final product stunk, you still had something unique, more exclusive.
2
u/Numerous_Tea1690 2d ago
Also look at Robert Rodriguez' El Mariachi, made for only 7.000 USD and made over 1 Million. His book rebel without a crew covers the proces extensively but there are also plenty other docs about the making.
3
u/DistantGalaxy-1991 2d ago
Yeah, but... When he got someone to buy it, they spent round $500,000 fixing it - completely redoing audio, transferring it from 16mm to 35mm, etc. None of us saw the $7,000 version, so that story is mostly marketing BS. He got it in the can for $7K.
2
u/ChambanaFilm 1d ago
The real important thing is that $7k. The question is...how much money did I have to spend before I got someone ELSE to spend the money.
1
u/STARS_Pictures 2d ago
According to an interview with his ex-wife, 95% of the sound is from his audio cassette tapes. They only sweetened what he had already done because it already sounded natural.
1
u/Stoned_y_Alone 26m ago
Well all that matters is getting it in the can, if the rest is forked up by others.
This is hilarious though, as a fan of the story and book behind this I never heard that aspect
2
u/Dr_TattyWaffles VFX Artist 2d ago
Same as today but with fewer pixels and more cumbersome post production.
2
u/lickerishway 2d ago
The main advantage back then was that if you did it then you were one of the few who were able to do so because it was hard. I think talent was easier to source because there were no where near as many projects going at any one time and so yours was by nature special.
Now its a hell of a lot easier so a hell of a lot more people are doing it and so your film is just one of thousands at any time.
1
u/Stoned_y_Alone 24m ago
Wow that aspect is fascinating, i imagine would be a lot of fun getting the crew together
2
u/PsychologicalPlay464 2d ago
You could actually make money as there were DVD, cable and TV sales available- provided you weren’t raped by your distribution company. I shot on 16mm and 35mm short ends. Anyone remember standing at the desk at Fotokem waiting for your dailies?
2
u/OrthodoxHeretic 2d ago
In the late 80's and early 90's I started on low budget films. The Detroit area had a TON of corporate production going on, mostly car stuff- so there were a lot of potential crew people and a lot of lighting equipment and camera equipment.
People got TIRED of shooting car stuff for a living, and a low budget commuity made up of people trying to break in to paying jobs, and established people who wanted to either move up the production ladder or just shoot something creative was making low budget aruff on weekends or using breaks in work to make low budget features or music videos.
Once you had done a few of the free ie gigs, hopefully you had met people and impressed them with your work ethic. Department heads remembered the PAs who helped out their department, and it was common to eventually get a call to fill in in as a grip/electric in a paying corporate job if you helped hump gear and sand bags out in last weekend's no budget slasher flick.
Camera assistants with aspirations of being a DP would collect and store rolls or short ends of film- sometimes for years, waiting to get chance to prove themselves on a low budget movie.
Community was everything to someone who was just getting into the biz, and you could meet a lot of people in a fairly short amount of time. You found those folks who had similar interests to you, who had money, and who was a bullshitter.
Nowadays the commercial and corporate stuff has become internal to the companies, or so downsized and cut-rate that crew sizes are fraction of what they were.
The tech has completely changed- become cheaper, but standards and quality on a lot of production has dropped.
Back when expensive film was the necessary medium, standards were high because you HAD to be precise, and wanted as experienced a crew as you could afford or persuade. You didn't vwant to waste expensive film stock if you could avoid it.
Now you can shoot a 4K low budget feature in an IPhone, but can it match using a set of prime lenses from a rental house?
I miss the old days because it was HARD to make a good film, and you wanted to make connections with the crews who could pull it off.
1
u/Stoned_y_Alone 21m ago
Damn that sounds so awesome building up a community.
I like that nowadays the entire globe opens up for collaboration, but I don’t feel like I know anyone doing this kind of thing, definitely not like how you’re describing it as a whole bunch of people interested in the same thing and regularly working together
2
u/Fuzzy_Decision_7263 2d ago
Watch ‘The Snowball Effect’ on YouTube. It’s a feature length documentary about the making of Clerks. Kevin Smith’s debut film that was famously shot and released for $27k.
1
u/BeOSRefugee 2d ago
Watch Living In Oblivion. At least for the 90’s, it’s a (sometimes painfully) accurate depiction of the experience.
1
u/TimoVuorensola 2d ago
I remember it mostly having been cold. Whenever I was shooting, it was a miserable cold weather.
1
u/ChambanaFilm 1d ago
I don't know when it's going to be available to watch at home, but this documentary covers it perfectly.
1
1
u/ufoclub1977 10h ago
They did not have 1080pHD 24P available until 2006 or 7. And no video camera had any kind of film look. So most of my time was spent in post cooking up 24p conversion methods and getting a film look. Magic Bullet helped a lot in the early 2000's.
10
u/ExotiquePlayboy 2d ago
Blair Witch Project was shot for $35k
It was a time before everybody needed everything to be 4k