Budget
The final number that you end up with to start your budget can be pretty arbitrary.
Films can cost as much or as little as you want, but often you are trading off quality for thrift.
This is OK, especially when you are starting out. You don’t want to sink a lot of money into an experiment or a practice run, which is how I see the initial first projects of a fledgling producer.
Get the process down, and then start to improve the quality. And the quality will improve anyway over time, even if you never increase the budget you allocate to improved budget simply because as you get more experienced, you will also get better at using the money you have and connecting with the people and resources you need to stretch the budget you have.
After I added up all the receipts for my first film, I was shocked that I had spent so much, but every time I ran into something that I didn’t anticipate or understand fully, I threw money at it.
Also, I learned that I should set the limit of the budget beforehand instead of just seeing what I need in the moment. There are too many choices between the higher and the lesser quality (set, wardrobe, equipment, etc) and that is best worked out beforehand.
And, just like in business, incorporate about 20% – 30% for expenses that are not anticipated. Issues and emergencies are a lot easier to deal with if you have this cushion.
Finally, just because a film has a super-high budget, does not always mean that it’s going to be a great movie or improve the quality. Some times the lower budget forces you to be creative and you end up with a more unique, entertaining and artfully composed end project.
EXAMPLE: Kevin Smith’s Clerks. The budget for the original Clerks movie was under $40,000 (IMDB states that the budget was actually $230K, but I believe that was after it got distribution, when the distributor paid to clean it up and market it), an unheard of amount for a feature film, even in the ultra-low budget category. The film quality was grainy, the acting was just ok, minimal locations, effects, etc, but Smith drew everything together to create a wonderful, funny, entertaining movie. Now, I generally love Kevin Smith and his filmmaking style, but flash forward 12 years later to Clerks 2. This movie had a budget of 5 million dollars; more than 20 times the original Clerks budget! Did that make Clerks 2 better? No… It made it abysmally worse, actually. Shooting in color with gorgeous sets wardrobe and professional actors could not resuscitate a bad script with a trite storyline and contrived comedy (Sorry, Kev). And I usually enjoy trite storylines and contrived comedy, but it was weird… it actually felt like the comedic timing was off and it seemed like the timing could have been easily improved in the editing room. Weird. But I digress… My point is that lots of money doesn’t always mean a good movie and small budget doesn’t always mean bad.
