Filmmaker Magazine has a good article in their "Industry Beat" section about the status of no-budget filmmaking...
"With digital-video cameras, credit cards and Final Cut Pro, any aspiring director can make a movie for $100,000. But few producers can earn a living helping directors make these no-budget productions. "
"This month, for example, InDigEnt, the eight-year-old low-budget production arm famous for its digital output and profit-sharing model, officially closed shop. "
I thought (and actually still think) the InDigEnt model can work. The idea was to make these no-budget movies - although most of thier's ended up being $300K or more - and make everyone, that's EVERYONE, on the cast & crew owners of the film. They all share in the future profits. In return, everyone works for very low wages - including any name acting talent.
My personal opinion is the reason InDigEnt didn't work out was their recent slate of films. They may have been "too indie" - if that makes sense. It's been said before, but this is show business, and that means that more "commercial" films will likely do better in the marketplace. Now understand, I'm now talking "selling out" or anything like that. I'm just talking more mainstream stories, etc. will do better. InDigEnt's most successful films were Tadpole, Pieces of April and Personal Velocity. All very much indie spirited projects, but with commercial sensibilities.
Definitely check out the article though, it's a good read and it does have a happy ending - much like most Hollywood movies. :)
-Blake
Do you like this article? Share It!
0 comments to "The Status of No-Budget Filmmaking"
