Bert is right. Low budget is not the same for everyone. It also didn't say no-budget. To me, a low budget would be anywhere from $0-5000. To another filmmaker, anything over $1000 might be too much. It's all relative.

As far as the Starving Sea and the werewolf script goes, both would be low budget IMO. The blob doesn't have to be the blob from the classic monster movies. That was important to this OWC, but not for a filmmaker. It just has to be a monster type thing from the sea. In King's The Raft it's kind of like an oil slick. That was scary too. So, it doesn't have to be THE blob. In the werewolves script, it has a high railroad bridge. Is the railroad bridge necessary? No. It would look cool, but it's not integral to the story. Lonnie could just as well be shot in a field right in front of a shallow grave. It's all relative.  

PS: We could all write a talking head script that takes place in someone's house. That's low budget!!

Yep. agree with you, Pia.

not saying anybody's wrong but a lot of stuff and keywords said belong too much into the no-budget category, for my taste.

It is right some scripts slipped into the medium budget with partly having high 4 figures to even 10 grand.

To me, if you can't rent a simple location, have to calculate so tightly with any precondition; you're at the very bottom of low budget if not below; which is no problem by the way.

There are ways around budgets so it isn't much of a consideration for me while judging. Locations and even entire situations can be changed to match what one can get hold of. I suppose I'm more attracted to writing talent and how well the story is delivered. A good writer can make a mediocre story read great. That's what does it for me. If it's a slog to get through, then I have little patience for it.

Okay, Dustin,

Don't know why I said something at all here.

NOT ONLY to defend my own take haha. No, I took something with some money in the game, really didn't think a lot about it or calculated, and people disliking it therefore, is all right.

I completely stepped away from shorts at simplyscripts. I don't post any of them anymore. Only read a few in the last months. Perhaps some parts like budget has a lot to do with it. There's no passion for it from my sight... THE OWC IS GREAT OF COURSE!

so I shouldn't talk about budget this and that and let experts discuss who actually shoot films

I dunno, if low budget isn't a serious consideration for these challenges, why have it in the criteria at all? If it's story people want, let the author's imagination sally forth and call forth the dogs of war! I certainly would appreciate a OWC where I didn't hold back.

I suppose I feel a bit resentful when I see scripts that have made the effort to stick within the stipulations and those that don't, yet each being treated the same by some reviewers. But that's my problem and for me to work out.

You guys are funny.

The key here is that no set amount was given to what "low budget" is...so...Bert and Pia are definitely correct.  Dustin is as well, in terms of his saying many things that may not be low budget, could be obtained or dealt with depending on what you have or can get.

In my judging, I have not once said a single word about any script's budget, because low budget does not mean no budget.

Hell, IMO, low budget could be well above $10,000.

This is one reason why I detest low budget anything.  It limits the writer's creativity.  It limits the quality.  And, it stifles the imagination.

Yep, Mark. Again totally correct.

It really is simple..and I've said it before about other stipulations:


If the stipulations are not considered important then they should not be part of the challenge.

If we are to ignore budget, then budget should be ANY and not LOW. Or not mentioned at all.

It really is that simple.


Otherwise it's really unfair on those that actually stick to the rules.

That's what I mean by budgets not being a consideration for me. Unless they're obviously blown out of the water... but there is a lot that can be done once you actually start finding out what can be done.

$500 for one day in an office is ridiculous... but it depends on what is in that office. Fully functioning computers, desks, etc... then why not... but even then, you should be able to negotiate a fair price. Some people are naturally good at getting things.

I think low budget should be a natural consideration anyway with shorts. It's mostly students and beginner filmmakers that make them. I write with what I can get hold of in mind. Hold of for free. So usually my locations are typically boring, but easy to get hold of and either cheap or free. I avoid outdoor locations as much as possible... aside from establishing shots with no dialogue. I avoid stunts, special effects and heavy make-up... unless stipulated.

The only people hurt by writing not to a low budget are the writers themselves.

Quoted from MarkRenshaw I suppose I feel a bit resentful when I see scripts that have made the effort to stick within the stipulations and those that don't, yet each being treated the same by some reviewers. But that's my problem and for me to work out.

Since I'm not going to win the coveted SS thong, I will admit that mine went over the page limit. Not because I ignored it, but for years, the page limit was 12. I honestly didn't realize it was 10 until that last day, and late in the day too. There are many ways I could've shrunk that script to fit it in 10, but I had carefully written the script to end each page where it did and such and by starting to condense action paragraphs and ignore shot by shot breaks, I would IMO have ruined the flow of the read. I think I followed the rest of the challenge.

There were some scripts that were the right length, but didn't really have a classic movie monster in it. There were others that were high in budget. Some that weren't even horror at all, but a fun read. So, we all do our best and sometimes what we think fits, doesn't in someone else's eyes.

Quoted from Dreamscale You guys are funny. The key here is that no set amount was given to what "low budget" is...so...Bert and Pia are definitely correct.  Dustin is as well, in terms of his saying many things that may not be low budget, could be obtained or dealt with depending on what you have or can get. In my judging, I have not once said a single word about any script's budget, because low budget does not mean no budget. Hell, IMO, low budget could be well above $10,000. This is one reason why I detest low budget anything.  It limits the writer's creativity.  It limits the quality.  And, it stifles the imagination.

Or encourages you to use it and not rely on spectacle.

That last line proves why it's such an important stipulation...it's harder to create something sticking to low budget. It LIMITS you to certain things.

It's unfair if some writers are limited, by sticking to the rules, and others aren't.

You've said it yourself.

So if the stipulation is not going to be used to evaluate...let's remove it altogether in the future and have a more even playing field.

Some of us stuck rigidly to the rules and turned out scripts that most found a little bit boring. So I guess that means we...win?

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I disagree.

Of course you do haha.  No worries.

The only reason I am even jumping into this debate is because I am getting "dinged" for not writing a "low-budget" piece when -- by MY standards -- I most certainly did.

Minimal characters at one, single location, with nothing destroyed in the process.  Honestly, what more do you require?

I guess I was just saying that some folks are being a little too strict with that "low-budget" label.

Just because YOU happen to think "low budget" means two guys talking in an empty livingroom, it hardly seems fair to hold everyone to that standard.  That's an extreme example, of course, but I use it to make my point here.

Two cents:
1) The definition of low budget is vague.  A quick Google search shows "low budget" as US$700K for a feature length movie, so ten minutes is around $100K? Vague.
2) The challenge's constraints put is into a tiny box: a time-worn, burnt-to-a-crisp genre of "classic horror" is asking for a surfeit of Frankensteins, which is what we got.

The good news: this was my first challenge and a learned a ton from the comments.  In the end, isn't that the function of a OWC on a no-fee scripting Website?  We voluntarily choose to chunk our Halloween pumpkins, and instead of orange innards, our egos splatter.

Whatever the nits of rule, whatever the constraints, the thirty-two of us who spilled our pumpkin guts all over the battlefield deserve medals.  Bravo to my fellow screenwriters.  You showed up.

I don't think it's unfair, Rick. If a writer wishes to price themselves out of production then who does that hurt in the long run?

I didn't write this story to win a mug or a thong. I mainly wrote it for fun, but I also hope that one day it may be produced. This whole thing is just an excuse to write something different, something I wouldn't ordinarily have thought of if Don didn't come up with some stipulations.

Mine is super low budget, by the way. I'm not arguing the case because I broke the rule. I just find budget a bit of a grey area. Expensive to one person is cheap to another.

I even read the ones that went over page count and the ones that neglected to use a classic monster. I also read the comedies.

I was a little harsh to the last two I read this morning, I think, but over all, I've tried to be kind. Unfortunately that has led to some scripts getting higher marks than other scripts that are probably better. Sorry about that. Don't take anything I've said to heart, I'm just one guy with an oft ignorant opinion.

Just for reference:

BECTU rules stipulate the minimum a cinematographer can be paid is £1700 per day.

A professional crew will shoot around 18-20 shots per day and a ten page script will take between 3-4 days to shoot.

So...if you're accounting the budget from a legal perspective...just hiring a cinematographer would be between $7818.63 and $10425.56 for those three to four days in the UK.

That's before you've even got a camera!

A Red Scarlet is £780 per day. That's without lenses. A set of Red Primes is around £300 per day.

That's $4783.49 for the camera and $1839.12 for the lenses.

You're up to $16K and haven't even got a location, lights, actors, props or anything else yet.


That is essentially why the "middle-class" of filmmaking has died. There's either no budget stuff (getting everything you can for free) or studio stuff. It costs a fortune.

Nothing particularly to do with the thread, just saying.