All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I did not know Jeff's when I reviewed it. Later someone told me they suspected, having recognized the style. I'm still not sure.
When I did the reads, I only knew one of the writer's. I know a few now.
I guessed Janet's! I've read so much of her work it's as easy as a bartender spotting a drunk in a bar full of Mormons! It was very good work, too, very good.
Of the top vote getters, the identity is a complete mystery to me on most of them. Which is cool, makes the reveal more fun.
In producing a short (or feature) additional actors & locations inescapably inflate production budgets.
The ideal short uses two or three characters and takes place primarily at a single location + establishing shot with minimal camera movement/repositioning.
I box-circled the submissions with that combination, then added a brief scenario recap in column AF.
The idea was that if you wanted to write a budget conscious screenplay you could refer back to this chart and scam ideas to develop your own story.
In producing a short (or feature) additional actors & locations inescapably inflate production budgets.
The ideal short uses two or three characters and takes place primarily at a single location + establishing shot with minimal camera movement/repositioning.
I box-circled the submissions with that combination, then added a brief scenario recap in column AF.
The idea was that if you wanted to write a budget conscious screenplay you could refer back to this chart and scam ideas to develop your own story.
This is a nice thing to know - just one little note.
My rewrite of Withered is also a bit of re-working. There will be at least two new locations* added and two characters. One of them being a shrink, the other an occult bookstore cashier (could be non-speaking, the director wants his Hitchcock moment .)The page count will increase - possibly between 10-15 pages. however while there will be some horror-gore, it will be toned down a slight bit. Consider that a prodco likes the bit with the crawling hands but the budget only goes so far and there needs to be slightly more character establishment. So a little of it might remain, but it will be scaled back, less is more/ not as over the top. BTW, as much as I like hot girls, nudity costs a little extra, even if the actress is going to be caked with (fake) blood. Some actresses may be brave, others not so much. So--nothing more suggestive than your average shampoo commercial if you can help it (try to avoid T&A)
(*one location is the antagonist's room, but since not all of the int. of the house was filmed - with some creative dressing the location could still be in the same house location, and/or moved furniture and clever camerawork)
In your assessment of the draft seen here, you counted the garage and an asylum as a seperate locations. But what if we had a house that had a garage? And, since in the script, you only see one view of the asylum, could that "location" also be filmed in the house we find? And, if you dropped the protag from being in there, but had the antag instead being interviewed, that's a one room location. With tight camerawork, that location might be easier to find as well.
I noticed this a lot Ray - where your breakdowns are nice, but you never (or rarely) factor in locations in the script that *could* double for other locations. Yes, it could be a little time consuming, moving stuff around - but if one part of an interior location is filmed and the other half isn't, couldn't clever folks use the other half for 'other locations'?
Here's an inkling of an idea of what goes on with a film budget; specifically, a very well produced web-series: (this is a C&P from a post I made back in May of this year at an independent filmmaking site.)
Consider that the amount raised will probably have some "private equity" added to it, bringing the total budget up to north of the amount raised of $12k. Lettuce be conservative and call it $15k.
Divide that by a likely new round of twelve six minute (on average) episodes = $1,250 ea. episode, or $250 per screen minute.
And that's with a whole lotta free labor. And indirect costs not factored in.
A more legit cost is easily double = $30k total costs = $500/screen minute.
It becomes much more cost effective to shoot 12 x 6 = 72 minutes of a web series shorts than to gear up for a single six to twelve minute short.
Think of it as like driving to the store to buy groceries. There is a time and monetary cost to dressing up to goto the store, driving to the store, and returning from the store - irregardless - of whether you buy one or two things or twenty to fifty things.
Most of us would generally consider driving to the store just to buy a single item "not cost efficient."
Gearing up to make a short film is much the same thing.
Furthermore, the perspective from producer towards the writer would be much like a parent to child when asking what he or she wants for birthday or Christmas: there's often the ridiculous list and then there's what's likely to be provided.
It would be fun to have a RayW OWC, to come up with a 6-10 page script that falls within realistic (read: shoestring) budget considerations. Definitely worthwhile as an exercise in constraint and to practice making smarter (read: cheaper) decisions during the creative process to make the material more marketable for producers.
The trick, of course, is to still be creative within those tight constraints, but that's why it would be a challenge and one we should be at least striving towards anyway. I doubt any of us are being pegged to write the next Hollywood tentpole.
It would be fun to have a RayW OWC, to come up with a 6-10 page script that falls within realistic (read: shoestring) budget considerations.
Truth is - once I figure out a practical distribution pipeline I WILL come back here with real cash to offer a real contest for content to actually be produced for distribution.
Just like a vacation: It's very very easy to spend money on a film, short or feature. It's very very hard to make any money off a film, short or feature.
I ain't too keen on just tossing a car or house's value in cash out the door just for "the experience" of filmmaking. Pfft. No.
The 22-year-old Australian signed with the agency in a competitive situation generated by the buzz from the seven-minute short, which he wrote, directed and produced on a budget of around $5,000.
Johnston made the short while in between his regular gig of commercial and video directing and being a visual effects guru. He made the short in order to showcase the concept and to expand it into a feature film.
Rogers, based in L.A., shot the short on a $1,000 budget, served as cinematographer and editor and was responsible for visual effects. The project is currently an open writing assignment.
Another anecdote on post-production time as it will relates to expenses, in this case just the audio.
This is from an audio post expert:
Quoted Text
'It takes me a minimum of six (6) hours per linear minute of film to do a solid audio post - and I have almost a dozen years of audio post experience behind me, another six years as a music recording engineer, plus I have the needed tools like VocAlign, iZotope RX, SoundSoap Pro, Pro Tools BNR, AltiVerb and lots of other fun toys, not to mention a treated studio and some really nice speakers.'
How much is that gonna cost for each page you cannot delete from your "short."
I've never been involved with the filming of a short, so if my questions seem ignorant, I apologize in advance.
It seems to me that most of the shorts being filmed, including those of pretty good quality, are done largely with volunteers donating their time. Even low budget indie features have a lot of that.
Maybe James could chime in, since the people that filmed his So Dark really did high quality work. Did they pay a camera crew? Did they pay film and audio editors?
There are a lot of trained and talented people in the industry that just want to be involved in projects. And they understand the budgetary issues.
I had a guy who optioned a feature of mine a couple years ago. He failed to raise enough money, so it fell apart. But he worked in distribution, so he was able to line up some studio time and a professional camera crew for basically nothing. I have no doubt that if he actually launched the project, he would have had editors and actors working for free, or perhaps a revenue percentage. Everyone is looking to be connected to projects...everyone is looking for a way in.
Pia's features were produced on a very limited budget...and those were features, and the main actors were paid.
I'm just not sure how useful it is to calculate these kind of things for a the budget of a short. I think most directors are creative about getting around these things without spending money.
The less one spends, the less quality the finished product will be (most of the time).
Obviously, I'm referring to extremely low to no budget productions. It's one thing for shorts, but something completely different for features, IMO, at least.
I've never been involved with the filming of a short, so if my questions seem ignorant, I apologize in advance.
It seems to me that most of the shorts being filmed, including those of pretty good quality, are done largely with volunteers donating their time. Even low budget indie features have a lot of that.
Maybe James could chime in, since the people that filmed his So Dark really did high quality work. Did they pay a camera crew? Did they pay film and audio editors?
There are a lot of trained and talented people in the industry that just want to be involved in projects. And they understand the budgetary issues.
I had a guy who optioned a feature of mine a couple years ago. He failed to raise enough money, so it fell apart. But he worked in distribution, so he was able to line up some studio time and a professional camera crew for basically nothing. I have no doubt that if he actually launched the project, he would have had editors and actors working for free, or perhaps a revenue percentage. Everyone is looking to be connected to projects...everyone is looking for a way in.
Pia's features were produced on a very limited budget...and those were features, and the main actors were paid.
I'm just not sure how useful it is to calculate these kind of things for a the budget of a short. I think most directors are creative about getting around these things without spending money.
Yeah it can be done... plenty of micro-budget features out there made on less than some use on a short. I know one set of guys with over 60 actors ALL working for free on an apparent feature that doesn't have a script yet, they're all paying their own travel and food. The director, producer even the odd cameraman are all coming for free. Oh and the make-up artist is free too. She brings her own make-up.
Auditions are run just the same, they know from the casting call there will be no pay... but they turn up in their droves anyway. You pick the best one for the job and away you go.
I know a lot of extras that would kill for a speaking part to add to their resume, they'd probably pay for the fucker. In fact you honestly probably could charge them. They'd moan and bitch, but at the end of the day you are helping to advance their career. Of course, I know it's wrong and (lol) we really shouldn't do it, never, ever... but it is possible.
So long as it is writer/director and not director/writer I don't see a problem with that. The issues, from what I've witnessed, often stem from directors that think they can write rather than writers that think they can direct... not that directing is easy. It isn't. It takes a lot of planning to set up a shot... especially if you only have one camera. But still... directors should rely on free scripts more often.
Pages: 
Author
October 2013 OWC Scripts in one location
Logged
I've been continuously tempted over the past weeks to email Don and tell him to keep mine anonymous.
Locked Board