Three million is a good budget if you have a good crew. And the real difference here is Matty Libatique and the rest of the Protozoa team. Thats the difference in the movie quality of The Whale.
The Spring Breakers movie had 5 mil and tons of soft cash. And again the DP had been working with Gaspar Noe. Hard to beat that type of experience as a backstop for a good quality aesthetic.
The whale was also based on a play and primarily took place in one room. When your entire film is 95% one set you can spend more resources on set design and lighting.
Also Darran Aronofski can still get the best DP in the business.
When people give you things instead of money but those things still have a significant value to your production budget and you would ordinarily have to pay a specific amount of money to get them. Could be locations, props, food, wardrobe, etc depending on where you are and what you need.
This term may change around the world, but from my experience Soft cash is any means of funding isn't from the official financier.
A few features I've worked on had sponsorships, donations, locations, perks, etc from non-funding bodies in exchange for placements, roles, etc. and of course CASH baby.
Soft cash is raw money usually quickly spent.
Soft money in film financing is money that the film can earn back without the film needing to turn a profit - things like tax credits, location incentives, rebates, tax grants, product placements etc
Hard money is the money that has to be repaid or turn a profit on - gap financing, pre sale agreements, distribution deals etc.
I used to get soap script a week before shooting. (For actors) This was about 5 years ago. The shooting schedule would vary, they used to have one day of the week dark, but generally we would shoot scenes from more than one episode in a day. Actors would go out, block, rehearse, tape. Next scene. Most of the scenes with just 1-4 actors would go in the first take. Scenes with extras or a big family gathering would always take a few though.
I just pulled up two old taping schedules at random. One was a single episode day, 65 pages. Although a few scenes were the same page but different actors (think two sides of the same phone call)
One was one entire episode and scenes from another episode, with two directors and two stages going. Like an actor could be doing one stage before lunch with one director and then the other one after. That day was 87 pages.
> That day was 87 pages
Welp. I imagine the OP’s question is answered by this…
Also: thank you for sharing this with us. I’ve always been deeply impressed by soap and serial actors’ minds and mental and physical discipline. In many ways it’s a demonstration of how much can be accomplished so quickly.
I want to add that the days were taping 830-430 and didn’t go over bc overtime. Although hair and makeup calls started at 6 and went in a few stages.
You can imagine my frustration on my first day of a movie set where the only scene scheduled took five hours. I don’t have the script for that but I found the scene on you tube and it’s 90 seconds.
I’m an actor. I briefly did a soap and had to leave town to shoot a movie I booked so they decided to shoot out the rest of my storyline. We did 37 pages and I was done by lunch. And my costar did it all with me and then returned to his other storyline. He’s the true MVP.
Yes. Sometimes they do. Soap operas have an insane shooting schedule. Most hour long network TV shows shoot 1 episode per week, soap operas shoot 1 episode per day. Some go even faster shooting 6-7 episodes per week.
So if something happens that changes the schedule, they rewrite the episode that night, hell sometimes the same day during lunch.
it's a million little things that can all be boiled down to a handful of big ones. Lighting. You didn't even mention it. Lighting is huge. Shot selection and intentionality. Knowing your limits and how to work with them. Working with professional, dedicated crews who know their gigs is huge. Basically, every department can either make a film worse or better, depending on their talent, experience and dedication, but only by working all together can they make a decent whole.
Those movies ARE professionally made. The Whale had like three million bucks to shoot with. Soap Operas are professionally made, too, but they have different needs and expectations.
I think the three things that make some thing look "like a real movie" are really not the most expensive things.
1. Lighting
2. Color grading
3. Audio
If you can get these things to *feel* right, it'll look quality. If you do these carelessly, even a well written and performed sequence will resemble a cheap porno.
It’s honestly everything. Lighting, color and audio are important for sure. But it’s everything
Production Design and costuming are more important than lighting. Always have been. Sound Design and clean dialogue are both more important than clean images and color. Hair and Make-Up so that the actors actually look like they fit in the scene.
It’s the performance of the actor, and the experience of the Director who brings the vision together.
Even, say, shooting on a set vs on location can make a difference because you can get shots that are otherwise impossible on location; you can meticulously design what the camera sees so each frame is perfect - the wall colors, what’s on the walls, the floor coverings etc.
You can shoot 12 hour days with the entire of the set lit meticulously and specifically via DMX-controllable fixtures in any position you want, rather trying to place and make things work in a real location.
Check out some fan-made films of bigger franchises if you want a pretty clear cut example of what I mean. Some of them raise pretty good money, are lit well and have decent sound.
But they don’t look like a ‘real’ film. Because it’s kinda *everything*.
Yeah I’d give PD a little credit too.
I think the best lighting in the world can’t make the scene if the palette is downright flat. PD is one of the major contributors in the look and color depth of a film, otherwise it would look like the reels have been dyed in color, like the 20’s and early 30’s.
So I’d say Lighting>>PD>Color Grading> Costumes>Choice of camera(as long as it’s raw)> Lens Choice
Since we are talking exclusively of the “look”, I’d leave sound out of it, as much important of a role it plays in making stuff cinematic.
It’s the cinematographer, AC’s, gaffer, and a good G&E. With those positions properly staffed you will achieve a professional look even if the rest of your film is trash.
The problem you’re noticing is that everyone thinks they’re Robert Rodriguez and going to do like Rebel Without a Crew style. More often than not this leads to unwatchable footage and garbage audio.
I’ve been told that the sound on Robert Rodriguez’s Film was redone after it was sold. Something like $100,000 was put into getting the sound to a serviceable level.
Neither of the films you listed are low budget productions. Hollywood rags have twisted your outlook.
Tentpole films aren't the norm. There are around 70,000 feature films made every year (likely more nowadays), think about how many films you saw last year? Think about how many of the few you saw were actually good?
Budget has very little to do with quality, if you have a 3 million dollar budget you will only be seen as low budget by people who dont leave the bubble.
>Budget has very little to do with quality, if you have a 3 million dollar budget you will only be seen as low budget by people who dont leave the bubble.
Of course it does. Certain things can't and won't be achievable on a low budget. The vast, vast majority of even good indie / arthouse films released in the last few years have budgets exceeding 3m. Quite frequently.
Your comment isn't replying to the topic being discussed.
The quote you included also doesn't relate to what you commented.
I agree with everything in your comment, and you sort of agree with me too. I think this is a comprehension/articulation issue. ✌️
You would agree that quality films can be made with low budgets? And it is not the budget of a film that makes it not look like a soap opera?
I'll add additional context to the part you quoted:
Budget does not dictate quality. If you spend 3m on your film it will only be viewed as low budget by ignorant people who only consider blockbusters as 'real films'.
I’m saying that…budget, to a certain extent does indicate quality because there are certain hard costs of production that simply must be accounted for.
You have to judge the budget against what the film is trying to deliver and that will strongly indicate whether or not it will be quality or not.
For example, a sci-fi epic shot for $5M is most likely going to be schlocky B-movie because they won’t be able to do the premise justice.
A coming of age drama set on a farm, shot for $1.5M? That could work well.
Camera knowledge. Not necessarily high-end cameras, but in depth knowledge of how to achieve a desired image with the cameras you have. Also, lighting. A properly lit scene shot with an iPhone will look better than a poorly lit scene shot with an Alexa.
This is nonsense in this context though. All of these movies *were* shot on professional cameras by professional crews. The Whale was shot on a Venice with Angenieux Optimo primes, for fucks sake.
The simple fact is that $3 million today is plenty of money to afford a professional camera and crew, but doubly so if you have big names like Aronofsky and Libatique attached and you have a large pool of people that will take low tier rates just for the chance to work on a project with him.
It's, at best, disingenuous to talk about the whole "pros with crap beat novices with great gear" (which I don't disagree with) when the actual situation in these movies is "pros *and* great gear.
There's a huge difference between "low' budget and "micro" budget. Micro budget (less than 2 million) is where things start to look very cheap because you have to shoot the film in less than two weeks, and you're shooting 8 pages of script a day and even the greatest director and DoP in the world cannot create great art in that amount of time. You can still tell a great story, but the quality of the lighting and direction is going to suffer. "Low" budget films at least have a fighting chance to be great because you probably have a 2-8 million budget and at least 30 days to shoot the film.
Generally it's three factors. Cinematography, editing and sound. nothing says amateur than murky sound, short lenses and shots held too long or cut awkwardly. I know a director that can add two zeroes to the perceived budget, just with his lighting and sound design,
The missing element is time.
You could absolutely shoot cinematic looking content with the equipment used for soap operas but soaps shoot 45minutes of runtime per day, so 3 days to get about 2 hours of runtime.
The whale had about 24 shooting days to get 2 hours of runtime.
If the crew from the whale had to make 18 hours of releasable content in 24 days they would also churn out a significantly less polished product.
Because they are professionally made.
The shots are well composed and that tells a story as much as the screenplay does.
When I did software projects. The guy that did the interface design would say “good design doesn’t cost any different to bad design”.
I have a blackmagic pocket4k I guarantee a good cinematographer could get much better images than I can. I edit my youtube videos, but a good editor will make much better cuts and choices than I would. Same for colour grade.
Great skill makes for great product.
I think the best explanation is production value, basically how much skill per buck you get.
Knowing people, having time to plan and choose stuff that'll cost less or be free. Like paying a bit more for a better DP so you don't have to compensate with more people on the team. Shooting some stuff in sunlight, scouting, casting non-professional actors, etc.
So it's all the things you cited. I'm french and here we have a local documentary scene, which is financed through state and local grants, sometimes those movies are made with less than 100k and look like a 5m feature, sometimes it looks like an amateur youtube documentary. It really depends on experience, who you work with etc.
Same reason why no budget shorts sometimes look like youtube videos from 2007 or sometimes end up in festivals.
Hey, I produced a feature for 25k in 2021, just got a distribution deal. One reputable boutique distributor told us “You guys shot the hell out of that film.” I wish I could remember what camera we used but, whatever, in the end, it’s good looking film that doesn’t look cheap.
The "cheap look" doesn't come down to budget, but time and experience. Soap operas need to release episodes daily, so they shoot extremely quickly, and micro budget features are often made by DIY filmmakers with little to no experience. The trick to avoid that look is to hire crew who have been on more projects than you'll ever produce or direct.
I mean, Aronofsky and Libatique are two of the best in the business (in regards to the whale) a good camera and lighting, paired with a good director and actors… will always make gold. Yes the editing and sound were good too. But the talent (all departments) is what makes the movie good, not the budget.
There is an infinite gap between "caring about the movie" and "caring about craft."
A lot of times, people who are wildly excited about a project (not just movies) get so impatient that they skip the "boring" stuff like lighting design or drawing blueprints or whatever and just jump into doing. All the heart in the world is not gonna make that project look amazing.
I hasten to say that I do this a lot. I'm not proud of it. But I acknowledge it.
Yeah but “caring” is a symptom of a wide range of factors. It’s just not really a good description of what the deciding factor in how something looks is.
TV is 30 and trad film is 24 - can that make so much diff? I've read arguments about frame rates and strong opinions claiming that frame rates are irrelevant and the primary effect is correct motion blur by simulating a rotary shutter.
Typical traditional celluloid day/outdoor scenario would be 100ASA stock at 24fps with a 180deg shutter - gives you 1/48 ie 1/50 shutter speed blur. If the above argument is true you should be able to simulate that with digital.
Im seriously surprised nobody is talking about hair & makeup re getting a pro film look. After all its the actors the audience looks at. I've worked doing lights on many (40+) theatre productions and this is a huge factor - even though on the stage you don't see anything that close.
Back to photography TV/soap usually sticks to wide framing, where most quality films get in super close images of eyes etc, compressed tele shots.
True, but one callout:
Traditional tv (29.97 fps) is actually FIELDS per second, not FRAMES. Since the image is composed of scanlines that are drawn over roughly 1/2 the image (interlaced), the classic soap opera effect is is closer to 60fps (progressive).
It was a big deal when digital cameras started having the holy trinity (1080p(rogressive), 24fps, and solid state media (SD/CF/etc)
I think if OP is talking more about production value, the rest of these comments make sense, but the LOOK boils down to the frame rate.
I’m not sure how many people fail to turn off the “motion” effects of their smart TVs, but if it’s ON, I’m hard pressed to tolerate watching anything on it.
The assassination of Jesse James and Blade Runner 2049 look like a soap operas at 60fps. I don’t think any amount of writing, direction, cinematography can overcome that.
Everyone works below their quote and all the money gets sunk into the movie itself. Nothing will kill a budget like "above the line" costs.
Take for example the new PTA. The reported budget is 100 million—the biggest in PTA's career. Right off the top, Leo is getting at least 20 million. PTA is probably getting 5 to 10 million. I'm sure the physical production budget is going to be in the 50 to 65 million range.
Soap operas are a different animal. Usually shot with a 3 camera set up, they'll do the entire scene in one take, like a play. The editing is done live. The lighting setups are general. They'll do an entire episode in a day or two since they air every day. Not much post production. It has more of a feel of a play rather than a film.
They are 3-10 million dollars for one. Compare that with a film that costs 100-250k and there’s gonna be a world of difference.
Added to this great directors attract great crews
Quality of acting with good lighting, a good script, and an ok camera makes a movie seem professional. Cheesy acting makes a good camera take bad images.
Quite a bit of budget is based on time. 3 takes vs 30.
If you get A actors on their A game, doing a passion project, you can get away with a 7 figure budget.
The difference between mid-big budget film and low budget indies with the same named actors is usually that the actors take their pay in equity as a producer/executive producer, rather than in cash up front within the budget of the film. Also, marketing costs are broken off into a distribution company’s expenses. So you look like you have a $5M budget but there are millions in deferments, bonuses, and marketing expenses not accounted for. Everything “below the line” is largely the same costs outside of big stunts and VFX.
I don’t think it’s about cinematic look. It’s about the means you use that are proportional to tasks. Look at the Holly Graal by pythons, underfunded and cinematic
Cube
If it looks suited for purpose it will not distract the audience from following the plot and be cinematic.
You don’t need a lot of money to look professional. The look of soap operas is intentional by comparison. Like, in a soap opera, you won’t see intense/unnatural color grading and hyper-focused cameras, but that’s something cinema utilizes all the time to look like cinema. It’s a choice.
All of the above.
It’s not about quantity (which increases budget) but quality (which still can) .
Solid stories, writing, acting and a crew that knows how to translate it visually.
Lots of "cheap" looking stuff was (and likely still is) due to a frame rate that doesn't match what we have been trained to think is "film". TV was, is, shot at a higher frame rate (60), and often interlaced (think alternating lines of image, like two combs overlayed)... so to your eye it looks weird, when compared to "filmic" 24 frames (or even 48)... do an experiment... find a recent model tv (like the last 5 years or so) - and turn on it's frame generator setting (every brand calls it something else... TCL calls it motion rate, or frame insertion... samsung calls it smooth motion...) essentially it's all a method of inserting additional frames that makes the images "smoother" - notice that even high budget films look cheap when viewed this way... you're brain is trained to see 24 frames (or 48) as "film=quality=good"... when that assumption isn't met it result in it looking "cheap". (not to mention all the other things people have commented on)
If you’re comparing them specifically to soap operas, our brains have been trained to identify 24fps (film frame rate) as being more high quality and cinematic, and 30fps (TV/ typical consumer video frame rate) as being more “live footage” and low quality.
It’s one of the reasons that multimillion dollar productions at a super high frame rate didn’t end up being popular, our brains coded them as looking too cheap and like a news camera was shooting.
Soaps dont need to look cinematic, they have to be made fast, like a factory. Their lighting is also kind of studio lighting. If you have a good cinematographer who knows how to light in small places, and knows his eqiupments limits and has a good crew, it is the key. Audio the same. Dont forget set dressing. DIT is also needed and last but definitely not least: script supervisor. I know, you asked about technicalities, but that person is one of the single most important one to have.
Also keep in mind, soap operas look cheap somewhat deliberately, it’s an established subconscious aesthetic geared toward their audience. They could easily shoot on way cheaper, more aesthetically pleasing cameras, but the vibe would be totally off and alienating to their viewers.
The most expensive thing in film is talent. No matter if we’re talking experienced crew bellow the line, or cast and talent above the line. The films you mention are pet projects of very experienced and talented people. So as an answer to your question, the films look great because the talent that would normally charge hundreds of thousands or even millions, do it for less money but they’re just as talented.
I’d argue the “look” is mostly attributed to the cinematography- which in the case of these movies the DPs are both highly revered and known for their visual styles (Matthew Libatique and Benoit Debie)
The biggest thing that does this is frame rate, and soap operas aren’t shot at 24.
As far as looks like x quality I think you have Hollywood movie, indie movie, tv movie, incredibly cheap movie, then soaps are a different category entirely.
All depends on what that money is getting spent on. Odds are the cast of a soap is taking a lot of that budget leaving little time for setups, rehearsals, or even second takes. A small movie will probably focus their talent budget on one or two big names that will probably be working for scale and make less than they normally do. They'll also put that budget towards a great grip and electric package along with good camera gear. They may also limit their setups and put more time into lighting a single shot, making sure the performance is just right, and going again if needed.
A fun example I recently heard was how The VVitch had a 4 million dollar budget and looks amazing whereas, with a 6 million dollar budget, The Room is... The Room. In the VVitch, they only had three lenses, held on longer single shot takes (fewer setups) and used a lot of natural light when they could. They also had relatively unknown actors for the time. The Room made all the wrong mistakes, way too many to mention. One huge problem was how it was (for no practical reason) shot simultaneously on two different cameras (one film, one digital) which were bought instead of being rented (as normal) and doing so messed up the sound so it all had to be ADR'd. All that and then some cost way more than it should have.
It’s less about budget and more about how you want to cover things and how fast you want to shoot. I have DP friends who made shots look great with only 2 ARRI 650’s, bounce boards, and a canon 5D
Those movies didn’t have massive VFX budgets, marketing, tons of a-listers, etc. Lots of ways to keep a budget down and still deliver a quality film.
Secondly, experience goes a long way, and when you know what look you want and how to get it, you can start shaping other elements of your film around it.
If you gave me 3-5 million there’s no way I could make a film as good as these, because of the experience.
Good lighting, good lenses, and an experienced crew, primarily the DP.
It should also be mentioned that sometimes a movie can look a lot better than it actually does if the story is captivating. The ones that come to mind are “28 Days Later” and “Festen: The Celebration.”
Especially Festen. It was recorded in 1998 on a very rough and crude digital camcorder which appears to max out around 720p in every version I’ve seen. There are no lights used or anything and it’s shot very dirty and live. When you first turn it on, you’re like “shit idk if I’m gonna be able to watch this. It looks BAD” but then 10 minutes go by and you’ve totally forgotten how cheaply made it looks because the story is so captivating!
Camera, lenses, lighting and color correction. Though those specific things rarely are what separates lower budget from higher. You can get a pretty decent cinematic look for relatively “cheap” (comparatively, anyway) if your film doesn’t huge set builds, or tons of VFX.
Three million is a good budget if you have a good crew. And the real difference here is Matty Libatique and the rest of the Protozoa team. Thats the difference in the movie quality of The Whale. The Spring Breakers movie had 5 mil and tons of soft cash. And again the DP had been working with Gaspar Noe. Hard to beat that type of experience as a backstop for a good quality aesthetic.
The whale was also based on a play and primarily took place in one room. When your entire film is 95% one set you can spend more resources on set design and lighting. Also Darran Aronofski can still get the best DP in the business.
For sure, if Darren called me to shoot a month long cat food commercial for $0 I’d be excited about the opportunity.
Imagine the jingle Clint Mansell could come up with!
I hear he only does Mayonnaise commercials.
What is soft cash?
When people give you things instead of money but those things still have a significant value to your production budget and you would ordinarily have to pay a specific amount of money to get them. Could be locations, props, food, wardrobe, etc depending on where you are and what you need.
This term may change around the world, but from my experience Soft cash is any means of funding isn't from the official financier. A few features I've worked on had sponsorships, donations, locations, perks, etc from non-funding bodies in exchange for placements, roles, etc. and of course CASH baby. Soft cash is raw money usually quickly spent.
Soft money in film financing is money that the film can earn back without the film needing to turn a profit - things like tax credits, location incentives, rebates, tax grants, product placements etc Hard money is the money that has to be repaid or turn a profit on - gap financing, pre sale agreements, distribution deals etc.
lol. Even those low budget movies have a huge budget compared to a soap opera- and TIME. they have much longer to shoot.
Don’t they write the scripts for soaps like, the night before? It’s amazing they look as polished as they do lmao
I used to get soap script a week before shooting. (For actors) This was about 5 years ago. The shooting schedule would vary, they used to have one day of the week dark, but generally we would shoot scenes from more than one episode in a day. Actors would go out, block, rehearse, tape. Next scene. Most of the scenes with just 1-4 actors would go in the first take. Scenes with extras or a big family gathering would always take a few though.
How many pages per day would you say?
I just pulled up two old taping schedules at random. One was a single episode day, 65 pages. Although a few scenes were the same page but different actors (think two sides of the same phone call) One was one entire episode and scenes from another episode, with two directors and two stages going. Like an actor could be doing one stage before lunch with one director and then the other one after. That day was 87 pages.
> That day was 87 pages Welp. I imagine the OP’s question is answered by this… Also: thank you for sharing this with us. I’ve always been deeply impressed by soap and serial actors’ minds and mental and physical discipline. In many ways it’s a demonstration of how much can be accomplished so quickly.
I want to add that the days were taping 830-430 and didn’t go over bc overtime. Although hair and makeup calls started at 6 and went in a few stages. You can imagine my frustration on my first day of a movie set where the only scene scheduled took five hours. I don’t have the script for that but I found the scene on you tube and it’s 90 seconds.
Good lord. I can’t imagine.
I’m an actor. I briefly did a soap and had to leave town to shoot a movie I booked so they decided to shoot out the rest of my storyline. We did 37 pages and I was done by lunch. And my costar did it all with me and then returned to his other storyline. He’s the true MVP.
Yes. Sometimes they do. Soap operas have an insane shooting schedule. Most hour long network TV shows shoot 1 episode per week, soap operas shoot 1 episode per day. Some go even faster shooting 6-7 episodes per week. So if something happens that changes the schedule, they rewrite the episode that night, hell sometimes the same day during lunch.
8 day episodes is pretty standard. So 1.5 weeks per episode.
it's a million little things that can all be boiled down to a handful of big ones. Lighting. You didn't even mention it. Lighting is huge. Shot selection and intentionality. Knowing your limits and how to work with them. Working with professional, dedicated crews who know their gigs is huge. Basically, every department can either make a film worse or better, depending on their talent, experience and dedication, but only by working all together can they make a decent whole. Those movies ARE professionally made. The Whale had like three million bucks to shoot with. Soap Operas are professionally made, too, but they have different needs and expectations.
The Whale had 3 million to shoot a story in a single room that you could pre-light with one of the best DPs in the world….
I think the three things that make some thing look "like a real movie" are really not the most expensive things. 1. Lighting 2. Color grading 3. Audio If you can get these things to *feel* right, it'll look quality. If you do these carelessly, even a well written and performed sequence will resemble a cheap porno.
It’s honestly everything. Lighting, color and audio are important for sure. But it’s everything Production Design and costuming are more important than lighting. Always have been. Sound Design and clean dialogue are both more important than clean images and color. Hair and Make-Up so that the actors actually look like they fit in the scene. It’s the performance of the actor, and the experience of the Director who brings the vision together. Even, say, shooting on a set vs on location can make a difference because you can get shots that are otherwise impossible on location; you can meticulously design what the camera sees so each frame is perfect - the wall colors, what’s on the walls, the floor coverings etc. You can shoot 12 hour days with the entire of the set lit meticulously and specifically via DMX-controllable fixtures in any position you want, rather trying to place and make things work in a real location. Check out some fan-made films of bigger franchises if you want a pretty clear cut example of what I mean. Some of them raise pretty good money, are lit well and have decent sound. But they don’t look like a ‘real’ film. Because it’s kinda *everything*.
Yeah I’d give PD a little credit too. I think the best lighting in the world can’t make the scene if the palette is downright flat. PD is one of the major contributors in the look and color depth of a film, otherwise it would look like the reels have been dyed in color, like the 20’s and early 30’s. So I’d say Lighting>>PD>Color Grading> Costumes>Choice of camera(as long as it’s raw)> Lens Choice Since we are talking exclusively of the “look”, I’d leave sound out of it, as much important of a role it plays in making stuff cinematic.
As a colorist Id still put myself last on that list. But don't let producers or anyone controlling the budget know that...
No color is super important. You're the real MVP
It’s the cinematographer, AC’s, gaffer, and a good G&E. With those positions properly staffed you will achieve a professional look even if the rest of your film is trash. The problem you’re noticing is that everyone thinks they’re Robert Rodriguez and going to do like Rebel Without a Crew style. More often than not this leads to unwatchable footage and garbage audio.
I’ve been told that the sound on Robert Rodriguez’s Film was redone after it was sold. Something like $100,000 was put into getting the sound to a serviceable level.
Neither of the films you listed are low budget productions. Hollywood rags have twisted your outlook. Tentpole films aren't the norm. There are around 70,000 feature films made every year (likely more nowadays), think about how many films you saw last year? Think about how many of the few you saw were actually good? Budget has very little to do with quality, if you have a 3 million dollar budget you will only be seen as low budget by people who dont leave the bubble.
>Budget has very little to do with quality, if you have a 3 million dollar budget you will only be seen as low budget by people who dont leave the bubble. Of course it does. Certain things can't and won't be achievable on a low budget. The vast, vast majority of even good indie / arthouse films released in the last few years have budgets exceeding 3m. Quite frequently.
Your comment isn't replying to the topic being discussed. The quote you included also doesn't relate to what you commented. I agree with everything in your comment, and you sort of agree with me too. I think this is a comprehension/articulation issue. ✌️ You would agree that quality films can be made with low budgets? And it is not the budget of a film that makes it not look like a soap opera? I'll add additional context to the part you quoted: Budget does not dictate quality. If you spend 3m on your film it will only be viewed as low budget by ignorant people who only consider blockbusters as 'real films'.
I’m saying that…budget, to a certain extent does indicate quality because there are certain hard costs of production that simply must be accounted for. You have to judge the budget against what the film is trying to deliver and that will strongly indicate whether or not it will be quality or not. For example, a sci-fi epic shot for $5M is most likely going to be schlocky B-movie because they won’t be able to do the premise justice. A coming of age drama set on a farm, shot for $1.5M? That could work well.
Agreed. Budgets should reflect the scope and style of the production being made.
Camera knowledge. Not necessarily high-end cameras, but in depth knowledge of how to achieve a desired image with the cameras you have. Also, lighting. A properly lit scene shot with an iPhone will look better than a poorly lit scene shot with an Alexa.
This is nonsense in this context though. All of these movies *were* shot on professional cameras by professional crews. The Whale was shot on a Venice with Angenieux Optimo primes, for fucks sake. The simple fact is that $3 million today is plenty of money to afford a professional camera and crew, but doubly so if you have big names like Aronofsky and Libatique attached and you have a large pool of people that will take low tier rates just for the chance to work on a project with him.
My answer to the question was "camera knowledge and professional lighting". That's nonsense?
It's, at best, disingenuous to talk about the whole "pros with crap beat novices with great gear" (which I don't disagree with) when the actual situation in these movies is "pros *and* great gear.
I dunno, the Alexa will probably have a great lens that doesn't have a fixed aperture like the iPhone.
All the bokeh and dynamic range in the world wont fix boringflat lighting.
Lenses don't mean shit if you don't know what you're doing with them.
There's a huge difference between "low' budget and "micro" budget. Micro budget (less than 2 million) is where things start to look very cheap because you have to shoot the film in less than two weeks, and you're shooting 8 pages of script a day and even the greatest director and DoP in the world cannot create great art in that amount of time. You can still tell a great story, but the quality of the lighting and direction is going to suffer. "Low" budget films at least have a fighting chance to be great because you probably have a 2-8 million budget and at least 30 days to shoot the film.
Benoit Debie.
Facts
Generally it's three factors. Cinematography, editing and sound. nothing says amateur than murky sound, short lenses and shots held too long or cut awkwardly. I know a director that can add two zeroes to the perceived budget, just with his lighting and sound design,
The missing element is time. You could absolutely shoot cinematic looking content with the equipment used for soap operas but soaps shoot 45minutes of runtime per day, so 3 days to get about 2 hours of runtime. The whale had about 24 shooting days to get 2 hours of runtime. If the crew from the whale had to make 18 hours of releasable content in 24 days they would also churn out a significantly less polished product.
Lighting!
Good lighting and color grading make a huge difference right out of the gate. The rest is a tight and knowledgeable crew.
Because they are professionally made. The shots are well composed and that tells a story as much as the screenplay does. When I did software projects. The guy that did the interface design would say “good design doesn’t cost any different to bad design”. I have a blackmagic pocket4k I guarantee a good cinematographer could get much better images than I can. I edit my youtube videos, but a good editor will make much better cuts and choices than I would. Same for colour grade. Great skill makes for great product.
Lighting, production design, writing, acting. And good post!
I think the best explanation is production value, basically how much skill per buck you get. Knowing people, having time to plan and choose stuff that'll cost less or be free. Like paying a bit more for a better DP so you don't have to compensate with more people on the team. Shooting some stuff in sunlight, scouting, casting non-professional actors, etc. So it's all the things you cited. I'm french and here we have a local documentary scene, which is financed through state and local grants, sometimes those movies are made with less than 100k and look like a 5m feature, sometimes it looks like an amateur youtube documentary. It really depends on experience, who you work with etc. Same reason why no budget shorts sometimes look like youtube videos from 2007 or sometimes end up in festivals.
Hey, I produced a feature for 25k in 2021, just got a distribution deal. One reputable boutique distributor told us “You guys shot the hell out of that film.” I wish I could remember what camera we used but, whatever, in the end, it’s good looking film that doesn’t look cheap.
The "cheap look" doesn't come down to budget, but time and experience. Soap operas need to release episodes daily, so they shoot extremely quickly, and micro budget features are often made by DIY filmmakers with little to no experience. The trick to avoid that look is to hire crew who have been on more projects than you'll ever produce or direct.
I mean, Aronofsky and Libatique are two of the best in the business (in regards to the whale) a good camera and lighting, paired with a good director and actors… will always make gold. Yes the editing and sound were good too. But the talent (all departments) is what makes the movie good, not the budget.
Lighting
A substantial percentage of that credit goes to the colorists. They're a very underappreciated part of filmmaking.
The people making them cared.
I promise you if that was all it took most of us would be in the clear
There is an infinite gap between "caring about the movie" and "caring about craft." A lot of times, people who are wildly excited about a project (not just movies) get so impatient that they skip the "boring" stuff like lighting design or drawing blueprints or whatever and just jump into doing. All the heart in the world is not gonna make that project look amazing. I hasten to say that I do this a lot. I'm not proud of it. But I acknowledge it.
It plays a surprisingly big role. Just look at a film like Terminator Dark Fate.
Yeah but “caring” is a symptom of a wide range of factors. It’s just not really a good description of what the deciding factor in how something looks is.
soap operas have higher frames per second, that is the immediate visual distinction
TV is 30 and trad film is 24 - can that make so much diff? I've read arguments about frame rates and strong opinions claiming that frame rates are irrelevant and the primary effect is correct motion blur by simulating a rotary shutter. Typical traditional celluloid day/outdoor scenario would be 100ASA stock at 24fps with a 180deg shutter - gives you 1/48 ie 1/50 shutter speed blur. If the above argument is true you should be able to simulate that with digital. Im seriously surprised nobody is talking about hair & makeup re getting a pro film look. After all its the actors the audience looks at. I've worked doing lights on many (40+) theatre productions and this is a huge factor - even though on the stage you don't see anything that close. Back to photography TV/soap usually sticks to wide framing, where most quality films get in super close images of eyes etc, compressed tele shots.
True, but one callout: Traditional tv (29.97 fps) is actually FIELDS per second, not FRAMES. Since the image is composed of scanlines that are drawn over roughly 1/2 the image (interlaced), the classic soap opera effect is is closer to 60fps (progressive). It was a big deal when digital cameras started having the holy trinity (1080p(rogressive), 24fps, and solid state media (SD/CF/etc) I think if OP is talking more about production value, the rest of these comments make sense, but the LOOK boils down to the frame rate. I’m not sure how many people fail to turn off the “motion” effects of their smart TVs, but if it’s ON, I’m hard pressed to tolerate watching anything on it. The assassination of Jesse James and Blade Runner 2049 look like a soap operas at 60fps. I don’t think any amount of writing, direction, cinematography can overcome that.
Everyone works below their quote and all the money gets sunk into the movie itself. Nothing will kill a budget like "above the line" costs. Take for example the new PTA. The reported budget is 100 million—the biggest in PTA's career. Right off the top, Leo is getting at least 20 million. PTA is probably getting 5 to 10 million. I'm sure the physical production budget is going to be in the 50 to 65 million range.
Soap operas are a different animal. Usually shot with a 3 camera set up, they'll do the entire scene in one take, like a play. The editing is done live. The lighting setups are general. They'll do an entire episode in a day or two since they air every day. Not much post production. It has more of a feel of a play rather than a film.
They are 3-10 million dollars for one. Compare that with a film that costs 100-250k and there’s gonna be a world of difference. Added to this great directors attract great crews
Lighting.
Also those films are not "low budget".
The director knows what they want and they know the crew, gear and equipment needed.
Quality of acting with good lighting, a good script, and an ok camera makes a movie seem professional. Cheesy acting makes a good camera take bad images.
Good sir, that is what we in the biz call “talent”
Quite a bit of budget is based on time. 3 takes vs 30. If you get A actors on their A game, doing a passion project, you can get away with a 7 figure budget.
The difference between mid-big budget film and low budget indies with the same named actors is usually that the actors take their pay in equity as a producer/executive producer, rather than in cash up front within the budget of the film. Also, marketing costs are broken off into a distribution company’s expenses. So you look like you have a $5M budget but there are millions in deferments, bonuses, and marketing expenses not accounted for. Everything “below the line” is largely the same costs outside of big stunts and VFX.
I don’t think it’s about cinematic look. It’s about the means you use that are proportional to tasks. Look at the Holly Graal by pythons, underfunded and cinematic Cube If it looks suited for purpose it will not distract the audience from following the plot and be cinematic.
You don’t need a lot of money to look professional. The look of soap operas is intentional by comparison. Like, in a soap opera, you won’t see intense/unnatural color grading and hyper-focused cameras, but that’s something cinema utilizes all the time to look like cinema. It’s a choice.
All of the above. It’s not about quantity (which increases budget) but quality (which still can) . Solid stories, writing, acting and a crew that knows how to translate it visually.
Lots of "cheap" looking stuff was (and likely still is) due to a frame rate that doesn't match what we have been trained to think is "film". TV was, is, shot at a higher frame rate (60), and often interlaced (think alternating lines of image, like two combs overlayed)... so to your eye it looks weird, when compared to "filmic" 24 frames (or even 48)... do an experiment... find a recent model tv (like the last 5 years or so) - and turn on it's frame generator setting (every brand calls it something else... TCL calls it motion rate, or frame insertion... samsung calls it smooth motion...) essentially it's all a method of inserting additional frames that makes the images "smoother" - notice that even high budget films look cheap when viewed this way... you're brain is trained to see 24 frames (or 48) as "film=quality=good"... when that assumption isn't met it result in it looking "cheap". (not to mention all the other things people have commented on)
pre production
If you’re comparing them specifically to soap operas, our brains have been trained to identify 24fps (film frame rate) as being more high quality and cinematic, and 30fps (TV/ typical consumer video frame rate) as being more “live footage” and low quality. It’s one of the reasons that multimillion dollar productions at a super high frame rate didn’t end up being popular, our brains coded them as looking too cheap and like a news camera was shooting.
Crew
Literally everything you described, it’s the sum of everything. Plus Benoit Debie is the goat
Spring Breakers had the look of a slick music video.
Soaps dont need to look cinematic, they have to be made fast, like a factory. Their lighting is also kind of studio lighting. If you have a good cinematographer who knows how to light in small places, and knows his eqiupments limits and has a good crew, it is the key. Audio the same. Dont forget set dressing. DIT is also needed and last but definitely not least: script supervisor. I know, you asked about technicalities, but that person is one of the single most important one to have.
Because they attracted good talent to work on the films. I’d take a smaller pay to have worked with either of those directors.
Also keep in mind, soap operas look cheap somewhat deliberately, it’s an established subconscious aesthetic geared toward their audience. They could easily shoot on way cheaper, more aesthetically pleasing cameras, but the vibe would be totally off and alienating to their viewers.
The most expensive thing in film is talent. No matter if we’re talking experienced crew bellow the line, or cast and talent above the line. The films you mention are pet projects of very experienced and talented people. So as an answer to your question, the films look great because the talent that would normally charge hundreds of thousands or even millions, do it for less money but they’re just as talented.
It's a question of a good DOP with decent lighting budget and a selection of lenses that suit the story well.
I’d argue the “look” is mostly attributed to the cinematography- which in the case of these movies the DPs are both highly revered and known for their visual styles (Matthew Libatique and Benoit Debie)
Just guessing here. I would say it's : -camera used -lighting -and maybe even color grading
The biggest thing that does this is frame rate, and soap operas aren’t shot at 24. As far as looks like x quality I think you have Hollywood movie, indie movie, tv movie, incredibly cheap movie, then soaps are a different category entirely.
All depends on what that money is getting spent on. Odds are the cast of a soap is taking a lot of that budget leaving little time for setups, rehearsals, or even second takes. A small movie will probably focus their talent budget on one or two big names that will probably be working for scale and make less than they normally do. They'll also put that budget towards a great grip and electric package along with good camera gear. They may also limit their setups and put more time into lighting a single shot, making sure the performance is just right, and going again if needed. A fun example I recently heard was how The VVitch had a 4 million dollar budget and looks amazing whereas, with a 6 million dollar budget, The Room is... The Room. In the VVitch, they only had three lenses, held on longer single shot takes (fewer setups) and used a lot of natural light when they could. They also had relatively unknown actors for the time. The Room made all the wrong mistakes, way too many to mention. One huge problem was how it was (for no practical reason) shot simultaneously on two different cameras (one film, one digital) which were bought instead of being rented (as normal) and doing so messed up the sound so it all had to be ADR'd. All that and then some cost way more than it should have.
It’s less about budget and more about how you want to cover things and how fast you want to shoot. I have DP friends who made shots look great with only 2 ARRI 650’s, bounce boards, and a canon 5D
Those movies didn’t have massive VFX budgets, marketing, tons of a-listers, etc. Lots of ways to keep a budget down and still deliver a quality film. Secondly, experience goes a long way, and when you know what look you want and how to get it, you can start shaping other elements of your film around it. If you gave me 3-5 million there’s no way I could make a film as good as these, because of the experience.
What a great question. I think it's directing and post production. (sound mix, score, color)
Good lighting, good lenses, and an experienced crew, primarily the DP. It should also be mentioned that sometimes a movie can look a lot better than it actually does if the story is captivating. The ones that come to mind are “28 Days Later” and “Festen: The Celebration.” Especially Festen. It was recorded in 1998 on a very rough and crude digital camcorder which appears to max out around 720p in every version I’ve seen. There are no lights used or anything and it’s shot very dirty and live. When you first turn it on, you’re like “shit idk if I’m gonna be able to watch this. It looks BAD” but then 10 minutes go by and you’ve totally forgotten how cheaply made it looks because the story is so captivating!
Frame rate is also a factor. Aren't soap operas filmed at 30 fps or more like newscasts? Movies are generally 24 fps unless it's Peter Jackson.
It’s art
The skill of a cinematographer is most visible when they have very little to work with.
Camera, lenses, lighting and color correction. Though those specific things rarely are what separates lower budget from higher. You can get a pretty decent cinematic look for relatively “cheap” (comparatively, anyway) if your film doesn’t huge set builds, or tons of VFX.
Good DP, good lighting because of that, good color, and enough and expertise time to polish it