The Power Of Micro Budget Filmmaking: Why Less Money Can Be Better

The single biggest challenge that independent filmmakers face when embarking on a feature film project is raising funds. While there were certain eras – like the early 90’s – where it was a little easier to get an indie film financed, generally speaking fundraising has been the achilles heal for most filmmakers.

Even today as modern camera and production technology allows filmmakers to shoot on lower budget than ever before, raising capital hasn’t gotten any easier. In fact it’s gotten harder. A production that used to need a $1MM budget, might be able to shoot for $100K instead. But where is that $100K going to come from? Many investors aren’t interested in putting money into a $100K film, as larger budget productions often come with more star power and therefore more potential return on investment. Not to mention, ultra low budget films can be perceived as a riskier investment, even if that’s not actually the case.

So while films have gotten cheaper than ever to make, fundraising has gotten more difficult. This leaves many filmmakers with finished scripts but no finished products, as they’ve simply been unable to come up with enough money to make their movie.

But there is another way, and it’s a more viable option than ever – micro budget filmmaking.

When I refer to micro-budget, I’m talking about films that are either made with no money, or well under $50K. I would consider a $5000 feature a micro budget feature, just as I would consider a $40,000 feature to be one. There’s no exact amount that constitutes what “micro budget” is, but I’ve always defined it as whatever budget the filmmaker can pull together without outside resources.

It’s worth mentioning up front that I am certainly not going to make a blanket statement that micro budget filmmaking is right for everyone. It’s not an easy path to take, and the majority of feature films would benefit greatly from private equity investment, grants, studio support, pre-sales, or some other type of financial backing. But in some cases, less money is actually better from both a creative and logistical standpoint. It all depends on the needs of the project and your goals as a filmmaker.

Here are just some of the reasons why micro budget filmmaking can be so powerful:

Less Cooks In The Kitchen

Filmmaking by nature is a collaborative medium, which can be a blessing and a curse at the same time. Collaborating with the right people can unleash your creative potential, but when there are too many cooks in the kitchen, your film runs the risk of getting watered down to the point that it no longer has a central voice.

Let’s say you take $250,000 investment from 5 different investors. You now have 5 additional voices that may want to give you notes on your script, your casting choices, production, editorial choices, release strategy, and so on. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing if all 5 investors are on the same page and are all equally savvy when it comes to independent filmmaking. But what if you have 5 of investors that have no experience in the film industry? They hold the money (and therefore the power), and you will have no choice but to make creative compromises along the way that will inevitably have an affect on your final product.

There is a certain purity that comes along with micro budget filmmaking. It’s something that you can’t experience on any other level of production, even on ultra low budget films. This may or may not be a deal breaker for you, but if you are trying to make the type of film that pushes boundaries, experiments, takes risks, or breaks new ground in any way, you may be better off keeping your creative team as small as you can. Part of this means saying no to outside money.

Thinking Outside The Box

It’s been said many times that limitations are the ultimate keys to creativity. Whether you’re writing, shooting, editing, or working on any other part of the creative process – if you’re boxed into to a set of rules or limitations, your creative freedom will be unleashed.

This may seem counter intuitive as we all like to believe we are “thinking outside the box” at all times. But when there is no box to think outside of, your mind and ideas can wander endlessly and you will never come up with the most unique or original creative solutions. Having very little (or no money) is the ultimate limitation that can truly set your creative mind on fire.

If you have an unlimited budget, you could come up with a story idea that has every element you could ever imagine in it. Car chases, explosions, a huge cast, locations all over the world, etc. This might seem liberating, but it’s actually a terrible burden to carry. When there is no limit to what you can do, you will never be forced to challenge yourself to think of the most innovative and unique solutions. Rather than just writing in a car chase (which could be a cliché), you might be forced to write a completely different sequence that is far more original and interesting, all because you had no money.

This is why so many blockbuster films are awful to watch. Anything that can be thought of essentially can be achieved, but the filmmakers aren’t often forced to break away from cliché and try something new. Micro budget films on the other hand, force you to be more creative and less conventional – whether you like it or not.

Your Production Value May Be Higher

Ironically, many micro budget films can have higher production value than ultra-low and low budget films. This is usually because micro budget films are well aware of their limitations and use them to their benefit. With that said, there are plenty of poorly made micro budget features and plenty of excellent low budget films… But having no money doesn’t need to mean you have less production value. In fact, the opposite may be true.

Filmmakers that are dealing with modest budgets (let’s say $250K or so), will sometimes spend their money very inefficiently. This is especially the case with first time filmmakers that are used to working with practically no money at all. When $250K comes along, it feels like the sky is the limit, but in reality it’s very far from it. In film terms, $250K is still extremely low, and more often than not money will get spent on things that will never be seen on the screen: Unnecessary equipment, extra shoot days (that may not be warranted), trailers, more visual effects, etc.

Now I’m not saying you shouldn’t spend your budget on these things if you have the money to spend, but I’m simply pointing out the fact that in film, money is all relative. All that matters is what is on the screen, and if your $20,000 is stretched to look like a million dollar film, while a $250K film looks like it was shot for $250K, then which film has more inherent value?

The filmmaker with $250K might write in more “high production value” scenes, that are just barely achievable with their budget. This will mean elements like visual effects will likely look cheaper and actually take away from the film’s production value, instead of adding to it. On the other hand, the micro budget filmmaker would likely just write in a different scene in the first place that avoids the visual effects component. In the latter case, this will avoid having the film include cheap looking effects just because it was technically possible to achieve within the scope of the film.

You Own Everything

One of the great benefits of micro budget filmmaking is that you as the filmmaker own your final product outright. Assuming you’ve taken no outside investment and funded it with your own money, credit cards, bartering, or any other method you could think of – you are the sole owner of your product. This means when it’s time to sell your film, whatever money you make will go to you, the filmmaker, and you can use that money to make your next film. And if you lose any money, you don’t have investors chasing after you with pitch forks. You’ll learn your lesson, see what you could improve upon next time, and make sure you don’t make those same mistakes next time around.

Down the road, there will be a time and a place to take outside investments, and your number one business goal as a filmmaker at that point will be to pay your investors back. It’s just good business and it will lead to more investment in the future. But if you’re making a micro budget film with your own money, whatever investment you make (or lose) is on you, which can be liberating in many respects.

It goes without saying that certain stories need a lot of money and investment to be made properly, but if you’re reading this article, chances are you’re not making that kind of movie. At the end of the day, you need to find the right business strategy for your film, even if it means going at it alone and embracing the benefits of a micro budget production.

For more content like this, be sure to follow me on InstagramFacebook, and Twitter!


About Author

Noam Kroll is an award-winning Los Angeles based filmmaker, and the founder of the boutique production house, Creative Rebellion. His work can be seen at international film festivals, on network television, and in various publications across the globe. Follow Noam on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook for more content like this!


  • Steele Honda
    May 8, 2019 at 9:00 pm

    I like that you said that micro-budget films, on the other hand, force you to be more creative and less conventional. That’s one of the reasons that I think that a lot of independent films end up having better stories than blockbuster films because they actually have to focus on that and think of ways to tell it the right way. I think it’s important for us to support the independent short films and their directors in our community so that we can see more of that work, and see what they can come up.

    • Noam Kroll
      May 17, 2019 at 10:31 pm

      Thanks a lot – glad it resonated with you!

  • Dave
    July 25, 2017 at 10:16 pm

    Great article, well written. I have no statistics on this question, “how many films made for 250K or in that budget range ended up profiting. I would love to know that. Thanks again for the great write up.

    • Noam Kroll
      July 26, 2017 at 5:05 am

      Hey Dave – Great question. I don’t have those kind of statistics either, however if a film at that scale ($250K or so) is well executed, it has some advantages over larger budget productions. Namely, $250K is still quite low in the grand scheme of things budget-wise, meaning the film doesn’t need to make as much money as a $1MM – $10MM feature to break even or turn a profit.

      The advantage higher budget productions have is that they are often more thoroughly developed/tested to ensure the investment is recouped… Just my two cents, but no matter what it’s a gamble!

  • Drew
    September 7, 2016 at 11:23 pm

    Great write up. All good points. Also, people need to remember to budget for post post-production costs (such as film festival fees, DCPs, marketing, press kits, etc.) in their overall budget. So many people making their first films forget stuff like that.
    I am currently writing a micro-budget script to make into a feature film and I am curious about insurance, the amount of crew needed on a usual day of a micro-budget shoot, and how/how much to pay the cast and crew. The last film I made was a short film for my graduate school thesis, so I did not have to worry about these issues since the school covered insurances, the crew were graduate students or recent graduates that worked for free, and it was a period piece and the biggest film made on campus that year (all interiors were made and shot on the university’s sound stage) so it had a large crew. Overall, it was not a “real world” experience and did not truly prepare me for trying to make a micro-budget feature.
    Given your experiences and knowledge in filmmaking, could you give any advice on these topics? It will be much appreciated.

    • Noam Kroll
      September 19, 2016 at 2:27 pm

      You’re absolutely right – the costs on the back end of the filmmaking process (festival submissions, marketing, etc.) are almost always overlooked. And unfortunately, these are some of the most important considerations, as without them, these kinds of films never see the light of day.

      As far as insurance goes, a standard film insurance policy will have you covered – whether you’re a one person crew or a ten person crew. I’m no expert on this topic, but you should definitely look into getting a great policy either to cover you… Either just on this project, or an annual policy that will cover other productions throughout the year too. When it comes to sell your film, you will likely need Errors and Omissions insurance as well.

      My mentality with crew on a micro budget film is that less is more. I would rather have a 3 person crew and pay everyone something reasonable, than have 10 people and pay them very little. Most micro budget films can be shot with very small skeleton crews, so I would suggest finding a very small but passionate team that you can afford to pay, and making sure your crew size does not get out of hand. The less crew on set, the less transportation required, the less mouths to feed and lunch, etc. all of which will help your bottom line.

      Good luck with your film and thanks for the note!

  • William Hellmuth
    September 6, 2016 at 10:30 pm

    Love it! Very true. I just wrapped a micro-budget feature and it’s been one of the most rewarding creative experiences of my career. I found that with my tiny crew, we were able to be mobile, fast moving, and get in to some incredible locations that really gave our movie a unique look and high production value. I’m already working on the next micro budget concept!
    And, because I have to, here’s the link to the movie I just finished:

    • Noam Kroll
      September 7, 2016 at 7:15 am

      Hey William! Thanks for the note and that’s really great to hear about your feature. I’ll definitely check it out some time soon, and best of luck with your next flick.


Leave a Reply