-
FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
-
[Shawn Miller] “Thanks for the reminder, Jeremy. :-)”
Get your crackle on: https://www.crackle.com/c/american-movie
-
That is the big downside of the digital revolution — any idiot with a camera can make a movie.
However, is it any worse than a Hollywood Studio spending $215 million for a souless, made-by-committee flick like The Lone Ranger?
I guess at least the Lone Ranger employed a lot of people.
-
Ah my mistake – I’ve heard him talk about 5D in interviews. And I know it wasn’t shot in the UK but that’s not what I said. He did most of the post and VFX at home.
Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor -
[Oliver Peters] “True, but many investors are very happy to be involved and don’t always care about a return. For example, a friend financed a small film of his with a circle of friends who were doctors and lawyers and all more well-off then he was.”
Right, and there’s also crowd funding, grants, etc., where the money is just straight up given as opposed to invested.
I just always find the numbers around Sundance staggering because even though the odds of any sort of success related to Sundance keeps going down (harder to get in than in the past, fewer buyers than in the past, buyers that are there are offering worse deals than in the past, etc.,) the number of submissions keeps going up. And just attaching hard numbers to it (collectively $3 billion spent by filmmakers w/an estimated $60 million return) is the ridiculous cherry on top of the insanity sundae.
-
If you read down and dirty pictures you find that the adjusted production price is what Miramax swelled up by using their own editors. Kevin Smith made the film in its entirety for around $25,000.
Pi was made from borrowed money from friends and family and at the time cost around $20,000.
Huge achievements in film-making, and produced for next to nothing. Only to say that it can be done, and the exceptions to the rule is the talent that makes them. You are right, for the most part films shot on a threadbare budget by an unknown cast and crew are usually crummy. These aren’t.
-
[Michael Sanders] ” He did most of the post and VFX at home.”
Which shouldn’t be the litmus test for upcoming filmmakers (although I do agree that if you can run with most of the post yourself, you’ll do better). He’s a special case that not everyone can follow.
But kudos nonetheless.
-
[Clint Wardlow] “I guess at least the Lone Ranger employed a lot of people.”
And some people enjoyed the Lone Ranger. Not everything can be a great movie, but there is a problem with acting like this, or Transformers, or Battleship or whatever isn’t any better than, say, The Devil of Blue Mountain. And that’s not the case.
There are people who would lump Pacific Rim in with those as well, but, well, we have an example of someone who actually went out and purchased the Blu-ray of it because of how much they enjoyed it.
-
[Gary Huff] “And some people enjoyed the Lone Ranger. Not everything can be a great movie, but there is a problem with acting like this, or Transformers, or Battleship or whatever isn’t any better than, say, The Devil of Blue Mountain. And that’s not the case.
There are people who would lump Pacific Rim in with those as well, but, well, we have an example of someone who actually went out and purchased the Blu-ray of it because of how much they enjoyed it.”
Hey, I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t folks that would be willing to pay cash for a Devil of Blue Mountain Blu-Ray. Something Weird video built its success on folks purchasing movies by guys like Hershal Gordon Lewis or Andy Milligan. Are those films any less technically inept?
I would say the only difference is that even the most bargain basement guys like Andy Milligan had to come up with $10,000 or more to make their sleazy little flicks (in 1960s dollars). Currently the entry fee to make a crapola movie is much less, so the market is glutted.
Also, and it may be a niche market, there are folks that would rather watch a video oddity like Devil of Blue Mountain than the next overblown Transformers flick. I am kind of in that crowd myself. Esthetically, I enjoy a movie like Troll 2 that wears its shortcoming on its sleeve much more than some polished hollywood-produced crap fest. But that’s just me.
-
[Clint Wardlow] ” Esthetically, I enjoy a movie like Troll 2 that wears its shortcoming on its sleeve much more than some polished hollywood-produced crap fest. But that’s just me.”
And catering to you isn’t exactly a big enough market to keep yourself from having to have a day job.
Given that production is my day job, I can’t be interested in niche so much.
-
[Gary Huff] “And catering to you isn’t exactly a big enough market to keep yourself from having to have a day job.
Given that production is my day job, I can’t be interested in niche so much.”
Well somebody is making money off that niche. Both Troll 2 and the documentary about that film did quite well a few years ago. Also outlets like The Alamo Drafthouse and Grindhouse releasing don’t seem to be hurting much on profit making side of things.
As to my day job. Well, that was a conscious decision not to tie myself into something as volatile as the film industry in Utah. I worked as a grip and boom operator back in the 1990s and hated the feast or famine nature of getting jobs. My partner and friend stuck with it and works as scenic. Right now he is sweating the load because it has been several months since his last job.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up