Activity › Forums › Creative Community Conversations › FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
-
FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
Steve Connor replied 12 years, 6 months ago 29 Members · 119 Replies
-
Gary Huff
January 22, 2014 at 5:20 pm[tony west] “People don’t know their name, but if they walked in a room and said “I directed Blair Witch” folks would know that film”
And that could be why it’s all been Straight-to-Video films. The kind that people complain about being the only things on Netflix Instant Watch.
Look, I’m not bashing them at all, and I hope I don’t give that impression. But the problem is that Blair Witch has been used as an example countless times as to why it’s an okay risk to put up a mortgage on your house and get into significant credit card debt. That’s not their fault, but it has to be pointed out that it’s not a slam dunk.
-
Gary Huff
January 22, 2014 at 5:21 pm[Oliver Peters] “”You can work in commercials and corporate and make a decent living most of your life, or you can work in features and live like a king for six months every two years”
Excellent.
-
Andrew Kimery
January 22, 2014 at 5:34 pm[shawn Bockoven] “Joss Whedon funded the project himself (at just over $200,000) and enjoyed the independence of acting as his own studio.”
Whedon has said that the actors, department heads, producers, etc., didn’t get paid. The were all friends of Joss and willing to do the project for fun/as a favor.
Joe Average trying something similar would probably have a budget 3-4x since there wouldn’t be a ‘friends and family’ discount to get people like Neil Patrick Harris and Nathan Fillion. And of course no one would watch it because there are already a million no/lo budget things on the Internet and you don’t have the built-in fan base of Joss Whedon. 😉
Kinda reminds me of when NIN and Radiohead both released albums for free/pay what you want a few years ago and people applauded like it was some sort of accomplishment for millionaire global music stars to be able to pay their own production costs. Of course neither outfit did it again and Reznor (not sure about Radiohead) is back with a major label.
Not to sound jaded or anything, but it’s tiring to see people that already made millions via ‘old media’ being held up as examples of how awesome ‘new media’ can be. If ‘step one’ to new media success is being independently wealthy then we need to go back to the drawing board.
-
Tony West
January 22, 2014 at 5:43 pmI’m not saying it’s the way all or many films should be done. I’m pointing out there used to be only one way in and that was with big money.
I’m all for big money, but I’m also for opportunity.
Changing technology and creativity with it is makes opportunity for many.
Great films are still gonna get made.
-
Travis Finstein
January 22, 2014 at 6:05 pmYou can edit a hundred million dollar feature in Quicktime Pro 7 also… doesn’t mean there is any advantage to doing so. And doesn’t mean if someone is crazy enough to do it that it validates it as an option for these types of projects.
If the editors chose this because they like the way FCPX works, the interface and cutting tools, then I guess more power to them. Although in my opinion I can’t see how any of those features outweigh the negatives of dealing with a project of this scale in X, other than “let’s do it to say it can be done.”
Curious to see what their motivation was when this comes out.
-
Santiago Martí
January 22, 2014 at 6:32 pm[Chris Harlan] “FYI–the studio is probably Warner Bros. and the movie is probably Focus. I don’t have any inside knowledge, but that’s what the clues point to.”
You must be right, they’ve been here in Argentina. A friend of mine worked in the art department, and some friends worked in the grip department.
Santiago Martí
http://www.robotrojo.com.ar
Red One M-X, Red Epic X waiting for Dragon update, Red Pro Primes, Adobe CC, Assimilate Scratch -
Shawn Bockoven
January 22, 2014 at 6:36 pmThis entire forum is bitter and jaded. I have avoided posting here because anything starts a war.
How will we entertain the cable cutters? My 24-year-old enjoys FreddieW’s work more than most things produced by the networks or studios.
-
Clint Wardlow
January 22, 2014 at 6:40 pm[Oliver Peters] “The deal with most indie filmmakers is that they have one good idea and it’s a project of passion. They raise money for the production and then start worrying about selling it and the distribution deals after everything is finished. Very few indie filmmakers embark on their journey with any actual business plan or strategy. Making money in the movie biz is like making money as a musician with hit records. Similar stories and percentages.”
You can make a full-length indie film for between $2,000 and $6,000. And with today’s software and equipment, you can make it look pretty damned good. However, you are right in your assessment that making any money off it is a pretty low probability. The market is glutted.
Right now, the king of “indie” festivals is unfolding here in Utah: Sundance. Almost every American dramatic flick showing has at least one or two name actors. Average budgets are rarely under a couple of million dollars. This is how the money men see “low budget” –between $6 million and $35 million with name actors that work for scale (and maybe a piece of the pie).
Don’t get me wrong. If you want to make a micro budget feature, go for it. Just don’t expect to make your cash back. You will be able to get it into festivals (another expense). Maybe even make a couple of bucks with streaming pay-per-view via vimeo, you tube and such like.
-
James Ewart
January 22, 2014 at 6:42 pmAindreas you nailed your colours to the mast somewhat prematurely.
Everybody has access to word processing software and a lot of it is free.
So Apple have a vision for the future that probably means movie making is accessible for all of us.
But just because we all have keyboards and word processing software that does not mean we can all write best sellers.
A typewriter in my hands or the hands of William Shakespeare?
Did they have those debates back then about what kind of nibs they used on their pens?
That’s the paradigm. That’s where we are.
-
Jeremy Garchow
January 22, 2014 at 6:52 pm[Gary Huff] “[Jeremy Garchow] ”
It’s not about the money and these days”That’s because there isn’t any. Not that it’s a good thing.”
There never has been a real money spigot except for a select few.
There’s a lot more outlets to get you to places that will make money these days, the problem is that there’s a lot less chance of that outlet being viewed by someone that will take you places.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up