-
FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
-
I think “Monsters” was shot by Gareth Edwards himself on a 5D, and he did all the post and VFX at home.
Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor -
[Gary Huff] “I would term “looking pretty good” as something that’s, at least, cheap network/basic cable narrative TV show. Maybe something from the 90s, like X-Files in its earliest seasons. Or is that too much to ask?”
You are right about Baghead’s costs. I guess that’s what happens when I rely on faulty memory.
As to Trent’s films and how they look, I guess it is a matter of how approach these things. He makes a living at it. I know his films have shown all over the country (admittedly in small venues and museums like SFMOMA).
Also my perspective on film comes from decades following the underground film movement of guys like Bruce Conner, Stan Brekhage, the Cuchars, or even early John Waters. Polish isn’t how I approach it. (I’ll even degrade image to get a certain feel).
But hey, my route to film-making isn’t to make money, so I may come with a skewed perspective in relation to most COW members. My perception of “looking pretty good” is probably a lot different than those who make their bread and butter at it.
-
[Clint Wardlow] “Jesus, I hate accidentally liking my own post. It makes me look like such a tool.”
There is nothing wrong with over confidence as long as it is backed up by talent! 😉
-
By the way, Lightworks, you know, that Lightworks, is free.
Relevant quote from this article: “SCHOONMAKER: Anyone can edit now, right? It’s wild.”
Or if you need more, it’s $60 a year. If you need much more, it can get much more expensive.
Pr is $20/mo.
We can sit here and blame FCPX. Or Not.
-
Gary, this is apples and oranges but have seen the film Gasland?
What did you think of that film?
-
I’ve posted about this before somewhere on here, but being an up-in-comer, it really irks me that people deny the possibilities of making feature films for little to no money. Making references to films over a decade old can hardly be considered “New Media” the world has changed so much since then.
While the following may not be “successful” they aren’t “stoner comedies” either. All were made for LESS than 10 thousand.
“For Lovers Only” (Think about 5000) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1648201/
“Cold Lights” (3000) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99ock02fWVY
The second film is one that I wrote and edited and could not be prouder of.
We live in an era where people can own a 4K camera for 4K, all the sound equipment they can rent for cheap or borrow, and as I’m sure was the case with my film and probably the other one, you can get actors to work for free, for the fun of it.
With our film we didn’t make it for the pay cheque, for us it was proving to ourselves and some of our more conservative colleagues, that anything is possible nowadays.
End rant haha
-
madness. this place is like a newsroom, like, breaking news.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[James Ewart] “Aindreas you nailed your colours to the mast somewhat prematurely.”
I’m averse to mast nailing you know. If I see a mast, the last thing I’ll try and do is nail things to it. masts have a hard enough time as it is.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Marcus Hardy] “I’ve posted about this before somewhere on here, but being an up-in-comer, it really irks me that people deny the possibilities of making feature films for little to no money. Making references to films over a decade old can hardly be considered “New Media” the world has changed so much since then.”
To borrow a phrase from my computer friends, “Linux is only free if your time isn’t worth anything.”
Of course you can make a film for no cash as long as you get everyone to volunteer their time and their gear (and 99/100 the end product looks like what it cost). That’s always been a possibility it just seems like these days there are more people willing to work for nothing than in the past (probably a byproduct of the significant drop in the price of gear which traditionally acted as a barrier of entry).
-
[Gary Huff] “But outside of that, it didn’t lead to any continuing career from what I can tell. They are still unknowns and haven’t made anything since 2009. Not the career path I would want for myself (except for the money).”
Yes, of course. It’s always a gamble. A film I edited well over a decade ago was co-produced and directed by an experienced DGA UPM/1stAD as his debut directing gig. The year before starting pre-prod/prod/post he earned about $119K in salary. The year of making the film, he earned $9K. The film has had countless exposure at festivals, cable TV (including HBO) and other distribution over the years. It has a well-known, but older cast. I doubt the film has yet returned a profit.
[Clint Wardlow] “You can make a full-length indie film for between $2,000 and $6,000. “
I would call that a hobby 😉 The only way you can make a film in that budget is if everything is virtually free. I’m not saying it won’t be entertaining. It absolutely can. That just doesn’t put it into the same context as what most folks would recognize as a mainstream film. Plus, if there is actual distribution, there are add-ons that folks often don’t bother to factor in, like errors & omissions insurance and proper music licensing.
[Marcus Hardy] ” it really irks me that people deny the possibilities of making feature films for little to no money. Making references to films over a decade old can hardly be considered “New Media” the world has changed so much since then.”
No one is denying the possibilities. It’s just that these products are entirely different entities from most filmmaking. When it comes to cost, I’m trying to make a clear distinction between out-of-pocket because you didn’t factor the cost of your own services or you got material, talent, space, etc. for free. It’s just that if you look at most stories realistically with real money at face value, then the costs are larger than all the low-budget hype suggests.
I see it both ways. I write as a sideline. Both for pay and free (my blog). My uncle when he was alive was a very prolific book author in Germany on topics of history, politics, social satire, etc. But the large bulk of his efforts really just boiled down to vanity publishing. Not something he ever made real money at. I do not mean to be insulting when I compare these films to vanity publishing, but it’s really just another version in the modern world. Don’t get me wrong. It’s great if you have a voice and a passion to do it. But that’s different from what others do who make a living at this.
[Marcus Hardy] “you can get actors to work for free,”
Isn’t that exactly what we’ve been talking about?
[Marcus Hardy] “We live in an era where people can own a 4K camera for 4K”
Technology is largely irrelevant. The same options were there when you only had 8mm film. One of the lower-budgeted films I’ve worked on as a colorist was shot with a Canon 5D in one studio and a couple of sets. Only two actors. Very limited scenarios. The story and the acting worked. I have no idea about cost, but I know that editing, music/mix and grading was out-of-pocket for the filmmaker, yet I can’t imagine this whole film was super expensive. Yet, it’s played well in international film festivals, thanks to the actors.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up