Clint Wardlow
Forum Replies Created
-
[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.
-
Jesus, I hate accidentally liking my own post. It makes me look like such a tool. So I unliked it.
-
[Gary Huff] “Do you have any examples of which movies shot for no more than $6,000 look pretty good?”
Local Utah filmmaker Trent Harris made two films (both shot with an HDV camera) for under $6,000. The Delightful Water Universe and Luna Mesa. They are his latest feature-length films.
I am pretty sure his movie the Beaver Trilogy cost less than that also — but that is not a fair assessment as he used footage he had shot over a couple of decades and already had made into short films.
Trent did get his shot at Hollywood with the Working Title funded Rubin and Ed (starring Crispin Glover) but it didn’t really make any money on its initial run, becoming kind of a cult favorite. He also created a local favorite; Plan 10 From Outer Space shot on 16mm for about $60,000.
Also the “looking pretty good” is a relative term. For someone like me that started on soundless super8 and 16mm, moved into VHS and highspeed Betacam cut on a double deck JVC editing suite — what micro budget filmmakers can produce now-a-days seems pretty good.
Jay and Mark Duplass also created Baghead for a couple of thousand bucks.
-
[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.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “no – the straw man is the pagan assassin who took down nicholas cage. you can see him here pouring in the bees.”
I thought it was Edward Woodward that got taken down by that pesky straw man. Oh wait, different decade…different straw man (and a naked Britt Ekland doing a sexy dance).
-
[Lance Bachelder] “There’s been a few morn’s I’ve awoke, clicked in and wondered if I was gonna be nuked myself, yet somehow I’m still here lol and looking forward to more heated debates with true peers 🙂
Thanks Tim.”
I don’t think a few questionable posts from time to time will earn you a nuke. In fact, the occasional such post adds a little spice.
It is just when someone hijacks almost every thread, every day until it devolves into childish bicker-fest that the nuke button needs to be pushed.
-
As one who does tend to submit to festivals from time to time, I find that the move is to straight digital files for submission screeners. Without A Box even has a service that allows you to upload your online screener for submission to various festivals.
I think that it is just easier, especially if you submit to a lot of festivals. It is kind of a hassle to mail DVDs or Blu-Rays when you know you might not even get accepted. With an online screener you just have to create it once and it is good for multiple submissions.
Once a film is accepted, I think you will folks more willing (and even glad to do it) to send blu-rays.
-
[Gary Huff] “Second, he’s trying to argue from the perspective of a generation he is not a part of. That is doomed to fail.”
I also think the change to smaller, lighter, and such like is more a reflection of the home movie, home photo ethos. Instead of using polaroids and instamatics to record family and friends, the youngsters are using iphones and ipads. Instead of photo albums or 8mm movie projectors to be whipped out when friends arrive, it is uploaded to social media.
The need for high-end will always be around.
Although I do find it interesting that with this move to newer and newer, that even among the young, there is a looking back to the look and feel of the old. How else do you explain the popularity of the toy camera look of hipstamatic or instagram. Sometimes it almost seems like every third photo uploaded to facebook is some kind of selfie made to look like a crappy old polaroid print?
-
[Bill Davis] “Oh I’m sure it will be $299 new.”
[Bill Davis] “I think the issue is if they offered anything like a $49 upgrade for existing users, they’d have to plumb the entire store database into some process for checking existing ownership – and the number of people who would try to scam “upgrade codes” instead of just buying the software at retail would make for a big mess.”
I have paid well over $299 as an upgrade price for my software many, many times. For a professional NLE paying that full price for the new version doesn’t seem expensive in the least. But hey, I wouldn’t complain if it did only cost $49 or was even free.
-
This is the artistic (if not anthropological) issue of the video and digital age.
Part of the problem is, often the value of something is not appreciated at the time of creation.
A prime example is the recently discovered photographs of Vivian Maier. She took thousands of large format photos during the 50s and 60s. She did nothing with them (many of her closest friends were unaware she was doing so). It took a chance discovery of her boxes of negatives and many rolls of undeveloped film after her death before anyone discovered how amazing these photos were. Would such a thing been possible with outdated digital files?
In a digital age where such art vanishes into unreadable files, these kind of windows into the past or discovery of heretofor unappreciated art becomes more difficult. It is kind of ironic that in an age where creating art or even just documenting our day-to-day lives has become easy on an almost surreal level, that a surviving record for future generations may evaporate in a mist of ever-changing technology.