Sidney King

I second the motion to take any "legal" advice from a forum like this with a grain of salt. In my limited experience with these sort of intellectual property disputes, in GENERAL the person with the strongest ownership claim (in lieu of formal contracts, which it sounds like you don't have) is whoever is footing the bill. I.e, the producer. However, even if this director is in a weak position legally (and he may actually have a quite strong position), David's advice to get him to formally relinquish any claim to ownership on the project is very sound. This is ESPECIALLY if you have any plans for distribution down the road. Remember, before the film will be broadcast or distributed in just about any form, you have to secure E&O insurance (which is insurance to protect the film from a potential lawsuit; and like health insurance, you have to prove you don't need it before you can get it). I don't think any distributor or insurer will want to touch a project undergoing an intellectual ownership dispute or that has such a high potential for litigation.

The filmmaker provides quites a bit of info. on all aspects of the production on the message board at the film's website; the film apparently got rejected from several festivals (including Toronto) before Sundance. Congrats to him for a great accomplishment, but the story does underline some of the less savory sides of the business: it took an inside advocate (the William Morris rep) for him to get into a major festival (the same is true of "Primer"). So the same gatekeepers are still there, just in a different form. And there is kind of an unseemly marriage between Sundance and all the DV equipment/software companies who have been the real big winners from the digital "revolution." They both benefit from hyping stories like this, the merits of the filmmaking is a secondary concern (how long can they keep hyping the "revolution" when the number of theatrically-released film shot on DV is still virtually zero; they NEED stories like this). Of course the true yardstick for Mr. Ingraham's success will be if he is still making films in ten years. Anyone else read the Newsweek article on the key players in the Blair Witch Project? Most of them are quite literally back at their day jobs, the same ones they had before the film.

Thanks so much, Dominic, for a very helpful response. I continue to be surprised by and grateful for the knowledge shared on these boards. So, it's sounding like you're saying it IS possible to create IP sections, without doing the whole shebang? Is that something that would be a fairly standard request, or is it feasible the lab might balk at doing it? Just checking, as this may be an option I'll look into (although I have a feeling the lab will steer me towads the DI route). And I completely agree it is silly to release a film without a trailer, hopefully that's not a serious possibility, I'm just trying to arm myself with as much knowledge as possible. And Dominic, do you think those cost ratios I mentioned sound reasonable? (the IP is costing about five times as much as a post-first pass answer print, a low-con print is right in the middle, about half as much as the IP)? Thanks so much for your help.

Having an IP would certainly help me sleep better at night! But it's a big ticket item, just not affordable at right this instant. A low-con print might be the way to go, it costs much less than an IP but still is not cheap. At the particular lab we're working with, their rate for a low-con print was about twice as much as additional answer print (which includes timing). An IP would in turn cost more than twice as much as the low-con print (so the IP is about five times as much as the additional answer prints...anything after the first pass). Their rates for the initial answer prints were very reasonable, but they were also contingent on getting the IP done there as well (would we really have a choice once they've started timing)? I don't know if that's a tactic to get you hooked in with low rates upfront for bigger costs down the road. And I don't know if those ratios sound reasonable, but that's what we're looking at. I keep looking in my Sunday paper for a "50% off IP" coupon, but so far, no luck.

Thanks, David. Hopefully Dominic will browse this thread at some point. I know, it sounds weird to worry about a theatrical trailer before the film is even completely through post, it's just that I'm currently in discussions with a few distributors about their proposals, and I'm learning that a trailer for a film on this scale is a highly negotiable item (just like the rest of the deliverables, including the IP, the transfer, the P&A costs, etc...). For instance, one distributor is proposing holding off on creating a trailer until the film has played a handful of markets to see if it merits the cost. Another distributor seems open to paying for one upfront, but that cost is later subtracted from the producer's gross in fairly unfavorable terms (you're basically borrowing money from yourself at a very high interest rate). Or maybe they do plan on making one, they're just acting like they're balking to make it look a concession when we negotiate terms. Who knows, its' a funny game... We're talking a very small theatrical release, these are smaller distributors without well-oiled marketing departments and with limited marketing budgets. Basically, I'm just trying to price out the rough cost of getting a trailer made from our current materials (a timed OCN, SD transfer, no IP), and determining if this is something we may be better off doing ourselves on our own terms (i.e. borrowing money at 6% and controlling costs ourselves, as opposed to borrowing twice as much from the distributor at 18%). Of course my next film will sell to Focus Features, they will spend millions on the poster and millions more on the trailer. In the meantime, I'm stuck here in the trenches...every dollar counts!

David, do you know if they struck an IP of the entire film? Is it possible (or at all practical) to strike an IP only of selected takes (to be used in the trailer)? I ask as we are in the unfortunate position of perhaps having to get a trailer done before the IP. I've also noticed some trailers use footage not included in the final picture, I'm wondering if that's how they incorporated that into the trailer as well (striking mini-IPs from select outtakes). David, I'm also curious if on your larger-budgeted films you've been asked to shoot stuff intended exclusively for potential use in a trailer with no intention of it ever being used in the actual film. I've heard this is done with certain lines of dialogue, etc, usually during production (it's not a 2nd unit thing). I was just wondering if this a quasi-urban legend or if it happens somewhat regularly on bigger projects with marketing budgets/teams already in place.

Thanks Mark, for a very helpful response; I really like your quote "The greater the marketing budget, the greater the allotted inefficiency." And I ran into the same problem in post with the sound house, I couldn't see why we couldn't just deliver quicktime files of the reels but they wanted 30i tapes. In the foley stage the mixers' monitor was something like a 17" Toshiba TV. They had a video projector too, but if no one was around to operate it (it was in a separate booth) they just used the TV. The HD route looks like it makes the most sense (our original transfer was to SD); in our case we may end up cutting the trailer before we have any intermediate elements (IP or low-con print) in place, which is too bad because we have the timed print which looks great, so we'll probably have to spend quite a bit of time correcting the new transfer. I wish IPs grew on trees. Anyway, thanks again for the response Mark.

I noticed a few of these have sold for over $300 on Ebay, which is about what the Christmas promotional price was for the set brand-new (that offer might have expired by now). The ones sold on Ebay were not mint, but previously viewed. So, you could fork over the $500, watch it then sell it on Ebay, and it would end up costing you less than $200. Which is still a lot of money...

Hi All- I was just wondering what a typical or efficient workflow is for creating theatrical 35mm trailers (these are almost always done after the negative is cut, in the case of Scope they are often masked to 1:85:1, etc...) I was just wondering if anyone's been through this process, and knows how the trailers are re-scanned/timed/printed, etc., considering all this is done after the negative has been conformed. Thanks for any help.

Mark, you're absolutely right about the slippery slope/snowball effect of paying crew, and how the sweat and effort of the entire crew (not just director and actors) who made it possible often get overlooked. One interesting model has been InDigEnt, who started out producing $100,000 features (like "Final" and "Tadpole") on miniDV with name talent/directors, with true profit participation for cast/crew. They had some stunning success early on ("Tadpole" was sold I think for 5M), you had crew like script supervisor and best boy walking with $30,000-$40,000 checks (or so I heard). I worked on a recent feauture of theirs (2nd AC), and the budget for that was back up to $600,000, they were basically paying everyone $100/day (including actors), but I doubt there will be any backend monies coming in. So, it has happened successfully, but it's tough to make it work consistently. Travis, you are right about the drawbacks of working with shortends. It can be very frustrating for the actors (and ACs) to deal with constant roll-outs and re-loading. You have to be honest with all of them upfront about the hassles that will be involved (and try to plan using the appropriate footage for the appropriate takes). You're also dead-right that shooting 35mm has a huge impact in how seriously your film is taken; it's much easier getting reps and distributors to at least take a look at it (especially if you don't have name actors involved). And in my experience, it can even be easier to crew a film on 35 because certain crew positions (especially folks like gaffer, key grip, art department, etc...) who haven't done a 35 feature will do it to build their resume as opposed to working on yet another DV feature that may pay them more. This is an often-overlooked advantage to shooting on 35. Lav, you're right that having a 35mm print ready to go will make your project much more attractive to a distributor. A lot of people have the idea that distributors simply pick up the tab to cover the blow-up of something from 16 or DV to 35; that kind of thing is actually quite rare. Most distributors (I'm not talking about the Big Ones, just most of them) will expect the filmmakers to cover the costs of all major deliverables (including any blowups/transfers to 35) if they are serious about any theatrical play. So, that's a lot of money you could have applied towards shooting on a bigger format in the first place. anyway Lav, I'd be happy to talk to you or your co-producer in more detail, just drop me a line.

Well, I would talk to people like sales agents and potential distributors who handle the type of film you plan to make and ask them if and how a 5.1 mix will increase the film's marketability/saleability, and if this is worth spending money on. It will depend on the type of film and the exact market you're looking to sell to. Again, you can do a 5.1 mix yourself, but you're looking at spending thousands of dollars you could pay a professional to do it right. And in the end, you may or may not be increasing the "value" of your film much at all. Don't judge a mix by the logo on the box, actually LISTEN to it, very carefully. The technical specifics of the type of mix you have (5.1, DTS, ProLogic, etc...) will matter much, much less than the QUALITY of your mix in the first place (which starts in the hands of the production sound mixer; get a good one and pay them well).

Hi Hal, Yes, I am a huge proponet of 35 (and Scope in particular) for low-budget productions, when it's appropriate for the story. Keep in mind when you're working with 35, it is possible to pull off a great-looking production with a miniscule budget, but if and when you decide to finish on 35 your costs can double. So keep the end-use of your film in mind (how important is it to finish on film?) and plan accordingly. I don't think you'll have much luck getting short-ends with the same batch number; depending on the stock (for instance, the Vision2 is a very hot stock and short-ends dealers don't have much of it sitting around), the time of year, how much footage you're planning on shooting, and what length you're looking for (150-250, 250-350, etc...) you may even have trouble even getting everything you need in a single stock. Of course there's an inherent risk with using shortends, but you can minimize that by working with reputable dealers who guarantee their work (and of course careful handling of the stock). We shot around 300 camera rolls and had no problems, the DP and I were both happy and didn't notice any problems in post with emulsions, matching, etc...not sure what timing variances you're seeing, we (and the labs involved) never felt that was a problem, and we were keeping an eye out for it. Of course you can always call the folks that handle short ends (Dr. Rawstock, Media Distributors) and ask about stock from the same batches, but I doubt they can do it. Best of luck with your project!

You could try Jack Rizzo at Metropolis Film Labs. Don't know if he's absolute rock-bottom cheapest, but his rates are reasonable and he does good work which he stands by. It's a small operation, they definitely handle this sort of thing. I'd give him a call. www.metropolisfilmlab.com

It's been interesting to note the trend in recent years of studios putting out more and more derivative crap, while cable programming has been getting bolder and more original. A lot of top-level talent (in front of and behind the camera) who would have avoided the stigma associated with TV in the past are now dying to act in and direct episodes of "The Sopranos," "Deadwood," etc...the original feature films made by some of the cable networks puts a lot of studio films to shame as well. I've also been hearing how the major studios are planning on cutting way back on their mid-range budget movies ($20-$70M) in favor of focusing on their big tent-pole, franchisable blockbuster films, and putting out more smaller, auteur-driven and arthouse films ($2-$8M, which lately have been more profitable, dollar-for-dollar, than those mid-budget films). We'll have to see if that pans out, it actually could result in a lot more originality coming out of the studios with more smaller budget films from filmmakers with a lot of creative freedom. Those mid-budget films is where a lot of the derivative, formulaic stuff comes from anyway. But the thought of even more money and effort being put into the already bloated blockbusters is sort of scary... In recent years, thinking of original and innovative work to come out of the major American studios, soderbergh, david o. russell and pt anderson come to mind...

Yes, DVD Studio Pro encodes DD (it's very easy), but the mixing is another story. You could do a 5.1 with any software that supports multiple audio tracks (such as FCP and even iMovie), but you'll just be hearing the different tracks in mono, which sort of defeats the point. To do a true 5.1 mix, you need an audio card that supports multiple channels and the appropriate monitors/hardware, and higher-end software like ProTools (although they do have a free LE version that supports 8 tracks) or Cakewalk, etc... all of this can get pretty expensive. Unless you have lots of cash to drop on the hardware/software, imho, this is probably a job best left to the pros. I would agree putting your time and money into a good stereo mix is probably the best bet; I've been in mixing stages when they switch it back and forth from surround to stereo, and unless you have a very effects-intensive project (helicopters swooshing overhead, etc...), the difference is probably not worth the time and cost it would take to create the six tracks.

But semantics aside, just to re-direct a little to what my original intention was with this thread: in the current marketplace, "no budget" 35mm features that sell are very, very, rare. I was simply offering an example of such a film and hopefully giving some encouragement to DPs working with producers who may be fairly rigid in what they think is possible to accomplish visually on a tight budget. I think it's a shame that more low-mini-no-budget films (or whatever you prefer to call them) aren't shot on 35, because it is possible and can even make good business sense in the long run, which is always language producers like to hear. I was just offering my experiences for anyone looking to shoot a big format on a small budget...

I thought I addressed this in an earlier post, but I'll clarify: in this context "no budget" does NOT mean shot for "no money," it does NOT mean "shot for nothing," etc... "No budget" is an industry term used by American distributors, sales agents, producers reps, and the like to discuss the ballpark budget of a film and the baseline expectations and assumptions of all parties involved. It is a useful shorthand for people who rarely (if ever) discuss hard figures regarding production budgets. For instance, some distributors will say they carry "no budget genre films and low-budget dramas," sales agents may tell a producer they'll rep a film for a different percentage if it is "no budget" as opposed to "low budget," etc... Generally anything produced for less than about 300K (especiallly if it's 35) is considered a "no budget" film. These terms are quite common and standard among American film sales professionals; they may or not correspond with broader ideas about what constitutes a low-budget film or a film "shot for nothing" (an irony i pointed out in an earlier post; i also think it's stupid to call something that cost a couple hundred g's "no budget." That doesn't mean it's not a widely-used and recognized industry term, and as I mistakenly assumed, acceptable to use in a forum such as this). In the case of my film in particular, I would also point out I never said the film cost 200 or 150K, I simply said according to the SAG contract it was less than 200K. It could well be $23.16, and everyone here would be happy and upset over nothing. I apologize for any anxiety caused by the introduction of American film industry parlance into a cinematography discussion board...it won't happen again!

Just read about a film called "Bug," dir. William Friedkin and starring Ashely Judd, set entirely in a hotel room (35mm, don't know if it's a stage or location; would guess a stage). It's not released yet, DP is a guy named Michael Grady, I'm not familiar with him. There's also "Tape," shot entirely in a small, somewhat dingy hotel room (also on location, not a set).

It can also depend on what your objectives for the film are...keep in mind that in almost all (American) festivals, the juries/judges/critics view the films BEFOREHAND on the submission screeners (DVD, sometimes even VHS). Sometimes festivals don't even tell you about this, they just make copies of your screener and pass them around in the weeks before the festival. Only a very few festivals (Toronto, etc...) have industry screenings in the venues prior to/apart from their regular programming. So, if jury awards/critical response is a main objective for your film, having a print will actually not help you as much as you would like (although it could potentially make a difference with audience awards, I suppose). also, with shorts premiere status is not as big of an issue as with features, you can always see what festivals you get accepted to, and if it looks like you're going to have a good run you can decide if you want to go back to 35 for the bigger festivals down the road. Some shorts have a VERY long life on the festival circuit. I know this may have been touched on in previous posts, but having been to a lot of festivals and talked witha lot of festival directors and programmers, I can say that virtually none of them care a great deal about exhibition format when it comes to making selections (i.e., your chances of getting accepted b/c you're able to screen a print is really no greater than if you're gong to screen a tape. I know it may seem like you'll be taken more seriously, etc..., but I've asked around a lot about this and the bottom line is, no one really cares. If they like your film, they'll program it). So I wouldn't let that be a major factor in your decision. Of course, screening in 35 is always the ideal, but I feel your pain as far as cost goes. I would also venture to say that something originated in 35 projected from an SD tape will still look better than something originated in SD video and projected off the same format. anyone agree/disagree?

Regarding how Rachel Weisz looked in the film, I think it was refreshing. Sometimes I think DPs get a little carried away by their obsession to make all leading ladies look gorgeous all the time (although of course that is often studio- or star-driven). With "Gardner", Weisz plays a harsh, confrontational character in a fairly raw and sometimes gritty film set in the slums of Africa. I think too glossy or glamorous a look for her would not have served the story well. I know for job security reasons a lot of DPs feel pressured make the performers (especially name actresses) look as good as possible, but it can go too far, especially when that visual approach does not correspond to the other cast (i.e. the leading men). I find it distracting when a particular performer is so obviously lit and shot differently than the rest of the cast/film. Ideally, everyone's there to serve the story...

One approach I've known a few folks use successfully is to use the short as a fund-raising vehicle for a feature (some high-profile examples are "Napolean Dynamite" and "Raising Victor Vargas," which both started out with some festival success as short films and were later turned into features). So in some ways it is similar to fund-raising for a feature, you just approach investors differently in using a fraction of the money up-front it would take for a feature to make a successful short version of that feature (with the same characters, or certain scenes that would be in the feature; occasionally some of the footage shot for the short can even be incorporated into the feature). Some investors are attracted to this approach because it seems lower risk to them. Some other folks I know were all looking to get a foothold in the industry, so they pooled their money (each responsible for raising x-amount) and collaborated on a short that each of them could use to showcase their work (you get a DP, a director, a costumer, an actor or two to each pool, say, $1,000, and before you long you've got a decent budget to work with). Of course that could be a recipe for creative armaggedon, but in their case it worked out quite well. The harsh truth is the chance for any financial return with a short is basically zero, you have to find people with other interests/motivations for supporting the endeavor. And David's right about needing to put in writing that there is a possibility there will be NO return on the investment, although i think that only applies for budgets signifcantly higher than what you would be working with on a short (something like 200K, I think). And I think it also varies on the particulars of the investor, i.e. what percentage of their net worth is tied up in the investment, but it's been a while since I've read up on those laws...

It's interesting to note that in Europe (well, at least England, I'm not as sure if it applies to all of Europe) the DP's responsibilities are much more exclusively focused on lighting (hence "lighting cameraman"), while camera movement, lens selection, framing, even blocking, etc... is more the realm of the operator. Consequently directors often have more long-term collaborations with operators and not necessarily DP's (or lighting cameraman). Just curious if people who do or have worked in the English system feel this is an accurate description, and if anyone has any ideas why/how this somewhat different style of collaboration emerged there as opposed to the American method.

Well, it's no secret that especially on a low-budget shoot (especially with a first-time director) the DP is going to be the most technically knowledgable person on the set. And a green director may have ideas that just don't make much sense or be misguided, technically-speaking (asking for shots that don't match, won't cut well, etc...) However, i think it's important for DPs to remember that on these shoots they may have little or no idea what the director (who is often also the producer) has gone through getting the film into production (the sweat, the blood, the Faustian bargains...). Yes, the DP is also working hard and wants the project to be successful and their abilities to be well-represented, but that is very different than having your mortgate, inheritance, a sold kidney, and your cousin's school loans riding on it. Be tactful, share your opinion, offer advice, but ultimately you have to let the director sink or swim. In the meantime keep in mind that on your next project you may be able to work with someone more accomplished/experienced...

Yes, a three-week shoot is not that unusual for American indies, even very successful ones (recent examples include "Junebug" and "The Squid and the Whale"). Sure, it can be a brutal three weeks, but there are a lot of great-looking features I consider well above the made-for-TV standard that were produced on that kind of schedule (along with the types of productions David mentioned!) And I absolutely agree, whenever you're talking dollar amounts anywhere near the neighborhood of 200K, that is a lot of money. But in industry terms (among distributors/sales reps, etc...) it is still called a "no-budget" feature (which makes you wonder which other industries consider 200K "no-budget...") The world of film budgets is a nebulous one, especially on the low end of the totem pole. Very often when you hear figures attached to what a small film "cost," you're hearing some version of the production budget (it was "shot for" $xxx), excluding any post costs, which on a low-budget feature can easily match or exceed the production budget. These "budgets" may or may not include SAG deferments, which can be huge. And occasionally (if you're lucky) distributors help with certain delivery-related costs, making things even murkier (do you consider deliverables and deferments part of a film's budget or not?). You're best off taking those figures with a grain of salt, sometimes they're inflated by the producers, sometimes they're thrown around by the distributors as a marketing/promotional device ("see what these resourceful kids did with only $50,000!" and of course by the time they deliver a professionally-mixed, fully-insured and licensed 35mm release print, you're looking at that cost several times over). Either way you will have a hard time getting most independent producers to talk frankly and specifically about their budgets, for good reason (just as you will have a hard time getting specifics on the terms of a film sale). As David mentioned, it's pretty standard not to disclose it (and you're often contractually bound not to with the film's investors)

Point taken, Max! Apologies for my inadvertent North American-centrism. I haven't been to any European festivals but I hope that will change soon... Speaking of projection situations at festivals, here's a quick story (cautionary tale?) of what different priorities festival programmers may have than filmmakers and how that can affect the screening conditions of your film: I attended a screening of the crowd-pleaser "Seducing Dr. Lewis" at a festival this spring. The theater quickly filled up and there was a line out the door. The festival director then changed the venue on the spot to the theater next door, which had twice the seating capacity (I think something like 500 vs. 250). Of course they had the print on the platter ready to go, but the venue they moved it to had ONLY digital projection (even though it was a bigger venue). So after herding everyone out, they ended up screening it on what I assume was the submission DVD. VERY long throw, it really looked horrible, which was a shame b/c it was obviously a beautifully-shot film with the 35mm print just sitting on the platter one door down. After the screening, I tactfully complained to the festival director, and said in that situation it was most respectful to the filmmakers to screen the print (I don't think the filmmakers were in attendance to object themselves). She stood firm, said she had audience demand to deal with, knew it was a crowd-pleasing movie, etc...She pointed out that peopled laughed and cried and cheered all the same, visually weak presentation notwithstanding. So, even when you do everything "right," you never know what can happen to your film in a festival setting like that.