HD v. Super 16mm

GeorgeSelinsky · August 17, 2004

so I'm not someone to crush your dreams. You do what you've gotta do. Just remember it's not just about you, everyone around you will be investing their time, sweat and passion; you've gotta make sure that is not wasted; you gotta make sure it comes out right.

Some things you can take a chance on, others it's foolish to take a chance on.

If you're really dying to make a feature and you won't be degraded by making a short film, just get any regular 16mm camera that works and exposes film. Get a tripod that works (you deserve to fail if you don't use a tripod), a lightmeter that works (or if you're really cheap, an SLR with a built in lightmeter that works), a few cheap work lights from a hardware store.

Buy some high speed color negative short ends, write a script around that which you immediately have around you - kids, classrooms, other people's rooms you know you can have access to, and most of all, the great outdoors. Write about things you know about, don't do cliche, make a film about something you care about, do it in an original way. Write with several different characters, don't allow the script to become too dependent on any one person, be flexible in case someone drops out for whatever reason. Use voiceover. Completely forbid yourself the use of popular music - for beginning filmmakers it's usually a cheap excuse for covering up a bad scene and you can't afford the rights anyway.

Sit down with your buddies and do a few readings. Get a teacher (like an English teacher, but not necessarily) to read it and give his or her comments to you. Then go out and shoot a scene, or two, or three.

That's the only way I'd suggest you go about doing anything nearly ambitious at this stage of the game. If you're talented and have your stuff together, you will do well with this and persevere. If not, forget about doing something with $400,000.

- G.

Landon D. Parks · August 17, 2004

I'm sorry, but I have to answer this:

shows that the main thing (perhaps the only thing) you believe makes a movie successful is its photography (or "nice dolly and crane moves," in your case) and talented actors.

No, not really. But Having nice camera moves and big actors will help a LOT. I know that.

Blair Witch was popular because ( a ) it really got people scared, and ( b ) it was unique.

(A) I dont agree. I had to leave 15 minutes in because I have motion sickness, and having that image shake violently for 1 1/2 hours is not what I consider scary. My Idea of scary is the Exorcist, Rose Red, ect.

(B) Who is to say my project is not unique?

I dont recall to many films like my screenplay being made. Maybee comparable to The Exorcist or somthing of equal gore.

But the script I have calls for a constaint, dark gloomy feel to the movie, with lots of scares in it and tense moments.

But, this may be the way it plays out in my screenplay, but turns out like hell on screen.

Im not here to say my movie will compare to The Exorcist, but still. It has the potential if handled right.

Just my two cents

Christian Appelt · August 17, 2004

I think 16 years of life is enough experiance to Direct actors. What takes life experiance in it? You read the script, You plan the scene in your head, and you tell the actors how the scene plans out. And then you work with with them as much as possible to get it the way it works best.

What takes life experience in it? What a question! :blink:

Making a feature film is totally different from doing school theatre and other noncommercial projects. They are good for practising and getting your feet wet, but directing actors in a way that holds up on a big screen is another thing. I directed my first film when I was 23, and I was lucky to have unknown, but extremely good and passionate actors who knew how to interpret my intentions. And (that's important) I was so absorbed by the technical side of filmmaking that I could not give all my attention to the actors. Well, I was lucky, but it could have ended really bad.

Recently (13 years later, to be exact) I codirected some scenes for a friend's feature film, and just when I made a suggestion to the director and talked with him about a possible change in the scene, I had a flashlike insight that went like this: "Oh my God, I did not know that back then - I was lucky to survive that first film." - Just like a pilot realizing that he was just inches away from crashing his plane during his first mission, that he had been just lucky, not as smart as he imagined back then.

As I am preparing some scenes for my own film now, I realize that it is much, much harder and takes more self criticism and redoing things to get what I consider good - and this comes from experience.

Landon, directing actors - and I mean getting the best performance, not keeping them in frame and make them hit their focus marks - is in my opinion the most difficult job in filmmaking.

People will NOT see your film because Johnny Depp worked for two days (in fact, when stars appear just to "upgrade" a weak or badly done film, some people feel cheated, I for example will never watch a single frame again by the people who rented John Travolta's face to push THE PUNISHER...).

People will NOT see your film because you did some nice, professional-looking camera moves.

People will see your film and recommend it because they care for the characters, and the key to it is fine acting and fine directing. Since you have proven that you are not easy to discourage: I don't think you are another Orson Welles or a genius at all. As others have said, he already was an actor, a talented entertainer, a radio wizard and a genius in manipulating his public image.

Directing has a lot to do with respect and experience, with knowing people's character, understanding repeating patterns and the human condition itself. You need personal experience to connect to the characters. All this comes, I'm sorry to say it again, only with own experience and this takes time. No way to avoid it. But choosing the hard way certainly is an own way to experience, just don't say that you have not been warned when the poop hits the fan.

But deeds speak louder than words, and if you get your movie made and distributed, I will be glad to tip my hat and admit I didn't believe it back then. ;)

PS: What happened to your "coming soon" website ? It just disappeared from my screen. You are not trying to beat Orson Welles' magic tricks? :)

Eric Steelberg ASC · August 17, 2004

I think this discussion is turning into something that should be in the 'First Time Filmmakers' Forum.

Landon D. Parks · August 18, 2004

I still think its irresponsable with that much money [why not shoot a smaller budgeted project first; a collegue of mine shot a 35mm feature for 20,000 all student crew, then a HD feature for 5,000

Is it possible for you to explain to me how he done this? That seems pretty amazing that you can shoot a feature for $5,000.00 in HD. Just the cameras and equipment alone I figured $3,000.00/day with a 3 day a week rental period.

Same with film, although equipment was a lot lower, I figured the Film stock + Equipment brought it to the $30,000.00 Range anyway.

Im very interested in seeing how he did this. Do you have any idea what is shooting days where, where he rented the requipment, ect?

Ok, So I think that what I have learned out of all of this is that I should not spend $400,000.00 on this feature film, and it may not turn out. Well, I think your right.

Maybee I should just make a $10 - $20k film, and loose the Big cast and a large crew.

Maybee I am taking to big of steps who by walking in and saying, OK, Im going to make this $400,000 feature rather any one else likes it or not.

After reading all of what you have posted, It is clear that you are right about some things, Mainly that making a $400,000 first time feature is a bad Idea. And I think Im begining to agree with you too.

I will refine my Budget Breakdown and see where I can cut cost's and just see how low I can really make this film for.

John Pytlak RIP · August 18, 2004

Is it possible for you to explain to me how he done this? That seems pretty amazing that you can shoot a feature for $5,000.00 in HD

Probably someone (the school's film department?) already owned the camera. Of course a realistic estimate would amortize the cost of the camera and its maintenance across the number of hours the camera was in use before it became obsolete.

Alvin Pingol · August 18, 2004

Blair Witch was popular because ( a ) it really got people scared, and ( b ) it was unique.

(A) I dont agree.

...don't agree with the fact that it got people scared? I don't know, maybe you're just friends with people who thought the entire film was lame, but a hell of a lot of people I've spoken to after the film's release said they were scared sh*tless. Sure, most people didn't really dig the ending, but were quite scared during the middle and later half of the film. Maybe YOU weren't scared. But you're not everyone.

having that image shake violently for 1 1/2 hours is not what I consider scary.

Sure thing, having a shaky image isn't what anyone considers scary. It's the content. The story. The shaky image just added realism. After all, the film was a "mockumentary," so the camera wasn't going to be professional. The handheld was very in-your-face, which further immersed the audience into the storyline.

( B ) Who is to say my project is not unique?

Well, right now, I don't think anyone. I was just saying that Blair Witch was unique, not that your production isn't. Who knows - I haven't seen your script, I don't know what your film is about - it could be the next big thing.

August 19, 2004

I went to see Blair Witch for curiosity only. Total waste of time.

Landon D. Parks · August 21, 2004

All quotes taken from IMDB... for the film "Open Water"

This movie was financed by director Chris Kentis and his wife, producer 'Laura Lau' , both avid scuba divers. The movie cost $130,000 to make and was later bought by Lion's Gate for $2.5 million after its screening at Sundance.

Filmed on weekends and holidays with a crew that usually consisted of two or three people.

Shot on Mini-Dv

My Note:

OK, If this film can be made with a crew of 2 people over weekends with a Mini-dv camcorder and be sold for $2.5 million... Then I now have more confidence my film would selll for that or more. Since it has a lot more of a story, more SFX, More chilling moments, Better Actors, Shot on 35mm or HD*, ect...

*** Not that this has anything to do with Cinematography... and I probably should not be taken up forum space posting this. But still, I think it proves that Im not so Stupid as to think for asking a MINIMUM $3 million for my film when its done.

David Mullen ASC · August 21, 2004

Sure you can ASK. But the odds are low of you getting it. You seem to think 3 million is some standard price that you can sell a low-budget film to a distributor for when it's QUITE rare. I've shot 27 low-budget features, most in the half-mil to 2 mil budgets, most with name actors, and none of those sold for 3 million dollars. Most were lucky to sell for just above costs. But if you want to base your expectations on exceptions to the rule rather than a most-likely scenario, go ahead. But clearly you think you understand the film business more than the rest of us who have actually been working in it for decades...

Most films do not make money from the sale to a distributor but from their percentage of the sales the distributor THEN makes to individual markets. Trying to sell a movie for four times its costs and make a killing on the initial sale to the distributor is like trying to win the lottery.

Landon D. Parks · August 21, 2004

Kool..

Landon D. Parks · August 21, 2004

To tell you the truth. I would much rather make the film on HD or maybee S16 and try to market it to a TV network as an origional film.

I dont care about the money, I just want the fame. And I would think the movie would be seen by more people on TV than it would by people in the cinema. Expecally unless I got a deal where to film was playing in 1,000 theaters

Once I get a good film our there, Tv or Cinema. and it makes good reviews, I'll have Directing jobs being pushed in my face.

Hell, I'll settle with directing a TV episode or sopa opera :rolleyes: . at least I dont have to come up with the money for it.

Randy Havens · August 21, 2004

'I dont care about the money, I just want the fame.'

Your in for the wrong reason. If it is fame you crave for,

I don't think you will last. Its good you dont care about money,

because most people dont make money.

'Once I get a good film our there, Tv or Cinema. and it makes good reviews, I'll have Directing jobs being pushed in my face.

Hell, I'll settle with directing a TV episode or sopa opera . at least I dont have to come up with the money for it. '

Please stop!!

Just stop talking and go make your film, please I beg you.

If you do make a brilliant film and sell it for 3million

I think everyone here will be very happy for you,

but you just have to stop BSing.

Maybe you do know what you are talking about (which I highly doubt),

but its very hard to believe somebody that has done so little (experience wise)

and just keeps talking and talking about how their movie is going to be

great, make 3 million, and bring endless jobs for years to come.

Channel this energy into your film!!

Landon D. Parks · August 21, 2004

:D

Landon D. Parks · August 21, 2004

I was only joking about the fame thing... I doubt I'll get that either. Although it would be nice.

Ok you win. I'll shut up and go film my movie now. :(

David Mullen ASC · August 22, 2004

The main thing to always remember about filmmaking is that it is a big financial risk. There are few guarantees. All you can do is play the odds. A marketable story helps; a name cast helps; decent production value helps. Yet you can have ALL of these things and still not sell a movie. Why?

Well, it's because the market is not logical. You may have made a great kid's adventure film, let's say, but put it on the market just when another kid's adventure film was released and was a big flop -- and now distributors are scared. They may tell you "we don't think there's a market right now; it's played out." There's a luck factor involved here; you may finish a certain type of movie that suddenly distributors think is "hot" -- just by coincidence.

Just like Wall St., the film market is run by only two emotions: greed and fear.

Someone smells money and the sharks, I mean, distributors come out and a bidding war erupts. You sell some little film like "Open Water" for big bucks. Maybe the distributors thought they could capitalize on the reality show craze (it's shot in a documentary style) or people's fears due to terrorism. Maybe they think a shark movie is a good summer flick. And maybe if they finished and tried to sell the same film a year earlier or a year later than they did and the market would have felt differently.

The point is that most films do not "make money" by being sold to a distributor. The reason distributors exist is not to buy movies but to sell movies. The money a movie makes is from the next step, the chain of exhibition (theatrical, TV, cable, home video.) THAT'S the marketplace for a movie. Hence why most distributors try and not pay more than the production costs for the rights to distribute the film; because the profit should come from the sales that a distributor makes to the exhibition market. The only time distributors pay excessively over the costs of production is when a bidding war breaks out between potential distributors and a high rate of profit is expected. But it's really hard to even know that until you see the movie.

You may plan on a big sale but the truth is that you may not end up with as good a film as you think you will make (in fact, odds are you won't unless you have very low expectations.) You may look at your final product and think "God, I hope I can unload this for enough money to make back my costs." I seriously doubt anyone who made a little movie for almost no money and later went on to big success (i.e. Blair Witch Project) could have even predicted such success or counted on it. Even Robert Rodriguez thought he would just sell "El Mariachi" to the Mexican home video market -- HE was a realistic guy.

Even when I say most films are sold to distributors for barely more than their production costs, I'm ignoring the countless movies which are never sold at all.

Real success in this industry is not making a lot of money on your first movie, or being famous -- it's the ability to make another and then another movie. Someone with a track record good enough to keep finding investors and keep making movies, even if he's never made a famous sale listed in the trades, or made a big money-maker, is already more successful than 90% of most filmmakers.

David Mullen ASC · August 22, 2004