Andrew McCarrick Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 Guys what are you doing????? We have Niki Mundo Part II here. He doesn't have $200.00 to his name, hates film, and is trying to raise 20 million? Why waste your time? R, Actually, I have to agree, why is everybody wasting their time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew McCarrick Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 AND he's already turned down funding because HE wants to produce And I already have a three producers, a line producer, and a UPM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 No, I've turned people down because I want to direct and edit. What the people who said they'd fund/produce wanted me to do was take an associate producer credit, and then NOT direct, edit, or do anything at all. Now this is the best response I've seen so far. bravo to you for taking the harder road here. While some here might ridicule you for the lack of couth or experience, you do have some moxie. Pity you lack the experience to back it up. I am serious, get onto a movie set, get onto it immediately. You need to see how things run on a real set. If you need one, I'll talk to my friends up in the city to see about getting you a PA position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie Bartlett Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 ... if i fly over from the UK can you ask if i can get a PA spot aswell. Would gladly cut off my left arm in payment for a possible 'in', if only i didnt need it for the occasional ACing i get. ... did i say fly over? Im broke... i'll swim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew McCarrick Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 I am serious, get onto a movie set, get onto it immediately. You need to see how things run on a real set. If you need one, I'll talk to my friends up in the city to see about getting you a PA position. I might take you up on this offer, but first I want to talk to a few people that I know and see if they'd want to come to (If that wouldn't be a problem.); seeing as how all of the producers are under 20, as well as our A.D and UPM. Would we be able to get some of them as Office PAs and some as Set PAs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 I might take you up on this offer, but first I want to talk to a few people that I know and see if they'd want to come to (If that wouldn't be a problem.); seeing as how all of the producers are under 20, as well as our A.D and UPM. Would we be able to get some of them as Office PAs and some as Set PAs? I'll check with my friend in NY. Can't hurt to find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew McCarrick Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 6. Oh yeah, those scripts that Nate mentioned? There was a $12 million, a $1 million, and a 250k. I stayed up many a night editing those suckers. The guy has improved by leaps and bounds, and has never ever quit. I remember when I was up for a couple weeks straight, well into the night, editing every comma and storyline hole. He took all that advice and improved his writing. He's now close to getting some good cash for his film, and I couldn't be prouder of him. Actually, that's the same exact thing I did for this script, between the ages of 16-18 I worked upto 2-3 in the morning, starting from 6-7 at night everyday. I've probably been through 15-20 (I've honestly lost count) re-writes over the past 5 years... not including the first draft, which I just tossed in the trash as soon as I wrote the last page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Tabith Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 and offered you $200,000 to do your feature, 200 K? Where do i sign.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 200 K? Where do i sign.... I know! Heck, for $200k I'll shoot 3 features, on film! (already have the scripts to boot) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Tabith Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I know! Heck, for $200k I'll shoot 3 features, on film! (already have the scripts to boot) Surely its about using what you've got and making it the best you can, $200K is alot of bucks to me, i am sure its alot of bucks for anyone, my budget = shoe string. ! the day i get that kind of budget i would be a happy chap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Surely its about using what you've got and making it the best you can, $200K is alot of bucks to me, i am sure its alot of bucks for anyone, my budget = shoe string. ! the day i get that kind of budget i would be a happy chap Exactly. And I happen to own quite a few film cameras, ranging from Super8 to 70mm, so can shoot on my schedule, and on my actors schedule, without the worries of rental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Exactly. And I happen to own quite a few film cameras, ranging from Super8 to 70mm, so can shoot on my schedule, and on my actors schedule, without the worries of rental. You own a 70mm camera?!! Wow! Is it sync sound and for rent. I have a wish that before I die, I want to make a film on 70mm. A wish grant you, but I had to ask. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 You own a 70mm camera?!! Wow! Is it sync sound and for rent. I have a wish that before I die, I want to make a film on 70mm. A wish grant you, but I had to ask. chris No, its a High speed unit. Uses Hasselblad 70mm film, not 65mm motion picture stock. I use it for titles, as it is too big and heavy for moving easily. I too have that wish. Saving up for a Todd AO or Mitchell 65mm is hard tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted June 5, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 5, 2008 If I didn't have to worry about money I'd shoot Vista Vision, exclusively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bruce Taylor Posted June 5, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 5, 2008 If I didn't have to worry about money I'd shoot Vista Vision, exclusively. I don't know if you saw it on ebay, but there was a guy fairly local to me who was (is?) selling an honest to goodness 8 perf VistaVision camera. I think the ebay i.d. is lattjam. I was picking up a very spiffy McAlister crab dolly at his place and they showed me their camera room, and there it was. They claim it was used to shoot backround plates for Gone with the Wind. I wouldn't doubt it. I would have bought it, but my 120ft short ends just wouldn't last long enough :rolleyes: ! -Bruce P.S. He has a bunch of VistaVision projector movements for sale too (New! Never Used!), so after you film your epic you can project it for family and friends in your living room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 They claim it was used to shoot backround plates for Gone with the Wind. I wouldn't doubt it. Doubt it. VistaVision wasn't introduced until 1954, a solid 15 years after Gone with the Wind. In addition, color negatives weren't invented for motion picture work at that time. Gone with the Wind was shot in 3-strip technicolor. Imagining the insanity of a 3-strip vistavision... stonecine on eBay is selling a Mitchell vistavision camera atm I believe. But no, give me either 55mm Cinescope or 65mm/70mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 (edited) Given the insane budgets for films these days, it is a wonder why 65mm isn't used more. How did Branagh do it for 18 million? Granted that was twelve years ago, so double the budget. 36 million isn't out of the question, hell call it 50 million. plus with the latest 500 speed stocks you could push one or more and use a rather modest light package. Imagine, a medium format movie. Hmmmm, some day I might just do it. All depends on the script Edited June 6, 2008 by Chris Burke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 Given the insane budgets for films these days, it is a wonder why 65mm isn't used more. How did Branagh do it for 18 million? Granted that was twelve years ago, so double the budget. 36 million isn't out of the question, hell call it 50 million. plus with the latest 500 speed stocks you could push one or more and use a rather modest light package. Imagine, a medium format movie. Hmmmm, some day I might just do it. All depends on the script See, there's this persistant rumor that film is expensive. Fact is, the film cost is usually less than 1% of any blockbuster. 16mm, 35mm, 65mm, doesn't matter that much. Hell, get me $250k and I'd shoot the feature I'm currently working on in 65mm. (it's $150 on 35mm, $50k on 16mm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Christner Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 Please.... For 250k, this guy will shoot fifty features and a remake of the Zapruder films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted June 6, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 6, 2008 Bruce "G'Day" McNaughton at Aranda has a bunch of modern VVs. I'd probably get one of his with all the bells and whistles. Not to mention he knows how to modify and fix all his stuff with his eyes closed. Oh, well. It doesn't cost anything to dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 I always wondered on VV cameras and projectors why, if they had a problem with ware because of the "lazy 8" configuration, they didn't simply optically rotate the image 90 deg. and run the film vertically instead of horizontally? It seems like it wouldn't be that much of a technical problem. Regardless though, isn't it cheaper to shoot 70mm than VV? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Hal Smith Posted June 7, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 7, 2008 Chinhda has been selling off KEM's through an eBay dealer. Currently there's two ex-Chinhda VV KEM's on eBay. http://cgi.ebay.com/KEM-35mm-VISTAVISION-8...Q2em118Q2el1247 http://cgi.ebay.com/KEM-8-PLATE-35mm-SUPER...Q2em118Q2el1247 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 I always wondered on VV cameras and projectors why, if they had a problem with ware because of the "lazy 8" configuration, they didn't simply optically rotate the image 90 deg. and run the film vertically instead of horizontally? It seems like it wouldn't be that much of a technical problem. Regardless though, isn't it cheaper to shoot 70mm than VV? :huh: It is cheaper, but you have limited stock selection. VV can use any 35mm stock, while 65mm is limited to 5-6 stocks IIRC. (I'll need to check with IMAX) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted June 8, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 8, 2008 VV can use any 35mm stock, That was my thinking on it. Plus, 35mm SLR Nikons are big enough to cover the frame. Then again, I did say, "If money wasn't an issue..." If I could afford VV I wouldn't have to be so cheap about lenses like I am now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted June 8, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 8, 2008 Hey Hal, There is also an 8-perf movement advertised on Ebay. Do you know what that movement goes into? It doesn't quite look like a Mitchell fit. Would a camera body/motor/lens mount have to be fabricated around it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now