Is it a bad idea to make feature films with the DVX100? (no widescreen)

L

Leo7

Member
I have a DVX100 and want to make a feature film with it to submit to film festivals and lately have been concerned about the lack of widescreen and how this could cause problems for getting theatre releases or getting shown at film festivals.

I know there is a lens to convert it to widescreen but assuming I don't have $600 to buy that lens and decide to make it with what I have, I'm starting to think I will just be wasting my time because I won't get any theatre releases even if I happen to make a good feature film. Anyone ever wonder about that? :huh:
 
HorseFilms said:
If you can't budget for $600, your chances of a theatrical release are rather slim.
Click to expand...

So are you saying without the conversion lens I am wasting my time trying to make a feature film? That it is required and that nobody at a major film festival wants to watch something that isn't shot in widescreen on a wide screen? Do tell. :huh:
 
I don't think that horse is suggesting exactly that. It's more that if you can't afford that (which is hardly the key to your success), you won't have access to the other things which ake a movie that will get a theatrical release. (like great actors, an amazing script, competent crew, good gear, etc). THe days of people getting excited about your indie feature, just because you got it made on the cheap are gone. You need to make a great film, or at least one that hits a specific niche really well. There are films shot with million dollar budgets that don't get theatrical release.

I know of a couple of films that got distribution (on DVD) shot on SD. One was on the XL2 (shot by our own Khendrix2) which hit a niche, one on the SD900 which had a few minor name actors. They had budgets of 50K and 100K respectively.

Make the film because you want to. Make it to learn and use it as a calling card. DO the best you can, and then make another one
 
Blair Witch...

You don't need special gear to get into a film festival... only an idea well executed... with a compelling story.

Set the cam in letterbox and go with it. If you shoot a feature for festivals and don't get in... it won't be because of the cam. The very question tells me that you need to gain as much production experience as you can anyway.
 
Very true Matt. Still, I think that you need to go into a production with your eyes wide open. If you are making your first feature (and it happens to be your first film as well), there's nothing wrong with shooting for the stars. Just don't count on it. Make sure you are trying to get something out of the project besides theatrical distribution; some lesson or possibility that will increase your skill set. Put the odds in your favor as much as you can, make the film, learn from it, then head back int the ring.
 
Even The Blair Witch Project ended up costing about $35,000 after all the post production work that needed to be done with it. Of course, you can record decent audio in the first place and not have to go through as much of that.
 
I didn't want to bash the guy even though I agree fully with horse. To ask if it's pointless to try making a feature w/o an animorphic lens makes me question the whole point of buying a DVX in the first place.

There will ALWAYS be that piece of gear that you're missing that seems to be holding you back... ALWAYS... I was trying to advise you not to focus on that.

Realistically... if you don't have $600 to spend on ANYTHING then you're probably not going to make a feature that goes anywhere.

You might want to start with shorts and viral videos and polish your skills there.
 
MattinSTL said:
You might want to start with shorts and viral videos and polish your skills there.
Click to expand...


Good advice. Shorts are rarely commercially viable in and of themselves, but you can learn about 80% of what you would on a feature with a lot less time and money invested.

Filmmaking is a craft and a process. We need to give it the respect and time to learn that we would any other thing that people get paid to do well.
 
But why does it have to be widescreen. Casablanca is the same aspect ratio than the DVX (very close at least).
 
Don't mean to burst the bubble, but the chances of theatrical distrubution are pretty slim. Unless of course you've got recognizable stars attached, a very good script, and talent as a director to pull everything together.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Don't mean to burst the bubble, but the chances of theatrical distrubution are pretty slim. Unless of course you've got recognizable stars attached, a very good script, and talent as a director to pull everything together.
Click to expand...

I know, I know. Chances are slim and probably won't happen. BUT assuming under some super miracle the film is great. Assuming it gets picked up...

Won't it look like crap on a wide screen tv in a theatre?

And what about at film festivals? Don't they show certain films there on wide screens..won't it look like crap on those too?


Just something I've been thinking about lately.
 
I think I got an answer from another message board. Thought I would share the answer here for feedback..

No. You cannot get a wide theatrical release with a 1.33:1 film. Most cineplex facilities are not equip to deal with 1.33:1.

Spellbound WAS released theatrically - but it only played on 117 screens (wide release is generally defined as 500-750+ screens). These were, most likely, "art house" screens (although I cannot verify that). Lost in La Mancha hit a grand total of 24 screens. By comparison Blades of Glory is currently on 3, 467 screens, Distubia opened on 2, 925 screens

You CAN shoot your film 1.33:1, "protect" for 1.85:1, and utilize BOTH. But a major theatrical release will be 1.85:1. Even if you have a 1.33:1 film - it will be shown as 1.85:1 the vast majority of the time.
Click to expand...

thoughts? :huh:
 
Here's my advice - if you are that worried about theatrical release then dont bother. Shoot your feature for the sheer joy of making a movie. Make it low budget and spend money on lights and sound only. Enter in a DVXuser Fest and enjoy the livelihood of being a filmmaker. A $600 anamorphic adapter isnt whats going to keep you out of a theater.
 
jdajda said:
A $600 anamorphic adapter isnt whats going to keep you out of a theater.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. There are MANY more important things to think about if you are seriously considering a feature film. Start out small with shorts like others have said here, get some good experience, and if your work is that good, then you will build a reputation that will help you secure talent and money later on down the road.
 
jdajda said:
Here's my advice - if you are that worried about theatrical release then dont bother. Shoot your feature for the sheer joy of making a movie. Make it low budget and spend money on lights and sound only. Enter in a DVXuser Fest and enjoy the livelihood of being a filmmaker. A $600 anamorphic adapter isnt whats going to keep you out of a theater.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of the have fun and create a great film stuff. And enter contests and have fun. Who is going to disagree with that? You are stating the obvious.

But in regards to the question..as I posted above, it would seem that it would keep you out of many theaters if it's not shot in widescreen.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Just trying to see the bigger picture. You guys are acting like it's a dumb question.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=spellbound.htm
Widest Release: 117 theaters
 
Leo7 said:
I agree with all of the have fun and create a great film stuff. And enter contests and have fun. Who is going to disagree with that? You are stating the obvious.

But in regards to the question..as I posted above, it would seem that it would keep you out of many theaters if it's not shot in widescreen.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
Click to expand...

How about this:

there are 20 million people exactly like you out there. half of them live in hollywood. If you're good at what you do, and you as if by a miracle have a film "picked up", the studio will want it to look good on the screen. They'll probably have your rights by then, so they'll make it look however they want.

That's the 1:1000000 odds you've got there.

And that's when you're the favorite.
 
Leo7 said:
But in regards to the question..as I posted above, it would seem that it would keep you out of many theaters if it's not shot in widescreen.

You guys are acting like it's a dumb question.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but it is a dumb question. If your film ends up getting distribution then the distributor is going to spend money to make it look good in theatres. They'll be spending money to blow it up on 35mm film and whatever else to make it presentable because the point is to make money. You're presupposing that a theatre manager will look at the screen, say "oh, it's not wide screen, it doesn't deserve to be playing in my theatre," and that's just not true.
 
That's right. If you do everything you can to get your film on a screen then it's out of your hands. If you've done everything that is possibly in your reach then you can only hope that they'll take it. But you shouldn't want to focus on one aspect... especially when there are so many ways around it.

jade8472 said:
presupposing
Click to expand...
New favorite word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top