Anyone Made A $250,000 Film?

K

Kevin McCallister

Well-known member
Hey Guys,

I'm looking to get in contact with people who have been through the experience of making/putting together/completing a film in the $250,000 range. As some of you know, my first film, "Plasterhead", received worldwide distribution last October. That film cost $20,000 and I paid for it myself. I'm now looking to make the next step, a larger film with a larger budget (in the aforementioned range). Obviously, it's a whole new ballgame at that level, involving SAG, more lawyers, and investors to answer to. I'm interested in talking to some people who have been down the road and have put together a project like that. If any of you have done so, or know anyone that has, I'd love to bounce a few questions off you either here or via email. Thanks in advance for all your help.
 
Congratulations to you for embarking on such a project! That's awesome. I'm going to shoot a feature that would be in that budget range, if the location was paid instead of donated it would probably be north of that, but I'm not dealing with investors either so I'm not sure about that whole part. That definitely takes more involvement from an attorney, to make sure everything is good to go and you are covered legally.

You've went about establishing an LLC for the shoot right? That way you can make the LLC a signatory of the unions you need to, like SAG, to get the talent you want, without having to make your parent company / production company a union signatory, which is not desirable for many indie filmmakers such as myself since I can't afford to work with union talent on every shoot. But I will want to be SAG for my indie feature.
 
not sure if you've seen this: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=126339 ("Corrado" - A production blog).

Adam shot a feature for $350,000. The thread is a LOOOOOONG read. As of now over 1500 posts. But it's probably the best thread i've read on these boards. It's basically rebel without a crew, with current technology. I believe his original budget was around $150,000. But when he picked up Tom Sizemore for the big star, along with other name actors, his budget went up. You will pick up TONS of info from that thread. Plus Adam has been extremely generous with his time, answering all questions posted to the thread.

Good luck.
 
Slimchrisp is right...if you haven't read Adam Cultraro's "Corrado" thread (it's so cool it's been made into a sticky), prepare to treat yourself to a great read that's right on the money where your question is concerned.

Just make sure to set aside some time. It's about 150 pages deep at this point : )
 
Thanks so much for the link to the "Corrado" thread...how in the world did I miss that? I've been reading it all morning and it's ridiculously informative. Thanks again!
 
Corrado, that word is so funny to me, I swear it looks like someone with a speech impediment trying to say Colorado.
 
This thread could be more interesting than Corrado. But please Kevin answer a few questions so one doesn't have to draw the wrong conclusions.

I really admire people who have managed to make a small movie and gotten distribution. I believe distribution is the main problem facing indie filmmakers like myself.

1. Since you found distribution for your last movie, then you can go back to the same distributors, right?

2. And it the distributor who distributed your last movie gives you a distribution agreement, you can simply borrow the money from the bank. You know that, right?

I've worked on many movies in that price range. Most of them lost money, but then everybody knows the odds for independent movies are bad. But we still make movie because we are filmmakers. What else are we going to do?

3. How much money have you made on your last movie? Did you set aside some money for this movie?

4. Why aren't you shooting another $20,000 movie?

I ask these question respectfully, because I'm sincerely concerned with filmmakers losing all their money.

A $250,000 movie is next to impossible to recoup the money on.

Undless you have a negative pick up or a distribution guarantee, because no distributor will advance $250,000 after you complete the movie if you don't have an iron clad deal. In fact, I've not heard of a distributor even advancing $50,000 anymore.

Of course, one can get lucky and have their movie picked up by the majors for $5 million dollars plus 40% of the back-end money, but that seldom happens. Nobody can count on an accident like that.

While Corrado is an inspiration to many, it's an exception that proves the rule. The rule is that if you have one or two name actors, chances are good that a distributor will buy the film. This is an oversimplification of course. Adam had his own money and could guarantee the distribution of his movie regardless of who the distributor was. So far the distributors are still very interested in Corrado. Everyone who's familiar with the movie knows that there is no way Corrado will not get distribution and get the money back to the investors.

Not knowing what your movie is about, I'd advise you not to roll cameras until you have a distribution contract. If you're going to proceed without a contract anyway, my next piece of advice is put aside half the money you end up with for marketing. My third piece of advice is set aside half of the production budget for one name actor whose name means you can walk into any studio and get distribution.

Good luck. Oh, and I'd advice you to shoot film, even if the filmstock is short ends -- which I happen to sell :-)

http://www.releasing.net/rawstock/
 
JonathanLB said:
Corrado, that word is so funny to me, I swear it looks like someone with a speech impediment trying to say Colorado.
Click to expand...

True story: my sound mixer would call the film Colorado when referring to it - it was just easier for him even though I called him on it a dozen times.

Corrado is an Italian man's name roughly translated to Conrad or sometimes, Charlie.

Thanks for all the kind words, guys.

Kevin, feel free to PM me with any questions or just post them on the Corrado thread.
 
That's awesome, haha. I just always think Colorado. It's not because of just "Corrado" being somewhat close. To be honest it's because my business partner is Assyrlan (from Iran, so Middle Eastern) and he has some funny pronunciations of words, like "V" is very hard for him, so van becomes wan a lot of times or a vacation is a wacation, lol. It's funny, but only because he's an amazing guy in terms of languages, god, I can't imagine. He speaks Assyrian, Farsi, English, quite a bit of German (he spent a few years there), Turkish, and bits and pieces of all kinds of other languages. But when we used to go out in Pasadena to this club, he'd always say, "It's on Corrado Boulevard," instead of "Colorado Boulevard," it always came out as Corrado, haha, so that's why I think of that!

Well all of this interest in that thread, I'm going to go read it, I'm curious now and I need that information myself.

I'm kind of stubborn like most indie filmmakers, I guess, I have a feature I want to shoot with about $125,000 of my own money, so half this budget, and I'm not even sure I can really do that, it might be more like $150,000. The location I'll be using would normally be a ridiculous rental, I mean in the $25,000/day range easily, so in a way if all was paid the budget would clearly be much more substantial. Plus I own so much of my own equipment, and will shoot with the RED which I'll own before the feature and am not including in the budget, so... if I owned no equipment, and had no location, I'm sure I'd need $400K to $500K to do this project, which would make it impossible to be worthwhile. But I feel that if I can do it for $125,000 it'd be a bargain.

I know that most of these types of projects never recoup their investment, and struggle to break even let alone make a profit, but I feel that there's a market for indie horror films that are done really well and offer something different from a lot of what is out there, but with themes that are tried-and-true in the horror genre, etc. I know there is more of a niche horror audience than most other types of films, and more than that, I know horror movie fans are more willing to give indie films a chance. I have a lot of friends who are big horror movie buffs and they see the strangest things, from foreign horror movies I've never heard of to indie horror films they found at Blockbuster or got on Netflix, or they saw at a festival (like the H.P. Lovecraft festival). So I think if you are able to market a film like that, even without distribution, you could do alright for yourself. Obviously distribution is the key, though. The point is I think the worst you'd do is recouping $30,000 and losing the rest, which would clearly be pretty bad to say the least, but you have to take a risk.

Another thing is, I really agree with what was said above, which is that I've had this idea in my head for a long time, this story, this location, etc., and been doing research a bit every day on how I can pull this off and what the market is like, and I decided months ago that I want to get one name actor, not some big actor, but a B-lister anyway, some sort of name, to be in the film even if only briefly. I've discussed it with other filmmakers and half of the people say I can pull this off, the other half say it'll be tough, so I don't know. My idea is for the shoot to be 18 days, and I want this name actor for just 6 of those days, pay would be probably in the range of $20,000, not including additional expenses (five star hotel, rental car, airfare, etc.). Even if that stretches my budget to $150,000 instead of $125,000, I think it's worthwhile.

Now some people say for $20,000 I can definitely find a good working actor, someone who plays character roles or who was on a TV show 6 years ago or something, anyone, just some sort of name, and other people are saying it's tough to find those people because they "don't work for the money," you have to know someone, blah blah, etc. I don't know. I have some connections who have connections, so I'm hoping that in the next year (I want to shoot in 18 months, ideally) I will be able to iron that out and figure out a plan of attack, at least. I don't want to be a first-time director (of features) doing a film with all unknowns, just like everyone else, and having so little chance of getting that cash back. At the same time, I don't want to never do a feature just because nobody will give me a chance and bankroll my film. So that's a dilemma as well. If I did a first feature and let's say I sold it for $75,000, and I lost $75,000, maybe more (including festival entries, marketing, etc.), but that feature got me more directing gigs in the industry, whether they were TV shows or Web episodes or whatever, anything, that would in many ways be worthwhile for me because at least I'd have a feature under my belt and have that experience.

Before I do a feature, though, I want to direct two professional-quality shorts, one in the horror genre, and one of any nature I choose, probably drama / comedy (a philosophical dark comedy, I don't know, something like that). I want to do well enough in festivals and whatnot, and have the kind of feedback that would give me some credentials as a narrative director. I'm confident in my directing / producing abilities for other types of projects already, music videos, training videos, corporate work, etc., but when it comes to narrative filmmaking, ultimately the reason why I wanted to be a filmmaker from so long ago, I don't have enough experience yet and wouldn't be prepared to direct a feature anyway, even if i had unlimited financing, haha.
 
When you go above $25,000 budget on a feature, you're already in danger of not recouping your investment -- unless of course you already have distribution.

If you use one name actor, that means SAG, and if you're going SAG, you have to factor in Union rates and come up with a Union budget, which means you're going to be in the $500,000 range for a B-Movie.

I don't think it's wise at any age to be shooting for a loss. You don't need the experience that bad. There are filmmakers that made a $750,000 movie that grossed $70,000,000. Remember American Graffitti?

There is a big difference between an indie movie and a SAG movie, just as there is a big difference between a Union Picture and a Non-Union Picture (the kind that projectionists will not project without the Union Seal).

Like my doctor says, when I tell him I don't like taking too many pills, "why do you want to suffer?"
 
JonathanLB said:
I know that most of these types of projects never recoup their investment, and struggle to break even let alone make a profit ...
Click to expand...

filmman said:
When you go above $25,000 budget on a feature, you're already in danger of not recouping your investment -- unless of course you already have distribution.
Click to expand...

WOW! Talk about Negativity! Jeppers no wonder no one is jumping into the filmmaking arena.

The big differences between a movie that makes money and one that doesn't are simple.

GREAT MARKETING (Hookups to agents or industry)
GREAT MOVIE

I'm hoping to raise $140K to $160K for my next movie and I'm not sweating it. The reason - simple, I "think" I have a good idea of how to make a movie that people want to see.

I don't push artsy fartsy films. I don't think it'd be cool to have an action musical. I recognize the wisdom of Hollywood (when you can find some in there :))

If you make a $250K movie about a girl who wants to get her toenails painted and marry a rock star up the street while her best friend, who is a lesbian, actually wants to sing Opera. - Sure I think your movie is screwed. Unless you have the best dialog and story line imaginable.

There is a reason for "formula". There is a reason why Hollywood picks on ideas we've seen before and TV shows ("Spiderman", "Batman", "Miami Vice") because the audience is already there. All they have to do is make something - half way worth watcing.

The average action movie is:
Hero alone trying to find himself while figuring out a plan for a "bad guy" who is trying to take over/destroy whatever. Along the way runs into girl who takes interest in him, despite the fact he's not ready for a real relationship. Her life is in jeopordy by the bad guy at the end and that motivates him to save her and the city/the world/whatever. (Batman, Leathal Weapon, Die Hard, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man)

The average romantic comedy:
Girl (Guy) alone getting over some trouble, runs into guy (girl) by some cute freak accident. They find interest in each other, but the past of the girl (guy) comes back to haunt them and they have to make a descision.

Horror film:
Unsuspecting people generally go to an abandoned town or small town or woods (basically a low population area) and they notice bad things (but for whatever reason they don't leave - car broke down, bridge out, can't find their way) one by one they are taken out, until the last person "thinks" they'll get away only to be trapped or hunted down.

ALL MOVIES ARE THE SAME. The average person likes it like this. I run into people that hate movies like "28 Days Later", "Seven", "Lord of the Rings" because they can't keep up with the movie. They are confused. They think the enemy shouldn't win ("Seven"). This is your audience. These are the people that buy/rent/go to the movies to see your movie.

The reason why most indie movies fail is the same reason why most Hollywood movies fail. The movie SUCKS! It simply does. I've only seen a handful of movies that (in my opinion) were good, but they didn't do well at the Box Office/Rental. Although a bad movie with great Marketing may do well.

No one wants to say that - No one in Hollywood and No one in the Indie World. But you need to get it in your system so you can make movies that don't SUCK. I've only seen a few filmmakers to even come out and say something to that effect.

If you ever want to know if a movie sucks before you go see it, watch the Interviews with the actors. In Atlanta they Interviewed "Sandra Bullock" about "Premonition". The guy kept asking her about the movie, and she kept asking him about Atlanta. She didn't want to "lie" and say it was good, but by contract she can't sabbotage the movie.

And Indie movies tend to Suck even worse. Because many believe that Hollywood is missing out on a great idea that they have. And many times they are wrong. I watched a movie one time that was painful to watch, simply awful. At the end the director wrote in big letters in the screen the words "The Movie That Hollywood Was Afraid To Do." And I sat there glaring at those white words on a black background thinking... "It was the movie hollywood didn't WANT to do!"

Before you talk budgets - you need to "think" or talk storyline. A good story with a $35K budget is better than a crappy one with a $50 million dollar budget!

---Rant over - -- tired -- need sleep :)
 
filmman said:
When you go above $25,000 budget on a feature, you're already in danger of not recouping your investment -- unless of course you already have distribution.

If you use one name actor, that means SAG, and if you're going SAG, you have to factor in Union rates and come up with a Union budget, which means you're going to be in the $500,000 range for a B-Movie.

I don't think it's wise at any age to be shooting for a loss. You don't need the experience that bad. There are filmmakers that made a $750,000 movie that grossed $70,000,000. Remember American Graffitti?

There is a big difference between an indie movie and a SAG movie, just as there is a big difference between a Union Picture and a Non-Union Picture (the kind that projectionists will not project without the Union Seal).

Like my doctor says, when I tell him I don't like taking too many pills, "why do you want to suffer?"
Click to expand...

Ok between those two posts, haha, I have a lot to say. First off, filmman, I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about with regard to features. No offense intended. Have you ever heard of SAG Low Budget or Ultra Low Budget? On any production under $200,000 you can pay actors as low as $100/day, even if they are in SAG. Also you don't seem to understand that you can be a SAG signatory on a production and not sign with any other unions. You have ZERO obligation to hire union crew just because you're working with SAG. In fact, most low budget films will go SAG Ultra Low and work with non-union crew. So you're not anywhere near $500,000, unless you want to be. It won't hardly add anything to your budget. Your main expenses are still going to be equipment and locations, or locations and crew, depending on how you're paying.

Just read the Corrado thread. He even paid his cast a huge amount to get names and that didn't mean the crew magically all got $500/day even for grips, lol.

As for what jls said, I couldn't agree more. Way too many indie filmmakers think that just because something has never been done before that automatically makes it a great idea bound for success. Uhh, actually, if it's never been done before there could very well be and probably is a great reason for that ;)

Also, I get annoyed how so many film festivals will always give awards to weird films. I don't know if that's mainly what they are getting or what, but it will be just like you said. It's about a gay African-American barber who collects Beanie Babies and is falling in love with a trannie, and it's the true love that binds them together through difficulty. What the heck?! Who wants to watch that? Come on. A lot of the other stuff people think is so great at festivals to me is just total mediocrity, like the feature I hate "Just Another Girl on the IRT," which I had to watch in film school for the sole reason it was by a black woman director, and there aren't many movies by that demographic. Well, that movie sucked. So I don't think it sent the message that was desired. Then for instance the film on the front of Very Short Movies' festival page, oooo will the single mom decide to pursue her career, raise her kid, or BOTH? I'm sorry but that's not compelling at all to me. That may have its demographic but I couldn't care less about that. Movies need to be about extraordinary people doing extraordinary things (The Dark Knight, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc.), or ordinary people doing extraordinary things (United 93, World Trade Center, Backdraft, lots of stuff like that comes to mind, ordinary heroes, etc.). Not ordinary people doing ordinary things. If you can find two million people in the same situation as the protagonist, to me, that's not a good premise or idea for a movie. Sure, you may have two million people who identify with the subject matter, but if that's the case I don't really know if they care to see a movie about their own every-day life, to be honest. People want to see movies that inspire them to be better than they are, or to escape reality into a fantasy realm where anything is possible, or to elicit emotions (terror, fear, etc.) that are not ordinarily part of their lives.

The horror film I want to make is a mix of several types of horror that I really like, and it's not like it's super original but there are not too many examples of what I'm trying to do, I'm sure there are probably at least five that are very similar, and then there are like 500 that are somewhat similar.

What's funny is I'm always conflicted by what I want to do, because here I am a philosopher with all of these interesting moral dilemmas I could cover in film and these philosophical elements I'd love to imbed into a movie (like Minority Report, for instance, and determinism, and that's a mainstream, huge budget film), so I always think, gee, my first feature is going to be a horror film that's basically about the thrills and some great production design and location, etc.? Then again, I don't want to make something uncommercial for my first feature that while I may like it has an audience of about 100,000 people in the U.S. and that's if I somehow managed to market well enough to find them all, which would never happen, so only 1,000 people would ever know of the film's existence. To me that's not acceptable. If I want to explore deeper philosophical themes, let me get to a level of recognition first where I can hire all-name actors and weave these elements into a mainstream film, ala Minority Report, rather than doom my film to a niche audience. Plus honestly I'd rather blow like $10,000 on a short that's kind of out-there but that fills my desire to do something more philosophical, because I know a short film is a waste of money anyway and if it's just something I do for fun, I'd rather waste $10,000 than 15 times that much ;)

Especially after reading Corrado's thread a bit, I want to make sure I have at least one name actor in the film, which I knew before, but now I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to get two names and they can just be the first two to die or something, haha. I don't want to risk my money on anything I don't have a good shot at distribution for, and straight-to-DVD is fine, I have read a lot about theatrical distribution, sounds like it doesn't work out so well for almost any indie film. I'd rather just make something that could be a really solid DVD title.
 
I know filmman is going to be mad at me... but I encouage you to shoot Digital with a 35mm blow up. You need to set aside $40K for the blow up. But there is no since in shooting film then knocking it down to digital to edit and then back up to film. But to be fair to filmman, if your budget reaches $500K you should at least consider 35mm.

Most Hollywood movies are now viewed at 2K res (2048 pixels horizontally across) You can shoot RED, Red Scarlett (if shooting late next year) or Sony EX1/EX3 (7% image loss in blow up)
 
I would shoot on the RED for sure. I hate film, not to say that 35mm doesn't look great and all, but I don't want that aggravation. The workflow is ridiculous, and I want no part of renting expensive 35mm cameras and buying film stock. I don't even trust that. One laboratory mistake and your footage is all screwed up; happened to my friend, where a lab that shall remained unnamed, but one of the majors, made some mistakes that ruined some of the footage. They paid him a settlement but basically he had to agree that "there were no mistakes and you acknowledge that we didn't do anything wrong," which of course is hilarious. If they didn't do anything wrong they wouldn't have been writing a rather nice check, haha. With digital footage, yeah you could accidentally delete it I guess, if you are a moron, but when you double-back up everything on the shoot, it helps you sleep a lot better at night. Especially when you have two drives in different physical locations.

I don't think the film will need a print-out at any point particularly. I mean, if it plays in festivals they will be horror movie festivals, and most of those accept DVD submissions, some are starting to take Blu-ray, and in two years when I have this project finished (best case scenario), probably almost any place will take Blu-ray submissions as well.

Plus, I'm just not a film fan, sorry. I know some people will always be loyalists but I like my footage without a bunch of grain and a bunch of weird cigarette burns and marks when it plays. Film was totally amazing... in 1935. When there was nothing else. This is 2008.
 
JonathanLB said:
A lot of the other stuff people think is so great at festivals to me is just total mediocrity, like the feature I hate "Just Another Girl on the IRT," which I had to watch in film school for the sole reason it was by a black woman director, and there aren't many movies by that demographic. Well, that movie sucked. So I don't think it sent the message that was desired.
Click to expand...

We were brothers in a former life! LOL. That's the movie I was talking about! The movie at the end it says... "The movie Hollywood was afraid to make."

It was so awful. I was ashamed to be black when it came out! It was this crappy movie who got "Publicity" and now everyone's watching it. Unfortunately there aren't many good indie films, but there are less for the African-American community. Being 13% of the population sure has it's down side. But I 100% Agree, that "Just Another Girl on the IRT" has to be on the list of the 100 worst movies ever made that got serious publicity.
 
JonathanLB said:
I would shoot on the RED for sure. I hate film, not to say that 35mm doesn't look great and all, but I don't want that aggravation. ... With digital footage, yeah you could accidentally delete it I guess, if you are a moron, but when you double-back up everything on the shoot, it helps you sleep a lot better at night. Especially when you have two drives in different physical locations.

Plus, I'm just not a film fan, sorry. I know some people will always be loyalists but I like my footage without a bunch of grain and a bunch of weird cigarette burns and marks when it plays. Film was totally amazing... in 1935. When there was nothing else. This is 2008.
Click to expand...

These are the times I wish I was out in LA. So we could meet up and do some great projects. Film to me is dead. Digital still has a few problems, but it took years for film cameras to be perfected. First they were jittery with no sound, then they smoothed them out and added a small amount of sound, then the cameras were blimped to upgrade the sound. We didn't have Stereo Sound until Star Wars 1975, then the color was upgraded in the 70s, 80s, 90s. By the time they have gotten it right, digital is now here and has everything that film has except the for the small CMOS issue that in a controlled environment is not that big of an issue.

The cameras are quicker, the medium is cheaper, editing is a million times easier. Color is Unlimited - you can color correct any way you want. And RED is working on a new CMOS chip to read faster so the CMOS artifacts will soon be history. So in 2 to 5 years if Hollywood is still shooting 35mm, they'll be effectively wasting millions of dollars in Film Loaders, Processing, etc. With a Red all you need is a Camera Man, AC, and a Technical Person to save the data and make 2 copies.
 
hahaha, it's seriously awful. I was just so confused, why we saw that in a major film study class, where we were watching stuff like Scarface, Godfather, etc. and then... Just Another Girl on the IRT. It was really strange to me.

I forgot about that ending you were talking about, not that i would actually watch the movie again to see it, but I own the film because I was too lazy to go to the screenings for that class, it was the middle of winter in Corvallis, OR, and walking 15 minutes through miserable, cold weather to see movies in a crowded theater wasn't my idea of fun. So I just bought that one on DVD because the local rental store didn't have it. Boy, did I regret buying that thing! haha

When I used to be an online film critic and reviewed everything, I got some flack because I would sometimes appreciate the big Oscar stuff, but in the same week give a good review to something like Charlie's Angels. Almost all filmmakers seem to love saying, "Whatever comes out of Hollywood is always crap!" I actually enjoy most of the big blockbusters. I'm not saying they're insightful movies, but I have a lot of fun at a film like Hancock or Wanted or whatever. It doesn't mean I think they're great stories, but I can appreciate anything from dumbed-down action movies to really off-the-wall stuff like Memento, Waking Life, Dark City, etc.
 
I'm sure if you were in L.A., we could be working on stuff! It's sometimes hard to find a group of filmmakers out here who would be interested in working on each other's projects and helping one another out without it being all a cash exchange. I mean, I have tons of equipment, and I'd be happy to lend it to other people's shoots if they would trade their skills to one of my shoots, because I wouldn't mind helping on someone else's project just for the experience and whatnot. But that's tough, a lot of people are very busy and don't have as much time to do their own stuff, in between assistant editing gigs, grip work, etc. Even if they really want to be directing.

I remember thinking about ten years ago that I really wanted to do film, I knew it was my dream, but the idea of working with film cameras always seemed really terrible to me. Not that I thought they didn't take great pictures, just that it seemed like it would be very strange and I was hoping that digital would come along far enough so that I'd never have to touch a film camera. Well, that worked out pretty nicely, considering right now I am definitely not doing big enough work to need 35mm film, the HVX200 is actually if anything overkill for a lot of corporate and Web work, and when I want to step it up, there's the RED. I am glad in retrospect that I canceled my RED orders at the time, though, because they'd just sit around for too long without being used. I would have had my first RED by now, I think I'd have had the second actually too. That's kind of depressing in a way. But I am glad because they've been working out a lot of the kinks over there and the workflow has been tested a lot more, so by the time I even get a RED it will be a tried-and-true camera many times over. I am sure I wouldn't get a RED before a year from now, because if I ordered now I'd get it maybe in December. If I order at year's end, I get it maybe in April to July, who knows, but hopefully they speed things up a bit.

Also, though, I really was hoping to buy some of the stuff that isn't even out yet, so if I had the camera now that wouldn't be an option. I would love a set of the RED primes if they get those done and they are good. At $20,000, it's a ton of money, but compared to some other primes it's a bargain.
 
JonathanLB said:
hahaha, it's seriously awful. I was just so confused, why we saw that in a major film study class, where we were watching stuff like Scarface, Godfather, etc. and then... Just Another Girl on the IRT. It was really strange to me.

...

"Whatever comes out of Hollywood is always crap!" I actually enjoy most of the big blockbusters. I'm not saying they're insightful movies, but I have a lot of fun at a film like Hancock or Wanted or whatever. It doesn't mean I think they're great stories, but I can appreciate anything from dumbed-down action movies to really off-the-wall stuff like Memento, Waking Life, Dark City, etc.
Click to expand...

I think a movie simply has to inspire you to tell you a simple story in a great way. I think that's the mark of a good movie - not if it's artsy or overly dramatic. I love Waking Life, but the average friend can't make ti past 5 minutes, but boy can we talk about Star Wars. And truth is Star Wars is what inspired me to do movies - a very commercial film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top