"Corrado" - A production blog
- Thread starter taormina
- Start date
- Status
GaryinCalifornia
Veteran
You can't order a copy... its sold out already... : )
Time to wait for the checks... : )
Adam, in your view what's the incline of the slope from a direct to DVD production to a theatrical release production? Your tenacity in goal-setting and goal-achieving through Corrado has been really great to read, and it seems you were setting goals that were reasonable and achievable to you. Is it a hugely harder task to achieve a theatrical release? Are the financials similarly impressive?
I ask because your grasp of the foreign markets reads as extensive -- it was a dominant focus for Corrado, and the foreign markets provided you with comfort that the plan was sound. Do you have similar knowledge of the domestic theatrical release? Are you thinking about foreign theatrical release?
You truly are blessed. That you share this story, this journey and this information with us is a lot of fun for me, so again -- thanks.
I ask because your grasp of the foreign markets reads as extensive -- it was a dominant focus for Corrado, and the foreign markets provided you with comfort that the plan was sound. Do you have similar knowledge of the domestic theatrical release? Are you thinking about foreign theatrical release?
You truly are blessed. That you share this story, this journey and this information with us is a lot of fun for me, so again -- thanks.
filmman
Veteran
incline of the slope?
major studios spend on average now about $75,000,000. on marketing to take a movie out on a theatrical run.
if your movie has no major movie stars in it, like Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts, you can still open it theatrical; but you need the marketing funds.
So, if you have about $1,000 you can rent one theater maybe. Then you can take out a full page add in your local newspaper on the day the movie opens. You start with quarter page ads a couple of weeks before and increase the size as you get to opening day. The ads will run you usually in the thousands of dollars, depending on which city.
Maybe your movie will be well-attended and maybe you'll get some reviews. You then have a chance for a distributor picking up your movie.
If you're interested in a theatrical release for a movie with a budget under $500,000, you should shoot the movie in 35mm, because the blow up from digital to 35mm will cost you about $80,000.
major studios spend on average now about $75,000,000. on marketing to take a movie out on a theatrical run.
if your movie has no major movie stars in it, like Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts, you can still open it theatrical; but you need the marketing funds.
So, if you have about $1,000 you can rent one theater maybe. Then you can take out a full page add in your local newspaper on the day the movie opens. You start with quarter page ads a couple of weeks before and increase the size as you get to opening day. The ads will run you usually in the thousands of dollars, depending on which city.
Maybe your movie will be well-attended and maybe you'll get some reviews. You then have a chance for a distributor picking up your movie.
If you're interested in a theatrical release for a movie with a budget under $500,000, you should shoot the movie in 35mm, because the blow up from digital to 35mm will cost you about $80,000.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Pulp Fiction ?
What the ..................... ?
What the ..................... ?
TheMacB
Veteran
i'm not sure that's good advice. if your $500k feature is good enough to get a theatrical release, $80,000 probably won't be hard to find.
(also, dvfilm does HD to 35mm for $450/minute. so a 90 minute feature would be just over $40,000)
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
And, usually a lot of that cost can be covered up front by a studio, if in fact they want to go theatrical.
GaryinCalifornia
Veteran
You can probably pay the same at EFilm (Hollywood)... I think Fotokem (Burbank, CA)( might be doing transfers also...
filmman
Veteran
but that's just for the 35mm negative, then they have to time the 35mm negative and make ip's and dupe negs. it goes over $40,000.
If your movie is over $500,000 I agree the cost of the blow up can be "absorbed"
but under $500,000 you could use the money to shoot on 35mm and end up with better looking 35mm release prints.
and of course it's not just the cost of the film but there is also the cost of dealing with trying to make digital look like film and that costs a lot more than the trouble it is worth doing.
If you're a disciplined filmmaker and know how to direct with one camera (except for heavy action scenes with a lot of gunfire and/or explosions you can shoot a movie with a 5:1 shooting ration (the way John Ford did, for example) and end up spending less than the $40,000 for 35mm.
email me if you want to shoot 35mm short ends. I can get you as much as you want> rawstock@releasing.net
If your movie is over $500,000 I agree the cost of the blow up can be "absorbed"
but under $500,000 you could use the money to shoot on 35mm and end up with better looking 35mm release prints.and of course it's not just the cost of the film but there is also the cost of dealing with trying to make digital look like film and that costs a lot more than the trouble it is worth doing.
If you're a disciplined filmmaker and know how to direct with one camera (except for heavy action scenes with a lot of gunfire and/or explosions
you can shoot a movie with a 5:1 shooting ration (the way John Ford did, for example) and end up spending less than the $40,000 for 35mm.email me if you want to shoot 35mm short ends. I can get you as much as you want> rawstock@releasing.net
taormina
Hates to Rent
No, I know, it's anathema, makes your ears burn. Kent said it though, all on his own.
jls4
Veteran
but that's just for the 35mm negative, then they have to time the 35mm negative and make ip's and dupe negs. it goes over $40,000.
If your movie is over $500,000 I agree the cost of the blow up can be "absorbed"
I'm confused why do they need to re-time the movie? I thought once you got your color-correction down all they needed to do was do a few quick tests of a few shots to make sure your color matches with theirs and they could roll a negative for you. I could have sworn a guy videotaped the process (he was going through it with 16mm film) and he said that was all. You're right about the duplicate copies - didn't think those in.
However I still think Digital is better because there is more control in the editing, more control in post processing, etc. I've got nothing against 35mm, I just don't have anything for it either.
My concern is shooting 35mm means - Film Loader, More Expensive Medium = less shots, Slower Daily viewing, Cost to transfer down to Digital to Edit, then back up to screen.
Shooting Digital means
Film Loader = Anybody who can put a card in a camera
More shots since Card are virtually free once bought
Immediate viewing of dailies
No cost to transfer to edit
Only downside is that most fests and such still want to display Film, so you may have to pay for 35mm transfer
While Digital is not Film or Vise Versa - Film offers only a few advantages or Digital's many advantages and independence in workflow. Digital gives the independent filmmaker the ability to do with 5 people what it could take 10 to do with Film.
but I am curious to know how much a 35mm print costs.
taormina
Hates to Rent
Actually on Hangar 14 I am working on a cost comparison of film vs digital. When the dailies, developing, telecine, and the cost of film is factored in, it will cost about $400,000 more in the scope of a $2.5 Million film! Quite a bit more!
How do you get around it??? It's tough. We want to shoot on Kodak Vision 3. It's like .63 per foot or $630 for a 1000 foot roll. You aren't going to shoot short ends when you have 250,000 feet of film and 3 cameras! Film costs money, plain and simple.
I'm still deciding whether I will use film or not.
How do you get around it??? It's tough. We want to shoot on Kodak Vision 3. It's like .63 per foot or $630 for a 1000 foot roll. You aren't going to shoot short ends when you have 250,000 feet of film and 3 cameras! Film costs money, plain and simple.
I'm still deciding whether I will use film or not.
taormina
Hates to Rent
It's been my experience that you have to spend a minimum budget amount to get theatrical. This is because whoever buys it has to spend a certain amount of money on P&A to market the film no matter what. So do they spend that $15M on a $300K film, or do they spend it on a $8 M film? The choice is obvious. BTW, I am talking wide release theatrical, not LA Chicago NY or a few hundred theaters.
Right now the minimum budget amount getting theatrical is about $6-8M
Before everyone chimes in with their random examples of movies that got theatrical under $8M, just remember that those are the exception rather than the rule.
It's just a reflection on the fact that distributors want to market a film that either a) cost a certain amount guaranteeing a certain level of talent and production value or b) is exceptional, regardless of point a.
TheMacB
Veteran
at dvfilm, add $100/minute for Rembrant color correction. additional prints are $25/minute.
I would much prefer to shoot 35mm and I can't wait to do it, but with this size of budget it just seems to add more trouble than its worth (not Hangar 14, I'm still talking in the 500k range). It adds costs to the project but doesn't alleviate any. There really isn't much cost to make digital look like film these days. Just the camera rig. Maybe color timing. And you're gonna need both of those no matter what you shoot.
I would much prefer to shoot 35mm and I can't wait to do it, but with this size of budget it just seems to add more trouble than its worth (not Hangar 14, I'm still talking in the 500k range). It adds costs to the project but doesn't alleviate any. There really isn't much cost to make digital look like film these days. Just the camera rig. Maybe color timing. And you're gonna need both of those no matter what you shoot.
Last edited:
taormina
Hates to Rent
Okay so I just got off the phone with the main dude at movies4wholesale.com
Very interesting conversation with this guy. It's a huge firm with dozens of names in their voice directory.
What they are is a movie liquidation house, kinda like a big lots for movies. They purchase DVDs from whomever I sell the movie to.
They purchase these DVDs long after they have stopped becoming available at walmarts, best buy, etc. Then they sell them for cheaper, usually $4. According to the guy I spoke to, they would not have my film available for sale for around a year to 18months after it has been released by my distributor. In the meantime, they have what they call a "place holder" on their website.
He says it drums up interest so when someone types in "Corrado DVD" they are redirected there. Like preadvertising!
In any case, they aren't selling bootleg copies of my film, they will be buying them from a legit source so I say let 'em leave it on their page!
Very interesting conversation with this guy. It's a huge firm with dozens of names in their voice directory.
What they are is a movie liquidation house, kinda like a big lots for movies. They purchase DVDs from whomever I sell the movie to.
They purchase these DVDs long after they have stopped becoming available at walmarts, best buy, etc. Then they sell them for cheaper, usually $4. According to the guy I spoke to, they would not have my film available for sale for around a year to 18months after it has been released by my distributor. In the meantime, they have what they call a "place holder" on their website.
He says it drums up interest so when someone types in "Corrado DVD" they are redirected there. Like preadvertising!
In any case, they aren't selling bootleg copies of my film, they will be buying them from a legit source so I say let 'em leave it on their page!
filmman
Veteran
35mm filmmaking is a different art form.
However, I'm enjoying digital movie making with my Sony Z1 and Mac G5 and FCP 5.04 Studio. I can shoot by myself -- one-man-crew -- and get really creative. Then I can play with filters and plugins to make the movie magical. Also with digital I can start production with zero cash in my pocket.
All the points that J. mentioned are valid; but it's a different art form. It's more like experimental television movies. And there's nothing wrong with television
You can shoot more angles, do all kinds of creative things in digital -- even green screen effects, easy color correction, immediate checking of dailies, no need to develop film, just transfer into computer and generate DVDs or masters for other forms of exhibition, etc. All these are advantages.
But what Adam mentioned is also very true: the distributors won't spend millions of dollars promoting a low budget digital movie with no name talents or even B-name talents -- not a wide release anyways, as Adam said. Of course there are exceptions, and Corrado could easily be that exception.
With $15,000,000 marketing campaign behind Corrado and a 3,000 theater release, the movie could go on to gross over $100,000,000. And Adam would be the new kid in Hollywood
If a distributor came along and asked Adam if he'd be willing to gamble on losing every penny he put in Corrado for a shot at a wide release theatrical, would Adam take that chance? Personally, I think he would.
If the movie was shot in 35mm, would Adam be tempted to four-wall Corrado?
However, I'm enjoying digital movie making with my Sony Z1 and Mac G5 and FCP 5.04 Studio. I can shoot by myself -- one-man-crew -- and get really creative. Then I can play with filters and plugins to make the movie magical. Also with digital I can start production with zero cash in my pocket.
All the points that J. mentioned are valid; but it's a different art form. It's more like experimental television movies. And there's nothing wrong with television
You can shoot more angles, do all kinds of creative things in digital -- even green screen effects, easy color correction, immediate checking of dailies, no need to develop film, just transfer into computer and generate DVDs or masters for other forms of exhibition, etc. All these are advantages.
But what Adam mentioned is also very true: the distributors won't spend millions of dollars promoting a low budget digital movie with no name talents or even B-name talents -- not a wide release anyways, as Adam said. Of course there are exceptions, and Corrado could easily be that exception.
With $15,000,000 marketing campaign behind Corrado and a 3,000 theater release, the movie could go on to gross over $100,000,000. And Adam would be the new kid in Hollywood
If a distributor came along and asked Adam if he'd be willing to gamble on losing every penny he put in Corrado for a shot at a wide release theatrical, would Adam take that chance? Personally, I think he would.
If the movie was shot in 35mm, would Adam be tempted to four-wall Corrado?
- Status