Seconded.
Anyone else excited about the future of DSLRs?
- Thread starter dtjohns1
- Start date
Seconded.
kodjo
Active member
I have made low budget movies. I go to the Cannes Film Festival every year. I have been going there for 16 years. Let me tell you this much: no movie made for no money has ever been nominated in cannes. EVER. It won't even get near the competition. The Oscars are just about the same. You don't play in the big league with zero budget.
That does not mean there are no low budget movies. There are plenty of them. However, even low budget means at least 100,000! A NONAME movie will never get decent distribution. YOU must have some sort of star because the buyers ask for STARS. They can be low budget stars but you need STARS. One of my distributors get 10 feature submissions a week now all made with DSLR or adaptors. He turns down 99% of them. The ones he picks up are the most commercial.... specifically... with bigger budgets and names.
As far as visionary directors are conscerned.... American Grafitti cost 1 million, STAR WARS 10 million (And they still had to get Alec Guiness).
Reservoir Dog would NEVER have been the success it was is HARVEY KEITEL had not accepted to star in it, and thereby allowing Tarantino to get 400,000 from a distributor.
El Mariachi was made for 7,000 to get to a U-MATIC off 16mm cut workpring (It was cut on U-Matic as the negatives were transfered to U-MATIC to avoid making prints from negative). By the time it was released, they had spent another few hundred thousand on post.
With adjustment for inflation, you can QUADRUPLE all these budgets.
Nowadays, a 5 million budget is still considered a LOW BUDGET.
Also, the lower the budget, the more the director has to do himself. My last movie turned me into an athlete. I did 5 jobs all by myself.
I just did a movie. The initial budget was 40 thousand.... it came in at 140 thousand... and I had major problems getting by... post production work will probably cost another 80,000. It was impossible to do a professional job for less.
Do not forget that the audience could not care less about how much you spend. You still compete with top of the line productions whether you like it or not.
Getting back to the LITTLE FAT GIRL from Ohio.... I don't know what Coppolla was talking about. One thing is certain... a movie is not just about owning a camera and I don't know what drug he was on the day he came up with that piece of wisdom. Certainly he must have been frustrated with spending 32 million of his own money on Apocalypse Now... another independent... (low budget)... movie.
That does not mean there are no low budget movies. There are plenty of them. However, even low budget means at least 100,000! A NONAME movie will never get decent distribution. YOU must have some sort of star because the buyers ask for STARS. They can be low budget stars but you need STARS. One of my distributors get 10 feature submissions a week now all made with DSLR or adaptors. He turns down 99% of them. The ones he picks up are the most commercial.... specifically... with bigger budgets and names.
As far as visionary directors are conscerned.... American Grafitti cost 1 million, STAR WARS 10 million (And they still had to get Alec Guiness).
Reservoir Dog would NEVER have been the success it was is HARVEY KEITEL had not accepted to star in it, and thereby allowing Tarantino to get 400,000 from a distributor.
El Mariachi was made for 7,000 to get to a U-MATIC off 16mm cut workpring (It was cut on U-Matic as the negatives were transfered to U-MATIC to avoid making prints from negative). By the time it was released, they had spent another few hundred thousand on post.
With adjustment for inflation, you can QUADRUPLE all these budgets.
Nowadays, a 5 million budget is still considered a LOW BUDGET.
Also, the lower the budget, the more the director has to do himself. My last movie turned me into an athlete. I did 5 jobs all by myself.
I just did a movie. The initial budget was 40 thousand.... it came in at 140 thousand... and I had major problems getting by... post production work will probably cost another 80,000. It was impossible to do a professional job for less.
Do not forget that the audience could not care less about how much you spend. You still compete with top of the line productions whether you like it or not.
Getting back to the LITTLE FAT GIRL from Ohio.... I don't know what Coppolla was talking about. One thing is certain... a movie is not just about owning a camera and I don't know what drug he was on the day he came up with that piece of wisdom. Certainly he must have been frustrated with spending 32 million of his own money on Apocalypse Now... another independent... (low budget)... movie.
Last edited:
It's not going to happen Zak, you know buyers aren't paying $2.5M anymore for films they know they 'can' buy for $100k but they don't because they all suck and are at every turn.
Looks like he didn't put his hvx in squeeze mode.
PA had Speilberg come in and redo the ending, yes it made a lot of money but you didn't see a $15k film in a theater, El Mariach, Dimension spent hundreds of thousands in post, you didn't see a $7k film, it was a good six figures that you saw/herd, same for clerks, I could go on and on but will stop here.
Finnegan
Well-known member
This isn't even the original point of the discussion. The filmmaker isn't paying for that extra cost of post production. The studio is.
You still don't get it, Finnegan. The studio will only pay for it in special circumstances, the likes of which 99.999% of potential filmmakers will never get.
It's better to raise the proper money on your own to be able to deliver a completed film that can be shuffled right out the door, than to waste $10,000 or $20,000 in the hope that some studio will front the additional funds needed to make it look like an honest-to-God motion picture.
It's better to raise the proper money on your own to be able to deliver a completed film that can be shuffled right out the door, than to waste $10,000 or $20,000 in the hope that some studio will front the additional funds needed to make it look like an honest-to-God motion picture.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I think that a lot of criticism of the Coppola quote is based on the assumption that the "Little Fat Girl from Ohio" is going to take the cheaper available technology and make a movie about hit men, or a serial killer, or alien space battles and then can compete with Hollywood and their big budgets. I think that is it wrong.
I believe the hope is that the "Little Fat Girl from Ohio" is going to take the new technology and make a movie that poignantly shows us the drama of the life of a "Little Fat Girl from Ohio", in a way that we may have never seen before. I am of the opinion that all the money in Hollywood would not be able to compete with that.
I believe the hope is that the "Little Fat Girl from Ohio" is going to take the new technology and make a movie that poignantly shows us the drama of the life of a "Little Fat Girl from Ohio", in a way that we may have never seen before. I am of the opinion that all the money in Hollywood would not be able to compete with that.
Unless she sucks as a filmmaker and her story is replete with a horrible script, bad acting, laughable editing, and poor lighting. Then no one will watch it.
And 99.9999% of the fat girls in Ohio would deliver just that.
And here's a challenge for you: take a look at your DVD/Blu-Ray/iiTunes/ect collection and tell me the names of the movies that you OWN that were shot for less than a million dollars (adjusted for inflation of course).
And 99.9999% of the fat girls in Ohio would deliver just that.
And here's a challenge for you: take a look at your DVD/Blu-Ray/iiTunes/ect collection and tell me the names of the movies that you OWN that were shot for less than a million dollars (adjusted for inflation of course).
I'm totally into the little fat girl from Ohio genre. We're in the middle of a production now called "A Little Fat Girl rom Ohio Does Dallas". Made for 5K. We have high hopes.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
99.9999% of the people in the world can't paint a great painting, write a great novel, make great music or make a great film. That does not mean that there aren't people who can paint great paintings, write great novels, make music, or make great films.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I've shot five features, one on 16mm, all for less than $100,000.00. Two have been sold so far and one is still in post. Trust me I am very realistic. That does not mean that I am not going to continue to hold out the hope that someone is going to turn the world on its ear with the new technology that we all bicker about ad infinitum.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Oh, I understand your question. Yeah, I own quite a few films made for under $100K, ect. I also try to watch a lot via NetFlix and internet streaming. I understand that I am an aficionado, of course. Watching these types of films has actually reinforced my support for the Coppola quote. I think one of the biggest mistakes that low budget filmmakers make is trying to replicate Hollywood style stories, and Hollywood style production techniques on impossibly low budgets. You are right in being skeptical of these types of films being able to compete, even with lowered cost equipment. What I believe is the essence of the Coppola quote is discarding the Hollywood style stories and Hollywood style production techniques; embrace the new technolgy and coming up with something new. I don't know that it can be, or will be done, and I am not saying that I will be able to do it. However, I still hold out great hope that it will be.
Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
Once from 2006 is definitely a low budget movie with no stars that didn't do too bad. Okay, it didn't win at Cannes, but it did win at Sundance and it also won an Oscar.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
With all due respect, ones path to success doesn't have the be the same. With respect to the original topic, I think the fact of USING a DSLR is a perfect example of making a quality or usability sacrifice to achieve a desired goal when no other pathways exist OR without putting yourself in a financial predicament that could ruin you in the future.
I could shoot my film with my HVX, however the limitations of the light sensitivity and the difficulties in getting the DoF *I* want for the shots I have storyboarded required me to make decision. What was worth it more to me? I chose the freedom of lens and DoF on the 7D. I have done tests, and in the end, I am willing to sacrifice some quality in the image because overall, it's just a small portion of *my* vision.
There are plenty of films shot with huge budgets that end up not breaking even. No matter what you do, the quality of every film is subjective to the watcher. Not just in visual appeal, but EVERY aspect. Some distributors look for names in your productions, some will want you to provide a film that was successful that your film is like so you can prove it will make money, and other films are just really liked by the person thinking of investing in the project. There is no golden pathway.
I bet there are TONS of amazing films that have never made it past someone's DVD player that they showed their friends and family. Just like there is tons of CRAP that does make it out into the wild.
All the money in the world isn't going to secure your film success. I've seen a $1.5M picture done recently where I am fail to make it into cinema OR a television release (they tried both), and it went straight to DVD. I have a feeling it is going to be a LONG time before they make their money back.
My favorite saying that I heard:
"Know how to make a small fortune in the movie business? Start with a large one!"
I could shoot my film with my HVX, however the limitations of the light sensitivity and the difficulties in getting the DoF *I* want for the shots I have storyboarded required me to make decision. What was worth it more to me? I chose the freedom of lens and DoF on the 7D. I have done tests, and in the end, I am willing to sacrifice some quality in the image because overall, it's just a small portion of *my* vision.
There are plenty of films shot with huge budgets that end up not breaking even. No matter what you do, the quality of every film is subjective to the watcher. Not just in visual appeal, but EVERY aspect. Some distributors look for names in your productions, some will want you to provide a film that was successful that your film is like so you can prove it will make money, and other films are just really liked by the person thinking of investing in the project. There is no golden pathway.
I bet there are TONS of amazing films that have never made it past someone's DVD player that they showed their friends and family. Just like there is tons of CRAP that does make it out into the wild.
All the money in the world isn't going to secure your film success. I've seen a $1.5M picture done recently where I am fail to make it into cinema OR a television release (they tried both), and it went straight to DVD. I have a feeling it is going to be a LONG time before they make their money back.
My favorite saying that I heard:
"Know how to make a small fortune in the movie business? Start with a large one!"