Corrado Part II

I'm going off my own guesswork, but it seems like distributors mostly care about shooting format to the extent that "is it so ugly that it calls attention to itself". The HVX and adapter is certainly above that benchmark, so it's not really a prime concern.

Stars and the story (and the genre in the story obviously) appear to be the two big things that drastically affect how the film can be sold assuming the film meets the basic technical requirements (I'm sure a camera phone filmed feature movie would have some difficulty), but other than that it's picking and choosing where your movie is going to be most helped by putting more money behind it.

A low-budget Spielberg would probably opt to spend more getting nice dolly, crane, or steadicam shots, a future Casvettes might spend less on the camera to get more shooting days, or a Cameron Crowe might op for extra money spent on ADR so that music could be played during filming as he tends to do.

Just depends what kind of movies you want to make and what kind of a director you want to be.
 
Gohanto said:
I'm going off my own guesswork, but it seems like distributors mostly care about shooting format to the extent that "is it so ugly that it calls attention to itself". The HVX and adapter is certainly above that benchmark, so it's not really a prime concern.

Stars and the story (and the genre in the story obviously) appear to be the two big things that drastically affect how the film can be sold assuming the film meets the basic technical requirements (I'm sure a camera phone filmed feature movie would have some difficulty), but other than that it's picking and choosing where your movie is going to be most helped by putting more money behind it.

A low-budget Spielberg would probably opt to spend more getting nice dolly, crane, or steadicam shots, a future Casvettes might spend less on the camera to get more shooting days, or a Cameron Crowe might op for extra money spent on ADR so that music could be played during filming as he tends to do.

Just depends what kind of movies you want to make and what kind of a director you want to be.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.

One thing the distributors have been saying, now that I think about it, is "how well lit" the picture is.

My DP is really experienced and we did the best we could with what we had, and they see that now.
 
taormina said:
I agree completely.

One thing the distributors have been saying, now that I think about it, is "how well lit" the picture is.

My DP is really experienced and we did the best we could with what we had, and they see that now.
Click to expand...

Having done quite a few indie films as an actor I'd say bad lighting is probably the single biggest/commonest technical issue. Bad writing and acting hurt the films much more overall, but on the technical side it's usually lighting. These kinds of films are being made by the truckload daily, so that may help explain the comments you get.
 
Yeah, Ted. The second I started hearing that on a regular basis the first thing I thought was - man, there must be a ton of crappy films out there! So right now we stand out as "not being crappy".

Not much of a compliment but I'll take it ;-)
 
I cannot tell you how thrilled I am that differences could be put aside, and the barrage of first-hand information from Adam can continue.

Thanks Adam, for coming back and sharing. The two posts about distribution a few pages back are already enough for me to jump out of my chair with excitement. This is exactly the kind of information I need to be hearing right now at this point in my career.

Thanks.
 
taormina said:
Yeah, Ted. The second I started hearing that on a regular basis the first thing I thought was - man, there must be a ton of crappy films out there! So right now we stand out as "not being crappy".

Not much of a compliment but I'll take it ;-)
Click to expand...

All by itself it probably puts you ahead of about 90% of your competition.
 
krestofre said:
I cannot tell you how thrilled I am that differences could be put aside, and the barrage of first-hand information from Adam can continue.

Thanks Adam, for coming back and sharing. The two posts about distribution a few pages back are already enough for me to jump out of my chair with excitement. This is exactly the kind of information I need to be hearing right now at this point in my career.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
It's my pleasure!
 
And on the subject of sharing info, Check out the attached article from Hollywood reporter. Anyone ever wonder what selling territory by territory was really worth? Well here is a list, dated May 2008 of numbers of what a film is currently selling for in a given territory for a certain budget range. Numbers are expressed in thousands of dollars.

You can see that a film like Corrado, budget $750K can expect to haul in $400K as a minimum and up to $900K in foreign sales.

Caveat: These numbers do not include domestic sales, theatrical distribution, royalties, or back ends. These numbers DO assume a theatrical release however small.

Enjoy.


****MODS**** I did not scan this article. It was sent to me. I feel it is of overwhelming importance to users here which is why I posted it.
 

Attachments

Ted Spencer said:
Having done quite a few indie films as an actor I'd say bad lighting is probably the single biggest/commonest technical issue. Bad writing and acting hurt the films much more overall, but on the technical side it's usually lighting. These kinds of films are being made by the truckload daily, so that may help explain the comments you get.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm gonna correct myself here and say that the #1 technical issue on low budget indies is bad sound. Bad lighting is the #1 issue *visually*.
 
Ted Spencer said:
Having done quite a few indie films as an actor I'd say bad lighting is probably the single biggest/commonest technical issue. Bad writing and acting hurt the films much more overall, but on the technical side it's usually lighting. These kinds of films are being made by the truckload daily, so that may help explain the comments you get.
Click to expand...

I'll say this about lighting, it is a huge issue because even in well lit places I've found there's still need for more light. And it does effect the overall look of a scene. We got into some good lighting in the last film but still outside scenes at night still weren't lit enough for some people. So next time we will be figuring out how to do night shots with extension cords. LOL.

-Nate
 
Ted Spencer said:
Having done quite a few indie films as an actor I'd say bad lighting is probably the single biggest/commonest technical issue. Bad writing and acting hurt the films much more overall, but on the technical side it's usually lighting. These kinds of films are being made by the truckload daily, so that may help explain the comments you get.
Click to expand...


Nathyn said:
I'll say this about lighting, it is a huge issue because even in well lit places I've found there's still need for more light. And it does effect the overall look of a scene. We got into some good lighting in the last film but still outside scenes at night still weren't lit enough for some people. So next time we will be figuring out how to do night shots with extension cords. LOL.

-Nate
Click to expand...

No matter what "available light" you have. You need to let that light be for your background and light your actors seperately. I've learned the hard way that even in sunlight, you need to perfect the light of your actors with reflectors, scrims, silks, and even lights to make sure they stand out from the background. So in my opinion, you ALWAYS need light and need to light.
 
I was wondering what happened to you Adam. I thought you may have sold the film for $20 million and were popping Cris on a Yacht in the South of france with Diddy. :beer:

Glad to have you back and congrats on setting your mind on getting it done and GETTING IT DONE.
 
filthrich said:
I was wondering what happened to you Adam. I thought you may have sold the film for $20 million and were popping Cris on a Yacht in the South of france with Diddy. :beer:

Glad to have you back and congrats on setting your mind on getting it done and GETTING IT DONE.
Click to expand...


Actually it sold for $18 million and I was partying with Jay Z - but close!:beer:

Thanks for the support!
 
Adam - interesting breakdown in that PDF -
I find it curious that the production ranges start at 750K.
Do you take that to mean there are no standards for films with budgets that low, or that there is no market for them?
 
Well, that chart is for theatrically released pics, and not many that spend under 750K get theatrical as a rule. I suppose anything under 750K is anyone's guess as to what it will sell for, but I don't know for sure.
 
taormina said:
One thing the distributors have been saying, now that I think about it, is "how well lit" the picture is.

My DP is really experienced and we did the best we could with what we had, and they see that now.
Click to expand...

That's cool that they're paying attention to that then. Any idea if they're looking more for "good lighting" (i.e. serves the story, not afraid of shadows or trying unique looks) or more of a "glossy lighting" effect of imitating Hollywood film looks.
 
Gohanto said:
That's cool that they're paying attention to that then. Any idea if they're looking more for "good lighting" (i.e. serves the story, not afraid of shadows or trying unique looks) or more of a "glossy lighting" effect of imitating Hollywood film looks.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be funny here - but my gut reaction would be that they aren't looking for lighting of any specific type, but that after seeing so many low budget films with really poor lighting they can't help but notice decent lighting when they see it.
 
taormina said:
Well, that chart is for theatrically released pics, and not many that spend under 750K get theatrical as a rule. I suppose anything under 750K is anyone's guess as to what it will sell for, but I don't know for sure.
Click to expand...
Good point.
Forgot it was for theatrically released pics only.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
Not trying to be funny here - but my gut reaction would be that they aren't looking for lighting of any specific type, but that after seeing so many low budget films with really poor lighting they can't help but notice decent lighting when they see it.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top