Do you think it's possible to shoot an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?

[ullanta]

The problem with crashed drives isn't loss of footage. Obviously you always have AT LEAST two drives with the footage at the same time.

The problem is you can't use the warranty on your crashed drive and get a new one for no cost without risking having your raw footage leak.

Of course you can… your thinking is just too short term. You'll need more drives during postproduction, during distribution, and for your next project. Copy your footage to a new drive, and send the "defective" one back; use the replacement next time you need another drive. If it needs repairs… well, I wouldn't use it or another drive of the same model for anything serious.

Oh… you say "leak"…. Well, if you use bare drives and a dock then you can test the drive pretty thoroughly without violating the warranty, and as I've said, failures are rarely in the drive itself so much as in the enclosures, anyway. So if you are really worried about leaking, then you can pretty much do whatever the factory would do towards recovery yourself… and if it's a real drive failure that doesn't let you wipe the drive, then decide if you want to take the hit or trust that the manufacturer won't make a huge effort to try to recover your data for nefarious purposes…

 

[ullanta]

The problem with crashed drives isn't loss of footage. Obviously you always have AT LEAST two drives with the footage at the same time.

At least THREE!

And, like this, strictly:
1. Copy from recording media to drive A
2. Copy from drive A to drive B
3. Copy from drive A to drive C
4. Only then erase recording media

 

[Gary Huff]

But it were shot it on HD, 1080p, and professionally lit (like many others shot in this format), which I believe was the case with Tears, then I don't think it would have mattered that much on Glengarry Glenn Ross.

Tears looks like cheap video filmmaking to me. I didn't think it looked professionally lit at all.

 

[Gary Huff]

The problem is you can't use the warranty on your crashed drive and get a new one for no cost without risking having your raw footage leak.

I really don't think this is much of a valid concern. You're not shooting Indy 5 after all.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Oh… you say "leak"…. Well, if you use bare drives and a dock then you can test the drive pretty thoroughly without violating the warranty, and as I've said, failures are rarely in the drive itself so much as in the enclosures, anyway. So if you are really worried about leaking, then you can pretty much do whatever the factory would do towards recovery yourself… and if it's a real drive failure that doesn't let you wipe the drive, then decide if you want to take the hit or trust that the manufacturer won't make a huge effort to try to recover your data for nefarious purposes…

Yeah I agree with this. Buying bare drives is cheaper as well.

 

[Simon Höfer]

At least THREE!

1. Copy from recording media to drive A
2. Copy from drive A to drive B
3. Copy from drive A to drive C
4. Only then erase recording media

I wouldn't copy from drive A to B and C.... what if an error occured while copying to A and you didn't notice?

If possible, I would always copy from the recording media to A, B and C. If the time allows of course.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

I wouldn't copy from drive A to B and C.... what if an error occured while copying to A and you didn't notice?

If possible, I would always copy from the recording media to A, B and C. If the time allows of course.

Are there any CF card readers with eSata, firewire or USB 3.0?

 

[Kholi]

Are there any CF card readers with eSata, firewire or USB 3.0?

Fw800 absolutely.

 

[Brian_Rice]

You guys don't think shooting Glengarry Glenn Ross on a 10K budget would have meant fewer shooting days, less takes, longer days, less rest and not using those actors?
The acting and directing would have suffered.


I'd like to see anyone walk up to Al Pacino and ask him to shoot a feature film for free and give a great performance. Or anyone else in that cast.

Honestly I've seen this play put on by community theatre folks and it actually wasn't that different. Mamet is extremely specific about the way his lines have to be said; if you say the lines exactly as they are meant to be said and understand the characters, a good actor is all you need. In this particular instance I don't think the cast inherently made the film *that* much better. I mean, look at Alec Baldwin in this film and then look at everything else he's ever been in. It's night and day. And it couldn't have been his interaction with the other actors off-screen because all of the actors purposely avoided Baldwin throughout the production.

G/G is great because of the script and the actors adhering to it. I'd actually put the asthetics/photography of Glengarry above the performances with the exception of Lemmon. I've never seen the role portrayed as well on stage (probably because you can't get as quiet and as subtle as you need to for that role while playing live).

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Honestly I've seen this play put on by community theatre folks and it actually wasn't that different. Mamet is extremely specific about the way his lines have to be said; if you say the lines exactly as they are meant to be said and understand the characters, a good actor is all you need. In this particular instance I don't think the cast inherently made the film *that* much better. I mean, look at Alec Baldwin in this film and then look at everything else he's ever been in. It's night and day. And it couldn't have been his interaction with the other actors off-screen because all of the actors purposely avoided Baldwin throughout the production.

G/G is great because of the script and the actors adhering to it. I'd actually put the asthetics/photography of Glengarry above the performances with the exception of Lemmon. I've never seen the role portrayed as well on stage (probably because you can't get as quiet and as subtle as you need to for that role while playing live).

Look at Hitchcock's Psycho. Then look at Van Sant's.

There's a reason Hitchcock's film is a classic but Van Sant's isn't, and it isn't the screenplay, the camera angles or the way the lines are said.

 

[agcohn]

Look at Hitchcock's Psycho. Then look at Van Sant's.

There's a reason Hitchcock's film is a classic but Van Sant's isn't, and it isn't the screenplay, the camera angles or the way the lines are said.

Oh, come on. There's no way that a shot-for-shot remake of a film like Psycho is ever going to be a classic, no matter how good the acting is. Everybody all ready knows the twists to the film.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Oh, come on. There's no way that a shot-for-shot remake of a film like Psycho is ever going to be a classic, no matter how good the acting is. Everybody all ready knows the twists to the film.

The point is, actors are not robots that you can program with exact line reading instructions, and an audience are not robots whose emotions you can program with exact line readings made by actors. That's not how films work, that's not how emotions work.

 

[pulpfiction007]

The point is, actors are not robots that you can program with exact line reading instructions, and an audience are not robots whose emotions you can program with exact line readings made by actors. That's not how films work, that's not how emotions work.

Totally agree with you on this one Jawa.
As far as making GGGROSS for $10,000....I agree with you there too, I don't think that intricate web of dialogue could realistically be pulled off with actors working for next to nothing and have the same impact....It takes a lot of rehearsals and takes to get something down like that. All I said is that with those actors and dialogue I would not mind one bit if it had been shot on lesser cameras.
But yeah...if I were trying to make an amazing film for $10,000....I would stay away from a piece with so many in depth characters.
Your chances of finding 2 to 3 really outstanding actors (willing to work for the work's sake) for your major parts is much better than 5 to10. It has been my position all along that to accomplish the OP's challenge....everything would have to be taken into account with budget in mind. Including using a well written script that envisions a smaller scale/smaller cast and a minimalist approach. I concur that this 10K budget would be absurd for many scripts and concepts.

 

[Brian_Rice]

Look at Hitchcock's Psycho. Then look at Van Sant's.

There's a reason Hitchcock's film is a classic but Van Sant's isn't, and it isn't the screenplay, the camera angles or the way the lines are said.

Whaaaa...?

You're not serious, right?

Gus Van Sant puts out his version of Psycho in 1960 and to this day we'd all be hailing it as a masterpiece of filmmaking.

The reason Van Sant's Psycho isn't a classic is because it's remake of, ya know, a classic. That's like asking why your print of a Van Gogh painting isn't worth the same as the actual painting itself.

I need some other example. This one, to me, isn't cutting it.

 

[Brian_Rice]

Totally agree with you on this one Jawa.
As far as making GGGROSS for $10,000....I agree with you there too, I don't think that intricate web of dialogue could realistically be pulled off with actors working for next to nothing and have the same impact....It takes a lot of rehearsals and takes to get something down like that. All I said is that with those actors and dialogue I would not mind one bit if it had been shot on lesser cameras.
But yeah...if I were trying to make an amazing film for $10,000....I would stay away from a piece with so many in depth characters.
Your chances of finding 2 to 3 really outstanding actors (willing to work for the work's sake) for your major parts is much better than 5 to10. It has been my position all along that to accomplish the OP's challenge....everything would have to be taken into account with budget in mind. Including using a well written script that envisions a smaller scale/smaller cast and a minimalist approach. I concur that this 10K budget would be absurd for many scripts and concepts.

Maybe it's because I live in Chicago which has more live theatres than anywhere in the world, but I just don't agree with your comment about actors. I go to Second City on any given night and most of the time it's going to be better than what SNL is doing on Saturday. Acting, especially on film, I'm sorry, is not some grand feat. Nothing against actors, I love 'em sideways, but I've even seen Megan Fox give allusions to a decent performance. Anyone who has ever worked with a non-actor and has managed to cut together a useable performance knows that while craft of acting saves everyone time and energy, its certainly not the most important thing. 80% of the time any capable stage actor can do any scene in any film well enough with a good director at the helm.

 

[vcassel]

Gus Van Sant puts out his version of Psycho in 1960 and to this day we'd all be hailing it as a masterpiece of filmmaking.

No way.

"Screenwriter Joseph Stefano, who worked on the 1960 version, thought that although she spoke the same lines, Anne Heche portrays Marion Crane as an entirely different character. Even Van Sant admitted that it was an experiment that proved that no one can really copy a film exactly the same way as the original."

I couldn't sum it up any better.

 

[pulpfiction007]

Maybe it's because I live in Chicago which has more live theatres than anywhere in the world, but I just don't agree with your comment about actors. I go to Second City on any given night and most of the time it's going to be better than what SNL is doing on Saturday. Acting, especially on film, I'm sorry, is not some grand feat. Nothing against actors, I love 'em sideways, but I've even seen Megan Fox give allusions to a decent performance. Anyone who has ever worked with a non-actor and has managed to cut together a useable performance knows that while craft of acting saves everyone time and energy, its certainly not the most important thing. 80% of the time any capable stage actor can do any scene in any film well enough with a good director at the helm.

Yes...maybe any capable stage actor can pull these scenes off "well enough." I'm talking about in the context of an amazing 10K film. IF you can find 10 actors that are willing to work for peanuts and are that good...by all means do it. All I'm saying is that it would be easier to find 2 to 3 and each one would have more time to rehearse, more time for takes, etc.
My whole point is this - The FEWER elements you have to focus on means that each element can be brought to a higher level....hence why I think fewer locations and a smaller cast would be a better fit for this type of budget.
Just for extreme examples - Let's say a writer friend brings you 2 scripts for your 10K film.

The first one is Lawrence of Arabia and the second is Rear Window - The wise choice would be to do Rear Window with your smaller budget and hopefully that will earn you a shot at Lawrence of Arabia. (which would not have a hope to be made for 10K) Now you could shop Lawrence for someone else to fund...but that's not what we're talking about.

 

[Brian_Rice]

No way.

"Screenwriter Joseph Stefano, who worked on the 1960 version, thought that although she spoke the same lines, Anne Heche portrays Marion Crane as an entirely different character. Even Van Sant admitted that it was an experiment that proved that no one can really copy a film exactly the same way as the original."

I couldn't sum it up any better.

Well since we're speaking theoretically there's no way for me to *prove* to you that it would have had the same impact. But if you look at film history, the thing that struck audiences about Psycho was the actual script. The fact that a famous actress (presumably the lead in the film) gets killed in the first act and the plot goes all wonky along with the reveal of Bates being his mother is what really captivated audiences. Janet Leigh's acting prowess, I'm sorry, was not the linchpin.

But again, it's all theoretical.

I would put my money on any professional director making the first Scream film and giving us something of equal importance. Wes Craven is extremely creative and intelligent, but he is not by any stretch of the imagination the thing that makes Scream great. Scream is great because it has a great script. Same as Psycho.

Theoretically speaking, IMO

 

[Brian_Rice]

Yes...maybe any capable stage actor can pull these scenes off "well enough." I'm talking about in the context of an amazing 10K film. IF you can find 10 actors that are willing to work for peanuts and are that good...by all means do it. All I'm saying is that it would be easier to find 2 to 3 and each one would have more time to rehearse, more time for takes, etc.
My whole point is this - The LESS elements you have to focus on means that each element can be brought to a higher level....hence why I think fewer locations and a smaller cast would be a better fit for this type of budget.
Just for extreme examples - Let's say a writer friend brings you 2 scripts for your 10K film.

The first one is Lawrence of Arabia and the second is Rear Window - The wise choice would be to do Rear Window with your smaller budget and hopefully that will earn you a shot at Lawrence of Arabia. (which would not have a hope to be made for 10K) Now you could shop Lawrence for someone else to shoot...but that's not what we're talking about.

No, I agree with your argument. The only part I wasn't convinced on was how important *amazing* actors are to a film. I think a couple adequate stage actors will do fine with an amazing script and an amazing director.

 

[pulpfiction007]

No, I agree with your argument. The only part I wasn't convinced on was how important *amazing* actors are to a film. I think a couple adequate stage actors will do fine with an amazing script and an amazing director.

OK I agree with you there....an amazing director and script could perhaps elevate a competent actors performance to another level.
I've seen it happen with certain films, where actors that I thought were just standard issue delivered something else.....most notably - Josh Brolin in No Country For Old Men. Before that I thought he was just avarage - Now I give him a lot more credit. Perhaps the roles before were not that inspiring.