filmman launches GOLD DIGGERS on KickStarter.com

Status
Not open for further replies.
filmman said:
I will not zoom in and pan; I'll dolly in or dolly around. Sounds like a dance, doesn't it? LOL
Click to expand...
These are the kind of odd statements we (at least I) don't get. You don't think it's possible to dolly in or dolly around with a digital camera? I'm sure you know it is. We used the dolly a lot in "Wages of Sin". Only time I really zoomed was to do a crash zoom for an effect. A digital camera doesn't impair your ability to dolly. In fact I'll have a new dolly in the next few months.

-Nate
 
I would also like to point out that another professional filmmaker made the jump from film to digital recently: Sidney Lumet. You know, the guy who directed 12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, Network, and countless other films since the '50s. Also, a recent 35mm film After Last Season which was self-distributed theatrically on 35mm! It also features a paper MRI scanner. I think Battlefield Earth was also shot by on 35mm by professionals, with big name actors. And for an example of good recent digital movies, check out Soderbergh's Che films, shot on the Red One (although Part One does feature some Super16). Maybe he's changed his mind on digital being for amateurs already (I don't know, it's a long thread) but I just thought I'd point that out. As far as I'm concerned, people don't shoot 24p, or with 35mm adapters to mimic film, but to achieve the look of cinema, which was just established by film. It's just a achieving the look of movies that we're all used to seeing, and find aesthetically pleasing. And if you can achieve that with a less costly format, why not? Of course, if you treat a digital camera as an amateur tool, you're going to get amateurish results.
 
I love that today we have a variety of tools. I may pull out my bolex and shoot a scene in 16mm and the next day shoot something with the t2i, the next day a flip camera or old vhs. Really just depends on the story. Harmony Korine's new feature was shot on vhs. I have a feature screenplay that was written to be shot on a cheap camcorder and would not work with 35mm or a big expensive arri or red. A painter will use charcoal one day, watercolor another and oil the next. We are still artists no matter the tool. My main concerns these days is with getting a good story, good sound and great actors more than which tool I'll pull out to capture the image.
 
We are still artists no matter what the tools.

We are still artists no matter what the tools.

lambert said:
I love that today we have a variety of tools. I may pull out my bolex and shoot a scene in 16mm and the next day shoot something with the t2i, the next day a flip camera or old vhs. Really just depends on the story. Harmony Korine's new feature was shot on vhs. I have a feature screenplay that was written to be shot on a cheap camcorder and would not work with 35mm or a big expensive arri or red. A painter will use charcoal one day, watercolor another and oil the next. We are still artists no matter the tool. My main concerns these days is with getting a good story, good sound and great actors more than which tool I'll pull out to capture the image.
Click to expand...

This is very well put :) It's what I loved about being a filmmaker. It's the freedom we won in the 60s and 70s. We were carefree artists. The New Wave was going strong in Europe and New York. There were so many exciting filmmakers that emerged from that era. I really feel nostalgic for those days...

But reality is that Hollywood never caught on, or rather it shrugged the whole artsy-fartsy way of making movies and continued making commercial films, culminating in the Star Wars movies and the blockbuster mindset. The no-brainer became the most popular form of entertainment and culture.

Then there came the age of the computer, mass communication was possible on the Internet by us, the lowly and unknown artists and technicians. We could reach out to the world and exhibit our products, etc. It was ... and is euphoric. Again I love it, both as an artist and as someone who wants to do some business in this medium.

It might sound like I'm talking in circles, but it's much more complex than that. Let's experiment and make movies as free artists, but be aware that there are commercial interests as well. Some of these interests crush creativity and force the artist into making cookie-cutter type of movies; this is what I have against the B-Movie mentality, and the genre only style of filmmaking that we indie filmmakers are supposed to only concern ourselves with.

Yes, I make B-Movies myself, but I have worked on A-Movies also, and I have even attempted A-Movies on shoestring budgets ... and almost made it too :) but the reality is that, as someone already said, it depends more on "who's in it" when it comes to which movie is considered marketable and even professional. Is it on a shelf in a video store?

So throwing into this mix I also mentioned about 35mm and the Hollywood Standard of filmmaking and everything erupted, because the artists among us don't want to hear that. It's like an attack on digital filmmaking. It may sound like it, but you clarified something very significant in your comment above.

I liked the fact that you mentioned the Bolex .... So I know what you're talking about, and you probably know what I'm talking about too.
 
Billy Pilgrim wrote: As far as I'm concerned, people don't shoot 24p, or with 35mm adapters to mimic film, but to achieve the look of cinema, which was just established by film. It's just a achieving the look of movies that we're all used to seeing, and find aesthetically pleasing. And if you can achieve that with a less costly format, why not? Of course, if you treat a digital camera as an amateur tool, you're going to get amateurish results.
Click to expand...

These are some very good points. When you're starting out, it makes a lot of sense to practice with cheap digital cameras. After you've achieved a success such as Adam did with CORRADO, it makes sense to shoot in 35mm. But that's because Adam is at a stage when he is about to work with bigger name actors and push for theatrical distribution. The cost of shooting 35mm becomes negligible and there are less hassles to deal with, such as a myriad of work flows and technical problems to solve that one encounters with the fast changing digital film technology. Or let's say, for a certain type of movie, it's not cost effective to work in digital anymore.

For a filmmaker starting out or for a veteran like David Lynch or Sidney Lumet, digital filmmaking allows for a fresh way to look at things. And, like you said, even shooting VHS; VHS has its own look, and I've used it myself for that look on occasion.

For experimental no-budget movies there is nothing like shooting something and playing around with it in the computer. It's really a lot of fun and a wonderful creative process.
 
handheld shooting is more fun

handheld shooting is more fun

Azmyth said:
I love dollying around my light weight digital camera.
Click to expand...

I prefer the handheld camera. Dollies are ok when you have a big camera or a major scene. Handheld is more intimate and can be as smooth as a dolly too.

It takes a long time to set up a dolly shot. If all you need is a smooth change of perspective, most of the time it's just as good to walk around something.

It's so easy with the small digital cameras. The whole point of my original video clip showing me working with the handheld Arri 2c is that one can shoot 35mm with as much ease as the small digital cameras, and therefore achieving a lot of production value without having to spend thousands of dollars on 35mm adapters and fancy digital equipment.

The advantage of digital cameras such as the Sony Z1U is the fact they are light and shoot high definition digital video. This is in my opinion is their best advantage.
 
On the subject of the medium used. I don't have the greatest, flashiest all-singing digital camera in the world, but what I do have is a device perfectly capable of telling a story and, importantly, to be able to tell a story cinematically. Of course, this depends on the effort I put in - shot choice, framing, lighting, production design, direction etc - it does not depend on my choice of camera - a terrible shot is a terrible shot on a 35mm camera as well as on a cheap consumer camcorder. The camera does not change the shot.

One of the things I very much enjoy with the camera I have is pushing it to its limits, and getting footage out of it that I never believed it was possible of. So many things go into a shot other than what is recording it. I truly believe that, regardless of which camera you're using, your shot is mostly made or broken before you even hit record.

Just my thoughts.
 
filmman said:
These are some very good points. When you're starting out, it makes a lot of sense to practice with cheap digital cameras. After you've achieved a success such as Adam did with CORRADO, it makes sense to shoot in 35mm. But that's because Adam is at a stage when he is about to work with bigger name actors and push for theatrical distribution. The cost of shooting 35mm becomes negligible and there are less hassles to deal with, such as a myriad of work flows and technical problems to solve that one encounters with the fast changing digital film technology. Or let's say, for a certain type of movie, it's not cost effective to work in digital anymore.

For a filmmaker starting out or for a veteran like David Lynch or Sidney Lumet, digital filmmaking allows for a fresh way to look at things. And, like you said, even shooting VHS; VHS has its own look, and I've used it myself for that look on occasion.

For experimental no-budget movies there is nothing like shooting something and playing around with it in the computer. It's really a lot of fun and a wonderful creative process.
Click to expand...

Well, for our next project, we'll be shooting on RED, not 35mm. It will have theatrical distribution lined up before we roll cameras.
 
Wishing you the best of luck.

Wishing you the best of luck.

Brandon Rice said:
Well, for our next project, we'll be shooting on RED, not 35mm. It will have theatrical distribution lined up before we roll cameras.
Click to expand...

I think your film is the biggest success story I have read on this
user group. You have demonstrated that the traditional route is still possible. Like Corrado and Deuce of Spades, your success cannot be easily duplicated. It takes a lot of skill, ingenuity, and perseverance to succeed the way you people have. I have congratulated you on your thread and I hereby do so now again.

I don't mean to offend you in any way, but I must tell you that I believe you're making a terrible mistake not shooting on 35mm, especially as you have a theatrical release lined up. This is the point of this whole thread.
 
filmman said:
I think your film is the biggest success story I have read on this
user group. You have demonstrated that the traditional route is still possible. Like Corrado and Deuce of Spades, your success cannot be easily duplicated. It takes a lot of skill, ingenuity, and perseverance to succeed the way you people have. I have congratulated you on your thread and I hereby do so now again.

I don't mean to offend you in any way, but I must tell you that I believe you're making a terrible mistake not shooting on 35mm, especially as you have a theatrical release lined up. This is the point of this whole thread.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I believe you're making a terrible mistake using a costly medium for experimental films.

Shooting 35mm would at least double our camera department budget, especially when we're shooting with multiple cameras. Every theater we show at will be digitally projected. Most of the theaters are switching over now.

Filmman, it's fine if you want to use 35mm film, but you need to seriously get with the program and realize that PROFESSIONAL does not equal 35mm. I daresay that NGL is far more PROFESSIONAL than your 35mm projects... however it was shot on a 720p (barely HD) camera. It wasn't PROFESSIONAL because of the camera, it was PROFESSIONAL because of the cast, crew, locations, screenplay, editing, music, etc. Shooting on a specific format does not make a film any more sell-able or PROFESSIONAL, bottom line.

Please don't say it does again, it only further solidifies your misinformation.
 
35mm release prints means more theaters.

35mm release prints means more theaters.

Brandon Rice said:
Thank you.

I believe you're making a terrible mistake using a costly medium for experimental films.

Shooting 35mm would at least double our camera department budget, especially when we're shooting with multiple cameras. Every theater we show at will be digitally projected. Most of the theaters are switching over now.

Filmman, it's fine if you want to use 35mm film, but you need to seriously get with the program and realize that PROFESSIONAL does not equal 35mm. I daresay that NGL is far more PROFESSIONAL than your 35mm projects... however it was shot on a 720p (barely HD) camera. It wasn't PROFESSIONAL because of the camera, it was PROFESSIONAL because of the cast, crew, locations, screenplay, editing, music, etc. Shooting on a specific format does not make a film any more sell-able or PROFESSIONAL, bottom line.

Please don't say it does again, it only further solidifies your misinformation.
Click to expand...

The point I made to you has nothing to do with professional...

I'm talking about the fact you will have the potential to screen your movie in thousands of theaters all over the world. 99% of the theaters only have 35mm projectors.

I went to your channel and looked at your movies. I had seen most of them before. I like your editing; it's really superb. You definitely have mastered the art of digital editing. I wish I could edit 10% as good as you. I simply can't do all those wonderful effects you have created with computer editing. I'm trying to learn how to do that, but it will take me more time.

I think you guys are going to waste an opportunity to have a much bigger release just because it's the in thing now to shoot digital. I think that's where the mistake is.

Also, your point is valid; I'm actually using 35mm without having theatrical releasing lined up for my projects. So that's something that you can criticize me for; however, just as it is for you guys to shoot digital more economical, it is more convenient for me to shoot 35mm.

I don't understand why you're spending so much money on shooting digital. The whole point of shooting digital is that it's cheaper in the beginning phase of production (not having to shell out $10,000 on film stock at the outset).

If you're spending more money on digital production upfront then maybe you should re-examine your whole technological approach from the perspective of cost effectiveness.
 
filmman said:
The point I made to you has nothing to do with professional...

I'm talking about the fact you will have the potential to screen your movie in thousands of theaters all over the world. 99% of the theaters only have 35mm projectors.

I went to your channel and looked at your movies. I had seen most of them before. I like your editing; it's really superb. You definitely have mastered the art of digital editing. I wish I could edit 10% as good as you. I simply can't do all those wonderful effects you have created with computer editing. I'm trying to learn how to do that, but it will take me more time.

I think you guys are going to waste an opportunity to have a much bigger release just because it's the in thing now to shoot digital. I think that's where the mistake is.

Also, your point is valid; I'm actually using 35mm without having theatrical releasing lined up for my projects. So that's something that you can criticize me for; however, just as it is for you guys to shoot digital more economical, it is more convenient for me to shoot 35mm.

I don't understand why you're spending so much money on shooting digital. The whole point of shooting digital is that it's cheaper in the beginning phase of production (not having to shell out $10,000 on film stock at the outset).

If you're spending more money on digital production upfront then maybe you should re-examine your whole technological approach from the perspective of cost effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Here's another reality check... a distributor does not CARE about the format!

If our film would average 10,000 per screen on 10,000 screens, they'll release it to that many, regardless of what format the production was shot on.

In our case, they're uncomfortable with releasing a niche film on that many screens, and I for one am happy it's a smaller (100ish theater) release planned. That will allow us to target those markets with our smaller marketing budget. Bottom line is, you can show on 900 screen (Letters to God, a recent Christian film did that) and have a 1,000 dollar average... that SUCKS! Why, because the film stunk, not because it was shot digitally, or on 35mm film.

You need to learn the basics of film distribution to understand that the medium does NOT matter. It's ALL about the money.

And thank you for the editing kudos, I appreciate it.

I just truly want to teach you about these things, and explain that the world is completely different than how you see it.

And, we're spending LESS money on shooting digitally, NOT MORE, not sure how you came up with that one.
 
The reverse also has a reverse - a Japanese saying.

The reverse also has a reverse - a Japanese saying.

Brandon Rice said:
Here's another reality check... a distributor does not CARE about the format!

If our film would average 10,000 per screen on 10,000 screens, they'll release it to that many, regardless of what format the production was shot on.

In our case, they're uncomfortable with releasing a niche film on that many screens, and I for one am happy it's a smaller (100ish theater) release planned. That will allow us to target those markets with our smaller marketing budget. Bottom line is, you can show on 900 screen (Letters to God, a recent Christian film did that) and have a 1,000 dollar average... that SUCKS! Why, because the film stunk, not because it was shot digitally, or on 35mm film.

You need to learn the basics of film distribution to understand that the medium does NOT matter. It's ALL about the money.

And thank you for the editing kudos, I appreciate it.

I just truly want to teach you about these things, and explain that the world is completely different than how you see it.

And, we're spending LESS money on shooting digitally, NOT MORE, not sure how you came up with that one.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that the distributor does not care. It's been my experience that most of them care. Perhaps the one you're dealing with doesn't care; but you should think critically and ask why?

I didn't realize you're staying with the B-Movie genre for your second Christian niche film. I guess you have to play it safe. NGL worked, repeat....

Keep going.

A lady told her pastor, "We were on a long trip. We noticed that the fuel indicator needle kept showing full. We looked for a gas station and there were none in sight.

"We started praying and we kept going for a long time and the needle still showed full. We finally got to a gas station. The attendant told us we had been driving on an empty tank.

"We filled up and thanked the Lord that our prayers were answered. Even if we'd had a full tank of gas at the beginning of the trip, by the time we came up to the gas station we would have been driving for over fifty miles on empty."

The pastor said, "You should have kept going."
 
Ok, I'm really concerned that Lionsgate and Sony don't care what it's shot on... hahaha

Seriously?

You're hilarious.
 
The budget is doubling for the next film... guess if you call that a B-movie that's fine, whatever...

My advice... stop while you're ahead dude.
 
Brandon, your talking to a brick Wall.

We are at 22 pages of the same come backs and excuses. He's not going to get it, might as well just let it go.

Its funny how he gets into the whole "A, B, C" movie topic. As far as Hollywood is concerned and the mass market. Everything that they don't see a trailer for on TV is a "B" movie. I saw NGL's trailer on TV, and it didn't feel like a "B" movie to me. I WISH I could have had the production value for EXIT 101 as you do for NGL, and I hope to eventually get there. But, just starting out, I'm proud of what we have done with the gear we have. I kind of see you guys and us (even though we are in a completely different genre) following in the footsteps of guys like the Kendricks in Albany GA, who did Flywheel, facing the giants, and Fireproof. Their first effort is much different production wise than the most recent. They upped the ante' with every film.

Facing the giants....

The movie was shot on high definition digital video tape (using the Panasonic Varicam) and transferred to film.[1] Using real high school football teams, the football action sequences were shot by the film's director of photography, Bob Scott, who is a veteran cinematographer for NFL Films. Another NFL Films technician, Rob Whitehurst, recorded the movie's sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zciqppDGzGo

Oh would you look at that.. transferred to film.

Apparently their distributor didn't care what "format" they shot on.

I know at least 10 other film makers, all with features who all have some sort of National distribution, meaning you can go to a store somewhere and buy/rent their film. None of them were shot on 35mm film. None of them needed to be. Would they if they could have afforded it and it not changed the production otherwise? Sure, who wouldn't? But, there WILL come a day when something DOES surpass 35mm film in every aspect and I just don't get why there is a problem with that. Its like trying to hold on to writing a book with an old typewriter vs. a computer. You can come up with all the reasons you want to why the typewriter is the better choice, and none of it will ever hold any water.

I live in Podunkville GA, and our theater is digital. So, I doubt 99% is accurate. Noone here has yet to tell you to not shoot on 35mm film. What we are trying to get you to see is that while your sitting here doing absolutely 0 because "shooting on 35mm is a necessity" as you cited it. Guys like Brandon, myself and others are out there working on "real" productions. With actors, lights, sound and the "movie" atmosphere we love so much.

The medium you shoot on only becomes a necessity when someone requests it. I've never heard of, or heard of anyone being asked to shoot on a specific format unless it was artistic in merit. Never for any other reasons.

Bottom line. Shoot on the format you want to, shoot what you enjoy, and don't worry about what everyone else is doing or whether or not its "professional". If they are making a living doing it or even making a profit on any level outside of local, then they are "making movies professionally".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top