Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
And by the way, Sherwood's last film "Fireproof" was shot on Varicam as well, and they released in 900 theaters and made 33mil. at the box office.
filmman launches GOLD DIGGERS on KickStarter.com
- Thread starter filmman
- Start date
- Status
filmman
Veteran
I'm in agreement with you regarding the fact that digital is another tool. And as someone pointed out interestingly, even VHS could be an artistic tool, as well as the Flip camera, iPhone, or the next gizmo someone invents.
Creativity is wonderful; there are more and more theaters that can screen a movie digitally now and it's a growing trend. I'm pretty sure 35mm will disappear within a certain period of time; however, I can't predict that and I don't think anybody knows.
I've heard many people, especially those that love film, say that there will always be an audience for 35mm movies and the theatrical experience. I think that may be true. However, it could be that no one will be shooting 35mm film in, say, 20 years. So even if a few movies are blown up to 35mm for theatrical screening, it might be just an artistic choice at that time.
But I'm talking about now and the opportunities of still shooting in the classical Hollywood style of filmmaking. I think there is a need for it and a legitimate reason to do it; but as you say, it's up to the artistic inclinations of the filmmakers and the producers putting up the money. So we're not disagreeing vehemently on any point really.
I wish you the best of luck with your movie endeavors. A bit of difference of opinion, but so what? This world is big enough for both of us
filmman
Veteran
What's the cost of blowing up digital to 35mm?
What's the cost of blowing up digital to 35mm?
1) What is the cost of blowing up digital to 35mm?
2) Who pays for the prints for the 900 theaters?
Aren't these costs deducted by the distributor before paying the producers their percentages?
3) Who has the 35mm master for such a production?
4) Does the 35mm master belong to the producer or the distributor?
What's the cost of blowing up digital to 35mm?
1) What is the cost of blowing up digital to 35mm?
2) Who pays for the prints for the 900 theaters?
Aren't these costs deducted by the distributor before paying the producers their percentages?
3) Who has the 35mm master for such a production?
4) Does the 35mm master belong to the producer or the distributor?
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
No idea on all counts, but I guarantee you the distributor paid for it, but it wasn't anymore than any other film they distributed.
Every film goes through the SAME process, regardless if it was shot on Digital or 35mm. Bottom LINE!!!!!!!!
Every film goes through the SAME process, regardless if it was shot on Digital or 35mm. Bottom LINE!!!!!!!!
filmman
Veteran
One's own 35mm vaults are best for indie filmmakers.
One's own 35mm vaults are best for indie filmmakers.
This is where I also save money, because I make better deals with the labs for masters and prints. Also, I like keeping my own 35mm negatives. I supply the prints and masters as needed. All this is personal preference though. I'm not telling anyone what to do with their films.
One's own 35mm vaults are best for indie filmmakers.
This is where I also save money, because I make better deals with the labs for masters and prints. Also, I like keeping my own 35mm negatives. I supply the prints and masters as needed. All this is personal preference though. I'm not telling anyone what to do with their films.
Azmyth
Veteran
I'm in agreement with you regarding the fact that digital is another tool. And as someone pointed out interestingly, even VHS could be an artistic tool, as well as the Flip camera, iPhone, or the next gizmo someone invents.
Creativity is wonderful; there are more and more theaters that can screen a movie digitally now and it's a growing trend. I'm pretty sure 35mm will disappear within a certain period of time; however, I can't predict that and I don't think anybody knows.
I've heard many people, especially those that love film, say that there will always be an audience for 35mm movies and the theatrical experience. I think that may be true. However, it could be that no one will be shooting 35mm film in, say, 20 years. So even if a few movies are blown up to 35mm for theatrical screening, it might be just an artistic choice at that time.
But I'm talking about now and the opportunities of still shooting in the classical Hollywood style of filmmaking. I think there is a need for it and a legitimate reason to do it; but as you say, it's up to the artistic inclinations of the filmmakers and the producers putting up the money. So we're not disagreeing vehemently on any point really.
I wish you the best of luck with your movie endeavors. A bit of difference of opinion, but so what? This world is big enough for both of us
What does 35mm have to do with the "theatrical experience"? I'm not following you.
The theatrical experience for me is..
Driving down to the theater, waiting in line for my ticket, waiting in line again for a huge bag of pop corn a big gulp and some raisonettes or lemonheads and getting there early so I can get the "good seats". Then I wait patiently bobbing my head to the waiting music, and then as the lights go dim my attention turns to the big screen where we see a plethora of trailers for future films that we might want to see. Some we laugh at, some we say "I want to see that". Then finally, you get the "please turn off all cell phones" message and the big moment has come.. the feature film is on the screen for the next two hours I leave reality and enter into the world of the characters and situations on the screen. Hopefully when its over I either feel happy, sad, or scared.. or at least some emotion in me was evoked so that as I walk to my car all I can do is talk about what I just saw.
This to me is the theatrical experience.. and again, what does 35mm have to do with any of that?
In a way I do see where your coming from, and do agree with alot of what your trying to get across.
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
I hope everyone forgives my "I told you so moment." When Crank 2 came out, I made the statement that many of us aren't far from theatrical distribution. We have some people doing real high-end work on small HD camera. People thought I was absolutely out of my mind. We'll apparently not. What a lot of us who have worked up to Brandon's level are missing is that distributor willing to take a chance.
For you it's an oppurtunity, no one else cares. It's an aesthetic you're trying to get us to believe equates to professionalism. You even can't argue the point credibly.
Yes 35mm filmmaking needs to be preserved, just like hand lettering needs to be preserved in the comic book industry, but in 1980 good hand lettering and art were the height of making a professional comic, in 2010 everyone letters in either Photoshop, Indesign or Quark. Some people still hand ink, many people draw and scan the pencil work into a computer and then ink on the computer. This is the height of professionalism. The computer.
What you see as the future is happening right now. NOT 20 YEARS FROM NOW! It's not happening tomorrow, Brandon isn't the future and he's happening right now, as is Adam, the guys who shot Crank 2 many other films that you call B movies. You're lying to yourself.
You do understand, under your idea of what a B film is you're calling "Benjamin Button", Crank 2, The Spirit, all of Roberto Rodriguez's lastest films (which had big stars one even had Johnny Dep, another had Bruce Willis), Collateral and other major releases B movies, and you're doing what A movies?
...Filmman, have you even heard of any of the films I just mentioned? I bet you haven't. Again I say it, you stay in your own little world to ignore what's going on in the world around you. Not one of those films were B films. They had big stars and big budgets.
Brandon is getting released in 100 theaters. If he shot in 35mm he'd be getting released in the same 100 theaters only his upfront cost would've been a lot more. Doesn't make a lot of sense does it? The format would not have suddenly made his film seen on 900 screens for niche market movie and if you've been at this as long as you say, then you should know this already. You can believe what you want but it's not true. If it is, where is the evidence of this? The evidence actually goes against everything you're saying. Every film I named had a big screen release nationwide. Again you've failed to make a decent argument for what you're saying and I'd even say it's hurting your credibility at this point.
-Nate
Last edited:
taormina
Hates to Rent
Vic,
I think I mentioned a hundred times that your deliverables are essentially one HDCAM SR Master or at most ONE print. From there, the distributor strikes any and all release prints the go to theaters (if the film even gets in theaters!).
You need to gain an understanding of how films are released, and what the obligation of the producer is as well as the obligation of the distributor is.
I will reiterate that the format is unimportant as long as the film meets a professional, technical standard.
I say this as one who has a two picture deal at Liongsate, one of those theatrical. Every format was bandied about when we were discussing the projects from super 16 to RED.
Again, NO ONE CARES.
Please, Vic, Please take this to heart.
filmman
Veteran
Argue credibly? Are you trying to get me killed? :kali:This is the dvx user group! You've seen the threats I've gotten?
That's all I'm saying.
Sometimes an artist has to lie to himself -- just to keep going.
B-Movie is a classification that the studios came up with. Casablanca is a B-Movie. It's not my definition.
It makes some sense, if you say so; but I truly can't say.
Nathyn! That wasn't nice! :undecided
filmman
Veteran
If I had a feature film scheduled for theatrical release, I'd shoot in 35mm and finish in 35mm. The the distributor will not have to charge me $100,000 for a DI blow-up to 35mm IP and Dupe Neg. In fact, I'd see to it that it was in the contract.
The format is important to me ... for many reasons. I have also reiterated them.
You have an excellent relationship then. Congratulations.
Can I use this as line in my movie?
I do, I do, Adam. Thanks for troubling yourself with my kickstarter funding thread.
And let me know if you want me to quote you a 35mm film stock package. I have some excellent deals this summer. I know most distributors don't care, but we care -- right? The 35mm look without the 35mm adapters hanging like dead fish in front of the sawed off cameras? Imagine yourself sitting on a crane with your DP beside you, shooting a big Hollywood movie?
Azmyth
Veteran
And we are back to square one. Yay.
I have just one question..
is there no www.35mmuser.com site for you to hang out?
Just curious why you'd want to hang out with a bunch of people who play with dead fish and sawed off digital cameras.
I have just one question..
is there no www.35mmuser.com site for you to hang out?
Just curious why you'd want to hang out with a bunch of people who play with dead fish and sawed off digital cameras.
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
Dude, I'm serious. Listen to what people are telling you. Most of these guys are pros some of them have deals with big distributors and are telling you how it really goes down in 2010. I was on the phone with the distributor almost everyday. In fact small distributors don't want your film print, they want your HD master. That's the first thing they ask about is the HD master. Unless you got something so great, they won't even think about a theatrical release. There's films with huge stars in them they don't get theatrical. And if someone decides to do a theatrical release they'll go from the HD master.
And you keep talking about how cheap it is, but it's still not cheap as my harddrive camera which takes NO FILM or TAPE + an lens adapter. Could there be problems with this? Yes, just like letting light hit undeveloped film. But most times, it all works out. And this whole thread started with you trying to get $25,000 to shoot a movie. Haven't you noticed...
...you can't afford to shoot 35mm.
You can drop 20k off you budget by doing a modern day version this story shot on HD. Even as period piece I think you can do it for $10k. Sale the Sony, get that JVC HM100 (Get an HG10, HF10/100 or HF20/200 you'll have some nice money left) and shoot this thing in 24p with one of those lens adapters you keep cracking on (which is no different than buying an adapter for a film camera to get it to take specific lens or attachment, and since you use film cameras as you should be use to adapters) and shoot the movie in 1080. You can output to 24p (there's a workflow for it) and do an HD master. Then you can have a lab print the film to 35 if you really need this done. And if a distributor thinks this movie is worth it, they'll pay for the print.
-Nate
Last edited:
Or, "How to Waste Time on the Internet Instead of Making that Film Happen!"
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
filmman
Veteran
Haven't you heard? Film is on its way out LOL
Haven't you heard? Film is on its way out LOL
I'm learning, Azmyth. I want to know how you do it, because the subject matter might be different but the techniques of shooting and editing digital are the same for all genres and types of film.
I admire your courage to deal with horror and your perseverance in making that which is unpalatable palatable
Haven't you heard? Film is on its way out LOL
I'm learning, Azmyth. I want to know how you do it, because the subject matter might be different but the techniques of shooting and editing digital are the same for all genres and types of film.
I admire your courage to deal with horror and your perseverance in making that which is unpalatable palatable
filmman
Veteran
Looking good, Loki.
Looking good, Loki.
Isn't art just that? We're dealing but with a reflection... Read Plato.
Looking good, Loki.
Isn't art just that? We're dealing but with a reflection... Read Plato.
filmman
Veteran
Keep the faith, Nathyn.
Keep the faith, Nathyn.
All distributors are the same, big or small, they want your film if they can make money with it, but that's not all unfortunately; they also want your film if they can exploit you -- somebody making their first film or someone who can't afford to hang on to their film because the investors want their money back (and they have waited one year for the "damn thing" to be finished).
Digital is cheaper, I grant you that; but it's biggest advantage is its immediacy. I can take out one of these tape-less cameras and shoot something for the Internet and voila, I'm a published author! I know lots of people who bought their laptops with a web camera mounted on top of their lap who talk straight to the Internet -- some of them don't even fix their hair or have any clothes on. LOL. But is it art? Well, it's some kind of art...
All true, and I know you've done it and it takes skill and hard work. I really have to hand it to you, Nate, you know what you're talking about. I'm inspired and encouraged, and people should really read your book on ACTION FILMMAKING, because it can be done ... and again your point is right on the money: it's cheaper.
And there are distributors who will pay upfront money to get your film (because they need to make a living too) -- but you're right, it has to have certain elements in it, and as Adam noted, most importantly, there have to be names in it ... and the cost of production has to be low so we, as filmmakers, can make some money.
The exploitation of movies is a vast subject and its a minefield for the unsuspecting indie filmmaker pursuing a dream.
Thanks for your concern and empathy. 30 days have elapsed on my first posting the GOLD DIGGERS project (it's now THE WOMAN AT THE WELL). I can't give up before the ship is sunk
Keep the faith, Nathyn.
All distributors are the same, big or small, they want your film if they can make money with it, but that's not all unfortunately; they also want your film if they can exploit you -- somebody making their first film or someone who can't afford to hang on to their film because the investors want their money back (and they have waited one year for the "damn thing" to be finished).
Digital is cheaper, I grant you that; but it's biggest advantage is its immediacy. I can take out one of these tape-less cameras and shoot something for the Internet and voila, I'm a published author! I know lots of people who bought their laptops with a web camera mounted on top of their lap
who talk straight to the Internet -- some of them don't even fix their hair or have any clothes on. LOL. But is it art? Well, it's some kind of art...All true, and I know you've done it and it takes skill and hard work. I really have to hand it to you, Nate, you know what you're talking about. I'm inspired and encouraged, and people should really read your book on ACTION FILMMAKING, because it can be done ... and again your point is right on the money: it's cheaper.
And there are distributors who will pay upfront money to get your film (because they need to make a living too) -- but you're right, it has to have certain elements in it, and as Adam noted, most importantly, there have to be names in it ... and the cost of production has to be low so we, as filmmakers, can make some money.
The exploitation of movies is a vast subject and its a minefield for the unsuspecting indie filmmaker pursuing a dream.
Thanks for your concern and empathy. 30 days have elapsed on my first posting the GOLD DIGGERS project (it's now THE WOMAN AT THE WELL). I can't give up before the ship is sunk
filmman
Veteran
Thanks for visiting!
Thanks for visiting!
I know, the economy is so bad; we can't even afford to laugh anymore :shocked:
Thanks for visiting!
I know, the economy is so bad; we can't even afford to laugh anymore :shocked:
- Status