MattC said:
Hey how much did Robert Rodriguez's first movie cost El Mariachi? wasnt it 5000?
How long until film is dead?
- Thread starter mmm
- Start date
Hey how much did Robert Rodriguez's first movie cost El Mariachi? wasnt it 5000?
Rosestar
Well-known member
Jarred Land said:
I'm pretty sure it was like $7500 to get it to a 3/4" edited master from 16mm. Pretty amazing stuff. Of course that was 13 years ago. With the rise in cost, I would think that it would take twice that if it was shot the same way (shooting ratio) and edited on DV.
fingers515
New member
In a few years, the term "Film is dead" will mean essentially the same thing as today's "Vinyl is dead" in the music industry. Sure, vinyl is now a very minor medium, but there are still quite a few audiofiles for whom there is no substitute for "Analog" vinyl because of it's greater "Audio Latitude" . So, in reality, film won't be "dead" until Kodak or Fuji, or whoever, simply stops producing filmstock, just as vinyl LP's will be available as long as...well, you get my meaning. And neither of these scenarios is likely to occure any time soon. By the way, I don't have any official numbers, but you may have noticed that there's alot more vinyl records in your local Virgin Megastore than 5 years ago.
MattC
Veteran
And once the studio got involved (El Mariachi), they spent a ton more redoing the audio alone...
As far as the other films you posted Rosestar, ok fine. But that's not what I was thinking of, and I still don't think that they cost so little INCLUDING equipment unless it all was donated.
I'm not talking about making the Godfather here, but I'm not talking about making something no ones ever heard of either. A movie. Can you make a movie with all equipment costs for less than $5,000 that is actually any good? A decent camera, DVX, will eat up $3,500 of that budget right? That leaves our entrepreneurial filmmaker $1,500 left for lighting and grip equipment, tripod, dolly, maybe a jib or shoulder adapter, tape stock, filters (either in camera or in post) audio acquisition (at least $500 just for a good enough mic and that's just one), crew costs (even if you only by them pizza and beer), talent (same thing), location costs (even if all your paying is gas to and from), Permits and insurance that you're probably not buying. I'm sure I left stuff out and we're not even to the editing stage yet, nevermind sound design, scoring and transfers. And yes, I can do all of those things on my computer too. But it still costs money, and a heck of a lot more than $1,500.
Now, even if you get all of that donated, and you didn't have to actually dip into your pocket for more than $5,000 - the film still cost more than that. Hell, I can't shoot a decent quality porn film for $1,500...
Matt
As far as the other films you posted Rosestar, ok fine. But that's not what I was thinking of, and I still don't think that they cost so little INCLUDING equipment unless it all was donated.
I'm not talking about making the Godfather here, but I'm not talking about making something no ones ever heard of either. A movie. Can you make a movie with all equipment costs for less than $5,000 that is actually any good? A decent camera, DVX, will eat up $3,500 of that budget right? That leaves our entrepreneurial filmmaker $1,500 left for lighting and grip equipment, tripod, dolly, maybe a jib or shoulder adapter, tape stock, filters (either in camera or in post) audio acquisition (at least $500 just for a good enough mic and that's just one), crew costs (even if you only by them pizza and beer), talent (same thing), location costs (even if all your paying is gas to and from), Permits and insurance that you're probably not buying. I'm sure I left stuff out and we're not even to the editing stage yet, nevermind sound design, scoring and transfers. And yes, I can do all of those things on my computer too. But it still costs money, and a heck of a lot more than $1,500.
Now, even if you get all of that donated, and you didn't have to actually dip into your pocket for more than $5,000 - the film still cost more than that. Hell, I can't shoot a decent quality porn film for $1,500...
Matt
Rosestar
Well-known member
fingers515 said:
You are right. I recently found out, via the internet of course, that Double Super8 Kodachrome 40 is still being manufactured and processed in France and is being marketed with zeal out of Germany. I had a beautiful Canon DS8 camera (based on the Scopic) that I got rid of, at a loss, a few years ago because I thought I could not get the film anymore. I could kick my self for dumping the camera. It made great images and was the best Super 8 camera ever manufactured, IMO.
The world will go digital, but don't dig films grave just yet.
yes film will always be around... but the question was 95% penetration, and I think that soon enough it will be like the percentage of 35mm vs. 16mm or 8mm film for 20+ million budgets.. you wont use 35mm unless you want to get that 35mm look... kinda like they use 8mm now adays to in creative ways.. .like the way people use vinyl now. A better comparison would be the CD vs the cassette.. Thats gotta be 95%.
And.. im sure that film distribution is getting close to the 85% mark, DVD vs. VHS.
And.. im sure that film distribution is getting close to the 85% mark, DVD vs. VHS.
The key difference between flying cars and the crossover to full digital acquisition by 2015 is that the underlying technology behind Digital Cinema is already well-established. If geo-magnetic propulsion was declassified and commercially licensed, we would all be riding hoverboards by now. That isn't going to happen anytime soon.
DC isn't the stuff of Philip K. Dick! Rather, filmless cinema falls under the far less-than-speculative laws set forth by Gordon Moore. What resolutions are we working at now? We are squarely within the realm of 2k and 4k is quickly breaking into the market - how long do you think it will take for 8k and higher imaging to come out of R&D and hit the marketplace? How many years did it take to go from 1.3 megapixel still cameras to the now common 8?
If someone invented a car that ran on pure peanut or soy oil with near-zero emissions, how long would it take for every American to drive one? The only thing standing in the way of this 100 year-old breakthrough technology is our government. If subsidized and incentivized, the oil industry could go into farming instead of drilling, putting Rudolph Diesel's technology in everyone's driveway today. Unlike diesel, the powers that be have put no such limitations on digital acquisition - leaving the marketplace as the only inhibitor.
If George Eastman were alive today, what acquisition format do you think he would back? I don't think he'd hesitate for a moment to embrace digital fully and declare film a lame-duck technology.
e
DC isn't the stuff of Philip K. Dick! Rather, filmless cinema falls under the far less-than-speculative laws set forth by Gordon Moore. What resolutions are we working at now? We are squarely within the realm of 2k and 4k is quickly breaking into the market - how long do you think it will take for 8k and higher imaging to come out of R&D and hit the marketplace? How many years did it take to go from 1.3 megapixel still cameras to the now common 8?
If someone invented a car that ran on pure peanut or soy oil with near-zero emissions, how long would it take for every American to drive one? The only thing standing in the way of this 100 year-old breakthrough technology is our government. If subsidized and incentivized, the oil industry could go into farming instead of drilling, putting Rudolph Diesel's technology in everyone's driveway today. Unlike diesel, the powers that be have put no such limitations on digital acquisition - leaving the marketplace as the only inhibitor.
If George Eastman were alive today, what acquisition format do you think he would back? I don't think he'd hesitate for a moment to embrace digital fully and declare film a lame-duck technology.
e
Rosestar
Well-known member
overlandfilms said:
Errrr, sorry Overland, I was just making a joke... Your prediction just hit me like the "Futurama" predictions from GM in the '30's, 40's and 50's. I love your ideas and look forward to it, just wanted to interject some levity.
... I still want my flying car. The moon ain't got no nightlife...
Rosestar
Well-known member
MattC said:
Matt, there is a lot more to making a movie than what you've listed. Talent, perseverance, confidence and a good bit of luck are required also.
Yes you are right, if you have to buy the equipment, yes that is expensive. However, a camera does not care who owns it to work. Yes, most of these super-micro budget films were made with donated or borrowed equipment. I never said that everybody could make a movie for $5000. One of the requirments for this seems to be very advantagous circumstances that someone is able to take advantage of. Not everybody has the same circumstances. You said that nobody could do it and that is just not true.
As for the films I listed being, "Films nobody ever heard of", well "Tarnation" was an official selection of the Sundance Film Festival and "The Last Broadcast" was the first film to recieve theatrical distribution via satelite.
Yes, once Columbia bought "El Mariachi" They spent a lot of money to prepare it for theatrical distribution. However, RR had the movie, on 3/4" video, ready for distrbution in the Spanish language home video market.
An other example I forgot about is Joe Carnahan's "Blood, Guts, Bullets and Octane", which was made for, I think, about $8000. Now, you are right, the camera was borrowed and he worked at a TV station and had free access to the editing gear, but he made the movie for very little money. Of course, for the theatrical distribution of the movie, the distribution company spent more money.
I will give you the fact that these films are extraordinary films, made by extraordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. They show that it can be done. Can everybody do it, no.
Rosestar is so right!
You can make a brilliant movie for less than $5,000, but only if you're careful and very talented.
Budget Breakdown:
1. MOST IMPORTANT - 1st class script - $0
2. Fortunate situation of being able to borrow/blag camera and sound kit etc - $0
3. Actors - $0
4. Actors' expenses, depending on how tight you are. I made a film were my actors brought their own sandwiches to set when I was 18. (I am older and less of a tight git now). Maybe the script only calls for one actor, so $0 to lets say $500.
5. Catering, again depends, you can blag food for a whole crew for free, but $500.
6. Crew - The joy of DV is that you don't need one. Pre-light, mic on a booming stand (and ADR!), director holds camera and wears headphones - $0
7. Editing - There are a million ways this can be done for nothing at broadcast standard. $0
8. DV tape stock. Without shop-lifting I must conceed here. 20 hours worth - $80
9. Props, locations, vehicles etc etc....blag, blag, blag. Charity shops - $500
10. Lighting - May all be exterior, but if not DIY centres sell $20 devices that produce a lot of "light" - $0 - $100
11. 2ND MOST IMPORTANT - Thank you cards (or emails!) and bottles of wine/flowers - $100
Total cost - $180 - $1780 (if you are as tight as I was at 18)
However, this isn't sustainable for long. Shooting like this, you can produce results that will not cause a layman to questions a single technical issue of the film. Therefore, if you script is really 1st class, you will have an excellent film for as good as $100.
RR always says that El Mariachi only really cost $700, they rest was on stock. If he/we do a similar thing nowdays, the total budget could be sub $800.
You can make a brilliant movie for less than $5,000, but only if you're careful and very talented.
Budget Breakdown:
1. MOST IMPORTANT - 1st class script - $0
2. Fortunate situation of being able to borrow/blag camera and sound kit etc - $0
3. Actors - $0
4. Actors' expenses, depending on how tight you are. I made a film were my actors brought their own sandwiches to set when I was 18. (I am older and less of a tight git now). Maybe the script only calls for one actor, so $0 to lets say $500.
5. Catering, again depends, you can blag food for a whole crew for free, but $500.
6. Crew - The joy of DV is that you don't need one. Pre-light, mic on a booming stand (and ADR!), director holds camera and wears headphones - $0
7. Editing - There are a million ways this can be done for nothing at broadcast standard. $0
8. DV tape stock. Without shop-lifting I must conceed here. 20 hours worth - $80
9. Props, locations, vehicles etc etc....blag, blag, blag. Charity shops - $500
10. Lighting - May all be exterior, but if not DIY centres sell $20 devices that produce a lot of "light" - $0 - $100
11. 2ND MOST IMPORTANT - Thank you cards (or emails!) and bottles of wine/flowers - $100
Total cost - $180 - $1780 (if you are as tight as I was at 18)
However, this isn't sustainable for long. Shooting like this, you can produce results that will not cause a layman to questions a single technical issue of the film. Therefore, if you script is really 1st class, you will have an excellent film for as good as $100.
RR always says that El Mariachi only really cost $700, they rest was on stock. If he/we do a similar thing nowdays, the total budget could be sub $800.
jpbankesmercer
Director Mod
I agree with everything...hehe...I hope film does'nt die before I can afford to shoot on it!
I had a Sovtek and a JMP1 and you can tell that valve sound anywhere..so shut up..hehe
Pinkfloyd are reforming for Live 8 in England so lets all be happy.
I think the distributors are wetting themselves being cut-out. I wait for the day I can upload my film directly to the cinema from my megalaptop.
Where's my hoverboard?? Has my pleasuredroid been on it again...sigh
I had a Sovtek and a JMP1 and you can tell that valve sound anywhere..so shut up..hehe
Pinkfloyd are reforming for Live 8 in England so lets all be happy.
I think the distributors are wetting themselves being cut-out. I wait for the day I can upload my film directly to the cinema from my megalaptop.
Where's my hoverboard?? Has my pleasuredroid been on it again...sigh
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Good point Jp.
I don't think anyone here want's film to die; I think we just want to be able to make films at a professional level that doesnt require getting a second on the house.
It's gonna happen though. All you peeps who are in denial better hop on.
I don't think anyone here want's film to die; I think we just want to be able to make films at a professional level that doesnt require getting a second on the house.
It's gonna happen though. All you peeps who are in denial better hop on.
:grin:
I knew you were kidding, but it set me on my point - lots of film guys treat the concept of digital acquisition just like I do any article found in Popular Science magazine. The "that'll never happen..." attitude is going to leave a lot of celluloid fanatics out of work if they don't refocus themselves.
This stuff is here now, and developing faster than ever. Of course, you can pretend film is going to last forever and be left behind.
I've been around enough newspaper and periodical media people to know that their entire world has been rocked to its foundation since the emergence of free online news outlets. They started giving the information away five years ago, and convincing anyone to pay for it now will be harder than getting kids to pay for an MP3 file.
e
I knew you were kidding, but it set me on my point - lots of film guys treat the concept of digital acquisition just like I do any article found in Popular Science magazine. The "that'll never happen..." attitude is going to leave a lot of celluloid fanatics out of work if they don't refocus themselves.
This stuff is here now, and developing faster than ever. Of course, you can pretend film is going to last forever and be left behind.
I've been around enough newspaper and periodical media people to know that their entire world has been rocked to its foundation since the emergence of free online news outlets. They started giving the information away five years ago, and convincing anyone to pay for it now will be harder than getting kids to pay for an MP3 file.
e
John_Hudson said:
IMO, it has happened! You can make films today that are technically excellent for a few £/$! Once the HD100 and HVX arrive, it will be even better, probably.
The only limitation now is us! We have to write the scripts and direct etc... the technology will do the same excellent job every time!
But just because you can make a film doesn't mean that it will be worth a damn. Look around at the music world, anybody can form a band for a few thousand $$$ and I'm sure that we all know people who have done it, most aren't very good but even if they are that's only the beginning. The band needs to have not only good songs, but good people playing/singing them and than some luck and some kind of connection to make anything out of it.
In fact with more and more HDV or even cheap HD (through the HDX200) films being made it's just going to make it that much harder to find talent who will work for nothing and be good and it's going to be that much harder to make someone important look at your movie when 5 other people just showed him really badly lighted, poorly acted HDV movies with really bad sound. Of course that also means that when you have one that really is good hopefully you will look at lot better than the rest of the pack. Rodriguez is the first one to point out (in his book) that all he intended El Mariachi to be was a "low budget shoot-em-up exploitation film" to sell to the direct to video Spanish video market (a market that at the time had lower production values and acting than American soap operas). The fact that his film was is Spanish helped him out a lot. Since critics tend to figure that any kind of foreign film must me "artistic" he had an edge with that. He didn't say this but also the fact that it was subtitled people were reading the movie more than noticing that many of the actors (who only had one take) were pretty weak.
In fact with more and more HDV or even cheap HD (through the HDX200) films being made it's just going to make it that much harder to find talent who will work for nothing and be good and it's going to be that much harder to make someone important look at your movie when 5 other people just showed him really badly lighted, poorly acted HDV movies with really bad sound. Of course that also means that when you have one that really is good hopefully you will look at lot better than the rest of the pack. Rodriguez is the first one to point out (in his book) that all he intended El Mariachi to be was a "low budget shoot-em-up exploitation film" to sell to the direct to video Spanish video market (a market that at the time had lower production values and acting than American soap operas). The fact that his film was is Spanish helped him out a lot. Since critics tend to figure that any kind of foreign film must me "artistic" he had an edge with that. He didn't say this but also the fact that it was subtitled people were reading the movie more than noticing that many of the actors (who only had one take) were pretty weak.
Rosestar
Well-known member
Fitz said:
You are right, with the lowered cost of entry, more films will be made, most of which will be of questionable quality. The hope is that it will also help those that have the talent to make a good movie will get noticed.
With the lowered cost of media production, it has never been more important to get back to the basics, good story, good acting and innovative direction.
Back to the original post, as to when will 90% of theatrical films be produced with digital cameras? It may be sooner than we think. If you have been keeping up with current events, there is the perception lately that Hollywood is in trouble. This summer's box office is off last years reciepts. The costs of studio films is spiraling out of control. Newer entertainment industries have edged out movies in revenue, specifically the video gaming industry. There is a continued assault from the religious right over objectional content, ect., ect., ect..
Nothing fuels change like fear.
pookie_old
Veteran
How long until film is dead?
Never.
Simple.
Never.
Simple.