How much did you get for your movie, sir?

Is that genre supposed to be saleable with unknown actors? I figured that was his main reason for including the gore/monster/horror aspect...to make it possible to sell. Even if the market is flooded with cheap horror theres at least the vague possibility of a sale with that vs the drama genre when dealing with unknown actors etc. right?

Given that very few (VERY few) people make anything back on their microbudget horror films to begin with, if you're going to make something for a learning experience, might as well make it GOOD. Yeah, you can tell investors you made $5k back on a $2.5k budget, but if your film is anything like the absolute garbage that's out there in the horror market right now, you're not going to be doing anything to launch your career. And I don't personally recommend writing or directing in a genre you don't really enjoy, nor would I recommend making a product that's just that: product and nothing more. If your film is just a product to you, it's going to be obvious to anyone who watches it. If you want to make a film and use it as a learning experience, I'd strongly recommend making something that you ACTUALLY want to make, for as little as you can possibly make it, and don't get caught up trying to get your money back on it for the next 3 years after you finish it.

As always, your mileage may vary.

-EMB
 
thanks for all the ideas, yall.

About turning it into a thriller, that's not a bad idea, but I must state my firm belief that the GENRE and TONE of a movie have nothing to do with its quality. Any type of movie, from goofy campy horror flick, to serious drama based on a highly lauded literary source, can be done well or poorly and for any genre or style you can find great and epic-fail examples of each. I do want to go for something tense, suspenseful, and psychological, like Rosemary's Baby, J-horror flicks like Ringu and Ju-On, but again, since tone is not quality, and this will be my first big outing, it's (very) possible I won't pull it off...So yes, learning experience primarily. Got it.

Ditto for the monster effects-- they can be done well or poorly (ie with no attention to detail- common no-budget fail is faces made up all monstrous and yet clean-as-whistle necks). Were starting to do tests, working on some less-is-more stuff, it doesn't take much makeup to be creepy if the story and direction are tight and suspenseful, right?....

Hmm...looks like "The Great Gatsby" is getting mixed reviews. Interesting...
 

Attachments

  • thegrudge.jpg
    thegrudge.jpg
    22.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Well, what ever you do, keep us informed and post lots'a'clips 'n' grabs.
I'm sure it's going to be interesting, knowing how you think.
 
Well, what ever you do, keep us informed and post lots'a'clips 'n' grabs.
I'm sure it's going to be interesting, knowing how you think.

I second this. Looking forward to seeing your work, Nycineaste. (If you haven't seen it yet, you should check out a little Finnish horror film called SAUNA. Very moody, atmospheric horror-drama.)

-EMB
 
I pray my movie is better than this one, but it is a good example of the overall style and "scale" of production we are talking about. How much did this cat likely get for this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mbVUovjRAU

I'm a longtime horror fan and I've seen a lot of low budget drek. However, I shy away from micro-budget films like this one due to it's "Home Video" look. Everything is in focus. No depth of field. No color correction. Grainy footage.

I've read your cinematography posts in this thread and you clearly know your stuff. That puts you one up on the average filmmaker that thinks the camera will do all the work.

If you make a film, regardless of tone and budget, that doesn't look like home video, then you have a good chance of succeeding in the low budget horror market. You might not make your money back, but it could lead to better opportunities.

Oh, and take advantage of horror conventions. Good way to get your name out there and build your fan base.
 
. Everything is in focus. No depth of field. No color correction. Grainy footage.

yeah, I posted that movie as an example of the "scale" of production if you will-- shot in peoples apartments, telling a simple tale with a few characters and exploitation elements, etc. Its certainly no masterpiece, I prolly confused folks by posting it made it look like I wanna add to the pile of drek.

as for the video look, I hear you-- here's my thoughts on the matter:

I'm shooting DV (yeah, ya heard), so worrying about too much in focus is a waste of time and energy. You can get good shots that rely on depth anyway, so why fight big ol' DOF--why not WORK TO LEARN TO COMPOSE IN DEPTH? If my flick looks sometimes like video , I can live with that. I think a mistake ppl make is worry "how do I make it look like film"?, when they could be thinking--- "whats good cinematography and how do I do it"? (which is the thing that makes it look a few steps more like a "real movie") ...If I can do good VIDEO CINEMATOGRAPHY, well I don't have a film camera (or even a DSLR), so yeah that's good with me.... My overall strategy for my artistic growth is to focus on trying to master cinematography and overall movie-making FUNDAMENTALS and not worry about things I can't control; let the chips fall.. Of course weve all had this discussion here before, "film look" = "good cinematography" (in some large measure)..

case in point:

I agree that no-color grading is a BIG no-budget fail that is very sad since the tools are in any NLE. Slapping on a free Magic Bullets Movie Looks preset, would be better than the nothing that most of these guys do; again it all goes back to cinematography/photography basics-- this is never mentioned in cinematography books-- I learned it from photography/art-- but few beginning filmmakers are educated as to the importance of controlled and mood-appropriate color in color images...

Thanks for the advice
 
Back
Top