Ink???

Chamber005

Chamber005

Carbonite Member
I'm like 99% positive I first heard about this movie from the director here on these boards. I went on Netflix today and it was one of the first flicks listed under New Releases. I'm watching it right now streaming.

Anyone here remember which member shot it??
 
The producers of Ink aren't members of our forum yet. I've invited them to come talk about their film here but I haven't seen them here yet.
 
I watched it on streaming on netflix a week or two ago.

Not bad. If anything, you can definitely tell that they put their blood, sweat, and tears into it.

The soft focus/blur on everything annoyed me, but other than that, it was quite an ambitious undertaking. Enjoyed it for what it was.

Plus I didn't realize those guys are just up in Denver.

Later,
Jason
 
They've made great strides and have shared a lot of great info. Their case study on Film Courage is invaluable. I watched the film via NetFlix and all i will say is that (in my opinion) they are very fortunate to have received all this attention because i don't think the execution warrants much praise. the editing and cinematography in particular were pretty bad. distractingly so.
 
As to the way it was shot, whether great or just "okay", I liked the consistency of the whole thing. It had like 4 or 5 ideas about the look they wanted for it and they stayed with it until the very end. I too was weirded out by the fuzzy edges, but once I accepted that it simply was going to be one of the persepectives in the movie, I accepted it.

The ending was a little odd, but then I remembered that they kept referencing that time operates differently so I figured they existed in one possible future (or potentially several different possible futures) and so the end works out.

I thought ths SCOPE of the thing was just ridunkulous. So much of it being shot in what looks like a downtown area -- and then all of those locations! A friggin car crash set up in the middle of downtown? Office buildings? Hospital?

I figure they must have had lots of stuff "donated" in terms of locations (all the hospital stuff, etc). I can't imagine how much all of that would have cost if paid for -- certainly I'd think it would blow most indie budgets out of the water.

Overall, though, I actually thought it was a little better than just "okay". Awesome creepy bad guys, some really good acting throughout, awesome fight sequences, nice sound, consistent visuals and music, and while the nose didn't really make sense on Ink, overall he looked pretty cool.

I can almost never make it through more than 15-20 minutes of these homegrown digital indie flicks, but this one I actually got involved in and watched from start to finish.
 
i don't even think it was "just okay" to be honest. with a budget of $250K, I was actually wondering where that money went. it shouldn't look like it was shot on a handicam with a Magic Bullet "dream" preset tossed on globally. i wish i felt differently. I don't like trashing anyone's efforts, but comparatively there is much better work out there not getting this kind of attention. The New Year Parade for example just came out on DVD. and it's great.

but that aside, the INK producers have been tremendously helpful in illustrating some of the realities of a DIY theatrical, home video and vod release.
 
Zak Forsman said:
i don't even think it was "just okay" to be honest. with a budget of $250K, I was actually wondering where that money went. it shouldn't look like it was shot on a handicam with a Magic Bullet "dream" preset tossed on globally. i wish i felt differently. I don't like trashing anyone's efforts, but comparatively there is much better work out there not getting this kind of attention. The New Year Parade for example just came out on DVD. and it's great.

but that aside, the INK producers have been tremendously helpful in illustrating some of the realities of a DIY theatrical, home video and vod release.
Click to expand...

I'll check out New Year Parade. Is it in the same genre?

And yeah, after reading about their whole piracy thing I picked up the Blu-Ray, primarily because I'm really interested in the commentary. Should be a fun listen.

Also, I don't ever take any of these indie people on their word when it comes to budget. Even a 250K budget wouldn't have been able to afford some of those locations -- they called in favors, IMO. Also, most of these actors were unknown and it was produced by the guy's wife (and their mortgage).

If I had to guess at the ACTUAL budget I'd bet it was closer to 75K + favors. The crew was extremely small, and I'm sure most of the talent worked for pennies and exposure.

All that being said, I enjoyed it much more than I typically do these indie digi flicks. The last one I liked as much (only moreso) was probably The Zombie Diaries.

IMO there's just not a lot of this indie stuff that's actually even watchable. This flick, despite budget constraints, was completely watchable. Reminded me of Dark City with a Doctor Who budget and, you know, worse cinematography, set design, acting and writing. :D
 
Zak Forsman said:
i don't even think it was "just okay" to be honest. with a budget of $250K, I was actually wondering where that money went. it shouldn't look like it was shot on a handicam with a Magic Bullet "dream" preset tossed on globally. i wish i felt differently. I don't like trashing anyone's efforts, but comparatively there is much better work out there not getting this kind of attention. The New Year Parade for example just came out on DVD. and it's great.

but that aside, the INK producers have been tremendously helpful in illustrating some of the realities of a DIY theatrical, home video and vod release.
Click to expand...
Word. That color grading drove me up a wall, I really could not get into the film. I need to watch it again, I really wanted to like it.
 
I'm a big supporter of this film. It's far from perfect, but I give them a lot of credit for making an honest to God movie, and going for the fantasy angle. I wish more of the current crop of indie films were as ambitious and tackled fantastical stories. I felt like this had a very very good use of imagination and a downright Gilliam-esque bent.

I do wish they had been members here or somewhere similar, because all of the problems with the film could have been easily solved with some simple advice from say JDS, or some other guru around these parts. The camera choice, the cc, some of the editing wonkiness, etc. all easy fixes. And that's a shame.

But if I had to love every aspect of every film I supported, I'd like basically none of the indie films I've seen in the past year. They all had whopping flaws that I overlooked because I liked what the filmmakers were about and what they were trying to accomplish. I give a lot of slack in those cases.

But besides its flaws, I support these people whole-heartedly, because when no one wanted their movie, they didn't curl up in a ball and die, but tuned up the elbow grease and got to work.

As for the budget, it's not hard for me to see spending that amount of money on a production of that scope at all.
 
Zak Forsman said:
..., but comparatively there is much better work out there not getting this kind of attention. The New Year Parade for example just came out on DVD. and it's great
Click to expand...

Seriously? The New Year Parade won all kinds of festivals and got distribution deals. Looks to me like it's the film that got all of the attention...
 
Hmm there very different types of film aren't they? I mean that INK is a dark fantasy indy that looks immensely ambitious in what it is undertaking while New Year Parade looks like a fairly conventional contemporary relationship based drama (pretty standard Indy American idea there) I'm sure its a brilliant drama with its plaudits in all, but the apparent difference isn't automatically evident to me in quality.

250k dollars is an amount of money that many of us would think WOW - if we had it just think what we could achieve. Well a fantasy feature would be pretty impressive by any standard surely. They may even have managed to pay there crew - over those wild boasts we hear from some director/producers that there movie cost only $5...

Oh and Mark - rock on for RPDM, still a fav of mine.
 
well, there's little point in debating taste and I'm sorry I brought it up. I more so wanted to illustrate my profound disappointment in its execution.

my point was that "comparatively" NYP (with all its laurels) never had half a million eyeballs on it, and it struggled for two years to find a domestic dvd distributer. sadly, there is no international distribution in place.
 
Which is still a much better fate than "Ink", which was pirated prior to release and has left the producers without any recourse to ever recover the money they spent.

The half-million eyeballs on "Ink" are pirates, who (last I heard) had contributed a grand total of $400 to the filmmakers, or about 1/10 of one penny each.

At least NYP still has the potential of getting bought someday.
 
Can you imagine the size of there pirate vessel! With such a sturdy crew volume - argh! *wriggles peg leg*

Zak i wouldnt apolagise for bringing it up - interesting wee sideline topic there about piracy, a somewhat grim statistic.

I mean i work mostly in the commercial sector (and in the UK) that can include a lot of public sector funded projects. The idea of making $$$ with a film without making your genuine income from the budget alone (via tax break systems - when available...) i find quite daunting.

Gosh if i did, i don't know, making an indy to cater for a broad audience? Or perhaps to focus more on niche passionate audiences who are more likely to buy your film than pirate it? Its a tough one alright...
 
lawriejaffa said:
I mean i work mostly in the commercial sector (and in the UK) that can include a lot of public sector funded projects. The idea of making $$$ with a film without making your genuine income from the budget alone (via tax break systems - when available...) i find quite daunting.

Gosh if i did, i don't know, making an indy to cater for a broad audience? Or perhaps to focus more on niche passionate audiences who are more likely to buy your film than pirate it? Its a tough one alright...
Click to expand...
This explains SO much. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Aweee come on Blaine hehehe!

I never hid it - and working in public sector doesnt mean its served on a plate, its highly competitive. But rather than a film profiting, your fighting for funding in the first place - rather than investment, for a delivery purpose that is as your joking on perhaps - not suited primarily for mainstream film commercialism - hehe quite reflective in my own film critiques.

But then, can indy films play mainstream - sure? But from a producer pov, i wouldnt go for that myself. I am directing a feature in Spring, and it certainly will be aimed towards a passionate minority over an indifferent superficially primed mainstream.

hehehe - (unless your point had nothing to do Blaine with any of that in which case please expand and humour me!)
 
Nah, you got it. Here in America, we don't usually have the luxury (read Money) of doing an Art Film and hoping to get our money back. I really wouldn't want to anyway, since I'm not a fan of Art Films. I know there are plenty of fans, I'm just not one of them. About as far as I'm willing to go when it comes to Art Films is Zak Foresman. :beer:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top