Lots of money and work going into lots of DV movies. However...

D

dial81

New member
Like many other members here I often check out trailers from many various movie sites, which were shot on DV, HDV etc. Movies that try to mimic or reach for a 35mm or Hollywood "look".

However, I am usually disappointed with what I see. I read up a bit about these movies and I find that it wasn't necessary a shoe string budget but perhaps from 50k-500k, and apparently a few of these films had trained actors, semi-pro crew and everyone worked very hard for a long time.

The end result to me a lot of the time seems to be something that could be made a a consumer DV cam with a few friends in a short amount of time. People often comment on how close to 35mm it looks and so on, but I just don't see it. It's never good enough.

Some possible reasons I come up with from time to time are:
- Bad Actors (Bad make-up and acting)
- Bad Camera (Looks no better than a standard DV camera, far from a film look)
- Bad Audio ("Small room" echo sound)
- Bad Story (Some great ideas but the movie fails for the above reasons)
- Bad Editing (Editing is just terrible most of the time, you can tell easily from how the trailer is)

I know almost all of the above is negative and I'm being very general. However, I'm sure a lot of members agree with me or know the kind of movies I am talking about.

I want to know your thoughts on why these digital films just don't make it in the real world. For someone to spend so much time and effort I would think that at least something half decent would come out of it. I hate to think of trying to make my own film/short with all my savings and effort and be left with something that is of no use or interest to anyone.

I've heard someone say before "if someone can make a film that is so bad and stills be proud of it, then it gives me strength to be able to make my own film better".

I wish I could be confident in my skill to believe the above but right now I'm not sure what to do or what to believe.

Thanks for your time.

dial
 
Well, your going to have to be more specific than that. What movies are you talking about specifically? Are these movies that you watched in the theatre? Are you sure the "look" they were trying to reach was a 35mm look? Often times larger budget movies are shot on DV becasue of the look that is achieved with using a dv camera. And what movie have you seen that was shot on HDV, or are you just making a general statement.
 
dial81, if you're looking for 35mm perfection or close to it then stop browsing this site and go to the movies more often. Even there things are flakey. Yeah, most jobs are crap but then again for every 20 DV films I've seen, whether it was a feature or short, there were 2 or 3 that were brilliant in more or just about every aspect.
 
dial81 said:
- Bad Actors (Bad make-up and acting)
- Bad Camera (Looks no better than a standard DV camera, far from a film look)
- Bad Audio ("Small room" echo sound)
- Bad Story (Some great ideas but the movie fails for the above reasons)
- Bad Editing (Editing is just terrible most of the time, you can tell easily from how the trailer is)
Click to expand...
Honestly, truthfully... That sounds a lot like the Japanese movies I've seen over the years. The mouths never match the words that are being spoken!
 
I agree with you coffee. About 2-3 or so in every 20. And even though those 2-3 films look great to you and me do you think they have a chance at becoming something. For example, enter a decent film festival, get a DVD deal or better yet get some type of cinema release.

The chances are dangerously low to go and invest that much time, effort and money. Unless you know that your film is not only great to you but also great for others as well. Not something you only get the chance to show your family and friends but also the world as well.

dial

PS: I just came accross this site and this is a good example of something I could be proud of. http://personales.ya.com/autodrome/ Even though it's not in focus all the time it would only take a little to perfect it. I know the G35 would make a lot of difference but it's not the only point that makes it good.
 
thisiswells said:
Honestly, truthfully... That sounds a lot like the Japanese movies I've seen over the years. The mouths never match the words that are being spoken!
Click to expand...

Is that just because I'm from Japan? :happy:

dial
 
dial81 said:
I agree with you coffee. About 2-3 or so in every 20. And even though those 2-3 films look great to you and me do you think they have a chance at becoming something. For example, enter a decent film festival, get a DVD deal or better yet get some type of cinema release.
Click to expand...

There's probably a lower ratio than that for big-budget, 35mm films, in terms of how many are actually *great*.
 
dial81 said:
I want to know your thoughts on why these digital films just don't make it in the real world. For someone to spend so much time and effort I would think that at least something half decent would come out of it.
Click to expand...

Well I guess then if we can't all make the most perfectly acted, shot, lit, and 35mm-looking DV movies the first time out then we should all just throw in the towel, eh? No use in putting your heart and soul into your work if it's not going to be loved technically and emotionally by everyone that sees it, and especially not if it isn't guarranteed that someone will be beating down our door to buy/distribute it.

I guess I am overdue then. Shucks, I really suck. DVX100A for sale, any takers, $5. I'm gonna go find a tall building to j.......
 
1. This business takes a tremendous amount of talent, and not everyone has what it takes.
2. Those who do have talent often make several bad or just average films before they catch the attention of the public and/or the people with deep pockets.
3. This business is based upon an artform afterall. If studio execs/filmmakers had a scientifically proven formula to great (or uhhh, profitable) movies Hollywood profits would outdo the GDPs of many small countries.
4. $$$ is the ultimate power in this business.

Those are my personal explanations for all the bad movies I see.

I know this topic is related specifically to DV features...but I've been seeing a lot of bad HD features recently. 100k-300k films that are horribly written, poorly acted and my pet peeve: they got cheap in post! (bad sound, music sucks, color is just pitiful). I think what's happened with digital technology is that it's made moviemaking much more accessible to the masses. A good and bad thing. There are just much more bad movies being made now than 20 years ago simply because there are more movies being made.
 
Well I guess then if we can't all make the most perfectly acted, shot, lit, and 35mm-looking DV movies the first time out then we should all just throw in the towel, eh? No use in putting your heart and soul into your work if it's not going to be loved technically and emotionally by everyone that sees it, and especially not if it isn't guarranteed that someone will be beating down our door to buy/distribute it.

I guess I am overdue then. Shucks, I really suck. DVX100A for sale, any takers, $5. I'm gonna go find a tall building to j.......
LOL. I think that DV shorts/features or any short or feature should always mean something to the person who creates it. If you are just making something to please the world(which a lot of the time involves guns, violence, drugs ect...) and you don't have a more personal, intimate relationship with the storyline or concept then it probably will turn with bad quality. Just look at all the good films out there, they mean something to the filmmakers. Now with all the action/thriller films out there nowadays, people go see them because they want their fix. The above poster is right.
But anyways, I'll give you $5, nay, $6 for your DVX:)
Click to expand...
 
natob2 said:
...but I've been seeing a lot of bad HD features recently. 100k-300k films that are horribly written, poorly acted and my pet peeve: they got cheap in post! (bad sound, music sucks, color is just pitiful).
Click to expand...
Wow, so many good points! On the subject of "they got cheap in post" here are my thoughts. It's all too common to build budgets that are unrealistically low. Inevitably, these projects will go overbudget during production and have virtually nothing left. They are already penny-less (thus, screwed) before they hit post.

This is the very reason I decided not to pursue editing as a career focus. Too many eleventh hour phone calls to salvage someone else's mess -- without adequate compensation.

Quality control (generally) goes out the window on indie projects!
 
thisiswells said:
Wow, so many good points! On the subject of "they got cheap in post" here are my thoughts. It's all too common to build budgets that are unrealistically low. Inevitably, these projects will go overbudget during production and have virtually nothing left. They are already penny-less (thus, screwed) before they hit post.
Click to expand...

True. So very true. So many producers exhausted their budgets before they are even in post-production, or worst yet, before they are even finished with production. I can't understand going into a feature-length film without being financially prepared to produce the whole film. When you have your script it only makes sense to take it to a line producer to create a budget for production, in addition to well researched number for all of post-production. Then build in at least a 10% contingency for both. That's your golden number. That golden number is what you raise and you don't enter production until you have it. I know there are people in this forum that disagree with this approach because it seems to some as "stubborn" and "lacks fluidity", but I just don't see it any other way. If you don't approach it you risk not finishing your film, hurting your relationships with investors who provided the money you DO have, and just overall hurting your reputation as a serious filmmaker/producer who finishes what they start. You wouldn't start a restaurant without enough money for essentials like menus, I think the same is true for filmmaking...
 
I think you need to add directing to the list.

I've never wanted to be a director, however by watching a few and by reading a lot, I decided to try. It's not easy! It takes a lot of practice (i.e., several bad movies) before you can turn out a decent product - even if you do have talent. Given that most people who shoot DV don't have deep pockets, their chances of making a movie are - one a year? Every two years? In any case, most of them (us) are just beginning. I think it's gonna get better over time (hopefully).

Another factor: the crew. I've been very lucky to work with some very professional crew on music videos with budgets (about 20K for a song), shot on film, all that jazz. Even though those people are not paid very well, it's still something, and you'll get professionals with experience. Shooting DV? Mostly your crew are newbies and wannabies (and friends), people who can't do anything beside standing around. So the director (who is also the writer and producer and in many cases, the DP), ends up wearing so many hats he (or she - thank you, Stan) can't focus on any one area enough to deliver a good job.
 
Well said XCheck...

I have definately had that problem myself... less so this last time around.. but not only is it hard directing at this level... you absolutely cannot trust other people do deliver something that will live up to your (or my standards I guess) unless you are paying them. I end up doing so many jobs, and it is physically and mentally draining... and of course there is always that film that you have to direct on top of being producer... casting director..art department.. prop master..etc etc...

I yearn for the day when I can just show up on set and everything is just ready to go... oh wait that never happens..

that is why directing rocks.. gotta stay on toes and ahead of the game.

What I need you to do... is too.. STAND ON YOUR MARK.

:happy:

as an aside.. what I wouldn't give to have $500k to make a film... holy crap.. I could stretch that money pretty damn far if it was a DV feature..
 
Thanks for everyone's comments and opinions. Everyone had some good things to point out. Basically just keep trying and trying then finally, if you played your cards right, you'll succeed... or at least reach a level of satisfaction.

dial
 
XCheck said:
I think you need to add directing to the list.

I've never wanted to be a director, however by watching a few and by reading a lot, I decided to try. It's not easy! It takes a lot of practice (i.e., several bad movies) before you can turn out a decent product - even if you do have talent. Given that most people who shoot DV don't have deep pockets, their chances of making a movie are - one a year? Every two years? In any case, most of them (us) are just beginning. I think it's gonna get better over time (hopefully).

Another factor: the crew. I've been very lucky to work with some very professional crew on music videos with budgets (about 20K for a song), shot on film, all that jazz. Even though those people are not paid very well, it's still something, and you'll get professionals with experience. Shooting DV? Mostly your crew are newbies and wannabies (and friends), people who can't do anything beside standing around. So the director (who is also the writer and producer and in many cases, the DP), ends up wearing so many hats he (or she - thank you, Stan) can't focus on any one area enough to deliver a good job.
Click to expand...


Very good point~
 
Let's keep in mind that there's something for everyone. Technology is at a point that if you have $10,000 (even less) and a dream, you can make a film. So that's what you're seeing. And what we're finding is that people love to be entertained. Even bad films can make money. I know one particular horror franchise from the company who distributed my film. To my knowledge there are no good reviews of any of the films in that particular franchise, but they made three of them at about $50,000 a pop I believe. They made money. How do I know? I know how the owner thinks and she wouldn't keep making a film if it didn't make money. Some people buy films to see how bad they will be. Ever seen Jack Frost? It's bad, but HBO plays it sometimes and it has a fan base. Keep this in mind. I mean Blair Witch (shot on SD non-DV cameras) went to theaters based on concept more than anything. Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, Michael Williams and director Daniel Myrick all seemed to have come out of it with something and even though this movie was bad, it's an icon. Everyone knows what the Blair Witch Project is, for better or for worse.

-Nate
 
I just shot a 60 min. doc with DVX cameras for 9 grand and it looks great. This medium really excites me - anythings possible! Now I want to do a feature, but the key I know is having a great script who cares how fantastic it looks if the story sucks. If you don't have an incredible story- shoot an interesting doc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top