Paramount buys "Like Crazy" @Sundance for $4M, shot on the Hot Rod 7D-PL

Illya Friedman

Illya Friedman

Well-known member
It's one of the big topics of conversation up here in Park City, early Sunday morning Paramount won the bidding war for the independent feature film "Like Crazy", directed by Drake Doremus and shot by DP John Guleserian. The deal is reported to be $4M and that Paramount was the winner in a bidding war which included bids from at least Summit Entertainment and the Weinstein Company, if not others.

The film was shot entirely on the Hot Rod 7D-PL system.

Here's a news report from IndieWire

http://tinyurl.com/4ny5j4o

A more comprehensive blog post about the production and postproductiong is coming to Hotrodcameras.com very soon. Here's a BTS pic from the production.

Like Crazy.jpg
 
From what I understand though, it supports pretty much what many if us hear always say - make a great story.
 
Not trying to create conflict, but seriously Noel? Many of the DVXusers say that the DSLR's moire, aliasing, poor resolving of detail, etc make it not good enough for feature film application.

This is the circle of DVXuser currently:

- people are shooting
- new camera gets released or a release date is talked about
- pixel peeping ensues
- arguing and flaming then commences
- a thread is created about how the story, lighting, direction (and all the obvious factors) are more important than what the film is shot on
- everyone agrees
- new camera rumours hit the internet

...and the cycle starts over.

Kegan

P.S - That's fantastic news - I wasn't sure that Paramount purchased indies, but good information to know.
 
Hunter007 said:
Not trying to create conflict, but seriously Noel? Many of the DVXusers say that the DSLR's moire, aliasing, poor resolving of detail, etc make it not good enough for feature film application.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has said that. Those of us who care about such things aren't going to bury our heads in the sand. And give an equal choice between a 7D and a Red One, I most certainly would go with the Red every single time (switching in the same day between Red and 7D footage shows just how much of a difference there is). But it doesn't matter if you make a good film and play to the strengths of your format.

On the flip side, you don't know what kind of release Like Crazy is going to get. Will it be a limited engagement and then off to DVD? Will a Blu-ray even come out? How much money will go into post to further up the quality after the film is purchased?
 
Gary Huff said:
On the flip side, you don't know what kind of release Like Crazy is going to get. Will it be a limited engagement and then off to DVD? Will a Blu-ray even come out? How much money will go into post to further up the quality after the film is purchased?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone knows the release plan for the movie yet. But they could go theatrical today without spending another dollar. Other than some minor aliasing on a couple quick shots, there won't be anything for anyone to complain about. The DI was done expertly by Hollywood DI, and the feature looks spectacular on a 30' screen. I sat at 1.5 screen heights away, and have eyes quite critical of this sort of thing.

Later in the day I watched a Super16mm feature at Sundance and Like Crazy blew it away for quality of image. In fact, the short before the Super16 movie I saw yesterday was also shot on a Hot Rod 7D-PL with a DI from Modern, and that also looked fantastic. It too easily blew away the quality of the Super16 feature.

It's true that talent trumps technology. But technology plus talent means you can now fool 98% of the people 100% of time. It's an amazing time to be an independent filmmaker, the tools have never been better, and never cost so little.
 
I've been reading about Like Crazy on all of the film sites, I had no idea that it was shot on the 7D. This is very cool, I'm looking forward to seeing it.
 
Well A geat Story, a Nice Image and SEX.. will always sell.

they did use PL cine lenses so the Image should be Fantastic.
 
Is this really true? Please let me know the facts as soon as someone knows more about it. This is my dream! well done guys!
 
The honest truth is that the only real issues I have with these cameras are that a.) they do not record things at true 1080P no matter how "acceptable" the end product is - requires a bunch of tricky post work. And b.) as examplified on many tests I've seen, the DSLR's somehow mush detail together in a "is this distortion or what?" while the Reds for example auto-matically creat a very real-eye flat look that doesn't distort bricks, tree branches, plants, ect ect. And c.) Moire.

Now, I'm always optimistic as anyone that those first two issues relate to the quality of different lenses, but because both issues relate to how the DSLR's record footage in a pixel-skip pattern, I think that both those issues stem from the same place as moire and to me, it causes things to look fake. The color redention is also no better than what you'd find in a $50 video toy, and the honest truth is that without the DSLR body and neat depth-of-field that the it-costs-Canon-$100-to-make body mount gives you with the it-costs-Canon-$50-to-make lenses, the video is again, worse than what you'll find in a off-brand $400 1080P camcorder.

But is that acceptable for filmmaking? Entirely in many cases. The problem that many users have? That this fraudulent-but-useable technology is extraordinarily expensive, especially when it comes to owning a lens that you can actually use. Canon either need to make cameras that match the price or have prices that match the products, it'd put everyone in a more realistic place.
 
Snapper123 said:
The honest truth is that the only real issues I have with these cameras are that a.) they do not record things at true 1080P no matter how "acceptable" the end product is - requires a bunch of tricky post work. And b.) as examplified on many tests I've seen, the DSLR's somehow mush detail together in a "is this distortion or what?" while the Reds for example auto-matically creat a very real-eye flat look that doesn't distort bricks, tree branches, plants, ect ect. And c.) Moire.

Now, I'm always optimistic as anyone that those first two issues relate to the quality of different lenses, but because both issues relate to how the DSLR's record footage in a pixel-skip pattern, I think that both those issues stem from the same place as moire and to me, it causes things to look fake. The color redention is also no better than what you'd find in a $50 video toy, and the honest truth is that without the DSLR body and neat depth-of-field that the it-costs-Canon-$100-to-make body mount gives you with the it-costs-Canon-$50-to-make lenses, the video is again, worse than what you'll find in a off-brand $400 1080P camcorder.

But is that acceptable for filmmaking? Entirely in many cases. The problem that many users have? That this fraudulent-but-useable technology is extraordinarily expensive, especially when it comes to owning a lens that you can actually use. Canon either need to make cameras that match the price or have prices that match the products, it'd put everyone in a more realistic place.
Click to expand...


What People realy want is 24 fps. and Great DOF. The Fact that we get a Pseudo 1080 p is Great/or not.. I dont Know of any 400 dollar Cameras that have a s35 size sensor that shoots the Frame rates or the definition that DSLRs do. so, you have sort of a point but you have to rate the dslrs for what they are great at too. In the end if you get a $4M check for the pseudo 1080p, heavyly messaged Film you shot on a $3k camera then all arguments are out the door.
 
speedjunkie said:
What People realy want is 24 fps. and Great DOF. The Fact that we get a Pseudo 1080 p is Great/or not.. I dont Know of any 400 dollar Cameras that have a s35 size sensor that shoots the Frame rates or the definition that DSLRs do. so, you have sort of a point but you have to rate the dslrs for what they are great at too. In the end if you get a $4M check for the pseudo 1080p, heavyly messaged Film you shot on a $3k camera then all arguments are out the door.
Click to expand...

How much was the entire shooting and post budget?

I don't have those figures, but just because it was shot with a DSLR doesn't mean that the budget was small. Budget could have been more than they actually sold for, or they broke even OR it could have been on the price of airline tickets.

Who knows.
 
Kholi said:
How much was the entire shooting and post budget?

I don't have those figures, but just because it was shot with a DSLR doesn't mean that the budget was small. Budget could have been more than they actually sold for, or they broke even OR it could have been on the price of airline tickets.

Who knows.
Click to expand...


Hollywood DI graded the movie. If you know anyone there, they might be able to give you a headsup on any post headaches (if any) and budget.

I watched an interview with the makers. From their elation and responses, it seemed like it was a huge payday for them. I find it hard to believe their budget would be anywhere close to 4 mil let alone even 1 mil considering it's a narrative contemporary romance with no stars. If they had a budget of millions, why would they choose HDSLRS? I'll put my best guess at the budget being under 200K based on absolutely no facts other than the type of story :-) ...but who knows
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
How much was the entire shooting and post budget?

I don't have those figures, but just because it was shot with a DSLR doesn't mean that the budget was small. Budget could have been more than they actually sold for, or they broke even OR it could have been on the price of airline tickets.

Who knows.
Click to expand...

By looking at the Movie ( behind the scenes ) no way in the world they spent more than a 100k. It's a story type film built around two people with nothing crazy going on. I see what you are trying to say, but honestly this was a success for the director of this movie.
 
So a movie shot on a 7D at Sundance and gets bought for 4 mil and we're asking about budgets. This place is so funny.

This is great news no matter how much money they made and it further entrenches the HDSLR as a professional tool. This is still a new technology and just wait till the next generation of these cameras are introduced, which will hopefully resolve some of the known issues... the revolution continues.
 
acoelho1 said:
So a movie shot on a 7D at Sundance and gets bought for 4 mil and we're asking about budgets. This place is so funny.

This is great news no matter how much money they made and it further entrenches the HDSLR as a professional tool. This is still a new technology and just wait till the next generation of these cameras are introduced, which will hopefully resolve some of the known issues... the revolution continues.
Click to expand...

You mean... a movie was good enough to be purchased...

Tool stopped mattering several years before the 7D... please see THE SIGNAL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top