RED Cameras?

something I've never understood about a lot of people on this site, or people in general is that they think they can somehow make a feature film for $10 000 and get it shown theatrically
Click to expand...

El Mariachi ?

Blair Witch ?

Clerks ?

Primer ?

-

It's funny. I'm watching the film ONCE. They shot it for $106,000 (Funded by the Irish Film Board) and I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering where the $100,000 was spent.

Not to neglect the need for food and location fees, etc etc ... the BTS shows and says they worked with a very small crew (4 or 5 people).

The film could have been done no/lo for certain from what I'm seeing.

So can one shoot a film for $10,000 a get it shown theatrically ? Hell yes. This doesn't take into consideration a filmout and prints. But then, that's what a distro is for, isn't it ?

-

Many films come to mind which could have been done on micro-budgets; Sideways, 28 Days Later, Pieces of April .... the same old mantras ...

Under the right circumstances; friends, small crews, pizza and beer catering, location gifts, etc

Of course a film can be shot for 10K and shown theatrically. Look what some of the DVXusers are creating everyfest. They're shooting these 6 minute shorts for nigh nothing.

Then imagine all of the elements coming together.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
El Mariachi ?

Blair Witch ?

Clerks ?

Primer ?
Click to expand...
By the simple fact that you can name these, that goes to prove the rule. The chances of making a film for $10,000 and getting it shown theatrically are about the same as the chances of winning the lottery. Of the hundreds of thousands of folks who've tried, you can name four that succeeded.

In other words, it ain't gonna happen. If you're the one in a 10,000 who does manage this feat, well, does that mean it was a solid business plan?

In other words, yes it can happen, as John has pointed out. And yes, people do win the lottery -- heck, someone always wins. But the odds of pulling that off are astronomically high.

There is one thing that tilts the odds slightly in favor of the filmmaker over the lottery player, and that's the notion that if you studied and worked and slaved and perfected your craft, you could increase your odds slightly. Of course, if you've studied and slaved and worked and perfected your craft that hard, you've probably also built up a body of work and wouldn't have to settle for trying to make a film on $10,000 anyway, so it kind of all nets out.

Yes, people have made it to the theater on micro budgets. It happens once every, oh, I don't know, three or four years. But in those three or four years, about 10,000 indie filmmakers have tried to accomplish the same thing. Only one makes it. The odds against pulling off that miracle are insanely high.

And, I dare say, the camera chosen has little to no influence on those who do succeed.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
El Mariachi ?

Blair Witch ?

Clerks ?

Primer ?
Click to expand...

Blair Witch... No
Clerks.... No

Both cost more. I've read anywhere for 30,000.00 to 60,000.00 for BW.

It does seem more like a lottery at that point.

I'm not even really familiar with Primer. That might be my bad... :thumbsup:


Mike
 
Last edited:
My thoughts are simple enough

You take Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Prieto and Innaritu into the desert with an HVX; you'll get BABEL.

The audience isn;t going to be sitting there going "Hmmm, was that 35mm ?"

Now, you take Me and a few of the regular actors we see here ?

Sheeeeeeeettttttt; you'll get indie hack wannabe crappola.
 
I did a feature with The Butcher Brothers last fall. They prospected for their first feature using this webpage to entice investors.

http://www.sffilms.tv/investors.htm

The result was The Hamiltons, which led to their Sony Pictures deal. That was effectively an ultra-low budget show. It can work, but you have to have skills and a script that is better than everything else out there.

e
 
it was late when I wrote my post.. and I was rather tired.. re-reading it.. it is rather poorly written.

Anywho.. I think my point could be summed up by saying that people on this site have unrealistic expectations for their films.

As barry said, it is like winning the lottery.

It's funny. I'm watching the film ONCE. They shot it for $106,000 (Funded by the Irish Film Board) and I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering where the $100,000 was spent.
Click to expand...

Its funny, cause if they had had $500 000 to a $1 000 000 budget, you'd probably be able to 'see' where some of the money went. That $100 000 went to the right areas it seems.
 
I agree with everything you said, John. The sub 10 000 movie being possible, etc. It is possible. But it means quadruple the work for all available, and true talent to shine.

Babel, however, while it looks doable on an HVX, if one looks at the dinamic range needed in the sunny Morocco shots, or the night japan disco and neons, as well as the incredible landscape detail and use of Depth of field, that would be impossible to achieve on the HVX- or nowhere near as close to what was achieved on film. Could you tell the same story with the HVX? Yes. Could you have the same quality and shot composition? Probably no.
Would having Brad Pitt, Blanchett and Inaratu directing it bring an audience? Yes. Would the fact of the movie being shot on the HVX limit its overal beauty and composition, or the vision of Inaratu for certain shots? Yes. Babel is an uncompromised film, shot like the director wanted, without limitations. If he was shooting with the HVX, the whole production and vision would be compromised by the camera.

And, Barry, I cannot agree with your analogy, comparing something that requires talent and hardwork to winning a lottery.

If the work is good, shot with talent and professionalism, and works in all the right places- talent of the cast, talent of cinematography, talent of the sound, etc., it can succeed. It has to be something extraordinary, no doubt, but this can be achieved. The lottery is just pure luck.
 
Last edited:
A big effect of the Red camera that I haven't seen people talking about is what I call, "The Magic Slipper" effect. Remember the old story of the ballerina who was given "magic slippers"? The plot resurfaces repeatedly: the basketball player given magic sneakers, etc. Anyhow, when the person was given such an enormous gift, they stepped up and filled the shoes, only to later find out it wasn't the shoes. I feel that way about my Red. The incredible gravity of owning one is making me step up in so many ways and in so many areas I could write a book about it.
 
Camera's terribly cheap for what it is. Wonder what they're gonna be worth second hand once a good 1200 are out there.
 
shawneous said:
A big effect of the Red camera that I haven't seen people talking about is what I call, "The Magic Slipper" effect. Remember the old story of the ballerina who was given "magic slippers"? The plot resurfaces repeatedly: the basketball player given magic sneakers, etc. Anyhow, when the person was given such an enormous gift, they stepped up and filled the shoes, only to later find out it wasn't the shoes. I feel that way about my Red. The incredible gravity of owning one is making me step up in so many ways and in so many areas I could write a book about it.
Click to expand...

What a great analogy ! :beer: :thumbup:
 
SPZ said:
And, Barry, I cannot agree with your analogy, comparing something that requires talent and hardwork to winning a lottery.

If the work is good, shot with talent and professionalism, and works in all the right places- talent of the cast, talent of cinematography, talent of the sound, etc., it can succeed. It has to be something extraordinary, no doubt, but this can be achieved. The lottery is just pure luck.
Click to expand...
Well, having been born in a gambling town (Las Vegas), I think my analogy was rather spot on. You can make a brilliantly-crafted film that just doesn't find an audience. The filmmaking landscape is littered with them. It is all a roll of the dice.

I acknowledged that you could improve your odds somewhat by extensive study and extraordinary hard work, but that will only increase the odds a little. Look at the ratio of tiny-budget films made, vs. the number of tiny-budget films that have achieved any measurable success. The evidence is obvious.

Now, as for the lottery being "pure luck", no, it depends. In Vegas we had a "form" of the lottery, being the "MegaBucks" linked jackpot system. Those prizes would get over $100,000,000. When the prizes crossed a certain threshhold, professional gamblers would come in and hire ordinary citizens to just play the slots. There came a point where the payoff justified pouring incredible dollars to try to win it. Yes there's still an element of luck, but when you and your team are hogging 75% of the slot machines, you've gone a long way towards taking "pure luck" out of the equation. :)
 
shawneous said:
A big effect of the Red camera that I haven't seen people talking about is what I call, "The Magic Slipper" effect. Remember the old story of the ballerina who was given "magic slippers"? The plot resurfaces repeatedly: the basketball player given magic sneakers, etc. Anyhow, when the person was given such an enormous gift, they stepped up and filled the shoes, only to later find out it wasn't the shoes. I feel that way about my Red. The incredible gravity of owning one is making me step up in so many ways and in so many areas I could write a book about it.
Click to expand...
This is very true. Excellent point, Shawn.
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, having been born in a gambling town (Las Vegas), I think my analogy was rather spot on. You can make a brilliantly-crafted film that just doesn't find an audience. The filmmaking landscape is littered with them. It is all a roll of the dice.

I acknowledged that you could improve your odds somewhat by extensive study and extraordinary hard work, but that will only increase the odds a little. Look at the ratio of tiny-budget films made, vs. the number of tiny-budget films that have achieved any measurable success. The evidence is obvious.

Now, as for the lottery being "pure luck", no, it depends. In Vegas we had a "form" of the lottery, being the "MegaBucks" linked jackpot system. Those prizes would get over $100,000,000. When the prizes crossed a certain threshhold, professional gamblers would come in and hire ordinary citizens to just play the slots. There came a point where the payoff justified pouring incredible dollars to try to win it. Yes there's still an element of luck, but when you and your team are hogging 75% of the slot machines, you've gone a long way towards taking "pure luck" out of the equation. :)
Click to expand...

You can also put tons of talent, skill, and hard work into something that no one connects with.

Or, you can produce Jackass and make millions.
 
I've often thought that fim was a unique medium in that there are thousands of starving artists out there that write books, paint on canvas, sing and play in bands and they will never get discovered

Film however, is the rare medium, that if you nail it, if you really just nail it, you most likley will find that audience and get that distro.

-

But hell, even half ass B films are finding their niche.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
I've often thought that fim was a unique medium in that there are thousands of starving artists out there that write books, paint on canvas, sing and play in bands and they will never get discovered

Film however, is the rare medium, that if you nail it, if you really just nail it, you most likley will find that audience and get that distro.

-

But hell, even half ass B films are finding their niche.
Click to expand...

"Jakass"? :)

Seriously, this raises another interesting question. Its true, there are a lot of brilliant artists in other mediums that are starving and cannot find distribution and recognition for their work. A good example are Painting artists. These guys not only need for their work to be "credible", but must have incredible connections in the art World to succeed, or a very charismatic persona and extremely developed communication skills. In the days of the Abstract, everything is practically Valid as long as you have something to back it up- may it be a coherent speech, or attitude.

In film, however, (Not Video Art! This has to go trough the same channels as described for the painters), storytelling and audience connection still has a certain weight.

However, at least in Europe, your social and communication skills, as well as your attitude towards film has a big weight in how you get support or not for your production. In Portugal, for example, in order to get funding for a film, the main investor invariably ends up to be the government. And in order for your film to get funding, you need to appeal to a panel of "experts"- normaly Pseudo Intelectuals/critics that despise entertainment or mainstream communication stories, always looking for the next Von Trier.

Just a tought.
 
Last edited:
J.R. Hudson said:
I've often thought that fim was a unique medium in that there are thousands of starving artists out there that write books, paint on canvas, sing and play in bands and they will never get discovered

Film however, is the rare medium, that if you nail it, if you really just nail it, you most likley will find that audience and get that distro.

-

But hell, even half ass B films are finding their niche.
Click to expand...

So what, if an artist doesn't get "discovered"?

Art-making is serious fun in itself and we evolve doing it. We find ourselves.

Life is a miracle...

[I love these cliches :)]
 
karapetkov said:
So what, if an artist doesn't get "discovered"?

Art-making is serious fun in itself and we evolve doing it. We find ourselves.

Life is a miracle...

[I love these cliches :)]
Click to expand...

Karapetkov,don't you think what's interesting in this topic is not if an artist is "found", per se? An artist obviously creates because he "needs" to. Its his personal expression. But what criteria do you use to "discover"this artist, in the middle of millions?

Art is nowadays subject to the rules of an intricate speculative and private "society". It is business, more than anything, but very unique and , in my, view, horrendously selective. There are those behind galleries, or the "opinion makers" and the so called "conneiseurs" (is it written this way?) constituted of "critics" and "intellectuals"that define a market of what fine art is. In our contemporary world, of abstract communication, probably its not about "art", but business. Can the currently considered high value contemporary art survive the test of time?

Great artists almost never get great recognition during their "alive"times... Van Gogh, a genius, is the best example...
 
SPZ said:
Karapetkov,don't you think what's interesting in this topic is not if an artist is "found", per se? An artist obviously creates because he "needs" to. Its his personal expression. But what criteria do you use to "discover"this artist, in the middle of millions?

Art is nowadays subject to the rules of an intricate speculative and private "society". It is business, more than anything, but very unique and , in my, view, horrendously selective. There are those behind galleries, or the "opinion makers" and the so called "conneiseurs" (is it written this way?) constituted of "critics" and "intellectuals"that define a market of what fine art is. In our contemporary world, of abstract communication, probably its not about "art", but business. Can the currently considered high value contemporary art survive the test of time?

Great artists almost never get great recognition during their "alive"times... Van Gogh, a genius, is the best example...
Click to expand...

What you wrote is exactly what I meant. :)

[Probably my post wasn't written clearly enough].

One doesn't have to be Spielberg in order to be happy with what they do.

Nevertheless, I think that "Schindler's List" and "Apocalypse Now" will stand the test of time.
 
Yeah, but here's the big difference: in painting, or sculpture, or writing, or drawing, or almost any other artistic endeavor: you can do those largely by yourself without spending buttloads of money!

You don't have to buy a $17,500 paint set, and then another $30,000 in support gear, and then buy $10,000 worth of easels and another $5,000 worth of paint thinner. You buy a fifty-dollar paint set from Toys R Us, or you buy the good stuff, doesn't matter -- no matter what you spend it ain't gonna add up to film equipment.

So you're in it for "free."

But that's just equipment. What about the actual painting (or sculpting or writing) process? Do you have to get a cast and crew of 10 to 20 people together, bring them to various locations, have them hold props that you've made and wear costumes that you've bought them, feed them, pay for those locations, and on and on? No, with the individual arts you can do those in your living room.

The "indie filmmaker"? He's going to carry around $30,000 of debt on his credit card for the rest of his life if his film doesn't sell. And that's his FIRST film. Presuming he does a second one, it all starts over again.

No, you can't even begin to think about comparing these two things -- unless you're an animator or a stop-motion claymation artist, which might be a craft that you could actually pull off by yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top