-
Matt:
The cost of the camera is beside the point. The real issue with the camera or any other piece of equipment is how much it depreciates during the course of your project. If you buy an S8 camera for $1000 and then toss it in the trash when you are done with it, or if you buy a 16mm camera for $5000 and then sell it for $4000, your cost is the same for either. Most cameras that I can afford to lay my hands on (not the "most expensive") are so old that it is impossible to predict the depreciation. It is even possible that you could sell it for more than it cost and make a profit. That depends more on how good a horse trader you are than on the age and condition of the camera.
As for El Mariachi, Rodriguez had a salable product for $7,225. IMDb says that Columbia spent $220,000 to make a 35mm print. That's beside the point. If his cost had been $72,250 would Columbia have spent $2,200,000 for the print? I don't think so.
More to the point, if I can get a film "in the can" for $7000 or $11000 or $25000 am I then going to start trying to raise $330,000 (2002 price) so I can make a 35mm print? Hell no! I'll be happy to get a video distribution deal (which is all that Rodriguez hoped for anyway). Anybody that wants a 35mm print can pay for it themselves.
The El Mariachi budget was $2300 for film, $1400 for processing, $2800 for telecine and $725 for everything else. I'd be interested in knowing how the $25,000 for Lost Tribes broke down.
Crimsonson:
I am my own editor and soundperson. If you have enough money to hire these people then by all means get a quiet camera. You'll probably save enough in their salaries to offset the cost of a more expensive camera. But I work very cheap when I work for myself.
------------------
[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 12, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Actor (edited February 13, 2002).]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:
"I understand your beef with low budget films getting extra attention for the cost of the film and ignorance of additional cost paid by the distributors...
...Remember, if you count what the distributors paid then you have to count - prints, advertisements, parties, etc, etc..."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was not referring only to films where distributors paid the costs AFTER a film was picked up. Some I mentioned were that way, some were not.
All the money I referred to on Blair Witch Project, for instance was spent before they even went to Sundance, which was BEFORE they were distributed.
I'm simply making a blanket statement, that not one of us has seen the $7,000 version of El Mariachi, yet that's all we ever hear about, is that it was made for $7,000., etc.
And Actor, some of your statements simply make no sense at all.
How can you say the cost of the camera is beside the point?
It is the whole point.
And no cameras depreciate over the life of a film shoot, and I've never ever heard anyone ever mention that in figuring finances of a film anyway, because THAT is beside the point.
And why in the world would someone throw their 1,000 Super 8 camera away?
You're not making any sense at all.
This statement also makes no sense:
"I am my own editor and soundperson. If you have enough money to hire these people then by all means get a quiet camera. You'll probably save enough in their salaries to offset the cost of a more expensive camera. But I work very cheap when I work for myself."
What does that have to do with using a quiet camera or not?
Trust me, you cannot really remove camera noise in post. Not very effectively, anyway.
I don't care if you're paying a sound person or editor or not.
If you shoot with a noisy camera, it's going to be a nightmare to edit, no matter who does it; you or someone else.
And regarding festivals. Many festivals require at least a 16mm print, and some require a 35mm print. If you plan on entering your film into those festivals, YOU are going to be paying for those blow-ups & prints, NOT a distributor, because you don't have a distributor yet.
That's why you're going to the festival, remember?
Blair Witch Project needed a 35mm print, because Sundance only screened 35mm prints, not 16mm, not video.
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
> How can you say the cost of the camera is beside the point?
> It is the whole point.
no, because you rent or borrow it. i wouldn't shoot a feature on my own equipment, and even if i would, i would rent the camera to myself. makes a lot more sense in the long run, since it lets me a: put camera rental in the budget (good if my own camera breaks down) and b: lets me keep the cost for buying the camera out of the budget.
/matt
-
"that not one of us has seen the $7,000 version of El Mariachi, yet that's all we ever hear about,"
But the distributors did.
------------------
-
the footage in the "10 minute film school" on the dvd is supposedly from the original video. it looks and sounds ok, but not great.
what bothers me is that the 35 mm version is cropped to 1.85:1, and then cropped again to 16:9 on the dvd. it doesn't look nearly as good as the original 4:3 edit in many ways. heads cut off and sloppy exit/entry cuts everywhere...
/matt
-
Those of us that have watched El Mariachi with the commentary can recommend it to those who haven't. Rodriguez borrowed an Arri S for it and would shoot a scene and then have the actors go through the scene again to record sound. He did his best to match them later in post but was forced to make cuts when the dialogue wasn't syncing well enough. This seems like a tough way to do it. Really good commentary though.
Also I'm glad someone mentioned renting equipment. If you're going to make a short and you can be fairly sure about how long it will take, it would make sense to give that option some serious consideration.
------------------
PRM
-
Those of us that have watched El Mariachi with the commentary can recommend it to those who haven't. Rodriguez borrowed an Arri S for it and would shoot a scene and then have the actors go through the scene again to record sound. He did his best to match them later in post but was forced to make cuts when the dialogue wasn't syncing well enough. This seems like a tough way to do it. Really good commentary though.
Also I'm glad someone mentioned renting equipment. If you're going to make a short and you can be fairly sure about how long it will take, it would make sense to give that option some serious consideration.
------------------
PRM
-
El Mariachi is sold in Spanish with English subtitles; it is also sold in dubbed English. You are saying that the Spanish was dubbed as well to get rid of camera noise?
Is the dvd version where the extra shorts are to be seen?
------------------
-
You guys should just read the book and get the movie on DVD. Then you can hear his comments, and watch is 10 minute film school video which explains alot about what happened. Actually the book is better.
Forget 16mm or even Super 16mm. Let's go straight to 35mm!
------------------
Konton the Grey
-
> You are saying that the Spanish was dubbed as well to get rid of camera noise?
sort of. the sound was recorded after the picture, but on location. the reasons: he had no crew, he had one of the noisiest cameras ever made, and he had no crystal motor.
and yeah, read the book, since this subject is getting really old on all the film boards out there. ;-) the best thing you learn from it is that he was far from being the kid from nowhere, like people sometimes claim. he had made dozens of shorts on 16 mm and video, many of them award winning, before doing el mariachi.
/matt
