Hi there,
My film really sucked and I wasted several years on it. But hey, I made a website about it! Don't do what I did...All the best, Robert
http://www.tengrandmovie.com/
Nice story. It's refreshing to read somebody objectively assessing their own movie, and having the strength to realise it's a pile of crap.
And you're right. Making the movie is the easy part. Getting anybody to give a damn is the hard part.
I'm rather partial to the saying, "It's hard work making a good movie. It's hard work making a shitty movie."
Howdy.
Thats a good website - the honesty is beyond refreshing. As someone whos about to blow all my money on a feature it made for a good read.
The only thing I disagree on is ruling out shooting on film. I think theres complicated factors involved in that choice that go beyond perceived cost. If the crew and cast are familiar with film why change? Theres no doubt in my mind that for distribution a decent super 16 movie will be easier to sell than a comparable DV effort.
congratulations!
I wouldnt be too hard on yourself though, sounds like an amazing acheivement.
At least you didnt sit on your arse and do nothing about it. Like you say, it got the film making bug out of you :-)
That's an excellent, insightful and very sobering read.
As the others have said it's very honest which is rare - it takes strength to be able to admit defeat as you have done. Great idea to do a site about the experience so others can learn from it (and maybe even buy the DVD).
Your site will definitely make me think twice before attempting another film (even if it's a short). As illustrated by your experience the absolute key is the story and the script - EVERYTHING else means nothing if that's not shit hot - and shit hot scripts are VERY VERY VERY rare things! [img]frown.gif[/img]
Thanks for very much for posting and best of luck with the photography career. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 08, 2006 06:24 AM: Message edited by: Justin M. ]</font>
I watched the trailer, looks like high production values - no doubt in part by virtue of using film.
I would say the bit everyone forgets after post production is the marketing. If you're not lucky enough to get picked up at a festival (and you should never assume you will be discovered) then what? I'm trying self published DVD (looks like vanity publishing, I guess it is), and self published digital download (looks like vanity publishing, I guess it is). I would be honest with my sales figures but frankly it would just be embarassing. The reason I continue is to build a foundation. I'm well and truly bitten by the bug and whilst I have the energy and inspiration I intend to continue ... because it's fun, not because it will make me rich. But you definitely need closure on a project, and I'm almost there. Almost ready to throw myself at my next project ... what an idiot!
I agree with the shooting film over video...
You are far more likely to find a deal if you shot film than video.
Good job with the struggle.
Good Luck
Hey, thanks for all the nice comments! I really appreciate it.
Yeah, the whole film versus video debate is a tough one. I wish I'd shot DV simply because I could have saved about $7,000 in making the movie.
In retrospect 16mm film still leaves me feeling queasy. 35mm is awesome but so damn expensive that you sure don't want to foot the bill on your own project. I just don't see that the 16mm image is really all that good though. It's pretty unforgiving of underexposures. I've got some scenes that were just swimming with film grain.
If I were going to do it again, I'd buy an HD camera from Sony, I think you can get a low end one for about $3,000 to $4,000. The picture quality is incredible - it's not film but just looks amazing.
It just seems more and more that video (DV and HD) is being considered a perfect legit format to work in. There's always lots of articles in American Cinematographer about projects shot on video that ended up getting distributed.
Anyway, just my thoughts...Thanks again!
Do you remember what filmstock you shot??
I shoot tons of Super16 and I don't really get what you are saying.
To me it sounds like more of a function of the DP rather than the film.
Good Luck
Hi Nigel,
Yes, I believe it was 7279. I agree, Super 16 would be a much better way to go. We were just shooting regular 16 on an old Eclair NPR.
I remember we transferred the 7279 to Beta SP, for editing, and I remember I just wasn't too thrilled by the look of it. I know we screwed up with some of the early rolls, underexposing some outdoor shots, which came out looking god-awful, but even the stuff that was properly exposed seemed awfully grainy to me. It could have been the DP or the filmstock or the camera or any number of things.
I would have loved to see it on Super 16. I'm sure it would be a huge improvement.
But at the end of the day, I still wish I could have my $7,000 dollars back from Kodak ;-) I certainly appreciate the look of film over that of video, but in my case anyway, the choice of film didn't seem to buy me a lot. Perhaps I should have gone with a slower filmstock...Hard to say...
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Nigel:
Do you remember what filmstock you shot??
I shoot tons of Super16 and I don't really get what you are saying.
To me it sounds like more of a function of the DP rather than the film.
Good Luck
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks