shooting-film 35mm: Cost?
- Thread starter ilmagic88
- Start date
Aiming for DVD? If you make a feature you should be aiming for a theatrical release. Shooting film is a step in the right direction in getting a theatrical release. Money doesn't grow on trees, yes, so in this case you would try to raise additional funds, assuming you want to shoot on film. Raise the funds for the format you want to shoot on. HD should be a creative choice, and not a film substitute. Don't forget the cost of the blow-up to 35mm. The budgets aren't going to be that much different.Blade_Jones said:
Have fun going broke. If I've got $400,000 to work with then one of the things that's gonna get cut out is FILM. For most films $150,000 is just not enough to make a movie without racing through it, running out of time to get all the shots you want, not being able to afford the great (expensive) location, etc.
Straight to DVD movies that get picked up are making 3/4 million to 1.5 million bucks.
Hi-Def can always be bumped up to film if someone is really interested.
Hey Blade,
I AM broke, but I've managed to be creative about finding other resources to FUND the work I want to show the rest of the world. Sure I want to make money off my film so I can pursue future projects, but making money was not the incentive to create the piece in the first place.
ps-I was stating a FACT , perhaps you could respond with something more than sarcasm.
Last edited:
Hey, this is a fascinating discussion.
There are some interesting points being raised.
For instance like indietalk I always aim to make a film of a good enough quality on a good enough format to be able to secure a theatrical release. This is mainly because although the real money is in DVD's and global TV sales, the returns in those areas increase exponentially if the film has previously had a theatrical release.
However, being a realist, I also know that even high budget films struggle to get a theatrical release and for an indie, sometimes the cost of that release can destroy the payback from the other sales, causing the film to make a loss.
The trick with any film, is to weight the budget against the lowest reasonable expectation for the film in the market place. You make commercial decisions whilst you are writing and in pre-production. So, for instance, if you have a $200,000 budget, you might chose to invest in 35mm, go for an inexpensive no name cast, but ensure that you pay incredible attention to the quality of your images and the strength of your script. This is what Australian filmmakers have been doing for years. On the other hand, you might chose to cut back to High Def and put your $400,000 into securing a mid-level name actor to work in a commercially safe genre movie. Or finally you might, get your script right, choose Hi-Def and still work with an unknown cast on a high quality, visually challenging project, that you think will play well in certain markets, Europe for instance and not spend all of your $400,000, but go for a larger margin of profit from your lo/no budget film.
There are a lot of factor to bring into play and some of them are answered by asking the question "What kind of filmmaker am I?" A question I ask myself every time I start writing. However, beyond that question is the ever present, how is this project going to work commercially?
There are some interesting points being raised.
For instance like indietalk I always aim to make a film of a good enough quality on a good enough format to be able to secure a theatrical release. This is mainly because although the real money is in DVD's and global TV sales, the returns in those areas increase exponentially if the film has previously had a theatrical release.
However, being a realist, I also know that even high budget films struggle to get a theatrical release and for an indie, sometimes the cost of that release can destroy the payback from the other sales, causing the film to make a loss.
The trick with any film, is to weight the budget against the lowest reasonable expectation for the film in the market place. You make commercial decisions whilst you are writing and in pre-production. So, for instance, if you have a $200,000 budget, you might chose to invest in 35mm, go for an inexpensive no name cast, but ensure that you pay incredible attention to the quality of your images and the strength of your script. This is what Australian filmmakers have been doing for years. On the other hand, you might chose to cut back to High Def and put your $400,000 into securing a mid-level name actor to work in a commercially safe genre movie. Or finally you might, get your script right, choose Hi-Def and still work with an unknown cast on a high quality, visually challenging project, that you think will play well in certain markets, Europe for instance and not spend all of your $400,000, but go for a larger margin of profit from your lo/no budget film.
There are a lot of factor to bring into play and some of them are answered by asking the question "What kind of filmmaker am I?" A question I ask myself every time I start writing. However, beyond that question is the ever present, how is this project going to work commercially?
Well I'm not gonna DIE for the film look. For me the LOOK of 35mm isn't worth a whopping 1/4 million dollars. I'd rather spend extra time getting awesome looking dolly moves, more shots and more time per scene, more expensive locations, have a telephoto lens to use, etc. I hate cutting corners because of time constraints.
Well of course YOU'RE not going to die-many others already sacrificed to give US freedom of expression. And I was talking generally.
Apparently you're not capable of replying without being flippant. You proclaim film is dead-Were you appointed the King of aesthetic arrest-a medium is a medium is a medium-as I stated earlier, I truely believe it is the artist who transforms the medium therefore the tools she/he chooses are not obsolete.
You tell me to have fun going broke (apparently because I'm using....fiiillllmmmm
) You assume alot. How do you know I'm not creating a work that will break new ground? By the way, and this is a beautiful thing....I animate hand-drawn cel, so I have the OPTION of putting it on anything -so if it ends up on a digital medium, do you forsee me making a buck , oh great Barometer of Moving Media!!!!
Last edited:
Wooooh!!!! Let me put you up on a pedestal then! Don't hold back with that ego dude. You are going places Mr. Feelgood! You're a mover and a shaker! You're everyone who's anybody! The road to Hollywood goes through YOU!
Blade_Jones said:
Dude, video is video, film is film. It all boils down to: is the concept/ writing/ other elements good enough to warrant film? For certain projects of mine, I would never dream of ever even thinking of shooting them on video, they're just too fucking good. Film looks better than video, even when it's only on DVD. Film is the essence of cinema, and although today's video can look very good, it just doesn't even come close to real 35mm film. Call me a weirdo, but I personally would rather take a $250,000 pay-cut and shoot on film than make a crapload of extra money using video. Even if I would only break even on it, and not make a profit...
Making a movie on 35mm film is my wet-dream, I just don't get why one would pass it up if they could attain the funds...
