Films I Think I Should Be Able To Shoot

[rayw]

Do you ever watch a relatively technically simple film and think "You know... I should be able to shoot something like this"?

Never mind the actor paychecks and union rigmarole.

No helicopter shots.
No exotic locales.
No freaky special effects.
No CGI-fests.

Just some straight forward camerawork + audio collection in sensible settings with straight forward acting between plausible characters, largely due to your (excellent) writing.

I've a small list of films that when I watch them I think I should be able to do.
Or at least aspire to become that good at a minimum.

In no particular order:

• Juno : $7.5m budget, Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL, Panavision Primo Lenses
• The Messenger : $6.5m budget, Arricam LT, Cooke S4 and Angenieux Optimo Lenses
• Winter's Bone : $2.0m budget, Red One Camera, Zeiss Master Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses
• Defendor : $3.5m budget, Panavision Cameras and Lenses
• Super : $2.5m budget, Red One Camera
• Silent House : $2.0m budget, non EOS 5D Mark II, Zeiss Compact Prime Lenses
• 50/50 : $8.0m budget, Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2, Panavision Primo Lenses
• Martha Marcy May Marlene : <$1.0m budget, Arricam LT, Zeiss Master Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses
• Like Crazy : $0.25m budget, Canon EOS 7D, Zeiss Ultra Prime Lenses
• 127 Hours : $18.0m budegt, Canon EOS 1D Mark IV, 5D Mark II, 7D, Moviecam Compact MK2, Zeiss Ultra Prime and Cooke Panchro Lenses

With a "modest" budget:

• Valhalla Rising : ~$6.0m budget, Red One Camera
• A Mighty Heart : $16m budget, Sony HDW-F750
• Margin Call : $3.4m budget, Red One MX, Zeiss Standard Speed and Angenieux Optimo Lenses
• Whip It : $10m budget, Arriflex 235, Panavision C-Series Lenses, Panavision Panaflex Platinum, Panavision C- and E-Series Lenses
• Be Kind Rewind : $20.0m budget, Arricam ST, Cooke Xtal Express Lenses

I'm sure I'm forgetting some others, but it's the idea that grates me at times.



What do you watch and think "You know... I should be able to shoot something like this"?

 

[rayw]

I am assuming the OP is referring to shooting a film of equivalent standards to one of the releases he lists. However, making a film is not just shooting (production) but also post-production. For theatrical release and for broadcast there are audio specifications which have to be met...

Yes.
And Yes.

As I stated in the other post, largely, it really depends upon WHERE you have intentions of distributing your film or WANT it distributed.


I've seen a fair number of "low-budget" theatrically released films, and we're often talking some pretty small theater counts, and almost all of them had budgets well over a million with the average being between $4m to $8m.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Hh6cHJBMW5aQkZSMzZYR2V3VUxQVUE&hl=en_US#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdGlCeDRmWTFCYXJRWjJ3SUphZDNzMGc#gid=0

Did all of that money goto ULB SAG paychecks?
No, not really.
Filmmaking's an expensive hobby, like yachting or polo. Or at least GOOD filmmaking is expensive.

I've not seen distributors pick up any DIY narrative features that were made for the cost of a car, (pick your make, model, and mileage.)
However, I've seen <$1k cameras make decent enough images when handled properly, so the original post was indeed 70% about collecting a decent image, however I've also heard enough <$1k off camera audio collections make decent enough recordings when processed properly to address the remaining 30% of my intent.

Is there a reason why a small group of filmmakers couldn't make some of the relatively simple films in the beginning list using a few thousand dollars for maybe some wardrobe, non-found object props, permits and such?
I don't think so.

I think a small competent crew could.

To me it's a creativity issue.

"What can I do with the objects and assets I already have with minimal reliance of resources I could of course pay to have?"

Spending money is easy. Any fool can do that.
Taking a good guess at what a distributor is likely to pay for a feature and then to spend significantly less than that to produce the feature is the challenge.

Dumb@sses spent $68mil to produce THE WATCH & $250mil on JOHN CARTER, both were guaranteed to bring in revenue but never to the scale that it cost to produce them, something the producers should have seen ten miles out.
Likewise, in small potatoes filmmaking there's a no-man's land between whatever you'd spend on a family vacation and $1m where pretty much all the money you spend is almost guaranteed to be wasted.
$250k feature film probably is going to have no COMMERCIAL value to it, whereas a $250k house is.
And the same could often be said of a $25k feature film vs. a $25k car.
Or even a $500k feature film and a $500k house.




Mostly I'm looking for the titles of other films that didn't require exotic/multiple/expensive locales, tons of costumes and props, helicopter shots, CGI-fests, etc.
Something technically simple from an execution POV.

• Day Night Day Night $200k est. Sony HDR-FX1 & Sony HDW-F900R, Zeiss DigiPrime Lenses
• Henry Poole Is Here $2m est. Arricam LT & ST, Cooke S4 and Angenieux Optimo Lenses
• Like Crazy $250,000 Canon EOS 7D, Zeiss Ultra Prime Lenses
• The Art of Getting By $1.5m est. Panavision Panaflex Millennium, Panavision Primo Lenses
• Shuttle $5.4m Arriflex 435 & 535, Thomson VIPER FilmStream Camera, Zeiss Digiprime Lenses

 

[TheArtist]

Brace up on your debating chops... a shitstorm is about to commence

Exactly my thoughts

Once Upon a Time in IndieTalk, the community has been blessed with two exceptional members, so knowledgeable about sound and so eager to share that knowledge that they simply revolutionized the whole fuckin' place.

And then came Fiveacre Films.

FADE IN :

 

[AudioPostExpert]

However, I've seen <$1k cameras make decent enough images when handled properly, so the original post was indeed 70% about collecting a decent image, however I've also heard enough <$1k off camera audio collections make decent enough recordings when processed properly to address the remaining 30% of my intent.

If by your "intent" and "decent enough" statements you mean NOT of equivalent standard to the films you listed or only of roughly equivalent visual standards, then we're in complete agreement. If we're talking about making films (which obviously include sound) and still achieving roughly equivalent standards (therefore theatrical or at the very least just broadcast standards) to the films you listed, then "when properly processed" is where significant expense becomes unavoidable and where we are no longer in agreement.

G

 

[rayw]

If by your "intent" and "decent enough" statements you mean NOT of equivalent standard to the films you listed or only of roughly equivalent visual standards, then we're in complete agreement. If we're talking about making films (which obviously include sound) and still achieving roughly equivalent standards (therefore theatrical or at the very least just broadcast standards) to the films you listed, then "when properly processed" is where significant expense becomes unavoidable and where we are no longer in agreement.

G

Yeah, we're nearly shuckin'Njivin'.

"... only of roughly equivalent visual standards... " and roughly equivalent audio.
Good enough to listen to on your common household desk or laptop computer off of NetFlix, Hulu, Crackle, or YouTube.
None of that fancy pants theatrical 5.1 surround sound gobbledygook.
Left speaker + right speaker = good enuff for 98% of content consumers.


FILMMAKER'S CHECKLIST:

• Have a decent story.
• Have a decent story that is within your means to decently execute!
• Hold the [expletive] camera CORRECTLY if you insist on "hand held", which is often assisted by either:
  
  Easy Rig --->

  

  
  SteadiCam --->

  
• Know how to compose a shot.
• Know how to expose a shot.
• Collect some USABLE audio (not just some audio) --->
  
• Get some actors that can act, (stage and screen acting ain't the same, BTW.)
• Know how to edit.

Is that too much to ask for no matter the budget?

 

[AudioPostExpert]

"... only of roughly equivalent visual standards... " and roughly equivalent audio.
Good enough to listen to on your common household desk or laptop computer off of NetFlix, Hulu, Crackle, or YouTube.
None of that fancy pants theatrical 5.1 surround sound gobbledygook.
Left speaker + right speaker = good enuff for 98% of content consumers.

OK, I see where you're coming from. What you are suggesting though is NOT roughly equivalent audio, it's not even in the vague vicinity audio but pretty much opposite end of the spectrum audio! The other problem you have is your 98% of content consumers. Many consumers actually have half decent music or surround systems hooked up to their computers and TVs and some of them have good or even exceptionally good sound systems. For example, there's a lot of gamers out there with pretty high expectations of sound quality. I'm not sure what the percentage is of people with higher expectations than you're suggesting but I can pretty much guarantee that it's way more than 2%! To make matters worse, that albeit minority who do have half decent sound systems (or better) are also the most vocal when it comes to complaining about sound. There are more consumer complaints about the technical quality of sound than of all other technical complaints combined, so much so that laws have had to be introduced.

The point I'm trying to make is that the vast majority of lo/no/micro budget filmmakers seem to be visually oriented and when it comes to sound are incapable of judging what is "good enuff", let alone actually being more discerning than consumers (as they frequently are with the visual images). I can't complain though, as I said, I have friends whose livelihoods depend on this fact!

G

 

[rayw]

Fair enough.

And to take my own thread in a 180° turn + another 90° in a perpendicular angle, since there films I watch I'm quite confident in believing I'm nowhere near having the skill to produce anytime soon (such as THE AVENGERS, 21 JUMP STREET, and even CHRONICLE) I ask you what are some films in the last half decade you've seen and thought, from a sound perspective A. that shouldn't be so difficult to collect and process, and B. that'd be a bloody nightmare to collect & process?

 

[Fiveacre Films]

Look, I know how important sound is to film, and I can see where it might take a lot of money to produce the lavish layers of sound in a typical blockbuster production. But we're not talking blockbusters here. We're talking low budget indie films with very simple soundtracks.

I just have a hard time believing that, if given the parameters of these "industry standards", that I would have that difficult a time in meeting them with my own skill and equipment. Admittedly, I am new to feature filmmaking, as I am just now in production with my very first feature, and it is a learning process. But I have produced many radio and TV commercials and never had a problem or complaint with sound.

 

[rayw]

How about you, 5AF?

What are some recent (five years or less) feature films you watch and think "I should be able to do that"?


The Artist, I see you've been watching this thread throughout the day. You, too.

 

[Joshua Lloyd]

Do not forget "Buried"

 

[Fiveacre Films]

How about you, 5AF?

What are some recent (five years or less) feature films you watch and think "I should be able to do that"?

Recent films . . . that's a tough one, especially just from the past five years. I haven't watched that many recent films.

Machete
Hobo with a Shotgun
Crazy Heart
No Country For Old Men
Insidious
Hell Ride
Trailer Park of Terror
Dead Man's Bounty
The Spirit (Honestly, my current production is not much different from this, technology wise)

I guess my tastes run a little different.

 

[wheatgrinder]

"Safety Not Guaranteed" seems like something I could do!

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I ask you what are some films in the last half decade you've seen and thought, from a sound perspective A. that shouldn't be so difficult to collect and process, and B. that'd be a bloody nightmare to collect & process?

That's not simple to answer because that's two different questions and those two questions can be further broken down into other questions. I can make some generalities though, for example period films are always tricky because you can't use and have to eliminate any modern sounds and the sounds you can use maybe difficult to source. It's far easier to find someone with a Ford Focus to record than a working Model-T Ford for example. A film about racing cars or fighter pilots wouldn't necessarily be any more difficult to record and process than many other more ordinary sounds but would be far more expensive. Saving Private Ryan would be a bit of a nightmare because it's not only period but the sheer amount and variety of authentic period sound FX.

Look, I know how important sound is to film, and I can see where it might take a lot of money to produce the lavish layers of sound in a typical blockbuster production. But we're not talking blockbusters here. We're talking low budget indie films with very simple soundtracks.

It doesn't work like that! A big action blockbuster is difficult because of the huge amount of sound FX and sonic layers which need to be created and mixed. However, having so much sound going on means far greater opportunity to hide sonic weaknesses, say with the dialogue for example. Having a simple sound track means far more time and difficulty creating sonic interest, pace and drama and far more time processing the dialogue because it's so much more exposed. It's a bit like music, a piece of music which looks simple to play technically, maybe the most difficult to actually perform musically. An accomplished musician would appreciate the gravity of this statement, the same is true in the world of filmmaking!

I just have a hard time believing that, if given the parameters of these "industry standards", that I would have that difficult a time in meeting them with my own skill and equipment. ... I have produced many radio and TV commercials and never had a problem or complaint with sound.

Ah, if you've already done TV commercials recently then you already have quite a bit of equipment and skill. You already have the equipment to accurately measure Momentary LKFS and dBTP for example and the monitoring equipment/environment and skill to create a mix which complies with the prescribed values. If you don't have this equipment/skills and you have not received complaints then your sound mix must have been further processed after you delivered it. TV programs (movies or other content) and feature films have far more complex delivery specifications than regional TV commercials though. Do you know what dipped and undipped stems are? I'd be fairly confident in saying that you probably don't even know what stereo film sound is. If this is the case, how are you even going to know what audio format is required to distribute your film, let alone the technical specifications and quality requirements of the sound in that audio format? If you don't even know these basics, how on earth can you be so confident of meeting standards if you don't even know what those standards are? And, we haven't even mentioned the fact that what comes out of your laptop or cheap studio monitors bares about as much resemblance to what comes out of a cinema sound system as a bicycle does to a Ferrari!

High budget filmmakers spend $2m+ on sound not because they have $2m+ to waste but because that's what it costs to meet distributor and audience expectations. Low/micro budget filmmakers spend $80k+ on sound because that's usually the bargain basement cost of meeting absolute minimum theatrical audio standards for the types of films their budgets allow. If you think you can achieve the required standards for way less than the already bargain basement cost, go for it. You'll either discover a brand new audio post business model which will make you a very rich man or you'll have to spend far more fixing your film than it would have cost to do it right in the first place.

G

 

[rayw]

That's not simple to answer because that's two different questions and those two questions can be further broken down into other questions. I can make some generalities though...

I do believe that was as a sincere answer as you're prone to providing.

Let's try this from another approach.
What are a handful of 2011 & 2012 films you've watched & listened to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_in_film#2011_films
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_in_film#2012_films

Then would you please rank them from likely simple to complex audio processing, in your professional guesstimation, and for bonus briefly comment on what audio elements make them so?



5AF -

Machete
Hobo with a Shotgun
Crazy Heart
No Country For Old Men
Insidious
Hell Ride
Trailer Park of Terror
Dead Man's Bounty
The Spirit (Honestly, my current production is not much different from this, technology wise)​

Nice list.
No Country's already on my immediate hunt down list. I didn't recall there being anything too wacky crazy about it.
I'll also hunt down Hell Ride, Trailer Park, & Bounty.
A few more simple enough horror flicks to check out are Cabin Fever, Grace, & Teeth.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0303816/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220213/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780622/?ref_=sr_1



Wheat -
Safety Not Guaranteed is a fine example.
And a nice little story, to boot.



The Artist -
Where'd you bolt off to, man?

Salacious -
I see you, too. Whatchagot?

 

[8salacious9]

I should be able to shoot jay and silent bob..

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Let's try this from another approach.
What are a handful of 2011 & 2012 films you've watched & listened to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_in_film#2011_films
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_in_film#2012_films

Then would you please rank them from likely simple to complex audio processing, in your professional guesstimation, and for bonus briefly comment on what audio elements make them so?

I've actually seen quite a few films in the last couple of years. Last year I saw: Safe House, The Vow, Wrath of the Titans, Men in Black 3, The Avengers, Prometheus, Cloud Atlas, Skyfall, plus some others on BluRay. It's impossible to rank them though for their processing, as I don't know what processing was done. How much work the dialogue needed, how much ADR had to be recorded and processed. For sheer complexity of mix probably the Avengers would top the list but Wrath, Prometheus, Skyfall and maybe Cloud Atlas probably wouldn't have been far behind. Without having been there as supervising sound editor there's no way for me to know. We are not talking about a simple task, at least 3 of the films probably had 40-60 audio post pros working on them and audio post budgets of around $5m or so. The Vow was probably the simplest and cheapest, having a shorter duration is obviously easier, the audio post was probably done by an audio post team of 15 or so with an audio post budget of around $1m or maybe a bit lower. All this is pure educated guess work though!

G

 

[Fiveacre Films]

I'd like to add one more film to the "I could so shoot that" list: Catch .44

I just watched it and thought it was a fantastic ride. It's one of those films that really gets me jazzed and motivated to do something similar, because it looked so easy and cheap to shoot but was so damned fun to watch. Very small cast, few locations (and all cheap and easy). Hardly any expense at all - besides the cast and crew. Did a little reading about the production and it was shot on a RED.

 

[rayw]

Watched Into The Wild & No Country For Old Men, with Chernobyl Diaries as a kicker.
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?p=308342#post308342

Yep, transportation expenses to an astounding number of and extreme locations aside, the camerawork for Into The Wild looks definitely doable as well as the general actor, prop, and costume criteria, as well.

Largely the same for The Wild & No Country For Old Men, plus a few extra Benjis for blowing up & crashing cars & trucks and general destruction.
I didn't care for the story much, but that's waaaaaay off topic.

Chernobyl Diaries looks like a good exercise in running around with a DSLR on a steadicam in some abandoned location using friends as stock "fools who run about a bit screaming = horror."



Catch .44 and Insidious are on my next immediate hunt list.


Anyone else got some titles of technically simple films to shoot?

 

[punee]

Tiny Furniture(Winner at SXSW)

 

[Fiveacre Films]

Catch .44 and Insidious are on my next immediate hunt list.

A lot of critics derided CATCH .44 as a poor Tarantino rip-off, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and thought is was right on target.
INSIDIOUS came closer to being a truly scary film than anything I've seen since The Exorcist. It was creepy for sure.

 

[jax_rox]

Largely the same for The Wild & No Country For Old Men, plus a few extra Benjis for blowing up & crashing cars & trucks and general destruction.
I didn't care for the story much, but that's waaaaaay off topic.

Depends on what we're talking about here. Deakins' shot No Country and it looks great, albeit it looks 'natural'. I can tell you though that none of what you're seeing is natural light - unless you simply mean replacing the Director with yourself, in which case any film could potentially be simple as you've got a full, capable crew around you.

A lot of these films may look simple to shoot, but there's a lot more to it than just setting up camera. The lighting and grip trucks on No Country would've cost more than a few extra Benjis - and if that's simply par for the course, then what do you define as being simple to shoot?

I think movies like Beasts of the Southern Wild or Like Crazy are certainly doable for those on a very low budget as they are cheap(er) formats and shot mostly with available lighting (I think the most expensive piece of equipment on Beasts was the Easyrig). But when you start talking about films like No Country For Old Men, you're forgetting about the massive amounts of crew, equipment, and money that just goes into lighting all of the scenes, even forgetting about the fact that they shot on 35mm.