If most films were made that cheap with that bad of picture and even worse, sound quality, and using ADR even, it would be rejected by most film festivals. However El Mariachi went big, and boosted off Robert Rodriguez's career? How is that his film was the exemption to the rules? Did the producers just have really good international connections to get it shown in theatrical releases all over the world or what?
How did El Mariachi get so big with such poor quality?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
LOL Or the consequences for the distro company not doing so meant that someone else grabbed their movie.
And, noones saying that even if they DID grab the movie before someone else he wouldn't still be on the same path.
Again, though, it's all good if someone wants to rely on luck! We all have our beliefs.
Nobody has ever said you have to "rely" on luck. We are just saying if you don't have a little bit of it you can work your ass off, have a good product, do ALL the right things, and still fail.
Are you and I reading the same thread? I get that we are reading
from different perspectives, but sometimes I get the impression
you aren't even reading the posts here.
It might be better for YOU to enter Sundance and Toronto because
you might have the right film at the right time. It might be better
to try a different approach. It might be better for you to make your
movie with a specific distributor in mind.
The discussion I'm reading is everyone saying over and over and over
that there is no "better" way. That each film made is going to have to
forge its own path. That what other films have done in the past have
no bearing at all on what will happen to YOUR movie.
Each one of us - even you harmonica - has to make the best film we can
and get it noticed in the best way we can. Dismissing one path because
it seems harder or following another because it seems easier seems crazy
to me. Doing what other filmmakers where you live have done seems crazy
to me.
Anyone here know of a very easy market to get a film noticed?
It makes sense doesn't it? How many filmmakers submit their movies to Sundance and Toronto with huge name actors and actresses in it with over million dollar budgets? Why would they even consider your film if it's a pure indie film without much financial backing?
If you're making an indie film, go a different route, find other film festivals that cater to your movie. If you're making a horror film, why submit to Sundance or Toronto? There's literally HUNDREDS of horror film festivals that would love to have your film screened at. Send it there and get some views for your film and if it's good enough, the word will spread on how great your movie actually is.
You don't need to be accepted into Sundance in order to become recognized, like Paranormal Activity and The Human Centipede. You just need to make a GOOD movie.
Show me an example of an incredible, marketable feature film that failed because noone saw it? Especially in this day and age when you can get it to just about anyone with an email address?
I can't name many, because I don't know of many incredible films.
And,a s far as nano budget goes, I don't know of many even half decent feature films.
That's the boundary that seems to go unnoticed: who's actually making half-decent micro budget feature films by broad standards????
If being lucky is uncommon, then a worthwhile feature film is even less.
So, if you don't even get the main portion right, then how do you expect to get any further?
Last edited:
Pretty much.
I don't. I know there are easy markets to sell too with the right product, and that doesn't mean that it's a good product either. In fact, it's mostly BAD product, but it still makes money.
Getting noticed? Different story. I could say that you have to be ambitious etc, but Tiny Furniture doesn't look like an ambitious feature film. In fact, just thinking about TF kills a lot of my own optimism, because that success story doesn't make sense to me at all.
So, like you said, each one has its own way. There's really no formula.
I have no evidence to support or refute the contention implied by this question. Seems like you'd be crazy not to believe it though. But, the hard part isn't creating the marketing engine or raising the money, what's hard is creating the great idea which becomes a great script that produces a great movie. If any of us can do that, I have a feeling we'll suddenly start getting really "Lucky".
This is exactly what I'm doing with my film as we speak (type). Fingers crossed for luck...yes, LUCK.
Maybe it's a piece of crap. I don't think so and I certainly hope not, but if so I guess Kholi's point will be proven.And, this is where the ART of the deal matters. I know many filmmakers like to think they can research, analyze, and market their film to a specific niche, and to a certain extent, they can. But, what really sets a work apart is its' art; the personal aesthetic, finely tuned, honed and crafted. That's the truly hard part.
Of course “incredible, marketable” is going to be subjective. And
it’s going to have to come from my point of view. You may be able
to simply dismiss these films as not being incredible or marketable
because you don’t like them.
“Triangle” by Christopher Smith was both (in my opinion) but failed.
I thought Wil Radcliffe’s “Macabre” was very marketable and much
better than “The Human Centipede” when I saw it at Screamfest in
2009.
“Splinter” was a terrific movie similar to Cronnenberg’s “They
Came From Within”. Maybe not “incredible” but excellent acting and
fine script that I would have thought audiences would have loved.
“Sympathy” by Andrew Moorman is (again in my opinion) an
incredible movie. One location, three characters, it’s scary,
confusing, filled with twists and complex characters. A fine,
ultra low budget film that I was sure would get some sort of
theatrical release.
And these are only movies I saw at ScreamFest.
Triangle was a great little feature film. Nice atmosphere, moody, and a great location! I liked it. And, of course we could muse on why it didn't become a huge hit, but it's all retrospect. Timing? No large names in a horror movie? Who knows.
But, I also don't think it failed really. It's still seen and on Netflix, etc. It may not be a giant success, but I don't think it's a failure.
My theory on that is that if you toil and sweat and open a vein and let it pour on to the page, and repeat repeat repeat, you might start getting real "Lucky" about the getting that good script.
There's a famous saying about luck...unfortunately I can't remember it.
There is always a problem inherent with this kind of discussion.
When you used, “incredible”, “marketable” and “failed because no
one saw it.” you have specific parameters in mind. If I veer out
of those guidelines then I do not meet your criteria.
“Triangle” was a medium budget film ($12 million according to
Variety) did not come close to making its money back and did not
get a theatrical release in the US. No argument - if a DVD release
is what you mean then that’s fine. What ever parameters you set
are fine with me.
But I think you see my point, am I right? There are some fine
examples of movies that “failed” because no one saw them. Even in
this day and age when you can get it to just about anyone with an
e-mail address. Maybe you won’t think they are “incredible”, but
that’s subjective. I would have to list several hundred films I have
seen in festivals in order to find one or two that fully meet your
specific criteria.
But it’s a safe bet to assume there have been some films in the last
five years that were incredible, marketable and failed because no
one saw them - including you and me.
I went looking for Triangle's budget, because I thought you meant it was 100K and below.
Was specifically more-so talking about 100K productions and below. heck, even 500K and below.
But I think we agree on everything, and we're sort of disagreeing at the same time. It all boils down to our own definitions of what's a failure and success.
Indeed, Triangle being budgeted at 12M and not making it's money back? Failure finanicially.
If Triangle, however, had been done for 100K, I wonder what the status would be then you know?
That's why I'm talking about micro/nano budget productions, not so much those with millions to spend. And, you sort of aid my point in that there just aren't many micro or nano budget feature films worth looking at. Triangle was pretty awesome to me, and I had wondered why I never saw it.
That movie cost 12M and was pretty barebones. So imagine if 12M gets you that, then expecting there to be a ton of 100K feature films that even come close to Triangle is a bit far fetched.
That's the point I was making.
I think the most important thing I got from reading RR's book about "El Mariachi", is that he made a 7,000.00 movie for Spanish video market and wanted to double that(15,000.00 or there about) and make another better movie for the same market. The vhs market is long gone, DVD's almost gone, downloads almost impossible to get paid etc...
So I ask myself, If I make a movie for 5,000.00 in today's and the future market can I make 10,000.00 so I can make another one.
RR was and is in the filmmaking "business". He knew his market and he had a plan. Those were his "right decisions" and everything else came from that.
How will we as filmmakers make money over the next five to ten years. Where will our market be?
So I ask myself, If I make a movie for 5,000.00 in today's and the future market can I make 10,000.00 so I can make another one.
RR was and is in the filmmaking "business". He knew his market and he had a plan. Those were his "right decisions" and everything else came from that.
How will we as filmmakers make money over the next five to ten years. Where will our market be?
I gave you four examples.
My point, too. A movie that does not make its money back or
open the door to another nother opportunity another movie
with a larger budget can (in some minds) be considered a failure.
A movie that does not make its money back or get the filmmaker
another opportunity but is available on Netflix might be considered
by some a success. A movie that does not make its money back or
end up on Netflix but creates another opportunity for the filmmaker
to make a bigger budget movie can be considered by some a success.
Which is why a discussion like this is fraught with problems. You have
very specific criteria in mind.
The last example happened to me. A success for me personally, but
the movie itself (although an award winner) failed and the producers
lost money.
I'd say they're all success in some way or another. You're right. Breaking Even and On to the Next one is success to me, and that's all we're aiming for over here.
Ah, sorry. I thought Triangle cost 12Million not 100,000. I'm getting confused somewhere, my bad.
I checked Sympathy trailer out... just from production value alone I can see why it didn't get theatrical distribution. Even if it's a good little low budget movie at heart, it's still kind of a business... and, I have no idea who I could sell that too after putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into it.
So, yeah, right back to what you said: one person may think something is good and worth the big theatrical release, another may not.
My barometer or expectations are just way too high.