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
TRIANGLE is a good little movie. Hardly obscure as I've seen it in multiple stores. It got "out there." I rented it from Blockbuster.
Going back to the original topic, "luck" played part of a role, but I must reiterate that Robert Rodriguez put himself in a position to be noticed.
During the 80's, the VHS boom allowed almost anyone with a finished movie to get their movie released. Mark Pirro made A POLISH VAMPIRE IN BURBANK, on Super 8mm film, for $2,500 and grossed over half a million on home video. Successes like his started a whole Super 8 market:
After seeing the huge release that the Super 8 film, GAME OF SURVIVAL, got....
....I jumped in with my Super 8 feature, THE BLACK CRYSTAL, shot in 1989. I even got picked up by the same company that handled GAME OF SURVIVAL and Mark Pirro's CURSE OF THE QUEERWOLF.
The same year, J.R. Bookwalter started his prolific Super 8 career with THE DEAD NEXT DOOR:
Going back to the original topic, "luck" played part of a role, but I must reiterate that Robert Rodriguez put himself in a position to be noticed.
During the 80's, the VHS boom allowed almost anyone with a finished movie to get their movie released. Mark Pirro made A POLISH VAMPIRE IN BURBANK, on Super 8mm film, for $2,500 and grossed over half a million on home video. Successes like his started a whole Super 8 market:
After seeing the huge release that the Super 8 film, GAME OF SURVIVAL, got....
....I jumped in with my Super 8 feature, THE BLACK CRYSTAL, shot in 1989. I even got picked up by the same company that handled GAME OF SURVIVAL and Mark Pirro's CURSE OF THE QUEERWOLF.
The same year, J.R. Bookwalter started his prolific Super 8 career with THE DEAD NEXT DOOR:
Last edited:
THE BLACK CRYSTAL and the press it generated got me acquainted with many other filmmakers, including a couple of producers from New Star (which put out Disney's FLIGHT OF THE NAVIGATOR). They invited me up to Colorado to work on DEAD RIGHT, a $90,000 Super 8 feature.
I was approached by Paul Clinko, with his $110,000 ++ video feature, DEATH MAGIC:
I also scored a Super 8 feature and video feature for Sunstone Films:
There was a frenzy of Super 8 filming and pioneer videomaking going on. As you see, these budgets were pretty large for no name indie work.
Rodriguez comes out a couple of years later, with EL MARIACHI and pissed us all off.
We were pissed, because he said he did it on a superior format - 16mm and for less money - 7K. As bad as one person may say it looked like, it was superior to most of what was out there. This is why I say that "luck" is only a part of it. Sure, any of us could have used another 200K of finishing funds from Columbia, but he put himself in that position with what he had...and of course the agent connection.
I was approached by Paul Clinko, with his $110,000 ++ video feature, DEATH MAGIC:
I also scored a Super 8 feature and video feature for Sunstone Films:
There was a frenzy of Super 8 filming and pioneer videomaking going on. As you see, these budgets were pretty large for no name indie work.
Rodriguez comes out a couple of years later, with EL MARIACHI and pissed us all off.
We were pissed, because he said he did it on a superior format - 16mm and for less money - 7K. As bad as one person may say it looked like, it was superior to most of what was out there. This is why I say that "luck" is only a part of it. Sure, any of us could have used another 200K of finishing funds from Columbia, but he put himself in that position with what he had...and of course the agent connection.
Last edited:
Yes, BED HEAD did quite well for him. I forgot to mention that Peter Jackson finished BAD TASTE around that time, using a 16mm Bolex. Rodriguez also got popular, after Gulf War 1 bankrupted a lot of the industry. He had good timing.
The heyday of DVD was the last moneymaker for indies. My friend, Garo, works at Lionsgate and he misses the days where they would take chances on indie B movies, like TRANS-AMERICAN KILLER or my own WAR OF THE PLANETS.
Blu-ray has not lived up to the expectations of the next big format. It really is going to be about word of mouth, like it has been for MONSTERS and PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. There will always be indie successes, but the movies need to have something special going for them - an amazing story, visuals, timeliness or a catchy gimmick. It will be harder for truly bad films to sneak in.
Some of the people I know, like Christian Viel (RECON 2020 series) have turned to web series (HEROES OF THE NORTH), with online advertising. Michael Bartlett did pretty good with ZOMBIE DIARIES, which got distributed all over the place. He has his foot in the door, hence some projects on the horizon, including TIMELESS, ZOMBIE DIARIES 2 and something else.
I don't know if it's going to be any single format, as much as multiple formats. A filmmaker can push on places like AMAZON and NOMOSA, but their success has to do with their own footwork and promoting. On the other hand, a distributor can push you all over the planet!
My agent, Darlene Cypser, is hitting downloads pretty heavy. Three of my features, THE AWAKENING, EXILE and WAR OF THE PLANETS will be available for Android and Iphone in the next week or so. I don't know what that will translate into dollars to me. It's different than getting a foreign sale of a set amount.
Originally, Comcast VOD was supposed to unveil an indie film channel, where I would get 79 cents a download (and 20 cents for my agent), but they didn't do it, yet.
It's been a rough couple of years, so my goal is to keep budgets low and improve my stories and perceived production value. I've betrayed my budgets with crappy FX and set pieces. Now, it's coming down to Story, shadows and Video-copilot.
The heyday of DVD was the last moneymaker for indies. My friend, Garo, works at Lionsgate and he misses the days where they would take chances on indie B movies, like TRANS-AMERICAN KILLER or my own WAR OF THE PLANETS.
Blu-ray has not lived up to the expectations of the next big format. It really is going to be about word of mouth, like it has been for MONSTERS and PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. There will always be indie successes, but the movies need to have something special going for them - an amazing story, visuals, timeliness or a catchy gimmick. It will be harder for truly bad films to sneak in.
Some of the people I know, like Christian Viel (RECON 2020 series) have turned to web series (HEROES OF THE NORTH), with online advertising. Michael Bartlett did pretty good with ZOMBIE DIARIES, which got distributed all over the place. He has his foot in the door, hence some projects on the horizon, including TIMELESS, ZOMBIE DIARIES 2 and something else.
I don't know if it's going to be any single format, as much as multiple formats. A filmmaker can push on places like AMAZON and NOMOSA, but their success has to do with their own footwork and promoting. On the other hand, a distributor can push you all over the planet!
My agent, Darlene Cypser, is hitting downloads pretty heavy. Three of my features, THE AWAKENING, EXILE and WAR OF THE PLANETS will be available for Android and Iphone in the next week or so. I don't know what that will translate into dollars to me. It's different than getting a foreign sale of a set amount.
Originally, Comcast VOD was supposed to unveil an indie film channel, where I would get 79 cents a download (and 20 cents for my agent), but they didn't do it, yet.
It's been a rough couple of years, so my goal is to keep budgets low and improve my stories and perceived production value. I've betrayed my budgets with crappy FX and set pieces. Now, it's coming down to Story, shadows and Video-copilot.
Last edited:
Scoopicman, awesome posts and images! Man, that must've been a crazy period to make features.
It also speaks to the technology deal, where this guy with 16mm comes out of the gate. Better tools, etc.
I also think you're pretty much right about where it's headed in the future, especially about what a product may need to have to get noticed.
Really dig it.
It also speaks to the technology deal, where this guy with 16mm comes out of the gate. Better tools, etc.
I also think you're pretty much right about where it's headed in the future, especially about what a product may need to have to get noticed.
Really dig it.
Thanks, Kholi! I wanted to give that perspective of it because it is still pretty fresh in my mind. As you see, I used to save a lot of filmmaking articles, so it's fun to pull the stuff out once in a while. 
Oh no, I agree it does seem crazy to set your efforts low, I was asking cause it seems some newbies are doing it, by only sending into small festivals only.
Well I feel it's probably best to send to both the big and small festivals, especially since directorik and perhaps some others may think big is the way to go. So how did Human Centipede do at Sundance? I actually thought it was very very bad, but that's just my opinion.
Okay so after reading the rest of the posts it does seem that the reason why good movies don't get noticed is just not enough people are seeing them. So the real question could be, what are good ways to get your movie more noticed, perhaps outside the film festivals route?
Last edited:
No. I don't think that either of those movies played at Sundance. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY opened at Slam Dance.
Don't get discouraged. It can still be done. I remember as a child, reading with my dad "Los Hooligans" in Austin, Texas. And I clearly remember the buzz he had created with that film when my dad and I saw him on a local cable access channel (wow those were the days) "premiering" that film in Austin for the viewers.
Don't be afraid to self-promote and create buzz, Robert Rodriguez was not.
Claudia
Don't be afraid to self-promote and create buzz, Robert Rodriguez was not.
Claudia
And to put some festival stuff in perspective I believe this past year Slamdance got over 5000 submissions for about 125 slots (shorts and features). My film The Island was rejected (Slamdance was one of my "reach" festivals). So there's your competition. For every 40 films someone thought were good enough to have a shot at getting into Slamdance 1 was selected. My own film, no masterpiece, but a solid short with good production values and decent acting, didn't even get past the first round of selection. That's just Slamdance. Take that ratio to about 1 in 100 or 1 in 150 for Sundance or SXSW.
Are those newbies succeeding with that method? If they are
not, why would YOU consider it?
I don't know if they are. I just found out where some newbies sent theirs these past few months. Whether or not they are succeeding I don't know. Will have to wait to see what results came in if I talk to them again.
Any particular reasons why a lot of films fail? Is there something specific some of the filmmakers are doing to get rejected, or is it just for any reason really, and not the same mistakes are being repeated?
This, once again, comes down in large part to personal
taste. And available slots in a festival.
If you were to sit down and watch 1000 films and know
you have 25 slots in your festival, that means you have
to reject 975 of them. Let's say that right off, half of them
are technically bad - so now you have 500 good movies
and 25 slots. You narrow that down to 50 that you really
like - I mean you really like all 50 and have to reject 25
of them.
How do you answer that question to those 25 filmmakers:
"Is there something specific that I did that got me rejected?"
What do you say to the 30 filmmakers who made technically
proficient films that you just didn't like as much as the final
50?
Do you tell them they made mistakes? Remember you really
love all 50 and another 30 were technically excellent but you
didn't love them. What do you tell the filmmakers?
But this question is easy; "Any particular reasons why a lot of
films fail?" Most films are terrible. The filmmakers don't think so
but they just are.
As Rik says, half or more get thrown aside after the first viewing. They are just terrible (technical flaws, horrible acting, etc...). Lots of people, especially new filmmakers, can be deluded into thinking thay have made Citizen Kane. Then (at well run festivals) they go through a process where every movie is watched and rated by 3 to 5 people. They take some number (let's say 4 out of 5) and throw out every movie with a rating below that. Then the movies that remain are watched and rated again. This culling continues until they get down to the number they are going to program sometimes with hard fought commitee battles over the final couple of slots.
After the initial culls where they throw out movies with serious defects it largley comes down to the taste of the people watching and rating the films.
After the initial culls where they throw out movies with serious defects it largley comes down to the taste of the people watching and rating the films.
Do know that nepotism does run deep in festival circuits. If you really want to get into a real festival, start volunteering to work for them and meet people who run them. That's also a large part of the puzzle that people don't realize.
Indeed, though, someone's friend will program their short before another's better short. Ask someone candidly who's played festivals and/or runs them.
The second part is pretty obvious: the material isn't good. For one reason or another, I personally think that it boils down to taste or technical execution, the short's just not something that fest programmers want to put out in front of an audience. There's this rose-tinted notion that there are really that many good shorts being submitted to festivals, or even features, and that just is not the case. The ratio of bad to good is depressing, again, talk to some festival runners candidly and see what they say.
Filmmakers often think they've made something good or decent, whether the back patting from peers, family, or friends is the cause or not the reality is that it's not good, and most of the time barely half-decent. Festivals want to run good material for the most part, so with the slots they have open they'll run the best out of the huge amount of entries (unless they've programmed a friends piece in)
Best thing any filmmaker can do is put their short up somewhere and ask people to tell them what's wrong with it. Separate yourself from the material as best you can, then allow the same critic that bashes the snot out of Hollywood Movies today loose on your own work.
I never consider anything I do to be good, just barely under half-decent. I'm that detatched from it, so that when I do something that's actually decent it'll be that to a mass audience, not just my friends etc.
Your relationship to your film is like the stages of grief.
1. You think it will be the best film ever made (pre-production)
2. You hope to god this nightmarish descent into hell ends with a complete film (production)
3. Oh my god how can we salvage something out of this mess (early post)
4. If I have to watch this hideous thing one more time I may blow my brains out. (late post).
5. I hope nobody throws stuff at the screen (early screenings)
6. God I'm sick of watching this movie (later screenings)
7. You know, it's actually not too bad (after about a year has passed).
At least that's how it's worked for me.
1. You think it will be the best film ever made (pre-production)
2. You hope to god this nightmarish descent into hell ends with a complete film (production)
3. Oh my god how can we salvage something out of this mess (early post)
4. If I have to watch this hideous thing one more time I may blow my brains out. (late post).
5. I hope nobody throws stuff at the screen (early screenings)
6. God I'm sick of watching this movie (later screenings)
7. You know, it's actually not too bad (after about a year has passed).
At least that's how it's worked for me.
That's pretty accurate, Gonzo, in my experience. Except there's another stage for me:
8. The experience couldn't possibly have been as painful as I remember it being. Maybe I'll go ahead and do it again.
8. The experience couldn't possibly have been as painful as I remember it being. Maybe I'll go ahead and do it again.