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
Man, I am so glad you said that. I just looked into ScreamFest and learned that you can't enter via WithoutaBox and the deadline is in 2 weeks! I would have missed it!
This is all good stuff. I will research which festivals are good and what not. Even though El Mariachi wasn't intended for Sundance and Toronto, it wouldn't have killed him to send it in will it? It seems that maybe it's best to send a movie to all the major festivals and not limit yourself. Some newcomers where I live, only sent it to a few here and there and didn't go for Sundance or Toronto.
There is no need to send a movie intended for specific distribution
to film festivals. No, it would not have killed him, but he knew his
market and made a film for that market. And that is an even better
plan today than 20 years ago. The market has changed in 20 years.
These days it's even more difficult to get distribution through festivals.
It happens - which is what drives filmmakers to spend a lot of money
on entry fees. Quick! Without looking it up, name the winner of
Sundance 2010. Quick! Without looking it up, name the winner of
Toronto 2009.
I'm not suggesting filmmakers do not enter festivals. But the audience
demand has changed drastically since 1992 and distributors have changed
with the audience demand. At some point it's a good idea to leave the
20 year old examples and look at what is being released in the last five years.
Check what has happened with the movies shown at the top 10 festivals
from 2005 to 2010. Then check what happened with the movies shown
at the festivals you want to enter.
to film festivals. No, it would not have killed him, but he knew his
market and made a film for that market. And that is an even better
plan today than 20 years ago. The market has changed in 20 years.
These days it's even more difficult to get distribution through festivals.
It happens - which is what drives filmmakers to spend a lot of money
on entry fees. Quick! Without looking it up, name the winner of
Sundance 2010. Quick! Without looking it up, name the winner of
Toronto 2009.
I'm not suggesting filmmakers do not enter festivals. But the audience
demand has changed drastically since 1992 and distributors have changed
with the audience demand. At some point it's a good idea to leave the
20 year old examples and look at what is being released in the last five years.
Check what has happened with the movies shown at the top 10 festivals
from 2005 to 2010. Then check what happened with the movies shown
at the festivals you want to enter.
I'd never even heard of Monsters until you started referring to it. IMDB lists it's budget at 800K (estimated) with what must have beeen a very limited theatrical run (only did about 250K box office).
Which film festivals are "good" is subjective like most things. A Horror film will do better, even for looking for distribution at a mid level horror film festival than at a big pop movie festival.
The big film festivals, like Sundance, Cannes, Toronto, SXSW, Tribeca, etc. are all incredibly hard to get into. In some cases, it's a "who you know" thing to get your movie screened by decision makers. In other cases, the preferences of the people watching submissions plays every bit into the choices as to who gets in and not.
The math is hard too. Big Festivals can cost $40-$75 to enter EACH, whether you get in or not. So 20 film festival entries can cost over $1,000 which is more than the entire shoot and post production budget of 95% of short films being submitted.
"the preferences of the people watching submissions plays every bit into the choices as to who gets in and not.'
True at EVERY level of festival I think. At the "good" ones your film will be screened by at least 3 or 4 people in the initial weeding out process which gives you a better chance at not getting shot down just because one person hated it, but still a factor.
I frequently joked about how if I had only made that beautiful coming of age story about the native american lesbian iraq war vet I would have had a lot more festival success. The upper tiers of the festival circuit are every bit as formula as hollywood. It's just a dffferent (very arty farty and socially conscious, retch!) formula.
True at EVERY level of festival I think. At the "good" ones your film will be screened by at least 3 or 4 people in the initial weeding out process which gives you a better chance at not getting shot down just because one person hated it, but still a factor.
I frequently joked about how if I had only made that beautiful coming of age story about the native american lesbian iraq war vet I would have had a lot more festival success. The upper tiers of the festival circuit are every bit as formula as hollywood. It's just a dffferent (very arty farty and socially conscious, retch!) formula.
IMDB = Rarely Accurate
Google around and there's plenty of info, but the movie did not cost Gareth Edwards 800K. It was about 17.5K US, just himself, the two actors, sound guy went to shoot in Mexico on an EX3 and a 35mm Adapter with one lens.
The guy finish the thing himself at home and it got distro'd through Magnet/Magnolia. Domestic it had a 250K box office, overseas it had 2M+
Add in the Blu Ray, On Demand, etc and it could've easily pulled down 3M worldwide.
For something that cost 17.5 for him, which also got him into the lead seat for the new GODZILLA remake, and Magnolia maybe 800K (no telling what the real number is) to punch-up, purchase and package, that's a big take away.
After seeing the trailer and reading about Gareth just over a year ago, that's what made me put down my gear lust and get a move on with our feature. Greatest inspiration I've ever come across.
Last edited:
164 screens in UK - 25 in USA
Total worldwide gross - $1, 632,266
The Signal
106 screens
Total gross - $251,000
Tiny Furniture
21 screens
Total gross - $383,500
Shot on the 7D for you DSLR fans.
Definitely not box office successes... but
The Signal
Got Dan and Dave 1.5M to start their next feature, but sounds like it's been in development forever. Both seems to have gone off and started working elsewhere. Haven't kept up with them in a while.
Tiny Furniture
SXSW prize 2010
Lena Dunham's second feature, 24K budget. After selling to IFC Judd Apatow picked up on her and got her into her first big gig, a television series that he and she are developing together. More down the road for her.
Monsters
Gareth Edward's extensive VFX background and overall know how put to use @ 17.5K US plus a lot of sweat and vfx hours moved him to GODZILLA, a mainstream flow. As long as he can handle the massive budget he should be able to continue what he's doing.
In addition, he'll make whatever money off of the Sequel to Monsters, I'd wager, which isn't being helmed by himself.
Different kinds of success stories, not so much for the distros but great for the filmmakers.
Exactly why so many people like us make movies. There
are plenty of success stories.
Each of the three movies we're talking about were in one
of the top festivals. Which in a way proves my argument
to be wrong. Clearly getting into one of the top ten can be
a big boost.
are plenty of success stories.
Each of the three movies we're talking about were in one
of the top festivals. Which in a way proves my argument
to be wrong. Clearly getting into one of the top ten can be
a big boost.
Yeah, I agree. There are lots of different types of successes. I wouldn't wait it out on a Box Office success, it feels like it's more important to get to the next thing.
And... good point about the festivals, because I'm not interested in fests either but you're definitely right that all three hit top fests. ARG!
Playing the festival "game" has made me hate it with a passion, BUT as a first step for the shorts I am using to learn how to make films it is what it is. I made my first film at 43. Until that point I had never even edited together footage of my kid's soccer game. However, it turns out I had internalized a LOT about film.
I think we all want to make a film SO good it can't be ignored. I know I do. How many of us succeed, we'll see, but good luck to us all.
I think we all want to make a film SO good it can't be ignored. I know I do. How many of us succeed, we'll see, but good luck to us all.
Even then, for cost vs. return, they WERE box office successes. Just not break out big money hits, but then again, they did not have the multimillion dollar ad campaign of a major movie studio either.
As I said before, "success" is entirely subjective.
I agree with you o nthat. 800K in, 2M out... that's plenty of dollars. They do NOT have to be multimills, and success is also marked by being able to do something without having to do more on the side.
So we see eye to eye for the most part! Just that luck stuff... it gets me. LoL
I'll be the only one to say that, at the moment, that's not what I want to do! Haha.
I want to make something that sells and shows my style and can help with the next. Good's too subjective a goal to shoot for! xD lol
So is being lucky. >
"I want to make something that sells and shows my style and can help with the next"
Where do you propose to get the money to make this film?
Where do you propose to get the money to make this film?
My push has been building the credibility it would take to have a prayer of putting togther "micro budget" financing for a feature (70K to 100K range). I don't have any interest in trying to make a feature with a smaller budget than that. The budgets on my shorts have actually gone down. They have gotten shorter (35 minutes, 25 minutes, and pre-pro on a 12 - 15 minute right now), AND as I have develped street cred in the local filmmaking community and built connections that are allowing me get things for free I had to pay for on prior films. It's a process for sure.
Monsters was an impressive achievement, no question, but that budget figure is an urban myth. The man himself talks about it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvFAdgi7SoA