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
I think the answers to these questions would be very particular to each filmmaker; I can only answer for myself. My first feature was funded by whatever I could scratch together, and I'm not even in the middle-class tax-bracket. That would mean that I'd be doing almost everything that is even slightly technical, myself. There are a few things that I'm really good at. There are some things I'm really horrible at. So, not wanting to wait a decade to get myself up to speed on EVERYTHING, I decided to make my first feature knowing full-well that it would have an overrall low production-value.
I saw no reason to not hope for the best (national distribution), and do what I could to plan for it, but that was never the primary goal. The MAIN goal was always to use this film to show the few things that I AM good at, and hopefully I can use it to secure funding for the next feature.
Me, personally, I'm not interested in repeating this experience (though production was a lot of fun). The next feature will have a "real" budget, and a professional crew, or else it will not happen. And for that feature, national distribution is absolutely the #1 goal.
All that said, I think I understand the point you're hinting at. Tiny little self-funded features, like mine, are weird. This is not normal. Most indie features have "real" budgets, do they not? And in that case, I can't imagine making a movie, with any significant budget, without distribution being a VERY important issue, from start to finish.
I'm saying that Oldboy is not a low budget movie.
Canada's not that far off from the US, you're still looking at names in some capacity.
THeatrical is Notable distribution. Although you can self distribute, which isn't terribly expensive if you go digital distribution.
But, despite all of that, take it with a grain of salt because the truth of the batter is that I have no idea what sort of firepower you have, and you could very well do something that someone wants to back like that.
So yeah, just do what you feel's right.
Yeah, after reading this a few times I actually agree. Budget's a marketing tool as far as I'm concerned, but the actual number's kind of irrelevant. One person's budget doesn't look like another persons, so it's a bit moot.
What RR did for his budget, I actually can't imagine many other people doing that even now. Like, how many people could organize the stunts etc without possibly killing someone or actually paying the money to do it proper?
If anything, our budget's just going to be a way to get noticed and nothing more than that.
So good point.
Okay. This is all good input, thanks. So why is Oldboy, not low budget? I mean the movie did not require a lot of big budget effects or anything. Was it cause of the names? Aside from distribution costs, could you make a movie like Oldboy, for only say $30,000? Aside from a few of the sets it seems like you could get away with pretty cheap microbudget with digital technology.
So just because Canada is closer to the U.S., they would be expecting more...
So just because Canada is closer to the U.S., they would be expecting more...
Last edited:
El Mariachi hardly had any stunts though. Aside from the scene where the guy swings in front of the bus, were their any more, at least that would cost money?
I think this is well said, and kind of answers what I would have to Directorik's wonderingsI think if you're just starting out, learning the ropes and/or it's about making what you want, and the financials aren't a concern, I agree with your thought.
Now I also agree it' makes sense if you have a experience, and/or your mindset is "I want to get distributed, I want to make films that make money"-well, if you've got a plan to go with that (but then I would also ask does that affect the film you are making? Do you make decisions based on "what the audience wants to see" vs "I've got a vision I want to show".
I'd love to know (and Directorik and others can chime in with their expertise), when a movie is being made for big distribution into theatres with big budgets, does the "what will the audience think" enter into the equation? And if so how much? Or is it more "We've got X millions of dollar budget to make a film, and this is how we're making it"?
So many paths here.
I don't know if my first experience is enough to really respond but I'll do so, just because it's interesting. The short of it's that I didn't bother worrying about what audiences would like or dislike, it was still what we wanted and what we did not.
There were things that popped up later that had to do with cursing in the feature, and I began to reign it in, mostly in hopes to get a PG-13 rating if at all possible. That wasn't an audience-driven choice, though, it was literally for the sale. PG-13 is easier to sell than R. Then I heard that you really can't control that, anyway. The MPAA has its own way of working... sweet.
It also affected what we chose to do first. With several ideas (that have actual scripts), the choice came down to a semi-heavy VFX feature film that we could pull off for 30K. Although the other scripts had better stories, this one sounded like the easiest sale, so that's what we went with.
In addition, it also meant that we had to shoot with the best that we could get for our budget, and have to move as fast as possible. This meant we couldn't skimp and shoot with DSRLs for the majority of the picture, and had to go better. Although I did grab a DSLR for some pick up shots.
So, yeah, it does change the way you work, down to shooting certain scenes with more money than others. Never really worried about what the audience gathered from it, though.
Some TV shows and low budget movies are shot on DSLRs though. They seem pretty good, as long as you have 24fps, and 1080p, unless I'm wrong.
What results did you need exactly that a DSLR could not get?
So would Americans really judge not seeing a Canadian movie just because it has no named actors in? I mean why would America look at a Korean movie and think it's okay, but not Canadian? Plus do Americans really pay that much attention to what country a foreign film is from to the point where they ponder whether or not it's an exemption to the rule of having named people?
So would Americans really judge not seeing a Canadian movie just because it has no named actors in? I mean why would America look at a Korean movie and think it's okay, but not Canadian? Plus do Americans really pay that much attention to what country a foreign film is from to the point where they ponder whether or not it's an exemption to the rule of having named people?
Last edited:
You're misunderstanding how distribution works, me thinks. Either that or you're still thinking that just making a good movie with no names, no broad hook, etc is a sure-fire ticket to theatrical distribution. It has little to do with you connecting to an audience directly and more to do with you having a product that a distributor can put into theaters for a profit.
Oldboy is not a huge domestic success, and I know very few people outside of my tiny circle that have actually seen it. Heck, I hadn't seen it up until maybe three or four years ago. And, I've only watched it once.
Did Oldboy even get a significant theatrical release in the US???
As far as DSLRs go, they're too much of a headache to work with and don't turn out the quality that we wanted for this feature. Again, that's as far as we go, not everyone else's story. For VFX heavy feature film, we wanted no headaches or anything that'd come to haunt us later... so we shot with superior equipment.
Mileage varies for everyone else.
It's not Americans judging, it's distributors. There are hundreds of good micro-budget films made each year, but nobody sees them because they don't get into theaters. The only way you'll get distribution is if A) a distributor actually sees your film, B) they like it, and C) they think it's marketable. The reason name actors are so important is that it can make your film much more marketable, because that name already has an audience. Due to that, distributors are much more likely to take the time to actually watch your film to see if they think they can make money on it.
There are political/social references and government organizations in the story, that would let the audience know it is definitely not in the US.
Do you think that folks in the US will understand the references? I can tell you that, while I'm a bit of a political junkie and I follow both national and world news, the most I can tell you about Canada and Canadian government is that you guys have free health care and there was something about your last election that was unexpected.
So, if I, as a person in the US, watch your movie, am I going to be able to understand what's going on? Does the plot turn on those Canadian references? If so, maybe you shouldn't be worrying about getting distro in the US, and just try and keep it local.
I still wrote it in a way that it is understood. Like for example instead of the term district attorney, you have crown prosecutor, but from the story the audience should be able to tell that he is a prosecutor. Instead of FBI there is RCMP, but the audience will be able to tell that it's a federal police organization. So even though there is enough references to tell it's foreign, it should still be understandable.
The video quality wasn't bad, and the audio was fine. Saying that the Image Quality of your film is what makes your movie good or not is a load of crap. It just means you're hiding behind technology when really your filmmaking is the problem.
Just because you made a movie for less money, shot it on HD, you had a huge crew, rented steadicam's, filmed on a RED, that doesn't mean that your movie is going to be GOOD. Those are just tools to help you tell a story, it doesn't make your story.
El Mariachi was a GOOD movie. I don't understand why it's so confusing to people that it became as popular as it did.
Just because you made a movie for less money, shot it on HD, you had a huge crew, rented steadicam's, filmed on a RED, that doesn't mean that your movie is going to be GOOD. Those are just tools to help you tell a story, it doesn't make your story.
El Mariachi was a GOOD movie. I don't understand why it's so confusing to people that it became as popular as it did.
Well it just seems El Mariachi has kind of a small story really, and aside from the good ending, not the kind of story that sticks in your head as much. I do like it, it is good, but not 'groundbreaking' as a lot of people seem to think. But I guess it is for the budget of the time.
It's because there are a lot of GOOD movies that do not
become as popular or even get a theatrical release. So
The question, "Why that film?" is a reasonable one.
The ground "El Maraichi" broke was it was the first Spanish
language film shot specifically for the Mexican video market
to be picked up by a major distributor and released in theaters
in the US. It was not groundbreaking in terms of story or quality,
it was groundbreaking in its budget and theatrical release.
Last edited:
Okay so it was groundbreaking because most movies back then that were that microbudget did not get a theatrical release. So how come Paranormal Activity was rejected from Sundance twice, as one user said?