FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Aindreas Gallagher
FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 21, 2014 at 10:52:17 pm

some total idiots were posting on the topic.

https://vimeo.com/83441833

six editors under a nameless studio lot water tower running FCPX 10.0.9 - they were transitioned to mavericks recently apparently.

realistically, if that's not Moses level validation of the software, its hard to think where the bar is supposed to be.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Brian Mulligan
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 21, 2014 at 11:39:12 pm

Good. I guess we can close the forum now.

I don't think anyone doubts that FCPX can edit... certainly after 10 revisions. It has a lot of good features and some not so good ones like every other NLE on the planet.

Some people will like the way it works.. others will not. I wish we could just stop treating NLE's like Coke vs Pepsi, Apple vs Windows, Chevy vs Ford.

Yes, to some degree it's personal... and I get why FCPX users are insecure. But time to move on and grow up already.

Brian Mulligan
Senior Editor - Autodesk Smoke
WTHR-TV Indianapolis,IN, USA
Twitter: @bkmeditor


Return to posts index

Paul Figgiani
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 21, 2014 at 11:47:02 pm

[Brian Mulligan] " Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
by Brian Mulligan on Jan 21, 2014 at 6:39:12 pm

Good. I guess we can close the forum now.

I don't think anyone doubts that FCPX can edit... certainly after 10 revisions. It has a lot of good features and some not so good ones like every other NLE on the planet.

Some people will like the way it works.. others will not. I wish we could just stop treating NLE's like Coke vs Pepsi, Apple vs Windows, Chevy vs Ford.

Yes, to some degree it's personal... and I get why FCPX users are insecure. But time to move on and grow up already."


I agree.

Aindreas, you must be exhausted ...

-paul.


Return to posts index


Brian Mulligan
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 21, 2014 at 11:55:44 pm

That being said. This is the biggest issue with FCPX and the "PRO" community and why it will always get flack.

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/344/27226

The barrier of entry is non-existent and you end up with post like the above. The craft of editing and video production is much more than the ability to download an app.

Brian Mulligan
Senior Editor - Autodesk Smoke
WTHR-TV Indianapolis,IN, USA
Twitter: @bkmeditor


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 12:13:54 am

As I've always said, and it should be a warning on the side of the box (if there were a box): "Talent not included."

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 12:30:52 am

[Brian Mulligan] "The barrier of entry is non-existent and you end up with post like the above. The craft of editing and video production is much more than the ability to download an app."

True. So who cares if a "total noob" can grab the app and post a question here... the more the merrier. :-)

Setting aside the great NLE debates... The same thing that happened to the music industry is happening to large chunks of the film biz now. We can rail against it and fight it, or go with the flow, stay at the top of the heap and continue to make a living. The keys to the castle are freely available now. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 12:59:38 am

[Charlie Austin] "The same thing that happened to the music industry is happening to large chunks of the film biz now. "

is that right? that feels incorrect. the knock on effects removing scarcity feel different in recorded video narrative to song. it feels like a ton of new players are making new money expanding narrative edited drama.

It doesn't feel like the same thing can be said about people singing.

you could argue the removal of scarcity is highlighting different scales of appetite there.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 1:49:19 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jan 22, 2014 at 1:53:02 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "it feels like a ton of new players are making new money expanding narrative edited drama.

It doesn't feel like the same thing can be said about people singing."


I agree with you there. not so much talking about distribution/amount of product... I was kind of referring to the fact that, 20 odd years ago, to make a decent sounding recording you had to either spend a pile of money on fairly complicated gear and learn to use it, or hire an engineer and rent expensive studio time.

Not any more. You can make a really great sounding recording in your bedroom... you don't even need musicians. Only a few of the multitude of studios, some very well known, remain. The condo building I work in was built on the lot where Cherokee Recording Studios used to sit. Gone with all the others. Google it. :-(

And now, for less than the price of a single Digibeta deck back in the day, you can make a pretty good looking movie in your living room.

In both cases though, crap is crap. You can't buy talent. But the days of needing to be a highly trained, and highly paid, expert just to get a product out there is, IMO, on it's way out. Except at the top of the pyramid.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 2:05:45 am

[Charlie Austin] "But the days of needing to be a highly trained, and highly paid, expert just to get a product out there is, IMO, on it's way out."

you are a near ridiculous nihilist charlie. the things you have decided, are apparently the end of all things.

it seems over-emotive.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 2:47:25 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jan 22, 2014 at 3:04:31 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "you are a near ridiculous nihilist charlie. the things you have decided, are apparently the end of all things.

it seems over-emotive."


LOL... maybe. I just like to plan for the worst, and hope for the best. Keeps me from being disappointed... :-)

EDIT: I have a lot of friends in the music biz, talented, award winning folks. It's really hard for a lot of them to make a living these days. Not impossible, but home studios/software have certainly taken the air out of the business...

I realize that multi-million dollar movies are a different beast but seriously... most of us editor types aren't involved in making them. We sell them, but you can be damn sure that if iMovie trailer templates get good enough many of us will be selling pencils. lol

But... somebody has to make the templates right? Top of the food chain baby! :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 2:53:38 am
Last Edited By Gary Huff on Jan 22, 2014 at 2:54:04 am

[Charlie Austin] "And now, for less than the price of a single Digibeta deck back in the day, you can make a pretty good looking movie in your living room."

No you can't. Because these people spend all their money on the camera, and nothing on lights, sound, art direction, ect., and what you end up with is two losers spouting pothead philosophy (that you can barely hear) on their ratty couch in front of a bare white wall.

And people aren't buying these movies. They are still buying the Pacific Rims, Hobbits, and 80s action films.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 2:57:40 am

[Gary Huff] "No you can't. Because these people spend all their money on the camera, and nothing on lights, sound, art direction, ect., and what you end up with is two losers spouting pothead philosophy (that you can barely hear) on their ratty couch in front of a bare white wall."

LOL... yep, as noted in what i wrote after the bit you quoted:
[Charlie Austin] "In both cases though, crap is crap. You can't buy talent."

A talented person can do it now. That wasn't the case without a ton of financial backing in the not too distant past...

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 1:32:34 pm

[Charlie Austin] "That wasn't the case without a ton of financial backing in the not too distant past..."

But more often than not, you still need financial backing. The high cost of entry to narrative filmmaking isn't necessarily the gear...it's paying the people to help subsist the areas of talent that you lack.

Not everyone can fill every position adequately, and without paying people you run a high risk of losing crew to the point where your project is never finished.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 3:07:19 am

[Gary Huff] "And people aren't buying these movies. They are still buying the Pacific Rims, Hobbits, and 80s action films."

I've been thinking about getting into producing 80s action films. This validates my thinking.

Now I just need to source a DeLorean. And 1.21 jiggabytes of storage.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 9:05:36 am

Clerks?


Return to posts index


tony west
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 1:57:32 pm

Blair Witch Project?


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 2:49:53 pm

Good one.

Pi?


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 3:59:21 pm

Nice Tom, I gonna blame you, if I do't get any work done today thinking of more :-)


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:45:31 pm

[Tom Sefton] "Pi?"

Final budget (adjusted for inflation): $85,000. Also: not shot in living room.


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 11:46:06 pm

Mariachi


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:44:15 pm

[tony west] "Blair Witch Project?"

Not a good movie. And do you really want the career that the filmmakers on that film got?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:58:00 pm

[Gary Huff] "Not a good movie. And do you really want the career that the filmmakers on that film got?"

See my comment below. FWIW that movie grossed well over $160M worldwide. The actual filming partners walked away with a fraction of that. Yet, AFAIK, that may have been a fair amount in the clear. I won't state a specific amount (although I know it) but comparable to what most working stiffs will earn in several years (or even a lifetime). That means if they banked it, they had some personal pad to not be immediately hurting for money. That's far, far better than any other indie filmmaker I know or have worked with.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:00:45 pm
Last Edited By Gary Huff on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:05:30 pm

[Oliver Peters] "). That means if they banked it, they had some personal pad to not be immediately hurting for money."

I'm not saying they didn't get anything, just that it's probably not as much as people might think (definitely, like you said, if they were smart to keep them comfortable for a while).

But outside of that, it didn't lead to any continuing career from what I can tell. They are still unknowns and haven't made anything since 2009. Not the career path I would want for myself (except for the money).

Much unlike, say, Reservoir Dogs.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:08:28 pm

[Gary Huff] "Not the career path I would want for myself "

Yes, I'm sure everybody would like to keep it going but one huge hit is not a failure

heck man, if it is......what does that make NO big hits?

People don't know their name, but if they walked in a room and said "I directed Blair Witch" folks would know that film


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:20:03 pm
Last Edited By Gary Huff on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:24:40 pm

[tony west] "People don't know their name, but if they walked in a room and said "I directed Blair Witch" folks would know that film"

And that could be why it's all been Straight-to-Video films. The kind that people complain about being the only things on Netflix Instant Watch.

Look, I'm not bashing them at all, and I hope I don't give that impression. But the problem is that Blair Witch has been used as an example countless times as to why it's an okay risk to put up a mortgage on your house and get into significant credit card debt. That's not their fault, but it has to be pointed out that it's not a slam dunk.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:43:29 pm
Last Edited By tony west on Jan 22, 2014 at 8:54:20 pm

I'm not saying it's the way all or many films should be done. I'm pointing out there used to be only one way in and that was with big money.

I'm all for big money, but I'm also for opportunity.

Changing technology and creativity with it is makes opportunity for many.

Great films are still gonna get made.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:43:43 pm
Last Edited By Gary Huff on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:47:04 pm

[Tom Sefton] "Clerks?"

Not really a good looking movie. Final cost after post, adjusted for inflation: $350,000.

And what is the point of this exercise? That every single film that people shoot on the cheap is going to be a Clerks, Blair Witch (eww), or Pi? No, those are the exceptions. The rule is, they are crap.

And you aren't spending twenty bucks on them either.


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:15:55 pm

If you read down and dirty pictures you find that the adjusted production price is what Miramax swelled up by using their own editors. Kevin Smith made the film in its entirety for around $25,000.

Pi was made from borrowed money from friends and family and at the time cost around $20,000.

Huge achievements in film-making, and produced for next to nothing. Only to say that it can be done, and the exceptions to the rule is the talent that makes them. You are right, for the most part films shot on a threadbare budget by an unknown cast and crew are usually crummy. These aren't.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:27:51 am

[Brian Mulligan] "That being said. This is the biggest issue with FCPX and the "PRO" community and why it will always get flack.

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/344/27226

The barrier of entry is non-existent and you end up with post like the above. The craft of editing and video production is much more than the ability to download an app."




I respect your opinions, but come on, really? This isn't the craft of editing and video production, it's to help his wife create better YouTube videos. This has nothing to do with FCPX, he started on Camtasia and Windows:

"She loves to film beauty-related Youtube videos. The part she hates is editing them bc it takes her so long (3-4 hrs)."

I highly doubt your job is in jeopardy here. Good for him for wanting to do a better job.


Return to posts index

Brian Mulligan
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 7:55:30 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I respect your opinions, but come on, really? This isn't the craft of editing and video production, it's to help his wife create better YouTube videos. This has nothing to do with FCPX, he started on Camtasia and Windows:"

It has everything to do with FCPX and Apple as a whole. Everyone is lumped in to the same pot. FCPX can help this guy make his wife's YouTube videos better... and it can cut a 100 million dollar Hollywood feature. That's quite a range... but most things will fall within the mean.

Brian Mulligan
Senior Editor - Autodesk Smoke
WTHR-TV Indianapolis,IN, USA
Twitter: @bkmeditor


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 2:30:14 pm

[Brian Mulligan] "FCPX can help this guy make his wife's YouTube videos better... and it can cut a 100 million dollar Hollywood feature."

Exactly Brian.


This is what I believed made X a brilliant move by Apple.

When I saw it, I said "somebody cracked the code"

Before, it was user friendly but not very powerful or very powerful and not as user friendly.

Not the case with this product. Add on the affordable cost from a company with money to burn and you got a game changer on your hands.

I never believed Apple didn't want back into Hollywood because very few don't want into Hollywood.
Why should they be any different.

They want to stand there at some Oscar party and brag, "yeah, we were part of that"
they just took an out of the box approach to try to get there.

I'm with Jeremy, good luck to that guy helping his wife. Not gonna stop films like
12 Years A Slave from being made.

I don't think the two will ever meet.................at least, not on Oscar night.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:08:18 pm

[Brian Mulligan] "It has everything to do with FCPX and Apple as a whole. Everyone is lumped in to the same pot. FCPX can help this guy make his wife's YouTube videos better... and it can cut a 100 million dollar Hollywood feature. That's quite a range... but most things will fall within the mean.
"


And this is a problem because...?

Don't you use Macs?

The post started with a $100 million dollar movie that is being cut (or was being cut) on iMacs.

So what?

To be a professional and use FCPX, you are going to spend a lot more than the $300 price on the tin.

It's not about the money and these days it's not about the gear.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:48:17 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "
It's not about the money and these days"


That's because there isn't any. Not that it's a good thing.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 6:52:50 pm

[Gary Huff] "[Jeremy Garchow] "
It's not about the money and these days"

That's because there isn't any. Not that it's a good thing."


There never has been a real money spigot except for a select few.

There's a lot more outlets to get you to places that will make money these days, the problem is that there's a lot less chance of that outlet being viewed by someone that will take you places.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 8:44:03 pm

By the way, Lightworks, you know,



, is free.

Relevant quote from this article: "SCHOONMAKER: Anyone can edit now, right? It’s wild."

Or if you need more, it's $60 a year. If you need much more, it can get much more expensive.

Pr is $20/mo.

We can sit here and blame FCPX. Or Not.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 12:04:13 am
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Jan 22, 2014 at 12:27:54 am

[Brian Mulligan] "I wish we could just stop treating NLE's like Coke vs Pepsi, Apple vs Windows, Chevy vs Ford. "

yes, that would surely be ideal.

*edit* - I mean I guess? seriously? exactly how likely is that? Everyone seems pretty bloodthirsty by nature to this point.
Avid editors are the worst anyway. there is a general understanding on that one.
its not coke vs pepsi - its football teams.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 12:54:54 am

well, Aindreas Gallagher is one of my heros on Creative Cow, but
Neil Smith is in fact a pretty smart guy, and has done some very early tests that were important to me on Thunderbolt 2 networks.
He (like many of us) is just trying to make a living, and promoting what he is able to train people with. I don't really care about the "top secret project" - as if that qualifies FCP-X (did Cold Mountain qualify FCP 6?) - but don't pass Neil Smith off as some moron, because he is not.

Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
maxavid@cfl.rr.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 1:03:17 am

[Bob Zelin] "I don't really care about the "top secret project" - as if that qualifies FCP-X (did Cold Mountain qualify FCP 6?)"

Me either really but... I think what Cold Mountain did was validate FCP in the squinty eyes of the "hollywood" community. Same thing is happening this time, with the added bonus of a very different timeline. FCP Classic was a pretty easy jump from MC. Setting all that aside... Plenty of people like FCP X, and use it for personal stuff. For "real" work... I believe the main reason "nobody" in L.A., (or NY or London) uses FCP X is... because "nobody uses it". Pretzel Logic at it's finest. :-)

Hopefully it's a good movie.. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 1:11:13 am

good god no - the whole post was meant as me as a moron. I only posted it to hit myself with a kipper.

I'm completely, and as stated, a moron here, for all the hundred million dollar stuff I posted. I'm posting dude Neil Smith to prove the point.

cheap seats egg face.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 6:42:14 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jan 22, 2014 at 7:01:20 pm

Aindreas you nailed your colours to the mast somewhat prematurely.

Everybody has access to word processing software and a lot of it is free.

So Apple have a vision for the future that probably means movie making is accessible for all of us.

But just because we all have keyboards and word processing software that does not mean we can all write best sellers.

A typewriter in my hands or the hands of William Shakespeare?

Did they have those debates back then about what kind of nibs they used on their pens?

That's the paradigm. That's where we are.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 6:59:44 pm

[James Ewart] "But just because we all have keyboards and word processing software that does not mean we can write best sellers."

Exactly, yet there are still plenty of "novelists" out there not selling their Kindle versions.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 11:37:29 pm

[James Ewart] "Aindreas you nailed your colours to the mast somewhat prematurely."

I'm averse to mast nailing you know. If I see a mast, the last thing I'll try and do is nail things to it. masts have a hard enough time as it is.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 2:44:40 am

Is that guy getting paid by the hour?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 3:42:40 am

Props to you Aindreas.

You argued long and hard against X's capabilities and potential for adoption.

But given reasonable evidence, you've admitted your thinking was flawed.

Which puts you leagues ahead of nearly every politician, news channel bloviator and corporate shill who have been proven just as wrong but remain unshakably convinced that nobody ever goes back and looks at the overtly wrong things they said and holds them accountable.

Gold stars for holding yourself to a higher standard.

It's funny, but now that Google is archiving everything - it's kinda interesting that so many more politicians are getting hoist on their propensity to speak from both sides of their mouths on so many things.

Here's hoping that the fact that what we say yesterday will hang around to dog our futures will mean that speaking judiciously will gain stature.

And yes I know that I've stained myself with the same "opine first, think later" brush right here in the past. I know it's been a damn tough lesson for ME to learn in my public arguments!

But good on you for stepping up and pointing it out.

Well done.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 2:44:38 pm

mmm. lets not go overboard, I still think as a piece of software its a rank little hobgoblin that I wish had died in the cot, but well, its here to stay now apparently.

Mostly I made such a song and dance about the hundred million dollar movie thing I felt a serious urge to put my hand up.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:32:26 am

Thanks or posting Andreas, don't know how this flew under the radar for a month.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 6:55:33 am
Last Edited By Chris Harlan on Jan 22, 2014 at 7:11:48 am

FYI--the studio is probably Warner Bros. and the movie is probably Focus. I don't have any inside knowledge, but that's what the clues point to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(2014_film)


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 8:41:44 am

[Chris Harlan] "FYI--the studio is probably Warner Bros. and the movie is probably Focus. I don't have any inside knowledge, but that's what the clues point to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(2014_film)"


Well done Mr Holmes

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 3:21:40 pm

I have to take exception with the "movie in your living room for under $50K" (cost of a DB) idea. It simply is more a wish than a reality. All of the films I've worked on as an editor, online editor and colorist all fit into the low budget indie category. Over the years, the cost of producing these has come down, but it's not because it has become cheaper to make them. It's because it's harder to find adequate financing.

What used to be produced for $500K-$1M in the 90s have become projects that today are in the $150K to $200K range. In both cases, none of these budgets would even have been possible without considerable incentives, in-kind services, deferrals, freebees, favors and outright begging. When you do a real budget for a standard, dialogue-driven indie (figure a 20-30 day shoot), non-union everything, you will be hard-pressed to come in under $800K and that's with a lot of industry-standard discounts (like 3-day week rentals). This includes prod, post, sets, cast, music, etc.

The true talent is on the part of the producer who can pull off a larger look for $150K total, but that same producer can never go back to the same folks and ask for the same deal on the next project. Movies almost never make money, so deferrals almost never get paid. It's either a labor of love or you have to recognize that you've become a de facto investor in someone else's project.

The usual examples that are held up are Rodriguez's first film and "The Blair Witch Project". Neither one of those efforts would have ever seen the light of day if the studios hadn't paid for a significant amount of additional post after the project was picked up. The odds of that happening to the average small filmmaker are like winning the lottery and getting struck by lightning at the same time.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Santiago Martí
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 3:46:11 pm

I think i heard Argentina (My country) in his speech, but couldn't figure out in what context.

I really don't know the guy, but he is really selling everything as the next revolution in the world, but please, those Seiki monitors are crap, 30hz refresh rate at UHD is useless, for a bit more, buy a Dell 24" Ultrasharp.

He sounds really exagerated, like speaking to elder people in a retirment home, he describes the MacPro as a nuclear reactor!!!! Editing on a laptop!!! I really don't know what he is doing there, but he sounds like a used cars seller.

Santiago Martí
http://www.robotrojo.com.ar
Red One M-X, Red Epic X waiting for Dragon update, Red Pro Primes, Adobe CC, Assimilate Scratch


Return to posts index

shawn Bockoven
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 3:47:50 pm

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

Joss Whedon funded the project himself (at just over $200,000) and enjoyed the independence of acting as his own studio. "Freedom is glorious," he comments. "And the fact is, I've had very good relationships with studios, and I've worked with a lot of smart executives. But there is a difference when you can just go ahead and do something." As a web show, there were fewer constraints imposed on the project, and Whedon had the "freedom to just let the dictates of the story say how long it's gonna be. We didn't have to cram everything in—there is a lot in there—but we put in the amount of story that we wanted to and let the time work around that. We aimed for thirty minutes, we came out at forty two, and that's not a problem."Some of the music was influenced by Stephen Sondheim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Horrible's_Sing-Along_Blog


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:55:59 pm

[shawn Bockoven] "Joss Whedon funded the project himself (at just over $200,000) and enjoyed the independence of acting as his own studio."

He's also Joss Whedon and is thus a named entity that people knew already from several successful properties.

How do you translate that into an example to follow? "First, create three television franchises that are cult hits."

Yeah, right.


Return to posts index

shawn Bockoven
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:00:10 pm

No translation … Josh took a chance with his own money and my family has been entertained many times signing along with the DVD playing in our SUV. The Whedon's are a very talented family.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:02:32 pm
Last Edited By Gary Huff on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:02:50 pm

[shawn Bockoven] " Josh took a chance with his own money"

How much of a chance did "Joss" take? There's a difference between barely scraping up enough for a $200,00 project with the possibility of losing your house, and risking $200,000 that losing it means you at least get a nice tax write-off.

His example should not be held up to inspire someone to max out 4-5 (or more) credit cards because it's worth it to be successful. It's irresponsible.


Return to posts index

shawn Bockoven
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 6:36:05 pm

This entire forum is bitter and jaded. I have avoided posting here because anything starts a war.

How will we entertain the cable cutters? My 24-year-old enjoys FreddieW's work more than most things produced by the networks or studios.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 6:57:30 pm

[shawn Bockoven] " My 24-year-old enjoys FreddieW's work more than most things produced by the networks or studios."

What movies does he own on DVD/Blu-ray?


Return to posts index

shawn Bockoven
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 7:20:04 pm

Now I am probably being setup for something here …

I have a home theater with a 110' screen and only own 2 Blu-ray discs that were given to me as gifts. Both of my oldest own no physical media with the exception of Pacific Rim. He fell in love with the movie and wanted the extras on the physical media. Most of my younger staff don't have cable or terrestrial television in their homes.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 7:26:57 pm

[shawn Bockoven] " Both of my oldest own no physical media with the exception of Pacific Rim. He fell in love with the movie and wanted the extras on the physical media."

Okay, so Pacific Rim, an old-media megabudget production, inspired enough love from him that they were able to monetize his enjoyment of the film.

Did he at least contribute to some of the lower tiers of the Kickstarter campaigns for FreddieW's attempt to monetize his Call of Duty and Mario FX videos into something more along the lines of original content?


Return to posts index

shawn Bockoven
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 7:56:09 pm

Had to call him to find out. He is finishing his Masters in multimedia and a starving student, however his answer was yes. He supports FreddieW and Adam Warrock.


Return to posts index

shawn Bockoven
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 7:22:05 pm

We put this together for about $60,000. There are four parts.





Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:34:14 pm

[shawn Bockoven] "Joss Whedon funded the project himself (at just over $200,000) and enjoyed the independence of acting as his own studio."

Whedon has said that the actors, department heads, producers, etc., didn't get paid. The were all friends of Joss and willing to do the project for fun/as a favor.

Joe Average trying something similar would probably have a budget 3-4x since there wouldn't be a 'friends and family' discount to get people like Neil Patrick Harris and Nathan Fillion. And of course no one would watch it because there are already a million no/lo budget things on the Internet and you don't have the built-in fan base of Joss Whedon. ;)

Kinda reminds me of when NIN and Radiohead both released albums for free/pay what you want a few years ago and people applauded like it was some sort of accomplishment for millionaire global music stars to be able to pay their own production costs. Of course neither outfit did it again and Reznor (not sure about Radiohead) is back with a major label.

Not to sound jaded or anything, but it's tiring to see people that already made millions via 'old media' being held up as examples of how awesome 'new media' can be. If 'step one' to new media success is being independently wealthy then we need to go back to the drawing board.




Return to posts index

Marcus Hardy
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 10:48:08 pm

I've posted about this before somewhere on here, but being an up-in-comer, it really irks me that people deny the possibilities of making feature films for little to no money. Making references to films over a decade old can hardly be considered "New Media" the world has changed so much since then.

While the following may not be "successful" they aren't "stoner comedies" either. All were made for LESS than 10 thousand.

"For Lovers Only" (Think about 5000) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1648201/

"Cold Lights" (3000)





The second film is one that I wrote and edited and could not be prouder of.

We live in an era where people can own a 4K camera for 4K, all the sound equipment they can rent for cheap or borrow, and as I'm sure was the case with my film and probably the other one, you can get actors to work for free, for the fun of it.

With our film we didn't make it for the pay cheque, for us it was proving to ourselves and some of our more conservative colleagues, that anything is possible nowadays.

End rant haha


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 11:54:46 pm

[Marcus Hardy] "I've posted about this before somewhere on here, but being an up-in-comer, it really irks me that people deny the possibilities of making feature films for little to no money. Making references to films over a decade old can hardly be considered "New Media" the world has changed so much since then."

To borrow a phrase from my computer friends, "Linux is only free if your time isn't worth anything."

Of course you can make a film for no cash as long as you get everyone to volunteer their time and their gear (and 99/100 the end product looks like what it cost). That's always been a possibility it just seems like these days there are more people willing to work for nothing than in the past (probably a byproduct of the significant drop in the price of gear which traditionally acted as a barrier of entry).




Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 11:56:45 pm

[Gary Huff] "But outside of that, it didn't lead to any continuing career from what I can tell. They are still unknowns and haven't made anything since 2009. Not the career path I would want for myself (except for the money)."

Yes, of course. It's always a gamble. A film I edited well over a decade ago was co-produced and directed by an experienced DGA UPM/1stAD as his debut directing gig. The year before starting pre-prod/prod/post he earned about $119K in salary. The year of making the film, he earned $9K. The film has had countless exposure at festivals, cable TV (including HBO) and other distribution over the years. It has a well-known, but older cast. I doubt the film has yet returned a profit.

[Clint Wardlow] "You can make a full-length indie film for between $2,000 and $6,000. "

I would call that a hobby ;-) The only way you can make a film in that budget is if everything is virtually free. I'm not saying it won't be entertaining. It absolutely can. That just doesn't put it into the same context as what most folks would recognize as a mainstream film. Plus, if there is actual distribution, there are add-ons that folks often don't bother to factor in, like errors & omissions insurance and proper music licensing.

[Marcus Hardy] " it really irks me that people deny the possibilities of making feature films for little to no money. Making references to films over a decade old can hardly be considered "New Media" the world has changed so much since then."

No one is denying the possibilities. It's just that these products are entirely different entities from most filmmaking. When it comes to cost, I'm trying to make a clear distinction between out-of-pocket because you didn't factor the cost of your own services or you got material, talent, space, etc. for free. It's just that if you look at most stories realistically with real money at face value, then the costs are larger than all the low-budget hype suggests.

I see it both ways. I write as a sideline. Both for pay and free (my blog). My uncle when he was alive was a very prolific book author in Germany on topics of history, politics, social satire, etc. But the large bulk of his efforts really just boiled down to vanity publishing. Not something he ever made real money at. I do not mean to be insulting when I compare these films to vanity publishing, but it's really just another version in the modern world. Don't get me wrong. It's great if you have a voice and a passion to do it. But that's different from what others do who make a living at this.

[Marcus Hardy] "you can get actors to work for free,"

Isn't that exactly what we've been talking about?

[Marcus Hardy] "We live in an era where people can own a 4K camera for 4K"

Technology is largely irrelevant. The same options were there when you only had 8mm film. One of the lower-budgeted films I've worked on as a colorist was shot with a Canon 5D in one studio and a couple of sets. Only two actors. Very limited scenarios. The story and the acting worked. I have no idea about cost, but I know that editing, music/mix and grading was out-of-pocket for the filmmaker, yet I can't imagine this whole film was super expensive. Yet, it's played well in international film festivals, thanks to the actors.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:09:13 am

For those that haven't seen "Seduced and Abandoned" (the documentary), it's worth a watch.







Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:13:15 am

[Jeremy Garchow] ""Seduced and Abandoned" (the documentary),"

Looks good. Coppola has a winery to pay for the filmmaking addiction.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:59:05 am

Thanks for the link Jeremy. Reminds me of a stat I just read that collectively $3 billion dollars was spent on all the films submitted to Sundance this year alone and approximately only 2% of that $3 billion will be recouped.

I don't think the people that say just take your film budget to Vegas 'cause you'll have better odds are too far from the truth.




Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 1:14:09 am

[Andrew Kimery] "I don't think the people that say just take your film budget to Vegas 'cause you'll have better odds are too far from the truth."

True, but many investors are very happy to be involved and don't always care about a return. For example, a friend financed a small film of his with a circle of friends who were doctors and lawyers and all more well-off then he was. As one friend said to him, "I could either take another cruise for a vacation this year - or I could hang out on the set for a couple of weeks and call myself a movie producer." He had no illusions that there might not be a profit, but he was OK with it. That similar situation gets repeated thousands of times with thousands of films.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 10:27:23 am

[Oliver Peters] "True, but many investors are very happy to be involved and don't always care about a return. For example, a friend financed a small film of his with a circle of friends who were doctors and lawyers and all more well-off then he was."

Right, and there's also crowd funding, grants, etc., where the money is just straight up given as opposed to invested.

I just always find the numbers around Sundance staggering because even though the odds of any sort of success related to Sundance keeps going down (harder to get in than in the past, fewer buyers than in the past, buyers that are there are offering worse deals than in the past, etc.,) the number of submissions keeps going up. And just attaching hard numbers to it (collectively $3 billion spent by filmmakers w/an estimated $60 million return) is the ridiculous cherry on top of the insanity sundae.




Return to posts index

Marcus Hardy
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:23:59 am

I'm not arguing the concepts bigger budget filmmaking. IMO new media is about what's possible rather than whats profitable.

I'm trying to illustrate that more than ever before, creatives have access to high quality equipment, (cameras, audio, post, etc) that makes it easier for talented (yet financially starved) filmmakers to make their films.

Yes its always been 'possible' to make indie films for little to no money, my point is now it is far more affordable, and accessible.

Most independent filmmakers I know, Calgary Alberta has a lot of us, work union jobs to earn a living, and then throw that money into making their films. Not purely for hobbyist means, but as a hope that it will exceed the expectations of a film made for X amount of dollars. And lead to bigger and greater things. I can attribute to this. Our little film is now leading the way for a film with 50,000 + budget. That's the mindset of us Calgary filmmakers, keep upping the ante.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:31:54 am

[Marcus Hardy] "IMO new media is about what's possible rather than whats profitable. "

IOW, "new media" makes no money? If so, you are largely correct for most folks.

[Marcus Hardy] "And lead to bigger and greater things. I can attribute to this. Our little film is now leading the way for a film with 50,000 + budget."

Wait a minute! Now the budget jumped to over $50K? We had been talking about $2-6K. Still laudable that the film was made for that, but as you said, much of the labor was free. So it's really not access to cheap technology, but rather cheap labor that facilitates that. I'm just busting your chops a bit, so don't get ticked off, but that is short of what it boils down to, right? In the end, it's a team effort, of course.

[Marcus Hardy] "Not purely for hobbyist means, but as a hope that it will exceed the expectations of a film made for X amount of dollars. And lead to bigger and greater things."

And that's fine. It's your calling card. Advertising more or less. That's fine.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Marcus Hardy
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:43:22 am

What I meant by possibility over profitability isn't that new media doesn't earn money, but more that in order to make a profit, you have to innovate, show whats possible. "If we can do this with 3000, imagine what we can do with 3 million!"

Our 3000 dollar film got us noticed by investors and investors are now financially backing us for our next feature film. That's the 50,000 dollar one.

For creatives who want to make feature films, calling cards are a means to an end. Will it necessarily earn us money, not directly. Its not cheap labour, but more a bunch of creatives coming together to tell a story, pure filmmaking. We didn't manipulate anyone into working for free, they came because they wanted to be apart of something. So team effort, absolutely.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:46:07 am

[Marcus Hardy] "We didn't manipulate anyone into working for free, they came because they wanted to be apart of something. "

I did not mean to imply that. A friend of mine refers to filmmaking as "team art".

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Marcus Hardy
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:48:11 am

I know you weren't meaning anything by it. No harm no foul.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:54:37 am

[Marcus Hardy] "IMO new media is about what's possible rather than whats profitable. "

To me that's more art house than new media. I've worked on various new media projects (including 5 years at a pretty big website creating original web content) and profitable always factors into it when you are trying to make a living and/or run a business.


[Marcus Hardy] "Our little film is now leading the way for a film with 50,000 + budget."

My advice is never advertise what your actual budget was, tell people the 'real world budget' (what it would cost without favors, discounts and freebies). If someone likes what you did and you say "Thanks, doesn't it look great for only $50,000?" then they might ask you to do a project of similar scope for the same budget. D'oh. This happened to a buddy of mine years ago and since then whenever he talks about budgets he does it in real world numbers because he wants to get paid what he's worth (and what his cast and crew are worth).




Return to posts index

Marcus Hardy
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 1:04:25 am

Thanks Andrew,

Good advice. I'll keep that in mind. Actually experienced this early on in my career, so I'm quite aware


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:24:15 pm

Great post, Oliver - that totally nails the trials and tribulations of the indie scene.

Especially the "deferrals never get paid" part ;-)

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:13:49 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Especially the "deferrals never get paid" part ;-)"

My policy is to get paid, even if I need to take a big discount on the job. Bird in the hand…

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:50:30 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The odds of that happening to the average small filmmaker are like winning the lottery and getting struck by lightning at the same time"

True, I guess I did go into hyperbolic overdrive. :-) I'm just consistently astounded by the quality of stuff (on the web etc, not "hollywood" releases) I see and hear that *was* done for virtually nothing on someones home rig. FCP, Pr, even MC, and all the gear/SW to make something is much more accessible than in the past. But yeah, people/locations/licensing etc add to the cost. To make something "real" you'll blow past 50k in a heartbeat...

[Oliver Peters] "so deferrals almost never get paid."

lol. when I was doing freelance production work I would run away as fast as I could when I heard that word...

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:04:06 pm

[Charlie Austin] "lol. when I was doing freelance production work I would run away as fast as I could when I heard that word..."

My standard response to that is, "so you mean work for free?" People get all upset when I say that, but I have yet to meet anyone who ever got any of this mythical deferral money.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 4:53:50 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The usual examples that are held up are Rodriguez's first film and "The Blair Witch Project". Neither one of those efforts would have ever seen the light of day if the studios hadn't paid for a significant amount of additional post after the project was picked up."

And let's tackle these two examples, because, like you, I am annoyed when people spout these off like it means something.

First, El Mariachi. Rodriguez recognized a niche market that wasn't being served, and he was rewarded handsomely for it. Now? That niche market (like pretty much every other conventional narrative film market) is oversaturated, so you're going to get pennies. It was a case of being in the right place at the right time. The difference between investing in Apple right before the first iPod and investing in Apple when its stock was over $700.

Second, The Blair Witch Project. A movie that wasn't very good, and relied solely on the "gimmick" of believing that it was real. Easily found in the DVD bargain bin not so long after it was released. Who made the Blair Witch Project? No one can tell you off the top of their head. And how much did they make from this movie? Depends on the deal, but these being first time filmmakers, I wouldn't be surprised if it's lower than you might think.

You might as well put that money in the lottery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:12:36 pm

[Gary Huff] "Who made the Blair Witch Project? No one can tell you off the top of their head. And how much did they make from this movie? Depends on the deal, but these being first time filmmakers, "

Maybe good, maybe not. Without "The Blair Witch Project" would there have been "28 Days Later" or "Cloverfield"?

I actually do know some of them and have a general idea what they walked away with (see comment above). Some of them continue to make indie films, but also commercials and web marketing. FWIW - they invented the concept of virtual marketing over the web and other media outlets for a film. Something that many major studios tried to dissect and duplicate without any real success.

The deal with most indie filmmakers is that they have one good idea and it's a project of passion. They raise money for the production and then start worrying about selling it and the distribution deals after everything is finished. Very few indie filmmakers embark on their journey with any actual business plan or strategy. Making money in the movie biz is like making money as a musician with hit records. Similar stories and percentages.

I would suggest that this also has a bearing on career choices for editors. A friend once passed along this advice from a mentor of his (an old film editor). I'll paraphrase: "You can work in commercials and corporate and make a decent living most of your life, or you can work in features and live like a king for six months every two years."

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 5:21:32 pm

[Oliver Peters] ""You can work in commercials and corporate and make a decent living most of your life, or you can work in features and live like a king for six months every two years"

Excellent.


Return to posts index

Travis Finstein
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 6:05:05 pm

You can edit a hundred million dollar feature in Quicktime Pro 7 also... doesn't mean there is any advantage to doing so. And doesn't mean if someone is crazy enough to do it that it validates it as an option for these types of projects.

If the editors chose this because they like the way FCPX works, the interface and cutting tools, then I guess more power to them. Although in my opinion I can't see how any of those features outweigh the negatives of dealing with a project of this scale in X, other than "let's do it to say it can be done."

Curious to see what their motivation was when this comes out.


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 6:40:29 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The deal with most indie filmmakers is that they have one good idea and it's a project of passion. They raise money for the production and then start worrying about selling it and the distribution deals after everything is finished. Very few indie filmmakers embark on their journey with any actual business plan or strategy. Making money in the movie biz is like making money as a musician with hit records. Similar stories and percentages."

You can make a full-length indie film for between $2,000 and $6,000. And with today's software and equipment, you can make it look pretty damned good. However, you are right in your assessment that making any money off it is a pretty low probability. The market is glutted.

Right now, the king of "indie" festivals is unfolding here in Utah: Sundance. Almost every American dramatic flick showing has at least one or two name actors. Average budgets are rarely under a couple of million dollars. This is how the money men see "low budget" --between $6 million and $35 million with name actors that work for scale (and maybe a piece of the pie).

Don't get me wrong. If you want to make a micro budget feature, go for it. Just don't expect to make your cash back. You will be able to get it into festivals (another expense). Maybe even make a couple of bucks with streaming pay-per-view via vimeo, you tube and such like.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 6:58:58 pm

[Clint Wardlow] " And with today's software and equipment, you can make it look pretty damned good."

Do you have any examples of which movies shot for no more than $6,000 look pretty good?


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 7:19:27 pm
Last Edited By Clint Wardlow on Jan 22, 2014 at 7:29:49 pm

[Gary Huff] "Do you have any examples of which movies shot for no more than $6,000 look pretty good?"

Local Utah filmmaker Trent Harris made two films (both shot with an HDV camera) for under $6,000. The Delightful Water Universe and Luna Mesa. They are his latest feature-length films.

I am pretty sure his movie the Beaver Trilogy cost less than that also -- but that is not a fair assessment as he used footage he had shot over a couple of decades and already had made into short films.

Trent did get his shot at Hollywood with the Working Title funded Rubin and Ed (starring Crispin Glover) but it didn't really make any money on its initial run, becoming kind of a cult favorite. He also created a local favorite; Plan 10 From Outer Space shot on 16mm for about $60,000.

Also the "looking pretty good" is a relative term. For someone like me that started on soundless super8 and 16mm, moved into VHS and highspeed Betacam cut on a double deck JVC editing suite -- what micro budget filmmakers can produce now-a-days seems pretty good.

Jay and Mark Duplass also created Baghead for a couple of thousand bucks.


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 7:23:57 pm
Last Edited By Clint Wardlow on Jan 22, 2014 at 7:26:49 pm

Jesus, I hate accidentally liking my own post. It makes me look like such a tool. So I unliked it.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 8:29:44 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "Jesus, I hate accidentally liking my own post. It makes me look like such a tool."

There is nothing wrong with over confidence as long as it is backed up by talent! ;)


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 7:35:58 pm

The Delightful Universe





Luna Mesa





I would term "looking pretty good" as something that's, at least, cheap network/basic cable narrative TV show. Maybe something from the 90s, like X-Files in its earliest seasons. Or is that too much to ask?

Baghead was $60,000 to shoot and $200,000 to deliver, according to this.


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 8:22:56 pm

[Gary Huff] "I would term "looking pretty good" as something that's, at least, cheap network/basic cable narrative TV show. Maybe something from the 90s, like X-Files in its earliest seasons. Or is that too much to ask?"

You are right about Baghead's costs. I guess that's what happens when I rely on faulty memory.

As to Trent's films and how they look, I guess it is a matter of how approach these things. He makes a living at it. I know his films have shown all over the country (admittedly in small venues and museums like SFMOMA).

Also my perspective on film comes from decades following the underground film movement of guys like Bruce Conner, Stan Brekhage, the Cuchars, or even early John Waters. Polish isn't how I approach it. (I'll even degrade image to get a certain feel).

But hey, my route to film-making isn't to make money, so I may come with a skewed perspective in relation to most COW members. My perception of "looking pretty good" is probably a lot different than those who make their bread and butter at it.


Return to posts index

Michael Sanders
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 8:16:22 pm

I think "Monsters" was shot by Gareth Edwards himself on a 5D, and he did all the post and VFX at home.

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:51:13 am

[Michael Sanders] "I think "Monsters" was shot by Gareth Edwards himself on a 5D, and he did all the post and VFX at home."

It was shot on a Sony EX3 with the Letus 35mm adapter. And not at home, he traveled South America to shoot it.


Return to posts index

Michael Sanders
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 7:38:48 am

Ah my mistake - I've heard him talk about 5D in interviews. And I know it wasn't shot in the UK but that's not what I said. He did most of the post and VFX at home.

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 1:28:44 pm

[Michael Sanders] " He did most of the post and VFX at home."

Which shouldn't be the litmus test for upcoming filmmakers (although I do agree that if you can run with most of the post yourself, you'll do better). He's a special case that not everyone can follow.

But kudos nonetheless.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 8:51:13 pm

Gary, this is apples and oranges but have seen the film Gasland?

What did you think of that film?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:12:01 am

[tony west] "Gary, this is apples and oranges but have seen the film Gasland?

What did you think of that film?"


I'll hop on this one.

It was the worst looking film I have ever seen. It truly bothered me when watching it.

But it has also had a bunch of staying power. I remember it. The look only bugged me because I pay attention to these things, but for that film, the message trumps the look without a doubt.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:43:22 am
Last Edited By Gary Huff on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:46:16 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "It was the worst looking film I have ever seen."

I found it on YouTube and skipped through it. It is decidedly poorly made. And, yes, it is apples to oranges. It's a documentary film about a subject that people are passionate about, and the genre allows it to have something of a pass.

But the poor technical aspects of the film would never fly as a narrative work. So, in that regard, what do you think about this?





Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 1:21:20 am

[Gary Huff] "So, in that regard, what do you think about this?"

hahaha Gary that is horrible hahaha

OK, I really think we agree. We want important docs that the corporate world won't fund to reach the public, but we don't want 12 Years to not get made because studios want this thing you just posted.

Ahhh man, where did you find that hehehe


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 1:49:22 am

[tony west] "
Ahhh man, where did you find that hehehe"


A similar thread to this one somewhere else. It's brought up as the ultimate "ace in the hole" argument that not everything should get made :-p.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 2:20:46 am

[Gary Huff] "[Jeremy Garchow] "It was the worst looking film I have ever seen."

I found it on YouTube and skipped through it. It is decidedly poorly made. And, yes, it is apples to oranges. It's a documentary film about a subject that people are passionate about, and the genre allows it to have something of a pass.

But the poor technical aspects of the film would never fly as a narrative work. So, in that regard, what do you think about this?"


I see your Devil of Blue Mountain, and I raise you a Birdemic :-)







Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 2:34:39 am

[Shawn Miller] "I see your Devil of Blue Mountain, and I raise you a Birdemic :-)"

Well, of course, now we have to bring up American Movie.







Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 2:46:33 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Shawn Miller] "I see your Devil of Blue Mountain, and I raise you a Birdemic :-)"

Well, of course, now we have to bring up American Movie."


Totally forgot about this movie! I've been meaning to see it for years, but never made the time. Now I'm inspired to finally sit down and watch.

Thanks for the reminder, Jeremy. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 2:48:07 am

[Shawn Miller] "Thanks for the reminder, Jeremy. :-)"

Get your crackle on: http://www.crackle.com/c/american-movie


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 2:25:47 am

[Gary Huff] " It is decidedly poorly made. "

Well, there's a Gasland 2, and Gasland was highly celebrated.



Fox knew he wasn't going to shoot the most beautiful film, but he knew he had a story.

[Gary Huff] "So, in that regard, what do you think about this? "

Someone, right now, has their feet up on a coffee table and is living the dream.


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 3:16:25 am

That is the big downside of the digital revolution -- any idiot with a camera can make a movie.

However, is it any worse than a Hollywood Studio spending $215 million for a souless, made-by-committee flick like The Lone Ranger?

I guess at least the Lone Ranger employed a lot of people.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 1:30:32 pm
Last Edited By Gary Huff on Jan 23, 2014 at 1:31:18 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "I guess at least the Lone Ranger employed a lot of people."

And some people enjoyed the Lone Ranger. Not everything can be a great movie, but there is a problem with acting like this, or Transformers, or Battleship or whatever isn't any better than, say, The Devil of Blue Mountain. And that's not the case.

There are people who would lump Pacific Rim in with those as well, but, well, we have an example of someone who actually went out and purchased the Blu-ray of it because of how much they enjoyed it.


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 4:51:58 pm

[Gary Huff] "And some people enjoyed the Lone Ranger. Not everything can be a great movie, but there is a problem with acting like this, or Transformers, or Battleship or whatever isn't any better than, say, The Devil of Blue Mountain. And that's not the case.

There are people who would lump Pacific Rim in with those as well, but, well, we have an example of someone who actually went out and purchased the Blu-ray of it because of how much they enjoyed it."


Hey, I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't folks that would be willing to pay cash for a Devil of Blue Mountain Blu-Ray. Something Weird video built its success on folks purchasing movies by guys like Hershal Gordon Lewis or Andy Milligan. Are those films any less technically inept?

I would say the only difference is that even the most bargain basement guys like Andy Milligan had to come up with $10,000 or more to make their sleazy little flicks (in 1960s dollars). Currently the entry fee to make a crapola movie is much less, so the market is glutted.

Also, and it may be a niche market, there are folks that would rather watch a video oddity like Devil of Blue Mountain than the next overblown Transformers flick. I am kind of in that crowd myself. Esthetically, I enjoy a movie like Troll 2 that wears its shortcoming on its sleeve much more than some polished hollywood-produced crap fest. But that's just me.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 5:53:35 pm

[Clint Wardlow] " Esthetically, I enjoy a movie like Troll 2 that wears its shortcoming on its sleeve much more than some polished hollywood-produced crap fest. But that's just me."

And catering to you isn't exactly a big enough market to keep yourself from having to have a day job.

Given that production is my day job, I can't be interested in niche so much.


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 6:15:16 pm

[Gary Huff] "And catering to you isn't exactly a big enough market to keep yourself from having to have a day job.

Given that production is my day job, I can't be interested in niche so much."


Well somebody is making money off that niche. Both Troll 2 and the documentary about that film did quite well a few years ago. Also outlets like The Alamo Drafthouse and Grindhouse releasing don't seem to be hurting much on profit making side of things.

As to my day job. Well, that was a conscious decision not to tie myself into something as volatile as the film industry in Utah. I worked as a grip and boom operator back in the 1990s and hated the feast or famine nature of getting jobs. My partner and friend stuck with it and works as scenic. Right now he is sweating the load because it has been several months since his last job.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 8:35:51 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "Well somebody is making money off that niche. Both Troll 2 and the documentary about that film did quite well a few years ago. "

The producers and distributors are making money, the cast and crew? Not so much. A few of my friends have worked on films for production companies that specialize in direct-to-video horribleness and it's pretty much a meat grinder. You work on two or three as a young buck to pad your resume and then hopefully find a a gig that pays real money.




Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 8:48:21 pm
Last Edited By Clint Wardlow on Jan 23, 2014 at 8:49:21 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "The producers and distributors are making money, the cast and crew? Not so much. A few of my friends have worked on films for production companies that specialize in direct-to-video horribleness and it's pretty much a meat grinder. You work on two or three as a young buck to pad your resume and then hopefully find a a gig that pays real money."

You are right about Troll 2. It was shot in Utah in the 1990s with Italian money. I have some friends that crewed on that puppy. They got paid their meager rate and went onto better things (some inside and some outside the film industry).

Troll 2 really doesn't count in what Gary and I were discussing. It was shot with a professional crew that did get paid. I'm sure the crew and actors of the Blue Mountain movie probably didn't see a dime. I guess it was sort of disingenuous of me to site it.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 24, 2014 at 12:18:28 am

[Clint Wardlow] "Troll 2 really doesn't count in what Gary and I were discussing. It was shot with a professional crew that did get paid. I'm sure the crew and actors of the Blue Mountain movie probably didn't see a dime. I guess it was sort of disingenuous of me to site it."

Even if the Troll 2 mention was a little out of bounds I think my previous statement of distributors (and possibly producers depending on the situation) making profits is still accurate. Most likely a distributor will buy the movie by offering a revenue sharing plan (no money up front), toss it into a bundle of genre films that it will offloaded at a bargain basement rate to cable/sat VOD and streaming services. It's reward w/o risk for the distributor.




Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 23, 2014 at 7:32:27 pm

[Gary Huff] "Given that production is my day job, I can't be interested in niche so much."

Nor should you. And despite the glut of digital media by micro-budget guys with cheap equipment and marginal skills, I don't think your job is going away anytime soon. There will always be a need for professional production.

Little upstart guys like me and The Blue Mountain guy will never crack that nut.


Return to posts index

Santiago Martí
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 6:32:02 pm

[Chris Harlan] "FYI--the studio is probably Warner Bros. and the movie is probably Focus. I don't have any inside knowledge, but that's what the clues point to."

You must be right, they've been here in Argentina. A friend of mine worked in the art department, and some friends worked in the grip department.

Santiago Martí
http://www.robotrojo.com.ar
Red One M-X, Red Epic X waiting for Dragon update, Red Pro Primes, Adobe CC, Assimilate Scratch


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 22, 2014 at 10:56:24 pm

madness. this place is like a newsroom, like, breaking news.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

shawn Bockoven
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 24, 2014 at 6:22:03 am

From the foolish people working to produce anything coming out of hollywood. Jesus, what is entertainment?


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 24, 2014 at 8:09:08 am

[shawn Bockoven] "Jesus, what is entertainment?"







:-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 25, 2014 at 5:55:07 pm

They'll quickly learn it doesn't work, if WB is indeed trying it out.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX cutting a hundred million dollar feature right this minute.
on Jan 25, 2014 at 6:09:18 pm

[james Lackleter] "They'll quickly learn it doesn't work, if WB is indeed trying it out."

Perhaps they should have called you first, you could have shared your valuable experiences

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]