Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

RED Ranch Zoning Approved

This is getting so much closer to my dream.

My vision has always been a studio that, if you really wanted to, your entire crew could never leave the gates of it and make a full movie in two years. On-site condos for crew, soundstages and backlots, and full post facilities. Imagine a "room service" menu with fresh Vision3 stock for tight situations, and plenty of eating establishments.

Yep. That would rule. Still waiting on the 6 billion needed to make it though.
 
snowleopard said:
It's ironic, considering we all agree that the Hollywood industry wastes money like the federal government, and that digital video is/was supposed to revolutionize and equalize the industry.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't agree with that at all. The primary source of wasted money on any production is usually above the line. In fact, on most television programs, above the line can account for at least 50% of the total cost of the production. Sometimes considerably more. The fact is that the crewing of a professional production is not nearly as lavish as those outside the mainstream of the industry seem to think it is. Everyone who is hired on a film crew is hired not because they want to have more bodies, but because they serve a purpose. If they don't serve a purpose, they're not hired. The only way to get the number of setups that are necessary to properly cover a typical daily page count, at the desired high level of quality, particularly in television, is to have highly skilled crewmembers doing very specific jobs very efficiently. That is not lavish, that is necesssary. There is far less waste in basic production departments than most people understand. Most of the "waste" is on unnecessary construction, lavish locations, and above the line - all decisions that have little to do with crew. Certainly in the past there have been some abuses, but most of those things ("standby DP", for instance) have long since been eliminated. And in almost all cases, the camera department is a rather small part of a much bigger budget, and not one that is going to contribute significantly to cost reductions, regardless of what medium is being recorded to. Those who think changing the camera and what it's recording to is going to change any of that don't really understand how high end production works.

I'm hoping than when Jim and Red get this studio built they can look at the entire picture with fresh eyes. Different ways to plan shooting, different ways of workflow, staffing, management etc. Instead of just hiring a zillion union workers to peel gaff tape and pull cables on gargantuan productions that may or may not be any good, only this time shot in Vegas instead of LA.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but this really sounds to me like a quote from someone who has very little experience in professional production. I don't know what you have against unions, but without them - the IA in particular - there would likely be very little way to make a living as a crew person in this business. If you don't understand that, you're not looking at reality. This has always been an industry in which newcomers are willing to work for free until they discover that they can't live that way. It's a common belief that union crews are heavy with people who do nothing. But it's a belief that's only held by those who have never worked on a union crew, because it's just not true.
 
good post mmost (real name?)

it seems the tide may be turning against paying actors super absurd salaries
 
Shawn Nelson said:
good post mmost (real name?)

it seems the tide may be turning against paying actors super absurd salaries
Click to expand...

Lets hope so. To me that's one of the biggest problems in Hollywood right now. I think the potential of what Jim is going to do out in Las Vegas is amazing. Jim has the know how to get people onboard with something. I mean look what he did with Red. Just imagine what he will do with the Red Ranch. But of course once the word gets out the place is going to be booked years in advance.
 
do a wholesale move to someplace else that doesn't have any degree of trained workforce, acceptable weather year round, or any real knowledge of what it takes to create and finish high end production work on tight deadlines.
Click to expand...
Hey, some cities might take offense to that ;)

Though I disagree with most film/TV subsidies. In Canada at least, I know that our broadcasters try to air as little Canadian content as possible (except when it comes to CRTC/regulator appeasement) and that Canadians don't watch a lot of Canadian shows (some of which are designed to look like American shows).
Though it seems like EVERY government is getting on the bandwagon... even the US now.

2- It seems that film/TV production works best when the key talent and companies all gather in one place (e.g. LA). We Canadians heavily subsidize our TV with over 50% of the budget coming from the government directly or indirectly. That should theoretically give us a huge advantage. But American TV shows and movies kick our ass commercially.

And there is an element of brain drain as a lot of top Canadian talent works in LA.

2c- The production of film/TV itself (separate from the TV/film studios and star talent, i.e. director, actors) may be a commodity. You can shoot the movie Chicago in Toronto... or LA, Las Vegas, or any other city you wish to dress up.

it seems the tide may be turning against paying actors super absurd salaries
Click to expand...
In the long run, I think we'll still see stars commanding huge salaries while most actors wait tables. Stars attract an audience... it makes sense to pay for them. Same thing goes for directors.

Instead of just hiring a zillion union workers
Click to expand...
People in film/TV unions work hard... at least from what I've seen where I live. The hours are grueling. In my opinion, production is HARD... get into post production instead.
 
I am NOT anti-union. And didn't once say union workers were overpaid if you read close enough. I'm actually a union member. And I agree that there is terrible cost overruns above the line. There's absolutely, positively no reason what so ever that (name actor here) needs to make $25 million per picture. Nor that a film needs a dozen EP's all making seven figures, plus points.

You and I are looking at this from a different approach. It seems to me you are focusing on above the line costs, and working within the system, to work like the system. I'm saying I'd like to see more films like those made outside the Hollywood system, such as those by Gus Van Sant for example (Elephant, Paranoid Park, Last Days, etc.). Whether there are union workers, or not, pulling cables IS hard work. It just blows my mind that there seems to be a mindset that every film needs to aspire to look like Indiana Jones 4 or Night at the Museum, even if the plot and characters are weak. And yet we only give lip service to the possibility that a successful, award winning film can get made with a crew of a dozen people on a normal basis. Like one that someone posting on this thread's wife worked on. Or anything by this guy. Or some of the films by this guy.

We all talk about content. We say we clamor for better stories, better characters, better writing. And yet we spend all our time, and money, focusing on technology, visuals, production design, VFX and post work. All which takes a LOT of money. Is the solution really to pump $200 million into a film? Scratch that, $130 million into a film (cutting above the line costs way down) where every set-up needs to have huge arrays of HMI lights, scrims, silks, etc. that take hours, or days to set-up by an army of workers, burning thousands of megawatts of electricity? Is that all there is? Is that all that sells? Is that the only way to go about it? Or the best way?

I'd be really curious to see what Red's actual plan of direction is for this studio? There are studios already there. And when I think about it, I'm having a hard time thinking of a single film that originated from there that was successful. Either on the big box office front, or even the independent path. Hmmm.

PA
 
Well take a look at the biggest box office grossing films:
http://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice.html

I don't see a lot of low budget movies on there (e.g. My Big Fat Greek Wedding / budget $5 million).

It seems like you (generally) have to spend a lot of money to get hit movies. And these hit movies generate a lot more revenue from licensing, broadcast sales, home video, etc. etc.
 
Hit movies, or net profit margin? By which accounting methods? Most industry studios are owned by large corporations that defer profits from successful films absolving them into corporate losses, and vice-verse.

Can the Red Ranch Studio compete with this standard, and those films (Titanic, Dark Knight, Star Wars, Pirates of Caribbean, Spider Man, etc.)? Is attempting to do so, the best way to secure profit? Even if we look at broadcast television, the same question applies. I honestly don't know the answer. I just speculate that it would be very difficult to do so. Very difficult. But I don't know.

What is the overall plan of Red here? Other than "bringing new vision to LV for the growing entertainment industry" spiel? I guess like many other things about Red, we may have to wait to find out...
 
First off - "The play's the thing..."

First off - "The play's the thing..."

"Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King".

Great cameras will make great pictures, but if you want great cinema, be it on your cell phone, TV or in an IMAX theater, you need gifted writers.

Snowleopard is right. The new RED campus could absolutely be a model for a new approach to new kinds of cinema/media. I know I'm going out on a limb here but it would be nice if it were in Jim/RED's master plan to create some kind of program that supports and maybe even nurtures writers and new stories (ie like the original Sundance labs).

I also agree with mmost on the fact that the guilds have allowed craftspeople to earn a respectable living and receive what we all deserve and that's decent medical care and benefits.

Everything should be up for review. How many producers do you really need to make a film? In the old days, only one. And while were on the subject, how many teamsters do you need?

We're living at the center of the vortex. Change is in the air and smacking us in the face. Digital technology, the RED Camera and the internet are all excellent examples of this. We can speculate all we want, but what it will ultimately bring is anybody's guess.

Just rolling with the changes,
Lawrence "Larry" Jordan
HDFilmtools.com
 
Unions? :jacked:

Good news. Well done JJ and Red!
 
snowleopard said:
There's absolutely, positively no reason what so ever that (name actor here) needs to make $25 million per picture.
Click to expand...

???

If you can find me an actor as good as Denzel Washington at $1m I'm sure there is a line of directors and producers who would love to hire this individual.

If Denzel Washington on name alone brings in $50m over a no-name great actor then I don't see any reason to pay less. $25m would be a bargain. "So you're telling me that if I spend $25m on this actor I automatically make an extra $25m over his costs in profit?"

If you look at an actor in that light then our Denzel Washington analog costs the studio -$25m while a no-name costs them $300k. That makes him the least expensive actor.

If you look at an actor as an investment cover as well then again they can save you money. You might only be able to raise $2m for your film with Mr. NoName but with a Denzel Washington Analog suddenly investors are lining up to give you money and you not only cover his costs but also raise an additional $75m in investment. Even if you never pay back your investors you still got a much more luxurious budget to work with.

There are some exceptions to this rule. I don't know why anyone pays a premium for Shia Leboufe. I've never heard anyone say they want to see a movie because he's in it (I've heard the opposite). I've also never heard a director or reviewer rave about one of his performances and yet somehow he's an irreplaceable commodity right now. Whatever.

----

There's this funny phenomenon that's taking place in the world right now. The human brain only has the capacity for X amount of name/brand recognition. But the number of humans on the planet is dramatically increasing.

That means your market is growing and it's becoming more and more valuable to have a recognizeable brand.

The potential profit for a product is growing with the number of people. If you doubled the movie going audience then investing $100m in an actor to make another $200m wouldn't seem rediculous.

The amount of time each person has to watch a movie isn't growing. But the number of movie goers is. People will still tend to go see the movies that they hear about and are well marketed. "If you're going to see one movie this summer..." make it our movie. The fight to be "The movie" that people spend their extremely limited movie watching time on is a fierce one. And it's not an inexpensive one either. Indie films are going to be too "risky". If you only see one movie this summer make it one which is popular becomes the mindset. The stakes are huge and the investment will always be huge.
 
The thing about some of high paying actors is... the familiarity or brand they bring to the picture. For example people will pay to see a movie they know who stars in, then some movie with unknown actors. The actor can add a certain value or marketing niche to the movie just by their name. The actors name can also help movie goers know what kind of a movie their in. It is a big investment and time before actors get paid big, usually, and the studio wants to know if they will get what they paid for.
 
So who wants to go in on a big rental house in Vegas this Fall/Winter, maybe something near Red Ranch, with a nice swimming pool and 3-car garage? :thumbsup: I'll probably only be there a couple months out of the year, so I might need some roomies. :beer:
 
Tom said:
So who wants to go in on a big rental house in Vegas this Fall/Winter, maybe something near Red Ranch, with a nice swimming pool and 3-car garage? :thumbsup: I'll probably only be there a couple months out of the year, so I might need some roomies. :beer:
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good idea, Tom. And perfectly viable, too.
 
I've talked to a couple of members here off-board already, over the last few months, and at least a couple of people are interested.

Speaking of Vegas, I just saw "The Hangover" yesterday.... hahahaha. Very funny.
 
Thanks Larry, at least someone sees what I am trying to say, even if I can't perfectly articulate it.

Phil
(still awaiting name change)
 
RED Ranch is not designed to replace Hollywood, Bollywood or any other place. It is designed to be an alternative... just like our cameras are designed to be an alternative to film. We think that designing cameras, workflows and shooting all in the same campus is a good idea to learn and improve what we are doing... along with enjoying all aspects of what we love in one place.

We are not interested in the least at "what used to be done". If we were, we'd still be making sunglasses. Scratch that, we would have never done that either...

Jim
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
There are some exceptions to this rule. I don't know why anyone pays a premium for Shia Leboufe. I've never heard anyone say they want to see a movie because he's in it (I've heard the opposite). I've also never heard a director or reviewer rave about one of his performances and yet somehow he's an irreplaceable commodity right now. Whatever.
Click to expand...

Haha, so true. I've never heard that name before so I imdb'd it. I never saw any of his movies. Yeah, I know, but I never got a chance to see Transformers or Indiana Jones Crystal Skull (dammit, they ruined my movie idea). Anyway, who the heck is that guy?
 
Jannard said:
RED Ranch is not designed to replace Hollywood, Bollywood or any other place. It is designed to be an alternative... just like our cameras are designed to be an alternative to film. We think that designing cameras, workflows and shooting all in the same campus is a good idea to learn and improve what we are doing... along with enjoying all aspects of what we love in one place.

We are not interested in the least at "what used to be done". If we were, we'd still be making sunglasses. Scratch that, we would have never done that either...

Jim
Click to expand...

Can you divulge any info as to what plans you have in store for Red(Scarlet/Epic)Users in relation to Red Ranch and filming in your studio?

Congrats, Jim. Sounds like fun! :}
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top