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 :)

Ridley Scott and Dariusz Wolski...

AnthonyFlores said:
What gives me kinda of a sick gratification is how stupid all the Red haters must be feeling now.

For much of this year they have been bashing Epic and Scarlet as "vaporware" ... little did they know that the biggest players in Hollywood were collectively wagering BILLIONS of dollars on Red's "non-existent" technology!

Oooooooooooooooooooooooh it hurts:smilielol5:

The best part of it, as Jim said, is that unlike time's past -- this is not like Panavision, Vipers or Phantom cams unaccessible to those without hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on gear.

Thanks Jim and the Red team :-) this is the best time in history to be involved in filmmaking and it's largely because of you ...
Click to expand...

+1

Times have changed. The vast majority of us may not have Hollywood's dollars, but we have creativity and ingenuity. However, a lot of that has been stifled because of the good ol' boy network, and the high cost of entry surrounding filmmaking. Now that's going to be more, and more difficult to do as ad agencies and their client companies eventually begin looking for cost-effective crews capable of achieving network-level production values.

In many ways this is upsetting the entire infrastructure. I remember talking to an online editor, and forecasting the imminent day when onlining will would be rendered moot. Why endure the cost and expense when you're working with proxies linked to the r3d files, that can then be shipped directly to Technicolor for a frame accurate CC laid back to SR from the Clipster?

Sure there will be a lot of BAD cinema in the coming years, but there are going to be some new superstars, too. So I guess we should all be mindful, and respectful of that fact. You just never know where the next luminary is going to pop up.

Now more than ever, I believe it is anyone's game. If you say you can do it...prove it. The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. Jim has felled a couple of the last few barriers.

It's like that Verizon campaign...Rule the Air. For real. We have the ability to publish ourselves like NEVER before.

Eryc
 
Film Ylem said:
Sure there will be a lot of BAD cinema in the coming years, but there are going to be some new superstars, too. So I guess we should all be mindful, and respectful of that fact. You just never know where the next luminary is going to pop up.

Now more than ever, I believe it is anyone's game. If you say you can do it...prove it. The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. Jim has felled a couple of the last few barriers.

It's like that Verizon campaign...Rule the Air. For real. We have the ability to publish ourselves like NEVER before.

Eryc
Click to expand...

Damn straight.
 
Jannard said:
The cool thing is that an Indie filmmaker can afford to own and shoot the same camera that is being used on the biggest budget/blockbuster movies. I can't remember that ever being the case...

Jim
Click to expand...

I do not know how to express my incredible joy based based on this fact alone. Thanks for your passion!
 
Perfect example of putting the right technology in the wrong hands:

A film that shall be nameless currently in production (but probably not for long) somewhere in North America has just finished shooting their first week. They have 2 more to go in PP.

They have a small amount of actual cash on hand -perhaps 15% of the overall budget and 1/4 to 1/3 of what it will cost to finish shooting in 3 weeks time.

They're shooting Red, which is awesome, but they're in big doo doo 'cuz their interim financing is not in place. Now banking is a huge part of the filmmaking equation here as there are elements of the said financial structure that require interim financing, such as tax credits and presales.

Without the ability to cash flow the production -guess what? Next Friday will come and cast and crew are unlikely to get paid. Crystal-balling now will show that the production will stall until people can get paid, and have assurances that the last week of shooting will be covered. Then, and only then will this unnamed film be able to finish shooting.

So, I'm not saying putting a Red in newbie filmmakers hands is a bad thing or necessarily facilitated people making terrible decisions (because they could have easily had the same thing happen with a 35mm package, Super 16 package or an F900, or HVX)...but it makes it a lot easier for these types of situations to happen, and it will make other independent filmmakers with their 'stuff' together to make low, low budget films.

The point is inexperience can have positive and negative effects. Such as requiring certain bonds get put in place with unions (non-union signatory or union sanctioned) prior to shooting -perhaps at a cost-prohibitive level in prep. This affects all of us particularly in the low budget world.

My subsequent point is the rental on a R1 package is so low that anyone can get into the game...but it doesn't mean that everyone should. Producing fundamentals still need to be respected.
 
JT:
And yet for every failure there is a success.

For some, nothing has changed - for others, everything has changed.
 
Jeremy Torrie said:
Perfect example of putting the right technology in the wrong hands:

A film that shall be nameless currently in production (but probably not for long) somewhere in North America has just finished shooting their first week. They have 2 more to go in PP.

They have a small amount of actual cash on hand -perhaps 15% of the overall budget and 1/4 to 1/3 of what it will cost to finish shooting in 3 weeks time.

They're shooting Red, which is awesome, but they're in big doo doo 'cuz their interim financing is not in place. Now banking is a huge part of the filmmaking equation here as there are elements of the said financial structure that require interim financing, such as tax credits and presales.

Without the ability to cash flow the production -guess what? Next Friday will come and cast and crew are unlikely to get paid. Crystal-balling now will show that the production will stall until people can get paid, and have assurances that the last week of shooting will be covered. Then, and only then will this unnamed film be able to finish shooting.

So, I'm not saying putting a Red in newbie filmmakers hands is a bad thing or necessarily facilitated people making terrible decisions (because they could have easily had the same thing happen with a 35mm package, Super 16 package or an F900, or HVX)...but it makes it a lot easier for these types of situations to happen, and it will make other independent filmmakers with their 'stuff' together to make low, low budget films.

The point is inexperience can have positive and negative effects. Such as requiring certain bonds get put in place with unions (non-union signatory or union sanctioned) prior to shooting -perhaps at a cost-prohibitive level in prep. This affects all of us particularly in the low budget world.

My subsequent point is the rental on a R1 package is so low that anyone can get into the game...but it doesn't mean that everyone should. Producing fundamentals still need to be respected.
Click to expand...

It's hard to know what you are arguing for... or against.. or what point you are making. People can be stupid? People can be irresponsible? People make mistakes? People are sometimes not honest or ethical? The camera is the cause of this? Hmmmm...
 
The last point in the post should hammer it home.

But perhaps the clarification should be this: Jim made the comment essentially saying it's never been the case that those tools used by the studios is now in the hands of indies...or put another way (at least how I interpreted it): With great power comes great responsibility.

The fact Jim's statement is true is absolutely phenomenal, and something I waited for -for a long time. I sincerely hope we can soon celebrate the very spirit of Jim's intent in creating Red, and soon Scarlet, in our own films. These are incredibly powerful tools -notwithstanding Redcode and RC-X.

As of yet the democratization of this technology has seen little direct impact on a low budget production from a critical and financial success point of view. Except for Winter's Bone...a $2 million budget that has earned almost $7 Million at the box office and garnered 2 awards at Sundance. Plus Jennifer Lawrence being nominated for an Independent Spirit Award, along with Michael McDonough for Best Cinematography.

This is a great example of Jim's vision and intent. Unfortunately there's a helluva lot more education to be had about the proper way in which to go about making a film...that's all I'm saying.

It just bugs me that tools designed professionally for professionals is being used unprofessionally...and people are going to suffer for it.
 
Jeremy Torrie said:
Unfortunately there's a helluva lot more education to be had about the proper way in which to go about making a film...that's all I'm saying.

It just bugs me that tools designed professionally for professionals is being used unprofessionally...and people are going to suffer for it.
Click to expand...

I think this is BS.
 
Filmmaking can be an incredibly complex equation with hundreds if not thousands of interacting and co-dependent variables. It is, after all, a human endeavor.

In my mind, the proliferation of cameras which equal or better 35mm film for a portion of the price seek to eliminate a very small portion of that equation - the technical capacity of the imaging device.

A great camera won't make me Hitchcock or Kurosawa.
A brilliant AutoCAD setup won't make me Brunelleschi.
The finest paintbrush won't make me Picasso.
A fine hammer and chisel won't make me Michelangelo.
A forge and bellows won't make me a Helmschmied.

Yet good professional tools were required for all of those people to be who they became.

Such it is with cameras. Giving people real professional tools will let those with talent, drive, ability, money, and/or luck become who they strive to be, perhaps more easily than if their tools different so significantly than those who had "risen above".

Just because people have a fancy camera, though, doesn't mean that their story will be well written. Or that the budget is completely and perfectly allocated and balanced. Or their scene properly lit or attractively composed. Or that the talent fits the role perfectly. Or that any other of numberless variables remain are magically and suddenly perfected.

This is not Deus Ex RED. But it does help.
 
JT, the same situations have been a part of filmmaking for years. Look at Ed Wood and Roger Corman. Francis Ford Coppola has been bankrupt I don't know how many times.

Some of the best and worst work we've seen has come from less than ideal situations and some of the best and worst work has come from perfect, ideal situations.

Creativity doesn't always work easily with more mundane aspects like accounting and scheduling. It's hard on cast and crew but I think we all knew what we were getting ourselves into.
 
And who doesn't like a good science fiction movie: even my old (and not so recently departed) mother enjoyed the genre. I remember one occasion, her sitting by the coal fire (Scotland) and looking through the TV listings, when she asked "what's this Skee Fee stuff?". That's Sci Fi, ma, Sci fi. Her false teeth almost fell out of her head laughing. And since that day, I've always referred to Sci Fi as Skee Fee. ( :
 
And being a Science Fiction movie (generally highly stylized and not conforming to the natural order of things) we might expect it to be the perfect vehicle to fully exploit Epic. Outside of Graeme's torture chamber, that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top