Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?

[ntblowz]

https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/rogue-one-godzilla-gareth-edwards-201500503.html

That was an interesting read about how he go back the indie root of film making.

I totally agree about the huge bloated cost of blockbuster now, and the cgi still look crap.

[kye]

6 hours ago, ntblowz said:

https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/rogue-one-godzilla-gareth-edwards-201500503.html

That was an interesting read about how he go back the indie root of film making.

I totally agree about the huge bloated cost of blockbuster now, and the cgi still look crap.

I don't think much will change.

The studios are basically large corporations, and corporations are essentially assembly Iines for whatever they're doing, and they resist anyone trying to change the process.  He said as much in the article.

I also don't think many people are going to come along and challenge them the way he is.  It sounds like he's capable of thinking about making movies in different ways because he's done lots of the parts himself and knows how things all fit together.  This is rare.  Most people only know how to do step 17 or step 89 of the process, and will resist trying to do it any other way because they are threatened because they think they'll lose their job, or threatened because they might be forced to learn something new.

[kye]

However, what this does mean is that there's a tremendous opportunity for outsiders to make films themselves in a minimal way by understanding the process from end-to-end and eliminating all the non-essential rubbish.

Noam Kroll speaks extensively about this, even suggesting that you start by listing the things you have access to and write a script that only requires what you have, so that you write a movie you can make yourself without having to go raise money etc before you can start.

Of course, and this is the kicker, if you're going to do that, you have to have talent because you can't add special effects to distract from the fact that you can't write, direct, or shoot, and your actors can't act.  This is the real reason that Hollywood makes so many films that rely on SFX and humour - it saves you from having to create characters that the audience cares about.

[MurtlandPhoto]

I think the Hollywood machine will largely remain the same. However, this will inspire many, many indie or lower budget productions. I really hope Edwards/Fraser detail how using such small camera package impacted the overall production. I imagine the time savings were immense. And, I imagine the FX3's low light abilities affected how they lit the picture.

[octoplex]

20 hours ago, kye said:

This is the real reason that Hollywood makes so many films that rely on SFX and humour - it saves you from having to create characters that the audience cares about.

Absolutely this.
A very insightful observation.

I re-watched Shallow Grave (Danny Boyle, 1994) the other day. If anyone here is curious about what can be done with three good actors and an apartment, I'd definitely recommend revisiting this masterpiece.

Shallow Grave is one of the most powerful demonstrations of how script, characters, and quality-of-acting can allow a low-budget filmmaker to out-shine anything Hollywood can muster.

Shallow Grave was director Danny Boyle's (Trainspotting; 28 Days Later) first feature-film and stars a (then unknown) Ewan McGregor; who is stunningly adept as a young actor.

Modern-filmmakers could benefit a lot by focusing less on technology and spectacle, and more on craft. The most valuable profits made by a movie are intangible: The extent to which the movie challenges, inspires, and changes society for the better.

 

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

I think the Hollywood machine will largely remain the same. However, this will inspire many, many indie or lower budget productions. I really hope Edwards/Fraser detail how using such small camera package impacted the overall production. I imagine the time savings were immense. And, I imagine the FX3's low light abilities affected how they lit the picture.

I just don't quite understand why a filmmaker such as Edwards used a FX3, when much better cameras for productions such as Sony BURANO (or back then, the FX6) are available cheaply. 

Camera gear is shockingly cheap to rent. I'm working on a low budget / self funded short film right now, which is using an ALEXA 35 with Panavision anamorphics. 

You're not saving that much from the overall budget by shooting with an FX3 instead, it just feels a bit gimmicky, like when people want to be able to say we "shot it on an iPhone" purely for the sake of the marketing aspects for driving the film out there to be seen by the audiences. 

After all, would we even be talking about this film at all today if he'd chosen an ALEXA 35 for it instead? 

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, octoplex said:

Absolutely this.
A very insightful observation.

I re-watched Shallow Grave (Danny Boyle, 1994) the other day. If anyone here is curious about what can be done with three good actors and an apartment, I'd definitely recommend revisiting this masterpiece.

Shallow Grave is one of the most powerful demonstrations of how script, characters, and quality-of-acting can allow a low-budget filmmaker to out-shine anything Hollywood can muster.

Shallow Grave was director Danny Boyle's (Trainspotting; 28 Days Later) first feature-film and stars a (then unknown) Ewan McGregor; who is stunningly adept as a young actor.

Modern-filmmakers could benefit a lot by focusing less on technology and spectacle, and more on craft. The most valuable profits made by a movie are intangible: The extent to which the movie challenges, inspires, and changes society for the better.

 

Thanks for sharing! I checked it out, I hadn't heard of that before (although of course knew about his later films). 

Keep in mind, he made this for "a million quid". Which in today's money means over £2M

[octoplex]

30 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

You're not saving that much from the overall budget by shooting with an FX3 instead, it just feels a bit gimmicky... would we even be talking about this film at all today if he'd chosen an ALEXA 35 for it instead? 

Good points. The marketing-push regarding it being shot on the FX3 seems somewhat inorganic to me, and I say that as a massive fan of the FX3.

The other issue is that (based on the trailer) it does not seem like a movie that showcases the potential of the FX3 for low-budget indie filmmakers. This is on account of the dense, and expensive, SFX and post-production which does not represent features of the camera itself.

I'm sure a breakthrough genuinely-indie movie shot on the FX3 will come soon. It is a very interesting camera.

[octoplex]

25 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Keep in mind, he made this for "a million quid". Which in today's money means over £2M

Interesting to learn that Shallow Grave had that kind of production cost. I feel something comparable today could, in the right hands, be made for even less. I feel that Boyle did not have to make it for less; but probably could have. The apartment in Shallow Grave, for example, is probably built on a soundstage. It would be an interesting challenge to produce a movie of a similar scale  today, without using soundstages etc and see how far a small budget can really go.

The Shallow Grave  script, in my opinion, is the nuclear-reactor of the movie, and I think it would endure even if shot in an actual apartment etc.

Pi ( 1998, Darren Aronofsky; Production Cost: $134,815) could have been shot on the FX3 for half the cost and it makes me wonder why we aren't seeing more great alternative-filmmaking at the moment; given that the technology is now so accessible.

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, octoplex said:

I'm sure a breakthrough genuinely-indie movie shot on the FX3 will come soon. It is a very interesting camera.

I'd be more interested to learn more detailed breakdowns about any breakthrough indie film shot for sub £1M (or heck, go even lower, a quarter of that amount! Or merely a tenth??). 

No matter what the camera is that it was shot on, be it an OG BMPCC or an ARRI ALEXA 35.

As I feel the camera itself is fairly irrelevant vs the overall approach taken to budgeting / scheduling / crewing / etc 

2 hours ago, octoplex said:

Interesting to learn that Shallow Grave had that kind of production cost. I feel something comparable today could, in the right hands, be made for even less.

Sure, it could be made cheaper today. (as film stock now doesn't have to be purchased)

But... 

1) odds of success (a positive ROI) is waaay lower, because the competition now is much stiffer 

2) because of the previous point, you have to make the film to an even higher standard. (which costs more!)

2 hours ago, octoplex said:

The apartment in Shallow Grave, for example, is probably built on a soundstage. It would be an interesting challenge to produce a movie of a similar scale  today, without using soundstages etc and see how far a small budget can really go.

I feel that you're massively underestimating the big cost savings from shooting on a sound stage. 

[octoplex]

28 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I'd be more interested to learn more detailed breakdowns about any breakthrough indie film shot for sub £1M (or heck, go even lower, a quarter of that amount! Or merely a tenth??).

There's a breakdown of production costs for the hit indie-movie Pi, here.

Cost of shooting this movie was $60,927

Post-production costs matched this because it was shot on film. Today, that could be reduced.

Pi made $3.2 million in US cinemas; despite limited release (68 theaters). That's excluding later DVD sales and foreign distribution etc.

More interesting still: Pi is not a horror movie, it's a psychological-thriller. It demonstrated how good-story transcends everything; and that a $60k budget, good script, and strong team can propel you straight to the upper echelons of the industry. As Darren Aronofsky discovered.

 

[kye]

12 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I just don't quite understand why a filmmaker such as Edwards used a FX3, when much better cameras for productions such as Sony BURANO (or back then, the FX6) are available cheaply. 

I suspect it could have been because it was small and they didn't want to get too much attention.

"so his crew consisted of just his actors (Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able), a sound tech, a line producer, a translator and a driver. Edwards operated the camera, grabbing footage guerrilla style whenever they came upon a compelling location while traveling through Central America."

I'd imagine that security might have been a concern in that region (maybe I'm wrong on that) but combine that with not wanting to draw attention from local officials who might hassle you for permits etc.  Also, if you're bringing equipment into a country and are going to leave with it again you will need to declare it at the border (so you don't have to pay import taxes - I can't remember what this is called) and this process is a huge PITA for documentary crews etc, so getting around that would be a huge time advantage (I've seen docos where it takes the better part of a day for each border crossing because of this).

[IronFilm]

11 hours ago, kye said:

"so his crew consisted of just his actors (Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able), a sound tech, a line producer, a translator and a driver. Edwards operated the camera, grabbing footage guerrilla style whenever they came upon a compelling location while traveling through Central America."

You're talking about Gareth Edward's 2010 film "Monsters". 

That was of course not shot on a Sony FX3.

It was shot on a Sony though! But a Sony PMW-EX3 (with a Letus Ultimate adapter and some Nikon SLR lenses).

I'd say the modern day equivalent of that is the Sony FX6 or FX9. (even the FX9 is cheaper than the EX3 was!) 

[kye]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

You're talking about Gareth Edward's 2010 film "Monsters". 

That was of course not shot on a Sony FX3.

It was shot on a Sony though! But a Sony PMW-EX3 (with a Letus Ultimate adapter and some Nikon SLR lenses).

I'd say the modern day equivalent of that is the Sony FX6 or FX9. (even the FX9 is cheaper than the EX3 was!) 

Ah, indeed I was!  My bad.

I re-read the article and it doesn't look like there's any concrete information in it at all about where they shot and how many people were present.  A lot like most other journalism then - you read it and feel like you've been told a lot of stuff but when you look again there's just a stream of vague statements 😕

So, who knows why, I guess.

[ntblowz]

9 hours ago, kye said:

Ah, indeed I was!  My bad.

I re-read the article and it doesn't look like there's any concrete information in it at all about where they shot and how many people were present.  A lot like most other journalism then - you read it and feel like you've been told a lot of stuff but when you look again there's just a stream of vague statements 😕

So, who knows why, I guess.

The article did say for big scene there is still a lot of crew, and down to 2 if that is all they need.

I guess we will know more once the movie is released? Maybe he chose fx3 cause it look more like standard camera than cinema camera who knows.

[ntblowz]

11 hours ago, IronFilm said:

You're talking about Gareth Edward's 2010 film "Monsters". 

That was of course not shot on a Sony FX3.

It was shot on a Sony though! But a Sony PMW-EX3 (with a Letus Ultimate adapter and some Nikon SLR lenses).

I'd say the modern day equivalent of that is the Sony FX6 or FX9. (even the FX9 is cheaper than the EX3 was!) 

I dunno why you so hung up on it need to be cinema camera.. at least the sensor is the same right lol 😆 

[kye]

1 hour ago, ntblowz said:

The article did say for big scene there is still a lot of crew, and down to 2 if that is all they need.

I guess we will know more once the movie is released? Maybe he chose fx3 cause it look more like standard camera than cinema camera who knows.

I think I understand where @IronFilm is coming from - the advantage of a larger body is that you get dedicated buttons and other things that are useful on set.  Think about it, if there was no use for something then they wouldn't add it to the camera, regardless of how large they were allowed to make it.

On a controlled set you'd imagine that they'd have a proper cinema lens with remote follow-focus etc attached, matte box, v-mount power, monitor, and the whole thing would be rigged appropriately.  By the time you add all that then the difference between an FX3 and FX6 is maybe only an extra 25% to the size of the whole rig.

[MrSMW]

6 hours ago, ntblowz said:

Maybe he chose fx3 cause it look more like standard camera than cinema camera who knows.

Possibly because it kind of demonstrates that one of the least most important components of movie making is the camera itself?

Beyond a certain point. 

I’m sure they were not using the f4-5.6 kit lens but some 20k$ cine lenses and maybe less than in some other productions, but whatever lighting etc was needed.

We know that even just in commercial jobs, the type of camera you have can get you or at least deny you, the job.

’Average’ tool in skilled hands etc…

In terms of sensor though, just how far off a Venice is that of the FX3? Barely anything.

[Chrille]

What i am really looking forward to are the information that will come out of the postproduction companies, as these will apply to most "prosumer" cameras.

Also "The Creator" is going in the direction of the "Sony" look and taking advantage of it - and many shots are just the basis for extensive VFX work.

I assume these cameras would not be used for a feelgood rom com where you want to get soft skintones from 45 year old actors...

 

[Davide DB]

5 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I’m sure they were not using the f4-5.6 kit lens but some 20k$ cine lenses and maybe less than in some other productions, but whatever lighting etc was needed.

Sony FX3, Atlas Mercury and P+S Technik Evolution Lenses (source: IMDB)

recorded on a Ninja V. other bits here: https://www.provideocoalition.com/did-the-creator-use-the-sony-fx3-as-an-a-camera/

 

4 hours ago, Chrille said:

Also "The Creator" is going in the direction of the "Sony" look and taking advantage of it - and many shots are just the basis for extensive VFX work.

From trailer it seems all the movie has a extensive VFX work.

 

From what I understand in my ignorance:

- the camera is the least of the costs in a large production/blockbuster.
- It is not the camera that makes the look of the film but the lenses.
- In a big production, where a serious DOP can afford to give vent to his fantasies about lighting, the technical characteristics of a camera are less important.

Ultimately, if Fraser/Edwards chose this camera, it is more because of their fixation on being minimalist as pointed out in the opening article.

About minimalism.... I still remember in 2009 when Howard Hall first took an IMAX camera underwater for the documentary Under the Sea. Minimalist to the point 🤣