How the Sky Will Melt - Super 8 Feature

[sk360]

Full-on article at Filmmaker magazine and a trailer below.

http://filmmakermagazine.com/95297-shoo ... doyZPlViko


http://nobudge.com/upcomingfilms/how-the-sky-will-melt

[kuparikettu]

That trailer looked really good -- great mood and lighting -- and I applaud the effort. Excellent work! It hasn't been an easy journey, I can believe that.

However, that article and its tone didn't feel good. I can understand that for those who aren't that inside the film based cinematography scene it's a cause of shock and horror to realise how many steps are involved and how much some things cost. But somehow it almost felt like the film maker wanted to underline all the difficulty involved and how hard it was -- while most of their problems weren't related to the medium they were using: it was all about financial challenges and not having planned far enough finance-wise. For a feature length film things that are essential, especially when using a different kind of paint brush -- super-8 film, that is.

Anyway, I hope this film is a real success and I hope to see it myself as well.

[Tscan]

I agree with Kuparikettu's take on the task whining. it wasn't long ago that long ago that people were making great independent movies on film. And with all of this new high quality gear that cuts though all the red tape and costs of a film chain.. where is the "Clerks" or "Highball" of the modern HD world and it's millions of new so called film makers? Working with film has all kinds of seriousness to go with it, and getting serious is what it takes to make something great. I guess i would just expect more cult greats to come from a much larger mass of people who have easy access to high quality gear.

[Will2]

where is the "Clerks" or "Highball" of the modern HD world and it's millions of new so called film makers?

Good point. With as easy as it is to shoot in video, I would have expected better films too. My guess is that while it has become easier in many ways, the basic crafting of a good story and the persistence to follow through on a project is still the realm of a select few. Those people are driven to make their art no matter what the difficulty or costs.

Same thing happened in music. It's now possible to make recordings of a quality that only the best studios in the world used to be able to do. Does that mean we have better music? Not really. Not so much worse, but not all that much better.

The one place I see massive gains in is television. The last five years or so have been quite a golden age for television with amazingly well done series in both writing and photography.

[RyanH]

where is the "Clerks" or "Highball" of the modern HD world and it's millions of new so called film makers?

After being a long-term lurker, I registered for this

If I was going to be snarky, I'd list films like 'Safety Not Guaranteed', which was made for only slightly more than 'Clerks' adjusted budget while being far more ambitious. But I think that whole potential pissing contest is missing the point.

I don't think feature-length films are necessarily ever going to be a good benchmark. The method of image capture is important, but still a small factor in the total production. Crew size, length of shooting, a dozen other things that impact the logistics will always add up to a much greater factor in getting a feature off the ground. The influence of digital freedom has been much more obvious in shorter formats such as TV or short film precisely because the rest of the logistics are inherently easier.

But there's a reason that 'Clerks' and 'El Mariachi' and 'Primer' were so celebrated. They were nuts productions that only got pulled off once in a blue moon by insane people. Read stories about any of the famous 'No Budget' productions and one thing they have in common is that the logistics of a feature length picture almost killed, figurativly or literally, everyone involved.

So regardless of technology, real cinema-quality 'No budget' features are going to top out at one or two a decade.

But you might even see less of that, because video and associated digital workflows have driven the lower cost of serious productions down quite a bit. 'Clerks' cost $250,000 to make in 1994 money. That's closer to a half million now, for what was a total cut-every-corner production.

In just the last few years, small budget movies have included 'Birdman' (BIG Oscar winner, 18m), Ex Machina (15m), Chronicle (12m) and dozens of others like the aforementioned 'Safety Not Guarinteed' (.75m). It's become possible to make a film for 10-20 million (or less) in 2015 dollars that would have cost tens of millions in 1994 dollars. So in the movie market the leap from making a really good no-budget short to making a professionally financed low-budget movie has driven out some of the impetus to make no-budget feature movies. Anyone with the skill and contacts to pull of a no-budget feature almost certainly has the ability to line up the financing and interest to do a low-budget feature instead.

[Tscan]

'Clerks' cost $250,000 to make in 1994 money. That's closer to a half million now, for what was a total cut-every-corner production.

Maybe that's what IMDB says, but in reality they spent about $30K of their own and their parents money to make it. The 90's were chock full of good little independent films that you don't see happening today. What made them good was the writing, dialog, and most of all the cultural references of it's target audience of the times. Movies like that could be made so much easier now but they are not. One thought i've had is try to imagine something like "Buffalo 66" or "Clerks" on HD video. Modern kick ass HD video has no mystique which is an important factor in any story element because you are removed from own reality to some extent. I think a lot of people may find that making feature on video still requires a lot of high end equipment and costs, in order to keep it from looking like a bunch of amateurs playing around with a video camera as opposed to a story that you can sink into.

[nikonr10]

All I can say is good for then , That would make kodak Happy ?
Thing is when you look at film history , Most films were made with not that much , when we look at todays effort , Shooting on super 8 that a hard thing to do .
we live now in time when , if you use a film camera thats rare , What stone did you come out of ?

[bakanosaru]

Back in the 'good ol' days' when it was shoot film or nothing there wasn't a flooded market for indie feature films, so the gems were more likely to get noticed, picked up, polished and promoted by the big players (as was the case with El Mariachi or Clerks).

Now there are thousands of indie feature films made every year. How is that no-budget film supposed to get discovered now?
(Cream does not always rise to the top, especially when filmmaking talent and marketing ability do not necessarily go together).

It does still happen though - as mentioned the whole mumblecore movement, various 'microbudget' schemes and films like 'Tangerine' which was shot on the iphone.

The trailer looks quite cool but it doesn't have any story hook that makes me want to watch the film, and the synopsis lacks any spark while threatening a fairly generic story...come on Mr Wade I'm sure your film deserves a more dynamic and enticing synopsis (filmmaking talent≠marketing talent).

[Pj]

I have just read the article and agree that the tone does not feel right, I am not sure if this article is about supporting Super 8, I would have liked more information about film-stocks, cameras, lighting and grips.

There is a suggestion that there was a weak infrastructure back in 2012 which is even worse now - I’m assuming the article means a weak ‘film’ infrastructure, here I am not sure I agree, as there are many more options to shoot film now, especially Super 8, even shooting 16mm has got really cheap for the no/low-budget filmmaker. The only major change that happened to film in 2012 was the discontinuance of Ektachrome 100D from Kodak, which in my opinion was the best Super 8 stock.

Complaining about the short run time of a Super 8 cartridge is far too common, the fact is that reloading a Super 8 camera is fast and easy and besides actors prefer short takes - Who has a long take lasting 2.5 minutes anyway? Knowing that you have just 2.5 minutes makes you plan a lot more carefully.

Pav