PRIMER

[metroshane]

the deep ellum film festival will be having another screening of this on Oct 4.

www.def2.org

I'm not sure why people are questioning a 7k budget though.  I didn't see anything in the trailer that made me think otherwise.

[Sal]

the deep ellum film festival will be having another screening of this on Oct 4.

www.def2.org

I'm not sure why people are questioning a 7k budget though.  I didn't see anything in the trailer that made me think otherwise.

Also...isn't the running time 78 minutes?  That puts it at under an hour and a half, barely what it takes to be a feature film.  7k seems plausible to me.  Transferring to 40k for 35mm also makes sense, however.  

[Ghostboy]

Ghostboy I just read your posted review of it on AICN -- this is the first time I've heard of this movie and just went through reading several interviews with the filmmaker.  What is it specifically that you found so engrossing?  Were the performances by the actors (and the director) convincing?  Obviously all of the elements in the film have to be working together to produce a gem, but was it the plot that you tried to untangle that made it so interesting?  In other words - is the film much like doing a crossword puzzle you're enjoying, performances or flaws be damned?

Pretty much, yes. The performances are nothing to write home about...they're all good, just in perfect service to the plot. And it's not so much the plot that interested me per se as the way it was told.  The style is fascinating, and what makes it even more so is the knowledge that the style was implied by the budget.

Yeah it is incredibly short, and yes the trailer doesn't have anything that LOOK expensive, and neither does the movie really...but once you shoot anything on film, at least in my case, you start to realize how impressive making a feature for seven thousand (on film) actually is.

[tpfkabi]

did anyone end up going to the showing and Q&A at the Magnolia in Dallas this past weekend?

[Sal]

Kick ass interview with Shane, dude.  Nice work.

link: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18545

[tpfkabi]

Kick ass interview with Shane, dude.  Nice work.

link: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18545

do i need to wait until after seEing the movie to read this?

i was wrong about the thing at the Magnolia. it hasn't happened yet.

[Ghostboy]

Kick ass interview with Shane, dude.  Nice work.

Thanks.

And no, I don't think there's anything that could be considered a spoiler (although the one special effect in the film, while not really a spoiler to the plot, is discussed in detail and could possibly ruin one's suspension of disbelief when it occurs in the film).

[Sal]

Kick ass interview with Shane, dude.  Nice work.

Thanks.

And no, I don't think there's anything that could be considered a spoiler (although the one special effect in the film, while not really a spoiler to the plot, is discussed in detail and could possibly ruin one's suspension of disbelief when it occurs in the film).

It sounded clever, and I think it'll play that way when I see it October 13th.  Of course, I probably won't get his comment about the sweater out of my head when I do.  

[Ultrahip]

The thing at the Magnolia is tomorrow, Oct 3. I'll be there!

[Gamblour.]

Kick ass interview with Shane, dude.  Nice work.

Thanks.

And no, I don't think there's anything that could be considered a spoiler (although the one special effect in the film, while not really a spoiler to the plot, is discussed in detail and could possibly ruin one's suspension of disbelief when it occurs in the film).

Actually, by the interview (which was fucking great), I couldn't grasp at all what y'all were talking about. Maybe because I don't understand what the visual is exactly because I haven't seen this movie. I know something is floating and he used a digital camera (?) somehow. Maybe someone could spell it out for me.

[metroshane]

Went to the "Dallas Premier" tonight which had a short Q/A afterwards with Shane and Gary Cogill.  

I went in a little jealous and bitter, and competitive.  But I have to say I'm very proud of what this nice young man was able to accomplish.  Do I think it had a few problems and holes?  Sure.  Do I think it's Oscar worthy?  No.  But hey, he was one of us who did it...and for that I'm greatful and proud.  And it's not half bad.  An entertaining little movie.  And Shane seemed very nice.  The Q/A was very short so I ambushed Shane (yes I was that guy) as he was leaving and told him I enjoyed the film.  Couldn't have been a more affable and genuinly nice dude.  Then I pulled a douche-bag move and slipped him a dvd of my movie.  He took it with gratitude and I let him go.  He may have thrown it away as soon as I was out of sight, but hey, I honestly wanted him to have it one film maker to another.  

I really wanted to dislike him and the movie, but I can't.

[Sal]

Then I pulled a douche-bag move and slipped him a dvd of my movie.

Ouch

[metroshane]

It's well publicized that Shane claims to have made this movie for 7K, but he's been doing alot of interviewing around here lately and his numbers don't really add up.  I'll present several facts that I've heard him claim personally (no heresay) and leave it to you to decide.

1.  At premier, he told Gary Coghill that he shot for five weeks.  During the Q/A he was asked about some of the smooth shots and he mentioned he rented a dolly at $400/week.

total: assuming he used it every week = $2000

2.  On Russ Martin he claimed he rented the camera for $1000/week, in response to why he didn't shoot on video.

total = $5000

So that's 7K right there before we consider the cost of the rest of the essential processes such as, sound mixing, processing, final edit (he gave a EDL after cutting on Premier), video transfer, optical print, release print.

That's assuming he got all the talent for free (easy enough), Locations free, no food, no drink, no gas money, no electricity, free lighting, etc.  Also on Russ Martin show he said he did it after reading about Rodriguez doing it for 7K....and we all know RR was loaned his camera (5K to Shane) and still barely got in under 7K.  Is Shane just trying to spin PR?  You decide.

[MacGuffin]

So that's 7K right there before we consider the cost of the rest of the essential processes such as, sound mixing, processing, final edit (he gave a EDL after cutting on Premier), video transfer, optical print, release print.

Like "El Mariachi," the budget is for what it was 'shot' for; the 'in-the-can' costs.

http://www.primermovie.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=37

http://www.primermovie.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=40

[metroshane]

I'll have to read RR's book again, but I was thinking the 7k included processing (considering he talks of the cost to transfer to beta).  Maybe not.  But then Shane says he got a lot of the film free, not all of it.  So he had to pay for some of it.

Granted in my humble opinion, it probably cost more around 10K...too convenient that the magic number is 7k just like RR.  He only mentions he borrowed 30K for the 35mm blow up.  If you are correct that the 7k only includes the in-the-can status...where did he get the money for the post?

Still a good film, and I'm still proud of the dude...just doing some mental adding.