Cool News
The alternate MONSTERS poster is pretty nifty!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. I'm happy that Gareth Edwards' MONSTERS is getting a lot of attention. It's a truly impressive accomplishment for the budget, but I will say when I saw the film last March at SXSW that it was a movie I thought was just okay until I heard he shot it for $15,000, then I hit the roof.
It's kind of a mumblecore alien invasion story. It's an incredibly inventive movie, but if the script was just a little more... um... in existence... I think this could have been a classic. Instead there's a heavy reliance on improv within every scene, so the details tend to be blurry and the character dialogue often repetitive.
But the movie truly hinges on two things: The love story, which I bought, and the glimpses at the invading giant aliens, which are incredibly impressive.
The story is simple: two people are trapped in Mexico, they need to make it to America after the first wave of an alien invasion (that's UFO alien, not Lou Dobbs alien) where the boarder between US & Mexico is a No Man's Land filled with these creatures.
I can't wait to see what Gareth Edwards does with more money and a good script.
Anyway, mini-review over! You want to see the Alternate Poster for the flick. The Vulture Blog has the premiere! Be sure to click the image below for their story and a higher res version of the poster!
-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter
-
+ Expand All
-
It's our turn to adopt
-
no thanks
-
...but that film's called Attack of the Shit Mongers.
-
paid big $ to see greenberg,THE FUCKING WORST MOVIE EVER!
-
boarders are people who rent a room in a house.
-
Although, the font for the title reminds me of the new EVANGELION movies. I see that title, and all I'm thinking of is giant mech suits and prepubescent angst.
-
What do I know? I'm drunk.
-
Here's to alcohol: the cause of, and answer to, all of life's problems (the simpsons)
-
It's even dumber than "torture porn".
-
are you getting lazy choppah? I hope not!
-
..some of the local girls were cast as extras.
-
can you clarify the budget for this flick please? i just watched a trailer on youtube for this and 15 thousand seems impossible.
-
no murphy was in Hancock
-
$15,000 according to the filmmaker at the first screening in the world. They paid for bodyguards in Mexico (and put them in the movie when they needed tough looking dudes) and that was about it. Edwards did all the CG himself.
-
i guess doing it yourself *would* save tons of money from being paid to a cgi company. thanks for the clarification, I just wasnt sure if you typoed or not.
-
Low budget, advertise it as a big alien movie, make lots of money. But you dont see aliens, in fact you only hear them. Thats bullshit. Do it like Emmerich, ID4 cost only 75mil and it was real fun.
-
Yay. BOARDER.
-
with Fred Savage. I watched that last night on Netflix Watch Instantly. I hadn't watched it since I was a young lad. Interesting to hear "shit" at least five times, "nice ass" spoken by a girl monster to Fred Savage, and a whole slew of other mild-to-medium cuss words. Today they don't write them like they used to. Anyway, I'm off topic.....yeah, Monsters...hope it's a good watch.
-
Spell check much?
-
Sep 02, 2010 5:26:48 PM CDT
This Looks As Exciting As Those ARTHUR Photos
by richard_gere_raped_my_gerbil
Those photos were NOT exciting.
-
No chance ..... like android said must be closer to the hundreds of thousands.
-
CHOP CHOP CHOP!
-
FUCKING DIE DUDE, SERIOUSLY, i hope you choke on a bag of dicks, motherfucker...
-
it still costs me 10 bucks
-
Sep 02, 2010 5:41:03 PM CDT
$15,000 IS JUST A PR STUNT!!! THE GUYS A FUCKING LIAR!!!FACT!!!
by creationisttechnophobicmaniacs
For four people (the two actors, Director and assistant) to have visited all the places, that they have claimed to, would have cost in excess of 15,000 alone just for travel expenses, hotel rooms, food etc....There's also the fact that on the IMDB technical specs section, they had this thing being shot on a Nikon 5K still camera with video capabilities but, in the behind the scene's footage I've seen, he's using a big ass Prosumer camera and lenses that alone would have cost at least 5 grand alone. No, this guy is running a PR campange stunt just like Rodrigues did with El Mariachi when he claimed to have only spent 7K, not including the tens of thousands spent by Columbia on post production etc...
-
for only $45,000. So, yeah, it's possible.
-
and the $15,000 is out of pocket expenses.
-
Sep 02, 2010 5:59:36 PM CDT
As someone who has worked on low budget shoots before...
by kain_bloodstone
I can tell you with complete confidence that 15K for something THAT polished is an complete and utter impossibility. The sound mixing alone would cost a thousand. The color balancing would cost another thousand. Add to that hiring cameras, lenses, lighting rigs will set you back ten grand easy, probably double that. And we haven't even gotten to the logistics yet - travel, fuel, hiring vehicles, hotels, food etc etc. I'd say at an ABSOLUTE minimum it cost between 80 - 100k. Realistically, it cost over 200k.
-
That was a fake CHOPPAH. He has a zero(0) for an oh(O). Reminds me of the multiple fake Dick Bloods.
-
...but I am really jazzed for this film.
-
Does it really matter if the film cost more than the much talked about £10,000? The budget is obviously palpably low enough to have encouraged the PR department to make it part of the press blurb It's quite amazing what you can get away with if you are a smart, persuasive producer. Cheap hotels, free meals from cafes you shoot in, clever deals done with Airlines? All of this is standard stuff in low budget TV land. I spent two weeks shooting a series of holiday promos in the US and we didn't pay for a single hotel. And this was minimum 4 star stuff - you just have to know how to cut deals.As regards IMDB it's frequently wrong, but why does the director have to have actually purchased said camera? Personally I'd borrow one of my many contacts. Filmmaking world is like that, see? Or perhaps he already owned it from previous work. Plus it isn't a 'big ass' camera at all - it's a fucking Sony EX3 with a 35mm lens adaptor shove on it (not 35mm STILLS lenses, not movie primes). Camera isn't worth more than about £4000 second hand.Rodriguez was full of shit, but then he had to have ALL THE SOUND replaced on his film because he was an idiot. Gareth Edwards has sensibly employed a Sound Recordist on location (NOT an 'assistant' - christ, sound is more than half the movie) so what he possibly spent money on is the audio post and sound design - but even then if you know people it's amazing what you can do.I'm sure the 'entire' cost might be upwards of £10k but possibly not by as much as people WANT to imagine. To put this into perspective - I recently completed work on a collegues feature shot on odd weekends over about a year and a half. It's a simple, intimate drama. All the gear was borrowed, and we all worked for free including the actors, some of whom were 'names' in the UK soap opera scene. No food was ever provided just tea and coffee.Total cost of film? £1380.
-
For this at TIFF. I'm gonna ask the director in the q&a afterwards to explain how the 15k was budgeted. Then I'm gonna ask him about all the other costs associated with the film, and how he paid for them. I've worked on low-budget films with no cgi and cast and crew working on deferred payment, and 15k is a very unrealistic number. It all smells really fishy. 15k? Maybe if he shot it on his cell-phone.
-
Or can you see Venom in the reflection on teh goggles?
-
Here are some links about that very project. Not anywhere as polished as 'Momsters', but not as experienced a director. Think Shameless with a touch of Mike Leigh. And next time we'd use prime lenses, stills or otherwise which make a big difference to a films 'look'.
http://poorweeme.com/
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/life_and_style/s/1301456_simon_made_direct_saving_on_his_movie
-
Sure he may have borrowed the ex3. The problem is he says he shot it on the nikon 5k still camera, and doesn't mention the ex3. If it was simply a borrowed cam, why not disclose that? Why pretend the whole film was shot on his nikon? -
I'm curious about how you first heard about it, and what put it on your map initially.
-
I could borrow a red-cam, 2 ex-3's, an hvx-200, a box of primes with lens-mounts,use friends and fam for cast and crew, and 15k would would still barely cover equipment costs. Unless I shot it in an afternoon. And blew the guy at compleat. And didn't need any post. And didn't need a 35mm transfer.
-
Or just a random quote pulled from somewhere? Given that the material used in the publicity drive happily shows him repeatedly shooting with an EX3 don't you think it might be a misquote? Plus who gives a fuck which cheap ass camera he used - its all sub £5k equipment in its rawest form.The sound gear would be worth more (FACT - Im a sound recordist).
-
You sound like you're a press department plant. I've watched the trailer several times, and there is heck of a lot sophisticated work going on. There are practical effects, sophisticated lighting techniques, I swear I saw at least one aerial helicopter shot. If you've come hear trying to convince us it was done on a shoestring, I'm here to send you packing.This isn't a cofee and tea shoot shot for $1380. This needed some heavy duty post production work (I don't care how many people Gareth Edwards "knows", everyone has bills to pay and they won't put in that kind of work for a pat on the back). So I call bullshit on this film. And on you.
-
Which frankly so could I - where are your equipment costs coming from? Free is free. Post work is expensive...but only if you don't know any guys in post. Edwards has clearly been at this game a while so this seems entirely possible. Where it might be disengenous is if he claims that 'anyone' could do this for the same costs. Although with the 5Ds I think the gap is narrowing at speed.35mm blow up is only a requirement once you have a deal. I suppose we could argue that print costs and publicity make this a bazillion dollar movie, but that is rather missing the point isn't it?
-
Sep 02, 2010 7:05:38 PM CDT
I JUST FUCKING HATE THE OBVIOUS PR PLOY.....
by creationisttechnophobicmaniacs
I'm soo tired of this shit where people say "oooohhhh, a movie shot for the cost of a car". WhoopDeeFuckingDoo. How about we hear if the movie is any good or not. The fucking thing could have been shot for $5 on a fucking cell phone and I couldn't care less. No. The reason for this 15K bullshit is because he's trying to sucker his way into a studio gig. The whole things leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If they have to use the cost of the movie to publisize it then it can't be very good.
-
Really good. Very subtle. I just hope that the promotional stuff won't rely on comparing it to Cloverfield/District 9. It's a very well made, well told story that has little in the way of effects and a lot in the way of character and thought.
-
...have praised a relatively small-budget movie with its budget in mind. For example, Primer comes to mind. However, like some of you have said, I'd prefer a movie to be good over "it's good for having such a small budget." I dislike it when it seems like a movie is being praised simply because it shows potential that will only be fully achieved later with his/her "next movie" when he/she can work with a larger budget. When I think of a movie like Primer, I don't think "if only..." budget scenarios for the director; the movie is good on its own...end of story.
-
I guess aliens are all the rage now.
-
Charmed I'm sure. I have no stake in the 'Monsters' movie however it annoys the piss out of me that the immediate response to anything of this type is 'aw that's bullshit'. If you bother to read my posts properly you'd find that I'm not entirely in bed with the $15,000 figure, but am quite open to the notion that it can all be done for 'not-much-money'. It just takes an individual(s) with skill as opposed to just chutzpah. There are no ariel shots in the trailer I've seen, nor any practical work (the falling truck looks CGI to me). And sorry, but I'm the living fucking proof that industry professionals make choices every day to work for free on projects they believe in. We'd rather get paid of course...
-
What a terrible and lazy genre. I don't think this would classify.
-
It is entirely possible. This guy works in post-production and special effects. In other words- he's got contacts and friends. It's entirely plausible he did this for 15k. The distributor then takes care of the print fees and everything else.
-
...you won't get it.You'll ask for a remake, a simplified version.'Cos you're dumb like that.
-
...the people trying to disprove the budget.Mainly 'cos they're so sucked into the money machine they forgot how it is to be frugal. And clever.Suck it up, bitches!
-
my back is stiff as a bored. maybe i should go south of the boreder and let a hoar work my loer lumber.
-
at least once today.
These are the demands & sayings of buffywrestling. -
"I enjoyed Richard Harris as the original Mumblecore. He is much better than the guy who yells all the time in the new Harry Potter movies."
-
Just curious if you know "what costs what" when you do effects through companies as opposed to yourself.
-
Improv? Big fucking fail. Write a script for crying out loud... put forth some effort.
-
But I doubt that was the whole budget.
also @CreationistTechnophobicManiacs El Mariachi had hundreds of thousands spent on post production and it still looked like shit. Watch it again now and you'll wonder why anyone ever took it seriously. -
Seriously you guys are bitching about the production budget? Go loose your V-card assholes instead of just randomly finding things to bitch about. Who am I going to believe here? People who actually make movies or trolls who sit around trying to figure out how much a scene with a truck flipping over would cost. Get a fucking life. You people are just fucking pathetic. Jealous that you don't live a life where you're creative so you go out and find ways to bash movies. It was made for 15K... Who cares? I never give two shits about how much a movie costs. I care about how good the movie is. So far from what I've heard it's great. So that's all that matters! Seriously if you find yourself looking over the trailer and randomly guessing what scenes would cost you should really evaluate your life. I don't believe any of you who make up professions claiming you have some insight on how much a certain scene would cost. You're full of shit. Debate over. I win.
-
...of someone who thought the movie was just okay when he saw it, but when he found out how much it cost, he "hit the roof". So that blurb right there in the article makes the cost of the film relevant to how the movie is received. So if any of you want to bitch about how the cost of the movie is irrelevant...then bitch at Quint. Aaaaaaaaaand...GO!
-
Hey, what am I, a method actor? Hans, babe, put away the gun, this is radio, not television.
-
Hamball critics would be raving about how cheap it was for the Director to CGI some sex-crazed hot babes into the "love story" but you never get the full-frontal you were hoping for? Can someone please tell me what I am missing? This seems like it's being deliberately mis-marketed for the cash-grab and is a hubris-laden cock-tease of a movie...which will just REALLY piss me off. And don't give me that off-screen=Hitchcock classic technique bullshit.
-
didnt buy the film for a few million and put it on a real run at cinemas everywhere. This film is an easy money maker, and the talents behind it deserve an open door- not the one that says get the fuck outta here. The one that says "come on in". WTF hollywood. You like money- this is money!
-
Editing and 3d software was purchased at student discounts. Film was edited day to day so stuff was constantly pulled off of the camera memory and dropped on the drive or dvd's. Believe the hype. It happened and the budget is true.
-
don't seem to take into account how cheap it is to get stock footage for scenic shots and add in your original elements, use nighttime color correction and tracking points to make composites look real, film with two unknown actors and handle everything yourself with loaned or rented equipment in CHEAP Mexico.
I do personally know some of the people involved with this, and have even hung out at Vertigo films in London, and trust me they are not some rich fancy Hollywood like place. But they are a bunch of do it yourself type indie peeps from the business gals to the sound mixer.
While I do realize that the transfer over to an exhibition format like film will cost upwards of a 100k funded by Magnolia, the actual film itself on the guy's hard drives was probably done for the publicized amount.
Plus all you have to do is google the directors name and his past two-three accomplishments. It's sad that he sold away all his rights to this movie! He says he has no say on the property now (in terms of followup movies in this universe he wrote).
The truck flipping does not have to be a practical effect, neither does the tank, or the pyramid... Look up what this guy did for the battle scene for a BBC show. Look up his 48 hour film festival entry that won in London. Look up his title sequence featured on the "art of the Title" website
-
Had to say it!!!
-
Sep 02, 2010 10:25:04 PM CDT
autodesk 3d creation suite for 5k standard or $399 with k12 or h
by thejudger
See how the budget drops. This guy only needed the autodesk suit, the adobe cs4 (now 5) collection and the camera dvd/portable harddrive and laptop computer to do this shit. End of fucking story. End of fucking story. This is the film that crossed the line that said we dont need millions to do this shit. Big budget CGI effects that is. I'm willing to bet all of those programs were programs he got while he was still learning at an acredited school, so it might not even factor into the cost. Believe the hype. The budget is not a gimmic.
-
for the simple fact that the man behind it did what neill blomp did. He started out as a CGI artist and curtailed that knowledge to make a film. This is were things are going. Directors actually knowing what the fuck to do with CGI. VS the need to hire someone to do it for them. Better end results will happen. If this film needed to live on practical fx the budget wouldn't have worked.
-
The 'helicopter shot' (high angle pass over of small boat) is only present in alternate trailer - not one on Apple Trailers here in UK. Either way that shot doesn't say helicopter at all to me. Easily achievable from high deck on a passing ferryboat or such. Guess we'll have to see the film to know who's right? If it is a chopper shot it won't be the only one. Truck still looks plausibly CGI to me, something that Edwards is excellent at - visit here to see his 'bedroom work' on a recent BBC production:http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/06/04/votd-monsters-director-gareth-edwards-attila-the-hun/Although I wouldn't put it past him to have found a local to bounce one off a forklift. Seems like a fairly loose shoot to say the least...Without meaning to be rude, your personal aversion to 'pro bono' work has no bearing on what favours the director was able to call in himself. I merely mentioned it with reference to me and my collegues that if projects come up that can be demonstrably proven to be worth our while I find that most people will pitch in. With all the effects work (and I imagine basic grade) being undertaken by himself this leaves only the sound design. There isn't three months work in that (unless you are Lucas) and I suspect that as much as was humanly possible was tied down before the need to enter a full mix studio. The shoot appears to have been only him and a sound recordist though that does raise questions as to how he staged certain scenes without a focus puller and more than one boom op. Perhaps restricting his shooting style was a must.While I'm enjoying myself debating the budget, its worth noting that all the reviews for the film so far seem to be excellent and based more upon its content than it's production costs. I don't think it's quite fair to suggest that it would have vanished into obscurity had the question of it's frugality not been raised.
-
I guess I'll just have to see it to believe it, but I've AD'ed low budget stuff, and 15k disappears so quickly. I've decided to wait until I see it at TIFF to reserve judgement. It feels like a marketing ploy, but maybe I'm just jealous we haven't figured out how to make a feature at that price.
-
Did they fucking walk to Mexico and sleep in tents? I also saw the rig he was shooting on, easy $20,000 worth without a selection of lenses. I know why they do it though, makes it sound more appealing to distributors and investors on the next project if they think they make a movie for pocket change and a few mouse clicks. Hell, I'd do the same thing.
-
...if the movie is good, honestly, if the filmmaker said he made it for $300K, well, that's just as impressive, shooting a high concept sci-fi thriller with a couple of well-placed fx shots.
Isn't that kind of money about the budget of a cheap cable hour long drama? That's still making a budget go a long way. -
Actually - there's invisible perfect CG enhancing a great deal of the movie. And you'll see a good deal of the Aliens and at different stages. This film is tremendous.
-
He had a sound man, he operated the camera, his two actors - they shot guerilla fashion - so much smart use of locations with subtle enhancement... but almost all the "set dressing" you see in the film - which just looks like set dressing... this guy did in his computer - forever. So incredibly low budget. But it looks stunning. We played this as part of the FANTASTIC FEST programming at SXSW - Filmmakers were there - answered about an hours worth of questions from the audience. Film got picked up at SXSW, so what we saw was the raw film, of which, I wouldn't change a goddamn thing.
-
Nope. Can get the camera for about $7000 US if you look for it. Lens adaptor $1000. 35mm stills lenses (not prime movie lenses) are cheap enough. Plus why is everybody stuck to this stupid idea that you have to BUY a camera to shoot a film? If you have no cash you borrow one or rent it on a deal basis. No wonder you people can't understand how to budget for a small independant. Even Michael Bay with his gazillions of dollars doesn't buy the bloody cameras when he shoots a film - all rented.
-
Small films are usually eaten up with having to pay wages for somebody, rent some gear you couldn't borrow, pay for a location and feed 100 people for a week. Just mileage expenses can kill you. But you have a script that can limit your cast and crew to two people, take up almost all post production yourself and have a producer who knows how to get things for free then BINGO. The fact that you mentioned being an AD speaks volumes about the numbers of people that people think that they need on set regardless of a shoots actual complexity.
-
If you want to get picky I was including the Zacuto rig as well, which would bump it up a fair bit, I understand what you're saying though. I also think my point stands, it sounds better to say it was made for next to nothing.
-
My BF is a black man.i met him via
_____ B lackwhiteR omance . C’ 0- M _____ It gives you a chance
to make your life better and open opportunities for you to meet
the attractive interracial singles and treat you like a Queen.
Maybe you wanna check it out or tell your friends. ;) -
either way, looks great to me
-
Finally, an upcoming film I can really get excited about! Looking good!
-
I'll bet it's more like "15 thousand of my own money...! (And, of course, Dad's 150 thousand, and uncle's 50, and...)"
But a "1 million dollar independent movie made by a group" doesn't sound as underdoggishly marketable as "a 15-thousand dollar movie made by one man!", does it? -
How'd they register? Their AI gets better every hour. (By the way, nuke St. Petersburg with its RBN, and 90% of the world's spam and online crime will disappear overnight.)
-
Alright - he has the Zacuto bull-bars and base plate (no follow focus or viewfinder extension tho). I understand the point you were trying to make, but I think banging on about the cost of the camera is utterly irrelevant, especially as the rig used still falls into the catagory of cheap by professional standards. $14,000 or whatever may seem a lot to man-in-the-street, but it's next to nothing on pro gear. If he'd manage to borrow a RED or a Panaflex for nowt it might be less impressive that the images were so good, but still be meaningless as to how that affected the budget. Now the 5D is out every man and his dog will be producing terribley directed, acted and 'sounded' features with very pretty pictures.
-
I think it is rather disengenous to admit that Open Water faced a dramatically different and vastly more complex set of production challenges and then go on to compare them like for like. Shooting anything out at sea is the worst possible nightmare (That film may not have night lighting issues but at the very least you are going to get into the joy of constantly having to rotate boats and half drowned actors to follow the sun - much harder and more time consuming than on land). It also doesn't really take into account the colossal amount that has changed with image aquisition in the time since that film was produced. It is now easily possible to produce 35mm movie style images on cameras that have remarkable capabilities in low or 'natural' lighting conditions but which have the portability of the average handycam (or DSLR). Most of what the trailers for 'Monsters' reveal is a series of nicely shot travelogue shots that have been very atmospherically digitally augmented. Once you take the SFX out of the equation (which we kinda have to when you start to look at Edwards previous work) there is nothing on show that immediately screams 'money'. This is they joy of tools like the 5D - everything looks very 'movie like' (as long as the DP knows what he's doing). I can't imagine that the director was hauling a set of 50k lights around South America or indeed that he would need to.
-
Of course you can turn that question on it's head and ask "that film was shot in a HOUSE. No travel costs, the actors and crew could go home every night, and it still ended up costing 15k. Where the heck did they spend the money?" Wages? Food? Camera & light rental? SFX? Editing time? What if you could get all that for free?
-
That I'm not advocating this kind of freebie filmmaking per se. If everyone constantly has to do things for nothing, people take the piss. And no-one gains an understanding of the value of anything. This already occurs within my job far, far too frequently to be comfortable. "Will you do my film and bring all your gear - we have no money but it will be an Oscar winning epic". No it won't. It'll be self indulgent shit.
-
I thinks what's been confusing me is how he paid for the lighting. However, endless touch-ups, colour corrections, and enhancements could help cover up the lack of proper lighting. I'm officially shifting from skeptical to intrigued. I'll send in my review after I see it on the 16th, when I hope to shift from intrigued to convinced, if not mind-fucking-blown.
-
And that this is where the magical $15000 went. Blagging equipment is easy peasy. Lights I would imagine were not really a big issue for most of what he was shooting. Sound gear belongs to the sound guy and I imagine he came for free. It's hard to tell without seeing the film, but the trailer rather suggests that for the most part he main characters simply wander about with the camera pointed at them in 'real' situations. Frankly, as a sound guy this makes me shudder, but I suppose if you are willing to accept a documentary level of sound recording then perhaps it works - otherwise this would be an obvious flaw in the budgeting argument. Basically I'm theorising that if you can lose the 'technical costs' of shooting and be left with the day to day running of four people on a doco style shoot then perhaps it can be done. Weather cover is again less of an issue when you are just four of you. Having never shot in Mexico I can't comment, but I'm going to assume that the 'rip-offs' are balanced by cheaper living costs in general? I'd guess that insurance wise he had the same deals run as most low budget TV channels. Security seems to have been the biggest issue. If for just a second we accept the $15000 shooting budget as true, I would naturally assume that he had access to extra chunks of change whilst on location as contigency, even if it was a choice selection of credit cards.
-
I see what you're saying. Eliminating all of the above the line positions, would definitely save you some serious $. I'm just not talented enough to pull it off. Or maybe just not ambitious enough. Point conceded. Glad we could have an intelligent discussion about this with out it devolving into us calling eachother faggots like so many other talkbacks do. All this is really hyping it up for me now, so whether it was clever marketing or not, my ass is begging to be in that seat.
-
There looks to be little lighting used to me. I'll bow to the more experienced DPs amongst us, but looking at scenes like the plane sinking on the boat, it's VERY dark and grainy - looks fairly obvious that the lead actors are carrying flashlights for a reason...Interesting experiment for you all - go back and watch the trailers with the sound turned off. Pictures don't look quite so sexy...
-
I guess if everone was donating their own rigs(assuming they're personally insured), and you are putting up your own cash, you could rockstar it and skip insurance. If you used standard short-form contracts, and hand-shake deals, you wouldn't need a lawyer involved. I don't know mexican law, but you may not need releases or shooting permits, so that would save you. Ya, theoretically it could be done. Fuck toronto, I've gotta move to mexico. So many palms to grease up here....
-
I guess if everone was donating their own rigs(assuming they're personally insured), and you are putting up your own cash, you could rockstar it and skip insurance. If you used standard short-form contracts, and hand-shake deals, you wouldn't need a lawyer involved. I don't know mexican law, but you may not need releases or shooting permits, so that would save you. Ya, theoretically it could be done. Fuck toronto, I've gotta move to mexico. So many palms to grease up here....
-
Damn film better be amazing and have cost 8 pence. Cue press release that the film actually cost £8 million...Either way I don't have the skillz to pull something like this off for twice the price. I could do the sound though!
-
Yeah I did that too. Sound is so much more important to a film than people give it credit for. If I had only 15k to burn, a lot of that would go to sound. A movie that sounds bad just screams student film. You can fudge the lighting and call it your "look", but crappy sound pulls you right out of the film experience. Unfortunately for me, I don't know sound and lighting very well on a technical level. I don't know how you sound guys make things sound so pretty. I've always chalked it up to magic and human sacrifices.
-
Although as I'm a location boy I get the raw stuff and then have to hope that a magic man in a darkened room will fix all the sound problems caused by things like the director using two cameras, the harsh lighting throwing boom shadows everywhere, the terrible noisy costumes, the generator, the aiport/freeway/trainline...Oh and the RED that they borrowed that sounds like a UFO taking off! ; )
-
Don't forget AD's who have blown their schedule and say "alright lets skip the room tone" or "lets just foley that". I've been guilty of that.
-
Why would you title this film "Monsters"? It really could be called "Monsters vs Aliens"!
-
Heard it was pretty boring.
-
I keep seeing that shit, without knowing what the hell it is.
-
Would you guys give it a rest with the illegal aliens thing already? It seems like on any given talkback, a good 5% of messages involve illegal immigration. To a native north american we're all illegal aliens. Give up these antiquated notions of nationhood and birthright. You prize being born in america so much, but not enough to want healthcare for every american.
-
Mumblecore refers to low-budget indie films that use non-actors and improvised scripts. The movement has produced a couple good films, but a lot of it is unwatchable. The scripts usually involve relationships rather than plot points. Its all very 20-something angsty. This film seems to be mumblecore-ish rather than straight up mumblecore. I just typed mumblecore 3(now 4) times. I think that's enough for one lifetime.
-
... even the "Native" Americans are illegals. No humans were "native" to the Americas. They migrated from Africa to Asia, then to the Americas. Which is why the term Native Americans is somewhat amusing to me. Bad shit was done to them, but the term is not totally accurate.
-
Though the term itself is somewhat irritating, I'll at least have an understanding at what the angsty/hip cool people at Starbucks are talking about.
-
What's with the fucking tone, bitch? Pretty fucking vicious for someone that wasn't even addressing you, you little tool. "That's a stupid"??? Brilliant, asshole!
-
Sep 03, 2010 12:13:23 PM CDT
They should have Halle Berry flicking the MONSTER'S BALLS
by tigger_tales
-
Way to make assumptions about who you are addressing. You know jack shit, but it shows a lot about your prejudices and hatred. Fucking lame ass piece of trash. You can't even get your insults, ignorant as they are, right on the first try. Go die in a fire, you worthless sack of shit.
-
and the illegals do, too. They can go to clinics and hospitals across the nation and by law cannot be turned away. I assume you mean health insurance? That's another matter entirely. There is no place in the Constitution for Americans to be required to purchase health insurance, and you will see a just court overturn that portion of the legislation.
There is no place for Socialized Medicine in the U.S. - we're far too large a country for state of the art health care to be made readily available to any and all without causing us to go bankrupt. It's a matter of economics, of scale and of reality.
As it is, hospitals are closing down nation-wide due to the financial strain put upon them. Doctors are closing up shop and retiring rather than be forced under the thumb of the government.
Your utopian view of socialized medicine will become a nightmare once the government controls health care for all Americans.
If you want universal health care, it's going to be sub-standard. We simply do not have the money anymore for such an endeavor. Taxing every American to the eyeballs is what it would take, and with our Economy barely treading water in the crapper, that would be the final flush. -
Sep 03, 2010 2:15:19 PM CDT
They made it on fifteen thousand? Really?
by planty_mcplant_plants_his_plant_at_aicn
I smell something fishy. Something so fishy it smells like the Loch Ness Monster, Jaws and the Kraken rolled into one. With generous helpings of tuna, salmon and kippers. I think the director conveniently "forgot" to tell us that the 15,000 was his own money but there was another 100,000 that he inherited from his dead uncle. Must have slipped his mind...
-
with our immigration policy. I think it's ridiculous that businesses are allowed to recruit people from other countries to come in illegally and perform work at less than minimum wage just so they can enjoy a healthier bottom line. I think it's ridiculous that the immigration bureaucracy is so messed up that it takes years to get a visa, years to get a green card, and many years to get citizenship. But you know what is worst of all? That law enforcement officials spend resources pulling people over for speeding or not wearing a seatbelt, but don't bother to do anything if they come across someone here illegally. I hate that people are coming here without regard for our laws, or for the citizenry. Illegal immigrants take up vast resources from hospitals and municipal agencies. They don't do it unwittingly. They do it on purpose. They have no respect for our country, yet they are angered at US citizens for daring to speak up against their blatant disrespect for our country. A lot of Americans are sick of it, including many Americans of hispanic heritage who are tired of seeing the law flouted, the system abused. An open border policy is ultimately not sustainable. In a country where basic services for American citizens are being cut back due to budgetary concerns, it is appalling that our leaders allow a continuous and steadily increasing drain on federal, state and local economies stemming from illegal immigration. Shame on anyone who thinks opponents to illegal immigration are acting out of bigotry. This is a matter of principles and common sense.
-
I agree with the gist of what you're saying. An influx of unchecked illegal aliens is unsustainable.But also consider this. Your ancestors came to America unchecked and unvetted. They just walked ashore, found something to do to put a roof over their heads and food on the table and got on with life. That's why you're an American today. I guess there are a small amount of genuine illegals who have the same idea. They want to come here to work and have a life. That's the idea of America. America is an "idea" as well as a nation. Just a little a food for thought.
-
Planty, that doesn't make much sense, bro. When our "ancestors" came to America things were not what they are now. The world is completely different. There are different laws to abide by and different expectations from citizens. It's like saying today's music is exactly the same as the 60s. Sure the world is the same world, but it's a completely different place now, and different rules are applied and need to be followed as part of the continual change. As of right now, illegal immigrants are a big problem. Maybe in 20 years, everything will be different and the current laws won't apply anymore, but that's not the present where we need to battle current issues.
-
I agree with you 100%. In the current climate the system can't cope with illegal immigrants. But you and I and everyone else are here because our forefathers bought into the "idea" of America. That they could come here with no possessions or wealth and build a life for themselves. And that idea of America still exists today. Of course a large number come here to abuse the system. But I can also understand why some illegal immigrants believe they can come here and genuinely make a new life for themselves by working hard and making opportunities for themselves. I can understand their perspective. I think that's what's so special about America and it would be a shame if we lose it completely.
-
I see what you're saying now. For sure we don't want to lose that. Really tough to keep that PoV with all that's going on though. Cool. Have a good weekend, Planty, et al.
-
and I'm not sayin I won't.... but it has all the appearances of being a very interesting take on the alien invasion genre and also all the hallmarks of being a borefest that makes me angry at it for existing..... BTW, does anybody else get a very Soderbergh type of vibe off this film from the trailers? I certainly did.... if he was making these I would be right there..... but then again, this could surprise me! I wanna love it already , but I can see the fat girl lurking underneath, biding it's time if ya know what I mean
-
Some dude wearing a top hat?
-
I'd assume the guy already had the equipment. When people talk about Clerks costing $27K or El Mariachi costing $7K, pretty all that money went to the cost of film. So if the director has his digital equipment, ends up doing all the CGI himself, and filming is just himself, a sound guy, and two actors wandering around Mexico for a month, what's unbelievable about $15K?
-
for $15k because they are aspiring film makers who think they can do the same. Please don't. You'll get badly burned. If you go off to South America with some borrowed equipment and little money, you'll run out of funds very quickly and your footage will be very poor.This man is a FRAUD. Please believe me. He set out with several hundred thousand and is pretending he made it with nothing. Quint himself said he thought the film was merely "OK" but when he heard it was made for 15K only then was he impressed. That's the trick Gareth Edwards is using to sell his film. He is a con artist, a deceptor.Again, if any of you are thinking about doing the same thing PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T. Not only will you lose your money and end up with something unpresentable, but there are big security issues with going out to a third world country with expensive gear. The locals will notice you very quickly and your personal safety will be in jeopardy. I say again, Edwards is a fraud with his claim, don't buy into it and don't listen to some of the other idiots on this talkback (like JBMA) who clearly don't have a clue what they're saying.
-
IF you had bothered to read ANY of my posts in this talkback properly then you might understand that the thrust of my reasoning has been that the average aspiring filmmaker CANNOT produce work of this standard for the simple reason that they lack the industry contacts and quite possibly the required special FX skills needed to keep costs to a minimum - all, of which is pertinent to how little the project MAY have cost to shoot. That isn't to say that this kind of work shouldn't encourage people to pick up a camera and TRY - even if the film turns out to have cost $100,000 it should still open peoples eyes to how much can be done with comparatively little.Why any of this would suddenly make the world and his wife jump on a plane to South America is beyond me. Are you seriously suggesting that the Ain't It Cool talkbackers are all dumb enough to suddenly decamp to Mexico with 50 dollars and a smile; ready to shoot 'Monsters 2:Electric Boogaloo' on their iPhones? How fucking patronizing.As to your allogations that Edwards is a fraud - prove it please or piss off. Dickhead.
-
How many different countries have you shot feature films at? I HAVE been involved in shooting features in Nigeria, India, Venezuala and many other places with small crews and the minimum budgets have been never been under 120k. No effects work. No practical effects. Only four or five actors (who worked for virtually nothing). I can gladly give you a list of my films - nothing eye catching but they've done the the usual festival circuit and are titles available on DVD. So I think I'm better qualified than you are in knowing what is and is not possible on small budgets.And you are very naïve to think that young film makers reading this will not decide to try their luck and follow in Edward's footsteps. And your posts are encouraging them. I have read your posts, and in each and every one you are saying "Yes, it is possible". If you are even remotely connected to the film industry do you realize how thoroughly irresponsible you are being? Do you have ANY idea of the dangers involved in shooting in countries where drug cartels essentially rule and white foreigners are regarded as easy meat? Especially white foreigners with expensive cameras and sound equiptment and cash stuffed in their back pockets? I am telling now - SHUT UP. You are clueless, you are ignorant and you are endangering naïve film makers.
-
I don't require your resume thanks. Myself and most of the close friends and collegues I referred to in my earlier posts work in the UK television and film industry if all at rather differing levels - no budget shorts right up to the full scale hollywood productions. I tend to work more in documentary with occasional large budget drama work, commercials, music videos and the usual endless list of 'pro' shorts. As a result of this my experience of the varied nature of filmmaking is fairly extensive. I've managed to get by happily in my field despite being apparently 'cluless' and 'ignorant'. Equally if we really have to go down the route of a ludicrous pissing contest, what few credits broadcasters have bothered to list are there on IMDB. I'm not sure what any of this would actually prove. Inevitably my work has lead to shooting in many parts of the world on very varied budgets. I'll admit that I personally prefer to keep myself in the safer areas, but I certainly don't lack for collegues who positively relish the challenge - for example I work with a director who recently shot a feature in Pakistan for considerably less than the budgets you mention. If you are bored you can see the trailer for it here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLraeRloTv0And yes, they got shot at. Were they then just 'niave filmmakers'?With that in mind I'm not quite prepared to accept that you are much better qualified than myself to conjecture at the likelihood of Mr Edwards sticking to a miniscule budge, particularily as while you have been highly dismissive of what I consider to be perfectly rational theories on cost saving you seem to be unwilling to actually address any of the points I have made. It is also highly selective to trumpet that my posts are simply advertisments that anyone could do this - I have just repeated ad nauseum my opinion that someone with the kind of connections available to Garath Edwards MAY have a shot at it IF they were able to pull some serious strings. WHY do you not think this is possible? I don't work in prodcution, but I'm at least happy to guess that on a technical basis what he has allegedly achieved is possible. The production will come under some pretty harsh scrutiny over the next few months as will the director himself, so I think it's fair to say that the truth will out.I think your hugely pompous hero act on behalf of the witless masses of would-be G.Edward clones is as insulting to them as it is to me. I suggested that MAYBE the budget is close to a reality, and as demonstrated on this thread and surely hundreds of others across the internet, so will many, many other people. The idea that we will somehow have 'blood on our hands' for even bringing this discussion up is infantile in the extreme. People will do silly things regardless of sensible debate, let alone Ain't It Cool News talkbacks. I think you rather over inflate the importance of anything I have to say. The chances of some poor guys ending up in back Afghanistan because of the vague opinion of some nameless bloke on the internet 8 months previous is just perverse. How could anyone possibly prtect against that? After all they are FAR more likely to pick up a camera and try to do the same thing on their own doorsteps because it's far easier and cheaper.
-
Embarrassingly bad. Cloverfield, War of the Worlds, District 9, Jurassic Park. Not a single original thought.
-
truly awesome movie. District 9 was one of the worst movies i've ever seen. people literally kept walking out during the screening. terrible stuff. Monsters deserves as much hype and success as its truly one of the best sci-fi films made
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 435 total posts 435 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 88 total posts 88 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 86 total posts 80 posts
- Rest In Peace Bethesda’s Adam Adamowicz -- 76 total posts 76 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 69 total posts 69 posts
- Quint travels to Barsoom and visits the John Carter set!!! -- 127 total posts 62 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 159 total posts 61 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 88 total posts 60 posts
- Wanna smell like the Hulk? What about Cap? Consider yourself a Thunder God or a unisex God of Mischief? -- 58 total posts 57 posts
- Ridley Scott's Next Will Be Cormac McCarthy's THE COUNSELOR! -- 50 total posts 50 posts