Film Discussion

[JOE SOAP]

i dont see how that comment addresses the issues around filming in 3D .

If you read through the original problems PreacherCain was raising about issues with lens focusing and scene staging in action scenes or any scenes in 3D films the cinematographer's quote does address his attitude/technique in approaching those issues. Knowing about the technical problems because of my job, I understand exactly what he's talking about and how he's managing the challenges by influencing the viewer's focus of attention.

I built some new cameras rigs that can take you very close to the action. It won't look so much like the action films we're accustomed to, and the audience won't have things thrust in their faces every five minutes. I hope it will be more painterly.

He's also using certain surveillance cameras that can focus down to the the hairs on people's noses.

Also i am not involved in film production but i cannot see any sense in filming a low budget film in 3D.It will only be in the cinemas for a week or so and i cannot imagine that everyone who will watch this film has their own 3D TV or their own 3D glasses at home and hardly any cinemas have 3D screens.It might be that the director has done something interesting that couldnt be done without it so it remains to be seen....

Regardless of my own opinion on 3D - don't care about it - your comment doesn't make much sense, the film won't strictly be screened in 3D but will be in cinemas where available. There will be a 2D option too, if you so desire. Anyway, I'm not sure the film was that more expensive because it was shot 3D since it was a small film shot in one location - problem solving made easier - requiring little if any redistribution of facilities/crew.

I'm not sure why you think Dredd will only be in the cinemas for 'a week or so', also calling it a low budget film is a total misnomer, at $35/$45 million it's an average budget film and if you take into account that it was shot in South Africa where the dollar is worth more and goes further and the equipment/studio/crew hire was probably cheaper, the budget strecthed further than if shot in the USA or England, plus, there are no 'stars'. Possibly approaching a '$100 million dollars' in production 'value'.

Would you consider District 9 - a film of similar, slightly less finance - to look and feel low budget?

[JOE SOAP]

Danny Boyle isnt a fan who came out with a flippant comment about it in passing so its hardly worth being offended over it.

Boring.

I have to say though that i have never been impressed by a Danny Boyle film of those that i have seen and a lot of them have been scripted by Alex Garland so i think that they are both overrated and Alex Garland was only hired to write the script because he is an inhouse scriptwriter for DNA.

I'm not sure anyone was ever offended Peter and I'm don't think anyone was under obligation to excite you.

A lot of them, really? Of the 9 films directed by Danny Boyle, only 2 screenplays were written by Garland, Sunshine and 28 Days Later. Sunshine is pretty good - first 2 acts- but I think Never Let Me Go -not Boyle- is a lot better and quite subtle.

[JOE SOAP]

and Alex Garland was only hired to write the script because he is an inhouse scriptwriter for DNA.

For someone who says he's 'not involved in film production', you seem to know a lot concerning the decisions made on this film.

[Peter Wolf]

Alex Garland also scripted 28 Days Later and i thought he scripted The Beach as well.

As for the film being low budget it has been described as that on these threads right from the word go so i was parroting what others have said about it.

I have a right to be wrong !

I havent commented on the rest of your replies but i take them as corrections apart from the reply to mine about the Danny Boyle comment as you know as well as i do that fans can be touchy about that sort of thing.

It gave you something to do for a while.

Regarding 3D i was reading upon it and there are articles about it causing sickness and headaches.There are 400 3D screens in the UK and i read that 10 are opening weekly and Sony have invested a lot in 3D tvs so a few years down the line it will be Super High Definition 3D-3D TVs.

[radiator]

To be fair to Boyle, that comment was, iirc, made offhand to a journo at an awards ceremony or premiere or something. He'd never heard of the film and I doubt he knew of garland and macdonald's involvement at that time.

Garland is also serving as Producer on Dredd isn't he? He may also have originated the entire idea for the film and was probably central to it getting made at all - it's a little reductive to refer to him as the 'in-house screenwriter'.

[JOE SOAP]

Alex Garland also scripted 28 Days Later and i thought he scripted The Beach as well.

I believe I mentioned that Garland wrote the 28 Days Later screenplay, he didn't write the screenplay for the Beach, John Hodge did - Garland wrote the novel - so Garland still only scripted 2 of Boyle's screenplays.

I have a right to be wrong !

and you express that right brilliantly.

It gave you something to do for a while.

and it distracted you from talking about the Rothschilds/Rockefellers/Reptiles ;]

Regarding 3D i was reading upon it and there are articles about it causing sickness and headaches.

Really, I don't believe anyone mentioned those problems you're now talking about so I don't know why you bothered to quote anybody in reference to other issues when you were talking about something else in your own 'privacy'. If there were that many problems with sickness and headaches, no one would be going. The same argument has been made for 2D films as well since cinema began

[JOE SOAP]

Alex Garland also scripted 28 Days Later and i thought he scripted The Beach as well.

I believe I mentioned that Garland wrote the 28 Days Later screenplay, he didn't write the screenplay for the Beach, John Hodge did - Garland wrote the novel - so Garland still only scripted 2 of Boyle's screenplays.

I have a right to be wrong !

and you express that right brilliantly.

It gave you something to do for a while.

and it distracted you from talking about the Rothschilds/Rockefellers/Reptiles ;]

Regarding 3D i was reading upon it and there are articles about it causing sickness and headaches.

Really, I don't believe anyone mentioned those problems you're now talking about so I don't know why you bothered to quote anybody in reference to other issues when you were talking about something else in your own 'privacy'. If there were that many problems with sickness and headaches, no one would be going. The same argument has been made for 2D films as well since cinema began, it's not a criticism of whether 3D films work or not.

[Michaelvk]

From what I remember, there wasn't a single day when Alex wasn't on set. Nice bloke, by the way..

They had a really cool camera rig for the SI2K cameras.. That was for the stedicam shots. They basically stipped the guts out of the camera, and just had the two lens and sensor modules on the head, while all the electronics and batteries etc. were on a backpack. They referred to them as ghostbusters.

[JOE SOAP]

From what I remember, there wasn't a single day when Alex wasn't on set. Nice bloke, by the way..

They had a really cool camera rig for the SI2K cameras.. That was for the stedicam shots. They basically stipped the guts out of the camera, and just had the two lens and sensor modules on the head, while all the electronics and batteries etc. were on a backpack. They referred to them as ghostbusters.

I assume this was to balance the weight of carrying two cameras -steroscopic- on one steadi-cam?

[Peter Wolf]

Regarding 3D i was reading upon it and there are articles about it causing sickness and headaches.

Really, I don't believe anyone mentioned those problems you're now talking about so I don't know why you bothered to quote anybody in reference to other issues when you were talking about something else in your own 'privacy'. If there were that many problems with sickness and headaches, no one would be going. The same argument has been made for 2D films as well since cinema began, it's not a criticism of whether 3D films work or not.

[/quote]

I talked about sickness and headaches when i was reading about 3D films as a side issue.I have no idea if its a genuine problem or not but it has been widely publicised in the MSM as one article i read was in the Telegraph.I am curious about it but i havent any experience of it myself and it seems like something that affects a small percentage.

I have to admit that i only posted my comment in the first place because i was a bit bored and felt like ranting about it.

You did ask about District 9 and wether it looked like a low budget film.It didnt look like a low budget film and the general opinion was that the filmmaker had acheived a lot with their budget.It was obvious that they saved a lot of cash filming in a shanty town that already existed presumably or was it a set created for the film ?

[Michaelvk]

From what I remember, there wasn't a single day when Alex wasn't on set. Nice bloke, by the way..

They had a really cool camera rig for the SI2K cameras.. That was for the stedicam shots. They basically stipped the guts out of the camera, and just had the two lens and sensor modules on the head, while all the electronics and batteries etc. were on a backpack. They referred to them as ghostbusters.

I assume this was to balance the weight of carrying two cameras -steroscopic- on one steadi-cam?

Basically yes.. The weight of two cameras hanging off of your body would make you fall flat on your face.. The Red rig was very impressive too.. If you like the look of CNC'ed 7000 grade aluminium you would've had to change your pants.

[brendan1]

I'm not sure why you think Dredd will only be in the cinemas for 'a week or so', also calling it a low budget film is a total misnomer, at $35/$45 million it's an average budget film and if you take into account that it was shot in South Africa where the dollar is worth more and goes further and the equipment/studio/crew hire was probably cheaper, the budget strecthed further than if shot in the USA or England, plus, there are no 'stars'. Possibly approaching a '$100 million dollars' in production 'value'.

Would you consider District 9 - a film of similar, slightly less finance - to look and feel low budget?

It would be a MASSIVE result if Dredd was as successful as District 9. I'd be delighted to see Joe topping the BO charts in the US and the UK.

Maybe it could happen, who knows. I think District 9 has shown you don't need to be a mega-budget film or have A-list stars to attract an audience, although I'm doubtful Dredd will match 9's numbers.

What's equally important is how much money is spent marketing it, how clever the marketing strategy actually is, and what the competition is like. Obviously the core demographic is going to be 16-34 men, and as long as there isn't too much else out there, Dredd could scoop up a fair few of them.

Here's hoping anyway. I want the memory of Stallone/ Cannon's abortion to be forever expunged. Fine, some of the stills may look underwhelming, and the story feels very one-note to me, but I'm hopeful that it's going to silence the nay-sayers and be the film we want it to be.

[The Sherman Kid]

Good or bad no doubt I'll see it more than once in the hope another is made.The opening weekend seems to be critical for success, how much ,roughly would it need to make on it's opening weekend, given it's budget for it to be deemed a success and worthy of a sequel?Also, failing that, some sequels have been made on the back of dvd sales so ,again same question.Thanks

[PreacherCain]

Read that the budget was around the $45 million mark. For the sake of comparison, District 9 was $30 million while Marvel stuff like Iron Man/Thor tend to never stray above $150 million. I don't know if marketing budgets fit into those numbers.

District 9 made $37 million in its opening weekend. I imagine the Dredd people are hoping for something like $15-20 million in US alone. Of course that depends on their release strategy; how many screen it opens in etc.  It should do well in international markets too, particularly Europe. The international market is really helping buck up Hollywood at the minute, with stuff like Pirates 4 doing huge numbers abroad but isn't at its best at home in the US.

[Peter Wolf]

Good or bad no doubt I'll see it more than once in the hope another is made.The opening weekend seems to be critical for success, how much ,roughly would it need to make on it's opening weekend, given it's budget for it to be deemed a success and worthy of a sequel?Also, failing that, some sequels have been made on the back of dvd sales so ,again same question.Thanks

Box office opening weekend takings dont determine the success of a film as its more of a competitive thing which isnt critical for its success although if it it did generate high takings it would raise the profile of the film as it snowballs from there but the one thing that will guarantee a sequel is if it makes back its budget and then some like District Nine which is through sales and rentals of DVDs as well as box office.

District 9 was very cleverly marketed plus it had a script that was unlike anything else around.

Opening weekend box office is something that is more critical to the success of big budget blockbusters/event films as its highly competitive but its not something that is so important to smaller budget films as you wouldnt be projecting high box office for a smaller budget film and its more the exception than the rule when a low/medium budget genrates a lot of revenue on an opening weekend.