So, with Let Him Go and Troll2357 under our belt, what's next?
At the moment we are closing on filming our third short, more or less the length of Troll2357, called 'Hell Hath No Fury' (EDIT: retitled tentatively to A Woman Scorned). It was inspired by a shot in the film Psycho (1960) and is very Hitchcockian in tone. I suppose one could call it a loveletter to Hitchcock.
I'm pulling together the fantastic cast and crew I worked with on the last film and adding a couple more heads to the mix. I have no doubt that together we can pull another decent film out of the bag.
 |
| Alfred Hitchcock (well duh) |
I'm pulling together the fantastic cast and crew I worked with on the last film and adding a couple more heads to the mix. I have no doubt that together we can pull another decent film out of the bag.
Again it is just a short film to send around to film festivals and show to other people and say, 'I made this' (Ten Thirteen Productions, in case you're wondering why you remember the voice of a child saying those words). Now one cannot make money on the festival circuit (well not without some serious angling), you pay others to watch your film and decide whether or not to select it. If they don't select it then it feels as though you've wasted that money. If they do select it, great, you get a little exposure. They sell tickets, you get nothing. My point is that the system isn't exactly fair to the creatives putting in the work.
Is there an alternative? A means to potentially make money selling or otherwise marketing the final product? Well there's only two methods that spring to mind for me. The first is to create an episodic series that you could tout to various TV channels or just launch on your own channel on Youtube. The second is to make a film with qualities that people are more accustomed to pay for. That means of course make it feature length.
Is there an alternative? A means to potentially make money selling or otherwise marketing the final product? Well there's only two methods that spring to mind for me. The first is to create an episodic series that you could tout to various TV channels or just launch on your own channel on Youtube. The second is to make a film with qualities that people are more accustomed to pay for. That means of course make it feature length.
Both ideas have their pros and cons. I am more inclined personally towards the latter of the two ideas even though that might seem, on the surface, the more difficult of the two options. But really, when you think about it, what's all that difficult about making a longer film? A longer schedule with more locations, I grant you. But if you're not talking about making Ben Hur with a gazillion extras and set-pieces, if your story is just simple yet engaging without the need for spectacle, then actually it doesn't take too much organising.
I'm fond of telling people that 28 Days Later was shot in 576p miniDV before it was blown up for cinema screens. The Blair Witch Project (hardly an example of quality) was shot in 480p on a Hi8 camcorder for the most part. While it would be great to film in 4K, an audience is more concerned with content than form so even if it is shot in 1080p, as we currently film, that's not as big a problem as it might seem.
So yes, I'm seriously considering making the next film feature-length, at least then we might just have a product to sell.
 |
| Cillian Murphy in 28 Days Later |
I'm fond of telling people that 28 Days Later was shot in 576p miniDV before it was blown up for cinema screens. The Blair Witch Project (hardly an example of quality) was shot in 480p on a Hi8 camcorder for the most part. While it would be great to film in 4K, an audience is more concerned with content than form so even if it is shot in 1080p, as we currently film, that's not as big a problem as it might seem.
So yes, I'm seriously considering making the next film feature-length, at least then we might just have a product to sell.
