• READ BEFORE POSTING!
    • If posting a video, please post HERE, unless it is a video as part of an advertisement and then post it in this section.
    • If replying to threads please remember this is the Promotion area and the person posting may not be open to feedback.

watch "Nocturnum" trailer by Bad Juju Productions

I like it. The visuals are nice (especially the tunnel shot), the sound is good (very 28 Days Later style music), and the acting looks good--the lead cop actor is very natural.

Looks like a quality indie production. Good luck with this.
 
Thanks! Here is the kicker, it was made for under $4,000. That includes paid actors, food, production costs, everything!

Bad Juju
 
Bad Juju said:
Thanks! Here is the kicker, it was made for under $4,000. That includes paid actors, food, production costs, everything!

Bad Juju
Click to expand...

A short or a feature? Our current feature is costing us $4K for a period, sci-fi action piece...but we're not paying the actors and most of our effects, production costs and locations are free...what's your secret?
 
M1chae1 said:
A short or a feature? Our current feature is costing us $4K for a period, sci-fi action piece...but we're not paying the actors and most of our effects, production costs and locations are free...what's your secret?
Click to expand...

Really!

I spent 5K on a 30 minute short, and that was not paying any actors, PAs, ADs, etc... Only the lead technical people (DP, Sound, Makeup, etc...) got paid, and they were getting slave wages.

As I make my plans going forward I'm working on the premise that I wouldn't even consider trying to make a feature for less than 20K.
 
I don't really have a secret. I didn't go to a huge film school in NYC or Cali so I had to learn to make films on no money. So pretty much I learned to skimp. Thankfully I think we had a really good script to start from and I think that everyone attached knew that and was willing to work for food. It wasn't a period piece so costumes were really easy. And as far as equipment, I've just been slowly collecting my own equipment over the last several years which kept rental costs low. Didn't shoot HD cause I don't really see the need. I've already fooled several professionals that my Canon XL2 was HD so whatevs.
 
Bad Juju said:
I don't really have a secret. I didn't go to a huge film school in NYC or Cali so I had to learn to make films on no money. So pretty much I learned to skimp. Thankfully I think we had a really good script to start from and I think that everyone attached knew that and was willing to work for food. It wasn't a period piece so costumes were really easy. And as far as equipment, I've just been slowly collecting my own equipment over the last several years which kept rental costs low. Didn't shoot HD cause I don't really see the need. I've already fooled several professionals that my Canon XL2 was HD so whatevs.
Click to expand...

Really? Well...I'm guessing you have an extremely talented lighting designer. Because in all honesty, there is a huge difference between HD and SD. If you can really light the scene well, and are good at post correction...you may be able to get rid of the glaring home-movie quality SD tends to have.

The trailer I see above is good. The lighting is solid and stylized (blues and greens) and it lends itself well to the indie format. From what I can see of the cut, the imagery is good. It doesn't stand out as being home-movie quality...but there is still a certain aspect to scenes that are lit by daylight...you can't deny that.

Yes there are a few big name movies that have shot in SD...but they also used lenses, major post work and professional lighting designers/DP's...if you don't have the works...your SD picture will stand out as being SD.

In today's market, an early benchmark you want to hit is HD. I know there is debate about this...but I've talked to many people about it...no serious filmmaker wants to shoot on SD. The hardcore filmmakers are looking into prosumer grade, 3K+ raw footage, lenses, etc...the last thing on their mind is SD...because there IS a difference.

And to clarify...I absolutely believe a quality, good-looking film can be shot with SD...I'm just saying unless you know what your doing, you have the bells, whistles and talent to tweak it, and you're story lends well to it...SD is going to be a deterrent to distributors and viewers. Your film above may be fine in SD, and no one may give a hoot...but I'm sure there are certain shots you would have loved to be on HD. Some shots and lighting set-ups look fine on the XL2...but others stand out as being SD, don't they? Yup.

I'm only saying all of this because of your comment I've bolded above...because I feel there IS a need for HD...especially in this hardcore market, saturated with indie movies ( a lot of which have awesome equipment).
 
Last edited:
First let me say thanks for the informed response. Also thank you for all the nice comments on the trailer. I am quite pleased how well it’s gone over since I put it on the web.

Let me say that in no way was it my choice to shoot in SD. I wanted to shoot HD and even looked into different DPs who owned there own professional cameras. However I had some issues with producers. All of them said that they could raise funds for the film but all wanted creative control in some way or another which I wasn’t really willing to give up. I had bee working on the script for several years and I felt it important to retain control on my first feature film. So my budget quickly went from around $50,000 to $5,000. And I went from shooting HD to shooting in SD.

I know that a dvd disruption deal is going to be almost out the picture due to the fact it’s shot in SD. The main goal I can hope for is some festival attention so that on the next one. That way I can say to producers, “Look what I completed on five grand, think what I can do with a serious budget.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top