If most films were made that cheap with that bad of picture and even worse, sound quality, and using ADR even, it would be rejected by most film festivals. However El Mariachi went big, and boosted off Robert Rodriguez's career? How is that his film was the exemption to the rules? Did the producers just have really good international connections to get it shown in theatrical releases all over the world or what?
How did El Mariachi get so big with such poor quality?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
This is a pretty fair attitude to have, and one that a lot of filmmakers either lack or lose in the process. Contacts or no, nobody's going to back a product that doesn't sell, anyway.
The reality of it is that most filmmakers can't produce something near what he did several years ago, and would rather relegate the blame to lack of contacts etc etc versus realizing that they just aren't good yet or won't be. That's a hard realization to cope with.
I'm with you, Brian.
I'm sure he was thinking the same thing. But to think Robert Rodriguez got his fame from connections alone, is quite the slap in the face.
It was the 90s, all movies looked like that. The only reason why his stood out so much, was because people couldn't believe how awesome it was for such an incredibly low-budget film.
I just find it funny, because now Robert Rodriguez is a full supporter of HD video capture.
Last edited:
Okay at the time it was a big thing to make an action movie for $10,000. But how come with all the new cheap technology of today, no one else is making movies for that cheap, that become near that successful? Aside from Paranormal Activity that is. You think that today, there would be more.
Last edited:
There were several movies in the early 90s that looked a lot better than that.
Two that come to mind immediately are MONSTERS (2010) and TINY FURNITURE (2010)
Two completely different projects, both found great homes, both directors gone off to do bigger material.
Adjust for inflation and they're about right for the 90's 10K.
The blame?
Some people can, some people can't. No one expect every one that calls him or herself a painter to actually be good at it, so why should every filmmaker be good at it?
It's just the way things are. Just because you want to be good or you think you are even as good as someone else doesn't mean that you truly are.
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to disparage RR. I think the man is supremely talented and that El Mariachi was a great movie!
And while I agree with you that 95% of indie stuff today is weak, that remaining 5% still represents a LOT of material, relative to what was out there in 1991. The competition for the modern-day Rodriguez is far stiffer and, as Sonnyboo and others have said, the home video market ain't what it used to be. While I do agree that El Mariachi would likely achieve distribution on some level, I still contend that it wouldn't get anywhere near the level of attention today as it did then.
It's the "getting it in front of a decision maker" that is the problem....and where the contacts come into play.
You still have to realize that there are plenty of really good movies made that no one sees or gets distribution, in the 1990's and today. If you can't get your movie seen by someone of influence, then it doesn't matter how good the movie is.
I have never said that RR is untalented or that El Mariachi wasn't fantastic, $7,000 budget or not. I am saying that the only reason he is FAMOUS and got his initial deal outside of the Spanish video market is because someone at ICM sold his movie to Columbia. RR didn't have any contacts at any major studio. They did. He already started to accept a deal for far less as a nobody. None of which has anything to do with talent or a good movie or not. Orignally Columbia was just going to make DESPERADO as a remake and shelve the original EL MARIACHI, but after some film festival screenings, they thought they could make some money on it as is.
They spent approx $100,000-$200,000 at Columbia doing a new sound mix for EL MARIACHI before Columbia released prints to theaters and for home video releases. They added foley and cleaned up the original audio, and re-did the voice overs from the lead actor in a studio.
Right. Do you consider "good" synonymous to "marketable/saleable"?
I know of a lot of good movies that aren't marketable or saleable without names attached.
Also, not disagreeing that you need to get it to the eyes of someone that can help move it. We're in the internet age, though... it's nowhere near as hard as it was to google around for acquisition executives emails (Linked-In?) or anyone else that you need. And, Film Blogs are eager to support great low budget material.
Again, I don't think we're disagreeing, just different POVs.
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise?
A movie can be good, even if no one sees it.
A movie can be good, even if no one sees it.
So how come people like Rodriguez or the director of Paranormal Activity, just hire a producer that can get more distribution, such as DVD, then say, the internet or the Mexican market?
For sure. But I guess you gotta work with what you have. So what are some ways to get a film noticed that no one has heard of then?
I don't think anyone mentioned the Bus scene and chase! While most indies are stuck on talking head movies or non-substantive horror (I looooooooove horror, if there is a thrill to it), this guy made an action movie with a pretty good bad guy! (Good conflict, the crux of any decent story.) When it wasn't action, there was actually some witty stuff going on (the Cantina keyboardist, the bathtub scene, etc.).
Yes, Columbia sank a bunch into the audio mix, but at least Rodriguez had ADR elements to work with (and they might have recorded new stuff). I say that anyone who ADR's their stuff is making a better quality soundtrack, whether some sync is off or not. The very nature of ADR is close mic'd recording, which is much better than on-camera mics and boomy room sound.
I still have this newspaper article:
Sure, he got a break with the agency, but he did his part by making a "sellable" film.
Yes, Columbia sank a bunch into the audio mix, but at least Rodriguez had ADR elements to work with (and they might have recorded new stuff). I say that anyone who ADR's their stuff is making a better quality soundtrack, whether some sync is off or not. The very nature of ADR is close mic'd recording, which is much better than on-camera mics and boomy room sound.
I still have this newspaper article:
Sure, he got a break with the agency, but he did his part by making a "sellable" film.
Last edited:
Yeah but most producers prefer boom to ADR still. El Mariachi had an exceptional villain.
Preference and reality, two different things. It didn't happen like that for him, and It's okay that someone else dumped money into his movie after the fact. It goes beyond just selling the movie, right now Rodriguez is an actual name, so even if he didn't have stars in his movie he could get money attached and theatrical distro.
No matter what he did before, it worked out because he had a good product. That's all that matters, honestly. The rest are minor details.
It just so happens, though, that now-a-days you can tackle everything you need on a near-theatrical-release-ready scale. 5.1 Audio, proper gamma for projection in digital or film-transfer formats, so on and so forth.