M.o.Mo. Club: "Ink"

Wow. You guys have covered the technical aspects quite thoroughly here.

Next month ill try to be there on the 16th like with Chinatown. I dont feel i have much left to contribute here.

What i can say is that i watched this movie in 2009 or 2010. Cant remember exactly when. I was pleasantly surprised when i did see it but did not think i would ever rewatch it.

On this rewatch, i see that the movie degrades fairly quickly. It's not one that can or will stand the test of time.

But i do admire it's effort and how it went for broke. And it was entertaining enough for a one time watch. More so than a lot of other big budget movies out there.

However, in the end, I think CF summed it up best by saying, "They really let their creative juices flow, and there are many bright-spots in this movie. But it's not enough."
 
I really don't even want to guess what the Winans' intentions were. I have to think that they probably did want to make a profit from it, the larger the better. Sure.

But I'm also in no hurry to assume that they were fooling themselves into thinking they were making something that was going to stand shoulder to shoulder with 200,000,000 million dollar bockbusters made by Hollywood.

I also do not want to assume that their priority was to make a child friendly movie. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. If they were smart enough to make the movie that they made, then they were probably smart enough to realize, hey, by putting in and keeping in the adult language we're aiming for an adult as well as a more limited, in numbers, audience. Is that wrong?

Mad Hatter, you seem to be working on the assumption that it's always best to make potentially child friendly films child friendly. I guess the assumption is that everyone should want to maximize the size of and the age spectrum of the movies that they make. But I will say that that's Hollywood Think. But what about us adults who would like and appreciate maybe even just a few adult stories made once and a while for adults? Well, Josh L has already addressed that very well by analogy and illustration.

It reminds me of the King's Speech. I was actually going to boycott even viewing the damn thing if they had decided to not produce any home video copies with the naughty profanity left intact, it irked me so. Hey, if there are copies out there with a child friendly cut as well as an adult friendly cut, that's cool, that's all good. That's understandable. "Dumb" isn't exactly the right word, I know, but I'm definately an opponent of dumbing everthing and anything down to the level of a child. There was no sex in Ink, but there was certainly violence. In any case, why should that necessarily mean that the story isn't meant to be a story for adults?

The question is, was it the priority of the Winans' or their investors to maximize profits and therefore to go with a "family friendly" cut of their film like Hollywood would have done? Or, were they independent and independently minded filmmakers who consciously wanted and chose to make a movie for adults with mature content? Was it more about artistic and intellectual integrity and voice, or was it more about making a return and a profit? No doubt they hoped for both. For the record, I myself may have decided to jettison the profanity in that film had it been up to me. I'm not sure. But I'm also not inclined to call their not doing so "stupid."

I don't want to knock them for the ambitiousness of their film. They could have been waiting around a lifetime for that 200 million dollar budget...and maybe two or three or a dozen lifetimes. And Death is on all of our doorsteps. The hour probably is later than you think. Of course, I hope not for all of us good people here, but, you know. I like to think that they got Ink made and who knows, maybe it will help to show the right people that they are quite capable of stretching, squeezing every dollar out of a budget. I have to think that that's a pretty nice skill set to be able to put on your business card. So, I hope that Ink helps them to get bigger budgets.

Josh, I really like your assessment. You know, thinking about Ink, and don't worry, I'm not trying to say Ink puts them in his league...yet; but I have to say that Ink reminds me a bit of Terry Gilliam's stuff. Oh yeah, that's right, I said it. :yes:
 
Last edited:
CrackerFunk,

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that the movie was created as you said 'just for the love it', but their dedication is obvious considering the multiple hats they wore.

With a 250k budget, no one walked away with a big paycheck up front. I respect what they accomplished with their limited resources.

Also, I made absolutely no comment about other filmmakers or their dedication to their craft. I've worked with several Directors on large-budget productions, and have seen some suffer for their art and others just phone-it-in.

-Rok
 
Cracker Funk said:
JoshL, we don't all have to like the same things, and that's fine, but I'm far from convinced that the filmmakers strictly made this movie for fans of the Fantasy genre, and didn't care about anyone else. They added action. They added drama. They attempted to tell an intriguing story of personal growth. I think those are appeals to the masses.
Click to expand...

I disagree that those are appeals to the masses. Fantasy is ALL ABOUT drama and growth, and very very few fantasy films are devoid of action. Those are all appropriate to the genre, and I don't see anything that was inappropriate, but added to appeal to a wider audience. I think the film is what it is. But I definitely agree that we don't need to like the same things. As I often say, there are plenty of films that I think are GOOD films, even great films that I don't personally like, and vice versa. It would be silly to think that others don't see things the same way (though they often substitute qualitative assessment for opinions. "This film sucks" versus "I didn't like it").

Cracker Funk said:
By the way, who doesn't like "Pan's Labyrinth"? That movie's fucking awesome!
Click to expand...

I agree; one of my favorite films, but I know lots of people who didn't care for it. A good friend of mine who likes fantasy, but leans towards the Conan side of things hated it. Another friend doesn't like movies that intense. She prefers the pg-13 relatively family-friendly fantasy films to fantasy films for adults. These are individuals, but we're not snowflakes; there are tons of people like them. If your film MIGHT appeal to Crowds A, B or C, you have to decide who your audience is. A and B might not like C, but if you want to make a C-type film, trying to appeal to As and Bs is probably going to backfire.

richy mentioned Terry Gilliam, and I think that's a great example (again, this is not in the same league, but shares intent, I think). Terry Gilliam cannot make a film for the masses. His few attempts (Brothers Grimm, which I do enjoy for what it is) generally are two weird for the average film goer, but not weird enough for Gilliam fans, so they end up generally disliked. Contrast with Tim Burton, who makes similarly weird fantasy films, but he KNOWS how to talk to the masses. I enjoy the works of both, but they're definitely made with different intentions, equally valid.

Cracker Funk said:
I also object to the idea you're proposing, not just from the perspective of the audience, but as a filmmaker. I think it's a horrible idea to make a movie that panders to any particular audience, or to stick to the tenets of any particular genre. That's when things become formulaic. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for homage, nor does it mean you are forbidden from ever doing anything that might be cliche. But at all times, in my opinion, a filmmaker should simply strive to make a movie that they themselves would want to watch. Screw the audience. Make a movie for yourself, and hopefully there will be other people who like what you like.
Click to expand...

I think we're saying similar things, but from a different perspective. I'm saying don't pander to the masses. You're saying don't pander to an audience. These are both statements I can agree with.

I absolutely agree with the idea of making the movie you want to watch. This is, however, where we get into a hazy place of artisitc integrity. I can (and often do) make music I want to listen to. However, I am often called on and paid for making music that I don't want to listen to, but is appropriate for a scene I'm scoring. You could argue that I'm compromising my integrity by doing that, but at the same token, I'm trying to work to what the scene requires and what the director wants.

We need to split ourselves, creatively, if we want to make a living at it. We need to make work for ourselves. We need to make work for others (since they're the ones with the money). Great work is when you can balance the two. Like it or not, we're talking to an audience, otherwise we wouldn't put our work out there (we would still make it and hopefully enjoy it ourselves). My point is that we choose who we speak to through our art. Oftentimes beginners think they can talk to everyone. No one in the world has interest in us from day one (and that's unbelievably depressing). If you stand in a crowded street shouting "I want to talk about bunnies" you might get a few people to want to listen to you. However, if you go to a rabbit breeder convention and say the same thing, you'll get an entirely different response.

At the end of the day, we're saying similar things (though disagreeing about this specific movie): make the art that you want to make. What I'm trying to add to that is, when you have your idea, figure out who your audience is. Speak to them; don't worry about trying to speak to everyone. If it's the work you really want to make, you probably are part of that audience, so it should be pretty natural.

Caveat: here on IndieTalk, not everyone is trying to do this professionally. For some it's a hobby, not a desired career. This conversation is not relevant for those people, they should, as you suggest, say screw the audience and just do what they want.
 
I can comfortably admit that I approach filmmaking much more from a commercial than artistic side.

Make cars people want to buy.
Grow food people or livestock want to eat.
Make films people want to watch.

I have... difficulty with "I'm cooking this food. Eat it. Don't eat it. I don't givadam", which is the truly artistic approach.
Or should I say "I'm cooking this fucking food. Fucking eat it. Don't fucking eat it. I'm too busy petting your mother's kitty to care"?

(Was that just a wee over the top? Probably).

Now, if the consensus of you find that acceptable & fine then perhaps I should just continue down that merry path.
But I suspect not.

It's your money when it comes to filmmaking.
 
Okay, all these bad reviews are making me watch this movie. It has been in my queue list for several months now, and i do not feel tired.



Lets see what the movie is about, and I'll be taking notes as I'm watching it.
 
All right, i couldnt make it through the movie.. sorry everyone, but this was bad.

Here are my notes i typed out as I was watching it. My thoughts, my observations..



THE INK

Loading.. loading...

cool logo! i dig it.

that a weird color choice.. looks like cheap stock video plugin effect..

Overused "get hit by a car" trick..

whats up with blurred edges? All right, going for the old school sepia color.. Fake lens flare

More blurred edges.. color correction is still weird and sepia
I really hate these blurred edges.. uugh..


Dad guy is kind of a "dick".. doesn't want to play with his daughter.. lame-o
Yay! Happy scene, with kind of crappy lines...


Finally.. no more blurred edges.

Oh, nice sequence shot after the movie title. Experimental. but whats the point ?

Those are so fast cuts of people going to sleep. don't go with the mood. imho


Uh oh... whats with the shaky cam?? No, don't do it! Don't do blair witch project!


Ugh.. more of blurred edges. God damn it... more sepia..


Lol wouldn't it be funny if the people would fart in their sleep as one of those creepy dream people would touch them..


Creepy goth kid in the room with a little girl


Some bad "nigh lighting"... too damn bright!

There are some nice tracking shots here in the house.


Oh i like the sound design of "evil dudesters". Very nice effect on the screen face.
pretty lame black mass crawling effect.. could have been done better with just natural shadow, i think.
Stop using CGI shadows!! You aint Michael bay, can't CGI the whole movie.



HAHAHA thats a big nose on the homeless looking guy.

what a weird night time color correction. Everything is so blurry.

Ugh, fight scene! fast cuts.. too fast!

I like the reverse effects of things getting reconstructed.


Whats with the mid action stop frames?

GOD DAMN guys slow down the cuts!! Im gonna go epileptic over here



I don't think this movie was shot at 24 fps. maybe 30. looks like a spanish soap opera with drums.



Waits, so im 20 mins into the movie, i still don't really know whats going on. girl got kidnapped.. who the hell is this
girl? Is her dad cool about it? I really hate these jump cuts..

UUGH why is their dialog conversation fast jump cut edited? Bam! Boom! Bam! Wosh! Fuck the bucket! Bam! Zim!

Enough with the f bombs.


I feel bad for the big ugly nose guy... his favorite drum got broken.. I think im supposed to hate him, but i feel sorry for
him..


UGH! now they changed aspect ratio??? Only Tarantino is allowed to do it. Once. For the reason. Not to show trees..



We're entering 2nd act, and there is some random chick just got whacked in the head at the forest.. plus some kids.. I don't
know what I'm watching anymore!


I think writer had an idea in his head, but didn't really explain to us whats really going on..

Now this looks like a music video from 90s.



If it wasn't for this movie review, id turn the movie off right now. Don't care about little kidnapped girl, nor these
people.

I have no idea who these people are.. or why are they half hot, in sexy clothes..

White are too blown out in the forest scene.



annoying little girl.. still don't care about you...



THere is some cool lighting in this movie. but its crapped by a poor color correction, i think. NO MORE JUMP CUTS!


Dude with TV face, i like that. A lot.

I've noticed there is something always twitches in the movie.



ugh, the tree huggers.. WHO ARE THEY!?? What do they do! again, why am I watching this artistic experimental movie?



finally, normal dialog with normal editing.


No! don't do the jump cuts.. Is the editor a new guy or something???? Do NOT need to do rapid AK47 editing to increase
tension!


The father actor is being a bit TOO angry.. overacting.

UH OH!!!! MATRIX COLOR CORRECTION. plus lame.. very lame... JUMP CUTS! (i'm starting to eat my own hand)

Its an emotional roller coaster here right now. From super angry to super guilty, to super sad. Some weird voice talking
over.. mess, what a mess.. I should check my email... no, focus on the movie!

*Vomiting into the bucket* ugh.. jump... cut.. *vomit*


Wow, almost half way into the movie, and I'm only now understanding what going on. sort of.

Damn goth/hippie people..



I've noticed there is a lot of garbage frames, that could have been cut out.. oh damn it! a fight scene.. which means.. yep,
freeze frames, jump cuts.. and apparently some heavy panting.. Unnecessary irrelevant flashback. This fight scene is pretty
bad.. its boring. I don't know who is the bad guy/girl, and who i'm cheering for.

.. so, is the girl a protagonist? Or the homeless big nosed dude? Or girls father? Or the goth/hippies?

unnecessary jump cut.,,, cuts.



I give up. Completely lost in the plot. half way through the movie.

All i know is some girl has been taken away, and there is a band of gothic hippies that are trying to get her back.. Periodically a pissed of "Fuckiddy fuck" dude yells at people..
 
You're right on it, Dima!

FWIW, it doesn't get any better in the second half, so you ain't missin' much.
 
I am sorry, but was not able to watch it. Seems it is not available in Germany unless you buy it. But I look forward to the next movie (whatever it may be) and hope it will be available for rent somewhere over here.
 
Ahh, yes yes! I'm glad to know there is still interest.

Sorry for the delay on the next vote. I hate to make excuses, but I just finished a month in which I worked more than 250 hours, and every one of those hours was a mad hustle to try and keep up. I'm exhausted!

Anyway, I have the next few days off, so I'll make sure to contact the right people, and we shall have a vote soon! We'll have a movie by the end of this week. Cheers!
 
The suggestions are in, and it's time to vote. I believe earlier in this thread, I mentioned that the only qualifier in this club is that you need to take part in the prior month's discussion to be able to make a suggestion for the next month. I think I shall add a new rule. Rule #2: You can only make a suggestion a max of three months in a row. If none of yours get picked, it's time to move on (going to have to invoke that rule on myself, if my pick for this month doesn't go through).

All three of this month's suggestions look really cool.

The Man from Earth looks like contemplative Sci-Fi, for real Sci-Fi nerds. It's obviously very low budget, something many of us on this forum could make, so it could also be interesting to discuss, from that perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVMhEAI3pvg

Far From Heaven looks like a bit of a throwback movie, an homage to a style of filmmaking from another era. For that reason alone, it could be a great discussion, not to mention the fact that it has rave reviews.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHr1z_o0upM

13 Assassins has one of the highest tomatometer ratings of the year, and is a sure pick to be nominated for an Oscar for Best Foreign Film. And, it just looks kinda kickass!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgPC74-Tde8


For those of you without Netflix, all three of these are available to rent on-demand.

VOTE HERE.
 
I'm voting Man From Earth because its clearly within the realm of this site's point an purpose, whereas the other films are not.

Shot four (probably five) years ago on a pair of Panasonic AG-DVX100As.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/technical
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-AG-DVX100A-Proline-Camcorder-Optical/dp/B00024YOGU
< $1000 on ebay.

$200,000 budget - Far from the millions other poorly distributed films had to work with.

Speaking of which, despite a ton of awards from screenplay to festival circuit this film still got squat for distribution.
 
rayw said:
I'm voting Man From Earth because its clearly within the realm of this site's point an purpose, whereas the other films are not.
Click to expand...

I can dig it. Though I voted for a different movie, I think your reason for voting Man from Earth is perfectly valid. :)

Just to play Devil's Advocate, I do think it's okay to watch and comment on big budget stuff, because although they're currently out of the realm of people on this forum, that doesn't mean they always will be. :D

Sincerely, though, I'd be perfectly happy if this movie-watching club morphed into a Low Budget Movie of the Month Club. It's whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top