[Konvas] NEXT Tarentino WESTERN

colcam at aim.com colcam at aim.com
Sat Dec 5 20:19:23 EST 2015

 The way film sales for shooting works is that there are over run productions of film, and those "in excess of major buyer needs" stock is what goes cheaply to the indie work.

As less film is made there are fewer "in excess" lots, and even fewer lots large enough to match the look and color for even low shooting ratio movies.  The percentage of "in excess lots" might go up from 5% to 6%, but when the total made drops by half, that means there is less and less film for the indie world.  For an acceptable indie 90 minute movie you need to shoot about ten to one-- you need 90 feet of raw stock for each minute shot, and you shoot at ten to one, so your number is 90 minutes of content running time at 90 feet a minute, thus 8,100 feet between the titles and credits to be shot at ten to one ratio, or 81,000 feet of raw stock IF NOTHING GOES WRONG.  

That is full price stock at three times the cost of "in excess" stock prices because there are not that many large "in excess" lots available. 

Kill Bill had investors turn down good screenplays for "use some special effects, spray some blood, gross out people and don't waste your money on the screenplay, the director, the actors, or the image."  Let us talk the basics of money.  In spite of being cost overrun and split in half, we will treat them as different movies-- Kill Bill (part one) budget was (adjusted) about thirty five million dollars, and the total worldwide box office was almost a hundred and seventy seven million.  Wow, big money-- but real life the movie theaters got to keep about half of the gross, leaving about eighty million, and the distributors got to skim the ad costs off the top and take their break, so the studio got back about thirty million dollars, the rest of the budget and interest on it to be made up from cable, home sales, that kind of thing.  It made money, not that quickly, but the perception being that the nasty, ugly, blood spraying violence was profitable hung on.    Kill Bill (part two) was only twenty to twenty two million, and it grossed over a hundred fifty three million.  Because of theater damage and problems from part one they got to keep more of the box office this time, so the distributors got to pay for the ads and take their cut, the result being the production got about thirty million-- but with a one year longer than normal delay.  That's the way the profit swung and the net yield was less than ten percent for the investment to full repayment cycle.  That made the Kill Bill a real money maker, but it also made it a killer for indie work.  "They spent fifty five million and got over three hundred million, If I put up five million can you guarantee me twenty five, thirty million in four years?  No?  Fine, don't let the door hit your rear on the way out."  That is what Kill Bill did to the indie finance, and why indie work declined so much after it. 

The film supply is the other issue.  Every year the number of feet of film being sold decreases.  I remember when I needed an eighteen month lead time to get 140,000 feet of single lot matched 5277 for a name headlined project but I could pick up 24,000 feet of 5277 for my exteriors and 60,000 of 5218 for interiors at a huge discount with a two head lead time-- at well under half the regular price, so an indie could fly.  

Today there just is not enough film stock "in excess" to make indie work economical, and the labs are not offering discounts for "process at the end of studio runs as time is available" lab work.  If those factors are not there the indie cannot afford to shoot film, and the whole shoot crap like him deal cut into indie production numbers back then, and today the obsolete and not even best in its day film use does not help us get more film.  How much footage of 65mm do you think will be left over "in excess" and how many indies can afford to shoot 65mm at over a hundred and ten feet a minute? 

The only films that count for indie work are 35mm and super16, their production has dropped, you don't have Agfa, Konica, and Fuji fighting for your business, and Kodak struggles to just stay afloat.  Today's Hollywood uses less than one tenth of what it did forty years ago.  Film is great, but shooting an event deal on 65mm and spraying about how hard it was to put together and how expensive it is to release, well, that hurts the use of film.

Hurts it big time.



-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick O'Donnell <odonnell.law at gmail.com>
To: Konvas Discussion List <cinema at konvas.org>
Sent: Sat, Dec 5, 2015 11:06 am
Subject: Re: [Konvas] NEXT Tarentino WESTERN

I don't understand - how does Tarantino, or his producers, using filmundercut other people from using film, or making movies?  How did Kill Billundermine other releases?From my naive perspective, it seems that more Hollywood productions usingfilm means that there will be more film available for non-Hollywoodproductions. 

More information about the Cinema mailing list