View Full Version : Open Water film shot on...?
January 22nd, 2004, 12:44 AM
I'm a big fan of shark movies, so I was happy an "alleged" (just kidding, it probably rules) great film was bought up by Lions Gate at Sundance.
It's called OPEN WATER, and IMdB said it was shot on a camcorder, and a Variety interview (found at their site) said it was 24p.
Anyone guessin' it was the DVX100???
Here's the site:
January 22nd, 2004, 01:25 AM
Tks for the heads up Heath.
What else can it be? Camcorder/24p? DVX100. I hope; it just motivates me even more.
January 22nd, 2004, 01:50 AM
We're shooting a hopefully $300,000 film on the DVX100 A next year (sorry, HD10 users).
January 22nd, 2004, 09:45 AM
I was wondering the same thing. The Film Threat review says the movie was great, but that it looks like it was shot on "really low quality DV."
The Newsweek review:
Can't wait to see it.
January 22nd, 2004, 10:01 AM
But the Film Threat review also says,
"Thatís a minor quibble though as this film is downright freaky."
January 22nd, 2004, 10:18 AM
Oh, I know. That's why I said they thought the movie was great. I just mentioned the DV comment as it related to whether it might have been shot with the DVX100 or not. Which I would think would look better then "really low quality DV."
Of course, for a film that cost $200,000 or $300,000 (I've read both), you'd think they could afford the DVX. And it got picked up for $2.5 million. No stars, DV... that's encouraging.
January 22nd, 2004, 10:20 AM
Just because it's shot on a hi quality camera doesn't always mean it's gonna look great...
But, yeah, it's definitely encouraging!
January 22nd, 2004, 10:25 AM
You're right. And the husband and wife team that wrote, directed and produced it also did everything else. No crew other than the boat captains that took them out and the occasional family member as a PA. So assuming one of them operating camera, one on sound, and being outdoors on the water (or in the water) with no control over conditions and lighting (and with REAL SHARKS swimming around them), getting the best image was probably tough.
January 22nd, 2004, 11:30 AM
It was shot with the VX2000. Which actually serves to mitvate me even more considering I own a superior camera (DVX!)
January 22nd, 2004, 11:46 AM
Just curious where you found that since I've been looking the last couple days. I thought I'd read everything Google could find.
January 22nd, 2004, 01:30 PM
I asked the filmaker. They said they wished they had the DVX for it but it was not available at the time of the shoot.
January 22nd, 2004, 02:03 PM
<<<-- Originally posted by John Hudson : It was shot with the VX2000. Which actually serves to mitvate me even more considering I own a superior camera (DVX!) -->>>
I can't stress it enough, because I fell into the traps for nearly 3 years (all of 1999 to the summer of 2001) that if I have a BETTER camera, my movies would be better.
I saw an HD 24P movie once that looked like CRAP! Then I saw an XL-1 movie (several, actually) that looked phenominal!
Worry about the cast/crew's talent, the story, etc., over the equipment.
January 22nd, 2004, 02:05 PM
How did you contact them? At Sundance?
They need a trailer up, unless I missed it!
January 22nd, 2004, 02:11 PM
I agree with you 100% on the true talent being behind the camera and not nec the camera itself! YES YES YES
I emailed the filmaker and didnt really expect a response back, but, WHAM! got one.
January 22nd, 2004, 02:18 PM
Where did you find it? Don't publish it here, just tell us how you found it. I'd like to congratulate him. I'm a big shark movie fan, JAWS has been my favorite since I was 5 or 6 years old!
January 22nd, 2004, 02:22 PM
JAWS is one of my all time great films. The Perfect Movie. email was contact on hompage!
January 22nd, 2004, 02:35 PM
I agree they need a trailer on their site. Really curious to see it, especially after seeing this pic.
January 22nd, 2004, 02:45 PM
Not only am I curious about how they did it, but also how they got the sharks around there.
Any idea where they shot it, or at least where the movie takes place?
TRAILER TRAILER TRAILER!
January 22nd, 2004, 02:52 PM
They chummed the waters to attract sharks. Seriously. No budget, no props, no insurance. Just brave actors, chainmail under their wetsuits and a signed waiver of liability to protect the filmmakers if they got eaten.
January 22nd, 2004, 03:08 PM
January 22nd, 2004, 10:53 PM
i see they projected "open waters " digital in windows media 9 format
Sundance Features To Show In Windows Media 9 Series
By Elina Shatkin
Jan 22, 2004, 14:31
Microsoft Corp. and the Sundance Institute announced that five full-length feature films will screen digitally at the festival using Microsoft Windows Media 9 Series. For the third year in a row, Windows Media is supporting the Sundance Film Festival, and this year the following films will be screened in Windows Media 9 Series: "BAADASSSSS!," starring David Alan Grier, Ossie Davis and co-writer/director Mario Van Peebles, who is starring as his father, co-writer and acclaimed filmmaker Melvin Van Peebles; "Carandiru" from Academy Award-nominated director Hector Babenco; "Open Water," from writer/director Chris Kentis; "Sky Blue," a groundbreaking high-definition, multilayered animation epic from Moon-Sang Kim and English version from Sunmin Park; and "Speak," from writer/director Jessica Sharzer, starring Kristen Stewart, Steve Zahn and Elizabeth Perkins.
In addition, Microsoft today announced the creation of an independent film Web site on http://www.windowsmedia.com/, dedicated to showcasing indie films and filmmakers. Windows Media 9 Series provides moviegoers with the high-quality theatrical experience they are accustomed to, while offering producers and distributors the cost savings associated with mastering and releasing films digitally.
Using its specialized Cinema System, Digital Cinema Solutions will digitally project the films in Windows Media 9 Series using HP Workstation xw4100 systems. Windows Media 9 Series joins traditional 16 mm, 35 mm and HDCAM as a recognized format used in screening films at the Sundance Film Festival this year.
January 22nd, 2004, 11:06 PM
I have seen that Trailers are usually made unavailable when a film goes into the festival circuit.
January 23rd, 2004, 01:06 AM
hey a Windows Media 9 HD reference! Check this out:
May 28th, 2004, 07:26 PM
Well, there is a trailer up at apple.com/trailers now. The movie looks awesome and SCARY. Wow, I am very impressed. It only motivates and inspires me even more.
May 28th, 2004, 09:52 PM
I interviewed the filmmakers and they used a VX2000 and a PD150 and cut on FCP, all in 60i for a film out. Looks great!
May 28th, 2004, 10:17 PM
The movie sounds great and the site is neat but the trailer is pretty lame. Flashing and sharks swimming around... something touched my leg! Lots of treading water....
The trailer didn't do it for me but the facts around the shoot and the reviews will definitely lead me to not only see it but look forward to it.
May 28th, 2004, 11:28 PM
I wouldn't call the trailer lame. I didn't even know it was on DV when I first saw the trailer. I was so excited I went to go read more about the movie and then found out. I went back and looked closer at the trailer and then could tell it was DV. I thought the trailer looked great. Much better than Alexander and Troy's trailers which I thought looked like Crap. (Though I did think Troy was a pretty good movie. )
May 29th, 2004, 07:39 AM
I didn't mean lame in a "looks like DV" way...
May 30th, 2004, 02:38 PM
This is great stuff. Shot on DV and picked up at Sundance. Its the stuff dreams are made of! :)
May 31st, 2004, 09:36 AM
That's exactly what I told them when I talked to them! Very nice people, surprised at where their "little" film is now, bought by a major Hollywood company for millions.
June 28th, 2004, 08:20 PM
Movie Maker article: Open Water (click here) (http://www.moviemaker.com/hop/vol4/04/digital.html)
June 28th, 2004, 09:34 PM
Like who wrote the article??? ;-)
It's my first professional magazine article!
June 28th, 2004, 09:44 PM
Well shoot :-) good job Heath!
Robert Knecht Schmidt
June 29th, 2004, 03:08 AM
Great job, Heath.
One nitpick. IMDb lists the first Kentis-Lau film as Grind (no definite article).
Christopher C. Murphy
June 29th, 2004, 06:43 AM
Heath! Great job on the article...I've written a few things for magazine's too. It feels good to branch out creatively doesn't it? It makes me feel like an overall "artist". Are you going to continue writing print stuff??
You've inspired me to get another writing gig somewhere!
June 29th, 2004, 10:07 AM
I saw the trailers for "Open Water" in a theatre this weekend. Had no idea it was from a dvcam. They should make a ton of money. ("they" being the distributors, unfortunately._It would be a surprise if the actual filmmakers shared in the profits.)
See what surprises await you when you go to see "Fahrenheit 9/11?"
June 29th, 2004, 10:14 AM
Let's stay on topic here. We're talking about Open Water; besides, the filmmakers are now millionaires just from the sale of the movie. And that has NOTHING to do with our current discussion.
Christopher C. Murphy
June 29th, 2004, 10:56 AM
I've actually seen the trailer at the movie theater a few times in the past year. It's been out for quite a while. I can't find any information on the opening day? Anyone know that?
June 29th, 2004, 11:06 AM
I think it's in the article I wrote. Scroll up and click on the link. I believe it goes wide the second or third Friday of August.
June 30th, 2004, 03:04 PM
So, this husband/wife team, is this their first effort? First effort that went anywhere? Just curious. Someone said something about "Grind," as well. . .you mean that bigger budget skateboard movie?
I like the idea that relative unknowns can bring a movie with no major stars to major theaters. Gives us all hope.
June 30th, 2004, 10:43 PM
No, the first Grind, with amanda peet.
July 1st, 2004, 01:20 AM
Hmm. I shall have to look it up. I don't believe I know it.
July 5th, 2004, 07:32 AM
"the filmmakers are now millionaires just from the sale of the movie
Are you sure about that?
I know someone mentioned that they sold the film for 2.5 million, but generally when dealing with a distributor, the producers are expected to take on the marketing costs.
(i.e. 'we'll pay you 5 million for the film, and you spend 4.9 million marketing it).
Like in the case of Darren Aranofsky's 'PI'
Everyone was fond of mentioning that he made the film on viturally no money, and sold it to Artisan for millions, which was true. But, at the end of the day, Aranofsky only saw $10,000 of that money.
And, although I have to agree that I found the trailer to Open Water to be kind of lame (dramatically), it looked great for DV. I actually walked out of there thinking it looked like crappy 35.
Shows what I know!
July 5th, 2004, 01:12 PM
Studios always cover marketing, my friend. It's the prints they usually don't, that's why you have a good lawyer broker the deal. They certainly did, and I don't believe they had to do much else.
As for Darren, I'm not so sure about that money. I think he walked away with more than that. I used his "ask everyone for $100" to make my film (didn't get the $60,000 he raised) to some success. And hey, the guy's directed Requiem For a Dream and is now going back to The Fountain and will do DC Comics' Watchmen.
July 5th, 2004, 01:33 PM
Does anyone know how much they spent to make Open Water ... before the movie deal.
July 5th, 2004, 01:38 PM
I know numerous filmmakers who had the cost of marketing subtracted from the purchase price of the film. It is quite common. So, although the studio 'technically' covers the marketing, the cost is often times taken from the purchase price.
I didn't mean to make it sound as if the filmmakers were actually responsible for the marketing of their own films, just the cost.
So, a studio will say they bought a film for 5 million, but will spend much of that money on the marketing of the film.
I'm not saying it's like that all the time, that's why I was asking about Open Water. I'm glad to hear that it wasn't the case this time.
And, as far as Aranofsky goes, I"m not trying to say the guy got a bum deal. He did go on to make other films, and he's been rewarded handsomely for those. But, it's my understanding from people who know him personally that he did not see much monetary gain from PI (not to say that he didn't gain a hell of a career from it).
But, you're right, it's all about having a good lawyer.
July 5th, 2004, 02:26 PM
They wouldn't say, but some reports put it at around $300,000. But who knows for sure?
July 6th, 2004, 06:49 PM
What cost them that much money? I can't see anything in there from the trailer.
August 30th, 2004, 01:37 PM
Just saw it last night. What a 35 mm transfer! Didn't look bad at all for a blowup from mini dv Sony PD 150 and VX 2000.
August 30th, 2004, 06:10 PM
was it scary?