More extremly successful "films" shot with cheap mini dv camcorders
 

"Tadpole" is another feature shot on Sony OD-150. starring Sigourney Weaver. It won an award at Sundance.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0271219

"King is alive" was shot w/ Pd 100a, starring Jennifer Jason Leigh. She appearently enjoyed the process so much that she went ahead and directed her own movie " Anniversary Party" with the more expensive DV camera.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0208911

And most importantly, lets not forget "Dancer In The Dark" shot with PD 100a and PD 150!!!!! which won Palm D' Orr in Cannes!!!!!

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0168629

Wake up ppl and stop negating video possibilities today!
If u have a great story anything is possible.

Think "Blair Witch" !

Blair Witch---BLAH! All that dark, bouncing footage made my eyes sore. It was the promotion which made this film successful, not the miniDV.

http://www.nextwavefilms.com/ulbp/bullfront.html

I've never heard of any of those movies.

Actually there was no DV in Blair Witch. It was a Cinema Products CP-16 camera for the 16mm film stuff and a Sony Hi-8mm camcorder for the video stuff.

Yes, the "Blair Witch" was not shot on mini DV, but neither did I claim it was. I just said there's no reason to put down video possibilities, especially today. The "Blair Witch" went to gross 150 millions domestically!!!

It was the most commercially succesfull "film" in history in terms of cost to performance ratio. And it was mostly shot (I'd say 85 %) on a 1000 dollar consumer hi-8 camera which is even worse system than mini dv.

Same for "Dancer In The Dark" the bleak "film" starring Bjork and French diva Catherine Deneuve shot on Pd 100a which went to win the most prestigious award at the most prestigious "film" festival in the world - Cannes.

And finally, that was a great link Donatello.

http://www.nextwavefilms.com/ulbp/bullfront.html

Yes. Digital video is the future. This is a quote from The Numbers:

"Friday, 12.30pm PST: Star Wars: Attack of the Clones burst into theaters on Thursday, with a franchise-record $30,141,417 single day take. That's the 7th biggest day's take in movie history, the most ever made on a Thursday and has only been beaten by Spider-Man and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone on any day of the week."

Not an inch of celluloid run through the cameras on that one!

Blair Witch was not for everyone. I actually though it was one of the scariest moview I had seen in a long time. Freddy, Jason, Jaws, all of them are just so obvious they're not scary, not even a little bit. Now if you've every been camping in the bush when you were a kid then you know why I think it was a scary movie. If not, well you missed an awesome part of being a kid.

Frank, tech production aside, I think the dodgy jumpy footage really help the film. It was a good simple ghost story and the footage made it a little bit more real. Blair Witch 2, now that was a cash in bandwagon movie.

Joe, these aren't exactly Megaplex movies, but then some of the best movies I've ever seen (Kubirick's Clockwork Orange for one)have been in run down theatres with crappy old projectors(you'd probably have a heart attack if you saw the conditions)

I think the original point being made is get out there and shoot. Make the most of the great gear available, and get you ideas in the can.

I'm one of those people who actually liked Blair Witch. It was a subtle type of horror film, my favorite kind, and it really did make me feel pretty creepy. It definitely isn't for everybody and a lot of my film friends like to kid me because I liked Blair Witch. Whether you hate it or not, you can't ignore the marketing coup Hexan pulled off and the ridiculous amount of money it made. It could only happen once and damn any sequel, but I thought the way it made a boatload of money was quite brilliant. I respect its success.

dancer in the dark was shot with a dsr 500. just the train secuence was shot with a pd100, (100 of them) with a specially design anamoprhic adapters.
anyway is a great digital movie.
here i mexico there are a director that won, i think, all the movie festivals in the world (san sebastian, cannes, berlin, la habana, etc.).
Arturo Ripstein, and actually he did his last 2 movies "la perdicion de los hombres" and "asi es la vida" in dvcam with a very low budget.

Hey people. I didn't say I disliked Blair Witch. I said it made my eyes sore; and the promotion of the movie was what made it a hit.

I wasn't having a go at you Frank, I just responded to you post.

I gathered that. Just wanted to make myself clear about that movie. I did like it. The hoopla worked well, I don't think it can work again. It's like Eraser Head, that worked well, but can Lynch do it again? (I did like sweet gopher checks, and Bill with his bad knees.)

<<<-- Originally posted by frank_granovski : Blair Witch---BLAH! All that dark, bouncing footage made my eyes sore. It was the promotion which made this film successful, not the miniDV. -->>>

So what!! $100 million later who cares. I myself think it was the idea. The story made blair so big. Also they didn't use miniDv to make blair. I think it was about a $600 8mm video camera. Or something close.

E-head! In heaven, everything is fine. You've got your good things, and I've got mine. Game hens for dinner, anyone?

;-)