No, the first Grind, with amanda peet.

heath

Hmm. I shall have to look it up. I don't believe I know it.

"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!

-Luis

Luis,

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.

heath

Does anyone know how much they spent to make Open Water ... before the movie deal.

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.

-Luis

They wouldn't say, but some reports put it at around $300,000. But who knows for sure?

heath

What cost them that much money? I can't see anything in there from the trailer.

See the Movie Open Water
 

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.

was it scary?

Heck, as an open water diver myself... the concept is TERRIFYING. I have come up and not seen the boat before... and the pucker factor is unbeliveable. Turns out it was hidden by swells. Still, scary as hell.

I plan on seeing the movie, but the previews I saw looked awful, in terms of transfer quality. Is the film better than the transfers?

After Jaws when I was a kid, I can just now go back into kiddie pools. I think I'll pass on the extra water terror.

What. We're not seeing Anacondas?

But I met the writer. I feel I owe it to him.

I look forward to seeing it, been hearing a lot about it for quite some time. A family friend who dives says that these things happen!

Is it thought provoking, or exploitational like Jaws?

It's not really thought provoking or exploitational. It's more like a "realisitic" character study in fear...and a lame one at that. I'm all for independent, and low budget films, but this one got bought because Lion's Gate knew if they could say "Blair Witch" and "Jaws" in the same tag line they'd make money.

If you think being a diver will the make the film more relatable and frightening, you're wrong. There's virtually no suspense buildup. The act of being left behind is initially terrifyng, but loses it's scariness because the content (talking heads bickering) and pacing are so weak. The boat leaves them, they wait for it to return, and then they argue about for 96 minutes (running time) while floating around (not literally, but you get my point). Then there are a bunch of plot holes. When the ending's coming you can feel it, and are saying to yourself, "if the credits come up in a second, I'm going to be PISSED!", and then they do...

I saw a lot of stair stepping in high contrast regions, and because of the huge amount of time at sea, without polarizers, there were a ton of blowouts. I almost felt like I was at the beach and needed polarized sunglasses. If that was the effect they were going for, then they achieved it, but it was really annoying.

I'm sure pelnty of people will disagree with everything I just said, so remember before replying that I'm just stating my opinion on the film. I'm certainly not claiming it's doctrine.

Blair Witch meets Jaws, that is exactly what it looked and felt like upon viewing the trailer. And in the wake of reality tv shows. Hmmm...TTFN.

Although "Blair Witch" meets "Jaws" is a good tagline, the movie wasn't anywhere close for me...

I'll take a spoiler on how it ends if you don't mind. I'm not going to see it. Not because it sounds that scary, just because it doesn't sound like it's worth my $10.

!!SPOILER ENDING!!
 

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT

The couple makes it through the day, but both have been bitten on their calves. The woman not as badly as the man. The night is "stormy" (complete blackness while they say things are touching them, accept when you hear thunder and then see flashes of daylight footage of them floating and sharks splashing). The morning comes, the boat captain realizes he left the couple and rallies troops for a search. The woman wakes up (who would sleep through those conditions?) to find her husband/boyfriend is dead. She lets go of his body, which floats away and gets pulled under and presumably eaten (why the sharks wouldn't have done it 12 hours earlier, or how he actually died is beyond me). The woman is alone and sees more active sharks. She takes off her gear and lets herself sink...credits roll.

Writing it actually made it sound all right, but it defintely isn't.

Thanks Jesse, you just saved me $10!

All Speculation.
 

They never found the bodies.

Jeez DiMauro, see what you started?!

RB

Exactly. The whole thing is speculation...to say based on a true story is a bit of a stretch. At least in "The Perfect Storm", only the last night of those fishermen's lives and 20-30 minutes of the movie were speculation...Glad I could be of service Dylan.

Still...
 

Okay, yes, you see stairstepping in high contrast shots. Yes the ocean sequences might be blown out in places but hell, tell me we wouldn't just LOVE having our DV movie marketed, blown up and shown in theatres. What interested me the most was the behind the scenes article written in FILMMAKER Magazing about how Chris Kentis bought all of his equipment not knowing how to use it, painstakingly teaching himself how to use FCP and dedicating himself to editing his entire movie on a Mac G4 in a walk in closet during the wee hours while still punching in to his day job.

That's dedication. How many of us have that kind of moxie?

Also, I thought he handled the writing well. I mean, I worried that, for ten bucks, a movie about two people floating in the ocean might be boring. But if you look close and pay attention, Kentis and Lau give us frightening shots interspersed with the dialog that just moves everything along.

I'm sorry, Hugh, but I really have to disagree with you here. Although I would love to see my DV "films" on a big screen, they would be terrible transfers, and so was "Open Water". The blowouts were nearly constant, extreme, and distracting. It really looked like crap to me the majority of the time. Now that's not to say that they didn't have a few great shots (overhead shots with polarizers/luck) because they did, but there was little consistency of good shots. I'd rather see something that was shot in a consistent good quality, than watch a couple great and a lot of bad shots mixed together. Also, I didn't see the dialog moving the piece along. It's the same psuedo-insight into relationships in stress I've seen before. It didn't really bring anything new to the table. I had trouble paying attention, and I like a lot of slowly paced films. I think it would have made an interseting half-feature, but, as it was, it was a real drag. If the auteur really didn't know how to use the equipment, I'll give him props on it for effort, but that doesn't make this a good film or a good transfer.

I agree that given the choice, HD or film is superior. And anybody watching this picture with no technical knowledge has to be half blind to not notice that "something" is different with the image.

Also, in your post you said:

<<Also, I didn't see the dialog moving the piece along. It's the same psuedo-insight into relationships in stress I've seen before.>>

Kentis stated in his interview that he went out of his way to avoid being accused of the kind of dialogue you described. I guess it all comes down to point of view.

I will say this: If given my choice to blow up or not blow up, why waste time and good money to blow up any Mini DV image to 35 millimeter? The mini DV images projected digitally on a white screen look phenominal. And, why worry about 24p? Deinterlace 60i and 30p projected digitally looks good. The motion judder resembles 24p. That's my opinion.

I totally agree on your comments about whether or not to blow up DV to 35mm, and I think I may prefer 30p to both 24p and 60i. It's a nice balance.

Finally! Somebody else not hopped up on 24p! It just makes sense to stay 30p if you're staying digital. Besides, I scratch my head when people mention that 24p has a "filmic" look because of the frame rate. I thought filmic look was more of a contrast and good lighting kinda thing. 24p? 30p? I beg you to show me visible differences during a screening when both frame rates are used and compared side by side with the same good lighting and composition techniques.

Also, we can stop banging our heads against the wall when making equipment buying decisions. Here was my personal hell:

"Oh, woe is me! I want the superb image capture of a Sony DSR PD 170 but the progressive frame rate of a Panasonic DVX 100a! Oh what to do what to do!"

What to do?

Hell! Buy the damned Sony and de-interlace to 30p during render! You get the best of both worlds (provided you subscribe to the anti-35mm blowup decision). The vice if off of my head. No more headaches.

You okay there Hugh? Jeez, just when you think the debate is over.

You say this as if it is a bad idea to be 'hopped up' on 24p? 24p is one of the best things to happen to us DV filmmakers. I agree somewhat with your case for lighting but great lighting shot on video looks like, well, greatly lit video.

Why go through a de-interlace process when it can be done in camera and save some time. It's okay if people like 24p; it doesnt have to make you have a migraine.

I tend to aggravate myself more than I need to. I've been afflicted with a "type A" personality.

I would love 24p more than rye bread itself except that I've read that the 24p process, when rendered out to video for exhibition on your good old living room TV set, has a stuttery picture. I've heard that it doesn't look as good as, say, when a network airs a movie on TV. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. I'd love to love 24p.

I have seen this phenomenon you refer to (The motion stutter) but confess I personally havent had this problem. I do know the PAL versions drive alot of people crazy but also have seen some PAL footage that looks amazing.

Damn it, Hugh, I wish I had read your comments. I just blew fourteen bucks. (Have to have a popcorn and soda)

My congratulations go out to the makers of this piece of piffel because anyone who goes through the process deserves our admiration, but what a turkey.

Right from the opening picture you know you are in trouble. A wide shot of the sea is so soft that you wish you brought your sea sickness pills. And from there it's all downhill. Or under water. I cannot think of one positive comment to make, and I really am pretty easy. Awful script, photography, acting, music, etc.

Want to see a real film made with the PD150? Then check out "Personal Velocity." And please don't tell me "Open Water" made more money than "PV." McDonald's also makes tons of money. That doesn't mean its a restaurant.

Wayne

Hey guys,
one of "us" made a movie. That deserves credit. Maybe another one of "us" will make one in the near future as well. Sure, it might have problems, might not look as good as the low budget 3 million dollar independents. But they got it done.

As a diver I've been in that situation. I DID find the boat after floating for a while on he ocean. It's happened more than once- including a surface swim in a squall so bad the snorkel kept filling up. No sharks though, but I remember looking down a lot. (did video for the crusie lines in the carib' for a couple of years.)

Mainly, I just wanted to encourage us as a group to celebrate when a comrad gets a film out there.

Cheers!

Jeff P.

"Get Er Done"
Larry the cable guy.

Wayne, I agree.
Forgetting about the fact that it didn't transfer to film very well. I thought all the technical aspects of the film were poor. The sound and lighting were bad. The acting was just OK. Like most of you, I was thinking of all the things I would have done different filming it. Maybe pan the actors in the water to show that they truely in the middle of nowhere.

I really can't figure out how they spent $130,000 on it.
First Class Tix to and accomodations in the Caribbean (probably a few trips).
Shark Experts to chum the water.
Boat and captain rental.


I would have thought that LGF would put up the money to have Chris Kentis reshoot it on film.

With all that said, if I were to make this film, I would have been proud of it.

Anyone know how much Chris Kentis sold the film to LGF for? I need some motivation to finish my script and get the tape rolling.

Here here on the acknowledgement of their success. It was shot with PD150's; what did you expect it to look like on a filmout :P

Forget about the asthetics and props to the filmmakers.

I don't think anybody intended to really bash the filmmakers. I am glad it came out. If it does well at the box office, there may be a bigger/more inviting market for one my/our features. It was just that the film had a lot of technical and artistic shortcomings that may have been able to be overcome without enlarging the budget much more. This is the same analysis I employ during any HWood flick also, so in that way maybe it is a real compliment to critique the film in the same way I would a HWood one.

Now, while I give props to the "little indie that could", I think it is obvious that many more indepdendent films have been made that warranted distribution over this one. This got bought/distributed becuase of the "Jaws" meets "Blair Witch" tagline.

Open Water Out on DVD
 

Chris kentis and Laura Lau's DV indie feature OPEN WATER has been released on DVD. I bought it and the transfer looks good on a TV screen. It has two great extras, "The Indie Essentials" where Lions Gate Films executives talk about what makes a great movie and what they look for when considering buying an indie feature for distribution and a behind-the-scenes documentary on the making of their film. Just so you know, they shot the entire feature with a PD 150 and VX 200.

I wonder if the DVD transfer was made from the 35 mm blowup or just deinterlaced? I could never understand why movies originating in DV can't be kept DV when distributed via DVD.

In the gradual process to filmout the video may have been shot a certain way, and color corrected and adjusted a certain way so that when it is turned to film it will have the appropriate look. This includes the handling of black, and updated titling and such that is done specifically for the film version for appropriate resolution, etc. For these reasons plus I'm sure more that I don't know of, they don't go back to the DV version, but rather master the final filmout onto DVD.

Thank you!
 

Makes perfect sense!

It was OK as a free rental!
 

Congrats to the movie's accomplishments.

It looked pretty decent considering on what it was shot on. The girl's acting could have kept the sharks away in real life...she was relatively bad.

As far as the movie...nothing but a comedy of errors. Improper prodedures for taking head counts both before leaving the slip and after bringing the divers back into the boat after the dive.

Also, how can you tell me the divemaster NEVER noticed or remembered the hottest chick on the boat!

Then the boat is cleaned long after it's arrival back at dock and that's when they find the gear belonging to the missing divers.

An so on and so on...