Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

GH2 shot sci-fi Upstream Color breaks $300,000 mark at the US box office

51 posts in this topic

Posted

Upstream Color - Jeff Upstream Color Kris and Jeff starlings Upstream Color bathtub

Beautifully shot indie film Upstream Color debuted at Sundance in January, winning the special jury prize. Since then it has a wide release at cinemas.

[url=http://www.eoshd.com/content/10309/gh2-shot-sci-fi-upstream-color-breaks-300000-mark-at-the-us-box-office]Read the full article here[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Looking forward to checking this out at the Sydney Film Festival next month.

Shane Carruth's methods are very inspiring. He is a real independant filmmaker, an artist getting by with little and making work entirely on his own terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's playing in my town now through next week. I'm really looking forward to catching it on the big screen.  From what I've read I think it's going to be a real treat.  The GH2 part is cool too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Good for Shane. And us, as audience and filmmakers. A rising tide floats all our boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Which proves the old adage: "Is not the camera, is the story" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This are Good news for every one. This is the time where the filmmaker's tools are not a limitation anymore. Events like this just push me to keep doing what I'm doing, each time with less weight on my shoulders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Which proves the old adage: "Is not the camera, is the story" 

 

Not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Amazing, I watched it and never even crossed my mind this was made with a little gh2 :), imagine how I can sell my video wedding services now when I say to them I capture video with tools that are used in cinema, and I have proof now.

Now the joking aside, it was never about the tools, it was always about the story telling, composition, light, these cheap tools we have acces now gives us so much creative freedom and improves an already good story with better images that captures the viewwers attention even more.

I guess in the days of only RED/Arri/Cine Alta this couldn't be done without a huge budget, now it's possible even for the little guys, imagine the years to come and what crazy beautifull things we are gonna see, we already see it happening, vimeo is full of talented people that do amazing work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Which proves the old adage: "Is not the camera, is the story" 

 

...which in the case of this story, the camera made the movie look like it could have been shot on equipment almost none of us could afford on our own.   If this movie was shot on an iPhone it would probably still work to a certain extent, but it wouldn't have looked anywhere near as good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Andrew, aesthetic considerations aside, do you know if and which hack he used? His anamorphic setup? His workflow? You know, all the juicy techy stuff we love to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Saw this at the local theater last week.  I liked it a lot.  Still not sure what it means, but it did keep my attention for 90 minutes.  The cinematography looked very good, though when projected, you could see digital artifacts like aliasing in the expected places, like the lead actress's hair, smaller curving shapes, etc.  But, yeah, this was inspiring in both method and end product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Which proves the old adage: "Is not the camera, is the story" 

Not sure that statement works in this case as the images look great!

 

If it was shot on a crappy camera and looked awful but still had a captivating story that held you attemtion then you could say that.

 

The GH2 looks great but ultimatly its the lighting and techniques that seperate this from what 99% of GH2 owners shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I remember seeing his previous film Primer, and the first 15 minutes were very distracting because of how bad it looked. Shots within the same scene were different color temperatures, and out of focus. However, as the story moved forward I didn't notice it anymore, and loved the movie. Glad to see he's stepped up his game in the look of this film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Although it looks well filmed and acted, i do not get all the excitement.

300k after 4 weeks in the US means nobody is giving a damn about this film.

there is nothing better than releasing a depressing movie to stay unsuccessful.

sorry guys time to wake up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

what was the budget of this film?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Although it looks well filmed and acted, i do not get all the excitement.
300k after 4 weeks in the US means nobody is giving a damn about this film.
there is nothing better than releasing a depressing movie to stay unsuccessful.
sorry guys time to wake up!


No studio. He released it on his own. Traveled to different cities presenting and doing Q&As. I'd say that is pretty successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

what was the budget of this film?

 

About $75 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

no way this was $75 million haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

About $75 million.


Probably $75,000.

Primers budget was $7,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Probably $75,000.

Primers budget was $7,000.

 

Nowhere close, from what I gather, he is keeping mum on the budget, because he got a lot of criticism for how low the budget was on Primer, and he doesn't want a similar reaction. My guess is it is still a very low budget.

 

I'm going to see it in theater tomorrow night, and I've been excited for the past month to do so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No studio. He released it on his own. Traveled to different cities presenting and doing Q&As. I'd say that is pretty successful.

He did a good job, a part for releasing the typical starving artist story which will keep viewers away from the theater.

yet with 300k you are still under water big time. of those 300k very little can go back to cover productions costs.

there are so many hidden costs that are never mentioned and this kind of articles and generally are worth more than the "official" cash used to put the gig together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He did a good job, a part for releasing the typical starving artist story which will keep viewers away from the theater.
yet with 300k you are still under water big time. of those 300k very little can go back to cover productions costs.
there are so many hidden costs that are never mentioned and this kind of articles and generally are worth more than the "official" cash used to put the gig together.


Where'd you find the production cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Saw the movie earlier today. It may have been the last day too at the theater.

Impressed with the overall look on the big screen with the hack. The story is more psychological thriller to me

but it takes you on a journey of confusion. Its pretty far out there and it does it well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He did a good job, a part for releasing the typical starving artist story which will keep viewers away from the theater.

yet with 300k you are still under water big time. of those 300k very little can go back to cover productions costs.

there are so many hidden costs that are never mentioned and this kind of articles and generally are worth more than the "official" cash used to put the gig together.

 

Um, sorry but, no.  Those "hidden" costs are invariably related to distribution companies and their fees.  That's how the brothers at Miramax built up their company and gained power, by fucking over the filmmakers they distributed for.  If he's releasing this himself...is he roleplaying and giving himself a hard time?  Is that what you're suggesting?

 

The $300,000 for limited theatrical (less than 50 screens at its highest) with no real P+A budget or conventional marketing is rather outstanding (takes $30M to market a film conventionally, according to Soderberg's revelation).  You aren't even looking at the available information to form an educated guess about what's going on here so your statements are exactly the opposite of "educated".   

 

He's also self-releasing it on DVD and streaming, meaning very little overhead.  The limited theatrical and growing word-of-mouth will serve as a mini marketing campaign for the home video release which could easily bring him three to five times the small theatrical business.  How well it does then will ultimately come down to what he actually spent on it (or raised) and what, if any, deferrals are still owed.

 

You won't know the production cost unless he wants it to be known.  There is no authority to IMDB or boxofficemojo or any of these sorts of sites.  They get their information from voluntary sources with no oversight or fact checking or even a means to fact check that sort of information.  Someone sends a number and if their account or previous history is deemed trustworthy it gets posted as if it were fact without a single phone call or e-mail or any follow-up for first party confirmation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He did a good job, a part for releasing the typical starving artist story which will keep viewers away from the theater.

yet with 300k you are still under water big time. of those 300k very little can go back to cover productions costs.

there are so many hidden costs that are never mentioned and this kind of articles and generally are worth more than the "official" cash used to put the gig together.

The director wants to keep a lid on the production costs so as not to distract attention away from the film itself. He's doing the opposite of propagating a starving artist narrative. That said, I heard a rumour that the budget was around $50,000.

$300,000 in a month is very acceptable for a small scale, no studio independent release, but if the budget is correct, it's exceptional. Six times the production costs is a great return on investment, especially when he's spending so little on distribution or marketing.

Bare in mind that this is not the only number that counts. Carruth is also making money from every foreign distributor that picks up the film. It's just a little from each country, but it adds up.

 

Although it looks well filmed and acted, i do not get all the excitement.

300k after 4 weeks in the US means nobody is giving a damn about this film.

there is nothing better than releasing a depressing movie to stay unsuccessful.

sorry guys time to wake up!

Talk about negativity. This guy could go out and shoot an upbeat movie in the hopes of chasing success, or he could make what he wants to make, on his own terms, and retain total artistic control over the film and its release. He found a way to do the latter and remain profitable.

That is true success. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites