Jump to content

Close
Photo

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

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply

#1
Andrew Reid

Posted 09 May 2013 - 04:36 PM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,100 posts
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.

Read the full article here

#2
Chrad

Posted 09 May 2013 - 04:42 PM

Chrad

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 229 posts
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.

#3
johnnymossville

Posted 09 May 2013 - 04:46 PM

johnnymossville

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts

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!



#4
RobertoSF

Posted 09 May 2013 - 06:19 PM

RobertoSF

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco

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


  • Andrew Reid and nahua like this

#5
Vlad Box

Posted 09 May 2013 - 06:52 PM

Vlad Box

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

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



#6
Rockect Sky Sword

Posted 09 May 2013 - 06:57 PM

Rockect Sky Sword

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

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. 


  • nahua likes this

#7
Andrew Reid

Posted 09 May 2013 - 07:01 PM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,100 posts

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

 

Not true.


  • Zach likes this

#8
leo

Posted 09 May 2013 - 07:05 PM

leo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

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.



#9
johnnymossville

Posted 09 May 2013 - 07:05 PM

johnnymossville

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts

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. 


  • Ernesto M├íntaras likes this

#10
basschicago

Posted 09 May 2013 - 10:18 PM

basschicago

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

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.


  • mjfan likes this

#11
fugue_state1

Posted 09 May 2013 - 10:48 PM

fugue_state1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts
  • LocationAlbuquerque, New Mexico

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.


Iscorama Cinegon 1.5x

#12
Tone13

Posted 09 May 2013 - 11:34 PM

Tone13

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

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.



#13
AaronChicago

Posted 10 May 2013 - 01:09 AM

AaronChicago

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 370 posts

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.



#14
ike007

Posted 10 May 2013 - 01:27 AM

ike007

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39 posts

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!



#15
mjfan

Posted 10 May 2013 - 01:49 AM

mjfan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

what was the budget of this film?



#16
AaronChicago

Posted 10 May 2013 - 01:55 AM

AaronChicago

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 370 posts

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.
  • Sean Cunningham, Xiong, Ernesto M├íntaras and 2 others like this

#17
Tzedekh

Posted 10 May 2013 - 01:56 AM

Tzedekh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts

what was the budget of this film?

 

About $75 million.


  • pulp_writer and Chrad like this

#18
mjfan

Posted 10 May 2013 - 01:57 AM

mjfan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

no way this was $75 million haha



#19
AaronChicago

Posted 10 May 2013 - 02:02 AM

AaronChicago

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 370 posts

About $75 million.


Probably $75,000.

Primers budget was $7,000.

#20
Caleb Genheimer

Posted 10 May 2013 - 02:52 AM

Caleb Genheimer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 269 posts

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!


  • Xiong likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users