Jump to content


Photo

New David Lynch Film


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Michael Struthers

Michael Struthers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 13 May 2005 - 04:54 PM

to be called "Inland Empire", shot on sony pd-150's. Lynch also says he is done with film

What do you make of that? :blink:
  • 0

#2 Dan Salzmann

Dan Salzmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1143 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Paris, France

Posted 14 May 2005 - 02:41 PM

Sounds odd! What is the source of this information?
  • 0

#3 Fredrik Broman

Fredrik Broman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Other
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 14 May 2005 - 05:24 PM

Sounds odd! What is the source of this information?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Variety had an article about it:
http://www.variety.c...id=VR1117922566
  • 0

#4 jasarsenault

jasarsenault
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 14 May 2005 - 09:33 PM

Maybe I misread the article, but where did it say he was using 150's? It mentioned digital video but I didnt see any mention of what kind.
  • 0

#5 JONATHANEDWARDS

JONATHANEDWARDS
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 15 May 2005 - 11:10 AM

sound's like its a crewless project. :huh:
My guess lynch is getting old and views this as a easy way to shoot his project.
  • 0

#6 JONATHANEDWARDS

JONATHANEDWARDS
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 15 May 2005 - 11:11 AM

sound's like its a crewless project. :huh:
My guess lynch is getting old and views this as a easy way to shoot his project.
  • 0

#7 Rachel Oliver

Rachel Oliver
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • London, England

Posted 15 May 2005 - 11:27 AM

sound's like its a crewless project.  :huh:
My guess lynch is getting old and views this as a easy way to shoot his project.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hi;

Yeah maybe, or maybe David Lynch is an artist 1st and film maker 2nd and thus he works with whatever tools take him to his artistic goal. I think after so many years of making some very very strong work he's more than proven his passion and perfectionist trates, he does not seem like a guy that would just shoot video coz he could not be bothered to work hard anymore....

Olly
  • 0

#8 Dan Salzmann

Dan Salzmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1143 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Paris, France

Posted 15 May 2005 - 06:43 PM

A director of David Lynch's stature could work in any format he chose to. Why would he be working less hard if he shot in video? Perhaps he is afyer a "lo-fi" look. He seems to be a perfectionist so why would he "drop the ball" at this stage?
Anyway, he has us guessing, again.
  • 0

#9 Mark Allen

Mark Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 May 2005 - 09:13 PM

He seems to be a perfectionist so why would he "drop the ball" at this stage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


His perfectionism leads him also to being a very hands on director who likes to do things himself - so I think perhaps he is wanting ultimate autonomy in his work at this point - bring his efforts back to his roots as a painter who simply wanted his images to move and make sound.
  • 0

#10 Michael Struthers

Michael Struthers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 16 May 2005 - 04:57 PM

His perfectionism leads him also to being a very hands on director who likes to do things himself - so I think perhaps he is wanting ultimate autonomy in his work at this point - bring his efforts back to his roots as a painter who simply wanted his images to move and make sound.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


He's not shooting it himself. He's brought in some people to shoot steadicam stuff. His distributors haven't even seen the script *L* Now that's clout.


When you have a poor image, there's lots more room to dream."
  • 0

#11 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 01:03 PM

A director of David Lynch's stature could work in any format he chose to...."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure I'll be drawn and quartered here for not bowing to the David Lynch altar, but I'd have to seriously disagree with that.
As much as I like some of D. Lynch films, he hasn't made anybody any money for a long, long time, and that's what get's you 'clout" in this business, not just the fact you make insteresting films.

I think he's probably having a hard time getting anyone to invest in his films anymore, at least to invest large sums of cash.

Here are the total revenues of the films he's done for the last 13 years (per www.boxofficemojo.com):

Mulholland Drive - $20,112,339
The Straight Story - $6,203,044
Lost Highway - $3,675,201
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me - $4,160,851

Those numbers are WAY less than the cost to make & market those films. Not even close. We may all love David Lynch, but I guarantee you, the bankers don't.

MP
  • 0

#12 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 18 May 2005 - 04:05 PM

You hit the nail on the head, I think. His films have been consistantly been lackluster at the box office.
  • 0

#13 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 May 2005 - 05:56 PM

Looking at the numbers, surely these must be the grosses from the US market only, not worldwide?
  • 0

#14 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 May 2005 - 06:20 PM

Looking at the numbers, surely these must be the grosses from the US market only, not worldwide?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure they're just US numbers, and they also don't include video sales, which is now as big a market as theatrical distribution. I would bet that at the very least most of his films break even. He wouldn't continue to get financing if that wasn't the case.
  • 0

#15 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 May 2005 - 11:21 AM

I'm sure they're just US numbers, and they also don't include video sales, which is now as big a market as theatrical distribution. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Or bigger. Theatrical is often the commercial for non-theatrical.

So of course Canal + is interested....

-Sam
  • 0

#16 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 19 May 2005 - 02:53 PM

I put the box office mojo link in there so you guys could check out the source for yourself, because I knew nobody would believe me.

The numbers are NOT just US.
Some of these films don't show an overseas #, which I took to mean they didn't get theatrical release overseas, but Mulholland drive, for instance did have worldwide $$$ in there.
So even though that film in particular got tons of press & hype (and I liked it, by the way), his films just don't appeal to a wide range of people.
Ask everyone you know that IS NOT involved in film in any way about David Lynch, and I'll bet they have no idea who he is, so obviously they aren't seeing his films because he directed them.

MP
  • 0

#17 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 19 May 2005 - 03:22 PM

I'm still of the opinion that HD is nothing more than another emultion, a different tool to deliver results with. It may replace film in some areas, but not in all.
  • 0

#18 Josh Hill

Josh Hill
  • Sustaining Members
  • 258 posts
  • Other
  • New York, NY

Posted 20 May 2005 - 06:50 PM

Matt,

If he made 20mil on Mullholland Dr., then he made his money back (according to IMDB who says the budget was 15 million). Of course, on the other movies you named he has made nothing back, in fact lost quite a bit of money, but there is something different about David Lynch that allows people to disregard, I think, these losses.

Many people look at David Lynch as less of a filmmaker and more of an artist, and in that light he is probably being funded similarly to how artists are quite often funded (only speculation on my part). He is given the money not to make it back, but rather to make art. If he turns a profit, good deal, and if he doesn't whoever gave him that money is happy to be a part of the final product.

I like David Lynch, in a sense, but I'm not the biggest David Lynch fan. I like how he puts passion into each and every one of his projects, but sometimes it seems like he's doing crazy, over-the-top weird kind of stuff not because it is what he likes, but because it is what is expected of him. Of course, this is probably wrong because he does seem utterly insane sometimes.

Later,

Josh
  • 0

#19 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 23 May 2005 - 01:55 PM

Matt,

If he made 20mil on Mullholland Dr., then he made his money back (according to IMDB who says the budget was 15 million). ..."

Josh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong.
A film needs to gross TWICE its budget before it even STARTS making any money.
That's why this "box office gross" statement you're always hearing is almost irrelevant.
You're ignoring the fact that the exhibitor(distributors/theaters) are making money too. (It's not just popcorn that they're making money off. They get part of that ticket price too).

So in fact, Mullholland Drive actually did not make any money, nor I suspect, have any David Lynch films, with the possible exception of The Elephant Man, but I'm just guessing that film made money.
Basically, he's a really interesting filmmaker who loses people many millions of dollars if they're brave/daring/crazy enough to finance his work.
Sad, but true.
And I'm not referring to "many people" in any of these posts, I'm referring to studios and other organizations that fund films.
Clearly Lynch has his audience. It's just not very big, that's all.

MP
  • 0

#20 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 May 2005 - 02:51 PM

Basically, he's a really interesting filmmaker who loses people many millions of dollars if they're brave/daring/crazy enough to finance his work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I'd like to meet these brave/daring/crazy people. I suspect they don't exist.

Really I don't think anyone's loosing money here overall. They get it from pre-sales to TV, DVD etc.

In any case, personally I don't care too much what his films gross or any what any other films make. If I like the film I like it, if I don't I don't. If I read a book I don't know what the salse figures are.(Although if it's in the remainder bins it tells you something...)

Here it looks like he put up his own cash. Will Canal + cover it ? I've got no idea, but they can probably partner up with other non-US TV entities etc. I certainly have seen their name on movies that did not set any box office records.

Maybe Dune lost serious money... but then again Dino DeLaurentis never hit me up for subway fare :D

-Sam
  • 0


The Slider

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc