MovieChat Forums > Who's That Knocking at My Door (1968) Discussion > Budget

Budget

posted 17 years ago by yamcofarms
9 replies | jump to latest

Does anyone know where Scorsese got the $75,000 budget for this film?

is this really the amount he shot it for? i would have expected it to be much smaller. also, is that the amount then, or now w/ inflation?

[–] Professional_Appreciator 17 years ago

Accordign to the book "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" Scorsese Senior paid the bills of the Laboraty, the revealed film.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bono_vox_is_god 16 years ago

16mm is very expensive. That film now, would cost far more than $7000 if you used film, post production including developing, telecine and the rest. Camera rental is alot, dollys, tracks, etc etc ect. I'm making a eight minute 16mm will cost $2000, actors and crew unpaid.

HD and digital video doesn't look nearly as good as film, even maimi vice looks absolutely crap. Even the new red cameras don't look as good as film. HENCE this is why they still use film. Plus, even if you use video, you have to get film prints in the end for festival or cinema release. Mini dv and hdv tapes don't last, so if you ever want to keep your film you have to pay for a transfer to film anyway, because film lasts.

BUT, if you have a great script, don't know how to use film, and all you have is HD, that will do i guess. Just remember, it doesn't end up looking like the films you watch for inspiration

[–] suckerdwsp316 16 years ago

16mm is very expensive. That film now, would cost far more than $7000 if you used film, post production including developing, telecine and the rest. Camera rental is alot, dollys, tracks, etc etc ect. I'm making a eight minute 16mm will cost $2000, actors and crew unpaid.

HD and digital video doesn't look nearly as good as film, even maimi vice looks absolutely crap. Even the new red cameras don't look as good as film. HENCE this is why they still use film. Plus, even if you use video, you have to get film prints in the end for festival or cinema release. Mini dv and hdv tapes don't last, so if you ever want to keep your film you have to pay for a transfer to film anyway, because film lasts.

BUT, if you have a great script, don't know how to use film, and all you have is HD, that will do i guess. Just remember, it doesn't end up looking like the films you watch for inspiration

Well said. I'm trying to shoot a long short this summer (25-30 minutes in length), and I'm trying to take it seriously, but I'm also working with a $0 budget and all I have is a mini-dv camera and a 35mm adapter that will hopefully enhance the film visually. But, me and you think the same. It doesn't matter how good the dv ends up looking... it just WON'T be film.

"Easy Riders, Raging Bulls", by the way, is an amazing book. Anyone even remotely interested in films or filmmaking, should read it immediately. They should have that book as mandatory reading in all film schools as far I'm concerned.

[–] Professional_Appreciator 16 years ago

What do you mean DV tapes don't last. I hace the in a box because they are the master of my film, what should i do to make them last?

www.youtube.com/ilgeorgio

[–] trickstar_trippy 15 years ago

put them in the freezer

[–] patrickphelan 14 years ago

it says on imdb it was 35mm...

[–] geordie-688-809183 10 years ago

The only reference I can find on the IMDB to the format is that the Printed Film Format is 35mm.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063803/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

Wikipedia says it was filmed on 35mm and 16mm:

The film was shot with a combination of 35 mm and 16 mm cameras. Scorsese shot most of the 35 mm footage with a Mitchell BNC camera, a very cumbersome camera that impeded mobility. He opted to shoot several scenes with the 16 mm Eclair NPR camera in order to introduce greater mobility, then blow up the footage to 35 mm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_That_Knocking_At_My_Door%3F