MovieChat Forums > Dead Noon (2009) Discussion > A lot of fun and awesome work for $4,000...

A lot of fun and awesome work for $4,000.

posted 15 years ago by sgilm
13 replies | jump to latest

I watch a lot and have been part of what I call backyard films (films made with barely any money, usually with friends and family) and I applaud the film makers for creating a very entertaining film on such a tight budget. I'd be real curious to know how much of the film was changed with the recut and the additions of Kane Hodder's scenes. I thought the action and gun play scenes were a lot of fun and the effects were pretty cool especially considering the budget. The flaming undead skeleton cowboy was also very impressive. I wish the filmmakers all the best on any future projects.

"Torgo, you're the laziest man on Mars."

[–] mrannouncer 15 years ago

Thanks for your kind words about our little flick! Hopefully there will be more flicks ready for you to enjoy in the near future!

The recutting was fairly extensive; the most significant change is the loss of a backstory for Frank the outlaw told in black and white flashbacks. (You get a hint of this during the opening of the movie just before the titles.) Since what Kane Hodder was doing was pretty much the same thing, they were eliminated. There was a running subplot that Frank and the sheriff both loved the same woman and ultimately Frank was betrayed by her. (The actress in these scenes was Lil Fields, who plays Grace in the "present" portions of the movie.) The fight between the sheriff and Frank went about the same, ultimately he was betrayed, shot by the woman he loved. The flashbacks were scattered throughout the movie, not all lumped in up front.

There are numerous tiny elements changed or taken away in Lionsgate's edit: The shower scene with Grace was originally used to introduce her character; a gore scene at the very start of the picture that is now only alluded to (the girl trying to start the truck and seeing her keys on the branch of the tree outside); several of the action scenes are paced differently. In addition, the scenes in the sheriff's office in present day had a lot more split screen, as the director hated the look of the location and wanted to cover it up with actors...

The only footage added at Lionsgate's behest were the scenes in which Kane Hodder is featured. All of the other scenes and ALL special effects (and the title sequence) were done on our original $4000 budget! (Proof of this can be seen at the end of the movie, where Frank shoots Kane Hodder and he doesn't flare up as all other people shot in our movie previously have done. Lionsgate didn't even spring to have the effects be consistent!)

[–] FCA1975 15 years ago

The special effects were awfuul! Would've been a little better without most of them. I have more appreciation for Power Rangers and Teletubbies now. One of the cowboys was IMO a blatant ripoff/mock-up of the Ghost Rider character. Although I don't hate this film, believe it or not I have seen worse although not much, I can't recommend anyone wasting effort to see it.

[–] mrannouncer 15 years ago

*Yawn* Not to get into a flame war with a moron. But let me just say I'm surprised that you stopped posting replies about actresses various body parts on other forums to come in and post lame trash comments into two separate threads. Go back to what you're good at: posting about Dee Dee Austin's nipples.

[–] FCA1975 15 years ago

The only one flaming around here is you, stop following me around gayboy.

[–] mrannouncer 15 years ago

I can see that you have the debate skills of a professional. The art of cinema is thankful for your quality opinions, well thought-out words and quality posts. Thank you for your continued commitment to making the internet a better place.

[–] flybynight-3 15 years ago

please. don't talk about the art of cinema. you know NOTHING about the art of cinema.

[–] mrannouncer 15 years ago

Thank you for your insightful comment. Your detailed, thoughtful, well-written opinion is a boon to humankind's cultural furtherance.

[–] flybynight-3 15 years ago

and this load of poo is?

[–] mrannouncer 15 years ago

I generally do not read internet forums and public postings because there is little to nothing of value to be gleaned there -- and only interact in the ones
related to projects I have been involved with. It was a mistake on my part to post any of my recent replies in this thread. Call it my frustration at the
dozens of incompetent, hackly-written, un-capitalized one sentence reviews and comments that have sprung up since the release of this movie that I took it as a "straw that broke the camel's back" moment when I received an annoying troll comment below my response to a perfectly pleasant and detailed question. I should never have repeatedly engaged said trolls, and I apparently have given them the misapprehension that I cared. Fellas, I have been messing with you, and only engaged you to relieve my frustrations.

You may notice I never once tried to sway you from your opinions about the movie I helped write. You may see that I never felt any need to defend myself or this project. I don't have to -- it will always be there, like it or not, a "real movie," released to the public by a distributor and, albeit to a probably very minor extent, now part of the large and varied film history we share as a human culture. Anyone who harbors a negative opinion about this movie is free to do so.

What irks me is, while people have a forum to express their opinions to a significantly wider audience than ever before, combined with the opportunity to connect more directly than ever previously possible with people who share their interests and pursuits, so many squander it with dismissive and dismissible lazy writing. You have the opportunity to give criticism to someone involved in the making of a movie; you should have the self-respect to make sure that what you're saying is imbued with value or some kind of merit. Finding fifteen different ways of saying, "That movie sucked," is not the same as giving substantive, detailed, or thoughtful commentary on why you didn't like it, or why you perceive it to be poor. Your opinions themselves might not lack in value, but the way you express them strips them of any possible significance. For example, your comment on "Observe and Report," reproduced here in its entirety and with your same lack of capitalization and punctuation: "rape is funny" is pointlessly incendiary, un-creative, and juvenile. Anyone who might take other comments you make you seriously will read that comment and discard anything you say from that moment on. Unless they, too, see something humorous in sexual assault -- and that wouldn't be the target demographic I would shoot for.

Judging from your website, you're a young guy just getting going in the world of making movies; starting, as I and my friends have, from the ground up. We like a lot of the same films and probably have very similar goals. Perhaps you're jealous that a film similar in circumstances and budget to one you hope to make has been made and released. Perhaps you're angry because you think you can do better, and you wish you'd been given that chance instead of us. Good. Let that fire you up and engage your creative pursuits. Should you ever complete a feature and read every review it receives, you might find yourself re-thinking a policy of consistent rudeness and derision to your fellow artists. I myself have been struggling with this, being so excited at this movie being released and reading every review that has been posted. Of course, I've hoped people would find something they like in the flick and enjoy themselves. I'm disappointed when they don't; but it's almost impossible to take most comments seriously when they come in the form they have. I find myself angry more at the lack of consideration people take in the creative pursuit of their writing than I do anything hurtful they may say about any movie I've worked on.

With that, I wash my hands of you all; admonishing those who work or want to work on creative pursuits to spend more time on making their dreams a reality, than posting in the dead zones of anonymous bickering that are public internet threads. The rest, who troll with rude and vulgar comments, persisting in the delusion that this somehow makes them matter at all, I leave to the hell of their own lives.

[–] flybynight-3 15 years ago

"rape is funny"

its called sarcasm

____________________

All Im saying is this:

it didnt even seem like you tried. Despite what people think, 4000$ is ALOT to work with. To be honest, theres nothing I can pick out of this movie that was good, except for the fact that the guns looked real. Thats honestly it. I watched this movie with a large group of people, and at the end, I was the only one left watching. thats commitment. Do you not think its bad that a group of 11/12 film students can't finish watching your movie? Nevermind enjoy it.

The major downfall of your movie was the acting. The female with the tattoo, (Don't remember names) portrayed the worst acting i've ever seen. I don't know if it was intentional to have your actors intentionally act poorly (maybe you were going for the "campy" feel) but either way, it came off as EXTREMELY amateur.

As for the script, (Assuming you had one) too long. The first 45 minutes of the movie is just: Introduce a character, kill him, repeat. With very little character development. You've introduced the antagonist in the first 10 minutes, so why the extra 35 of boring killings?

I have nothing against bad special effects. So that didn't bother me. But as a side note, this movie had horrible special effects. Did you not know how to make fire? Did if have to be done in post? I don't get it. I really don't. Greenscreening was bad. I've seen kids in grade 10 pull off better greenscreening. (You cut out part of a bottle, by the way.)

And the thing that bothered me the most

You over exposed every shot. It looked like it was shot on the cheapest camcorder. Possible a camera phone? Turn your camera's exposure and gamma settings down. Just because you shoot 24, doesn't mean it will look good.

And, just because you're outside, it does not mean you son't need lighting.

[–] exchronos 14 years ago

I haven't recieved my copy from Amazon just yet, saw the film at Wal-Mart on DVD and almost bought it, but I've been burned by buying some flops on a whim. By the time I did decide to buy it, like most DVDs I see at the Wal-Mart up the street from me, it's there one week and gone the next (even if it just came out). One suggestion I have is to keep an original cut of the film stored away in case you might be able to get that out on DVD at some time, who knows? Maybe for a 2 disc special edition in the future?

Now since you sorta spoiled the ending, I have a theory on why they might not have kept that consistency. If all vanquished by this Frank flares up, except for Kane Hodder, that may be done on purpose to create an easy continuation for a sequel. Low budget films and direct to video films can have successful sequels. Take the Dimension Films Xtreme series right now, which has included direct to video sequels for big budget films and even lower budget ones. I mean, it's special when a direct to DVD sequel gets its own sequel (Pulse 3, Tremors 3 & 4, and even George A. Romero's "Diary Of The Dead" was one of their direct to DVD titles). Hallmark, Lionsgate, and Dimension all seem to be the best places to take independant films. Hallmark usually specializes in adaptations, but have made a few original things worthy and not ("10.5" and "10.5 Apocalypse" are probably the best set of uber destruction film I've seen, it's a long watch to do both but absolutely worth it like the "V" mini-series' were. Then there's other destruction films they've done that aren't so good. Same with "The Curse Of King Tut", it's not exactly the best fare, but the DVDs are cheap to buy! They release their DVDs via Echo Bridge Entertainment, but some dollar DVD fare companies, like BCI Eclipse/Millcreek Entertainment are great for seeing independant horror film fare as well as classics and other cool stuff.).

I hope it's a good movie. Had an idea for a Western Horror in modern times kinda thing myself, mainly ghost battles as ghosts try to retake what's now a ghost town for tourists. Even Digiview (the dollar DVD source for Wal-Mart, but some Wal-Marts stopped carrying them) released an original independant film about zombie Rebel soldiers from the Civil War still terrorizing people today. Some good stuff. Usually even big budget films don't meet my expectations. "Pathfinder"? I'm still waiting for my huge Native Americans VS Vikings battle. El cheapos. You can't make a great Viking movie without using "Immigrant Song" by Led Zeppelin as their theme. Seriously, it's perfect for a scene of Vikings traversing the ocean towards North America, for parts of the huge battle upon the soil with hundreds of tribes of Native Americans fighting to repel the vicious invaders. Instead of a huge glorious bloodthirsty battle we get Vikings on ice. Vikings on the mountain. No huge tribal warfare, but they kill a bear. So much potential, so little done with it. I was mad at both "Van Helsing" and "Dracula 3000" too, but my original ideas trumped both. Then again my "Van Helsing" was set in modern times, and my version of Dracula in space was a space station full of vampires...not Coolio as a vampire making drug jokes and the hot Erika Elniak as a robot. So, if your film doesn't meet my expectations it's not anything new. You did your best with what you had, and at least it actually got made at all. A person can have tons of great movie ideas but never get them filmed, or it can take awhile to get everything into play.

Learn from "First Blood" and "Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan", always leave an opening for a sequel. In "First Blood" they almost killed off Rambo, and Spock was almost completely totally certainly dead...one mind meld and a Genesis Project regeneration later you now get films 3-11. The Horror Western genre is a niche very untapped, but increasingly becoming the sequel-prequel standard (From Dusk Till Dawn 3, Tremors 4). It owes itself to the 1966 B-films "Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter" and "Billy The Kid VS Dracula". It's imagery has grasped popular culture since Burl Ives was the first one to sing "Ghost Riders In The Sky" in 1949. Yeah, he may be known for a "Holly Jolly Christmas" but only because Vaughn Monroe stole the hit from him!

Sincerely,
Exchronos

[–] exchronos 14 years ago

Okay, just got it in the mail yesterday and watched it last night. For only $4,000 the special effects were impressive! It was a good effort, but it was very hard to follow.

SPOILERS:

Exposition and characterization was definitely very lax, and that really hurt the film. Without any characterization of Logan Kane and his wife it makes it harder to be on their side, heck, not even sure we're supposed to be rooting for them because of the complex beginning, which still isn't completely clear. Also the blonde seems to come out of nowhere with no explanation of her connection to the Kane brothers or why she's even there. The first half of the movie doesn't make much sense because the viewer is clueless as to what's going on. I mean we have the Wild West portion, we have the poker game in Hell, but we have no clue why he's come back, who he's after, and when Logan decides to go back because somebody's after him...how does he know that? They left the Sheriff Station before anybody knew what was going on! A scene where he gets warned about the family history and gets the gun before leaving for the honeymoon would've made a lot more sense. Who was the guy with the eye patch anyways?

While watching the movie I could figure some things out from my previous viewings of the film "High Noon". That's a bad thing. Anybody who hasn't seen "High Noon" or its remake will have no clue upon viewing the film. Even if "Dead Noon" is a re-invention or re-adaptation of "High Noon" it should be able to stand alone from that film and be it's own film. "High Noon" may be a classic but not everybody's seen it. Also it's a western, and the people most likely to buy "Dead Noon" are horror movie fans that most likely would lack a background in milestones of the Western genre of cinema. Really, if the film had been edited a bit differently, if a few more scenes were in there for exposition, heck, even if you had a narrator voice-over during the action sequences (which nobody seems to talk in, no banter, no nothing) you could've helped the story go forward even without re-editing the film. Story boarding and a shot list can go a long way in piecing the sequences together.

The film has potential, it really does, but the harder it is to follow the harder it is to watch. A movie that pulls off exposition magic is "Ghostbusters". You get clear characterization in the beginning. Two small scenes in the film set up the entire backstory, one when Venkman tells Dana about Gozer by the fountain, and then Egon in jail. The scenes tell us what we need to know to entice us but are little parts of bigger scenes with other purposes (Venkman asking out Dana, more characterization with her , and the jail part lets them regroup, go over the blueprints, and is the segway to seeing the mayor while effectively making the heroes more relative to the audience...sending the heroes to jail always has that affect!). Foreshadowing events in early seemingly needless dialog always helps. Great films always build-up towards something. "Planet Of The Apes" built up to the Statue of Liberty. "Ghostbusters" built up to Gozer and Stay Puft. "High Noon" built up to Sheriff Kane facing off the gang relatively by himself after the town he came back to protect turned its backs on him. "Dead Noon" tries to build up to two things, the showdown between Frank and Logan and the revelation that the kidnapped lady is Frank's daughter. The build up to the gun fight doesn't work. The trick is to make people think that's the goal of the film and then trick them when it's not.

So there's some constructive criticism. I hope one day you can re-edit, or remake it somehow.

Sincerely,
Exchronos

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]