So, I wrote and directed most of this flick and welcome the opportunity to field questions and take any general abuse you want to throw our way.
I monitor the thread pretty regular.
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000024/thread/148233838
a cloud of vultures always hovers over the house of the living deadshare
it was pretty decent for a no budgeter.
The dry humor was cool. Loved the zombie ballet. Could do without the anti christ kid, but the story was a neat idea.
not sure what to make of the girl with the bad blood.
Hey man,
The movie has great promise, but one thing is pulling it down and it's not amateur camera work but the amateur camera itself. You do realize that this movie could of been much better with a better camera system or a processing unit that could of made this movie look actually like a movie instead of a home recording with special effects.
I can't really argue that point. With a better camera (and more importantly, better lights) the movie definitely could've looked better and more like a polished "real" movie. Unfortunately with the budget we had to work with, the Sony Z1U and a mix of work lights and few tweenies was the only camera and package we had access to. And we lacked the post budget to hire a pro-colorist.
Basically, we did the best we could with what we had.
Now what we have here is a real treat ..First off i would like to say with the movie aside you have earned respect from me based on the fact you had an idea and you made it happen it is really easy for anyone to say "well i would have done this differently" ..but maybe 1 out of 5 million will actually go through the steps to make a movie. With that being said I have a question for anyone who makes a low budget movie why do you always waste the best looking film covers on movies that don't match up..you see this cover and you want to know more problem is what you find is usually never even close to as good as the cover..so why not even knowing you do not have the budget wait until you do so that the movie although far and few between would now have equal quality to what the cover art suggests..and more so just be a better made film with the effects and drive to considered a kick ass flick...this is 2009 so why are all you indie, D.I.Y. guys still using hardware from the 90's??? ...ok another quick question ..what was the total budget on this film??
shareI think the whole idea of having a great cover art is to sell the movie, thats its main purpose, not to faithfully and objectively represent what the movie is about. The same thing happens with trailers and posters.
shareThat's a good question.
1. The cover.
The art work is usually not the filmmaker's. It's the distributor doing the best they can to sell the movie. And while making movies is not all about money for me. The more copies this diy sells, the closer I get to getting more money together for a budget production. So I'm not going to complain.
2. Why not wait for a larger budget.
You could wait the whole rest of you life for a good budget to come together. Nobody is going to make your dreams happen. You have to make your own opportunities and do what you can with what you got. Hopefully one my next movie I will have learned better to work within the confines of the budget.
I now have three DIY's under my belt. All distributed andeach one has sold progressively more copies than the last. Once I have the US sales reports from Edges, I'll have a much better chance of raising more money on my next movie. And if it doesn't happen this time. I'll make another DIY and rinse and repeat until I do get the money. It's worked for others and I have faith that if I'm persistent it will work for me.
And as for feeling bad for fans who might buy it and feel ripped off. There are plenty of people out there that enjoy these features, and there are many more people bamboozled by bad big budget productions everyday.
3. Hardware. There was no money to pay for any digital fx. I have a couple of friends who dabble. I used what I had access to. There wasn't supposed to be any digital fx. Unfortunately, as sometimes happens on these pictures, a couple of physical gags either didn't turn out or just couldn't be pulled off at all.
4. Budget.
The production budget of the movie was just under 10k
We spent another 7 on post (score- we paid for 3. The first 2 didn't work out)
and 8 on Delivery (HD masters, digi beta masters, legal stuff)
You already have my utter respect for being on this board and directly answering questions about the making of your film. I haven't seen it yet, but since you've put a real effort into teaching something of the art by posting here, I gotta see it. I'm working on pre-production for my own zombie film which I've written, so if I ever get it done, I'd love to compare notes. Cheers sir, much respect.
sharebest of luck on you movie.
let me know how it goes.
[deleted]
Thanks for the feedback. Every movie you do is a learning experience and I think it would be a mistake not to seek out real movie fans thoughts and opinions on the work.
The vampire story is my favorite as well. I've been waiting for some Trick r Treat comparisons. (and yes I realize T r T is much better). I shot Edges before I knew what T r T was back in 2007.
Stan's reaction to Natalie's period was two-fold. First, it was more about the "woman business." He's supposed to be an old fashioned guy. (The kind that waits in the waiting room during childbirth and thinks the woman's place is in the home). In this respect it was a character quirk mostly for comic effect. Another layer to it is that Stan and Stellie are trying very hard to be "civilized" to repress their animal instincts. Which would be to just feed wildly on the girl, instead of slowly drawing blood.
The born again thing. I had originally planned to expand his story to be it's own feature. There's now a possibility of exploring this in a follow-up movie. We'll see. But Stan and Stellie have a rather complicated backstory. There is a reason they are not traditional vampires, live in sunlight and don't have fangs.
I was wondering about the sunlight thing too. I liked a lot of the camera work, thought it could have used some much lower, more moody, lighting. Story was good, but the vampire thing was a little convoluted. My friends and I kept wondering why the vampires aren't freaking out that there may almost be no viable blood in the world. They can't very well drink zombies. We thought it would be interesting to see them stockpiling bodies because they know everyone will soon be zombified. Pretty cool little movie though. Cheers for actually making it.
shareThat's awesome that you are listing to the fans. Unlike most in the industry. Thanks for that. I hate to say I sold this a few days after buying it at Best Buy. Sorry, it needed more zombies. After the cool starting with all the zombie action it was like it just stopped. What happened? I love zombie flicks. Love, love, love zombie flicks. I'd like to see you do a straight up zombie movie one of these days. I'm not saying this isn't a good movies. Just not my cup of tea. The cover made me think it was a cheap "RE" rip-off. I wish it would have been. At least that has the undead throughout. Now, the computer guy story. That could have been a movie all by itself. Nice work on that one. Made me want to stay away from the cpu for a few days. Thanks for letting the fan's speak our minds. Good luck with your next film. I'll watch it for sure.
shareThanks guys for the input.
I do want to say one thing about the cover art. I have nothing to do with it and I do agree that it promotes the movie as something it's not. But, it's not the first movie to do so, large budget movies do the same thing. The marketing departments are just doing the best they can to sell the movie. And 9 times outta 10 the filmmakers get little to no input in how this is done.
As for the movie not having Zombie action throughout, it just wasn't that movie. There is some talk about a follow-up and if it does happen it will be much more zombie-centric. Brian, I really like the stockpiling idea, I may keep that in mind.
Thanks again guys.
What a great way to analyze a film and perhaps make the next one better. Great idea man. Hey, I have this 95 page zombie script I'm trying to turn into something, I've registered it with the WGA, but it seems like my other producer is on the flake wagon. I'd be happy to let you read it if you have an interest. Maybe we can make it go somewhere if you like it at all. You seem to be a man that gets things done. Let me know if interested, my email is [email protected] cheers!
shareBrian,
Thanks again for the kind words.
Unfortunately I'm not really a producer. Between developing my other scripts (I have over a dozen completed) and working for other filmmakers (gotta pay the bills), I really don't have anything other than advice to offer.
My advice is to develop, finance and shoot the thing yourself. That's what I did on my first movie. If you sit around and wait for someone else to make it happen, chances are it will never get done.
best of luck.
Just kidding, I liked the film a lot and I want to see Trap too. Let me know if there is anything postable for Trap.
My review of "Edges of Darkness" here:
http://www.28dayslateranalysis.com/2009/06/edges-of-darkness-movie-review.html
-Mike
some day, some day...
I actually am just finishing the mix on trap. We just scored a Chubby Checker song for the opening credits. I posted a teaser scene on the trailer/video link on our page here. It should me live in the next 24 hours.
I'll be sending you some postable stuff on trap (including a new one sheet and trailer) real soon.
thanks again for the review.
I'm just not sure why the whole zombie backdrop had to even exist for the rest of this movie to take place. The main plots really had nothing at all to do with the zombies, so their purpose was kind of lost in the whole thing, and people who wanted to watch a zombie film felt they were wasting their time...
As for the vampires, a little more explanation was necessary; most of the people who saw it with me felt a bit blindsided by the whole thing (and not in a positive way, more just confused). I'm not trying to down on the film at all, but having more information would have been very helpful, I think. Or even including a bit more about the initial outbreak could have been helpful. Also, keeping the subplots to a minimum may help make a zombie film feel more like a horror movie. The antichrist thing, vampires, weird plant computer, (and how exactly did that thing show up in the mail with no mail carriers? Or is that part of the point?) were all too involved for one feature film. Nothing really got explained and a lot of viewers seemed to feel a bit cheated. Once the stories are completely formulated, you don't even have to explain everything; an interested audience will be able to figure it out for themselves.
However, for such a low budget, the visuals of the film were pretty darn good, and the sound mixing wasn't bad. I hope my criticism doesn't strike you as mean, I am just trying to give some constructive advice regarding plot construction.
Not mean at all. Thanks a lot for the input.
My intention was never to make a "zombie" movie. Yes, it is being marketed as one, but I have nothing to do with that. This movie involved zombies the same way casablanca (and no i'm not grouping my movie with Casablanca) involved WWII. It's backdrop. It gives a reason to isolate the characters and have them living in a heightened state of reality. And it just so happens that I like zombies.
Another thing, if you compare the amount of screen time the zombies in Edges get with say the original night of the living dead or dawn of the dead. It's pretty close. Those were both siege movies that spent way more time with the "human" characters than with zombies. I think what throws some people about edges is I've mixed monster genres in a non-comedy format, which is something that's not done too often.
The vampires. Yeah, I can't really argue that. I do like some ambiguity in my movies and to leave some things up to the audience to figure out, but in this case I went a little too far, to the point where it's confusing enough to interfere with one's enjoyment of the movie.
The mail thing was a case of sloppy writing/direction. The intent was that the girl had collected the mail weeks ago, before the zombies, and simply forgot about it. Then in the scene finds it. This intent was communicated improperly with actors on set and in the script.
As for too much going on for one movie. Maybe. I still think it works in spite of itself, in a way I can't quite articulate. But the stories could have worked together better if I had more time to work on the script.
I talked a little about the development in the Why not a straight anthology thread.
I also talked a bit more about the natalie character over here.
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000024/thread/148233838?p=1
(if you're interested)
Thank again for watching the movie and taking the time to give your constructive input. It's back and forth like this that really excites me as a moviemaker.
I think that "having too much" actually worked for the movie. In most anthologies, each short has a message that is basically pounded into the viewer given the limited amount of time available. Just look at "Little Deaths", a horror anthology about sexuality. Each entry basically forces the point of the author with little context given to the characters other than the concept they represent. However, in Edges, the viewers aren't restricted to a single narrative at a time giving them time to absorb the information and possibly come to other conclusions.
shareHey James, it's great that you are throwing yourself in the front lines. I just wanted to throw in my quick praise. I just got done watching it and I really liked it. I'm used to watching intentionally bad zero budget flicks, but this is not that at all and I never felt like I was watching anything like that. This movie is very well done, especially for the budget, and is certainly original. I am happy you were able to get this released and I hope the income helps out for future releases. Congrats on all the praise you guys have gotten on this (which is actually quite a bit for a project this small), you certainly deserve it.
sharethanks Steve.
I just finished up another feature called Trap. It's a little more of a dramatic thriller than horror, but I think it's turned out well.
The distributors are also talking about financing a follow-up to Edges. But we're waiting for the quarterly sales stats.
What the F is wrong with you? I'm watching it for the first and probably last time now. This is one of the worst movies ever, even for the low budget horror genre.
I have some questions, why are black people so poorly represented in this movie?
- Why is the black couple the ONLY people drinking blood like they believe in voodoo or something?
- Why is the black husband so ignorant and disrespectful to his wife?
- Why is the black kid the antichrist?
- What’s up with the "fried chicken" remark?
- Why are all the white characters in this move heroes or innocent victims? I don't get it.
wow, I'm totally scratching my head on this one. Are we talking about the same movie? Or are you just messing with me?
Like any good movie, mine deals with all it's characters in shades of gray. It's cast multi-culturally and doesn't favor any race in regards to heroes and villains. Hell, I don't even consider any of these character heroes or villains. But if I did Stan and Stellie are the closest things to heroes the movie has.
Stan and Stellie or "the black people" as you put it are the most positive characters in the movie. Stan and Stellie are vampires. But they are in love and would do anything for one another. Everything Stan does in the movie is for his wife. He ends up sacrifing his own life in the end just so his wife can live. But they are vampires and predators and have to do some questionable things in order to survive, like feed on blood. And by the end their white captive becomes the antagonist or villain if you want to call her that. In the end she's the one holding them hostage with the intent of killing them slowly.
The husband's disrespect to his wife and limited vocabulary is all false macho bravado to mask his true sensitive nature. It's a dig on overly macho/manly behavior. It has nothing to do with race. And if you watch the movie you'll see that Stan and Stellie have several instances of true affection as well.
The anti-christ is also, in this movie, a protagonist. He's there to save the world from God's wrath. God had sent the zombie plague to cleanse the earth and the anti christ was there to save it. This is stated, plain as day, in his dialog.
I explained the fried chicken remark one post above. (but on a side note. You can have a racist character in a movie say racist things without the movie being racist.)
The white characters are all far from heroes or innocent victims. The priests are totally antagonistic, one even tortures the Heather character.
There are many flaws in Edges of Darkness, but racism isn't one of them.
And even if it was, it's a work of fiction, and it's not my responsibility to represent any group. My only responsibility is to tell the story the best I can with the tools I have at my disposal.
Ive just watched Edges of darkness.
My thoughts are that the PC that eats
people and the pseudo vampire's ruined any
chance you might have had into making this
at all watchable.
The zombie aspet was well handled, and if you'd
been able to focus on that only, you'd have
had a good little flick on your hands.
As it is, its a very poor film, even for its
small budget.
You tried and failed to do too many things
within the one movie.
That said, you at least gave it a go, and that,
if nothing else, deserves respect.
Ive just watched Edges of darkness.
My thoughts are that the PC that eats
people and the pseudo vampire's ruined any
chance you might have had into making this
at all watchable.
The zombie aspet was well handled, and if you'd
been able to focus on that only, you'd have
had a good little flick on your hands.
As it is, its a very poor film, even for its
small budget.
You tried and failed to do too many things
within the one movie.
That said, you at least gave it a go, and that,
if nothing else, deserves respect.
Hmnnnn, You watched this only for the zombies then? You should have read some of the reviews FIRST. They all make it clear that there is little zombie action!
I think your synopsis leaves a LOT to be desired, this film ROX, and I advise everyone to give it a decent viewing, it's better than MANY that have received supposed 'critical acclaim'.
I assume YOU have never read any J R Ward , nor any Ray Bradbury, given your comments about the 'pseudo vampires' and the pc eating people ( although that is more Brian Lumley....heard of him ?)
I can only suggest that you broaden your reading (and viewing) horizons, it would seem that you are missing out on a whole world of horror!
I LOVE it, I don't really care much what other people have to say, I just wish to say that I really love this movie, it is a bizarre and absurd take on an overcooked genre, and I LOVE it!
The acting is good in some parts and bad in others, but the storyline is wicked, and I've not seem anything this inventive EVER, so 'Well Done M8'. 10* for you....! !
(I love zombies BTW, overcooked genre, or not, I shall be there for every zombie film there is,.......!)
Zombiegoth,
Let me point out a few things re: my post.
Firstly, i said that IF the filmaker HAD stuck to only
the zombie theme, he MIGHT have had made a better movie.
The vampire element and PC that eats people are unworkable
elements within the context of THIS movie.
Please notice the words ive put into capitals, id hate
for you to fail to understand this post as well as my previous
one.
Now, as for strange pictures, check out 'Society' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098354/
for a good example of weird story matter that actually works.
Also, there are more mainstream pictures just as exotic
and bizarre as this, check out 'Naked Lunch'
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102511/
I think the zombie apect of this movie could have propelled this
from being a confused muddle, to perhaps being a worthy
addition to the undead genre.
All that said, if you enjoyed it, thats all that matters.
But, the filmaker asked for opinions, good and bad.
james-barclay50,
You are correct, he did ask for opinions, and you are also correct that you said he MAY have made a better movie if he stuck only with the zombie aspect, (I shall make that my only caps comments here), and if your opinion is that the human consuming pc, and bizarre vampire couple, make the movie less enjoyable for you, then I cannot disagree with you. My opinion is that those elements do work within this movie, but that is merely a difference of opinion.
I have seen Society, and it is a great movie but I have not seen Naked Lunch as I try to avoid Cronenberg movies, they disagree with me but I am glad that you have a wider scope of interest than I had first imagined.
I further admit that I should have like more zombies in the movie myself.