Heck, as an open water diver myself... the concept is TERRIFYING. I have come up and not seen the boat before... and the pucker factor is unbeliveable. Turns out it was hidden by swells. Still, scary as hell.

I plan on seeing the movie, but the previews I saw looked awful, in terms of transfer quality. Is the film better than the transfers?

After Jaws when I was a kid, I can just now go back into kiddie pools. I think I'll pass on the extra water terror.

What. We're not seeing Anacondas?

But I met the writer. I feel I owe it to him.

I look forward to seeing it, been hearing a lot about it for quite some time. A family friend who dives says that these things happen!

Is it thought provoking, or exploitational like Jaws?

It's not really thought provoking or exploitational. It's more like a "realisitic" character study in fear...and a lame one at that. I'm all for independent, and low budget films, but this one got bought because Lion's Gate knew if they could say "Blair Witch" and "Jaws" in the same tag line they'd make money.

If you think being a diver will the make the film more relatable and frightening, you're wrong. There's virtually no suspense buildup. The act of being left behind is initially terrifyng, but loses it's scariness because the content (talking heads bickering) and pacing are so weak. The boat leaves them, they wait for it to return, and then they argue about for 96 minutes (running time) while floating around (not literally, but you get my point). Then there are a bunch of plot holes. When the ending's coming you can feel it, and are saying to yourself, "if the credits come up in a second, I'm going to be PISSED!", and then they do...

I saw a lot of stair stepping in high contrast regions, and because of the huge amount of time at sea, without polarizers, there were a ton of blowouts. I almost felt like I was at the beach and needed polarized sunglasses. If that was the effect they were going for, then they achieved it, but it was really annoying.

I'm sure pelnty of people will disagree with everything I just said, so remember before replying that I'm just stating my opinion on the film. I'm certainly not claiming it's doctrine.

Blair Witch meets Jaws, that is exactly what it looked and felt like upon viewing the trailer. And in the wake of reality tv shows. Hmmm...TTFN.

Although "Blair Witch" meets "Jaws" is a good tagline, the movie wasn't anywhere close for me...

I'll take a spoiler on how it ends if you don't mind. I'm not going to see it. Not because it sounds that scary, just because it doesn't sound like it's worth my $10.

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT

The couple makes it through the day, but both have been bitten on their calves. The woman not as badly as the man. The night is "stormy" (complete blackness while they say things are touching them, accept when you hear thunder and then see flashes of daylight footage of them floating and sharks splashing). The morning comes, the boat captain realizes he left the couple and rallies troops for a search. The woman wakes up (who would sleep through those conditions?) to find her husband/boyfriend is dead. She lets go of his body, which floats away and gets pulled under and presumably eaten (why the sharks wouldn't have done it 12 hours earlier, or how he actually died is beyond me). The woman is alone and sees more active sharks. She takes off her gear and lets herself sink...credits roll.

Writing it actually made it sound all right, but it defintely isn't.

Thanks Jesse, you just saved me $10!

They never found the bodies.

Jeez DiMauro, see what you started?!

RB

Exactly. The whole thing is speculation...to say based on a true story is a bit of a stretch. At least in "The Perfect Storm", only the last night of those fishermen's lives and 20-30 minutes of the movie were speculation...Glad I could be of service Dylan.

Okay, yes, you see stairstepping in high contrast shots. Yes the ocean sequences might be blown out in places but hell, tell me we wouldn't just LOVE having our DV movie marketed, blown up and shown in theatres. What interested me the most was the behind the scenes article written in FILMMAKER Magazing about how Chris Kentis bought all of his equipment not knowing how to use it, painstakingly teaching himself how to use FCP and dedicating himself to editing his entire movie on a Mac G4 in a walk in closet during the wee hours while still punching in to his day job.

That's dedication. How many of us have that kind of moxie?

Also, I thought he handled the writing well. I mean, I worried that, for ten bucks, a movie about two people floating in the ocean might be boring. But if you look close and pay attention, Kentis and Lau give us frightening shots interspersed with the dialog that just moves everything along.

I'm sorry, Hugh, but I really have to disagree with you here. Although I would love to see my DV "films" on a big screen, they would be terrible transfers, and so was "Open Water". The blowouts were nearly constant, extreme, and distracting. It really looked like crap to me the majority of the time. Now that's not to say that they didn't have a few great shots (overhead shots with polarizers/luck) because they did, but there was little consistency of good shots. I'd rather see something that was shot in a consistent good quality, than watch a couple great and a lot of bad shots mixed together. Also, I didn't see the dialog moving the piece along. It's the same psuedo-insight into relationships in stress I've seen before. It didn't really bring anything new to the table. I had trouble paying attention, and I like a lot of slowly paced films. I think it would have made an interseting half-feature, but, as it was, it was a real drag. If the auteur really didn't know how to use the equipment, I'll give him props on it for effort, but that doesn't make this a good film or a good transfer.

I agree that given the choice, HD or film is superior. And anybody watching this picture with no technical knowledge has to be half blind to not notice that "something" is different with the image.

Also, in your post you said:

<<Also, I didn't see the dialog moving the piece along. It's the same psuedo-insight into relationships in stress I've seen before.>>

Kentis stated in his interview that he went out of his way to avoid being accused of the kind of dialogue you described. I guess it all comes down to point of view.

I will say this: If given my choice to blow up or not blow up, why waste time and good money to blow up any Mini DV image to 35 millimeter? The mini DV images projected digitally on a white screen look phenominal. And, why worry about 24p? Deinterlace 60i and 30p projected digitally looks good. The motion judder resembles 24p. That's my opinion.

I totally agree on your comments about whether or not to blow up DV to 35mm, and I think I may prefer 30p to both 24p and 60i. It's a nice balance.

Finally! Somebody else not hopped up on 24p! It just makes sense to stay 30p if you're staying digital. Besides, I scratch my head when people mention that 24p has a "filmic" look because of the frame rate. I thought filmic look was more of a contrast and good lighting kinda thing. 24p? 30p? I beg you to show me visible differences during a screening when both frame rates are used and compared side by side with the same good lighting and composition techniques.

Also, we can stop banging our heads against the wall when making equipment buying decisions. Here was my personal hell:

"Oh, woe is me! I want the superb image capture of a Sony DSR PD 170 but the progressive frame rate of a Panasonic DVX 100a! Oh what to do what to do!"

What to do?

Hell! Buy the damned Sony and de-interlace to 30p during render! You get the best of both worlds (provided you subscribe to the anti-35mm blowup decision). The vice if off of my head. No more headaches.

You okay there Hugh? Jeez, just when you think the debate is over.

You say this as if it is a bad idea to be 'hopped up' on 24p? 24p is one of the best things to happen to us DV filmmakers. I agree somewhat with your case for lighting but great lighting shot on video looks like, well, greatly lit video.

Why go through a de-interlace process when it can be done in camera and save some time. It's okay if people like 24p; it doesnt have to make you have a migraine.

I tend to aggravate myself more than I need to. I've been afflicted with a "type A" personality.

I would love 24p more than rye bread itself except that I've read that the 24p process, when rendered out to video for exhibition on your good old living room TV set, has a stuttery picture. I've heard that it doesn't look as good as, say, when a network airs a movie on TV. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. I'd love to love 24p.

I have seen this phenomenon you refer to (The motion stutter) but confess I personally havent had this problem. I do know the PAL versions drive alot of people crazy but also have seen some PAL footage that looks amazing.

Damn it, Hugh, I wish I had read your comments. I just blew fourteen bucks. (Have to have a popcorn and soda)

My congratulations go out to the makers of this piece of piffel because anyone who goes through the process deserves our admiration, but what a turkey.

Right from the opening picture you know you are in trouble. A wide shot of the sea is so soft that you wish you brought your sea sickness pills. And from there it's all downhill. Or under water. I cannot think of one positive comment to make, and I really am pretty easy. Awful script, photography, acting, music, etc.

Want to see a real film made with the PD150? Then check out "Personal Velocity." And please don't tell me "Open Water" made more money than "PV." McDonald's also makes tons of money. That doesn't mean its a restaurant.

Wayne

Hey guys,
one of "us" made a movie. That deserves credit. Maybe another one of "us" will make one in the near future as well. Sure, it might have problems, might not look as good as the low budget 3 million dollar independents. But they got it done.

As a diver I've been in that situation. I DID find the boat after floating for a while on he ocean. It's happened more than once- including a surface swim in a squall so bad the snorkel kept filling up. No sharks though, but I remember looking down a lot. (did video for the crusie lines in the carib' for a couple of years.)

Mainly, I just wanted to encourage us as a group to celebrate when a comrad gets a film out there.

Cheers!

Jeff P.

"Get Er Done"
Larry the cable guy.

Wayne, I agree.
Forgetting about the fact that it didn't transfer to film very well. I thought all the technical aspects of the film were poor. The sound and lighting were bad. The acting was just OK. Like most of you, I was thinking of all the things I would have done different filming it. Maybe pan the actors in the water to show that they truely in the middle of nowhere.

I really can't figure out how they spent $130,000 on it.
First Class Tix to and accomodations in the Caribbean (probably a few trips).
Shark Experts to chum the water.
Boat and captain rental.


I would have thought that LGF would put up the money to have Chris Kentis reshoot it on film.

With all that said, if I were to make this film, I would have been proud of it.

Anyone know how much Chris Kentis sold the film to LGF for? I need some motivation to finish my script and get the tape rolling.

Here here on the acknowledgement of their success. It was shot with PD150's; what did you expect it to look like on a filmout :P

Forget about the asthetics and props to the filmmakers.

I don't think anybody intended to really bash the filmmakers. I am glad it came out. If it does well at the box office, there may be a bigger/more inviting market for one my/our features. It was just that the film had a lot of technical and artistic shortcomings that may have been able to be overcome without enlarging the budget much more. This is the same analysis I employ during any HWood flick also, so in that way maybe it is a real compliment to critique the film in the same way I would a HWood one.

Now, while I give props to the "little indie that could", I think it is obvious that many more indepdendent films have been made that warranted distribution over this one. This got bought/distributed becuase of the "Jaws" meets "Blair Witch" tagline.

Chris kentis and Laura Lau's DV indie feature OPEN WATER has been released on DVD. I bought it and the transfer looks good on a TV screen. It has two great extras, "The Indie Essentials" where Lions Gate Films executives talk about what makes a great movie and what they look for when considering buying an indie feature for distribution and a behind-the-scenes documentary on the making of their film. Just so you know, they shot the entire feature with a PD 150 and VX 200.

I wonder if the DVD transfer was made from the 35 mm blowup or just deinterlaced? I could never understand why movies originating in DV can't be kept DV when distributed via DVD.

In the gradual process to filmout the video may have been shot a certain way, and color corrected and adjusted a certain way so that when it is turned to film it will have the appropriate look. This includes the handling of black, and updated titling and such that is done specifically for the film version for appropriate resolution, etc. For these reasons plus I'm sure more that I don't know of, they don't go back to the DV version, but rather master the final filmout onto DVD.

Makes perfect sense!

Congrats to the movie's accomplishments.

It looked pretty decent considering on what it was shot on. The girl's acting could have kept the sharks away in real life...she was relatively bad.

As far as the movie...nothing but a comedy of errors. Improper prodedures for taking head counts both before leaving the slip and after bringing the divers back into the boat after the dive.

Also, how can you tell me the divemaster NEVER noticed or remembered the hottest chick on the boat!

Then the boat is cleaned long after it's arrival back at dock and that's when they find the gear belonging to the missing divers.

An so on and so on...

Dear Fellow DVers:

In one of my earlier posts on this thread, I misspelled the word "phenomenal." Forgive me. I am a stickler for the Queen's English and proper spelling. I just noticed it and am embarrassed.

Now Bravo has to whack my bottom with the "Board of Education" followed by me screaming "THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?"

i don't understand why this film/video is taking such a beating here. i've seen much worse work done on film than what was done in this video. furthermore, the DVD treats, which included the "making of" story were pretty interesting, especially for anyone interested in the possibilities of making films from video. i only wish they had done more of it. i can imagine that the blow-outs might have made it look not-so-good on the big screen of a film, but i watched it at home, on video, and it wasn't such a bad little dalliance. it is always interesting to me to observe the film v. video debates.

here's a sacred cow to gore, for example: citizen kane, great film but guess what? LOUSY VIDEO. on a 13'' tv screen, it flattens into sentimental gibberish.

on the other hand, open water was probably a junky film, but it looked pretty cool on my neighbor's 13'' screen. GOOD VIDEO. and blow-outs barely show in video format.

we're living in a world of multiple formats and multiple contexts. that's good news. there's plenty of room at the trough, oink oink.

I got it from NetFlix. It was just barely tolerable. The earlier description of 3 minutes of story and 96 minutes listening to an argument sounds about right. I was so unimpressed I didn't even care about the extras (if there even were any, I didn't even look). There wasn't much believable about it and I am thankful I could surf the internet while I watched it, that's probably the only reason I made it all the way thru the movie.

(I wondered how they could miss the "HOTTEST CHICK ON THE BOAT" myself, but when her mouth started, I decided it might have been intentional)

Just saw the full version of Open Water yesterday... I was surprised how 'video' it looked. It seems like he didn't bother much in post to try give it a more filmic look. Also, the resolution isn't very good. It looked much more blurry than anything I saw shot with a DVX - The PD150 just doesn't seem to hold up.

I also felt the characters were totally under developed, and there aren't any key scenes to the film, something you usually bring out of most good suspense films. Lots of 'establishing shots' to extend the films length...

I'm just curious how this and Blair Witch managed to become so successful. It's not like there's something really special about them. They're not terrible either, but I've seen shorts better than both. Is it just because these are feature-length films? I really don't get it.

I'm just curious how this and Blair Witch managed to become so successful.

My two cents, they both have great and simple 'hooks.'
I don't know that I would go as far as to call them 'high concept'...but the hook is there none the less.

Blair Witch: Documentary crew goes out in search of a local legend and disapears, two years later their footage is found.

Open Water: Two divers are left behind in the middle of the ocean in shark infested waters.


Those ideas are easily 'pitchable'
They are easily advertised, marketed, and sold.

That's my guess.

There is a very annoying practice on the part of the studios to release vhs versions of "films" shot on video in their original video format. I first saw this in "Anniversary Party." The dvd version was struck from the film release, so you saw the film as the DP had intended. But if you rented the vhs version, you saw the uncorrected videotape output. Ugh. (However, good for comparison purposes.) I believe that sometimes the films are even released on dvd in the original video version, but none come to mind.

Is it possible you were viewing the videotape version of Open Water?

Luis is right. The marketing dept stepped in and said "we can sell the hell out of this" and they do.

On one hand, the "hellsell" makes them $$$$ and creates a whole new career for the filmmakers. The husband/wife team that made "Open Water" will be working with a MUCH bigger budget next time.

The other hand: The marketing dept overplays their hand and makes the movie seem like something it's not. I thought Open Water would have been a very nice low budget movie if my expectations hadn't been ramped up by the "Jaws Lite" campaign.

Same with Blair Witch, except that at least the last 10 minutes of Blair is actually frightening.

Wayne, I saw it on cable tv so I very much doubt it's a version different from the original. In fact it seems odd to me the director would supply the studio with the raw footage of the film. It's more likely they just take what's done and release it.

As to the films having great hooks, I agree, except wouldn't it be better if they just bought the film rights and reshot it for a low budget ($500k or $1m) and release that version? I mean, if they're forking out $2m to buy the film, they might as well do a good job out of it. Imrpove the story & production and keep the hooks.

On the side of the audiences, why doesn't word of mouth work in this case? Or should I say, it works in favour of the films instead of against it. If a friend of mine asked what I thought of any of the two I definitely tell him not to bother. IMO there's a lot of luck involved here... Sure marketing, etc. helps a lot, but somehow people decided to go watch this films instead of a professional production (which isn't necessarily better, but at least it doesn't look cheap).

There is a very annoying practice on the part of the studios to release vhs versions of "films" shot on video in their original video format. Are films shot in HD like Once upon a time in mexico, and Spy kids 2, transferred from film to DVD, or the DVD is the output from HD.
I ask this because the films look smooth and film like compared to TV HD, ie ER, which seems a sharp as the devil himself.

Moved the thread to the "Awake in the Dark" forum, which is about movies
you saw etc. DV for the Masses is to showcase work you've made.

Dave Ferdinand...

I have watched a lot of bad movies and almost always can find one or more redeeming qualities, even the worst of them, but...

I could not agree with you more. I was dumbfounded that it made it to Block Buster / Cable TV. The camera work, characters, and editing looked VERY rough in my opinion to have made it as far as it did. Intended as a rough gem or not... I still think - yuck. It's not that the story was so bad, but I absolutely hated the joggy camera motion and was never drawn into the characters enough to take it as serious as the situation would have been. I can honestly say it's THE worst movie I have seen in years. I watched the whole thing in total disbelief.

I hope I have not offended anyone involved with the picture (and I'm sure I have, my apologies extended), but how did this movie get funding for release?


EDITED:

I just noticed that another thread had gone through it's paces regarding this movie but didn't see it until after posting here, so sorry to beat a dead horse.

My .02

Blair Witch

Never got it; disliked it. Horrible. Completely in awe that it did what it did and a complete insult to Cinema. This film did not inspire except for one factor; If they can make this crap, I can make this crap and there is hope.

Open Water

As Luis mentions; great hook. I liked this for what it was. I knew about it before sundance and during and lauded the release. It most definately looked like video in all of it's bad video way's (Like Tad Pole for instance) and I only imagine if they shot this using the DVX or Cinealta or one of the coming HD-24p ameras. It would have been fine. The filmmakers knew how to tell a story and I think they suceeded. I felt the actors were first rate and it was a well done film with the only drawback being the limitations of the cameras used. This film inspired me in a way "That was really cool; and damn it. I can make something that cool too!"

They really didn't have much choice of cameras when shooting underwater.

They really didn't have much choice of cameras when shooting underwater.

Whos talking about the underwater shots? What about all of the non-underwater shooting? They DID have good cameras for that, in fact the ones used are not bad cameras by any means.


John Hudson
"I only imagine if they shot this using the DVX or Cinealta or one of the coming HD-24p ameras. It would have been fine."

You don't believe that do you? Don't blame the camera, that's just wrong, I can get better results from my mini-DV hand held. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bash the efforst made to produce this movie, my hats off to them, but it is very "Indy". So how did this ever make it past that stage?

I guess I should produce one, if that movie can make it then so can mine.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bash the efforst made to produce this movie, my hats off to them, but it is very "Indy". So how did this ever make it past that stage?

Content is king.
Apparently the story spoke to somone who had the power to get it distributed.

The same question you are asking in relation to 'Open Water' is the same question I ask myself about just about every movie that I see released....how did this get out there?? If it were up to me, no one would have ever seen "White Chicks," yet it was number one at the box office.

I found Open Water to be very enjoyable... you may not, and that's fine.
But apparently someone thought it was good, regardless of the cameras, regardless of the level of production.... content is what counts.

I'd rather watch Open Water again than have to watch a Deuce Bigalow sequel.

LOL

Exactly Luis; and White Chicks is a perfect example of "What and how in god's name did this happen?".

M Struthers:

They had a choice. They make water housings for all kinds of cameras including the big toys.

Daniel:

In this case, I'm putting a ton of the blame on the cameras used; like Tad Pole, like Pieces of April and like 28 Days Later it just looked horrible no matter the chosen comps and framing. Yes, I think with higher caliber cameras this film would have looked just fine and worked even more. Unfortunately it just looked and tasted like a reality program. Those cameras are great for weddingography but not a feature film and surely not a film shot on the ocean. The film looked everybit the VX-2000 and the PD150. I asked the filmmaker if they had used the DVX100 when Variety first reported it being 24-p and he said "He wished; but that camera had not come out yet."

It's a good piece if indiefilmmaking. Engaging storyline and well told. If you did not like it then it's really just subjective anyway which makes this kind of moot. Better results from your mini-DV? Yeah yeah. Give us a link when you do.

Like Luis, I'd rather watch this than Deep Blue Sea.

I'd rather watch Open Water again than have to watch a Deuce Bigalow sequel.

LOL... now we can disagree for sure! hehe... Deuce Bigalow was slapstick and I expected that "Simpsons" humor. For me Open Water simply missed it's mark.

And yes, I'll stand firm that the camera is not all that it takes to produce a good movie. Any single aspect of production can kill a movie even with a compelling story; like bad lighing, poor camera work, unconvincing acting, etc.. It's unfortunate that this movie had more than one rough wave to ride.

Would a better camera have helped? Likely. Would it have improved the lighting? I doubt it. Would it have helped the acting, not likely. I could go on but you know where I'm going with this. My only real point is: impressive as an indy, VERY impressed... but as a box office movie at $7.50+ a pop... Aw hell naw. It's okay that we disagree, I don't expect you like my movie list either. In fact, I like the fact that we can simply agree to disagree.

Peace!

,.. but as a box office movie at $7.50+ a pop...
Peace!

Now that I will agree with.

The camera is very important in trying to make it as professional looking as possible... Sure, you'll need many other things, but if you just shoot video without any color correction it's a very bad start.

Placing 28 Days alongside with Open Water is just not fair. 28 Days looks a bit like video, but not 'holiday video with family on the beach' style video. It looks professional and worked really well, regardless of the acting and story. Open Water just looks like they didn't even make the effort. I'm making my own little first short at the moment with my GL2, and consider I achieve a much better look than this. I've also seen other stuff shot with the Optura, GS400, GL1, etc. that look way better than this.

As to 'content', I don't think Open Water had much of that either... The acting is fairly good most of the time, but there's no character development (we know almost nothing about the 2 leads), and there's no proper supporting roles. The other people there are just props, along with the boat and diving suits.

Maybe Lions Gate bought this exactly because of the video look; the 'reality show' style the film has... Just like Blair Witch. Strange, but it could be true.

A DVX would've been nice, but thought they did an outstanding job nonetheless and never seen a big problem with the image quality - I was shocked a PD150 could pull that off - haven't liked PDs for a while, but they pushed the cam to the limits for that - looked great.