Open Water film shot on...?

[Jesse Bekas]

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.

[Hugh DiMauro]

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.

[Imran Zaidi]

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.

[Hugh DiMauro]

Makes perfect sense!

[Rick Bravo]

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...

[Hugh DiMauro]

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?"

[Meryem Ersoz]

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.

[Rhett Allen]

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)

[Dave Ferdinand]

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.

[Luis Caffesse]

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.

[Wayne Orr]

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?

[Michael Struthers]

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.

[Dave Ferdinand]

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).

[Ben Gurvich]

Originally Posted by Wayne Orr

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.

[Rob Lohman]

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.