Borat what was the format used to film it? at DVinfo.net

Hamad Abdulla · November 20th, 2006, 02:58 AM

Anybody knows what format and camera were used to shoot the new Borat feature film? I'll bet it's not 35mm, it must be some form of DV or HDV, anyone got any idea?

Cheers.

Russell Pearce · November 20th, 2006, 04:28 AM

Found this on IMDB

Technical Specifications for
Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006)

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
Video (HDTV)
Cinematographic process
DV (partly)
HDV
Printed film format
35 mm
Aspect ratio
1.85 : 1

Russ

Eric Darling · November 20th, 2006, 05:17 AM

It's definitely mostly HD - in a certain chase scene near the very end of the film, I remember actually seeing a pro video lens from a second camera creep into the shot for a split second. I think total budget on the film was $17M.

Brian Wells · November 20th, 2006, 05:40 AM

There is a post on Cinematography.com which indicates that much of "Boret" was shot on Panasonic VariCam rentals from Abel Cinetech. The person who wrote the post works there, so it must be true...

Leo Pepingco · November 20th, 2006, 10:13 PM

Monitary facts for your enjoyment.

COST = $27M (US$)

Opened in 1/3 of movie studios. Due to the flop of the Ali G film "Ali G in Da House" FOX was very worried of this film. Especially the controversy surrounding.

On the first opening week, the Movie shot to No.1

Because FOX did not release the film in all the cinemas, FOX lost over $500M US$. The following week, Fox opened the film everywhere it could.

I love anything that pokes fun at fox... Especially Fox news.

"No You're wrong. Who listens to the UN?"
"I'm sorry, but I think there are people other than FOX who know more about the facts."
"Just shut up - you dont know nothing"
"Let me finnish"
"Shut up, just shut.... up ok.."
"No, you wont let me finnish"
"Shut up.... Cut his mic."

Jason Lowe · December 1st, 2006, 02:26 PM

How could this thing have cost $27M to make? No sets, two actors, no CGI, nothing.

Richard Alvarez · December 1st, 2006, 06:16 PM

Crew hast to get paid, transportation costs money, gear has to be rented, insurances has to be bought, actors get paid, inverstors get paid, editing and finishing costs money, film transfers cost money.

27 million seems high though, I'd have put it closer to 15.

Eric Darling · December 1st, 2006, 07:48 PM

Don't forget rights and clearances and craft services.

Ethan Cooper · December 2nd, 2006, 01:59 AM

I know a guy in Jackson Miss. who helped shot a few segments of the movie. They shot the segments he worked on with Varicams.
Fun little side note:
The shooters were given a supply of dummy tapes to give to the cops if they were taken into custody.
Thats about all I know and about all he'll divulge.

Robert Knecht Schmidt · December 2nd, 2006, 02:03 AM

I agree with the above skepticism about the budget. You simply don't see $27 million on screen in this film, and it seems unlikely anyone would ever finance such a risky investment to that kind of money.

$27 million total including P&A--that I'd believe.

Ethan Cooper · December 2nd, 2006, 11:40 AM

Does that $27 Million figure include distribution and advertising? Thats about the only other expense I can think of.

Richard Alvarez · December 2nd, 2006, 12:01 PM

Yeah, P&A, distribution and such can double a films 'production' budget. It's important to keep that in mind when looking at figures like this. It's not uncommon in Hollywood to DOUBLE the overall costs in this manner.

It's also important to remember, as we look at how 'inexpensive' it is to 'make a movie' these days... that PROMOTING the movie can cost far more than the production costs.

Because filmmaking is such a collaborative effort, and involves SO many aspects of different crafts... from office work, to catering, to advertising, to insurance, to duplication, to MORE insurance, to transportation, music rights etc... it's easy to 'forget' about those hidden costs when shopping for our next toy. Often, people get fixated on how much 'cheaper' it is to shoot video over film. WHich is true. And there is a certain economy of scale involved with small projects. IF purchasing and processing film is going to triple the budget for your project, then yeah, shooting video saves tons of money.

But on a big budget, the cost of film is WAY down on the list expenses to worry about. Sure, there are still savings to be had, but it has to be balanced against other 'departments' craving money... and the long term 'pay off' can be the deciding factor.

Brian Luce · December 16th, 2006, 03:47 AM

I think "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" with Robert Downey and Val Kilmer and an
A list screen writer, cost 22 million.

So I don't see how "Borat" could have been that expensive.

Chris Hocking · December 17th, 2006, 03:18 AM

Lawyers cost a lot of money!

John Vincent · December 18th, 2006, 09:49 AM

It's budget has been listed as $16 Million U.S.

Advertising budgets are never included in budgets.

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

November 20th, 2006, 02:58 AM	#1
Hamad Abdulla Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain Posts: 82	Borat what was the format used to film it? Anybody knows what format and camera were used to shoot the new Borat feature film? I'll bet it's not 35mm, it must be some form of DV or HDV, anyone got any idea? Cheers.

November 20th, 2006, 10:13 PM	#5
Leo Pepingco Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 275	Monitary facts for your enjoyment. COST = $27M (US$) Opened in 1/3 of movie studios. Due to the flop of the Ali G film "Ali G in Da House" FOX was very worried of this film. Especially the controversy surrounding. On the first opening week, the Movie shot to No.1 Because FOX did not release the film in all the cinemas, FOX lost over $500M US$. The following week, Fox opened the film everywhere it could. I love anything that pokes fun at fox... Especially Fox news. "No You're wrong. Who listens to the UN?" "I'm sorry, but I think there are people other than FOX who know more about the facts." "Just shut up - you dont know nothing" "Let me finnish" "Shut up, just shut.... up ok.." "No, you wont let me finnish" "Shut up.... Cut his mic." __________________ I told you to get an alabi

December 2nd, 2006, 02:03 AM	#10
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	I agree with the above skepticism about the budget. You simply don't see $27 million on screen in this film, and it seems unlikely anyone would ever finance such a risky investment to that kind of money. $27 million total including P&A--that I'd believe. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

November 20th, 2006, 04:28 AM	#2
Russell Pearce Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Birmingham England Posts: 69 Images: 1	Found this on IMDB Technical Specifications for Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006) Film negative format (mm/video inches) Video (HDTV) Cinematographic process DV (partly) HDV Printed film format 35 mm Aspect ratio 1.85 : 1 Russ

November 20th, 2006, 05:17 AM	#3
Eric Darling Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Savannah, GA Posts: 463	It's definitely mostly HD - in a certain chase scene near the very end of the film, I remember actually seeing a pro video lens from a second camera creep into the shot for a split second. I think total budget on the film was $17M.

November 20th, 2006, 05:40 AM	#4
Brian Wells Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 143	There is a post on Cinematography.com which indicates that much of "Boret" was shot on Panasonic VariCam rentals from Abel Cinetech. The person who wrote the post works there, so it must be true...

December 1st, 2006, 02:26 PM	#6
Jason Lowe Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Smithfield, Pennsylvania Posts: 226	How could this thing have cost $27M to make? No sets, two actors, no CGI, nothing.

December 1st, 2006, 06:16 PM	#7
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Crew hast to get paid, transportation costs money, gear has to be rented, insurances has to be bought, actors get paid, inverstors get paid, editing and finishing costs money, film transfers cost money. 27 million seems high though, I'd have put it closer to 15.

December 1st, 2006, 07:48 PM	#8
Eric Darling Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Savannah, GA Posts: 463	Don't forget rights and clearances and craft services.

December 2nd, 2006, 01:59 AM	#9
Ethan Cooper Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Houma, La. Posts: 1,400 Images: 5	I know a guy in Jackson Miss. who helped shot a few segments of the movie. They shot the segments he worked on with Varicams. Fun little side note: The shooters were given a supply of dummy tapes to give to the cops if they were taken into custody. Thats about all I know and about all he'll divulge.

December 2nd, 2006, 11:40 AM	#11
Ethan Cooper Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Houma, La. Posts: 1,400 Images: 5	Does that $27 Million figure include distribution and advertising? Thats about the only other expense I can think of.

December 2nd, 2006, 12:01 PM	#12
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Yeah, P&A, distribution and such can double a films 'production' budget. It's important to keep that in mind when looking at figures like this. It's not uncommon in Hollywood to DOUBLE the overall costs in this manner. It's also important to remember, as we look at how 'inexpensive' it is to 'make a movie' these days... that PROMOTING the movie can cost far more than the production costs. Because filmmaking is such a collaborative effort, and involves SO many aspects of different crafts... from office work, to catering, to advertising, to insurance, to duplication, to MORE insurance, to transportation, music rights etc... it's easy to 'forget' about those hidden costs when shopping for our next toy. Often, people get fixated on how much 'cheaper' it is to shoot video over film. WHich is true. And there is a certain economy of scale involved with small projects. IF purchasing and processing film is going to triple the budget for your project, then yeah, shooting video saves tons of money. But on a big budget, the cost of film is WAY down on the list expenses to worry about. Sure, there are still savings to be had, but it has to be balanced against other 'departments' craving money... and the long term 'pay off' can be the deciding factor.

December 16th, 2006, 03:47 AM	#13
Brian Luce Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,290	I think "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" with Robert Downey and Val Kilmer and an A list screen writer, cost 22 million. So I don't see how "Borat" could have been that expensive.

December 17th, 2006, 03:18 AM	#14
Chris Hocking Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 595	Lawyers cost a lot of money!

December 18th, 2006, 09:49 AM	#15
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	It's budget has been listed as $16 Million U.S. Advertising budgets are never included in budgets. john evilgeniusentertainment.com