|
As some of you know, last year I produced a film called Tiger House, starring Kaya Scodelario, Ed Skrein and Dougray Scott. Magnet (Magnolia) are releasing it tomorrow on VOD/iTunes etc as well as DVD. A list of on-demand outlets is available here: http://www.magnetreleasing.com/tigerhouse/ As Magnolia pioneered VOD, they have great penetration across many VOD channels. Our UK release was botched as the distributor effectively went bust a month or two beforehand so we are hoping for better luck from the US. It's not a masterpiece but I hope you won't think you wasted your time either (and it's short!). Feel free to ask me any questions about the film.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:19 |
|
|
I don't have a question but home invasion movies are very much my poo poo and I love Kaya Scodelario so I'd be all over this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Congrats! Don't undersell your movie, man! You produced a real movie with real actors getting a release from a major distribution company. Here's to many more! I'll definitely be checking it out sometime this week or next so hopefully you'll see a small cut of my 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
$3.99 to rent on Google Play. Might as well spend that survey money on something! Trailer looks interesting, I'll let you know what I think when I've watched it. I assume there's a reason why a teenage girl becomes Solid Snake under duress.
raditts fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
raditts posted:$3.99 to rent on Google Play. Might as well spend that survey money on something! Trailer looks interesting, I'll let you know what I think when I've watched it. I assume there's a reason why a teenage girl becomes Solid Snake under duress. Because it would be a pretty boring movie if she didn't! We did try to make it reasonably plausible, so she doesn't engage in any massively over-the-top moves - although perhaps it would have been a better film if she had! Watch it and let me know what you think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
I really liked the first trailer (some guy sitting in a chair talking or something like that. you posted it a long time ago) but this one makes it look a lot like You're Next which is making me nervous since I hated that movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Watched it tonight. It did a good job of building tension and the acting was pretty good, but I think you're right that it could have benefited from a bit more action in between the tense moments; what was there was what you could reasonably expect from a teenage girl from a "realism" standpoint but I didn't feel like there was really enough catharsis to balance out all the tension. That may be in part from my expecting more on that end from watching the trailer, though. I didn't care much for how it ended, the final act seemed really abrupt and anti-climactic. And I still don't know why it was called "Tiger House." Overall I'd say it was solidly "okay," it was a decent rental. From a plot standpoint I assume Shane was nailing Lucille when the psycho guy was in prison and her baby was his, but the dad's part in the scheme seemed poorly thought out, I feel like if it went smoothly they weren't letting him out alive. raditts fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
tiger house is 82 minutes, the perfect running length
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
There's six producers listed on the site, and I'm assuming one of them is you. You may have already answered this a dozen times in other posts about Tiger House, but can you clarify what kind of role you played in the creative/financial end, and how that interacted with the other producers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:I really liked the first trailer (some guy sitting in a chair talking or something like that. you posted it a long time ago) but this one makes it look a lot like You're Next which is making me nervous since I hated that movie. That teaser was something that the director did before the film in order to get the film made. I'm not sure that the film lived up to that promise. raditts posted:Watched it tonight. It did a good job of building tension and the acting was pretty good, but I think you're right that it could have benefited from a bit more action in between the tense moments; what was there was what you could reasonably expect from a teenage girl from a "realism" standpoint but I didn't feel like there was really enough catharsis to balance out all the tension. That may be in part from my expecting more on that end from watching the trailer, though. I didn't care much for how it ended, the final act seemed really abrupt and anti-climactic. And I still don't know why it was called "Tiger House." I don't disagree with any of this. We struggled a bit with the ending in the edit; it didn't seem like we had quite enough footage (or enough of an ending was written), so the ending does feel a bit rushed. We tried to make an elevated genre film but I think we had too much elevation and not quite enough genre. My big lesson is that if you are going to make an elevated genre film, you have to nail the genre elements, then you can add in more about characterisation, background, etc. A tiger kidnap is where hostages are taken briefly to ensure somebody's cooperation. it'd an Irish term, I think. http://www.psni.police.uk/business_tiger_kidnap Apart from being applicable we liked the title! You are right about Shane and Lucille, and probably wrong about the father not getting out alive - the plan is to do it really smoothly and professionally without anyone getting hurt. Robbery, not murder Jenny Angel posted:There's six producers listed on the site, and I'm assuming one of them is you. You may have already answered this a dozen times in other posts about Tiger House, but can you clarify what kind of role you played in the creative/financial end, and how that interacted with the other producers? Yep, one is me. My partner and I took on the project when there was a script and director. We developed the script further, attached the cast, put the financing in place (mainly my role), and then he was on set during shoot, I was there for a week each in prep and shoot. (It was my idea, for instance to have her hiding in the shower as she was; the original script was that she suspended herself against the ceiling by bracing against walls, which the location didn't work for Post was in the UK and we were pretty involved in that, although probably not as involved as we should have been. My partner was more involved creatively as he was on set and more in charge of the physical production. The other producers were mainly providing financing, other support (like sales), or acting as official SA co-producers, but pardner and I were the lead producers. Literally The Worst posted:tiger house is 82 minutes, the perfect running length Yes. Short is good. As I say, I rarely leave a film thinking "That just wasn't long enough!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
therattle posted:put the financing in place Can you elaborate on this a little? The way you put it makes it sound like it's a more involved process than just tossing your own money at the situation and calling it a day, so what kind of work was involved in this part of the production?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Jenny Angel posted:Can you elaborate on this a little? The way you put it makes it sound like it's a more involved process than just tossing your own money at the situation and calling it a day, so what kind of work was involved in this part of the production? Oh Lord no. My job is basically advising producers on structuring their financing and then closing it (ie moving from in-principle commitments to contracts signed and money flowing). Most independent films are put together with a patchwork of financing sources. This was relatively simple. We had a UK-South Africa co-production (shoot in SA, post in UK). this allowed us to access the SA rebate and the UK tax credit (calculated on % of qualifying spend). Our sales agent concluded some pre-sales with distributors, which we banked to convert into cashflow. The SA IDC put a big chunk in - their mission is to bring production to SA so they invest in film to achieve that. A couple of individuals put in a reasonable chunk of equity, and that was that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
You could link Jenny your other thread where you went into this stuff in more detail? I would...but I don't remember where it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:You could link Jenny your other thread where you went into this stuff in more detail? I would...but I don't remember where it is. I thought of that but I can't find it. I think it;s vanished into the aether.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
edit: crap, I thought this was a thread about a different movie, how did I manage to get the two mixed up? I liked this movie well enough, although the crossbow thing fell flat early, and I really didn't even add up that she was still seeing her spoiled little bitch boyfriend after he shot a hole in her leg, until she was up in the attic. I won't spoiler that, because it was my own dumb fault for not recognizing the guy because I wasn't paying attention - not like it was hidden or anything. I liked the dying bad guy he did a good acting job and his change of heart played out well enough, can't say I didn't see douchey stepdad turning out that way by about the first ten minutes though when he's making snide comments about the kids. The "now we just handed over a mini cooper stacked with poorly concealed bills which are magically untraceable" ending was a bit much for me. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:edit: crap, I thought this was a thread about a different movie, how did I manage to get the two mixed up? The thing about the ending which maybe we should have made clearer is that all the money burns in the van so the authorities wouldn't realise that a chunk was missing. The car is Mark's so if he doesn't report it as missing it wouldn't be looked for by the police. So she makes a clean getaway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
The website's on-demand list doesn't seem to note that this is on Netflix in the US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:The website's on-demand list doesn't seem to note that this is on Netflix in the US. I can think of two reasons for this: 1) it only went onto Netflix recently and the distributor has not updated the page; and/or 2) they will not update the page because they don't want people knowing they can watch it effectively for free when it is also available on VOD (which has to be paid for). I don't know which one it is, and I'm afraid it isn't in my control. (Very little is).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
therattle posted:The thing about the ending which maybe we should have made clearer is that all the money burns in the van so the authorities wouldn't realise that a chunk was missing. The car is Mark's so if he doesn't report it as missing it wouldn't be looked for by the police. So she makes a clean getaway. It still strikes me as a stretch that a pallet of paper that large could believably go missing in the end though. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
One of my friends who keeps an account on icheckmovies apparently watched this the other day, so congrats, random people are seeing it! So what's next? Do you have a new project lined up?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Ah okay, that does make a lot more sense. Was there a scene with the van going up that I glossed over? There is not a scene of the van going up (budgetary reasons!) but they are hurrying her our of the garage as the fire is approaching, and then there is the explosion as she is driving away; the piece of debris that nearly hits the car is meant to be a van part. In hindsight it could have been explained more clearly. I think it's plausible enough that they wouldn't notice that a chunk of the money was missing if the van explodes. TrixRabbi posted:One of my friends who keeps an account on icheckmovies apparently watched this the other day, so congrats, random people are seeing it! Good! We have a few things lined up but nothing quiet in the starting blocks; late-stage development for the most part, although we have one with a pretty well-developed script, director (good Norwegian called Hans Petter Moland, who did a very cool film called In Order Of Disappearance), with some great cast attached (which i amn't sure I can reveal). It's a family drama set in the mid-West. That's probably closest to going, hopefully in summer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
therattle posted:There is not a scene of the van going up (budgetary reasons!) but they are hurrying her our of the garage as the fire is approaching, and then there is the explosion as she is driving away; the piece of debris that nearly hits the car is meant to be a van part. In hindsight it could have been explained more clearly. I think it's plausible enough that they wouldn't notice that a chunk of the money was missing if the van explodes. I would think that one or two throwaway lines like "oh man we need to burn this thing up because we got our own blood inside" or something would have helped a lot in that case. I mean a mini cooper has a lot of room in it! I saw the Italian Job! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Wait, this isn't a kung-fu movie? Because with that title, it should have been. Man, so bummed. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
I originally passed on this because I thought it starred that girl from Twilight.  I'll have to give it a watch.Producing seems like a very under-appreciated role in movie making. As a layman who casually keeps up with movie production through the popular news site, I've always thought of producers as the assholes who ruin movies. A focus on returns instead of creativity, stupid script notes that ruin stories, being a pest on set, etc. But I'm guessing that's actually rare and producers are actually keeping the ship afloat. I'd love to read more about this aspect of movie making.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Violator posted:I originally passed on this because I thought it starred that girl from Twilight. I've heard one commentary on a movie that really goes into producing, and that was on the DVD for Auto Focus. It doesn't actually run for the whole length of the movie, but it was a nice little peek at things. Worth checking out (as is the movie itself, naturally.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
Hey wow cool, I watched this movie on a whim one night and it was really good. Goongratulations. The last movie like this I saw was You're Next... which was ok. But this movie was great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Hey wow cool, I watched this movie on a whim one night and it was really good. Goongratulations. Oh good! Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
therattle posted:Oh good! Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it. Did you make any money out of it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
BisonDollah posted:Did you make any money out of it? A modest fee, part of which I used to cover some overcost. In the end, not very much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
therattle posted:A modest fee, part of which I used to cover some overcost. In the end, not very much. Is it back to square one with your next production, then? I mean funding wise. I always assumed production houses depended on using the profits from the previous movie to make their next one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
BisonDollah posted:Is it back to square one with your next production, then? I mean funding wise. I always assumed production houses depended on using the profits from the previous movie to make their next one. Profits! Hah! That's a good one. Very few films make profits. The producers get a fee which, if they are lucky, is enough to sustain them, maybe an office, and pay for the development of a few projects (or seed money for them).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Just watched this. Liked the movie, not amazing, as you already know. Good enough to watch with some friends. Certainly doesn't deserve its IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes score. Some tense moments. It was quite grounded, the girl didn't do anything amazing, which I liked. As a consequence though it wasn't as fun as You're Next, I'm sure you are tired of that comparison, so I won't elaborate. The wheel in the background at the end did make me laugh. I didn't like the whole, driving into the sunset with a car full of cash. Seriously, you abandon your unborn child/grandchild just like that? Good luck in your next projects.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
I dunno, goons seem to really get into the whole "YOUR BABAY!" and "WHY PUT A PREGNANT WOMAN IN HARM'S WAY!?!?!?" thing to a ridiculous extent. It's like goon white knight 2.0, with a healthy dose of Pat Robertson thrown in. I've lost count of the number of goons who post all butt-hurt because some character who happened to be 1-4 months pregnant happens to put themselves in harm's way, and they flip the hell out about putting precious baby-machines into the line of fire. Personally, I figure it's the mom's choice, not mine. I can't really throw into the "realism" of it all, because it's fiction, and I'm not a woman and I've never had a kid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
I'm only gonna watch it if there's at least one actual tiger in it  Or is this another case of shameful false advertising?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:19 |
|
|
Thanks for comments and for watching. Agreed it deserves a bit more than IMDB's 5.0. That said, we were really pleased when it broke that psychological threshold from 4.9! I think UK audiences have been harsher than US. We didn't want her to be too kick-rear end - it had to be almost plausible that she was an ordinary girl in an extraordinary situation. That might limit the scope for coolness though, but hopefully gives a bit more character depth and relay ability. The son never wanted the kid and his mother thought it would ruin his life. So if Kelly gets to make a clean getaway with enough money to comfortably provide for her baby it's s pretty good outcome for all In hindsight I slightly regret the tyre... error1 posted:I'm only gonna watch it if there's at least one actual tiger in it There are tons of tigers. A whole house full!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 11:40
|
|