Any movies with quick post-productions, nowadays?

Other than the Saw and Paranormal Activity movies, I don't see it much at all anymore. It happened a lot in the 80's and 90's.

ENTER THE DRAGON (1973) was shot in early 1973 and released on August 19 of that year.

The Blair Witch Project. They found it in the woods.

I believe Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 was shot and edited for release in a matter of months.

Son of Kong was made & released in the same year as King Kong (1933).....To top it off, the movie had frickin' stop-motion-animation in it!!!!

Lethal Weapon 4 started shooting in January of 1998, and was released 33 days after principal photography stopped. How's that for quick post-production?!

I imagine Timecode had a pretty quick turnaround once it was in the can.

Also, I wonder how long the post production was for Woody Allen's output of the 90s (Manhattan Murder Mystery, Bullets Over Broadway...) when most of his films were made entirely of mastershots.

I think it started filming in June, and was released in august. That has to be the fastest ever.

Friday the 13th part 3 finished filming in June of 82 and was released in August, which is pretty amazing considering all of the 3D equipment that had to be put into every theater.

On a similar note, Russian Ark likely had limited post-production, although it took 5 months from shooting it to premiering at Cannes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ark

This is Not a Film was shot in March 2011, and premiered at Cannes in May 20, 2011, so under 3 months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jafar_P...ilm_.282011.29

In the vein of quick sequels, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was released a year after the original. It's not clear exactly how long the post-production was, but that's a quick turnaround for such a big-budget, effects-heavy movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_P...lm)#Production

A Shot in the Dark was released about 6 months after The Pink Panther, although in the US the gap was only about 3 months:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pin...lms_and_themes

The Twilight series released the first sequel a year after the first, and the third one 6 months after the 2nd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twi...a_(film_series)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II was released a year after the first.

The Bad News Bears had two sequels released about a year after the previous film. In that case, likely the age of the kids was a factor in how fast they made them.


Are we sticking with theatrical films? Because I'm thinking that some of those Land Before Time and Air Bud DTV sequels were likely cranked out really fast.

Most genre sequels have accelerated timelines, especially when there's one released on an annual basis a la Paranormal Activity and Saw as mentioned by the OP. For example:

• A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge finished shooting August 1985, was in theaters November 1985.
• A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 3: Dream Warriors finished shooting November 1986, was in theaters March 1987.
• A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 4: The Dream Master finished shooting June 1988, was in theaters August 1988.
• A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 5: The Dream Child finished shooting June 1989, was in theaters August 1989.

While it finished shooting in July 2012 and wasn't released until Christmas Day, Django Unchained started screenings for Academy members and critics shortly after Thanksgiving.

Regarding The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2...


That's crazy.

As a huge fan of TCM2 I was not aware of this little nugget. Was this something that was mentioned on an audio commentary? I can't seem to find anything regarding the accelerated post-production on a cursory Google search.

I think Million Dollar Baby had a very quick turn around, though due to the studio holding it for Oscar season it's tough to say exactly.

That one was filmed between June 7th and July 14th 2004, release in December of that year.

So I take it the "nowadays" portion of the first post was largely ignored?

I think a big issue is studios plan everything out for Box Office potential, they don't really "rush" things into theaters anymore.

Insidious was shot over 3 weeks from late April until mid-May in 2010 then it was shown at the Toronto International Film Festival in September 2010. It didn't see theatrical release until April 2011. Though to it's credit, James Wan wasn't exactly a name studios liked at the time and the movie didn't have a distributor when it was shown at TIFF.

Amazing what an Insidious and Conjuring can do for your career.

Schindler's List had a short post production.

To me, 1973 is still "nowadays."

The final scene of The King's Speech was shot in the lobby during the premiere, developed, and seamlessly added to the final reel.

I recall Spielberg's Munich came out just 2-3 months after shooting wrapped.

I recall reading that one of the one-time Harry Potter directors was still completing work on their movie (so it would either be Azkaban or Goblet), and that was the reason they didn't direct the next movie because they were still working on the last one!

I never understand why something like Game of Thrones can produce 10 hours of content, with elaborate sets and effects in a matter of months. But it takes two+ years to make an hour-and-a-half drama set in a house.

I want to say it's covered in one of the featurettes on the current BD.

Which hour and a hour drama are you referring to?

Moving Violations (1985)

From the time the idea was pitched to when it was released in theaters was only six months.