Why are Indie films often so poorly made?

[Zak Forsman]

i agree with everything, except that you don't need storyboards or shotlists if you have a director that knows and communicates what he wants.

 

[Sad Max]

i agree with everything, except that you don't need storyboards or shotlists if you have a director that knows and communicates what he wants.

Storyboards and shot lists are tools with which that communication is made.

Past a certain size and complexity of crew and production, boards and shot lists are invaluable.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Storyboards and shot lists are tools with which that communication is made.

Past a certain size and complexity of crew and production, boards and shot lists are invaluable.

i think storyboards (or "static frames") are a flawed way of visualizing a motion picture. I use overhead blocking diagrams detailing the movement in "keyframes". granted, i have absolutely no desire to be a part of a production past "a certain size".

 

[David Jimerson]

i think storyboards (or "static frames") are a flawed way of visualizing a motion picture. I use overhead blocking diagrams detailing the movement in "keyframes". granted, i have absolutely no desire to be a part of a production past "a certain size".

That's fine for blocking, but how do you illustrate framing and composition that way?

 

[Anhar_Miah]

Good Question, my view:

There are two core elements, (a) The Idea or Story, (b) the means to communicate it.

For indie productions part (b) inlcudes two things (1) Equipment and (2) technical ability.

IMHO (b)(1) there is no excuse, the current cameras (assuming you have a budget) are more then adequte.

(b)(2) This depends on experience and user knowledge and human resourse(maybe partly budget as well). But there is enough information on the net/books/Film School, again no excuse ( you don't drive a car without learning how to drive first, why should it be different for filmmaking?)

(a) Orginality is hard, Orginality with the skill and talent to deliver it as a visual story is even harder.

"Its the reason why diamonds are not the sizes of boulders, because they are bloody rare"

In a nutshell:

Cheap Digital Cameras + lack of technical ability + lack or Orginality = Poor Indie Films

 

[Sad Max]

i think storyboards (or "static frames") are a flawed way of visualizing a motion picture. I use overhead blocking diagrams detailing the movement in "keyframes".

That sort of approach has been used on most every feature where we've storyboarded, as an adjunct to working out how to get what's on the boards. It's another communicative tool.

 

[Zak Forsman]

That's fine for blocking, but how do you illustrate framing and composition that way?

i don't. not on paper. thinking in terms of a static frame is too rigid a form for me. i have a much more natural and fluid signature. first, i have many, many conversations with the camera dept (dp, camera op, a.c.), during prepro to establish the visual "rules" we will adhere to. i guide them very much like I would an actor, by defining the characteristics of the camerawork and giving them objectives and intentions for each take. then, on the day, i block the actors' movements with stand-ins. then, I choreograph the cameras with the stand-ins through a series of "keyframes" -- saying "when she's here, you're here. as she moves to here, you pan or push or swing or pivot to here" and so on. once everyone is comfortable with that, the a.d. brings the actors on set and we shoot. things stay just loose enough that we don't kill the spontaneity.

 

[Zak Forsman]

That sort of approach has been used on most every feature where we've storyboarded, as an adjunct to working out how to get what's on the boards. It's another communicative tool.

what i'm saying is, i don't want anyone on the crew thinking in terms of "what's the shot?". because if things are going well, the shot will evolve with the rhythms of the scene. i apply the same philosophy to cinematography, by lighting the environment and not for the shot. this gives me and the cast and the crew a tremendous opportunity to improvise and expand upon the original "idea".

and in a broader sense, the suggestion that indie films suck because they don't follow the conventions of how you are supposed to do a thing is bad advice. i think the opposite should be encouraged. dare them to discover their own voice even if it risks falling on their face a few times in the process. the indies i've seen and didn't like were pale imitations of something else.

 

[Jim Brennan]

While what you say is true, I believe that for any film to work, the key ingredient to it's success is the absolute belief in the infallibility of the idea or concept. Everything else follows suit. So whether or not the idea is good or not, the filmmaker needs to be totally under the impression that it IS the greatest idea in the world. Without such conviction, there won't be trash, but there won't be gems either. With alot of people persuing their own artistic dreams, you'll have many people finding ways how not to do it, leaving the gems for you to learn from.

THere's a lot of truth to that. And a lack of that faith is (IMHO) what prevents people from putting their idea on the line to rty and get the resources you need. I believe that most indie filmmakers don't try and get the funds/crew/resources that would make a real difference in the end product because they don't believe enough in the project.

A lot of people say they don't like to chase money, or they don't know how. I think those are nothing but excuses. When you REALLY believe in somethhing you go to the mat. If your project isn't worth enough to you that you will man up and make some calls and set up meetings until you get what you need to make your film in the best possible way....I think that says something about your commitment to the project. (Not intended for the folks who just like to make movies for fun)

I also agree that focusing more on story and less on what brand of camera or light or whatever makes a big difference. A BIG difference

And Zak, I think that you are on to something with not encouraging convention, but at the same time you have to know the rules first. I'm not suggesting that you don't but there are people who need those type of guides to master the craft. I find shot lists helpful, but if someone has the skills to work without them I think that's a great way to work. To me that's more a personal prefrence. Do what works for you. And if it's working...

 

[Loki]

THere's a lot of truth to that. And a lack of that faith is (IMHO) what prevents people from putting their idea on the line to rty and get the resources you need. I believe that most indie filmmakers don't try and get the funds/crew/resources that would make a real difference in the end product because they don't believe enough in the project.

A lot of people say they don't like to chase money, or they don't know how. I think those are nothing but excuses. When you REALLY believe in somethhing you go to the mat. If your project isn't worth enough to you that you will man up and make some calls and set up meetings until you get what you need to make your film in the best possible way....I think that says something about your commitment to the project. (Not intended for the folks who just like to make movies for fun).

I disagree with this to a certain degree.

I know people that are absolutely great at 'talking' to people, at getting them to invest money.. basically are great about talking up a project they are part of.

I am not good at that; never have been, my strengths do not lay in pitching my film ideas to investors; unfortunate but true. Does that make me less passionate about getting my film made? i don't think it does. It is so easy to say "well if you believe in your work so much go get money for it!", but when it comes down to it; it is no easy task, and usually damn near impossible. Now I am referring of course to short film funding, of which there is little to nothing. I refer to short films, as that is the main door into the world of feature films.. and a calling card.

Feature films are a different beast entirely; there is money to be made with those and therefore a great deal more enticing for people to invest in your film.

There is a reason the job of a producer exists, and one of their functions is to secure financing for a project. Now me as a director; since lets say I also wrote the film... does that make me less invested in my work? No it doesn't; but what you are talking about is the business side of filmmaking which I, and many others are not very good at.

I think I maybe half agree with this statement.. if only because if I were making a feature length film things would be different.. there are so many avenues for financing in the feature world.. but next to none in the short world.

To add to an already overly long post..

For someone like myself..storyboarding is an essential tool. A great deal of times I am thinking of a precise frame; it is much much easier to show an image to someone as you are explaining it then to just merely 'explain it'. It is just a tool to help give a sense of the shot... plus it is a great way to show your actors the type of shot you have in mind for the final image.

I agreed with a hell of a lot that has been said.. but I am rambling now.. so I will stop...

peas.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I'm coming in late and basing my reply off the thread title and not the evolving discussion

INDIE FILMS SUCK because you are referring to AMATUER filmmaking

Most INDIE FILMS do not suck; check IFC

But AMATUER FILMS SUCKS due to lack of skills and education.

 

[DeSica]

Finding or creating an interesting story that can be shot cheap, but still LOOK interesting and be compelling is hard.

Memento is good example. I don't know how much that cost to make. But it was a stroy that would have been great at any price, as long as the acting was good, and the tech aspect was competent.

Following was supposedly shot using ends and unused film whenever Christopher Nolan could get his cast and crew together..and it was quite good.

The story is good, and the writing is clever...so you don't mind the black and white (which I never do), or any other limitations. If you love film, you look for the kernel of substance in the work, as well as competent story telling and style. It's easy to spot in a good film.

I don't know if your average film goer is willing to put up with some of the stuff that plagues indie films...like lack of a star, for instance. They seem less willing to accept the superficial shortcomings.

An instructor of mine said that at a film festival he attended where Following was being shown, you could just walk up to Nolan and discuss the film with him. Most people hadn't seen it, and the die hard buffs had all kinds of time to talk film with him, which he was glad to do...so my instructor had a pleasant chat with the guy.

When Memento was released, the next time he saw Nolan at that same festival, the media was all over him, and you had to book time with him..like an interview.

His point was that you never know who will be big and when...just part of what makes the business so crazy.

 

[Jim Brennan]

I disagree with this to a certain degree.

I know people that are absolutely great at 'talking' to people, at getting them to invest money.. basically are great about talking up a project they are part of.

I am not good at that; never have been, my strengths do not lay in pitching my film ideas to investors; unfortunate but true. Does that make me less passionate about getting my film made? i don't think it does. It is so easy to say "well if you believe in your work so much go get money for it!", but when it comes down to it; it is no easy task, and usually damn near impossible. Now I am referring of course to short film funding, of which there is little to nothing. I refer to short films, as that is the main door into the world of feature films.. and a calling card.

Feature films are a different beast entirely; there is money to be made with those and therefore a great deal more enticing for people to invest in your film.

There is a reason the job of a producer exists, and one of their functions is to secure financing for a project. Now me as a director; since lets say I also wrote the film... does that make me less invested in my work? No it doesn't; but what you are talking about is the business side of filmmaking which I, and many others are not very good at.

I think I maybe half agree with this statement.. if only because if I were making a feature length film things would be different.. there are so many avenues for financing in the feature world.. but next to none in the short world.

Yeah, I'm definitely talking about more commercially viable stuff to a certain degree. But by the same token, if you can't/won't be effective in getting something your project needs (whether it's money or something else) than you can FIND someone who can and will.

Hudson, point taken. But I do see a lot of independent stuff that I think isn't very good, whether it's amateur or not.

 

[mrWr0ng]

i agree with everything, except that you don't need storyboards or shotlists if you have a director that knows and communicates what he wants.

bull. That's fine when it's you and your buddies, but when you try working with other people, they need to know what to do. And you think far too highly of yourself

 

[Zak Forsman]

bull. That's fine when it's you and your buddies, but when you try working with other people, they need to know what to do. And you think far too highly of yourself

how is a storyboard a replacement for a director with confidence in his vision who can effectively prep his crew to be attentive to the "magic" they are tasked to capture?

we're talking about preparation and communication. a storyboard isn't necessary in my world because it poorly conveys the potential for spontaneity and the "motion" aspect of a motion picture. for me, it's the way a shot changes from the first frame to the last that is most fascinating. and little arrows don't quite express the dynamic potential at hand well enough for my purposes. boards can be used as a tool for a more conventional method of making films to be sure.... but what i would humbly suggest is that there are more effective ways prepare the crew for what you're trying to capture. rigidity, or claiming there is only one right way to do a thing, is what kills the art in any artform. i'm always exploring as a filmmaker to define the form and content of what I and my team are doing. sure over the course of making three features, they've become my "buddies"... but more accurately, they are skilled, hungry, creative filmmakers who have become valued collaborators and very much like a family. to dismiss the reality of the level of filmmaking they've accomplished and will accomplish shows supreme ignorance. peace. rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

"Look Ma! No storyboards!!!"

 

[Michael T]

First of all making an indie is usally done with the intent to hone ones skills and dosen't make any money, but there are a few exceptions. We all have different interests in life and we try and bring these to life in the telling of a story. Could be just audio or film or a play. All tools used to help tell that story to the audience is important. We all work in different ways and use many tools to achieve this. I believe a well layed out story as in storyboarding helps me understand what it is that I need to capture to tell my story. Pre and Post are just as important to a good project. Working with a crew over time helps because they know what you are looking for without explaining each and every point. Time is as much of an deterent as money. When you contract to build a house it gets built with the cheapest products in the least amount of time as to fullfill the contract. Well films are the same, nobody says here go make a movie with all the time or money you need. Sometimes a powerful director can push for more post or animation or the special shot thats needed. Indie folks should take enough time to layout there projects and study each scene too squeeze out all the detail needed to tell their story in a way to convey the full emotinal effect to the audience. Its learned that really good audio is a must. People watch video on an small Ipod but have the ability of great audio and they dont mind watching this little screen as long as the audio is good. Effects can add a lot to a show but a simple layed out script with cleaver writing and a detailed shot list can convey a great story to film. There are as many ways to make a film as there are movie makers. I believe even though there are rules that we follow we shouldn't let that get in the way of inspiration and the development of new techiques. Also I belive that we can all watch a bad indie film and see something of interest of how a shot was framed or lit or colored. I personally apreciate all the time that people put into their projects to get them done and then have the guts to share them with the rest of us. I learn lots of cool things from watching how others think about producing projects and have seen some really great looking music videos lately. I say keep up the good work and spend more time on story development and shot construction.

 

[Loki]

how is a storyboard a replacement for a director with confidence in his vision who can effectively prep his crew to be attentive to the "magic" they are tasked to capture?

we're talking about preparation and communication. a storyboard isn't necessary in my world because it poorly conveys the potential for spontaneity and the "motion" aspect of a motion picture. for me, it's the way a shot changes from the first frame to the last that is most fascinating. and little arrows don't quite express the dynamic potential at hand well enough for my purposes. boards can be used as a tool for a more conventional method of making films to be sure.... but what i would humbly suggest is that there are more effective ways prepare the crew for what you're trying to capture. rigidity, or claiming there is only one right way to do a thing, is what kills the art in any artform. i'm always exploring as a filmmaker to define the form and content of what I and my team are doing. sure over the course of making three features, they've become my "buddies"... but more accurately, they are skilled, hungry, creative filmmakers who have become valued collaborators and very much like a family. to dismiss the reality of the level of filmmaking they've accomplished and will accomplish shows supreme ignorance. peace. rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

"Look Ma! No storyboards!!!"

You honestly think a storyboard is a poor form of communication? ...

Sure you don't HAVE to use them.. but.. they are a closer representation of what will be the final image than any amount of arm waving and talking on set.

They are also a good thing to have to put some trust in the vision.. if people can see, however roughly, what it is *intended* to end up as it will generally give a better idea of how to re-create that frame within your set.

You're talking as if storyboards are bad because they don't allow spontaneity while shooting.. which is total BS.

They are a tool.. a very useful tool. They are in essence a preview of the film before it is shot. Albeit in snap shots.

PS: Nice imagery in your ... trailer? footage montage?

 

[Zak Forsman]

it's cool, i just happen to think the "arm waiving" is a more direct route because the actual environment and characters are right in front of you, along with the camera and the selection of lenses at your disposal. as you said, they are good for what's intended, but I don't see a use beyond that. i've already got a breakdown of the script with all the intentions i plan to try. staging the action in the real world and adapting to how the scene is evolving between the actors is an entirely different animal from what i could do on paper.

during prepro, i spend at least a full day in each location, watching for when the light is at its best, and visualizing the action and what i expect the emotional beats of the scene will be. from their is create the "overhead diagram" with notations at each "keyframe". but i don't commit myself to specific shots. because i'm very committed to defining a unifying aesthetic and using that to guide my choices for camera blocking on set. and that's all i'm saying: storyboards aren't a requirement for a well made film.

yeah, that's no trailer, for certain. just a preview of footage i hacked together from Heart of Now for dvxusers to coincide with my team's appearance on DVX Talk Radio.

 

[David Jimerson]

how is a storyboard a replacement for a director with confidence in his vision who can effectively prep his crew to be attentive to the "magic" they are tasked to capture?

we're talking about preparation and communication. a storyboard isn't necessary in my world because it poorly conveys the potential for spontaneity and the "motion" aspect of a motion picture. for me, it's the way a shot changes from the first frame to the last that is most fascinating. and little arrows don't quite express the dynamic potential at hand well enough for my purposes. boards can be used as a tool for a more conventional method of making films to be sure.... but what i would humbly suggest is that there are more effective ways prepare the crew for what you're trying to capture. rigidity, or claiming there is only one right way to do a thing, is what kills the art in any artform. i'm always exploring as a filmmaker to define the form and content of what I and my team are doing. sure over the course of making three features, they've become my "buddies"... but more accurately, they are skilled, hungry, creative filmmakers who have become valued collaborators and very much like a family. to dismiss the reality of the level of filmmaking they've accomplished and will accomplish shows supreme ignorance. peace. rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

"Look Ma! No storyboards!!!"

What a storyboard CAN do for you, if used properly, is convey instantly everything you're talking about doing with "arm waving" and such.

Used effectively, a storyboard can have the shot set up in less time than it would take you to explain verbally how you want it set up.

It's an efficiency and accuracy tool. Time is money; time is happiness. It's partially a matter of respecting the time of the people on your set. If they're pros, they'd rather spend less time being explained to and more time doing. And everyone wants the production to be wrapped as quickly as possible.

So, figuring shots out on the set isn't really a good use of time. Sure, things evolve, but there's no substitute for thorough pre-prod. Hitchcock had everything figured out to the frame before stepping on set.

And no shot list? You're just asking to forget something, I'd think.

 

[Zak Forsman]

What a storyboard CAN do for you, if used properly, is convey instantly everything you're talking about doing with "arm waving" and such.

Used effectively, a storyboard can have the shot set up in less time than it would take you to explain verbally how you want it set up.

It's an efficiency and accuracy tool. Time is money; time is happiness. It's partially a matter of respecting the time of the people on your set. If they're pros, they'd rather spend less time being explained to and more time doing. And everyone wants the production to be wrapped as quickly as possible.

So, figuring shots out on the set isn't really a good use of time. Sure, things evolve, but there's no substitute for thorough pre-prod. Hitchcock had everything figured out to the frame before stepping on set.

And no shot list? You're just asking to forget something, I'd think.

i don't dispute that it works on other films. i dispute that it is essential to an efficiently run set or a well crafted film. and working without a shotlist has never resulted in something getting missed. precisely because i'm not thinking in terms of the "shots" i need to get, i'm thinking first about the events of the scene and how they are unfolding, and then interweaving the camerawork into "the dance", into the rhythms established by the actors under my guidance. they are inseparable this way. so nothing gets missed. but instrumental to this is a camera op (Matty_g in my case) you trust. because I don't even watch from behind the monitor if i can help it. i prefer to be at the camera's side, with my eyes fixed on the actors, giving them my full attention. that notion usually drives fellow filmmakers crazy!