Has Anybody Ever Shot A Feature Over an Extended Schedule?

Another interesting movie -- which I suppose is a documentary, but more entertaining than most -- is 'My Date With Drew'. Basically, a guy with $3000 gave himself just 30 days to get a date with Drew Barrymore. It's a lot of fun to watch, but also educational for filmmakers in general -- especially if you watch the special features.

$3000 budget. 30 days to shoot. Sold to distribution, including theatrical release. I don't know how much they sold it for, but in the special features they said they turned down an offer of $100,000.

Not bad. :)
 
wow i'm really surprised at the amount of "don't do it" responses, lol. does nobody have day jobs anymore and everybody can afford to pay ten plus people on a crew, food, multiple actors, locations, rental equipment, etc on a daily basis during Sunday thru Saturday?

****, i'm doing something wrong then.
 
The expectations will be different.

Making a movie over an extended period of time doesn't lend itself to make a commercially successful movie.

A documentary about the process of making a movie is almost always interesting for filmmakers to watch.

If making a movie is the most important thing in someone's life, then making any movie is better than doing nothing.

I'm reminded though of Clint Eastwood's line, "A man's gotta know his limitations."

Merry Christmas :-)
 
Don't feel down beaten by people giving you advice, at the end of the day you are free to make your own decisions.

However, making a feature at the best of times is exceedingly difficult and making it outside of the optimum conditions it naturally gets much harder.

Every little detail becomes critical if you are filming for continuity over a long time. In all probability you'll be disappointed with the end result, which isn't good.

If it is absolutely the only way that you can do it, then obviously it is better to do it than not do it at all, but IMO it would be better to shoot it over two/three intensive weeks.

As regards money, think about the time this is going to stretch on for. Why not just get the best job you can in terms of money and save up for three months, then use the money to shoot the film properly. It will be a lot easier. Get a job like a security guard at the local theatre where you just sit in a box all day. You can work out your schedule and shot list whilst on the job.

Also cut down the number of locations. I'm sure if you spend more time planning it properly that you can combine scenes or transplant them to other locations.

If you already have the equipment, then it shouldn't be difficult to get everything else for next to nothing.

If you absolutely have to shoot it over months and months, shoot a script that is is set over months and months IE make it a part of the film.
 
I don't know how many times I can say that I know shooting continuously is better but that I just cannot afford it. I spent two years trying to raise money to do it that way. It did not happen. Does everybody here suggest I wait another two years? Or make it over weekends? Think of it as doing one or the other.

It seems to me that what everybody is most concerned about is continuity. From those with experience, what is the big challenge? Is it the people's hair changing? Is it the rooms they're in staying consistent? Or just little things that filmmakers focus on but audience members never see? As far as the actors, I plan to take a picture of them at the beginning and end of every scene and every time I have a scene we're shooting that's either before or after that scene, check the corresponding picture to make sure they look right. If hair grows out too much, I'll have my hair stylist friend cut their hair ever week or two. I will likewise take pictures of the rooms to make sure they're matched up. Outside of that, what else am I missing?
 
Hi mate, don't get your knickers in a twist, people are only trying to help in their own way.

The thing is, what you are trying to do is very difficult and it's difficult to understand the reasons why you have to do it this way.

Reasons like actor availability seem spurious because actors are the easiest resource to get hold of. There are lots of decent actors all over the world of all ages just starting out who'll do it for their show reel and feeding every day. It costs nothing to buy some salad, potatoes and something to go with it.

What kind of crew are you going to be using? A professional crew? That is the only reason I can see why you'd absolutely have to pay for them and if that is the case then the chances are they will be hired at some point, throwing your schedule into further delays.

As far as your schedule goes, you've been working on this for 2 years plus, could you not have organised three weeks off work?

I'm interested from a Production point of view why it is that you think it will be so much cheaper to do it over an extended period. It doesn't seem to make sense to me, particularly when the equipment is already acquired.

You're in California. There are filmmakers all over the place that will help you out for nothing surely?

You say that you have no money. What is the budget for the film? You are obviously spending money on van hire, travel expenses etc by moving to all these different locations. So you have some money. In the six months that you say you spent prevaricating over the decision whather ot not to do it this way, could you not have added to the pot by now? Working a second job or such.

Why not get a home improvements loan or something on low interest that you can pay back over the ridiculously long time it would take to shoot like you intend?

It's false economy. A million different things will go wrong (Like they always do) and you are increasing the obstacles that you are going to face. It's not just about the actors. Are there any shots outside? The whole lighting and vegetation changes day by day, let alone month by month. What happens if it starts raining over a weekend? Etc
 
Continued.

Every time you move location, you have to factor in the set up time of the equipment. It will be an arduous task.

You'll need to get on set at the crack of dawn, which means you'll be tired and miss things.

Actors performance will suffer. Imagine trying to keep a consistent character for 6 months-2 years when you're only playing at it every weekend.

I would implore you to shoot it in one period.

The vast majority of films that get started don't end up being finished. This seems a sure fired way of that happening to you.

Now, having said that, here is what you should do.

1. Get two cameras. Presumably you are shooting on DVX or HVX equivalent. So get a second unit to shoot close ups etc while you shoot the master. This will save you a lot of time. In professional circumstances this means compromising the lighting, but that's the least of your concerns.

2. Storyboard every shot. Try and get knock out whole sections with one well prepared master. With some invention you can knock off three pages plus at a time with one long take.

3. Get rid of as many locations as possible. Show the script to someone else who can strip it off everything that is unnecessary. Work on getting as many decent cuts as possible. EG. Rather than showing people travelling through the countryside, use devices to get into the rooms faster. The main character puts a cup down with a bang SMASH CUT to Machinery press operating in the factory or whatever. Get it as tight as possible so you don't have to shoot a single thing that is unnecessary.

4. Shoot all exteriors at around the same time. Make sure you don't drop any shots. At least the foliage etc will be consistent.

5. Move quickly. Really quickly. Plan for around 64 different camera set ups per day. (Extremely difficult) This contradicts the long takes, but it depends on the type of film. If it's an action film, then you'll probably use quicker cuts, so you need more shots.

6. Hire a DP who is expert at using natural lighting and make sure that he is an expert full stop. He is going to be even more crucial than usual on a shoot like this.

7. Make sure that everybody knows exactly what they are doing at all times. Send out call sheets. Tell the actors exactly what they need to do. Make sure the DP knows the order of every shot well in advance so he can have it planned. Make sure that you have visited every location before hand.

I could go on.

If I had to make a film in this manner. I would personally make sure that the script is right for this kind of process. IE make the theme/action fit the circumstances. So set it over a period of months or whatever.

What kind of film is it BTW?

I'd also consider shooting it dogma style, handheld and with natural lighting etc
 
DecadenceFilms said:
7. Make sure that everybody knows exactly what they are doing at all times. Send out call sheets. Tell the actors exactly what they need to do. Make sure the DP knows the order of every shot well in advance so he can have it planned. Make sure that you have visited every location before hand.
Click to expand...
this is a full time, day long job, believe it or not. very important to hire a trusted and motivated A.D. to handle the running of the set.
 
Last edited:
This is a roadtrip coming-of-age story. The movie is pretty much predicated on the feel of being on the road. If I were to cheat and not show them on the road, it wouldn't be that kind of movie. Every movie book in the world (sans one - the book I mentioned earlier: "The Rebel's Guide To DV Filmmaking") tells me not to do it this way. There are a lot of locations. I know you are NEVER supposed to shoot a low-budget movie with a lot of locations. But unfortunately the movie warrants it. It's a road trip movie. They're moving from location to location. Again, you are NEVER supposed to do it this way. I know that. But the script is finished - I love it - I have no other movie I would rather make. So that's the script I'm shooting. that said, I have edited and cut this thing down to its most bare essentials while still being able to maintain it *feel* like a roadtrip. So I have done as much as I can in that area.

I should say that one of the things that I hate about a lot of independent films is that they are so small-scale. Naturally they're small - they have no money. Part of what I wanted to do was make my movie NOT look like one of those small films. I believe (I know you guys don't believe) but I believe I can do it.

I know what you're saying. "He'll never do it. He's an idiot for thinking he can shoot in all those locations on a low-budget". You may very well be right. But hell if I'm not going to try. I actually believe that the shooting over the weekends will help in my case. On a consecutive 16 hour a day shoot where you're going to a new location almost every two days, you're going to burn everybody out. Not only that, it's a b*tch to plan. How am I honestly going to deal with the day to day problems of securing locations and last-second change-of-plans -- producer duties -- and still be able to focus on my dircting duties if this stuff is happening every day during the shoot? But you spread it out over the weekends where each weekend is going to be a new location, and that's much more manageable, especially since I'm going to be doing all the planning (I have no money to hire a line producer or A.D).

Which brings me to the next problem people seem to be having. Why not just hire a crew and shoot 4 weeks in a row (not 3 - this movie will take at least 24 days to shoot). Well, let me ask you, honestly - because maybe there's some secret money loophole that I'm the only one in the world who doesn't know about. Who is going to give me 4 weeks of shooting time 6 days a week for free? They're going to turn down all paying gigs, not be able to pay rent, not be able to buy food, for an entire four weeks to come work for me for free? Well, no one, right? So then I have to hire that person. Let's say I get an A.D. for $100/day. Six days a week, four weeks. That's $2400. Where am I going to find $2400?? I make 30 grand a year and most of that is gone to taxes and bills. Now, let's say I hire a DP for $100/day. $2400 there. I also have to feed people. Let's say it's 8 dollars a day each for those two people (that's the low low end of course). That's $400 more. Now let's add a make-up person. A professional sound guy. Etc. Etc. At the very least we're talking 10 grand for crew salary and food. I CANNOT afford that. Not to mention that unless I want to lose my job, they won't allow me to take four weeks off. On the weekends I have a chance at getting these people for a fraction of the price, if any money at all. I have some film friends who won't have to charge me if I use them on the weekends. Do you start to see where all the money is saved? "Well why not save 10 grand at your work and then you can shoot this consecrutively - maybe find a new job after your done" -- Try saving ANY money with a girlfriend when you're making 30 grand a year. I mean, I could spend absolutely zero money on her - but I have a feeling the relationship might not last. Outside of that, every penny I've saved HAS gone to making this film. I bought the camera. I bought the editing equipment. Software. Lights. You guys know how quickly that stuff adds up. I mean, 10 grand may not sound like a lot to you. But it's a hell of a lot for me.

I'm following this book's advice. I'm keeping my crew very small. Like 5-10 people. I'm pre-planning the s*it out of it. Going to every location - measuring light, checking sound, doing test shots. Rehearse the s*it out of the actors so when the time comes we'll be ready to go. I like the 2 camera idea and I'm considering it - in order to keep things going fast. I am worried a little about the consistency of the performances but that will be my job to make sure they're where they need to be. Actors get jobs all the time and are shooting those characters a day later. It's totally possible.

I also know what you're saying. "Oh man, he's shooting in a car now?? He'll never be able to do this." I'm going to use a bunch of innovative ways of shooting in the car so that it looks good and allows me to advance the story in a satisfying way. I've had two years to think about it so I better have some options. In the couple of car scenes that I will have to shoot traditionally, those will be bigger days, with a bigger crew, and will be the most production-heavy days of the shoot. Blah blah blah. I could go on. But there it is. That's what I'm doing.

Which brings me back to my original question. Now that you know I'm doing it this way, any suggestions on what to look out for?

Chris
 
It's not a lack of locations that make things look low quality, it's poor lighting, continuity, poor sound, poor composition, poor camera work and bad acting. These are the things you are probably going to compromise the most by choosing this type of film.

Look at Resevoir Dogs, Misery, Saw. Those are good examples of what you can do with very minimal locations. It means you can spend all your energy on making it look good and getting the best possible performances.


The only thing that I can suggest, which I've already mentioned, is to make sure that the script takes place over a similar time frame to what you are using to film. This removes the need to focus on continuity which with a road movie will be impossible to maintain, unless you don't have outside shots or you shoot all your outside shots in one weekend.

Is it the case that the film is set over this extended time period? If it isn't I can't see any way that you can do what you want without cutting most of the outside stuff (which you can't do)

The thing you have going in your favour is that it is a philosophical film, which means that you can have long takes and clear pages with minimum coverage.

Do run throughs before hand with a handheld camera and "pre-film" them so that you are good to go on the day.

Like I've already said, get a DP who is expert at lighting with natural lights

There isn't much more that can be said unless you have specific questions about specific problems.
 
chris, let me read the script. i know a few guys in L.A. who are genuinely interested in filmmaking for the art of it, rather than for the sake of a paycheck. i couldn't have made Heart of Now without them.

zak [at] sabipictures [dot] com

a key piece of advice i would give you would be to have a back-up... for everything. not just locations, but people too. interview twice as many people as you need so that when someone backs out, you have people you can call immediately. have a back up actor for roles that only shoot 1 to 3 days, that sort of thing. it's extra work of course, but it will save your ass. guaranteed.
 
Last edited:
There is a middle way.

Shoot 2 weekends, then 1 week straight, then 1-2 more weekends. Make sure you shoot three days during the weekend (Friday 5PM to Midnight, Saturday Day, Sunday Day).

Now you have a 20 day shoot spread out over 6-7 weeks. If you average 5 pages a day you can shoot a 100 page screenplay in 20 days.

Also, save all your second unit shots for a micro-crew to be shot after you wrap principal. Take your time with the second unit...do that for 3-4 weekends.

Now, you have 20 days to focus on principal photography and 12-16 to focus on second unit. Second unit requires less people. If you know what you are doing a three person crew (including you) plus a stand-in will be adequate.

You can do all of that over 2.5 months.

It sounds like you know that everyone's advice about shooting for 20-30 days straight is your best option...and it sounds like you are certain that option isn't available to you. So, pick this middle road. This is far better than shooting for 4-5 months every weekend.
 
Okay c.g., I'll weigh back in here. As I said earlier, I've just finished doing exactly what you're proposing.

I'm a little surprised by the extent of the naysayers here, although they do have some valid points.

Is it possible to shoot a film over several months? My own experience says "Yes". Will shooting that way cause you additional headaches, heartbreak and stomach ulcers? That's a big "Hell, yes!" Does that mean you shouldn't shoot your film that way? That comes down to your own drive and mettle.

For me, although I knew that extending the shoot would cause additional problems, I was confident I could pull it off. But I'm not a first-time filmmaker who's just decided to jump right in and make a feature film. I've made a number of shorts, plus I've been a television cameraman for almost twenty years, so from a technical standpoint I knew what I was letting myself in for.

I'm currently in post, and personally I think the production is looking pretty good.

What have I learned?

- The guys that say reduce the number of locations have a valid point. My film had nearly a dozen locations, and organising them all was probably the biggest nightmare of the shoot. I'm already looking at doing all this again late next year, and the script I have only has two major locations.

- If you have supporting characters that only appear in a couple of scenes, do what you can to schedule their shoots as close as possible. While my leads were dedicated enough to maintain their "look" for the time of the shoot, at least on of my bit part guys had a major problem keeping his hair colour the same for just one month, meaning that pickups for a 30 second scene he's in will have to wait until mid-January due to his commitment to a theatre production.

- Schedule, schedule, schedule. Plan out every shooting day right at the start. Then be prepared to tear your hair out and rejig the whole thing as actors or locations fall through.

- Keep your crew to the minimum possible. You'll have a hard enough time scheduling the cast, scheduling the crew adds a whole new nightmare. For the most part we shot with: Me as director and DoP (wouldn't recomend this for everyone, but my background made it viable), a sound guy, a grip/camera assistant, a PA/script person, and make-up.

- I can't stress how important it is to get a sound guy who knows what he's doing, rather than just getting a friend to swing the boom in the general direction of the actors.

From what I've read of your posts, you're on the ball with your pre-prod planning, which is definitely a good thing.

But remember, shooting a feature at tyhe best of times is hard. Doing it this way is much harder. If you really feel this is the only way you can get it done, you need to take a long, hard, and above all, honest look at yourself and decide if you have what it takes to see it through.

Good luck, whichever way you decide to go.

Pat Gallagher
www.caliburnproductions.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top