How much did you sell your movie for?

[JonathanLB]

Yeah I'm struggling with exactly how I want to go about making my first feature. I was aiming at early 2010, now I'm honestly thinking early 2011 for a few reasons. One, I don't think I will have the experience I want in barely over a year's time. Two, I'd like more time to get my script really in order, and while I could write it all and get it around to people to make commentary in the next seven to eight months, I'd rather have more time. But mainly, I just don't want to blow all of my money. It will probably cost me $150,000, I want to make it the right way, as good as I possibly can, I'm not looking to make a feature just for the sake of making it. It has to be really good, it has to be competitive with other horror films in the genre, at least the smaller budget ones. It can't be some pile of crap. What I'd like to be able to do is what some people here do, or are thinking of, etc. I want to make the money to fund this feature mostly off doing corporate work in the next two years, and put aside my profits for my feature. I don't care that much if I lose profits to make a feature, that's a worthy career move as long as the feature is good. But I don't want to lose my cash, the only real liquid cash I have lying around, because if it's gone I have a feeling that'd be it in the film industry for me. Probably would have to do something else. But if I can make a living doing corporate work solidly in the next few years, I'll have that to fall back on, which is fine.

 

[filmman]

One of the problems of having investors is that you can't sell a movie for $40,000 if you spent $50,000 on it. So you could be at the AFM for example and two buyers offer you $40,000 for 4 territories and you can't sell it.

But if you own the movie, you take in the money and then go on selling the movie in the next international market and finally sell DVD rights in the US or even sell DVDs directly from your website.

Your investor might also think that selling the movie to four territories will mean that there will be some bootlegging after your movie comes out in video stores -- which is true; but if you're the only investor, you can say "to heck with it" and get your money out and make another movie.

This is another reason why I like to make ultra low budget movies. It's easier to get your money out. The result is making more movies. The more movies you make the more money you make -- if you're the only one calling the shots on distribution.

This approach is limited to an indie, artistic style of making movies. If you're making genre movies and you're working with an agent or a distributor, obviously you have better options.

But then you have to have name actors and shoot only genres movies, and that may mean making fewer movies.

 

[jls4]

Yeah I'm struggling with exactly how I want to go about making my first feature. I was aiming at early 2010, now I'm honestly thinking early 2011 for a few reasons.
...

It will probably cost me $150,000, I want to make it the right way, as good as I possibly can, I'm not looking to make a feature just for the sake of making it.
...
because if it's gone I have a feeling that'd be it in the film industry for me. Probably would have to do something else.

I wouldn't think it would be the end. I personally think that's the problem with many people's mindsets. Not to be disrespectful, but you can make as many movies as you want and they can all be good. But doing so is up to you and what your mind believes is the correct path.

I'm already on my third movie with hopes for a fourth, fifth and maybe sixth over the next 2 years. My first movie isn't worth talking about, second movie wasn't all that great (but I won a festival), third is the first that I'm "showng off". My goal is for the next three to make all my older works look like crap. So my goal is to build up, not to make the perfect piece.

People who compete in any game, olympics, super bowl, world series, etc. Do smaller important games to get them ready. They don't just pop up in the Super Bowl. You have to work on your goals in order to do your goals.

One of the problems of having investors is that you can't sell a movie for $40,000 if you spent $50,000 on it. So you could be at the AFM for example and two buyers offer you $40,000 for 4 territories and you can't sell it.

Yes and no. But this depends on how you set your contract. I told my investors stright up, that if I get what I consider a good deal I'm selling. It's better they make a piece of their money back than no money at all. And once you get past the initial sale they can recoup through television and other areas.

But if you own the movie, you take in the money and then go on selling the movie in the next international market and finally sell DVD rights in the US or even sell DVDs directly from your website.

Your investor might also think that selling the movie to four territories will mean that there will be some bootlegging after your movie comes out in video stores -- which is true; but if you're the only investor, you can say "to heck with it" and get your money out and make another movie.

...

This approach is limited to an indie, artistic style of making movies. If you're making genre movies and you're working with an agent or a distributor, obviously you have better options.

But then you have to have name actors and shoot only genres movies, and that may mean making fewer movies.

I never understand the artistic side? Maybe that's because I have a producer's mindset. So I'm being biast. But why make something that you think might not have an audience. If less than 3% of the population care to see your movie, why make it unless you know every person in that 3% will buy it? I mean you can always make movies designed for the web, if it's just about making a movie.

I believe in named actors - trust on that one, but I still don't understand how that brings up making fewer movies. I guess it's about the type of movies you want to make and your work flow.

 

[filmman]

I like your approach and your spirit, JL.

Artistic in my mind doesn't mean noncommercial; it just means I don't make a movie just because it's going to sell in a certain market. U C, I've been making my living making movies for 39 years. Out of all the movies I only made four movies that I believed in myself. I haven't even kept track of how many movies I've made, and I don't care to remember them. I'm still trying to make a great movie. I can't take the time to define what I mean by a great movie, because it's not everybody's idea of what a great movie is, and I think that's how it should be -- that's what I mean by artistic too Every filmmaker should make a movie the way they think the movie is great.

When I started out I was idealistic. Then I was convinced by others to make "commercial" movies; "later you'll make all the artsy-farty movies your heart desires." Yeah, right.

So I learned something, which I will always regret: I followed this advice for too long -- I tried to find out what the buyers were buying -- for example, in the AFM, some buyer would say, "can you get Linda Blair in a movie?" After exorcist she was hot as far as the foreign market was concerned. There were other actors. If you take a Hollywood Reporter issue from any year, you'll find out quickly by the posters who was hot that year.

There are always those actors that are hot in the foreign market, and then there are those genres that are hot too. It's really a certain type of action -- to put it simply, let's call it by its true name: exploitation filmmaking.

William Smith, with whom I've worked, calls these films, "porno without the sex."

I think your approach will work, assuming you're young and last. There are all kinds of obstacles and crippling factors that hit filmmakers. This is an awfully dangerous business -- too much jealousy ... and paranoia too So if you're going to make a 4th movie that makes you $50,000, then you can make the next one a little bit better, and eventually you'll be able to negotiate like Adam or Justin and get a name actor to work in your movie for, say $25,000, and then you can go into the foreign market and have a better shot at finding a distributor who will give you an advance equal to your budget. And if that happens then you've arrived. So then you can go to the next step and the next step. As long as you don't stumble, you'll get to the Hollywood Standard of filmmaking. Hopefully there will still be such a standard by the time you get there, because things are really changing very fast. This Internet thing might swallow up everything -- production, editing and exhibition of movies...

 

[jls4]

I like your approach and your spirit, JL.

Thanks, I try. Seriously though, I think we all have spirt and I do thank you for the complement. But we CAN make this thing happen.

Artistic in my mind doesn't mean noncommercial; it just means I don't make a movie just because it's going to sell in a certain market. U C, I've been making my living making movies for 39 years. Out of all the movies I only made four movies that I believed in myself. I haven't even kept track of how many movies I've made, and I don't care to remember them. I'm still trying to make a great movie. I can't take the time to define what I mean by a great movie, because it's not everybody's idea of what a great movie is, and I think that's how it should be -- that's what I mean by artistic too Every filmmaker should make a movie the way they think the movie is great.

I think I'm lucky, because in my mind there is a mix between what I think many peopel consider "artistic" and what will sell. I'm not either on the right or left of the argument. I see benefits to all aspects. The way I want to personally make movies leans more to the commercial. I believe all movies can be profitable, as a producer, it's your job to figure out a budget that will be. For instance, most horror movies don't make in the 100s of millions of dollars. Every blue moon one pops in and we focus on that one, but most don't make it. If the avg horror film does $80mil at the box office, then a smart producer will restrict the budget to $20 to 25mil to make sure the budget is low enough that even if the movie doesn't do as well as the average, it still profits. This is how RR can do almost anything he wants, he keeps his budgets low.

When I started out I was idealistic. Then I was convinced by others to make "commercial" movies; "later you'll make all the artsy-farty movies your heart desires." Yeah, right.

So I learned something, which I will always regret: I followed this advice for too long -- I tried to find out what the buyers were buying -- for example, in the AFM, some buyer would say, "can you get Linda Blair in a movie?" After exorcist she was hot as far as the foreign market was concerned. There were other actors. If you take a Hollywood Reporter issue from any year, you'll find out quickly by the posters who was hot that year.

Yeah, I think you did get some bad advice. the movie world is like a young boy's mind. It's full of ideas, but most of all it's fickle. You can't get excited over an actress or a certain genre. You have to play the averages like a smart poker player in Las Vegas who never lost their shirt. Maybe that poker player only makes $100K a year, and they've never reached the pinacle. But they're slow and steady and that is what wins the race.

There are always those actors that are hot in the foreign market, and then there are those genres that are hot too. It's really a certain type of action -- to put it simply, let's call it by its true name: exploitation filmmaking.

William Smith, with whom I've worked, calls these films, "porno without the sex."

I think your approach will work, assuming you're young and last. There are all kinds of obstacles and crippling factors that hit filmmakers. This is an awfully dangerous business -- too much jealousy ... and paranoia too So if you're going to make a 4th movie that makes you $50,000, then you can make the next one a little bit better, and eventually you'll be able to negotiate like Adam or Justin and get a name actor to work in your movie for, say $25,000, and then you can go into the foreign market and have a better shot at finding a distributor who will give you an advance equal to your budget. And if that happens then you've arrived. So then you can go to the next step and the next step. As long as you don't stumble, you'll get to the Hollywood Standard of filmmaking. Hopefully there will still be such a standard by the time you get there, because things are really changing very fast. This Internet thing might swallow up everything -- production, editing and exhibition of movies...

The foreign market means little to me. Most foreign markets are places like: Asia, Europe, and South America where most African-American films don't do well at all. If and when I do produce Euro-American films (because I want to do these too) that market will open up for me. But I know that a good portion of my movies will never make it overseas.

As for actors, I've found 2 new actors that will join my current movie's team. We plan on shooting 6 new scenes to incorporate them into the storyline. Both actors have TV shows right now. 1 has been in two feature films. So we are moving up with the actors. I'm also working with Chance White (from dvxuser) and the first thing I told him was on his project we were using named actors. Which brings up something else, by helping others you help yourself. By sharing resources you can lower other people's cost while at the same time advancing production.

I'm not concerned about "entering hollywood" I think that's the past. Indiependent films are the future. Small production companies that make your major blockbuster movies. It's not unheard of, George Lucas, Robert Rodriguez, and even Quintin Tarantino play outside the rules of Hollywood. It hasn't stopped them from making big hits. The attitude of Hollywood has to change.

The thing I see with most filmmakers is that they only want to do 5%, to stay in the corner of the room, but the future is for those who can do more, can command the whole room. It's like I've had discussions with several people out here and many times they talk about what they will do with their "big budget". 9 times out of 10 they are going to hire a lot of people, get some stars and sit back in one role and hope for the best. When the chance comes to me, I'll be using the movie's budget to build and infustructure of movie making. Like when I say I buy rather than rent. A person who rents sees today, a person who buys sees tomorrow. If you rent an apartment - you're saying "I doubt I'll stay here long, only for a little while." When you buy a house you say "I'm staying here for a good long time."

 

[filmman]

I hear you JL. I just don't want to buy the farm too soon LOL.

But I agree with you; you're view is unique but justifiable with respect to where you're headed. It's then the type of film you want to make more than the genre for you, which is great, namely that you've zeroed in on your comfort zone, so to speak, and you're focused.

I wish I were there so I could ask for your help in making my movie about the Black culture during the Reconstruction days. I have a great 1890s project that takes place in the South.

 

[jls4]

I hear you JL. I just don't want to buy the farm too soon LOL.

But I agree with you; you're view is unique but justifiable with respect to where you're headed. It's then the type of film you want to make more than the genre for you, which is great, namely that you've zeroed in on your comfort zone, so to speak, and you're focused.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm hoping good things comes from it.

I wish I were there so I could ask for your help in making my movie about the Black culture during the Reconstruction days. I have a great 1890s project that takes place in the South.

I can always help. But I don't know anything about Reconstruction in the South, you'd need to talk to my wife's Grandmother for that one. Truth is, the best information you can get is from the University I graduated from, Tuskegee. They have the largest archive of African-American history next to Howard University in DC.

 

[alveraz]

Wasn't able to read all the posts but we had an offer recently. I have this feature I shot for under $20K that was finally finished after 4 years and we sent rough-cuts to two distributors that were chomping at the bit. One of them offered us $30K and a % of DVD sales.

We turned it down, we believe we have a better shot in the festival circuit. If we don't have luck out there the distributor is still willing to make that deal so it's a win/win for us either way. I thought this info was relevant in this thread, you can make your dough back with a low-budget film if it's solid.

Good luck.

 

[jls4]

Thanks Alveraz. I think it's relevant too. Let us know how the sale and festival goes.

Is "The Tailor" the one you're selling?

 

[alveraz]

Yeah, it's The Tailor.

 

[filmman]

congratulations, alveraz!

did The Tailor have a dvx user thread?

 

[alveraz]

Yeah, just started one in the user films thread actually. Thanks.

 

[JonathanLB]

I wouldn't think it would be the end. I personally think that's the problem with many people's mindsets. Not to be disrespectful, but you can make as many movies as you want and they can all be good. But doing so is up to you and what your mind believes is the correct path.

I'm already on my third movie with hopes for a fourth, fifth and maybe sixth over the next 2 years. My first movie isn't worth talking about, second movie wasn't all that great (but I won a festival), third is the first that I'm "showng off". My goal is for the next three to make all my older works look like crap. So my goal is to build up, not to make the perfect piece.

People who compete in any game, olympics, super bowl, world series, etc. Do smaller important games to get them ready. They don't just pop up in the Super Bowl. You have to work on your goals in order to do your goals.



Yes and no. But this depends on how you set your contract. I told my investors stright up, that if I get what I consider a good deal I'm selling. It's better they make a piece of their money back than no money at all. And once you get past the initial sale they can recoup through television and other areas.



I never understand the artistic side? Maybe that's because I have a producer's mindset. So I'm being biast. But why make something that you think might not have an audience. If less than 3% of the population care to see your movie, why make it unless you know every person in that 3% will buy it? I mean you can always make movies designed for the web, if it's just about making a movie.

I believe in named actors - trust on that one, but I still don't understand how that brings up making fewer movies. I guess it's about the type of movies you want to make and your work flow.

Hey,

What I was meaning to say is that if I'm not making a living at film, and I blew through my savings on a feature that didn't make its money back, I would not be in a good position financially. Of course it's a risk, and I would be doing it with at least one B-lister (I know a UPM who could help me arrange this, too, and says $25,000 for a week for a B-lister is totally doable, with the right script). I just would prefer to risk my money when I'm already making decent money in the industry, so that if I lose it I know I'll land on my feet.

 

[jls4]

Hey,

What I was meaning to say is that if I'm not making a living at film, and I blew through my savings on a feature that didn't make its money back, I would not be in a good position financially. Of course it's a risk, and I would be doing it with at least one B-lister (I know a UPM who could help me arrange this, too, and says $25,000 for a week for a B-lister is totally doable, with the right script). I just would prefer to risk my money when I'm already making decent money in the industry, so that if I lose it I know I'll land on my feet.

That's an expensive B-lister. I'm starting to hear from people that some actors will come out for almost the whole movie for $25K. But maybe 10 days is about what most people consider a whole movie. 10 days or so i sabout 30+ scenes, that could be half the movie easy. So I can see $25K a week or $25K for 10 days.

I'm actually glad I've worked the way I have though. With each movie, I've learned so much and the quality has shot through the roof. Then I have a track record to use to lure actors in, not just money.

 

[filmman]

The economic conditions are such that foreign buyers didn't buy many films this year at the AFM and the prices they were paying were low.

So it's best to keep the budgets of indie features as low as possible.

What are the ways to keep the budgets low?

1) For example, I like to shoot alone. It saves money, but for me it's more than that. I can create the movie without interference (and without collaboration). Then it's more what I see and not what someone else sees -- more of a personal vision. (I know, it's possible to maintain personal vision with 100 people on the crew also, but it's easier to maintain my vision by myself).

2) Shoot with few, well-cast actors building their reels and looking to go SAG. I run into actors who have their BAs and even MAs in drama who are attending acting classes and honing their skills before joining SAG.

3) Use one's own equipment and not be super sensitive to technical issues. Focus on directing actors and getting the best performances out of them. Work fast and capture more great moments rather than getting technically perfect shots.

4) Use a shotgun mic on the camera and lavaliers on actors.

5) Be willing to rewrite to fit the locations and adapt the story to the actors' strengths as performers.

6) Don't stick to the script as if it was written by your favorite screenplay writer (even if it's yourself

7) Be creative with as little as you have and use improvisation to make up for rehearsals and pre-planning.

Note! I expect opposing viewpoints and additional advice. I'm looking forward to hearing more of your comments on how much or how little you spend on your movies and what's your experience been.

 

[jls4]

My favorite Film - man, so where to begin on this juicy rant you've left me. Bho-ho-whahahaha

The economic conditions are such that foreign buyers didn't buy many films this year at the AFM and the prices they were paying were low.

So it's best to keep the budgets of indie features as low as possible.

What are the ways to keep the budgets low?

1) For example, I like to shoot alone. It saves money, but for me it's more than that. I can create the movie without interference (and without collaboration). Then it's more what I see and not what someone else sees -- more of a personal vision. (I know, it's possible to maintain personal vision with 100 people on the crew also, but it's easier to maintain my vision by myself).

I did this on my second movie. Hated every moment of it. I'll never do it again, but I do encouage other to follow this sound advice. It's the advice I give in the 24 Diary, only difference is that I say only do it for the first few movies, but don't think of it as a continual practice.

Freeing yourself up (with a crew), will allow for more creativity and a broader range of things you can do with props and other things. It also quickens the process while creating better images, sound, etc.

2) Shoot with few, well-cast actors building their reels and looking to go SAG. I run into actors who have their BAs and even MAs in drama who are attending acting classes and honing their skills before joining SAG.

You've been reading the 24 Diary or some of my other posts. I say find anyone who's hungry and is talented. Don't go SAG, until you have money for SAG, not even SAG indie. If the budget for actors is less than $30K, then SAG is not an indie's friend. If you do have $30K, I'd spend most on one or two headliners, go SAG, BUT don't pay the other actors SAG and cast non-union actors for other parts.
Not sure about the rest of the world, but in GA you can have a mixed set. It's funny to read the SAG contract because they say consider only SAG actors as "professionals" and aren't concerned about other actors. But the other actors may be much cheaper.
I think depending on your genre and you location this can be a benefit or curse. I'm sure in LA, most of the non-SAG actors are probably pretty bad. From what I've seen a good part of the SAG actors can barely act, I'd hate to see the ones who couldn't get in.

3) Use one's own equipment and not be super sensitive to technical issues. Focus on directing actors and getting the best performances out of them. Work fast and capture more great moments rather than getting technically perfect shots.

Buy your own equipment - I agree to that. But I say work slow to medium. The benefit of being an indie is that you can take your time. Yuo don't have to worry about "per hour/per day" type of payments. So make sure you're learning and getting your shots/scenes right.

4) Use a shotgun mic on the camera and lavaliers on actors.

First time we totally don't agree. A Boom guy with a good hyper cardiod is worth their weight in gold. The sound is best 14 inches from the mouth, so the farther the audio is away the more it fades to crap. And Lavs, while are close to the mouth, pick up heavy shuffling of clothes and other objects.

5) Be willing to rewrite to fit the locations and adapt the story to the actors' strengths as performers.

6) Don't stick to the script as if it was written by your favorite screenplay writer (even if it's yourself

This is a good tip. I may use it in the 24 diary. "Voices" has constantly changed to fit locations actors and situations. I could go into every problem, but it wouldn't help. But the main thing is you have to be flexable and create the best possible movie you can for the resources given to you.

7) Be creative with as little as you have and use improvisation to make up for rehearsals and pre-planning.

Who says you can't preplan or do rehearsals? The actors are FREE aren't they. A day or two of rehearsals can fix lots of problems and it's not costing you anything.

Note! I expect opposing viewpoints and additional advice. I'm looking forward to hearing more of your comments on how much or how little you spend on your movies and what's your experience been.

My first movie I spent $300 in production and $1100 in post for a total of $1400.
Summary: Learned from this experience. Figured out the ins and out of basic production. Shelfed the movie because the quality in my opinion was too low. About 45 people have seen the movie, never sent to festivals or anywhere for another opinion.

My second movie I spent $12,000 in production, $2,500 in post and $500+ on film festivals.
Summary: Learned even more, especially in audio. Audio is SO IMPORTAINT. Sent to reviews and festivals. Got 2 reviews probably averaging a rating of 2/10 . Won a festival, sold.

For Voices I've so far spent $23,000 in production and $3500 in post. I plan on spending another $2000 before the festivals.
Summary: Perfected many production problems, saw huge gains in audio, lighting and camera. Worked on a more complex set. Learned from each experience. Hope to sell, to win some fests, and to get an average critic rating of about 6/10.

And DON'T FORGET THE BEST WAY TO SAVE MONEY: - SHOOT DIGITAL!!! rogar-Happy(DBG):rogar-BigGrin(DBG)rogar-SunGlass(DBG

 

[filmman]

Thanks JL for taking up the points I raised with respect to this thread.

The first 35mm feature that I shot by myself was in 1984. I completed it and sold it in 1986. The movie was out of pocket. My initial budget was a few thousand dollars for short ends. I was working graveyard at a lab at the time (one of my skills) and so I developed and printed for free.

I sold the movie myself in the foreign markets (AFM, MIFED and CANNES) for about $75,000. -- a few territories. All the rights of this movie have returned to me, as you know, one sells only about 10 year rights (I sell about 5-7 year rights). Since the movie was shot in 35mm, I can telecine it at HD resolution and release it as Blu-ray, with a new sound track and lots of new tricks and plugins from FCP Studio.

I don't believe in using SAG talent on digital productions. To me it's like throwing money away. I mean no disrespect, but this is due to the fact I have 35mm production expertise and I know how to direct a movie along the Hollywood Standard lines -- one camera, circled takes, correct coverage).

I like shooting with my Sony Z1 (a gift; I'd never have bought a digital camera with my own money). I shoot it like fire hose style -- keep the camera rolling when having actors doing their thing. I shoot a lot of cinema verite style when I use this camera, and then also i utilize the locations and actors according to their best advantage. I'm glad you agree with me on this point.

As for raising the budgets, I wouldn't recommend it. Keep it is as low as possible. You've made money at $30,000 -- that's good. I think you should stay with that; but honestly even $30,000 is too much in this climate: so many digital movies on the shelf....

Regarding an extended shooting schedule: I think you have to be careful. I shoot over a long period of time, sometimes two years; but I wish I didn't have to. This is when I shoot digital with no money. Actors don't like to work too many days apart. Some of them don't come back after a while. So you have to kill them on the first day they show up, you know what I mean? LOL -- Do their entire scene in one day, crisis-climax-resolution. If they don't come back I make sure the one scene I shoot with them can stand on its own. That's another reason I don't rehearse beforehand. I will never spend a day on rehearsals alone -- never; especially to rehearse for one week before the shoot, I'd never risk that.

I have a lot of experience, so I rehearse and shoot. If I have to improvise or ask the actors to improvise, (it's digital) I just keep the camera rolling.

If I have anything over $7000, I will always shoot 35mm. I can buy enough short ends to make a feature on that. If I run out of money, I can suplement with digital, but I'll have enough 35mm to turn the movie into a 35mm print without having to spend more than a few thousand dollars. Again this is because I've worked in labs for years.

I will do SAG ultra low budget or low budget, if I have over $150,000 for a movie.

Another thing, raising budgets slowly as one improves didn't work for me. I wish I'd never tried it. It's like starting out with a cardboard house for nothing and then the next time building a shed made of tinfoil for $100 (you can tell I've never done this and then building a one room house with crooked walls (I know a guy who did this LOL) and then you build a tract home (genre movie , finally a mansion (with loaned money).

It's better to try and make a feature film your first time out and go for a story you really believe in, because even if you fail to sell the movie, you'll learn so much about how to make a first class movie that you might make a great movie your second time out. Of course, you have to keep the budget at the level of being able to afford losing all the money. It varies for different people. For me, it's $50 LOL.

Well, thanks again for sharing your expertise, JL.

 

[jls4]

Hey I don't have expertise! I am offended sir!

just kidding. I agree with your thought pattern and truly given a different climate, maybe I would act/react differently. We are all a summary of our experiences, so we have to go from there.

To me, everytime I make a movie I make it with "Big Screen" hopes, never for D2V (Direct to Video) although there's nothing wrong with that. But I'm a believer in pushing ones self to the brink. And it has allowed me to watch my prod quality rise to the point that currently it matches 65% of indie films and is better than 80% of the movies in my current genre.

And while I'm not against film (35mm), I don't see the benefits of it, in my workflow. I shoot with digital just like people do with film. I don't look at Digital as "another type of workflow" but as simply a choice like picking an Arri 35mm vs Panavision 35mm camera. We light, direct and work the same. The only difference is my upfront media is cheaper so I can get the shots and takes I want.

As for the casting and shooting. 2 years? Jeepers! "Voices" was shot over odd numbered days 2 days here, 3 to 4 days there. From around Thanksgiving of Last year to March 10th or so. We shot one makeup scene in August and we're shooting some "add-ons" this weekend and in Dec. So besides the extra scenes, we shot pretty much about 35 days over about a 100 day period. Most of my actors were good about coming back and being on time for subsequent shoots. There could be reasons why your actors have trouble "finding their way back home." I'm sure in LA there are so many projects that actors are hopping from "This great movie" to "that great film". In Atlanta, less than 10 features are made every year and everyone knows everyone. so it doesn't behouve an actor/actress to upset a director or become a no-show. If they did this, it may be the end of their career in Atlanta.

As the raising money thing goes, again this is looking like it may work for me. I'm sorry it hasn't worked for you. I've got nothing but raves from people seeing the first few scenes of "Voices" and many people are starting to think about shelling me out checks. but again part of it is the genre piece. I'm sure the guys from NGL are finding it much easier these days. The Christian community in any area is relatively small, same goes for Gay and Lesbian, Latino, African-American, etc. That's why genre movies work so well. They directly identify a group of people and market to them. In each area there are those people who feel that they don't see enough of this type of movie and are ready to dig into their pockets in order to support them. Going mainstream with a basic idea like Euro-American love story or drama, cripples your ability to make an argument towards money. But when the average Christian movie makes 10x (guesstimate) it's budget back, it's easy to make that argument to investors especially ones that feel there is a need for the product.

It's cool, you sold for $75K. I wish I had sold my second movie for that. I'd be much further along. But we all live and learn. I also wish I could to the digital/film transfer myself or vice-versa, but again you can't know everything.

 

[filmman]

Actually you made a very important point. You're right, it's best to treat digital recording media as though they were film. This way there will be less media to deal with when editing. So instead of shooting 20:1 or more with digital production, a movie maker may consider shooting 5:1 up to 10:1 ratio. And why not, even do circled takes and ingest only the good takes for the initial phase of editing.

See, I think one of the skills that a digital movie maker might carry over from shooting film is making sure that each take is entirely free of errors, and each take is exactly what the script calls for. Because I see too many times digital movie makers using bits and pieces of several takes to make up the shot. I think this is a bad practice....

 

[jls4]

Actually you made a very important point. You're right, it's best to treat digital recording media as though they were film. This way there will be less media to deal with when editing. So instead of shooting 20:1 or more with digital production, a movie maker may consider shooting 5:1 up to 10:1 ratio. And why not, even do circled takes and ingest only the good takes for the initial phase of editing.

I can't speak for others, but we generally have about 5-7 takes per shot. So in our basic 2 person, 5 shot scenario (2 Med, 2 Close, 1 Wide) we run the scene about 25 to 35 times in total taking about 60-70 minutes to shoot, plus direction and setup which gives us 2 hours for a 90 second scene.

See, I think one of the skills that a digital movie maker might carry over from shooting film is making sure that each take is entirely free of errors, and each take is exactly what the script calls for. Because I see too many times digital movie makers using bits and pieces of several takes to make up the shot. I think this is a bad practice....

We do ingest everything simply because it's easier. Digital is better to drag it all in, and being able to splice shots from different takes has saved us tremendously. Like I said we've had the camera rolling at times when the actor is looking away and the scene is in direction, and we've used that shot because it was better. Everybody works differently though. We do try to get 2 perfect takes though. I prefer not to hunt for shots where continuity becomes a problem, but try to work out problems early on.