Any famous DVXusers? Anyone "make it" yet

[HenryMurdoch]

You want to direct? Direct.

Nothing stopping you but yourself. If you have what it takes, someone will notice. But you have to drive that. Not complain online and wish it were true.

I'm not complaining online, I'm simply stating facts and asking questions. I love how it's always simplified, "want to direct, direct!" Really, thanks for that gem Matt. Nobody stopping me but me, again thanks. That's not advice, that's a greeting card that could be applied to anything from bowling to deep sea diving.

Real advice is look into what distributors are looking for, what studios want right now. Follow the already paved paths from former filmmakers and do what they did. Not direct! Come on Matt, you seem far more uncertain than me if you think you simply need to direct.

 

[jpastuch]

I mean this seriously, I think this is some kind of sarcastic joke post. There's no way someone is this serious- basically you want to try and ride the success of actually creative people? You sound like one of the marketing execs at Fox Searchlight. Are you sure you're a film director?

The point is films are tough and costly, and the directors job is to make it all come together, by any means necessary. If you can't do it, you can't do it, and you can't do it.

Even that fat guy from Smash Mouth knows it's only shooting stars that break the mold.

 

[HenryMurdoch]

Step 2;

Make more films. Read a lot. Go to the opera. Become a better artist. Stop thinking about instant success or even success- put your heart and soul into what you do. If you have any left. Who cares what Dov whatshisface says?


Seriously, if you are unhappy making films, money or no money, just stop making them. Become a lawyer or a doctor or a businessman- these require just as much hard work and are usually less of a crapshoot, and you'll still be rich and successful.

And also, even though I seem to disagree with a majority of the people here about the many aspects of film, I don't try and compare myself with them. The collective messageboard isn't you, so what the hell does anyone's success on here have ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU AT ALL?

It's so confusing. Like if someone on here became rich, you would suddenly become rich or make great films?


PS> Didn't someone on here mention that some guy, uh, took a DVX100 videocamera and shot a documentary that was nominated for an Academy Award (not that I go by the Oscars, but isn't that enough of a "makin it" story for you)?

Go to the opera, I never thought I'd hear that suggestion. Well to answer you question it's simply discouraging to think there aren't more success stories on the forum. That's all, not trying to put anyone down or be mean, if anything just pointing out that I feel there is a great deal of talent and knowledge on the forum, and it sucks to see there aren't more success stories. What does that have to do with me? Well the fact that there are people on here more experienced and talented than me is a discouraging reality. But I'm drinking milk and I'm growing. I'm taking leaps into areas that others are afraid to charter into. But that's besides the point.

What motivates you?

 

[Huy Vu]

Speaking of (non)success story, does anybody know what happen to what's-his-name who won On The Lot? The guy was supposed to get a $1 million development deal but has anybody heard from him again?

 

[Barry_Green]

But at some point you have to be realistic and realize that you need money.

Which is when most folks buy some grip gear and become a gaffer, or a prompter operator, or a sound guy, or a cinematographer.

If you're good, and people ask for you, you can make some really good money working in the trades. A decade ago I could pocket $400/day as a prompter operator, which is the easiest job in the universe to do.

This is a very legitimate question that some people seem to not want to ever talk about.

We talk about it all the time. But achieving "success" in filmmaking is extraordinarily difficult, and achieving "success" as a director is nearly impossible. So you don't hear a whole lot of talk from those who've "made it" because very few ever do.

He we are on a forum, from what I've seen, the largest filmmaker forum on the internet, if not in the top 3.

We believe it's the largest.

And there isn't one example of someone who's actually made it. Probably because nobody is willing to honestly talk about it.

No, it's probably because very, very, very few will ever "make it" to any such degree.

Brandon Rice just got a 90-minute film distributed through LionsGate. Ask him about how much they paid and how his career as a director is going, he'll probably tell you anything you want to know.

Adamo Cultraro wrote a massive thread documenting the making of his film "Corrado", getting an agent, etc. His IMDB page lists a release date of December 2009; I'm sure he'd be glad to talk with us about the details after it comes out.

Fat Monster, winners of TimeFest, landed a deal to produce a web series for one of the major studios. Ask 'em how it's going, I haven't heard an update in quite a while.

Mark Harris, who is astonishingly talented, and who's come in 2nd place in several of our fests, is working on his debut feature now. Mark has the skills to "make it"; I'm certain he'll keep us posted about his progress in the field.

 

[GaryinCalifornia]

I come on the boards once in a while... not famous... still haven't directed a feature... but have done 7 features as a producer... the last two... selling at this AFM... one stars Vivica A Fox and Brad Dourif... the other... Robert Patrick, Tom Arnold, Andrew Keegan (10 Things I Hate About you)...

It takes time and hard work... not sure of your age... but seems like everyone in the their 20's things... okay I made a short film give me 50m to make a movie... some of us... just turn out low budgeted films and end up making a good living at it....

Hopefully I won't get hate mail from everyone under 30... : )

 

[Barry_Green]

I feel there is a great deal of talent and knowledge on the forum, and it sucks to see there aren't more success stories.

There is a massive amount of talent and knowledge on this forum. And there are staggering odds against making a living as a feature film director.

Some will carve their own niche (training videos, "project rant", web series, target market films like Brandon's pursuit of "Christian" films, etc). But "Hollywood" success? Extremely difficult to materialize.

Well the fact that there are people on here more experienced and talented than me is a discouraging reality.

Yet it is the acknowledgement of that reality that prepares you to succeed. Ignoring that and living in "la la" land is a sure route to failure. Acknowledging the enormity of what you're up against is the first step in finding a way to succeed anyway.

But I'm drinking milk and I'm growing. I'm taking leaps into areas that others are afraid to charter into. But that's besides the point.

No, actually, that IS the point. The only way a director is going to "break through" is by having something unique to say, in a unique way. Those who try to replicate the "hollywood" film on a budget, are going (frankly) nowhere. Hollywood's got a million aspiring directors who can do that. But someone who can deliver a "Blair Witch" or a "Napoleon Dynamite" or "Memento"? Those are few and far between.

Have a truly unique voice, and (if it resonates with audiences) you'll have taken a huge step towards commercial success.

 

[HenryMurdoch]

Well, it's the same formula as for any other career:

Step 1: study. Step 2: study some more. Step 3: work hard. Step 4: check back in 20 years, where you might have accomplished "success" by then.

Now, if you want a "shortcut" to success, well, we're back to the lottery tickets.

My pick for a DVXUser who's going to be a breakout success as a director is Jack Daniel Stanley. Do what he does, and have his talent level, and that's likely a good path to success. First, direct stage plays for a decade or more. Then, study the living hell out of the art and make some short films; Jack's first film took 2nd place in our DVXUser film festival; his second film took 2nd place, his 3rd film won, his 4th film won, his 5th film was an "audience favorite", etc., and now he's had films screen in Tribeca and Slamdance, and tonight he's being honored in his own section at the Fright Night Film Festival.

Still hasn't made any money at it, of course, but once we settle on the particulars of the script we're going to make, I'm going to bankroll some and raise the rest to make his debut feature. And it will be a real feature.

Jack exemplifies the kind of dedication and work it takes to make it. Oh, and on top of that, you've got to have enormous loads of talent. And probably some luck. And work really, really, really hard. And don't ever stop studying, and working, and refining, and studying, and working some more.




Many, many, many people make what they call "features" every year. Just because something's 90 minutes long, that doesn't make it a feature -- a "feature" is something that someone is willing to pay to see. It's something they'll plan their time around, drive to the theater, buy tickets, and commit two hours of their life to, not because they "support the arts", and not because "oh, we heard some kid made this for $3,000", but because they expect to be entertained by it.

Every day we see new announcements of people making "features". Nobody takes a "feature" seriously unless it's made it into the theaters, or at least into nationwide wide release on one of the major labels (and no, a pay-for-play deal through LionsGate doesn't count!) If you have to give your pic away, or (worse) pay someone to distribute it, nobody's going to take it (or you) seriously.

Making a real feature film is incredibly hard. Making a WATCHABLE "feature" is extremely difficult. I dare say there are very few "true indies" who pull that feat off successfully.

I would take someone far more seriously if they made a great, entertaining, well-received short, versus another slog of 90 minutes of whatthehellwasthat...

So -- you want a career making million-dollar films? Make a $200,000 film that distributors find irresistible, that audiences across the country can't wait to see (Napoleon Dynamite, perhaps?) If you can do that, if you can demonstrate an ability to bring paying audiences into the theaters in droves, then you'll have no problem finding people willing to bankroll and distribute your next picture. Case in point: Christopher Nolan. If you can make "Following" and then "Memento", well, you'll have a career.

Well Barry, I love you. Love everything you do, have seen your DVX vids, have seen your HVX vids. Will probably buy your future vids. What you do is greatly appreciated.

However you say some of the most discouraging things. For example that if you do a film you are pretty much throwing the money away and won't see it again. Granted this is true in most situations, but why does it have to be.

I disagree with you on the definition of feature. I've been doing my own heavy research, it's always nice to compare "research". There was a feature that had Meg Ryan and Banderas in it, highly acclaimed actors, and it went straight to DVD. It was a feature in every sense of the word but just shows that sometimes the financial interests that pull the strings move in different directions. Is it then not a feature?

So the reality is a feature really is something that you can sell and preferrably for a profit. It's something that someone feels they can make money off of. Theatrically preferred, possibly internationally, possibly direct to DVD, cable, made for tv, etc. But I get the jist of what you mean, and that's that just cause you call it a feature doesn't make it a real one. I just think the label of theatrical alone isn't the only key factor. Although it is a nice big one.

I'm glad you brought up Nolan because I recently watched Following, what a great movie. After watching it and watching other first time features from famous successful directors, it left me with the impression that you have to shoot on film if you want to make it because inevitably you'll be called to shoot on film when the money comes in and they want someone who's done it before with reasonable success.

 

[HenryMurdoch]

I mean this seriously, I think this is some kind of sarcastic joke post. There's no way someone is this serious- basically you want to try and ride the success of actually creative people? You sound like one of the marketing execs at Fox Searchlight. Are you sure you're a film director?

The point is films are tough and costly, and the directors job is to make it all come together, by any means necessary. If you can't do it, you can't do it, and you can't do it.

Even that fat guy from Smash Mouth knows it's only shooting stars that break the mold.

I think you misread what I said. With certain things in life, you have to learn to ask for examples. When someone tells you something, ask for an example. If they can't give one, they either don't know what they are talking about or have provided an inadequate solution that hasn't been fully proven or tested.

I'm not trying to ride anyone's success. If you feel I am, please re-read what I've posted and give an example of how I am. :thumbsup:

 

[jpastuch]

I think you misread what I said. With certain things in life, you have to learn to ask for examples. When someone tells you something, ask for an example. If they can't give one, they either don't know what they are talking about or have provided an inadequate solution that hasn't been fully proven or tested.

I'm not trying to ride anyone's success. If you feel I am, please re-read what I've posted and give an example of how I am. :thumbsup:

People gave you examples. Then you wanted to know was what was "hot right now" and what studios are looking for, and what paths other directors took, presumably so you ride some kind of wave. Why the hell bother? Make your own path.

No one can give you an example of what you haven't made yet. Do you understand?

 

[Barry_Green]

However you say some of the most discouraging things.

I just try to tell it like it is. If it's discouraging, it's not because I'm making it discouraging, it's because the odds are what they are.

You will never, in your life, ever see a shingle hanging outside the Paramount or Warner Brothers lots saying "Now Hiring: Directors." That isn't gonna happen.

I think baseless platitudes and "you go, man, you just keep at it" are pointless and, in fact, harmful. I think folks need a good assessment of the ground truth, and a strategy. Watch the American Idol auditions, watch the parade of clueless bad singers, and think about how many people have encouraged them to just "keep following your dream". Well, look -- if you can't sing, then singing isn't your thing, and the more time you spend chasing after something that's NEVER GONNA HAPPEN, the more time you spend cheating yourself out of pursuing what your true gift and true talents are. So misplaced encouragement is detrimental.*

*and yes, we all know of the example of Yoko Ono.

For example that if you do a film you are pretty much throwing the money away and won't see it again. Granted this is true in most situations, but why does it have to be.

I'm not going to stand here and encourage anyone to go $30,000 in debt to make their movie, thinking that it's easy to sell it. It's nearly impossible, especially in these market conditions, to sell anything! Sure, you can get a distribution agreement, but getting PAID -- that's the nearly impossible part. It's a simple case of supply and demand -- there are 3,000 people making their own indie films every year, so the distribs know that if one person demands payment, well, they can just take a film from another person who's so desperate for "prestige" and "recognition" that they'll GIVE their film away for a "distribution deal" that means they'll never see a dime. But hey, they can say that their movie's on NetFlix and in Blockbuster... sigh.

Look, simple fact is: this business is HARD. There are plenty of dream-hucksters out there trying to tell you "just go do it, man, don't let anything stop you" and I think that's just plain irresponsible. Make your personal art, yes, but when it comes to running up forty large on your credit cards? OH HELL NO. Don't even think about that. You're talking about someone ruining their life, having to file for bankruptcy or carry around a staggering load of debt for the rest of their lives, on a misguided and misinformed notion that there's some massive pool of money out there just waiting to be thrown at anyone who completes a 90-minute video presentation? No way do I want to be part of that.

I don't want to discourage anyone from doing what they feel drawn to do. But I don't mind being the hard voice of reality because when all the fantasy gets stripped away, that's all that's gonna be left is the harsh, cold reality.

So here's what I say: raise money from someone who can afford to lose it. Because that accomplishes three things:
1) It keeps you from drowning yourself in debt, which leads to so many miserable complications including things like bankruptcy and divorce...
2) It forces you to come to terms with the fundamental weakness of your story, if there is one. Because look: if you can't convince ANYONE to bankroll your production, no matter how hard you try, then it's overwhelmingly likely that your project just isn't very good! So stop NOW, before you torch a lot of money on it, and fix it. When you can successfully pitch it to investors, then you can expect a much more welcome reception from distributors. But come on... if nobody will buy into your project BEFORE you make the film, why would you think they'll be rushing to buy into it AFTER you make the film?
3) It forces you to have an extreme level of discipline and responsibility over the whole project. If you have any shred of decency you'll treat that investor's money as what it is: a sacred trust, a belief in you as a person, in your talents, etc., and you'll do anything and everything to make sure that your investor has every possibility of getting paid back and making a good amount of dough off your efforts.

Regarding what constitutes a "feature" -- of course things can go "wrong"... I forgot who said it, but someone once said "if there was a perfect formula for movie success, there never would have been an Ishtar." And Gene Shalit's review was priceless... he said "Ishtar Ishtarrible". Yet it cost a whole lot of money to make, and it starred Dustin Hoffman at his peak, so how could it go wrong? <famous last words>

You want a chance to direct a Hollywood film? Here's the choices:
1) Marry a famous producer's daughter
2) Write a killer screenplay that studios get in a bidding war over, that is intense enough that you can stipulate that one of the terms of sale is that you must direct it.
3) Have a unique voice or style (Nolan, Raimi, Burton, Tarantino, Woo) that catches on with audiences and is clearly identifiable in your work.

That's about it. You find another way, let us know. And examples from 20 or 40 years ago (like Spielberg's staking out a trailer on Universal's lot) don't count anymore. I can tell you that a friend of mine, one of the biggest box-office producers of all time, started out as a mechanic on the lot, and worked his way up as a driver and then all the way up to producing major $100m+ features. And I can also tell you that that path worked when he was doing it 50 years ago, but it doesn't work anymore. And even then, he's a producer, not a director.

it left me with the impression that you have to shoot on film if you want to make it because inevitably you'll be called to shoot on film when the money comes in and they want someone who's done it before with reasonable success.

Nope. Doesn't mean a thing. If the film's going to be shot on film, they don't care whether the director's shot on film before. They'll just hire a cinematographer and crew and post team who's shot on film before. The only thing the director needs to know (differentiating film from video) is primarily the budget on how many takes he's allowed. But even then, you still have to be conservative, because even though "tape is cheap", crew time and location fees and food and everything else that goes into a production ISN'T cheap, so you have to stop the "take 10" and "take 23" nonsense and get the shot in the can and move on, whether it's film or video.

 

[Mattykins]

I'm not complaining online, I'm simply stating facts and asking questions. I love how it's always simplified, "want to direct, direct!" Really, thanks for that gem Matt. Nobody stopping me but me, again thanks. That's not advice, that's a greeting card that could be applied to anything from bowling to deep sea diving.

Real advice is look into what distributors are looking for, what studios want right now. Follow the already paved paths from former filmmakers and do what they did. Not direct! Come on Matt, you seem far more uncertain than me if you think you simply need to direct.

Wow. You are a d****bag.

Listen, I am not famous. I've only directed a few pieces. Of them, I only talk about one. I have a business idea in the works because there Hollywood is hard to break into. But I'm working on getting through the door.

I have met a good deal of producers and talked with them. I've had numerous conversations with former development execs. We have forum members here who work actively in Hollywood. All of them are incredibly smart and have worked years and years to get where they were/are.

I'll tell you what. I have the number for Columbia. Give them a call and say "Hey, I'm a really good film maker. I want to be a director for you."

They will hang up. Even if they didn't hang up - they wouldn't care. Because you don't have an agent or a decent body of work.

You want to make it? Start networking. Start working in film. Work your way up. There are thousands of ways to make it. And I can tell you one way is not coming onto the most well traveled film site on the interwebz and blasting every member that tells you how it is.

Films go to DVD. Some Hollywood features (most) suck. But the plan is to make money. Most films fail because they suck. Most indies fail - because they suck. Make something that doesn't suck and you will go places.

PS> You will find out when you don't suck when people start calling you.

 

[John Morrison]

I'm just curious - why do you ask? You've received answers from many directions, and yet the answer you're fishing for hasn't hit you yet. On the one hand, you've asked an incredibly loaded question, and framed it as "you guys are all wannabes... but I've directed a movie..." and - so?

Some people's success is being able to operate a camera and take shots their favorite ASC would look at and give an approving smile. For them, that IS success. Being able to do it as well. For others, it's being able to get the sound perfect, as in capturing it at the source. Others yet, its being able to pull off the part, maybe cause a tear to be shed - or the lighting was perfect. Others still, because it's there... (you know, like that mountain?).

You've obviously determined what being successful means to you. Could you tell us, what is successful and what isn't?

It seems to me, that what you're actually asking is, "how do I get the funding to do what I want to do? - has anyone else done that?"

If that is the actual question or series of questions you're asking - then ask them. Otherwise the way you're framing your questions suggests to everyone you've already assumed the answer, and we just haven't gotten it yet.

(my $0.02... think I'll eat relax and eat a peach...).

 

[HenryMurdoch]

What do you expect this many heads together to accomplish, when 99.5% of them all want to compete over the same job? EVERYONE wants to direct. I'm probably one of the very few on this entire forum who is confident in saying "I don't have any ambition to be a director."

I've seen many groups get together, pledging their talents and equipment so that they can all work together to finally make a film. And every single time, it comes down to "well, of course I'M going to be the director, because I am putting up most of the equipment (or whatever)". And everyone else says "well, why am I gonna kill myself working to make YOUR career?" And within two or three meetings the whole thing dissolves.


To day jobs, for most of the folks here. There are many who make a full time living in media arts, but not many of them are feature film directors! And the vast majority of the folks here are dedicated artists who don't have careers in the media arts yet, so they have to work day jobs and practice their filmmaking on nights/weekends.

We have over 50,000 members. How many full-time jobs do you think are out there with a job title of "feature film movie director"? I mean, let's look at it another way: "Hollywood" turns out, what, 120 films a year? Now let's pretend that each and every one of those films is directed by a different person. So the competition for those 120 jobs is INSANELY TIGHT. Film schools graduate, what, 20,000 students every year? Random number, but it seems like it's probably right... that's 20,000 people competing for those 120 jobs. But, that's not really fair, because come on, Clint Eastwood and Martin Scorcese and Steven Spielberg and James Cameron and Ang Lee and Jon Woo and Christopher Nolan and all the rest of the A-listers are going to take at least half those jobs, so now you've got 20,000 people competing for 60 jobs. And that's just of THIS YEAR's graduates. What about all those 20,000 who graduated last year? And the 20,000 who graduated the year before last? And the year before that?

There's probably several hundred thousand, (if not a couple million) folks with 4-year degrees from UCLA, USC, NYU, or other prestigious film schools, who all rightly believe that they're qualified to compete for those sixty jobs each year.

So complaining that some indie folks, who (by and large) DON'T have that training, haven't "made it" to the upper echelons yet ... seems to me to be a gross miscalculation of what the true odds are.

That is a really discouaring perspective to see. Everyone knows it's true but for it to slap you in the face in your verbal prose, that's just down right cruel Barry!

But yeah I see your point and realize it is true. I've come to the realization though that although there are limited spots, there isn't limited money. The money does flow Barry. It's out there and I want in on that action. From Wall Street to Main Street. People want to fund movies, and actors want to be in them so there careers don't spiral down the toilet. You got at least what 500-1000 a/b list actors with free time to do at least 3 movies a year each. Get the right script and the right actors together and fight for funding and the dream can come true.

But I see your point, but my research shows that what Hollywood is in desperate need of is writer/directors. You look at Nolan and his career wasn't built on his talent as a director alone. I would argue there are far better directors out there than him. The following had some really shaky shots in it. But damn was that a great story that he wrote! He kept on writing them and built his career on that.

From the research I've done, you need to write/direct at least your first 3 feature films. Otherwise you'll hit a funk like the guys who did primer, be known as a great writer/director who has nothing else in the oven.

They don't want directors, I think they got directors out the wazoo. They want writer/directors, a packaged product they can sell. If they are going to hire anyone, it's going to be one of the big names like you mentioned.

 

[Barry_Green]

That is a really discouaring perspective to see. Everyone knows it's true but for it to slap you in the face in your verbal prose, that's just down right cruel Barry!

Well... you asked.

 

[HenryMurdoch]

Which is when most folks buy some grip gear and become a gaffer, or a prompter operator, or a sound guy, or a cinematographer.

If you're good, and people ask for you, you can make some really good money working in the trades. A decade ago I could pocket $400/day as a prompter operator, which is the easiest job in the universe to do.


We talk about it all the time. But achieving "success" in filmmaking is extraordinarily difficult, and achieving "success" as a director is nearly impossible. So you don't hear a whole lot of talk from those who've "made it" because very few ever do.


We believe it's the largest.

No, it's probably because very, very, very few will ever "make it" to any such degree.

Brandon Rice just got a 90-minute film distributed through LionsGate. Ask him about how much they paid and how his career as a director is going, he'll probably tell you anything you want to know.

Adamo Cultraro wrote a massive thread documenting the making of his film "Corrado", getting an agent, etc. His IMDB page lists a release date of December 2009; I'm sure he'd be glad to talk with us about the details after it comes out.

Fat Monster, winners of TimeFest, landed a deal to produce a web series for one of the major studios. Ask 'em how it's going, I haven't heard an update in quite a while.

Mark Harris, who is astonishingly talented, and who's come in 2nd place in several of our fests, is working on his debut feature now. Mark has the skills to "make it"; I'm certain he'll keep us posted about his progress in the field.

Well that's awesome! Perhaps I underestimated the reality of just how difficult it truly is to "make it". Especially as a director. I read the Corrado threads and saw his new thread on his next project and part of that is what lead to this thread because he mentioned in his new thread that the process for him has been discouraging. He thought things would be easier on the 2nd feature but stated they haven't been.

Will keep an eye out for updates on their projects, sounds interesting.

 

[HenryMurdoch]

Speaking of (non)success story, does anybody know what happen to what's-his-name who won On The Lot? The guy was supposed to get a $1 million development deal but has anybody heard from him again?

Not sure, how long has it been? All I know is it often can take 1-2 years for a project to even materialize unless they got scripts lined up and ready.

 

[jpastuch]

The more you post, the more I keep picturing you as Jack Lemmon's character from Glenglary Glen Ross.

 

[Barry_Green]

And my point is: do something noteworthy! Do something that is unique, that has a voice, and that audiences just can't get enough of.

If you do that, you will be positioning yourself for success.

If you just take 12 kids into a house and chop 'em up over the course of 90 minutes... who cares?

Simple fact is: the democratization of video production equipment has made the career accessible to hundreds of thousands of kids who never would have been competing before. So the cost of entry is lower, yes -- but that means that EVERYONE is competing. You have to be different. You have to stand out.

Do something nobody's ever seen before, and make it be GOOD. Something that audiences love. That they stand and cheer for.

Do that, and you'll be well on your way. Then sell yourself to agents as quick as you can, and ride it while you're hot, have them book you a "real" gig, and you'll have a chance.

 

[jpastuch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TROhlThs9qY