Best genre to start in?

I honestly think that you need to start making the kind of films that you want to make, and make the best you can on the budget you have available.

In an age where anyone can make a movie you have to be something special to stand out from the crowd and to do that you have to be passionate about the project. You can do action/fantasy on a budget, look at El Mariachi, Monsters, or even some of the better sci-fi fan films. Learn to animate or composite yourself, or partner with someone interested in special effects. Surround yourself with talented people who don't want to be directors but have the skills to make it happen, your sound person can be everything.

If shooting for high concept you might be better making a really good 3-5 minutes that gets a million YouTube hits than a mediocre feature that ten people at a small town festival see. Make a really good calling card with a good feature script in your back pocket to back it up. A lot of top directors still start in commercials as they spend as much money per minute as the biggest movies. Produce a slick reel and shop it around or join the crowd sourcing sites, and produce real specs with a chance of getting paid. If you see a big summer blockbuster with a director you never heard of, this is probably the route he took.
 
Kess said:
the films that sold at Sundance this year...pretty much all were dramas. Look at the scripts that the studios bought in 2010 and dramas sold as well as anything.
Click to expand...

That's very good news, assuming it's accurate. Happy to hear it.

On the other hand, although it's certainly unscientific, I rent a lot of lesser known but very well Tomatometer-ed dramas on DVD, many of which have multiple famous actors in them, and note (on the-numbers.com) that precious few of them appear to have made a dime, and many lost millions. Maybe that's more true for all genres than it seems...
 
Last edited:
I tend not to even regard drama as a genre. Conflict is a necessity in any script in order for the protagonist to develop and drama is just conflict. Every film has some measure of drama.

Some of the best films seem to be a blend of two or more genres. If you're going to try to work within genre constraints, you might try to skillfully blend them together.
 
Kess said:
Determine where you passion is and that is what you should write/shoot...no matter the genre. Otherwise you will be trying to force yourself into something that most likely will not work out. You'll be forcing it. Over the past few years everyone said to go into horror or comedy and avoid drama, period films, sports films. The Blind Side (sports drama) made approx $255 million. The King's Speach (period drama) is approaching $80 million. Black Swan (drama/thriller) $100 million. Look at the films that sold at Sundance this year...pretty much all were dramas. Look at the scripts that the studios bought in 2010 and dramas sold as well as anything. Remember, by the time you see a studio film on the big screen there are a ton more coming just like it so you've missed the boat. When you go with your passion you have the possibility of making something great. When you go against your passion then your chances of success are slim. What films do you have the passion for and are willing to spend 2 to 10 years of your life making?
Click to expand...

It's never a good idea to make a film you don't believe in, but that doesn't mean that straight dramas are the only films that indie filmmakers can believe in.

Your post is good, but it's incredibly skewed. You listed 3 films as examples of dramas that did well (you'll notice that each is part of an established sub-genre sports, historical/biopic and thriller respectively), but the problem is that the films you listed all had huge names attached to them, as well as millions of dollars in marketing. For someone just starting out, you're not going to get anything close to this unless you've done a s..t-ton of work already in the biz, and gotten to know a lot of people who think it's time you got your due.

So dreams of wild success with what is realistically an unsellable film are great, but not practical or helpful.

The films that win at Sundance almost ALWAYS have budgets in the millions, and quite often some good names attached to them.

Tleisher, you said that you want to direct fantasy someday, and then listed several blockbusters as examples of the kind of work you'd like to do. I said it earlier and I'll say it again: If you want a studio to trust you with their money, you have to make a film that makes money.

It's as simple as that. And taking a pipeline, once-in-a-lifetime fantasy-dream of success and using that for your business model is only going to result in a s..tload of stress, trouble and headache, and a general bad start to your career.

If you really want to make a drama, find a sub-genre. If you're hoping to get a big-budget Fantasy project someday, I'd recommend doing something with a little action. If you've got the chops to pull it off, it will show. Then once you've filmed it, sell like hell, because there's nothing worse to an investor than a filmmaker whose films don't make money.

Michael
 
nandreetta said:
I tend not to even regard drama as a genre. Conflict is a necessity in any script in order for the protagonist to develop and drama is just conflict. Every film has some measure of drama.

Some of the best films seem to be a blend of two or more genres. If you're going to try to work within genre constraints, you might try to skillfully blend them together.
Click to expand...

Good post, mate. Drama is only really regarded as a genre when it doesn't have anything else in it. For instance, Black Swan was an erotic thriller, not a drama. It was dramatic, and therefore could be considered a drama, but to do so is to ignore key elements of the script that will help the film find its audience.

On the other hand, something like Rabbit Hole, which is just about a couple who lost their son, is definitely a drama.

That's why studios cringe when they get the Little Indie Drama That Could. Without Aaron Eckhart and Nicole Kidman, Rabbit Hole wouldn't sell. Hell, at $1.6mil in box office, it really didn't sell even with big names attached...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I think that info was on the 'special features' section of the DVD i have, and where they did show some of the outtakes.

In the "Directing" book by Rabiger mentioned above, he makes the statement that Hollywood films don't do much in the way of rehearsals for many scenes, and that the indie/new filmmaker would be wise to rehearse, especially with talent that is not heavily trained. So, the many takes may be a consequence, perhaps a gamble, on not rehearsing scenes to the point where it is well known what is going to happen.
Click to expand...

Noobie director chiming in here, two days away from of completing (for the most part) principal photography on my first feature film, shameful budget going unmentioned.

I haven't done rehearsals. When I brought in the cast and began to pair them together, that may have been the only real rehearsal time that I got to have with them, which included me running a camera and recording how they interacted with each other.

I took that back home, reviewed it, made my decisions on casting this way and then we went into production. On the days-of, the actors would convene with me about what scenes we were shooting, I'd give them a handful of times to run it through while we got set with camera, added some notes then let them play.

But, I didn't START that way. The first few days of shooting I spent time rehearsing and, as one of my leads had warned me, it sucked the life out of the scene. There wasn't much room for spontaneity and the actors seemed to be discouraged from finding something new and interesting about the content when we were rolling.

My lesson learned here, as a director, is that "Go play."

I know what I need out of the scene, there are specific lines that I need to get, but with good actors (and I am going to brag like hell that I got lucky, because nearly every actor I have is good--the power of SAG I'd say) come good ideas. They all have something to add, when I unbound them from my own conventions they created their own and showed me something that I had NEVER thought of on countless occasions.

Even when that wasn't working, it still gave me new ideas that informed the story.

But, mileage may vary.

And, while I'm posting here, as a new director with a feature almost wrapped in production--moving into post--shot and soon to be completed on sweat and blood I'll respond to the thread starter:

You should probably choose a project that you like and you have a vision for. The genre matters much less when you're new and unnamed. You just need to do something half-decent to show that you're competent and you are worthy of a larger budget and better material.

If I had to say stay AWAY from one genre, though, I'd say Comedy. Many people think they are funny... truth is most people are not. I chose Comedy because I like writing fun, interesting and witty dialogue. It suits my style.

I don't know if I am suited as a comedic director though, at least not without the budget to plan and get things the right way.

Comedy is hard, and the best people at it are the ones you know of more than likely.

The easiest is probably horror, but it's also the easiest way to come off as a cop-out. I have a one location horror feature script that's fairly character driven, has plenty of blood and torn skin, people get blown to pieces and there are some really heart felt and human moments...

It is not the first choice for me as a new director to do that project this early on. It's almost too easy to go Horror and get passed up by the people doing something much more ambitious.


Caution, though... Like Barry and others say, it's futile to try and compete with Wedding Crashers at an unknown level. As it is futile to try and compete with Judd Apatow comedies... so that's why my first feature is tagged Superhero/Action/Comedy. Comedy specifically falling last for obvious reasons. But, it just isn't straight comedy.

Choose wisely...

And shoot it up.
 
Yeah I don't think you have to worry about getting typecast on your first feature... find a story that means something to you and make that. I think the first rule of independent filmmaking should be don't take on a project for anyone else but yourself. The fact is it's not going to be half as important to anyone else as it is to you. Your enthusiasm and love and blood and sweat has got to be the thing that keeps the project moving forward and encouraging others to stick with it. If you are just doing something because you think it's going to get you an agent you are in it for the wrong reasons and it will show in the work. If you love fantasy films and that's where you want to end up on the career path, then make one. Write the script, you love Harry Potter? Why couldn't you make a fantasy film about some wizards in the forrest. Seek out someone through this forum or others to help you with some VFX and work within your own capabilities.

The fundamental issue you're facing in my eyes is your question seems to be "What do I have to do to become a big time director" and not "What do I have to do to tell a meaningful and engaging story".
 
seanmcleod said:
I think the first rule of independent filmmaking should be don't take on a project for anyone else but yourself. The fact is it's not going to be half as important to anyone else as it is to you.
Click to expand...

Apologies in advance if I'm just taking this too far out of context, but I strongly disagree. While I think it's generally advisable to work in a genre that feels natural to oneself, I think the primary creative focus should be on what the audience will get from it content-wise - not you, the filmmaker.

Someone (I forget who), by way of disagreement with the old saying that "cinema is director's medium" once said "no - it's an *audience* medium". Similarly, Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott (wordplayer.com), writers of a few billion bucks worth of features, say that the principal goal of a film is "to create interest". Each of these ways of putting it place the target on the people who will (or won't) consume the product - not the person who's making it. Think of it as an 'audience medium', 'create interest', and you'll succeed because you've done your job - *entertaining people*.
 
Yeah, I agree with Ted. If you also hapPen to enjoy it then it's a win win.

Michael Bay thought transformers was a stupid idea. But he knows how to deliver a product. And he did.
 
Ted Spencer said:
Apologies in advance if I'm just taking this too far out of context, but I strongly disagree. While I think it's generally advisable to work in a genre that feels natural to oneself, I think the primary creative focus should be on what the audience will get from it content-wise - not you, the filmmaker.

Someone (I forget who), by way of disagreement with the old saying that "cinema is director's medium" once said "no - it's an *audience* medium". Similarly, Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott (wordplayer.com), writers of a few billion bucks worth of features, say that the principal goal of a film is "to create interest". Each of these ways of putting it place the target on the people who will (or won't) consume the product - not the person who's making it. Think of it as an 'audience medium', 'create interest', and you'll succeed because you've done your job - *entertaining people*.
Click to expand...

Sorry let me clarify what I meant by that... I don't think you should be self-indulgent, that's not gonna be good for anyone. Obviously people don't go through all the effort of making a movie so they can watch it themselves, it's about delivering it to the audience, so you do do it in part for the audience. But what I meant is don't pander or do something for reasons other than it being a story you want to share... so you should have the passion for making and telling the story and that will show through to the audience. But it starts with your own passion, your own need to tell the story, which is in a sense doing it for yourself. I can see how what I said could come off like you interpreted it but I hope this clarifies better what I meant...

And Kholi, I think it shows he thought it was a stupid idea, because it was a stupid movie. Yes it made millions, but so did White Chicks. (maybe not as much, but close to 70mil)
 
The whole point of my post was one thing. Make whatever you want to make because no one knows what will work at any given moment in time. Anytime someone says a certain genre won't work doesn't have any idea whether it will or not. There are too many factors involved. Stars in your film doesn't mean it will sell well. Big budgets don't mean it wil sell well. The hot genre of the moment doesn't mean it will sell well. Spend your precious time making the films you want.
 
Regarding 'straight drama' as I'll call it, as far as I'm concerned that means a drama without a major secondary (or for that matter primary) hook, like sports, religion, true crime, a period piece, a biopic, a particularly high-concept theme, etc. So "Blind Side" isn't one (sports and semi-biopic) , nor is "The King's Speech" (period, semi-biopic), or "The Social Network" (high-concept, biopic). But "Winter's Bone", Redford's "Ordinary People", and many older titles (like almost all Bergman films) are, as well as many recent titles that got excellent reviews but did almost nothing financially. There are too many of the latter, and they are too obscure, to warrant my listing them by name here.

My take on the problem with the straight-drama genre is that for films to make good money, a *lot* of people have to get off their butts and go out to a theater. It's my personal sense that it's a lot easier to get people to do that when the theater experience offers them something of a more extraordinary nature than straight drama, the latter of which is by definition is more like ordinary life than any other film genre. I think it's much worse now in that regard because of all the alternatives. Just speaking for myself, I'm *much* likelier to schlep out and drop some cash on a movie ticket when the film has something that particularly warrants the big screen experience (and cost - a film for two is about $25 around here, and optional junk food can pretty much double that). So I tend to wait out the straight dramas until I can watch them on my HDTV for next to nothing from Netflix, while I pony up the bigger bucks for the bigger screen when there's some bona-fide bigger-screen-worthy content. So I'll go to see the hot action and SFX blockbusters, high-concept dramas, sci-fi/fantasies, 3D animations and other particularly 'cinematic' genres (if that's not putting too fine a point on it), and often regret it if I miss one (like I did with "The Social Network"). That's just me of course, but I bet it's true for many others as well. It would seem, at least to me, pretty common sensical.

Not-quite-straight dramas like "The King's Speech" can also have this issue for me, although I did in fact go to the theater to see it, loved every second, and didn't regret dropping the cash for a nanosecond. What a fantastic film.

Of course, truly 'straight' dramas, if low budget enough, can make money on limited theatrical and then more on DVD, but the point for me is that a successful film is hard enough to make anyway, so again - Caveat Emptor from the filmmaker's (and financier's) perspective...

With most of those dramas I rent off Netflix, even ones I like a lot, I'm perfectly happy to have foregone the theater experience and saved a few bucks. That's the fundamental problem, as I see it, with straight drama in the era of DVD rentals, game consoles, Facebook, internet streaming, iPads and every other darn thing we can entertain ourselves with, virtually 'free' at home.

My $.02, YMMV, etc., etc.
 
Last edited:
Ted Spencer said:
Regarding 'straight drama' as I'll call it, as far as I'm concerned that means a drama without a major secondary (or for that matter primary) hook, like sports, religion, true crime, a period piece, a biopic, a particularly high-concept theme, etc. So "Blind Side" isn't one (sports and semi-biopic) , nor is "The King's Speech" (period, semi-biopic), or "The Social Network" (high-concept, biopic). But "Winter's Bone", Redford's "Ordinary People", and many older titles (like almost all Bergman films) are, as well as many recent titles that got excellent reviews but did almost nothing financially. There are too many of the latter, and they are too obscure, to warrant my listing them by name here.

My take on the problem with the straight-drama genre is that for films to make good money, a *lot* of people have to get off their butts and go out to a theater. It's my personal sense that it's a lot easier to get people to do that when the theater experience offers them something of a more extraordinary nature than straight drama, the latter of which is by definition is more like ordinary life than any other film genre. I think it's much worse now in that regard because of all the alternatives. Just speaking for myself, I'm *much* likelier to schlep out and drop some cash on a movie ticket when the film has something that particularly warrants the big screen experience (and cost - a film for two is about $25 around here, and optional junk food can pretty much double that). So I tend to wait out the straight dramas until I can watch them on my HDTV for next to nothing from Netflix, while I pony up the bigger bucks for the bigger screen when there's some bona-fide bigger-screen-worthy content. So I'll go to see the hot action and SFX blockbusters, high-concept dramas, sci-fi/fantasies, 3D animations and other particularly 'cinematic' genres (if that's not putting too fine a point on it), and often regret it if I miss one (like I did with "The Social Network"). That's just me of course, but I bet it's true for many others as well. It would seem, at least to me, pretty common sensical.

Not-quite-straight dramas like "The King's Speech" can also have this issue for me, although I did in fact go to the theater to see it, loved every second, and didn't regret dropping the cash for a nanosecond. What a fantastic film.

Of course, truly 'straight' dramas, if low budget enough, can make money on limited theatrical and then more on DVD, but the point for me is that a successful film is hard enough to make anyway, so again - Caveat Emptor from the filmmaker's (and financier's) perspective...

With most of those dramas I rent off Netflix, even ones I like a lot, I'm perfectly happy to have foregone the theater experience and saved a few bucks. That's the fundamental problem, as I see it, with straight drama in the era of DVD rentals, game consoles, Facebook, internet streaming, iPads and every other darn thing we can entertain ourselves with, virtually 'free' at home.

My $.02, YMMV, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

+100
 
I should also add that "extraordinary" thematic content in a film doesn't necessarily mean high budget. Horror, suspense, crime/action, fantasy/paranormal, screwball comedy, romantic comedy, and many other kinds of films can all offer a nice healthy hit of 'extraordinariness' while remaining relatively inexpensive to make.
 
Most of those fantasy films you mentioned you'd like to direct have action. I assume you won't be able to do amazing special effects which is what sells most of these films so I suggest to give action a shot.
I started making action films when I was about twelve and it's a great way to learn pacing, editing and cinematography by trying stuff out and just have fun doing it.
 
I'm not sure I would say that Winter's Bone doesn't have a secondary hook...drugs, family, Ozark Hillbilly, etc. Maybe you could say not to do a drug/family/Ozarks drama. LOL.

If I'm financing a film I want a decent ROI like any investment. Winter's Bone 3 to 1 ROI so far...that's pretty good. We can find films in every single genre that made money and lost money. If this was so easy to guarantee a great ROI then the studios would never miss on a film.. They miss all the time. It's a crapshoot at best. Look at the awards Winter's Bone has going for it. Academy Awards, Sundance, SAG, Golden Globes...and on. I'll take that any day of the week.

It depends on the kind of films you want to make. Since the original post is about starting out in filmmaking then this is exactly a great way to get in. Most will not have the means behind them to make large films. Go with the straight comedy or the straight horror or the straight drama or the straight thriller...whatever straight means.
 
Last edited:
Kess said:
I'm not sure I would say that Winter's Bone doesn't have a secondary hook...drugs, family, Ozark Hillbilly, etc. Maybe you could say not to do a drug/family/Ozarks drama. LOL.
Click to expand...

Right, we could go round and round on this forever, and I doubt either of us wants to do that. It's a judgement call for sure, and every decent movie has *some* sort of a hook, or it probably wouldn't be a decent movie. But I see "Winter's Bone" as a straight drama - it's overwhelmingly about the girl character's struggle in the situation, which is not especially exotic. Nor is it particularly played up much (i.e. it's not a 'drug movie', like "Traffic"). "Ordinary People" had a psychology angle, as did "Dead Poet's Society", and while both were superb films, neither relied on much other than straight dramatic narrative to carry it. By contrast, the secondary (or arguably primary) hook(s) in "The Blind Side" are the true story/sports hero aspects. "The King's Speech" likewise had a major true-historic thread along with its period-piece and more ordinary speech impediment themes, the latter of which, in the absence of the historic/period components, would have in fact made it a straight drama (at least by my definition). But it had those things, so it wasn't...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top