Best genre to start in?
- Thread starter tleisher
- Start date
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Hey Kess, I'd be honored to attend, and I'm fine with getting razzed as long as it's all in good fun (and I'm a pretty good razz-backer, so watch out!). So, seriously, please do let me know when your film plays here. Who knows, maybe yours is a drama that will mint gold. It happens... : )
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Regarding the "King's Speech" juggernaut btw, I find it quite revealing to note how careful, quite arguably even tentative, the Weinsteins were with it when it was first released last November...into a whopping *four* theaters (it's now in...let's see...exactly 646 *times* that number). It was over two weeks before it got into more than ten, and over a month to get into more than a hundred. Not exactly high studio expectations. I wonder how many films have that kind of box-office arc. Precious few I bet.
But then of course it was a...you know...the 'D' word...
Here's the data from the-numbers.com:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Kings-Speech-The
But then of course it was a...you know...the 'D' word...
Here's the data from the-numbers.com:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Kings-Speech-The
I know what you are referring to when discussing the dramas. When the subject material hits too close to home for the audience it is a tough sell...they would rather see a higher concept film that lets them escape for 2 hours...rather than be reminded of reality...of their daily life problems. I like calling it the 'D' word.
djkarn105
Well-known member
I was reading this today and thought it applied to the discussion going on here:
http://www.hammertonail.com/editorial/essays/sundance-2011-indie-is-back/
Especially this paragraph towards the end:
"The third part of the equation was that solid serious personal dramas were bought, at a healthy price. The distributors I think now recognize that due to Hollywood’s inability or reluctance to create low-budget drama, Indie has found its niche. The Oscar nominations confirm this once again with Sundance films being nominated in not one but several prominent categories."
http://www.hammertonail.com/editorial/essays/sundance-2011-indie-is-back/
Especially this paragraph towards the end:
"The third part of the equation was that solid serious personal dramas were bought, at a healthy price. The distributors I think now recognize that due to Hollywood’s inability or reluctance to create low-budget drama, Indie has found its niche. The Oscar nominations confirm this once again with Sundance films being nominated in not one but several prominent categories."
It does. But note that those dramas have names in them and a lot cost a fair amount to make.
Granted, not as much as the Scott Pilgrims or Such, but enough.
Regardless, it shouldn't be a tough decision: shoot the one that has the most potential to sale for what you can produce.
Granted, not as much as the Scott Pilgrims or Such, but enough.
Regardless, it shouldn't be a tough decision: shoot the one that has the most potential to sale for what you can produce.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
I think this is pretty much on point, although I'd add that it should be a film that the filmmaker genuinely believe in and *wants* to make for artistic reasons as well. The convergence of a genuine artistic voice with solid commerce sensibility is what's behind almost every great creative success story.
I don't by any means mean to suggest that you were advocating it, but an overly commerce-oriented approach tends all too often to produce cookie-cutter, least-common-denominator crap. And tends as well to be what's behind the misguided thinking that rejects funding for something like Star Wars, which every Hollywood bean-counter brushed off back in the day because sci-fi films hadn't done well in the recent history of the time. So Lucas funded it himself, as I understand it, from the earning from American Grafitti. In inflation adjusted dollars, SW is still the second highest grossing film of all time, far beyond Avatar and Titanic. (Gone With The Wind is still #1.)
But I digress...
Last edited:
randomname
Well-known member
I think this is an incredibly silly question to be asking. It's not like there's any clear cut path to directing movies with $100m+ budgets, so your only real hope is to work on projects you're passionate about and hope you get lucky enough for someone to notice you (assuming you're any good, and frankly, someone who's asking what genre his first feature should be based on what he can sell probably isnt).
Ted Spencer
Veteran
I think it's a valid question, one of many that a diligent aspiring filmmaker would be well to pay reasonable attention to. Ignoring potentially important data, when available, doesn't seem particularly astute at all. I like the old saying here, where learning a new, and particularly a complex, field is concerned: "there is no such thing as a stupid question". I also like, especially as it applies to the almost uniquely diverse craft of filmmaking, another one: "everything matters".
I think it's highly inadvisable to scold or deride a person for seeking general knowledge, especially a young and/or inexperienced one.
Last edited:
randomname
Well-known member
Sure, but unless he's one of the most gifted directors of our generation, he's never going to get anywhere just directing projects that are made for no other reason than to hopefully impress someone with money (OK, thats the goal of all indie film, but I'd like to believe that most small filmmakers know that odds are that will never happen and they're happy just having the opportunity to make a film at all) and if he is one of the most gifted directors of our generation, then he can make whatever he feels passionate it about, it'll blow everyone away at sundance, and he'll get an ungodly budget for his next feature.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
And your point is...?
Wow, discussion about genre with low budget and no name actors for the first feature turned into "what is best genre for getting money back when you have A class actors and big budgets" 
What is not popular? Maybe some sci-fi with big spaceships like Star Wars? And no one cares about Vietnam war. Maybe for the indie it is easier to stand out when he is doing not the mainstream?
What is not popular? Maybe some sci-fi with big spaceships like Star Wars? And no one cares about Vietnam war. Maybe for the indie it is easier to stand out when he is doing not the mainstream?
Melvin Harris
Black Flag Member
Wow, discussion about genre with low budget and no name actors for the first feature turned into "what is best genre for getting money back when you have A class actors and big budgets"
What is not popular? Maybe some sci-fi with big spaceships like Star Wars? And no one cares about Vietnam war. Maybe for the indie it is easier to stand out when he is doing not the mainstream?
Sorry to chime in,
I don't think anyone should relegate themselves to doing anything that is not currently selling, or that a market won't bear. There are established names that have trouble selling ideas or getting budgets to make their films and they have Oscars and Globes. Let us not forget that this is a business... The path to big budgets is paved with returns on investments and projects with propensity towards profits (ugh, alliteration).
Of course you have to be personally invested in the project, but no one with money cares about a wonderful genre story that everyone in the cast and crew believed in that was made on a sub 100k budget and has made 5k in 18 months. They do, however, care about a 15k film that set a box office record for a weekend during limited release, or created such a buzz that there was a bidding war for it.
Make no mistake, the key to the big house is profitability, and profitability is found in a melange of style, substance, execution, and intent, and not just in genre which literally becomes the envelope in which you story is delivered. OP, find out what genres and trending, are at critical mass, and are growing in popularity, and begin your search there; then craft your story around intention and obstacle which will then give birth to themes that will then lead eventually to genre, IMHO.
This has been a great discussion topic and as Wiliam Goldman says in his book Adventures in the Screen Trade, "the single most important fact, perhaps, of the entire movie industry is that nobody knows anything and not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for certainty what's going to work."
Find what you think are your best odds and go for it. Realize that this is a marathon not a sprint. If you are betting everything you have on one film, that is not the wise route to take. Be in this for the long haul and plan on making multiple films. It only takes one to launch you into the stratosphere. Be patient, but persistent.
Find what you think are your best odds and go for it. Realize that this is a marathon not a sprint. If you are betting everything you have on one film, that is not the wise route to take. Be in this for the long haul and plan on making multiple films. It only takes one to launch you into the stratosphere. Be patient, but persistent.
Yes. No argument there. I think I am also guilty of cookie cutting it on Superseeds, and the only thing that may save thE features ass is a low budget. Because of that I was forced to do things differently on camera and the product is much stronger than what was written.
I also always want to call you TedSpencer. With no break In between. It sounds cool.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
(Note: what follows is a general commentary, and not personally directed at Kess)
With all due respect to Mr. Goldman (who one should not fail to respect IMO), this baseless old notion has been repeated ad nauseum in the film industry, as well as in the music, publishing, art, automobile and just about every other darn business you can think of that creates things that we buy mostly or substantially for entertainment value.
It's wrong. Period.
There - I said it.
To wit:
Martin Scorsese has directed many, many feature films, virtually all of which have been well received critically and commercially. A quick, lightly selective countup of his IMDB Director credits resulted in *seventeen* major, highly acclaimed, highly successful features, beginning in 1973 with "Mean Streets" and ending in 2010 with "Shutter Island". He currently has three others in the oven. Virtually the same could be observed with the much younger Coen Brothers. On their page, I counted 13 major features, almost all of which were highly successful financially and critically. Same goes for Alfred Hitchcock, James Cameron, George Lucas, and maybe that relative newbie Christopher Nolan (time will tell if he's up to the long-term success record of the others - I'm betting yes).
So...you really think these guys "don't know anything"?
How about Steve Jobs? Henry Ford? Ray Charles? JK Rowling? Pierre-Auguste Renoir? Frank Sinatra? Leonardo Da Vinci? Stephen King?
Believe me, they all *know (knew, for the...uh...departed) a whole freakin' hell of a lot*.
But, really really, unfortunately, what the assertion that "nobody knows anything" (in the creative arts) actually does, for most people who assert it, (Mr. Golman gets a pass for obvious reasons), is provide a *perfect excuse for their perpetual mediocrity*.
So it goes like this:
Your film tanks, nobody has much interest in it except the crew, your friends and family, etc., and nobody wants to put up the dough finance your next one...but hey...it's cool, man. Nobody knows anything, right?
Wrong. By a long shot. But it's sooo much easier and soooo much more comforting to believe that you actually made a great film...but...it's just that...nobody...(else) 'got it, you know? Because 'nobody knows anything'. Right?
You actually made a 'great film'? But nobody 'got it'? Uh huh... Sure. You think that's how the guys in the list above made their careers?
No. They 'knew what they were doing'...even when they *didn't*, because they *figured out that they didn't* back at the beginning, when 'nobody had much interest in what they did except their crew, friends and family, and nobody wanted to finance their next one'. But...instead of blaming it on "everybody" who "knew nothing", they 'blamed' it on *themselves* and made damn sure their next effort didn't suck as badly, then rinsed and repeated until *they got really good at it*. If they actually believed that nobody knew anything, why would they have kept trying so hard to make their stuff so great? Who could tell the difference?
*They* could, and after a while, so did just about "everybody". Which is why those filmmakers' names are on that list above.
All of 'em.
My $.02
Last edited:
Ted Spencer
Veteran
However...
This actually *is* largely true, and is not really in conflict with the above, as long as the word "certainty" is in the sentence.
This actually *is* largely true, and is not really in conflict with the above, as long as the word "certainty" is in the sentence.
Last edited:
Ted Spencer
Veteran
I've only looked at the "Superseeds" stills so far (and read the whole thread), but they look very promising to me - I see a lot of (apparent) life and ensemble energy in the actors' faces, good set design and lighting, and I know from reading your posts that you're a serious guy in your approach. I promise I'll go check out your clips soon : )
And "cookie cutter" doesn't *have* to be bad. Sure, it's an easy way out for the unimaginative, but after all most sequels could easily be termed that way, and there have been plenty of great examples of those (Bond, James Bond, anyone? Or the series by that Lucas guy?). As others have pointed out, it's all about the execution. Quality is quality; there are total POS "art films" and superb "formula" ones...
LOL! Thanks for the quasi-compliment : )
EDIT: I just watched the Kickstarter trailer for "Superseeds". Initial impression from stills and text confirmed: looks like you've got the makings of a funny, energetic, good looking film on your hands. And the first part (funny) as most of us know, is particularly elusive. Can't wait to see more. Go Kholi!
Last edited:
Ted Spencer
Veteran
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
But he also made "New York, New York"(1977)... and this is what is reported from the wiki article...
-----
Made after Scorsese's successful Taxi Driver, the film was a box-office failure. Its budget was $14 million, a large figure at the time, but it grossed only $13 million at the box-office and the disappointing reception drove Scorsese into depression and drugs.[1]
In his introduction to the DVD edition of the film, released in 2005, Scorsese explains that he intended the film as a break from the gritty realism that he had become famous for, and sees it as an homage to the musical films of Classical Hollywood.
For this reason, he designed the film's sets and storyline to be deliberately artificial-looking. He acknowledges that it is an experiment that did not please everyone.
-----
That this may suggest is 'know what you are good at'... gritty realism... or fantasy fakery... which may be a better rule...
I don't do comedy... I'm pretty sure I can do cynical irony... whether there is a market for that... don't know yet...