HDkilledFILM.
Burnin' down the House
I say congrats Adam, we should all take note, he made his dreams come true. Cheers bro!
Corrado Part II
- Thread starter taormina
- Start date
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Go for it, I say. Start the thread : )
It's great to have you back on board and even better to know you're considering expanding your contributions here, even if just for now : )
I really thought whether I should post in this thread any further, given the apparent ease with which things can be misinterpreted, but I figure, if what I'm saying is useful to someone, perhaps I should go ahead and proceed - although keeping it to a minimum; I certainly don't intend to start posting excessively. And if I detect any potential for some kind of conflict or flame war, I'm out, no ifs, buts or maybes.
So. Just to reinforce what others said - I don't believe anybody criticized anybody else for their take on the merits of Corrado. I certainly didn't (how could I, I never saw it!). My only - sole, solitary, very specific point was to signal something that has a tendency to get lost: when is it time to act. If all I had to say is what is extremely common knowledge, indeed a truism, I would not bother repeating it as everybody already knows it. So what would be the point of chiming in with a "me too" or "I agree!". It brings nothing. Such a truism is: "don't rush into a project unprepared". "Story comes first". "Get your script as good as possible". "Line up your money". And so on. I mean, who doesn't know this? We've only been repeating this on these boards and elsewhere forever.
So I thought it important to mention something that can get lost in this barrage of these commonsensical tropes. And that is something that I've personally witnessed having harmful effects: people who get so spooked by the "get it perfect!!!UNO!!ELEVEN" that they get gun shy and can't pull the trigger, instead they tinker endlessly while life and opportunities pass them by. This is not theoretical. I've known such people. Many wish somebody told them the opposite "go for it, even if it is not perfect, because you LEARN BY DOING, not by sitting back and never stepping into the arena. You can train all you want, but unless you step into the ring, at some point, you are only harming yourself in the very field of preparation you worship at the altar of. Because only by actually doing, do you learn many things, and if you don't do (shoot that movie, get into the ring, whatever), you will not be prepared for your next one."
And that is the spirit in which I entered this thread. I saw a lot of "be prepared" admonitions. I agree with them... up to a point. All I wanted to do is to say: yes, but. The caveat is that there comes a point where you *must* act. I didn't want to argue against anyone, or to defend anyone. Adam needs no defending from me or anyone. I wanted to just say: hey, this guy did one thing very, very right - he knew the point at which to act, and that can outweigh a lot of flaws with his first effort, so let us not forget that, because it's easy to overprepare and never actually act. So kudos to Adam, and a good lesson for many out there. That's all. I have no idea why this should have spinned off into some kind of conflict on the board.
But I want to bring value to the board with my posts, so I am not simply repeating truisms. I'm going for something deeper, and perhaps what I am going to say now may be seen as controversial - if so, I only say it because I think people will benefit, and I intend no deprecation of anyone.
I don't understand why Ted needed to post his resume. I certainly was not doubting him on that score. But now that he did, I want to say the following, and this is directed to anyone who is willing to give it some deeper thought.
Not only do I not believe in waiting "too long" or endlessly polishing and never shooting. I think the exact opposite. I think - and here comes the controversial part - that a long resume is a negative, not a positive.
Artists do best when they gather a few principles and then go on to create. They start killing their creativity by studying too much. What happens if they over-study is that they end up on the path of the academic, not artist. Any number of professors at academies have vast stores of knowledge about art/film/music etc., hugely greater than any artist. Certainly greater than a young guy who just makes a film, paints a painting or records an album.
Artists have known about this. This is what Warhol was getting at when he said "sometimes it hurts you if you stay too long in school". How many young artists or inventors or entrepreneurs have said "I only did it because I didn't know it was impossible". Think about it - an young artist doesn't even have the time in sheer years of being on earth to accumulate the kind of knowledge a professor has, but the young artist frequently changes the face of art and accomplishes things the academic can only write about in the future. It's the same in all fields. Young engineers or mathematicians or physicists or scientists - who accomplish great things. It's not that you can't do it as an older person, but that the older artist/creator does it after having already been doing this stuff for years and years, not waiting to start until he's older or "prepared". The reason is simple - you can think outside the box, the very definition of creativity. By reading/studying/preparing too long, you merely get boxed in more tightly. It's like the hard drive in your head runs out of space if you accumulate too many rules.
That's what troubles me about Ted's approach. And that's no disrespect to Ted. I just want to show a different perspective. If I hear someone has studied 10 years and read 30 books, but has not acted on the key thing (if we are talking about directing - then *directing* a film), I would not pick that person to direct a movie. I would also not pick the person who said: "I read nothing, studied nothing, learned little". I'd pick the person who read 3 books and studied a bit. That's also what's behind many companies like google and others that are looking for young engineers, sometimes fresh out of school - because these are guys who are not set in their ways. It's like the old joke "why do you date young women?" "because their stories are short". I would be looking for short resumes. Not zero. And not five pages.
You must act. No, don't polish that script so that it loses all immediacy. Go do it. Now. Don't wait. Learn enough to be dangerous and then go do battle.
And speaking of giving advice, I think you can go far more wrong in negging out a person, than being supportive. This is not to say "be polyanna". Be honest about how extremely hard it is, and then say: go do it!
Again - I say it with all respect to everyone here. I just think that this is valuable counterweight to all the "wait until this, that, and the other".
So. Just to reinforce what others said - I don't believe anybody criticized anybody else for their take on the merits of Corrado. I certainly didn't (how could I, I never saw it!). My only - sole, solitary, very specific point was to signal something that has a tendency to get lost: when is it time to act. If all I had to say is what is extremely common knowledge, indeed a truism, I would not bother repeating it as everybody already knows it. So what would be the point of chiming in with a "me too" or "I agree!". It brings nothing. Such a truism is: "don't rush into a project unprepared". "Story comes first". "Get your script as good as possible". "Line up your money". And so on. I mean, who doesn't know this? We've only been repeating this on these boards and elsewhere forever.
So I thought it important to mention something that can get lost in this barrage of these commonsensical tropes. And that is something that I've personally witnessed having harmful effects: people who get so spooked by the "get it perfect!!!UNO!!ELEVEN" that they get gun shy and can't pull the trigger, instead they tinker endlessly while life and opportunities pass them by. This is not theoretical. I've known such people. Many wish somebody told them the opposite "go for it, even if it is not perfect, because you LEARN BY DOING, not by sitting back and never stepping into the arena. You can train all you want, but unless you step into the ring, at some point, you are only harming yourself in the very field of preparation you worship at the altar of. Because only by actually doing, do you learn many things, and if you don't do (shoot that movie, get into the ring, whatever), you will not be prepared for your next one."
And that is the spirit in which I entered this thread. I saw a lot of "be prepared" admonitions. I agree with them... up to a point. All I wanted to do is to say: yes, but. The caveat is that there comes a point where you *must* act. I didn't want to argue against anyone, or to defend anyone. Adam needs no defending from me or anyone. I wanted to just say: hey, this guy did one thing very, very right - he knew the point at which to act, and that can outweigh a lot of flaws with his first effort, so let us not forget that, because it's easy to overprepare and never actually act. So kudos to Adam, and a good lesson for many out there. That's all. I have no idea why this should have spinned off into some kind of conflict on the board.
But I want to bring value to the board with my posts, so I am not simply repeating truisms. I'm going for something deeper, and perhaps what I am going to say now may be seen as controversial - if so, I only say it because I think people will benefit, and I intend no deprecation of anyone.
I don't understand why Ted needed to post his resume. I certainly was not doubting him on that score. But now that he did, I want to say the following, and this is directed to anyone who is willing to give it some deeper thought.
Not only do I not believe in waiting "too long" or endlessly polishing and never shooting. I think the exact opposite. I think - and here comes the controversial part - that a long resume is a negative, not a positive.
Artists do best when they gather a few principles and then go on to create. They start killing their creativity by studying too much. What happens if they over-study is that they end up on the path of the academic, not artist. Any number of professors at academies have vast stores of knowledge about art/film/music etc., hugely greater than any artist. Certainly greater than a young guy who just makes a film, paints a painting or records an album.
Artists have known about this. This is what Warhol was getting at when he said "sometimes it hurts you if you stay too long in school". How many young artists or inventors or entrepreneurs have said "I only did it because I didn't know it was impossible". Think about it - an young artist doesn't even have the time in sheer years of being on earth to accumulate the kind of knowledge a professor has, but the young artist frequently changes the face of art and accomplishes things the academic can only write about in the future. It's the same in all fields. Young engineers or mathematicians or physicists or scientists - who accomplish great things. It's not that you can't do it as an older person, but that the older artist/creator does it after having already been doing this stuff for years and years, not waiting to start until he's older or "prepared". The reason is simple - you can think outside the box, the very definition of creativity. By reading/studying/preparing too long, you merely get boxed in more tightly. It's like the hard drive in your head runs out of space if you accumulate too many rules.
That's what troubles me about Ted's approach. And that's no disrespect to Ted. I just want to show a different perspective. If I hear someone has studied 10 years and read 30 books, but has not acted on the key thing (if we are talking about directing - then *directing* a film), I would not pick that person to direct a movie. I would also not pick the person who said: "I read nothing, studied nothing, learned little". I'd pick the person who read 3 books and studied a bit. That's also what's behind many companies like google and others that are looking for young engineers, sometimes fresh out of school - because these are guys who are not set in their ways. It's like the old joke "why do you date young women?" "because their stories are short". I would be looking for short resumes. Not zero. And not five pages.
You must act. No, don't polish that script so that it loses all immediacy. Go do it. Now. Don't wait. Learn enough to be dangerous and then go do battle.
And speaking of giving advice, I think you can go far more wrong in negging out a person, than being supportive. This is not to say "be polyanna". Be honest about how extremely hard it is, and then say: go do it!
Again - I say it with all respect to everyone here. I just think that this is valuable counterweight to all the "wait until this, that, and the other".
Last edited:
taormina
Hates to Rent
Cool - it really is just for now and I expect long absences, but maybe better than nothing.
Maybe the mods can suggest where this thread ought to go, since user films isn't quite appropriate anymore (maybe it is??) and I'm frankly not familiar with the layout of all the new subforums.......
Barry_Green
Moderator
OldCorpse, I don't disagree at all. Only thing I would say about it is -- yes, artists must act, but film is such an obscenely expensive art, that they should only act when they truly are ready and within their capabilities.
Everyone wants to point at a certain filmmaker and say "he did it, so can I." Well, let's take this thread as an example -- how many of you are Adamo Cultraro? How many of you can, on the strength of your assurances alone, borrow $415,000 from people you know? How many of you have the personal resources to pay those people back, if it doesn't work out?
The disaster, to me, is when somebody gets all filled up with fire, goes running up their credit cards, gets themselves thirty or forty thousand dollars in debt, makes an awful piece of crap (because they weren't ready), and now -- they're screwed for the rest of their life. They're either going to be in debt for years and years and years and decades, or they're going to file bankruptcy and live with that hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives. Sure, a bankruptcy might drop off your credit report after 10 years, but that's not what the credit applications ask -- they ask "have you EVER filed for bankruptcy?" That's forever.
Other art forms, it's no big deal. If you want to write a novel, well, go right ahead. That doesn't cost you anything other than some hours in the evening. Want to chase a dream writing screenplays? Go! Now! Do it. It doesn't cost you anything other than time spent in front of the keyboard. Want to take up music, or dance, or singing? You can go after all of those, full-hog, now.
But film? Even the cheapest lousiest film is gonna set someone back ten, twenty, forty thousand dollars? People who say "just go do it man, it'll be the best education you'll ever get" are -- I think -- acting irresponsibly. Probably the hardest I have ever, ever slapped my forehead is when I saw a post on this forum that said "Hey, I'm starting shooting a feature film on my T2i tomorrow, but I just need to know one thing -- what in the heck is 'white balancing' and how do you do it?"
So -- if you have a script, and the fire to go do it, and you have saved up the pocket money to do it so that even if you never see a penny in return (and you almost assuredly won't), then sure, go right ahead. Budget is relative to your circumstances -- if pocket money to you is $2,000 and you think you can do it, and the loss of that $2,000 won't be a terrible hardship, then yes -- go do it. Hey, if pocket money to you is a hundred grand, go right ahead.
But on the other hand -- if it's your first, you've got no track record in the business, you don't know how to sell a film or anything even approaching that, and you're thinking of mortgaging your house or cashing in your retirement plan or running up your credit cards -- don't be an idiot. That's insanity. You're not ready yet.
People listen to what Rodriguez says ("everything you need to know to make a movie I can teach you in 10 minutes") but they somehow don't follow the example of what he actually *did* -- which was practice and refine and hone his craft until he was truly ready, when he was winning awards in film festivals across the country, and after he had raised the money through selling his body to a drug testing company so that he had cash in hand to risk making El Mariachi. That's (to a large degree) the path that Kholi Hicks has taken, and it's one reason why I support him. That's the path that Jack Daniel Stanley took, and it's a reason I'm very comfortable in supporting him and his efforts. It's the exact path Mark Harris has taken, and why I offered to support him, and (awesome enough) he said no, he had it covered.
We're all about making films here, but my cautionary tale is indeed "don't run before you can walk". If you can't even win a DVXFest, you probably shouldn't be spending a lot of money you don't have trying to make some breakthrough feature. The time will come when you're ready, but now may not be it. Keep practicing. At least win a DVXFest, and preferably collect some trophies from some established festivals to show that a nonbiased, doesn't-know-you-from-a-hole-in-the-ground audience can look at your work and say in all honesty -- "that's really good."
Adam is a unique situation -- the guy clearly is a born salesman. His job (prior to doing Corrado) was selling YACHTS to RICH GUYS. That preparation alone put him sooooo far ahead of 99% of the folks who are going to try filmmaking! What kind of skills and business acumen and sheer cojones does it take to be a successful yacht salesman, negotating deals with profoundly massively rich people? No wonder Adam was totally prepared to a) borrow a ton of money from people he knew and worked with, b) had no problem at all getting Tom Sizemore and following through on it, and c) was able to sell his film and furthermore turn that one film into a career!
Had Adam waited until his filmmaking chops matched up with everything else, maybe Corrado could have been his "Memento", a real breakthrough showpiece. But it isn't. And, for the way Adam is plotting his career, it didn't need to be. He had other skills, incredible skills and resources, that more than made up for it. Whether he was prepared to make a great film or not is debatable, but he clearly was prepared to make a career.
If you've got the skills and the resources Adam had, maybe you can follow his same path. Regardless, you'd better make sure you're ready before you obligate yourself to things that you can't fully deliver on (such as getting yourself into debt and not being able to make a sellable film that will pay off that debt, etc).
(note: I'm not advising anyone to "wait", I'm saying don't get in over your head before you're ready. Instead of waiting, you should be practicing filmmaking like Rodriguez did -- make fifty shorts, make shorts as if you were learning to play the guitar -- practice until your fingers bleed. Start catching people's eyes and racking up awards and then you're probably ready.)
Everyone wants to point at a certain filmmaker and say "he did it, so can I." Well, let's take this thread as an example -- how many of you are Adamo Cultraro? How many of you can, on the strength of your assurances alone, borrow $415,000 from people you know? How many of you have the personal resources to pay those people back, if it doesn't work out?
The disaster, to me, is when somebody gets all filled up with fire, goes running up their credit cards, gets themselves thirty or forty thousand dollars in debt, makes an awful piece of crap (because they weren't ready), and now -- they're screwed for the rest of their life. They're either going to be in debt for years and years and years and decades, or they're going to file bankruptcy and live with that hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives. Sure, a bankruptcy might drop off your credit report after 10 years, but that's not what the credit applications ask -- they ask "have you EVER filed for bankruptcy?" That's forever.
Other art forms, it's no big deal. If you want to write a novel, well, go right ahead. That doesn't cost you anything other than some hours in the evening. Want to chase a dream writing screenplays? Go! Now! Do it. It doesn't cost you anything other than time spent in front of the keyboard. Want to take up music, or dance, or singing? You can go after all of those, full-hog, now.
But film? Even the cheapest lousiest film is gonna set someone back ten, twenty, forty thousand dollars? People who say "just go do it man, it'll be the best education you'll ever get" are -- I think -- acting irresponsibly. Probably the hardest I have ever, ever slapped my forehead is when I saw a post on this forum that said "Hey, I'm starting shooting a feature film on my T2i tomorrow, but I just need to know one thing -- what in the heck is 'white balancing' and how do you do it?"
So -- if you have a script, and the fire to go do it, and you have saved up the pocket money to do it so that even if you never see a penny in return (and you almost assuredly won't), then sure, go right ahead. Budget is relative to your circumstances -- if pocket money to you is $2,000 and you think you can do it, and the loss of that $2,000 won't be a terrible hardship, then yes -- go do it. Hey, if pocket money to you is a hundred grand, go right ahead.
But on the other hand -- if it's your first, you've got no track record in the business, you don't know how to sell a film or anything even approaching that, and you're thinking of mortgaging your house or cashing in your retirement plan or running up your credit cards -- don't be an idiot. That's insanity. You're not ready yet.
People listen to what Rodriguez says ("everything you need to know to make a movie I can teach you in 10 minutes") but they somehow don't follow the example of what he actually *did* -- which was practice and refine and hone his craft until he was truly ready, when he was winning awards in film festivals across the country, and after he had raised the money through selling his body to a drug testing company so that he had cash in hand to risk making El Mariachi. That's (to a large degree) the path that Kholi Hicks has taken, and it's one reason why I support him. That's the path that Jack Daniel Stanley took, and it's a reason I'm very comfortable in supporting him and his efforts. It's the exact path Mark Harris has taken, and why I offered to support him, and (awesome enough) he said no, he had it covered.
We're all about making films here, but my cautionary tale is indeed "don't run before you can walk". If you can't even win a DVXFest, you probably shouldn't be spending a lot of money you don't have trying to make some breakthrough feature. The time will come when you're ready, but now may not be it. Keep practicing. At least win a DVXFest, and preferably collect some trophies from some established festivals to show that a nonbiased, doesn't-know-you-from-a-hole-in-the-ground audience can look at your work and say in all honesty -- "that's really good."
Adam is a unique situation -- the guy clearly is a born salesman. His job (prior to doing Corrado) was selling YACHTS to RICH GUYS. That preparation alone put him sooooo far ahead of 99% of the folks who are going to try filmmaking! What kind of skills and business acumen and sheer cojones does it take to be a successful yacht salesman, negotating deals with profoundly massively rich people? No wonder Adam was totally prepared to a) borrow a ton of money from people he knew and worked with, b) had no problem at all getting Tom Sizemore and following through on it, and c) was able to sell his film and furthermore turn that one film into a career!
Had Adam waited until his filmmaking chops matched up with everything else, maybe Corrado could have been his "Memento", a real breakthrough showpiece. But it isn't. And, for the way Adam is plotting his career, it didn't need to be. He had other skills, incredible skills and resources, that more than made up for it. Whether he was prepared to make a great film or not is debatable, but he clearly was prepared to make a career.
If you've got the skills and the resources Adam had, maybe you can follow his same path. Regardless, you'd better make sure you're ready before you obligate yourself to things that you can't fully deliver on (such as getting yourself into debt and not being able to make a sellable film that will pay off that debt, etc).
(note: I'm not advising anyone to "wait", I'm saying don't get in over your head before you're ready. Instead of waiting, you should be practicing filmmaking like Rodriguez did -- make fifty shorts, make shorts as if you were learning to play the guitar -- practice until your fingers bleed. Start catching people's eyes and racking up awards and then you're probably ready.)
Last edited:
Raising my cup of ten cent Ramen to this post. So hungry...
Just kidding, I graduated to Jr Bacon Cheeseburgers on ninety-nine cent menu from Wendy's. Gaellic
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Yep I just want to add to what Barry has said - I mean im 29 and i started shooting short films when i was about 23, in and around normal work, and then corporate/commercial work etc. Im now in post/editing our feature film White Out, because of the previous experience ive had on horrendous deadlines, having to act professionaly and working incredibly hard (and building among my friends those with shared passions and ambitions) i was able to get this movie - from shooting in the last week of November to post production (presently) That would just not have happened if i rushed out to shoot a feature right away.
There is an ego thing and a balshy confidence, that often works for *ahem* indie producer/directors more than indie directors, hehe that make closing the deal, ticking the box and making the 'product' more important than making a great film. No offence to Adam, when i say that his film (which i actually kinda enjoyed) is by his own admission not as polished as he might have wanted, or perhaps even as creative. It's done well enough to get the 'next deal' but that 'deal' and type of work is presumably what Adam is aiming for, for his career, what he wants etc.
It might not be what every filmmaker wants... this kind of machismo indie producing (with a bit of latin spirit i might add) isn't for everyone, it might not even create the kind of career or the kind directing / producing jobs many indies really want (when simply distracted by the glossy sound $$$ producer calculated deal values hehe.) But those yearning for success and dreaming of sustaining themselves making movies fall into the naive trap of often not scrutinising the nature of what success means in the stories they so desperately wish to emulate.
Saving money and working with other artists, in cooperation and collaboration produces the very best foundation for a fine feature debut. Let that be the bedrock of your success and not those exceptional stories, there is no short cut to being a good artist, it takes time, and if you just want the $$$ showbusiness is a poor mans game hehe
There is an ego thing and a balshy confidence, that often works for *ahem* indie producer/directors more than indie directors, hehe that make closing the deal, ticking the box and making the 'product' more important than making a great film. No offence to Adam, when i say that his film (which i actually kinda enjoyed) is by his own admission not as polished as he might have wanted, or perhaps even as creative. It's done well enough to get the 'next deal' but that 'deal' and type of work is presumably what Adam is aiming for, for his career, what he wants etc.
It might not be what every filmmaker wants... this kind of machismo indie producing (with a bit of latin spirit i might add) isn't for everyone, it might not even create the kind of career or the kind directing / producing jobs many indies really want (when simply distracted by the glossy sound $$$ producer calculated deal values hehe.) But those yearning for success and dreaming of sustaining themselves making movies fall into the naive trap of often not scrutinising the nature of what success means in the stories they so desperately wish to emulate.
Saving money and working with other artists, in cooperation and collaboration produces the very best foundation for a fine feature debut. Let that be the bedrock of your success and not those exceptional stories, there is no short cut to being a good artist, it takes time, and if you just want the $$$ showbusiness is a poor mans game hehe
Shawn Philip Nelson
Veteran
Excellent post Barry. This is exactly why I haven't yet shot a feature, though I feel I'm getting close.
craigbowman
Veteran
And then there's ... Faith Granger. ( Some people just naturally, "get it". )
lawriejaffa
Veteran
What the heck does that mean craig?
What the heck does that mean craig?
I think that he's implying that Faith is a natural and didn't need a number of years of practice before she got into her deuce of spades feature film endeavor. I haven't seen it so I can't comment, been waiting to see what TedSpencer thought of it. Or anyone who may be willing to comment on it leaving behind the idea that she accomplished lots on very little.
Like Corrado/Bad Ass, it should be able to stand on it's own legs.
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
Agreed Barry, but also I've recently been lucky enough to receive some mentorship from someone well heeled in this process. And he really got me to slow down and bide my time. Even though my movie is shot and nearly edited, he got me to see the benefit in building interest from event to event over time, rather than just shoving it out there.
So my plan has changed over the past few weeks. Now I am focused on a series of events: Speaking at DIYDays in March, then the IFP thing I get to present in April, then hopefully after that the IFP lab, and then into a large-ish festival premier next year. Meaning, there are really only a handful of festivals I would want to be in, and then use those as platforms for very large launch events, where I could get lots of press. I learned a lot about that this past Jan at Sundance.
This is a far longer stretch than I had intended. But I'm seeing the real world returns on it now as my name and my film's name spread into the independent world, as I meet people and get chances to talk about and show my work.
I would't want to rush into a feature just because I don't want to make a crappy feature(regardless of what it did for my career). But also, I'm now learning how to bide my time, and not rush the distribution either.
reem12
Veteran
I'm in agreement with barry on this one. This is the very reason I have added the cost before I set out on my feature film venture. I've practiced over the last 5 years on putting short films together and never felt satisfied with approaching this level until I had my films screened recently and got the go ahead by people who were approaching me about investing into my project since they seen the work and belived in it. However I am still some what dumb to the entire business side of things and the very reason I have began to outsource some of that. To date I have spent about $1500 on my feature which has about 45 minutes of footage shot so far and 30 minutes edited but I have had to wear to many hats that I don't plan on wearing for any more features. This is not for the faint of heart, nor will I take food out of my kids mouth for will smiths pursuit of happiness.
craigbowman
Veteran
Can't wait, too. I'm sure he'll give it as much thought and interest, all the goods with the bad, as he did Corrado/Bad Ass.
Shawn Philip Nelson
Veteran
Quite a dichotomy between your strategy and that of Adam. Seems to be the two prevailing ideas amongst indies right now on how best to move up.
Darkline
Veteran
To add to the noise. I've been a slow starter. I'm 36 and really only a have 4/5 shorts under my belt, but I will say that even though I thought I was ready at 23, it's clear I was not if I looked at my first work objectively. While I had more confidence then and knew exactly what I wanted to do I think I would have been embarrased about the work now. How many people regret a Tattoo they got when they were 21?
I've learned a lot through the small experiences I've had making shorts. Conversely, I could keep saying I need to learn more, but at some point it's true you have to take the plunge and learn things as you go. It's just about getting that balance right. If I would change anything, it would be to have made shorts earlier, and made lots of them. I could have been ready to tackle a feature at 27.
I've just started writing my first feature; one I can manage with the funds I have saved up over the last 10 years. True, it would be nice to have external funding so I don't have to spend all of my own savings.... but I'm writing within my means so that I know that if I finish the script and like it, I can make the film. I'm not writing Avatar. Films like 'Primer' are an inspiration to me because if you can captivate an audience without spending half a million then surely that makes you a better prospect for any future backer/employer.
95% of the time you wont make a packet off your first movie, it's about convincing people to invest in you further. Why spend $100,000 doing that if you can have the same effect with $40,000. It'll be easier to raise and less will be at stake.
Each to their own, I admire anyone who goes and does it. I just watched a documentary on the first 'Nightmare On elm street' movie and it was interesting that Producer Robert Shaye said whatever trauma Wes Craven had making the film, he had far more trying to raise the money for it. It took years. This was even after Wes had made 'Last House on the Left' and 'The Hills have eyes'. I will have enough to deal with just making the film without the headache of searching for hundreds of thousands for financial backing too.
I've learned a lot through the small experiences I've had making shorts. Conversely, I could keep saying I need to learn more, but at some point it's true you have to take the plunge and learn things as you go. It's just about getting that balance right. If I would change anything, it would be to have made shorts earlier, and made lots of them. I could have been ready to tackle a feature at 27.
I've just started writing my first feature; one I can manage with the funds I have saved up over the last 10 years. True, it would be nice to have external funding so I don't have to spend all of my own savings.... but I'm writing within my means so that I know that if I finish the script and like it, I can make the film. I'm not writing Avatar. Films like 'Primer' are an inspiration to me because if you can captivate an audience without spending half a million then surely that makes you a better prospect for any future backer/employer.
95% of the time you wont make a packet off your first movie, it's about convincing people to invest in you further. Why spend $100,000 doing that if you can have the same effect with $40,000. It'll be easier to raise and less will be at stake.
Each to their own, I admire anyone who goes and does it. I just watched a documentary on the first 'Nightmare On elm street' movie and it was interesting that Producer Robert Shaye said whatever trauma Wes Craven had making the film, he had far more trying to raise the money for it. It took years. This was even after Wes had made 'Last House on the Left' and 'The Hills have eyes'. I will have enough to deal with just making the film without the headache of searching for hundreds of thousands for financial backing too.
Last edited:
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
I think the ends are the same though. I have no delusion about making money off of this movie(though he business plan was designed to make the money back). It's about building traction for my career. Which it seems like Adam's goals were as well.