Corrado Part II
- Thread starter taormina
- Start date
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
taormina
Hates to Rent
That would be cool.
Maybe even a follow up part five 12 months after it comes out on dvd that follows it's dvd sales success, rental success, overseas sucess etc.
I think indie's would love to read this kinda stuff, I know I would.
taormina
Hates to Rent
I'm sure Dan would do it, but it's not his magazine, he needs to go bug the editors to make it happen. It'd be quite a little series if it all came together, although at this point Dan has done enough for me and has way exceeded my expectations on both the quality of the articles and his efforts. He's done me a service.
visugeek
Well-known member
I can't wait to see what you've got in this new one, sounds Schweet!! : )
You should see if Swayze available for a day, if there is a role, just because.
I hope you don't have to wait too long on Corrado, but I understand, things do slow down for the holidays.
Chris
visugeek
Well-known member
taormina
Hates to Rent
Flashbacks
Flashbacks
On a different topic, while I write RRB, I wanted to get your opinions.
Flashbacks are used typically in a film as a device to tell some backstory or to a greater degree be so integrated to the film that the movie would not be the same without them.
Red Ruination Blue is a film written so that we have a little bit of the present action, then a flashback revealing another plotline, then more action, then another flashback, etc. There are six flashback sequences in the script totalling about 1/3 of the movie.
Now films like Memento relied on this technique to a greater degree that I am proposing, but I still thought it worth a question:
When is it better to just tell a story in "order" rather than out of order like Memento?
There is no right answer. I'm just looking for input. I like my script the way it is, but I wonder if I'd like it just the same if it was in chronological order.
and.......begin.
Flashbacks
On a different topic, while I write RRB, I wanted to get your opinions.
Flashbacks are used typically in a film as a device to tell some backstory or to a greater degree be so integrated to the film that the movie would not be the same without them.
Red Ruination Blue is a film written so that we have a little bit of the present action, then a flashback revealing another plotline, then more action, then another flashback, etc. There are six flashback sequences in the script totalling about 1/3 of the movie.
Now films like Memento relied on this technique to a greater degree that I am proposing, but I still thought it worth a question:
When is it better to just tell a story in "order" rather than out of order like Memento?
There is no right answer. I'm just looking for input. I like my script the way it is, but I wonder if I'd like it just the same if it was in chronological order.
and.......begin.
Because I don't know the script I'm not sure of the possibilities that would playout well on screen but on a technical note I always liked the longer shutter speed for a dreamy image then an even longer shutter speed for a more dreamy image (flashing back 10 years or more from the first flashback scene) few directors do this. There is a great post on reduser from a DP that shoots hollywood features that talks about it.
mentatDUKE
Veteran
Hi Adam. Interesting question. I feel that Memento wouldnt be the same if it were told in order. The flashbacks/new information informs the character's current situation. If your script does that, then the flashbacks are very necessary. If not, then they are just window dressing.
The question becomes: Would the film be the same without the flashbacks or if told in chronological order? If so, there is no reason to have them.
Take care. Looking forward to both films.
The question becomes: Would the film be the same without the flashbacks or if told in chronological order? If so, there is no reason to have them.
Take care. Looking forward to both films.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
IMO flashbacks should, quite simply, be justified. A movie like Memento, having to do with lost memories, is a perfect example.
Many screenwriting experts mention excess or undermotivated use of flashbacks as a sign of amateur screenwriting. So I'd want to be sure there was a good rationale for a flashback before using it as a device.
It seems that they can sometimes create confusion, and other times solve it.
My $.02
Many screenwriting experts mention excess or undermotivated use of flashbacks as a sign of amateur screenwriting. So I'd want to be sure there was a good rationale for a flashback before using it as a device.
It seems that they can sometimes create confusion, and other times solve it.
My $.02
I think flashbacks should be really be an integrated part of the story. It is important that they, be, as Ted says, justified, but also they need to fit into the style of the story. Another great example of working flashbacks is Lost. But somehow they need to do more than just, deliver a piece of relevant information at a given time. They also have to tell a story in themselves.
Presently I'm working my way through Robert McKee's book and he has an interesting point. He says that any given scene needs to be a story in itself, meaning that something needs to have changed between the beginning of the scene and the end of it. If the situation is the same before and after the scene it is of not use and should be taken out. Not just in the sense that it conveys information to the viewer, but also that it advances the actual story. This, I think is especially important for flashbacks. They should at all times be a story in themselves.
Presently I'm working my way through Robert McKee's book and he has an interesting point. He says that any given scene needs to be a story in itself, meaning that something needs to have changed between the beginning of the scene and the end of it. If the situation is the same before and after the scene it is of not use and should be taken out. Not just in the sense that it conveys information to the viewer, but also that it advances the actual story. This, I think is especially important for flashbacks. They should at all times be a story in themselves.
10s
Veteran
I find it more helpful to ask, why should a story be told in a non-traditional form?
There must be some legitimate motivation to how a story is delivered. Typically the motivation is to avoid telling another well-worn story using patterns that the audience can easily guess what happens next. After too many stories being told this way it can bore and insult the audience. On the other hand, there are some traditional form stories of such power they don't need any gimmicks, they have that "something" that resonates with the audience and are best told in a simple straight forward manner.
The motivation for non-traditional forms seems to be, one that invites the audience to participate by using their intellect in making sense of the story. It's a strategy, sort of like a mystery story approach, where audience pleasure is found through solving the puzzle.
The Sixth Sense was a great work for getting audience participation, especially at the end when we realize we've been had, and we then need to recount events and find the clues we missed. Pulp Fiction, Memento... and a host of others do a great job involving us is putting the puzzle together.
One of my favorite recent films using a traditional form which gets the audience/participating, i.e., asking a simple question, who is he?, is The Bourne Identity. Throughout the story we are never sure who the hero really is, because he doesn't know who he is and he lives in a world of false identities. This question and the action keeps us involved in trying to answer a few simple questions, who is he & will he survive?
There must be some legitimate motivation to how a story is delivered. Typically the motivation is to avoid telling another well-worn story using patterns that the audience can easily guess what happens next. After too many stories being told this way it can bore and insult the audience. On the other hand, there are some traditional form stories of such power they don't need any gimmicks, they have that "something" that resonates with the audience and are best told in a simple straight forward manner.
The motivation for non-traditional forms seems to be, one that invites the audience to participate by using their intellect in making sense of the story. It's a strategy, sort of like a mystery story approach, where audience pleasure is found through solving the puzzle.
The Sixth Sense was a great work for getting audience participation, especially at the end when we realize we've been had, and we then need to recount events and find the clues we missed. Pulp Fiction, Memento... and a host of others do a great job involving us is putting the puzzle together.
One of my favorite recent films using a traditional form which gets the audience/participating, i.e., asking a simple question, who is he?, is The Bourne Identity. Throughout the story we are never sure who the hero really is, because he doesn't know who he is and he lives in a world of false identities. This question and the action keeps us involved in trying to answer a few simple questions, who is he & will he survive?
Rubbersquare
Well-known member
a film like "the joy luck club" has multiple timelines interwoven as it tells the stories of mothers and daughters and is done very well. as long as there is a reason for it - and it's not confusing - it's fine.
visugeek
Well-known member
In film school, they said to avoid flashbacks, but movies like Titantic, Godfather II, and a host of others have done it successfully, so it depends on how the flashbaks are implemented. A well told story is a well told story, whatever devices it uses to get that story across. There really are no rules if it's done well.
Chris
taormina
Hates to Rent
An insight into the distribution process
An insight into the distribution process
Well, Corrado has been complete for nearly sixty days. I've had a handful of companies want to rep the film, and I've turned them down for various reasons. I'm now on round two of this process, with some other companies.
Let me tell you, this process is not an easy one for me. It's definitely been the most trying. Here's the two biggest reasons why:
1. The waiting. A guy calls you. "Send me a screener". From that point on, between mailing, waiting for the giant company to watch it, call you, attend a meeting, hear their offer, and decide, takes weeks. Weeks!!! Multiply this by how many people you have the movie out to, and you can quickly find yourself in a self imposed holding pattern, unable to move forward "until you hear". It's maddening. Your entire life is on hold while this goes on. What can you do about it? Nothing. It's part of the deal.
2. Differing opinions. "I liked the cast, but not the movie". "The film was great but the cast was weak". Which do you believe? I don't know. It's really difficult to accurately receive feedback or criticism when people watch the film and provide contradictory feedback. Overwelmingly, they like Corrado. Still, I'm trying to use the critiques to make a better movie next time, and all the critiques contradict each other. I sometimes wonder if these people watched the same film.
Getting a film distributed is a process. Oh sure, I could get it out there easily, but choosing the right company to get it out there and making a meaningful deal that will pay your investors back prinicipal and a return is a hard thing.
As of today I believe Corrado will still accomplish that goal, but honestly, as of right this second, I would be reluctant to start shooting another film without distribution in hand.
It's just not worth the hassle. Waiting on others is never fun and consumes your time.
Could I have gotten distribution before I filmed Corrado? No. Budget is too low, I was a first timer, and the names are not big enough.
Part of the reason the next movie has to be so large is to attract a big enough star to get a presale, plain and simple.
Beware, those of you following in my footsteps: My synopsis as of today's date is thus: The model I have chosen for Corrado was the only one I could of followed as it was my first feature. I would not do a second movie this way. For those of you making a first feature, spend more money. It's all about the name game. In the end that 's all that matters to these people. Get the biggest name you can get and you will get distribution.
If I was to do it all over again I would try and borrow 300K more and put that towards a much larger star's salary.
Why didn't I mention the quality of the movie? I assume you are making the best film possible, so that goes without saying. If you are trying to make crappy films you 're already defeated.
An insight into the distribution process
Well, Corrado has been complete for nearly sixty days. I've had a handful of companies want to rep the film, and I've turned them down for various reasons. I'm now on round two of this process, with some other companies.
Let me tell you, this process is not an easy one for me. It's definitely been the most trying. Here's the two biggest reasons why:
1. The waiting. A guy calls you. "Send me a screener". From that point on, between mailing, waiting for the giant company to watch it, call you, attend a meeting, hear their offer, and decide, takes weeks. Weeks!!! Multiply this by how many people you have the movie out to, and you can quickly find yourself in a self imposed holding pattern, unable to move forward "until you hear". It's maddening. Your entire life is on hold while this goes on. What can you do about it? Nothing. It's part of the deal.
2. Differing opinions. "I liked the cast, but not the movie". "The film was great but the cast was weak". Which do you believe? I don't know. It's really difficult to accurately receive feedback or criticism when people watch the film and provide contradictory feedback. Overwelmingly, they like Corrado. Still, I'm trying to use the critiques to make a better movie next time, and all the critiques contradict each other. I sometimes wonder if these people watched the same film.
Getting a film distributed is a process. Oh sure, I could get it out there easily, but choosing the right company to get it out there and making a meaningful deal that will pay your investors back prinicipal and a return is a hard thing.
As of today I believe Corrado will still accomplish that goal, but honestly, as of right this second, I would be reluctant to start shooting another film without distribution in hand.
It's just not worth the hassle. Waiting on others is never fun and consumes your time.
Could I have gotten distribution before I filmed Corrado? No. Budget is too low, I was a first timer, and the names are not big enough.
Part of the reason the next movie has to be so large is to attract a big enough star to get a presale, plain and simple.
Beware, those of you following in my footsteps: My synopsis as of today's date is thus: The model I have chosen for Corrado was the only one I could of followed as it was my first feature. I would not do a second movie this way. For those of you making a first feature, spend more money. It's all about the name game. In the end that 's all that matters to these people. Get the biggest name you can get and you will get distribution.
If I was to do it all over again I would try and borrow 300K more and put that towards a much larger star's salary.
Why didn't I mention the quality of the movie? I assume you are making the best film possible, so that goes without saying. If you are trying to make crappy films you 're already defeated.
filmman
Veteran
Congratulations on reaching this conclusion early in your career as a filmmaker. This was the post I'd been waiting for. You've learned an important lesson, a lesson that will take you to the second stage of a filmmaker's career.
When you get a "big enough star," you will find out you don't need to worry about the money anymore. The game changes altogether. One of the major studios will agree to pick up the film -- as you indicated youself. Of course they will have their "conditions," and you know what they are ... I know.
But what you did is still great -- for a first-time feature filmmaker. You got the movie made and it's a viable movie. It was a great breakthrough.
Now comes the hard part: recovering the budget; but you have the right product, an action flick. What you need now is an "honest distributor." And remember what you said to me in your email