Corrado Part II

[Darkline]

I'm the exact opposite. I only regret the things that I DIDN'T do. So I've figured that it's better to shoot a short or two to get some training, then a feature and then another than wake up in 20 years and think, damn, I should've made a feature film all those years ago. .

Dont misunderstand me, go and shoot as much as possible, and as soon as possible. just make it cheap and learn as much as you can.

In reality today you have no excuses, while I make none for myself, when I was in my mid 20's all we had was 4:3 S-VHS available to us cheapos, and if you were lucky a 2-machine edit deck where a cross dissolve wasn't even possible, or multiple audio tracks. To make something even remotely considered professional cost a lot of money. It was really the advent of DV that changed everything. Unless you could afford 16mm and a ton of post production house work you HAD to get funding to make a short or feature.

In the last 10 years the field has been levelled somewhat in that anyone can make a short of professional looking quality for little or no money, at home. It means there is more s**t to sift through but it also gives people huge possibilites that never existed before.

 

[lawriejaffa]

Yep good advice Darkline is giving there and good luck with your movie too!

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

I'll throw in my advice from the sidelines. Only as someone who has yet to make a feature but has seen some really bad first features.

Wait until you can at least manage to make a feature good enough that most people won't turn it off after 10 minutes, if that.
Especially if it costs you a small fortune to accomplish.

Yes, experience is great, but at what cost?

Adam seems to have done what's right for him. He's well on his way and I think that's awesome. Others might approach things in a different manner.
Some might follow his route.

Some people might not be happy with a straight to DVD release, but for some people it's their first goal. Then bigger budgets, hopefully one day, leading to a feature with full distribution in theaters.

The stories of a movie hitting it big at a festival like Sundance and getting full distribution are pretty rare. Still, that's what other people aim for.
Nothing wrong with that either.

Then there are people like Ruairi Robinson. He's making short films. Nominated for an academy award already and just made another amazing short, BLINKY.
He's well on his way to his first feature, The Animators. Chances are, it will be easy to sit through.

Hasn't made a feature yet but he's very talented at CGI which helps him stand above the rest when it comes to his work.

In the end, find your strength and get busy. Doesn't matter if you fall, just keep going.

EDIT: Just wanted to add, I have yet to see Adam's feature.

 

[Mark Harris]

The stories of a movie hitting it big at a festival like Sundance and getting full distribution are pretty rare. Still, that's what other people aim for.
Nothing wrong with that either.

And as I stated above, what I've learned is that this isn't even necessarily the goal of hitting a big fest like Sundance. You can get a lot of out something besides the usual stuff people think.

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

And as I stated above, what I've learned is that this isn't even necessarily the goal of hitting a big fest like Sundance. You can get a lot of out something besides the usual stuff people think.

Agreed. Just pointing out the variety of goals that people have. Not necessarily talking about you, just in general terms.
You are obviously going a different route. Hope it works out for you.

 

[Matt Sconce]

Yep, different filmakers have different goals and ideas for declaring their film a "success" in their own eyes. I know our goals for Stricken were : Win awards at Fests, Get Distribution so it can be seen, make our money back if not make a large profit, learn alot of things that better us when we tackle our next projects.

 

[Zak Forsman]

And as I stated above, what I've learned is that this isn't even necessarily the goal of hitting a big fest like Sundance. You can get a lot of out something besides the usual stuff people think.

agreed. my picture has not had a lot of public success but has helped me establish relationships with some very infuential heavy hitters that admire it.

 

[taormina]

I'm going to be the contrarian here.

IF and this is a big IF.........If you want to make a paying career out of film making, there are only TWO successful methods of achieving that goal, and one is far behind the other in terms of efficacy.

I want all of you to be honest with yourselves for a moment. Hear me out. I don't care how many fests you've won, or how much critical acclaim you've received.....are you being paid to make films?

This is an important and piercing question because if the answer is NO, then it's a hobby, period, end, full stop. It is not a career (Yet).

All of this talk about preparation, honing, etc.....is this moving you any closer into the orbit of a paying gig? Don't answer that question here, just ask yourself.

I ask these questions because if the ultimate end to your films is NOT making a paying living out of it, then stop reading here.

For the rest of you, I will tell you this....after successfully navigating the turbulent waters of this business to achieve the elusive "I get paid to do this for a living", I reiterate there are only TWO ways to get to where I am. You can believe it or not, I'm just putting this out there.

You can either be;

1. A Commercial Success: Either your feature makes you money, makes someone else money, or makes a distributor money. See: Oren Peli, Paranormal Activity

2. A critical success: You hit the grand slam of a major fest, and get buzz and distribution, leading to another gig. Usually mutually exclusive of #1 since Film fest winners usually don't make money. See: Kathryn Bigelow, Hurt Locker (an enormous money loser, but a critical success).

A rare few have achieved both 1 and 2, but as I said, it's very rare because fest winners usually are commercial duds.


So having said all of that, I'm going to distill it further. What is easier to do:

1. Is it easier to make a low budget feature that uses some aging, burned out, but still marketable actors like Val Kilmer, or Van Damme, or what have you, and make a little movie that sells, and allows you to make another.....

OR

2. Make a film that will win a major film festival and get you the critical success you need to make another movie?

Answer these questions honestly, to yourself. Be honest about what constitutes a major film festival. There are fewer than a dozen of these annually on the whole planet. Be honest to yourself that the device needs to be a FEATURE FILM since nothing else stands a chance at distribution or financial reward.

Yes, there are oscar winning short film directors that are still nowhere.

I want you guys to really ponder this and I challenge you to tell me there aren't but TWO ways to make this into a paying gig.

The way definitely is strait and there are few that find it.

I submit to you that if you make that first little feature a commercial success it will be easier and you will progress faster. If it is a good movie to boot, it's just icing on the cake.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[taormina]

By the way,

Here are the top influential film festivals in the world:

1. Cannes
2. Berlin
3. New York Film Festival
4. Venice Film Festival
5. Sundance Film Festival
6. Tribeca Film Festival
7. Toronto Film Festival

Pretty lofty, if you ask me.

 

[Kholi]

Adam, I agree with you. I wouldn't say that number one hinges on having any names in you feature, I think that [today] it is more important to have something that smells like a larger budget concept, great execution, and worth watching. Monsters didn't have any names in it, it was just very well executed visually (perhaps not as well executed in the narrative sense) and it looked like a larger budget piece.

I think names make it easier, but at the end of the day, if you're only spending twenty to thirty-thousand making a feature worth watching, executing in a way that people can watch it, the names are a luxury you can't afford and one shouldn't wait around. With names, also comes a larger responsibility that the first time feature filmmaker probably doesn't have the assets in line to handle, including real Producers and AD's to buffer the director's interaction with said talent, the SAG work needed to use the talent, accommodations, and probably the amount of money needed to keep the actor.

I understand that you can do cameos, etc, it still boosts your project to SAG status which might be trouble for the no name, little money sector.

It feels discouraging to say that you need a name to sell. It's true that it'll help move the material a bit easier, but if you can't afford one then by no means should it stop you from going after number one.

That said, again, I'm still at a point where I agree with you and I'm not waiting. No one promised me that I'd wake up this morning, so I'm gonna take what time I have to make this a paid for career before the opportunity dwindles.

 

[Ted Spencer]

A clear, convincing POV Adam, and well illustrated (on the one hand) by your own successful and relatively meteoric path.

Regarding "Hurt Locker" though, I don't think it could fairly be called a "money loser", at least at this point (a little less than two years after theatrical release and a little more than one after DVD). It cost $15M to make and has grossed $82M in combined worldwide theatrical and DVD sales:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/HURTL.php

Nonetheless, all of that doesn't disprove your point.

And the Oscars is a pretty big "festival" to win, especially for Best Picture. Tends to help out in the sales department pretty good I hear : )

 

[taormina]

My partner is actually good friends with the guys at Voltage and Nic Chartier. The marketing, oscar campaign, and promo of that film made it a ginormous loss even thought it did $82M in sales. Never underestimate the cost of a successful oscar campaign!

 

[Ted Spencer]

My partner is actually good friends with the guys at Voltage and Nic Chartier. The marketing, oscar campaign, and promo of that film made it a ginormous loss even thought it did $82M in sales. Never underestimate the cost of a successful oscar campaign!

Very interesting. I'll certainly defer to you on this.

Sounds like they spent an almost unfathomable amount in that way...

 

[Shawn Philip Nelson]

Adam, great to have you posting here again!

This $22mil feature of yours, did you write it or did someone else? And are you getting any Director-for-hire offers?

 

[Ted Spencer]

Love your sig, Shawn. Very apropos, especially for this thread : )

 

[taormina]

I wrote it, but I can't talk about that movie at all....:-( sorry guys.

No, I am not getting director for hire offers as I have thus far refused to shoot anyone else's material. Don't know if that's a bad thing for me to have done, we'll see.

 

[Shawn Philip Nelson]

I wrote it, but I can't talk about that movie at all....:-( sorry guys.

No, I am not getting director for hire offers as I have thus far refused to shoot anyone else's material. Don't know if that's a bad thing for me to have done, we'll see.

Makes sense, that was my only question about that film until you can talk more.

I'm curious at what level can you make a sell based on a pitch as opposed to a good polished script in hand? I still remember your advice from 3 years ago "dont make one movie until you're ready to make 3". I wish I could get deals going based off my pitches and outlines :-/

 

[Shawn Philip Nelson]

Thanks!

 

[taormina]

Makes sense, that was my only question about that film until you can talk more.

I'm curious at what level can you make a sell based on a pitch as opposed to a good polished script in hand? I still remember your advice from 3 years ago "dont make one movie until you're ready to make 3". I wish I could get deals going based off my pitches and outlines :-/

You know if I could tell anyone it would be you, buddy.


The deal on my next picture was based on a pitch.

 

[lawriejaffa]

Hilarious and brutal logic there Adam and it is convincing for those withing to pursue that very specific definition of a career. However i know plenty of actors waiting tables and there certainly not hobbyists. Now the other question which is just as apt, is whether if $$$ is the primary and expedient goal then why the hell make movies? And if its to pay the bills (with any sense of immediacy haha) then... again... movie?!?! You could work as a plumber or any tradesmen and make more cash than god knows - 99.9% of indie filmmakers!

If a filmmaker is not producing films that inspires and envigorates his life, dreas, ambitions then there is no point in the entire exercise. So, again, what clearly works for you as a logic that is plain and true to see, is in our complex world of film, not a given universal. Many indies who would read your words jumping to the 'yeaaaaah he's right' might do so more because it sounds like the quickest route to paying there bills in movie land, but again its bs without necessarily understanding the sacrifices required to work in the style and manner that you are now.

That sounds a little critical, i actually think your right, but only in relation to guys lol that 'get it' in the realm of bread money and $$$. It might be why the USA has Hollywood and Europe has good taste hehe.

See in the UK for example its just a different scene relating to film funding, im not saying its really particularly easier, but films can be rewarded schemes in relation to cultural points, tests, and such like (as many USA states do) but they in general seem to promote mroe the sense of arts and culture in cinema. Same BS different day of the week i guess.

Okay ive finished this incoherent ramble now lol