Director Katherine Brooks is offering spend a day on set shadowing her...

[Zak Forsman]

Elmer, I think the most essential thing being overlooked is who is going to watch it and how will they discover it? Thriving off your artistic endeavors doesn't just "happen". No one wakes up and says "Today, I want to see a black and white comedy about two douchebags running a minimart in new jersey." Someone has to tell them about it and they have to be sold on the experience of watching it. This does not mean selling out in any way. This means accepting that being an artist will not sustain a career on its own. Only being an artist-entrepreneur will. Make your most personal, challenging, innovative work. But also understand you've only done half the work. Now you have to carve a path for people to learn about it, and give them a compelling reason to buy, rent, stream or download it. Know your audience intimately. Interact with them if you have the means. Otherwise, as i said above, your very personal expression is doomed to obscurity.

Taking the analogy of the fallen tree: If my film screens to an empty theater, does it even exist?

 

[ChaseBecraft]

Elmer, I think the most essential thing being overlooked is who is going to watch it and how will they discover it? Thriving off your artistic endeavors doesn't just "happen". No one wakes up and says "Today, I want to see a black and white comedy about two douchebags running a minimart in new jersey." Someone has to tell them about it and they have to be sold on the experience of watching it. This does not mean selling out in any way. This means accepting that being an artist will not sustain a career on its own. Only being an artist-entrepreneur will. Make your most personal, challenging, innovative work. But also understand you've only done half the work. Now you have to carve a path for people to learn about it, and give them a compelling reason to buy, rent, stream or download it. Know your audience intimately. Interact with them if you have the means. Otherwise, as i said above, your very personal expression is doomed to obscurity.

Taking the analogy of the fallen tree: If my film screens to an empty theater, does it even exist?

Marketing. It IS the necessary evil. Make something that people are going to like, that is easily presented to an audience in a recognizable and interesting way. That doesn't mean it has to come from the Hollywood cookie cutter though. No one makes art for solely themselves, they want it to be seen and appreciated just as much as the next person.

People need to get out of their box and not be afraid to fail because "that's how the big dogs do it so it must be the only way". There's always a different approach, a different method, a different way. The audience appreciates the unique, as long as it's enjoyable.

 

[filmman]

There are differences in methodology; artists work differently...

I identify with Nathyn as a filmmaker more than with any other on this forum.

I've been making movies for 40 years. If "Hollywood" gives me an assignment to direct a movie, I will accept it and make the movie for whatever budget is agreed upon by the "producers".

But I don't expect "Hollywood" to ask me to direct. Twenty-five years ago I though it might happen, but now I don't believe that it will. Do I know how to make a "Hollywood" movie? Yes, I can. I know most people will not believe me; but I don't feel bad.

I don't feel bad, because Billy Wilder wasn't able to get any assignments from "Hollywood" when the normal budgets in "Hollywood" went up to $30,000. He was now in his 60s and when he went into studios, he was met by the geniuses who ran the studios now. Billy Wilder was told by the geniuses of "Hollywood" that he had never directed a movie over $3 million and that he didn't know how the new movies were directed. He said, "But my movies have made money!" He was rejected repeatedly and could never get the financing to do another movie.

David Lean spent the last ten years of his life raising money for NOSTROMO. The budget was $15 million. "Hollywood" didn't finance it. By the time he had the budget in place, he was dead -- two weeks before production was to begin in South America.

Same thing with Orson Wells and others, Frank Capra, Vince Sherman, John Ford -- the list goes on and on.

These were all proven directors. They had made Hollywood into "Hollywood."

So someone said, "UNION!" Yes, there are many unions -- every position in the movie business has its union. If you are one in ten thousand filmmakers who will get a chance to get your film "picked up" by "Hollywood", you won't have to worry about the unions, because the studio (distributor) will pay all the unions with one check (you don't even hear about it). So that takes care of the "UNIONS". Then they will do the same for SAG, so the actors get their residuals (and that's fair). This is a trillion dollar business we're talking about.

What Nate and I are talking is not "Hollywood" movies. Yes, we all love to be given a million dollar salary to direct a "Hollywood" movie; but if you're already tired of waiting, and if you're not union and if you don't have the millions of dollars to pay for everything from the stars to the honey-wagon expenses LOL then shoot with a digital camera in your hands and do everything by yourself (if you know how) and work with talented actors who have entered into the "Hollywood" lottery on Vine & Hollywood Blvd. -- those who are not union but who need a few scenes on their "reel".

We're not living in the same world. This website doesn't distinguish between "Hollywood" and "Indie". There is no such thing as a "Hollywood Indie" movie.

Because "Hollywood" eats "Indies" for breakfast everyday.LOL

 

[Barry_Green]

I say STOP dividing the jobs and get more talented people that really want to MAKE MOVIES instead of just being int he hollywood game.

Is there anyone stopping you?

People, we are entering a wonderful and new untapped age. No longer do you need truckloads of money and 500 people cogs to make a movie. There's things like After Effects, electronic video cameras that produce top notch images (video dslrs etc), internet marketing, pro audio suites that don't cost your grandma's wedding ring. There is no longer one way to make a movie and we have a lot of advantages over the big hollywood studios.

Why are we only "entering" this age now? Didn't Rodriguez do this 15 years ago with El Mariachi?

Point being, there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from making their film on today's equipment. There's nothing new here. Sure, the price point might be marginally lower (a new Rodriguez could probably make El Mariachi for $500 instead of $7000) but really -- other than that, what's changed?

Chances. We can take chances my friends. Play a different game and see how things unfold. You don't have some old rich guy breathing down your neck telling you "that isn't marketable". You can truly take chances and bring a beautiful creative light to this dullness that is hollywood movies. I see all these "Indy" films and they're all the same, you guys aren't taking chances, you're following Hollywood structure. People are bored! Make something new, it's been done again and again. As long as your story is interesting and the pace is on que people will enjoy and watch your movie. Don't be afraid to be different and stop listening and looking at what hollywood does.

With this I 100% AGREE. People trying to make hollywood looking movies on $5,000 budgets are going about it absolutely wrong. Nobody wants that. Look at every indie breakout success story that gets constantly dragged up here -- Rodriguez, Coen Brothers, Tarantino, Christopher Nolan's "Following" and "Memento", Run Lola Run, Paranormal Activity, Blair Witch... which of them tried to 'out-hollywood' Hollywood? Which of them went for conventional narrative? Not a single one of them.

Do something different (and good) if you want to have a chance.

You think people care about your romantic comedy that hollywood has perfected a billion times. I say stop being predictable, stop following criteria, stop being marketable, stop writing about romantic comedies and really SURPRISE people! CHANGE THIS GAME. People want to see new ideas! Why compete with hollywood when you can use the right side of your brain?????

Agreed.

Be inspirational and creative and your audience will be there. Make something you're really proud of instead of just a money basket.

Well, agreed, except for one thing -- the folks who try to do what hollywood's doing, don't make a money basket. They just make debt for themselves.

 

[Barry_Green]

I wanna say what I wanna say, how I wanna say it.

Again -- is there someone stopping you?

 

[Barry_Green]

Because "Hollywood" eats "Indies" for breakfast everyday.LOL

See, this is what I simply don't understand about the "indie" mindset. You're asserting that somehow Hollywood is "keeping you out" or "eating you for breakfast."

Why? Don't you know that "hollywood" would love nothing more than for you to succeed? Hollywood LOVES the Blair Witch Project (they bought it from Haxan for $12 million, fer cryin' out loud). They LOVE "Paranormal Activity." They love it when you spend your hard-earned efforts to produce "Saving Grace" or "Napoleon Dynamite", so that if you actually do something an audience wants to see, they'll gladly buy it from you and market it effectively worldwide.

Hollywood isn't the "enemy" -- they aren't trying to "keep you down". They would desperately love to see you succeed, so that they can make a truckload of money off you.

Far and away the riskiest part of making a film is the development and production part. If you produce something worth buying, you've just removed all that risk.

Just make something an audience would pay to see.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Marketing. It IS the necessary evil. Make something that people are going to like, that is easily presented to an audience in a recognizable and interesting way. That doesn't mean it has to come from the Hollywood cookie cutter though. No one makes art for solely themselves, they want it to be seen and appreciated just as much as the next person.

People need to get out of their box and not be afraid to fail because "that's how the big dogs do it so it must be the only way". There's always a different approach, a different method, a different way. The audience appreciates the unique, as long as it's enjoyable.

I'd suggest that the truly innovative don't dismiss marketing as evil. they embrace innovative outreach to their audience and open paths to allow for the discovery of their work. they use different forms of transmedia like online comics and behind the scenes content to not only expand the universe of their film but also to create platforms for potential audience members to land on and point them in the direction of the full feature-length narrative. this so-called marketing is a creative endeavor too, not a business interest to be "tolerated".

HOWEVER, many of the filmmakers who are considered successful at what you describe -- none of them make their living solely as filmmakers. That's the reality. if one is comfortable with that, great... go for it. I'm not.

As with all things, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. I often look toward Steven Soderbergh for inspiration as someone who moves back and forth between films with broad well-executed appeal and works that challenge, experiment and innovate for a much smaller niche audience. "one for them, one for me" must be his mantra. And it allows him to sustain a fruitful, prolific career as a filmmaker who has garnered multiplex appeal and arthouse praise.

 

[lambert]

"I often look toward Steven Soderbergh for inspiration as someone who moves back and forth between films with broad appeal and works that challenge, experiment and innovate for a much smaller niche audience."
Rick Linklater is another who moves easily between decently budgeted fair to tiny budgets.

 

[Nathyn]

I'd suggest that the truly innovative don't dismiss marketing as evil. they embrace innovative outreach to their audience and open paths to allow for the discovery of their work.

I don't really think anyone sees marketing as evil. It's my favorite part. I get to use ALL of my talents, graphic design, salesmanship and of course general creativity. I think the price point is what shocked many of us. For $20,000 I could buy months of commercials on cable in specific regions and advertise like the big boys. I could add newspapers and showings at indy theaters to that list. I'd use my $20k for actual marketing, not creating something that is used to market.

-Nate

 

[ChaseBecraft]

I'd suggest that the truly innovative don't dismiss marketing as evil. they embrace innovative outreach to their audience and open paths to allow for the discovery of their work. they use different forms of transmedia like online comics and behind the scenes content to not only expand the universe of their film but also to create platforms for potential audience members to land on and point them in the direction of the full feature-length narrative. this so-called marketing is a creative endeavor too, not a business interest to be "tolerated".

HOWEVER, many of the filmmakers who are considered successful at what you describe -- none of them make their living solely as filmmakers. That's the reality. if one is comfortable with that, great... go for it. I'm not.

As with all things, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. I often look toward Steven Soderbergh for inspiration as someone who moves back and forth between films with broad well-executed appeal and works that challenge, experiment and innovate for a much smaller niche audience. "one for them, one for me" must be his mantra. And it allows him to sustain a fruitful, prolific career as a filmmaker who has garnered multiplex appeal and arthouse praise.

I'm not saying make something that can't be sold.

Make another one of a kind, a gem among all the trash. If you make another "the notebook" or "indiana jones" it's going to be lost among all the other films cause the world thrives on the fresh. They want the new, the unique, the never before seen. Again, as long as it's an interesting story, the pace is decent, the characters are likable and there is conflict I think you can make a story about anything. So why do I keep watching the same movie over and over again?

Example. Love. Love is so deep and wonderful. There's a story of love that everyone in the world could tell, each different from the last. But I see the same situations, the same boring outcome time after time. Guy likes girl. Girl doesnt really like guy. Guy pursues girl. Guy gets heart broken. Guy overcomes fears and gets girl. etc etc. There's only a handful of love stories out there being displayed in movies, its only scratching the surface.

I'm actually in the business of internet marketing so I could probably teach you a few things as you could probably teach me a few things as well. So I don't do things that arent going to sell, it's about testing and analysis as well as it is about creativity and the like.

 

[Zblock]

I'm sorry, but what sort of sets have you been on Chase?

When you have large crews it's not like people stand around doing nothing, like you imply. Do you think when large companies grow larger and hire more people these people just stand around? No, they're there to make sure things get done faster and more efficiently by dividing up the jobs, or if the jobs get bigger they're there to help carry the weight.

That's not exactly true. On almost every Union set there are almost half the people sitting around not working. Of course their time comes but to be honesty and candid... There IS a LOT of wasted money on a quote, un-quote MOVIE SET.

This isn't even an arguable topic. The term WASTE is about the only thing worth arguing about.

 

[Zblock]

See, this is what I simply don't understand about the "indie" mindset. You're asserting that somehow Hollywood is "keeping you out" or "eating you for breakfast."

Why? Don't you know that "hollywood" would love nothing more than for you to succeed? Hollywood LOVES the Blair Witch Project (they bought it from Haxan for $12 million, fer cryin' out loud). They LOVE "Paranormal Activity." They love it when you spend your hard-earned efforts to produce "Saving Grace" or "Napoleon Dynamite", so that if you actually do something an audience wants to see, they'll gladly buy it from you and market it effectively worldwide.

Hollywood isn't the "enemy" -- they aren't trying to "keep you down". They would desperately love to see you succeed, so that they can make a truckload of money off you.

Far and away the riskiest part of making a film is the development and production part. If you produce something worth buying, you've just removed all that risk.

Just make something an audience would pay to see.

Well you proved your point with examples but these are clearly exceptions to the rule. I honestly believe that Hollywood is a VERY tight knit group. Agents work to get their A clients in on the money and if you're not an A client you take a back seat.

Studio's like their main players too. Just watch Entourage. Or read about Clint Eastwood.

I think especially with dwindling movie sales, hollywood absolutely would love to lock it's doors to everyone except the big sellers. Because another good movie by some No Name (US) isn't on their radar and the machine doesn't run as smoothly when it's going over bumps.

You can absolutely get entrance to the party but sometimes you have to knock two or three times even though the host heard you the first time.

 

[filmman]

Barry Green wrote: [Hollywood] loves it when you spend your hard-earned efforts to produce "Saving Grace" or "Napoleon Dynamite", so that if you actually do something an audience wants to see, they'll gladly buy it from you and market it effectively worldwide.

Yes, but Barry, I don't want them to do that anymore. I would have been glad to be "picked up" thirty years ago; but what is Hollywood going to do for me now?

See, many people on this user group would love to be "picked up" (as in negative pick-up), but as soon as they are they're no longer "indies" -- by (my) definition.

As an indie I can make my own movies and go out there and sell them however way I can. If I have a hit, I will make a lot of money; if not, so be it -- whatever I make it's good enough.

However, I'm willing to work for other filmmakers as DP or even as editor (although as an editor I still prefer working with 35mm as I know this work flow better than FCP -- I can edit digital okay, but I don't know the other programs in the FCP Studio very well).

I prefer working on indie movies. I can save filmmakers thousands of dollars if they want to shoot 35mm, for example. I can teach them a lot about filmmaking also. I have a book on filmmaking too: Filmmaking A to Z (it's on Amazon.)

So it's not that I feel I'm "kept out." I don't want to be tied down to the Hollywood machinery. At this late date in my career as a filmmaker I want to stay an indie, because I have more potential to do the kind of movies that fulfill me.

I have nothing against young filmmaker trying to break into the Hollywood system; but I just like to clarify some of the misconceptions that young filmmakers have -- without sounding negative; because just because it didn't work for me, it doesn't mean it won't work for them. But I'd be a liar if I said that the chances are better than one filmmaker in ten thousand has a chance -- that's just my opinion though; based on my own experience.

My favorite Chinese proverb regarding this subject is: experience is a golden comb that men get from nature when they are bald.

 

[Zak Forsman]

I'm not saying make something that can't be sold.

Make another one of a kind, a gem among all the trash. If you make another "the notebook" or "indiana jones" it's going to be lost among all the other films cause the world thrives on the fresh. They want the new, the unique, the never before seen. Again, as long as it's an interesting story, the pace is decent, the characters are likable and there is conflict I think you can make a story about anything. So why do I keep watching the same movie over and over again?

Example. Love. Love is so deep and wonderful. There's a story of love that everyone in the world could tell, each different from the last. But I see the same situations, the same boring outcome time after time. Guy likes girl. Girl doesnt really like guy. Guy pursues girl. Guy gets heart broken. Guy overcomes fears and gets girl. etc etc. There's only a handful of love stories out there being displayed in movies, its only scratching the surface.

I'm actually in the business of internet marketing so I could probably teach you a few things as you could probably teach me a few things as well. So I don't do things that arent going to sell, it's about testing and analysis as well as it is about creativity and the like.

I admire your call to make more innovative works. I'm also tired of seeing indies chase Hollywood. But I'm a filmmaker. My tastes reside in a niche. Wouldn't you agree most people are creatures of habit? That they only occasionally go out in search of new foods, new experiences? How often do you eat the same meals for dinner? How often do you mix it up? Generally, I think people like things to feel familiar for the most part. This is why genre pictures do so well -- they have a surface layer of recognizable "hooks" that can be recognized instantly as sexy, violent, lewd, mysterious, or exciting and very much like something else they were a fan of before. And this is why having name actors works so well. People like coming back to them. Ten years ago I worked in the market research of motion picture trailers. Do you know why they generally give away so many story elements? Because the testing shows they are more effective at selling tickets when the viewer has a fuller understanding of the experience they are being promised.

I agree truly innovative works are what we should strive for. but do it with an understanding of the challenges that presents in attracting an audience. Especially when it comes to the realities of foreign sales. The simple truth there is that the star power of your cast drives foreign sales. this is the single most important criteria for the gatekeepers, the int'l buyers who make their deals based on seeing a trailer and/or key art from the poster. For me, a name cast has become essential for all future films we produce. Is that a compromise? I don't think so. Many name actors are the best in the world. And we want to work with the best, right? Again, that's only if you want to do the sort of numbers that will feed you and your family until you make your next picture.

 

[Nathyn]

I admire your call to make more innovative works. I'm also tired of seeing indies chase Hollywood. But I'm a filmmaker. My tastes reside in a niche. Wouldn't you agree most people are creatures of habit? That they only occasionally go out in search of new foods, new experiences? How often do you eat the same meals for dinner? How often do you mix it up? Generally, I think people like things to feel familiar for the most part. This is why genre pictures do so well -- they have a surface layer of recognizable "hooks" that can be recognized instantly as sexy, violent, lewd, mysterious, or exciting and very much like something else they were a fan of before. And this is why having name actors works so well. People like coming back to them.

All of this is true as I too am a genre guy, but you can be innovative in a genre as well. Most of the lowbudget indies that became big were also innovative.

-Nate

 

[dalethompson]

After reading the last three pages of responses to this thread, I have to agree with Barry and Zak.

Nothing is stopping us on this site from making great film, even if it's not Hollywood accepted or gets a stamp of approval from anyone else. I don't know about anyone else on here but I never got into film to be rich, famous or for the money. I did it to entertain and, to a certain point, it's good therapy to write and direct something creative.

We should just go out, shoot something and then figure out how to get it out to mass audiences... that's my job right now. I made a post to this thread about doing something on the cheap (website and shooting B rolls) because that's all I can really do right now. I'd love to have a dedicated crew with me and a website designed by a firm and even an assistant to do updates for me but I just don't have the financial means for it. I think most of us are in that situation. I accept it for now and it actually forces me to learn how to do these things, so it's not so bad.

Hollywood is an easy target for indie filmmakers. We look at people in film who've made craploads of $$$ and we suddenly resent them for either selling out or forgetting their humble roots. Do I look at Robert Rodriquez differently now that he's got a huge house, is dating a Hollywood starlet and has directed big budget films? Not at all, he progressed in his craft and the riches followed, good for him. I also don't resent unions, Hollywood or someone spending a lot of money... we'd probably do the same if given the chance.

Back to the original post... I don't know if we are being too hard on Ms. Brooks but I know there's probably lots of skepticism right now because of lot of smaller filmmakers (much like myself) who pound the pavement (literally and figuratively) for funding may find it a little presumptuous that Ms. Brooks friend (not herself) posted this on here. I'm all for different avenues of funding but I think had she posted it herself and perhaps explained it too, you wouldn't see anything written about it. I think it does have signs of being shady, no offense, she could be totally legit and honest about it but that's not how it's really coming out (at least without her explaining it). If Ms. Brooks came on this thread and gave her side of things, I think we'd all accept it.

I don't think we're judging her, it's more like we are questioning in the way this was carried out... perception is reality.

 

[Barry_Green]

I think especially with dwindling movie sales, hollywood absolutely would love to lock it's doors to everyone except the big sellers.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

Hollywood is not going to go lavishing a hundred million dollars on a newbie with no track record, to make a film. That's true. Those doors are slammed shut (but of course they will fly open the second you show them you can make more money for them than you cost).

What I'm saying is -- if you will make the film yourself, Hollywood would *love* to buy it from you. Hollywood hates the production side of the business. That's where all the risk is. That's where the massive cost overruns come from. That's where directors and actors go on coke binges and actors get their heads chopped off by helicopters and actors go on strike and ... a million bad things happen. And, yes, it costs a lot.

How much more would they love it if you'd come to them with a completely risk-free, already done film, that audiences love? They would buy that from you ALL DAY LONG.

Harvey Weinstein (I think) said it when they bought "Saving Grace" at Sundance for $4 million. He said "If we'd have made this picture, it'd cost us at least $12 million. I can buy it outright for $4 million".

I don't know what the budget was on that film; if the filmmakers spent a million to make it, and sold it for 4 million, that's a huge profit already for them. Who wouldn't want to make million-dollar movies and sell them for 4 million? I'd do that all day long, and I bet every one of us here would.

Haxan's a great example -- they made BWP for $60,000 (to $350,000 depending on who you ask). Sold it for a million dollars cash, plus a piece of the box office. They ended up netting something like $12 million for it. The Studio made over $200 million.

You see how that works? They made $188 million off of those indies. Why would they possibly say "no"? The doors are WIDE OPEN. All you have to do is make something that audiences will pay to see. And then effectively market your film to the distributors and find one who knows how to sell your film.

And don't whine when they make $188 million and you make $12 million because -- a) you couldn't make $188 million no matter what you did, only they could do it, and b) seriously? You turned $60k into $12 million, what's there to complain about?

Look, it really isn't that difficult if you strip it down to what counts:

Make something people want to see, instead of making something that you want people to see.

 

[Barry_Green]

Yes, but Barry, I don't want them to do that anymore. I would have been glad to be "picked up" thirty years ago; but what is Hollywood going to do for me now?

Sell $200 million worth of tickets?

As an indie I can make my own movies and go out there and sell them however way I can. If I have a hit, I will make a lot of money; if not, so be it -- whatever I make it's good enough.

Then we're back to the same thing -- nobody's stopping you. Go right ahead.

So it's not that I feel I'm "kept out."

Good -- because that "the doors are locked" mentality just doesn't add up. The doors are wide open to those who can deliver an audience. They're only locked to those who can't.

I don't want to be tied down to the Hollywood machinery. At this late date in my career as a filmmaker I want to stay an indie, because I have more potential to do the kind of movies that fulfill me.

Which is fine -- that's a choice, and a perfectly valid one.

But I don't get the notion that somehow going broke and even going into massive debt spending every penny you have to work twenty times harder than anyone else to make a product that rarely ever holds a candle to the average hollywood film, which will go on to sell maybe a hundred copies at $5 or $10 apiece, is somehow "smarter" than the guys who make a milion bucks in salary to direct a film with a thirty million dollar budget that's going to connect with audiences and get worldwide distribution and gross two hundred million dollars.

I think the guys who work reasonable schedules and make $300 to $10,000 per day doing what they love, are not "idiots." I think they're the ones who have it figured out.

My favorite Chinese proverb regarding this subject is: experience is a golden comb that men get from nature when they are bald.

I know that one all too well, that's the comb I use on my bald head. If we could combine that experience with the passion and energy of the 20-year-olds... man, we could get something accomplished!

 

[Barry_Green]

Most of the lowbudget indies that became big were also innovative.

I would dare say that all of them were. I gave a list before, but I forgot "Primer" and "Pi"...

I can't think of a no/low-budget film that has achieved any level of recognition or success, that wasn't innovative or very different in some way or other.

 

[Barry_Green]

For me, a name cast has become essential for all future films we produce. Is that a compromise? I don't think so. Many name actors are the best in the world. And we want to work with the best, right? Again, that's only if you want to do the sort of numbers that will feed you and your family until you make your next picture.

Absolutely. That's what I'm talking about.