Director's Responsibility with Budgets?

shutterspeedfilms

shutterspeedfilms

Well-known member
How much responsibility should a director have when it comes to a film's budget?

For example, if he/she sees the budget getting out of hand, does the director bear a responsibility to reel things in for the sake of investors and present more pragmatic numbers?
 
I'd have thought it was the producer's overall responsibility, but the director certainly has a responsibility to communicate with the producer - or warn the world if the producer has gone insane :) (but don't expect thanks from the director if you do so...)
 
When the money runs out, filming stops. Period. It would be pretty irresponsible for the director to see a situation that is going to result in the failure of the film, and not at least bring it to the attention of the producer (who should be on top of it already anyway).
 
If you go to a council meeting at the DGA, all you'll hear about is budget & schedule. As a director it is your responsibility to sign off on the cost reports weekly. Also, you massage the budget as you go, you shoot one scene fast so you can save money to get the crane you want for another shot, or the opposite, strike the crane shot so you can afford the name actor for another day, cancel the exterior big location make it smaller so you can take more time to shoot the argument scene correctly once you see the actor is having a hard time getting off book.
the budget is a living thing, and as director it is your job to bring the show in on or under budget looking like a million bucks.
 
seandelgado said:
....the budget is a living thing....
Click to expand...

...that will bite deep into your behind if you have no concept how to work with it as a director.

A director needs to understand what is there money-wise for what and why.... and what he may trade or exchange with production to make the (his/her) film even better than expected.

Slightly stupid directors are the ones that get ripped by bad producers.... but very stupid directors are the ones who destroy a good producer (and their own film) and this mostly because they don't have at least a glimpse of what budget is and how it is structured and/or do not feel some responsibility for it.

Proof: http://www.amazon.com/Final-Cut-Mak...3744/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304679310&sr=8-1
 
In this case, I'm talking about executive producers in charge of bringing investors to the table during development. Is it irresponsible for a director not to chime in if he/she feels the producers are elevating the budget to such a degree as to endanger recoupment? Or should the director just blissfully spend any and all monies afforded to him/her?
 
It's the Producer's responsibility to see the production comes in on time and on budget. I've self-funded my Directing adventures, so I was always aware of the costs. It helps to have a good script super and AD to keep you on time and on schedule during production. The crew should be aware of the expectations directed at them as well. That includes the Director.
 
WhiteMonkey said:
It's the Producer's responsibility to see the production comes in on time and on budget. I've self-funded my Directing adventures, so I was always aware of the costs. It helps to have a good script super and AD to keep you on time and on schedule during production. The crew should be aware of the expectations directed at them as well. That includes the Director.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm speaking more about the development stage. Is it shortsighted for a director to ultimately create a film that bombs financially, albeit a quality production? Or should the directly tackfully suggest a more reasonable budget to insure some sort of financial success (however small) for investors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top