Do you think it's possible to shoot an AMAZING feature for under $10,000?

[pulpfiction007]

Not the heart of my argument at all. I'm saying "belief" has nothing to do with it. I'm saying that in factual, scientific terms a thing can be important even if it's never been experienced. So even if a human being has never experienced social interaction, it is still important. And thus art, if dealing with an important subject matter, regardless if whether or not it's ever been seen, does not lose its importance. What's important to us as a species isn't decided by us, it's in our DNA.

Okay then...let's say you make an "important" painting but NO ONE ever sees it.
If it burns up in flames BEFORE anyone sees it and you have passed away - it's then no longer important.
Why - because it no longer exists and since NO ONE has seen it it cannot therefore live on in any way.
Unless you're saying it lives on in the ashes - which I don't buy at all.
Now - if even just 3 people had seen it....the whole story changes. If 6 people have seen it the story changes even more, and so on and so on. THAT is the "importance" of the audience.

 

[Chris Adler]

To David -- I have come to some closure about all this, though, as I thought of my photo/spouse parallel and took that same rationale to the food in my fridge. If the food inside is important to me (on a genetic level, not because I deem it to be important), then that would mean that the fridge is of equal importance. And if the fridge is of equal importance to the thing inside it, then the paint on the fridge is of equal value because it coats the fridge, etc, etc, etc into infinity.
Good talk, though

This is the silliest tangent I've seen on this thread. Do you think anyone other than you gives a rat's ass about this? Make an effing movie already!

 

[OldCorpse]

This is the silliest tangent I've seen on this thread.

I think as several people have indicated, you guys on this tangent are losing your audience. They're fast-forwading through this tangent. If you want to entertain and educate and uplift your audience, you need to either drop it (because, fact is, it ain't selling), or make it more entertaining. But I guess it's of interest to two people, Brian and David - it's what's called narrow-casting; very narrow-casting.

 

[Kholi]

This is the silliest tangent I've seen on this thread. Do you think anyone other than you gives a rat's ass about this? Make an effing movie already!

Keep it civil, please.

 

[David Jimerson]

This is the silliest tangent I've seen on this thread.

I think as several people have indicated, you guys on this tangent are losing your audience. They're fast-forwading through this tangent. If you want to entertain and educate and uplift your audience, you need to either drop it (because, fact is, it ain't selling), or make it more entertaining. But I guess it's of interest to two people, Brian and David - it's what's called narrow-casting; very narrow-casting.

Well, it appears to have taken care of itself. But I was never worried about its entertainment value -- it was a point worth exploring, so it was explored. QED.

Better that than the 8000th "my DSLR is better than your DSLR" inanity. It's about what motivates the reason for picking up a camera in the first place.

So yeah, I still say, 1000 more posts, please.

 

[keylight]

Spend your time with ink and paper crafting an amazing tale. One that can be shot affordably.

I actually agree AND disagree with this.

First, here's how I disagree:

I would argue that most of us shouldn't spend too much time crafting that amazing tale. People who are Amazing storytellers/writers should, but I suspect (and it's certainly true of me) that most of aren't. Rather, spend your time reading. Everything. Short stories online, in magazines, in quarterly literature publications. Find something someone else has written that you really love, that can work as a movie, and then option it. No, you won't be optioning the latest NYT best seller. But there are a lot of really good writers out there who have written great stuff. And that stuff can usually be optioned for hundreds instead of thousands of dollars.

The discussion in this thread at one point talked about the democratization that the internet has had on film making. Same is true for writers who are now self publishing. So read, read, read..... Consider the time it takes to develop a great story. What's your time worth in dollars? (You may not want to count it as a cost, but it is. hehe) Now consider spending a fraction of that time reading hundreds or thousands of other people's stories. A lot of junk, but some good stuff too.

Compare the chances that the story you wrote will be great vs finding a great one in those thousands you read? Now add in the value you get from the fact that a whole bunch of other people probably also read and liked that great story you found. Specifically I'm thinking about how much easier it might be to get financing if your backers see that people (other than you) like the story. The story has potential market value, and that's paramount for your investors. (The art may be paramount to you, and since it's a great story you get to apply your art while the investors decrease their risk and increase their potential for ROI.)

So optioning something can be a cost (and time) effective approach.
​

And here's how I agree:

Focus on whatever your core competencies are. If that's writing, then fantastic, write away. But keep doing that and don't worry too much about directing, producing, lighting, audio, editing.... Worry about the story. Let others who are already good at film making put it up on the screen. There will be plenty of time for you to direct later on, after you've got a few produced stories under your belt.

If your forte is directing, then don't worry about writing something new and original. Instead, worry about translating that new and original thing someone else wrote and you optioned to the screen.

Film making is a collaborative art. You can of course go it alone, but it is so much more interesting, fun, and profitable to do it with others. Collaborate with a good writer, or if you're a good writer then collaborate with good film makers.

​

Thoughts?

 

[pulpfiction007]

Well, it appears to have taken care of itself. But I was never worried about its entertainment value -- it was a point worth exploring, so it was explored. QED.

Better that than the 8000th "my DSLR is better than your DSLR" inanity. It's about what motivates the reason for picking up a camera in the first place.

So yeah, I still say, 1000 more posts, please.

Agreed...The conversation was born out of the topic at hand, and at the point it took off we were all going in circles with the other aspects.
Anyway back to our regularly sheduled program -

 

[Kholi]

Thoughts?

Posts like this are why this thread keeps on going. Good stuff.

About four years ago my fried hooked me up with a free internet book. I sat down one night and did a chapter, then two, then six. I was HOOKED! it was so up my alley, references, spooky, funny. I was pretty blown away by the time I finished it and immediately hit the writer up about the idea of doing a movie or web series.

At the time, there wasn't an option on it. Another little group of filmmakers were interested but there wasn't any movement.

So, started writing out ideas on how to shoot it. Meanwhile, I passed it to someone with money that might have been able to option it pronto. They read it, loved it, but didn't really move on it. Not fast enough anyway because about a month later I get this link to Ain't it Cool News---

John Dies At The End to be directed helmed by Bunba Ho Tep director.

doh!!!!

To date I still read that book, love it so much. But wish I wouldve been prepared as a filmmaker to get to it before others did. Although I think Paul Giammati is going to kick ass in it.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

(watching and waiting too see what happens next ...............)

Kholi, we were always destined too work together sans O2.

 

[pulpfiction007]

I actually agree AND disagree with this.

First, here's how I disagree:

I would argue that most of us shouldn't spend too much time crafting that amazing tale. People who are Amazing storytellers/writers should, but I suspect (and it's certainly true of me) that most of aren't. Rather, spend your time reading. Everything. Short stories online, in magazines, in quarterly literature publications. Find something someone else has written that you really love, that can work as a movie, and then option it. No, you won't be optioning the latest NYT best seller. But there are a lot of really good writers out there who have written great stuff. And that stuff can usually be optioned for hundreds instead of thousands of dollars.

The discussion in this thread at one point talked about the democratization that the internet has had on film making. Same is true for writers who are now self publishing. So read, read, read..... Consider the time it takes to develop a great story. What's your time worth in dollars? (You may not want to count it as a cost, but it is. hehe) Now consider spending a fraction of that time reading hundreds or thousands of other people's stories. A lot of junk, but some good stuff too.

Compare the chances that the story you wrote will be great vs finding a great one in those thousands you read? Now add in the value you get from the fact that a whole bunch of other people probably also read and liked that great story you found. Specifically I'm thinking about how much easier it might be to get financing if your backers see that people (other than you) like the story. The story has potential market value, and that's paramount for your investors. (The art may be paramount to you, and since it's a great story you get to apply your art while the investors decrease their risk and increase their potential for ROI.)

So optioning something can be a cost (and time) effective approach.
​

And here's how I agree:

Focus on whatever your core competencies are. If that's writing, then fantastic, write away. But keep doing that and don't worry too much about directing, producing, lighting, audio, editing.... Worry about the story. Let others who are already good at film making put it up on the screen. There will be plenty of time for you to direct later on, after you've got a few produced stories under your belt.

If your forte is directing, then don't worry about writing something new and original. Instead, worry about translating that new and original thing someone else wrote and you optioned to the screen.

Film making is a collaborative art. You can of course go it alone, but it is so much more interesting, fun, and profitable to do it with others. Collaborate with a good writer, or if you're a good writer then collaborate with good film makers.

​

Thoughts?

I think you're spot on with most, if not all of this, but I don't think you were really in disagreement with Barry.
As for the writing - I think for a project like this to succeed it almost HAS to be written and conceptualized with the budget in mind.
What I mean is that in order for the team to focus on achieving great quality at a low cost, the elements that require focus should be minimalized. Therefore the story should be written with these things in mind.
Oh hell, I'll just use extreme examples of films
You wouldn't want to write Lawrence of Arabia for instance, but maybe instead something like In The Company of Men (strictly speaking scale wise, not at all subject wise)

 

[keylight]

A work of art is important only if people consider it to be.

Yes and no. Sometimes people (or a society) doesn't realize how important is until years later. Take Alexander Flemming. He discovered penicillin in 1928 by accident. He published his discovery in 1929 but nobody paid much attention to it. It wasn't until 1940 that the world finally realized how important that discovery really was.

Having said that...

So no, a work of art is not important if no one sees it, and it's not important if no one cares.

It COULD be important, but won't be until people realize it is. It's pretty much the whole tree falling in a forest discussion....

 

[Brian_Rice]

This is the silliest tangent I've seen on this thread.

I think as several people have indicated, you guys on this tangent are losing your audience. They're fast-forwading through this tangent. If you want to entertain and educate and uplift your audience, you need to either drop it (because, fact is, it ain't selling), or make it more entertaining. But I guess it's of interest to two people, Brian and David - it's what's called narrow-casting; very narrow-casting.

I had a great time debating the relevance of art. IMO it's certainly as important as anything else we've ever talked about here.

But yeah, I've moved on

 

[Brian_Rice]

Yes and no. Sometimes people (or a society) doesn't realize how important is until years later. Take Alexander Flemming. He discovered penicillin in 1928 by accident. He published his discovery in 1929 but nobody paid much attention to it. It wasn't until 1940 that the world finally realized how important that discovery really was.

Having said that...

It COULD be important, but won't be until people realize it is. It's pretty much the whole tree falling in a forest discussion....

See, I still believe that King's "I have a dream..." speech would have been important whether or not anyone ever heard it or read it. Had he written the speech and then tossed it in the fire, it is something that existed and, for a time, was important even if its creator was the only one to have ever seen it. Other people being influenced by his speech, IMO, is not what deems it important -- it's what he's speaking to in the actual writing that makes it important.

But I realize that the argument regarding whether or not art can be inherently important (unlike some things that are inherently important to the species) isn't one that can be debated to resolution and so has to stay my personal opinion.

 

[jwmemmer]

There's actually a lot of truth in what you say, and the worst part, the hardest part, for many folks to realize is the day that they actually realize ... "no, I'm not all that. I'm not gonna make it. I'm not going to win American Idol. And I'm not going to actually be the next Tarantino.

And yet -- I think that should be the most liberating, most empowering day in their lives. Because finally they can put all the ******** behind them, get off the dead-end path that really wasn't ever going to go anywhere, and now step forward with a clean conscience and find out what it is that they really are good at.

Sounds very similar to this blog post, which I thought was very true and inspirational as well:

“I Am A Nobody Filmmaker”
http://trulyfreefilm.hopeforfilm.com/2011/02/i-am-a-nobody-filmmaker.html

Y'all have watched American Idol for the last 10 years, where the people come out declaring that "those judges don't know anything! Keep your eye on me, I'm gonna be the next big thing, you haven't heard the last of me!" But, really, we had. So what did those folks do? Did they keep after singing, even though we'd seen them and they were awful? If they did, then that's a profound waste of time and energy. Years and years and years, squandered, chasing after something that is never, ever gonna happen.

I find some truth to this. When I left the military after six years and decided to attend business school (instead of film or art school), I did so based on the reality of what you just said - most people just don't make it, and my "real world" experience had compromised my youthful ideology of pursuing a dream. It was clear to me that only a very small percentage of those trying to "make it" actually do in the sense that you are referring. In my mind, there had to be an alternative. I took the safe route, and so far it has paid off very well, while also allowing me to pursue my hobbies.
A short story - during the summer in college, b-school classes were not offered and my school did not have a dedicated film department, so I enrolled in the next best thing - telecom scriptwriting and production classes. One of my professors made an enlightening remark one day in class - that most Phd's are not Phd's because they are the best and brightest - they just happen to be the most perseverant and willing to suffer through the journey itself. This is a great thread, and most people are spelling out and confirming this observation in detail here.

That's not "romantic", that's not "keeping on believing in your dreams", that's just ... dumb.

It's okay to have a hobby. Lots of people jam with their friends on weekends, with no pretensions that they're ever going to become the next Hendrix. That's fine. But the delusion when you really, simply, aren't ever going to make it -- that's where it gets sad.

So don't be that guy. Don't be the American Idol reject who deludes themselves that they're gonna make it.

Instead, be who and what you are. If you've got the skills, the talent, the chops, and the drive, then you'll make it. And if you don't have all that? Quit now and go do something useful and something better with your life, something that suits your talents more. There's no shame in that, instead there's honor in that! Kermit The Frog is one of the most beloved characters of the big and small screens of all times, and it was a guy with a sock puppet (essentially). If Henson had chased his aspirations of being a major filmmaker then he'd probably end up on the bottom of a long, long pile of discarded resumes. So he made some muppets instead, and ended up making his movies too.

This is where I disagree with the way you present your argument. In fact, I find this to be very bad advice. I also found it strangely amusing and somewhat extreme that you would analogize aspiring film makers to American Idol rejects - man, that's just harsh!! You're suggesting that everyone should inherently know what they were meant to be and just do that. This thought process could easily lead to a long drawn out discussion that debates predetermined fate vs free will/choice to almost a religious degree. Hindsight seems clear in a forum post, but reality is much muddier than what you've painted.
If you adjust the subject in terms of being more entrepreneurial spirited, then we probably agree on everything. Here is pretty good summary of the entrepreneur's ability to take rejection and continue on a path:

(Founder Stories) “Every Day, I Try To Get Rejected”
http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/01/founder-stories-rejected/

I would hope that truly entrepreneurial spirited film makers would agree with the title of this thread to a fault (saying yes it's possible) - persevering and pushing the boundaries of digital film making. You know, Ulysses S. Grant was considered a drunken failure - removed from command on many occasions until his 40's, where he ended up taking over the entire Union Army, winning the Civil War, and later became President. Just saying...

 

[pulpfiction007]

In a way having a limited budget can help to more easily find a direction to go and shelf other ideas for later projects.

You could for instance say - I've got 3 characters - No more. They will exist in a limited space. Anything that happens in that space comes from what their motivations are and the conflict that each one faces. Everything else is limitless: The reason they are in the limited space. What that space is (house, warehouse, cave,etc.) The root of their motivations. What kind of people they are (good, bad, apathetic) The reality they exist in, is it like ours or skewed. On and on.....

 

[filmmakerguy]

One thing I've realized is the importance of picking a genre or area that you want to work in specifically because you will be defined by your movie as a filmmaker of those types of films. So you really do have to pick an area you are strong in/want to build a career on. At least for the first few pictures afterwards. I think if you want to be an action director, you have to do an action film. Even if you do it badly, you'd have at least cut your teeth on what you really want to do and would be closer to your dream.

 

[jwmemmer]

One thing I've realized is the importance of picking a genre or area that you want to work in specifically because you will be defined by your movie as a filmmaker of those types of films. So you really do have to pick an area you are strong in/want to build a career on. At least for the first few pictures afterwards. I think if you want to be an action director, you have to do an action film. Even if you do it badly, you'd have at least cut your teeth on what you really want to do and would be closer to your dream.

I was once an Electrical Maintenance Supervisor in a crazy medieval foundry. The previous supervisor in my new role gave me this advice: If you ever find yourself in a situation where you're not exactly sure what to do - at least try something. It will most likely lead you down a path where you've eliminated some options and opened the door to others. I found that if you at least pick something you feel you are good at doing, at a minimum it builds confidence within as well with others around you, and often leads to success in other areas as well.

 

[pulpfiction007]

One thing I've realized is the importance of picking a genre or area that you want to work in specifically because you will be defined by your movie as a filmmaker of those types of films. So you really do have to pick an area you are strong in/want to build a career on. At least for the first few pictures afterwards. I think if you want to be an action director, you have to do an action film. Even if you do it badly, you'd have at least cut your teeth on what you really want to do and would be closer to your dream.

That's true, but to make an amazing action film for $10,000 would be VERY difficult, considering you're competing with films with highly paid stuntmen/explosives artists/helicopter shots/crane shots/etc. etc.
I think styles should be able to transcend genre. Speaking about Tarantino, since I saw him on your other thread, his style permeates everything he does. Same with Spielberg. Same wtih Scorcese. Same with the Coens. Same with Wes Anderson

 

[jwmemmer]

That's true, but to make an amazing action film for $10,000 would be VERY difficult, considering you're competing with films with highly paid stuntmen/explosives artists/helicopter shots/crane shots/etc. etc.
I think styles should be able to transcend genre. Speaking about Tarantino, since I saw him on your other thread, his style permeates everything he does. Same with Spielberg. Same wtih Scorcese. Same with the Coens. Same with Wes Anderson

Again, I think that depends on your definition of amazing. You're presenting a perspective of a what I would consider a traditionalist or purists in comparing current films to Spielberg and Scorcese. The comparison is almost generational to a fault. Have you considered that the overall film audience, their attention span, and their definition of amazing is changing more rapidly than ever before?

 

[pulpfiction007]

In a way having a limited budget can help to more easily find a direction to go and shelf other ideas for later projects.

You could for instance say - I've got 3 characters - No more. They will exist in a limited space. Anything that happens in that space comes from what their motivations are and the conflict that each one faces. Everything else is limitless: The reason they are in the limited space. What that space is (house, warehouse, cave,etc.) The root of their motivations. What kind of people they are (good, bad, apathetic) The reality they exist in, is it like ours or skewed. On and on.....

Sorry...quoting myself to add to this thought - You all realize that if this thread were edited down, there would probably be a script in there...hailed as a masterpiece! A director, a producer and a writer go into a conference room for a meeting to discuss some issues with a project - Without the others knowledge the producer has told his assistant to lock the door from the outside until a specified time known only to himself and the assistant.
His motive is to get an agreement from the writer and the director before the time is up.....talk about tension, drama, etc.