editors read this!!!

jenningsp

jenningsp

Well-known member
a friend of mine is going to be making a feature film early next year.
he has managed to get some funding and wants to pay everyone.
i would be the editor.

i have a few questions...

in the past we've looked over all the footage together. he's given me a rough idea of what shots to use and what not too. then i'd put one scene together, show him, he'd have some ideas, i change it and show him the improved scene... this would repeat until he was happy.... next scene. pretty much the same deal with all the other aspects... like music and what not...
when there is a final cut of a scene or the entire movie. we would watch it and i'd say... we don't need this line of dialogue or scene... it would look better with out....we should move this scene later in the story... i'd argue my point to him and sometimes get approval... sometimes not. either way the director has final say on everything.

as the editor should i have final say because he's blinded by the fact it's his baby?

is this how an editor should operate? or should i just get all the footage leave for a few weeks then come back with a finished film?????

and how much and how should i charge?
by the hour?
rates?
by the day?
fixed sum for final product?

thanks.
 
The only things that I'm comfortable commenting on is that you do not have the final say on the film and edits as the director usually is the captain of the ship. That's unless the producers or studios contracted otherwise.

As for the rates and what not, I'm not sure. I would total up how many hrs you think it will take you to edit then find a rate that is comfortable for you.
 
I have to agree with coffee, you don't have the final say. You can make suggestions, but it's his flick, his decision. If it comes out like crap, all you can do is say, I did my best and made my suggestions.
 
it's like a cinematographer.... the director gives them the gist and leaves them alone...(simplifying it a little)
they have their profession, they have full artistic license within the realm of cinematography. they don't ask the director if it's ok to film from this angle....

shouldn't editors be the same?

as directors you want the most control possible, but film is a collaborative and compromising medium.

shouldn't i have full artistic license in my field?
shouldn't i be free to make what i think is the best film? not what the director thinks....
isn't that my role as the editor?

isn't what i have been doing a "directors cut" version of films?
 
jenningsp said:
it's like a cinematographer.... the director gives them the gist and leaves them alone...(simplifying it a little)
they have their profession, they have full artistic license within the realm of cinematography. they don't ask the director if it's ok to film from this angle....

shouldn't editors be the same?

as directors you want the most control possible, but film is a collaborative and compromising medium.

shouldn't i have full artistic license in my field?
shouldn't i be free to make what i think is the best film? not what the director thinks....
isn't that my role as the editor?

isn't what i have been doing a "directors cut" version of films?
Click to expand...



No way man you're just the editor, not the producer, not the studio, not the director.

Yes, editing is a creative and important role in filmmaking (imo) but you're not in control of the film's direction. Your role is to be on the same page as the director, not have the director on your page.

Oh also, as far as the DP goes, yes they are in charge of the overall look of a film but during any given scene the director can make the DP change just about anything. Maybe the mood from the lighting isn't right or maybe the director just doesn't approve of the look at all. If he says no go then it's no go.

Anyone care to input on that?
 
well, i think your work-flow is a bit off... even though director might say he likes this or that take -- over all bad take can have some superb moments so it's up to your creativity as an editor to find those anf present to the director. another issue... bang out a rough cut asap and don't dwell on recuting unless you already have a rough cut.

and no you don't get to have a final say. if you think the directo is stuborn and makes just plain dumb mistakes quite or don't even take on the project.

i don't know the budget of the film or wheter you are somehow affiliated wit any post house or simply editing out of your home -- that can have a huge difference on your sallary.
 
The director has final say generally and the producer has ultimate final say generally because they have the green. If the movie ends up being crap it's most of the time blamed on the director.
 
Heres my take on teh situation...

Have him watch the dailies himself, or just have a shot log with which takes he likes right on set, that way here you have a place to start.

As for the way I do it....I get a footage log of what they shot, and what was good/bad. I watch the dailies alone, and compile a rough cut. I then show the director. He gives me input and we fine tune it from there. Prior to that, before we start the shoot he gives me a general idea of what we are shooting for in terms of feeling, look etc.

As for rates- Id say shoot low. If this is your friend, and he is finding funding, figure out what size budget your looking at. If your talking 10K price accordingly, or 2 million.
Id say that your beginning at editing, and you havent worked much. Id think 1000 for the project should be your top end. Variables though need to be considered, if your in NYC or in the midwest..... I get up to 150/hour depending on project, although Ive been editing for 10 years, but these arent my friends, they are major corporations.

As for the important question---unfortuantly, your opinion means nothing in the big picture. You can argue all you want, your name/money/etc arent in the mix, so it simply means very little.
Film is a collective sport, but the director is the coach, and they make the decisions. You are there to cut together the takes to the content of the director and producers. To make it in this business you must learn and understand the chain of command. Producers say something, and its like holy grail, even if its a horrible idea, you do it....simply because they are your boss. After that, its the directors choice.....editors simply arent powerful enough to argue across a point and win. If you do start to argue a point, youll probably find it hard to work after.

The way I operate with clients is simply to try to appease their needs. I rough cut it to what I like- in regards to their vision. If they want it dramatic, even though I find it comedic whatever, doesnt matter to me.....they want it darker, I make it dark. If you want to make the decisions, switch careers and go into directing. After a few projects together youll start to get the feel of the director and know what they are looking for.

I guess simply stated, the relationship between director/editor should be a nice marriage. You should know exactly what each one is looking for, and there doesnt need to be any arguements about this or that- If they want to move a scene, believe in the director, and move the scene. Remeber its collaboritive this medium, so you arent being that if your trying to argue where and why to put things.
 
The DP doesn't have final say either.
In both relationships it works the same way.
Sometimes the DP or editor go do their thing virtually unaccosted and then the DP looks at it and give notes, sometimes the Director has very strong ideas from the get go and gives notes before they work, usually, hopefully, at least the director communicates something about the feeling of a scene, goal of a shot, what should be conveyed either from a story or emotion standpoint or both and then leaves the execution, focal length, gels, or cuts, dissolves whatever to the DP or editor in each case. Also those relationships evolve. The first time a DP works with a Gaffer he may tell him where every light goes, but the second time he may say "we need an evening look with some back light and soft fill" and then the gaffer basically light designs the scenes, but here the DP has final say over the gaffer, but the director has final say over the DP.

Theatre = writer's medium. The writer is at the top of the food chain, you may not change a single solitary word without the express consent of the writer or their estate, whether you are the director, or often even the guy that's paying the writer and for the whole production (the producer). The writer can be argued with, cajoled, enticed, bribed, convinced to change this or that, and good ones listen and work with you, but in the end they don't have to change a thing.

Film = director's medium, it's an image driven, not language driven medium, and as an "image" driven medium it should cohere under a single person's "vision". The director is then at top of the food chain artistically even though the producers and studio are often at the top of the food chain from a business stand point and can make her change things based their fears or assumptions.

but other than the studio, the final say on shots or edits or or anything else is the directors. Some will be auteurs that dictate and predetermine every element and don't even want to listen, some will be highly collaborative and want you to work without them then respond to what you do, some will be clueless and let you do whatever you want and say it all looks great. But they all get the final say.

If the guy is telling you what shot's he likes, then you cut the scene, then he gives you notes, then you cut the scene again until he likes it, then you give him notes and argue and some of your notes and some he takes and some he doesn't .... well that's pretty darn collaborative and appropriate. He's clearly listening to you as he's taking some of your notes. That's as good as it gets until you are Walter Murch and Coppola lets you do the 1st cut with no guidance. But then after that the process with Coppala and Murch would be identical to what you have described. Cutting and recutting to notes until the director is happy with the editor having input but not final say.

If you feel strongly about something then you fight for it until the bitter end. This makes the picture better as it really tests the director's assumptions, but again she always has the final say.

If you feel strongly enough, keep the improved scene saved somewhere, but cut another version of the scene your way and show it to them, while being ready to put the approved scene back in place.

You can rest easy at that point. Your job is not just to get your cut up there, it's to get the absolute best cut up there that serves the director's vision, and you will have done that by challenging her assumptions which will make her stay true her vision.
 
thanks for all the replies.

so the general consensus is that; the way i have been working in the past is good.
i was just asking about my role because i wanted to find out what other people were doing. i agree, it seems to be the most collaborative and keeps us both happy. it works for us.

it's a 30k budget (not his own money). it's his second feature. the last one was a no-budget horror (i edited this as well - for free).
i am just doing this out of my house. no studio. i just have my own simple editing suit. i'm a film student so i'm not a professional editor...

s4manturbo said 1000 max for the full project. so i was thinking around 750.

what do you guys think???
 
Next month, I'm charging 1200 for week long color correcting session with a 2nd week at 600 if needed to CC a whole feature on FCP. (about 40hours with the guy here as much as he wants)

Anymore, IMHO, there's really no way to say what's fair or market until you get into real budgets.

At this level it's as much about your relationship with the filmmaker and where you are in your career.

My freelance online editing gig pays $400 for 5 minutes of finished video out of 40 minutes of raw footage, but some people's features I would edit for $400.

If you feel like your time will be well spent at $750 considering your relationship with filmmaker, your level of excitement about the project, and what it may or may not lead to, then that price is right. It is of course low, however, as editing whole features go.
 
Experienced 10yrs + = good pay ( can feed a small village in Cambodia)
Less experienced 1yr = enough to pay your phone bill (txt messages plan not included)
Student editor = Be happy with credit and any money given. ( have parent's pay for phone bill.)


With that said, $750, take the money!
Editors come and go and can be replaced with people probably better and willing to edit for very little.

ps: My phone plan got cancelled the other night. I'm going back to my pager days.
 
jenningsp said:
thanks for all the replies.

so the general consensus is that; the way i have been working in the past is good.
i was just asking about my role because i wanted to find out what other people were doing. i agree, it seems to be the most collaborative and keeps us both happy. it works for us.

it's a 30k budget (not his own money). it's his second feature. the last one was a no-budget horror (i edited this as well - for free).
i am just doing this out of my house. no studio. i just have my own simple editing suit. i'm a film student so i'm not a professional editor...

s4manturbo said 1000 max for the full project. so i was thinking around 750.

what do you guys think???
Click to expand...



$750 is good..... BUT if you been working anhything like this: "shouldn't i be free to make what i think is the best film? not what the director thinks...."

Then you're going about it all wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top