Filmmaking anymore?

A few friends getting together for a weekend doesn't take much commitment. But bigger projects take so much more. Even if you have the gear and a good screenplay it takes so many dedicated people to pull off a good film. Problem I run into is getting decent help. It takes a good cast and crew. Most people just don't care about anything unless they have a significant amount personally at stake in it. You can pay them well and it helps a little, but not much. Most of us cannot afford to hire highly paid crew and actors.

So let's say you saved up a large sum of money and manage to get it done, then what do you have? A film that costs you a lot of time and money. So do you try to market and sell it to recover or were you just doing it for fun? Is the financial loss worth the fun?
Unless you can profit from it then it is just for fun and the bigger the project the harder it is to do just for fun, unless you are rich with lots of disposable income and time.
 
on the other hand arent narrative web series a big thing right now? maybe thats where all these folks have gone. making promoting those on social media rather than coming to places like this. gotta admit there's a sensibility to that...promote directly to your audience rather than a bunch of other people trying to do the same thing.
 
I've made and released 2 since I joined this forum years ago...but again...that was years ago. Two features since 2008 isn't exactly what I had in mind (wanted more) but it just takes time. There are others out there but there isn't a ton to discuss on that subject anymore. Very few who intend to make films actually do, and I do feel like the "short film" has lost some of the power it had years ago. We're here, I just don't think we need to ask the same questions we did 7-10 years ago when the digital revolution was really picking up steam.
 
There was a time when television went off the air late at night and even during the day there were only 3 networks. Once you saw what was playing in the theater you could watch local news, a soap opera, or Mutual of Omahas wild kingdom or...take a chance on some low budget movie you rented at blockbuster. That was the golden age of indie films.
now in the palm of your hand you can read books, news articles, play games, watch tutorials, check the weather, look up information,do social media, snap chat, browse Instagram, watch music videos or just listen to music, shop, or see your favorite movie again, or see a new Hollywood movie for a small subscription fee.
It is ironic that the Internet plus the digital camera was seen as the great equalizer for indie Film makers yet they actually caused of the demise of the indie film.
Yes anyone can get a camera and editing software and make a movie but the likelihood of making enough money on the project to even cover the cost of feeding your cast and crew pizza is very small.
film festivals used to be where distributors shopped for new films to buy for the direct to video market, but now it's mostly a way for the festival owners to make money off of entry fees. You do get your movie on a big screen which is cool but again It's unlikely the prize money will cover the cost of production.
Just my opinion on where the indie film makers have gone and why. Your mileage may vary.
 
I think you guys are hitting the nail on the head, as depressing as it may be. Kinda makes you wish we had a good 20-30 year gap between the introduction of lower cost HD/UHD cameras/computer editing/blu-ray discs and the widespread use of the internet. Even though the same results would have been inevitable once the internet did come into widespread use.

Truthfully though I can't blame the audience, I've noticed a change in my own habits as well. I watch more documentaries than ever because of streaming. Although I've always liked them since I was a kid, I would have never went to the store to rent them or buy them. Most stores didn't carry a lot if any to begin with. So the only way I saw them in the past is if I caught them on TV when they aired. Today I watch a ton, it's probably my most watched format because I can watch them on netflix, amazon and youtube anytime. Yet I have no desire to make documentaries myself. Never have. Although in many ways you can say I do that for a living when I make some of the videos I do for work. Some are like mini documentaries. I also watch a lot of speaker events on youtube, someone on stage speaking or being interviewed. Plus a lot of episodic shows. But again, no desire to make any o this kind of content myself. Whereas I used to watch a lot more indie films in the past and that is what have a desire to make. Although honestly, I haven't made an indie film since 2005, so do I really still have the passion? Maybe not. Maybe I am just like the rest of you but just haven't given up the ghost yet out of some stubborn refusal to give in and accept that maybe neither myself nor the world is in the same place as when I begin and first developed this passion 20+ years ago.

But that leads me to another question, slightly on the side. Why do we care so much about all these new cameras and gear if our goal is not some passion project indie film where we are gunning for the most cinematic image we can get? I mean if we're just shooting corporate videos and wedding videos and even documentaries, why do we even care about things like 4K and Raw and large sensors and all of that? Especially if you're like me and none of your clients ever even specify a resolution and so on. Is it just that lingering filmmaker in us that is trying to pull some kind of art out of the mundane? Otherwise why spend ourselves into poverty on all this (honestly ridiculously) expensive gear if we're not after some cinematic masterpiece that is a personal passion project?
 
Scott F said:
... I subscribe to that dumb "golden age of TV" cliche. Like I've said, there's NO shortage of entertaining things to watch on TV and online. So for sure, content is being created and somebody is making it...
Click to expand...
I think it was one of those (self-serving) round-able discussions on Hollywood Reporter, where the head of F/X lamented that there were 92 scripted drama shows in production in Hollywood alone. They didn't mentioned how many were in development but, off those numbers, it had to be hundreds more.

Gillvane said:
There was a time when television went off the air late at night and even during the day there were only 3 networks. Once you saw what was playing in the theater you could watch local news, a soap opera, or Mutual of Omahas wild kingdom or...take a chance on some low budget movie you rented at blockbuster. That was the golden age of indie films. ... Yes anyone can get a camera and editing software and make a movie but the likelihood of making enough money ...
Click to expand...
My take is slightly different (though, it doesn't mean I have an idea of what happened to the ex-forum regulars).

The tech means that there are a lot more jobs in video production but that the upward career trajectories are slower because the competition is far more dense. In other words, an army needs only so many generals. In the past, a decade of "paying your dues" may have been enough to bring someone into the well-paying job but, these days, the decade becomes two decades. And to go a self-financed independent route requires having some funds and those aren't as easily found either.


roxics said:
... But that leads me to another question, slightly on the side. Why do we care so much about all these new cameras and gear if our goal is not some passion project indie film where we are gunning for the most cinematic image we can get? I mean if we're just shooting corporate videos and wedding videos and even documentaries, why do we even care about things like 4K and Raw and large sensors and all of that? Especially if you're like me and none of your clients ever even specify a resolution and so on. Is it just that lingering filmmaker in us that is trying to pull some kind of art out of the mundane? Otherwise why spend ourselves into poverty on all this (honestly ridiculously) expensive gear if we're not after some cinematic masterpiece that is a personal passion project?
Click to expand...
Gear is passion too. It's like with car fanatics talking about superchargers and shocks.

BTW, the first big jump into the 'democratization" of video was the introduction of the hand-held, even if not entirely inexpensive, video cameras during the 1970's. The Betacam and the boom of the VCR's enabled both the production and the delivery of all sorts of content to home. That was the first disruptive technology that jolted the entertainment industry and brought huge incomes to many (and I am not just talking the adult biz). The second was the proliferation of cable TV that doomed the Big Three model. In the early 80's, ABCBSNBC prime shows had 90% of the total audience. In about twenty years, that share went down to 50% and now, I believe it's about 30% (and people don't own as many TV's either). Digital and the internet were that third jolt. The total pie is bigger but the beneficiaries are spread among a huge, huge crowd.

PS. Of those 92 drama shows I mentioned at the top, half is probably what would have been former independents of thirty years ago.
 
A silly side story that just occurred to me. Back in the early 80's, I was watching an interview with Keith Richards where he said, "I don't know what is happening with the TV biz anymore. A decade ago, you could lay down on your couch and watch some C-grade horror movie very late at night. And now it's all music videos".

And those music videos have long migrated from cable to YouTube. Something replaced them.
 
The brutal truth is... The economy has changed. Many folks have given up their favorite past times and hobbies in order to keep afloat.
 
I'm 38. From junior high through college I made about 40 little movies. After college, I did weddings to pay for camera gear to make short films when I wasn't doing weddings. Big mistake. Burned out so hard doing weddings that I didn't feel like shooting anything, not even an independent film. Now I'm a computer programmer.

That explains me but not everybody else. Maybe as you age you naturally lose interest in filmmaking and movies in general. I know I have. And I seem to remember something about the prime moviegoing demographic being 18-34. And maybe, like has been said, the new 18-34 don't frequent DVXUser or any fora for that matter (thanks, j1clark@ucsd.edu, for telling me the plural of forum). Maybe the newbies are posting directly to Youtube. I'm pretty sure that's what I would have done, if I still had it in me. Hopefully I still have it in me, somewhere, it's just dormant. And maybe for further discussion they're using Facebook (the Digital Bolex Facebook Group, for example, is busier than the Digital Bolex old-school forum).

But I've found new appreciation for other types of video. I seldom feel like watching a two-hour movie. On Youtube I like 2- or 3-minute videos. No, not the funny cats. Okay, the funny cats, but also other things. I admire unassuming but very helpful videos like Fixing a dented SM58 mic grill, How to...Make a Perfect Omelette, and How to Fold Hospital Corners.

There are so many Youtube videos that take 35 minutes to tell you something that could have taken 30 seconds, that I admire little videos like these, even if they're a little vernacular.

I do occasionally admire a longer video if it's well done. This is one of the best explanatory videos I've ever seen: D/A and A/D.

I haven't given up on moviemaking, but no matter how good cameras get, I realize, like firehawk said, it would still take a lot of money, time, and skilled personnel to pull off an entertaining movie. Imagine trying to shoot something like the skateboard scene from Back to the Future. I don't care how cheap cameras get, it's still going to take a lot of people and money and time.
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
I haven't given up on moviemaking, but no matter how good cameras get, I realize, like firehawk said, it would still take a lot of money, time, and skilled personnel to pull off an entertaining movie. Imagine trying to shoot something like the skateboard scene from Back to the Future. I don't care how cheap cameras get, it's still going to take a lot of people and money and time.
Click to expand...

It's funny how long it took me to learn this. Something so obvious and in your face.
When I was in my teens and twenties I kept thinking I wasn't good enough because I didn't know how to do every job on a film set and be a master at them all. As if I could have done everyone's job even if I knew how and was a master at them all. You can't be in multiple places at once. I don't know what I was thinking. I think I must have been operating off a natural realization that I was the only one truly passionate about being there and doing it, that I needed to know everyone's job in case I had to train them to do it, which I often did.

Then I always felt like we weren't getting what I wanted and I was hard on myself and my skills and on the gear we were using as being too amateur. All without ever realizing that we were a 3-4 man crew compared to a 300 or 3000 man crew of trained professionals on a major motion picture. Forget the more cinematic camera, we often didn't have most of our basics down like hair and makeup or someone good at practical effects.

When I really think back on it, we never stood a chance. But in the back of my mind I had guys like Raimi and Rodriguez as examples of people who did. Especially Raimi since he was from my home town and my mom even worked for his parents when she was younger, or so we believe. History gets foggy after a while. But those guys also did it in a different time that had different cultural/social elements in place. Today some of you are right when you suggest that your best bet is probably to have a successful youtube channel with weekly shows rather than aiming for that one indie feature you make every X number of years.

Admittedly my mind hasn't adjusted in sync with the speed of change. I first jumped into this when mechanical film cameras and VHS was still a thing, then had to shift to doing the same thing on standard def DV and now it's all about smart phones and GoPros and youtube subscribers watching weekly shows. But my heart is still back in the 16mm feature film phase. I think I feel like because I never really accomplished that goal, I'm still trying to accomplish it even though no one cares about it anymore and I probably shouldn't either.
 
I haven't moved beyond shorts and don't want to (yet). I think it's about keeping it fun. I got wrapped up for years in production values and tried to do everything myself etc., occasionally having one or two other people help out (WHICH MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE. . .ONE SINGLE OTHER EXPERIENCED PRODUCTION PERSON CAN MAKE A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE. . .if you can get them to commit!). I'd like to get back into it with a more basic approach utilizing few if any lights and keeping the shoot days shorter. Again, it's about keeping it fun. . .if we know we're not gonna be able (more than likely) to monetize these projects, and don't even have the following/fan base to justify doing them, then they have to be fun on their own merit which, to me, means not spending an insane amount of effort or time on each one. Something that can be done in a few days, with a few people, one or two locations. I remember having a discussion with someone years ago who thought a good approach might be to figure out what locations you have easily available and write around those, rather than spending half a year trying to find a castle to shoot in (or whatever).
 
Late to the Party

Late to the Party

All this doom and gloom! I am probably older than anyone else here and I will start shooting my first real film this September. I intend to submit it to festivals, but if that doesn't work, I don't care. I have not, in this saturated age, been able to find anything I want to watch. So, I decided to make my own. My budget for a ten- minute film is $2000, all for actors, makeup, and costume. I have about $3000 worth of gear, and software which I acquired by selling all my Hasselblad equipment. I have worked out locations, sound, and have taken a superb workshop on directing actors. If no one sees it except me and my friends, so be it, but I will have made something that I can watch and that gives something back, more than the time and money spent.
 
roxics said:
... When I really think back on it, we never stood a chance. But in the back of my mind I had guys like Raimi and Rodriguez as examples of people who did. Especially Raimi since he was from my home town and my mom even worked for his parents when she was younger ...
Click to expand...
Guys like Raimi will still make it. Always. Because, with this new tech, they can make a top notch short for very little. And then they get noticed by the insiders. And then they'll work low budget flicks and episodic TV. And then they'll graduate to the big budgets. And then the tent poles.

But we're not all Raimis. Or Michael Jordans. Or Lionel Messis. It's just how it is.
 
Yes, but the difference between many of the folks that make and the rest of us is, in addition to the talent they have, they have a relentless drive, and just keeping pushing and pushing 'til someone give a crap. J.K. Rowling (not a filmmaker but still) from what I understand sent manuscripts (is that the right word?) of her Harry Potter book to every publisher in England, or maybe Europe (I read this a while ago), having to RETYPE it each time 'cause she was so poor she couldn't afford to make Xerox/copies of the manuscript (?), finally one guy gave her a chance after 20+ turned her down. I don't know about you guys, but I probably don't have that much in me, to stick with something like that. Seems like the people who make it do.
 
I'm not discounting talent, ambition, drive and disipline. I'm recognizing the fact that there is something else in play also, circumstance. It can be made the best of and even improved by one's actions, but not controlled.
 
DLD said:
Guys like Raimi will still make it. Always. Because, with this new tech, they can make a top notch short for very little. And then they get noticed by the insiders. And then they'll work low budget flicks and episodic TV. And then they'll graduate to the big budgets. And then the tent poles.

But we're not all Raimis. Or Michael Jordans. Or Lionel Messis. It's just how it is.
Click to expand...

rsbush said:
While this sounds reasonable, the truth is, circumstance has an overwhelming impact on anyone's life.
Click to expand...

Josh Bass said:
Yes, but the difference between many of the folks that make and the rest of us is, in addition to the talent they have, they have a relentless drive, and just keeping pushing and pushing 'til someone give a crap. ...
Click to expand...

I think it's a combination of all of these. You have to be wired to be driven and actually do it. How many people go to all these motivation seminars, get all pumped up and then never go anywhere? They have the will and some degree of drive, but they're missing other components.

I've had this debate before when it comes to wealth and I think there is a sort of natural rubber band effect that happens. When you're on the bottom and the rubber band is loose it's easy to push on it and get so far, but the farther you push the more resistance you get. In order to get really far, (into one percenter territory for example) it takes more than just hard work and motivation (which are the two biggest and often wrongly the only things we attribute to success), it also takes knowing the right people, being in the right place at the right time with the right idea, having the funds to make it happen, being persistent over a long period of time, being single visioned (aka not having a million different interests you invest time into, but sticking to one thing with your time). Some of it is luck and some of it is the way we're wired. While many people have 2-3 of those traits/circumstances, very few have them all.

But I think it's an illusion to say that it just takes hard work and persistence alone to achieve it. Even if that is a common American myth we grow up being told. Even if those are the things that wildly successful people will point to for their success, I think they might be blind to the other things that helped them on their way. Or maybe they think it just makes them look better to point to the traits in them rather than all the surrounding circumstances that also helped. You can get so far with hard work and persistence alone, but I know of lot of people who are hard working and persistent who are just barely middle class and all of that effort is expended just trying to hold onto the white picket fence lifestyle. They're no where near a million dollars let alone a billion.

This same template can easily be applied to filmmaking and filmmakers. But that's just my take and I'm not trying to be negative, I'm actually an optimist and have been called a go-getter, but it's the only take that actually makes any real sense to me lately when I look around at the world.
 
roxics said:
I think it's a combination of all of these. You have to be wired to be driven and actually do it. How many people go to all these motivation seminars, get all pumped up and then never go anywhere? They have the will and some degree of drive, but they're missing other components.

I've had this debate before when it comes to wealth and I think there is a sort of natural rubber band effect that happens. When you're on the bottom and the rubber band is loose it's easy to push on it and get so far, but the farther you push the more resistance you get. In order to get really far, (into one percenter territory for example) it takes more than just hard work and motivation (which are the two biggest and often wrongly the only things we attribute to success), it also takes knowing the right people, being in the right place at the right time with the right idea, having the funds to make it happen, being persistent over a long period of time, being single visioned (aka not having a million different interests you invest time into, but sticking to one thing with your time). Some of it is luck and some of it is the way we're wired. While many people have 2-3 of those traits/circumstances, very few have them all.

But I think it's an illusion to say that it just takes hard work and persistence alone to achieve it. Even if that is a common American myth we grow up being told. Even if those are the things that wildly successful people will point to for their success, I think they might be blind to the other things that helped them on their way. Or maybe they think it just makes them look better to point to the traits in them rather than all the surrounding circumstances that also helped. You can get so far with hard work and persistence alone, but I know of lot of people who are hard working and persistent who are just barely middle class and all of that effort is expended just trying to hold onto the white picket fence lifestyle. They're no where near a million dollars let alone a billion.

This same template can easily be applied to filmmaking and filmmakers. But that's just my take and I'm not trying to be negative, I'm actually an optimist and have been called a go-getter, but it's the only take that actually makes any real sense to me lately when I look around at the world.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Luck, pure, simple, unadulterated, plain, is a huge factor in each and every single success story. That doesn't mean that talent and drive don't push up your odds hugely - they do - but without a bit of luck, or alternatively with a bit of bad luck, you can easily end up a failure in life, no matter your talents and hard work. It is a mark of civilization that it minimizes - but can never eliminate - the role of luck in any success of its citizens. Successful societies minimize the role of luck - through policies that reward meritocracy - and the less successful ones enlarge the role of luck. So, in the U.S., if you are talented and hard working, you need much less luck - but still some - to have a career as a filmmaker, but if you are in, f.ex. (random example) the Congo, you need a lot more luck to have a filmmaking career. But in no society and at no time will it ever be just pure merit - luck will always play a role... even if it's just not getting hit by a truck while on your way to shoot a movie.

That said, the conditions for success in any given career, including filmmaking are better or worse in any given time frame. I think the argument made in this thread is that today it's harder to have a career as a filmmaker, compared to x-number of years ago. Personally, I just don't know - in some ways it certainly is easier, in other ways it's harder, but net-net?... I don't know.
 
Recognizing that circumstances beyond your control will have an impact on the kind of success you acheive should make you work harder, not hope you get lucky. If it makes you give up, then that works for the rest of us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top