First feature genre

A

Alicia Ferrows

Member
im planning to shoot a feature in the coming months, real low budget but real creative and I have 2 scripts that are very good and pretty much take place in minimal locations. The first script is horror and the second is a sort of psychological thriller/drama. My question to you filmmakers out there is which genre would you suggest i tackle as my first feature? I ask because I want to use the final film as a tool to gain future funding for bigger films, show off my capabilities as a director and also please a large amount of movie-watchers instead of appealing to the critiques.

I know many automatic replies will encourage me to make what movie feels best for me etc but i would really like to know if there are any advantages or disadvantages to making each genre that i may have overlooked. Thanks guys

PS genre wise I love both and script wise I love both and would ultimately probably cost around the same to make.
 
I would approach it in a way of what you feel your strengths are and which one would fit it better. There's a bigger audience out there for horror movies and it's one reason why so many directors make a debut horror film in their filmography since it's easier to sell and a horror film can show off the cinematography, use of sound, atmosphere, etc. Horror is very good for a director since they can show that off. If you're great with those elements and feel you can make something unique, go with that. Personally, I hate horror movies but can see the appeal. A psychological thriller would be more up my alley but it's much easier to write a bad psychological thriller than a bad horror movie. But if it's pulled off well, it feels like there's a little bit more legitimacy involved and could lead to bigger work. It really all depends on what you feel your strengths are and what you could bring to the party
 
I'm going to shuffle your words up in order of what I personally think is important.



Alicia Ferrows said:
I know many automatic replies will encourage me to make what movie feels best for me
Click to expand...

Rightfully so! The bottom line to this, if it doesn't feel best for you, then what you're trying to achieve is going to be that much harder. I'll leave it at that, since you were already expecting that response it's not something you really want to dwell on. Moving forward...

Alicia Ferrows said:
I ask because I want to use the final film as a tool to gain future funding for bigger films, show off my capabilities as a director and also please a large amount of movie-watchers instead of appealing to the critiques.
Click to expand...

There are many different paths to tackling such a difficult task. I happen to agree with this one more than trying to impress or appeal-to movie critiques. Personally, the more I've written and shot, the more I realize that for serious narrative you need more money, and the less serious and more fun, the lower the budget you're able to get away with. Not saying that it's also not important to do your best on horror or comedy, but there's a lot of forgiveness in performance in horror versus a thriller/drama.

It's down to a simple idea, to me: thriller/drama automatically points toward a narrative that will be more life-like and realistic. So the production needs to follow suit, or risk looking silly. With horror, we are immediately tuned into the mindstate that "hey, okay, this isn't real. So, I know what to expect." It's honestly a pretty great crutch for a first time filmmaker with little funds. As a director and writer with no cash flow, here's what I think of the genre's:

Horror - Easy. Easiest. Blood is cheap, the audience doesn't have high expectations anyway, you can use whatever camera you want and probably still rock it. It's a good learning platform for the first timer, if not the best? Anyone have thoughts?

Comedy - Not too hard, but not the easiest. Bad comedy is bad comedy. That's not subjective. If it's not funny, it's a fail. You need to have talent that can pull off what you're writing, or you need to be able to direct talent that can't pull it off in the proper fashion. In post, you'll need someone who can cut comedy and make punchlines work, a comedic sense of timing overall is detrimental. It's doable, though, and one of those things that you don't have to spend much money on.

Tip: The larger the cast (extras included), the more believable for this genre.

Action - I'd say it's about as hard as comedy, but for different reasons. You need to actually have action in an feature that's labeled as an action feature for it to BE action. That means you need to plan on stunt work and action sequences that last long enough to fill in time, and look good enough to keep an audience interested. However... action movies? Really... dont' rely on great acting. Sorry if that offends anyone! Not meant to.

Tip: Action also doesn't mean wall-to-wall. Ten minutes of action footage in an eighty five minute feature is probably good enough.

Thriller - Fairly difficult. Very cast and script oriented. Flaws in logic or character development/motivation may immediately sink your ship. But, at least with thrillers, you have something to fall back on, which could be sequences that are montage like, some action elements, crime scenes, etc. There's a crutch here, but to make it work you need solid editing and, of course, a competent script to begin with.

Drama - The hardest. In short, every single thing pretty much should be on the level if you're going to make a dramatic narrative. Perhaps you could skimp a little on locations, but acting should be a-grade, and most everything else follows suit. I personally would not touch drama with a ten foot pole unless it was sci-fi, fantasy, or something else. I'm just not good at it.


I chose a Superhero/Comedy(somewhat action) as my first because I understand the basic material and I knew I could pull it off on a microscopic fraction of the typical hollywood performer. By pull it off, I mean I could entertain with it and it would be at least competent in all areas, including VFX.

With that in mind, I'll always suggest doing the one that you have the most access to: pre-production, production, and post-production assets. Locations. Props. Cast and Extras, etc.

That's about all I can think of. I mean, sci-fi, fantasy, family, religious, etc are all sort of sub-genre's so I don't think they need to be tackled. I will say that both Sci-Fi and Fantasy, if you can pull off competently, will get you some recognition pretty quickly, if all components--again--are competent.

I say competent because I don't really expect to hold anyone to a big-budget standard, not even myself until I have money. There's a reason this stuff costs the millions it does.

Shoot it up!
 
Which one will be something people have to see? And have to tell their friends about? For a first feature, this will not only produce the best film, but easily get you the most juice career-wise. I think it's a serious mistake on a first feature to run around trying to calculate things to "please a large amount of movie-watchers". I think the best course is to really focus on making a movie people have to see.

Check out the Blinky guys. They are on this board. That short skyrocketed within a week. Cause they are good at making stuff people have to see and have to tell others about.
 
Mark Harris said:
Which one will be something people have to see? And have to tell their friends about? For a first feature, this will not only produce the best film, but easily get you the most juice career-wise. I think it's a serious mistake on a first feature to run around trying to calculate things to "please a large amount of movie-watchers". I think the best course is to really focus on making a movie people have to see.

Check out the Blinky guys. They are on this board. That short skyrocketed within a week. Cause they are good at making stuff people have to see and have to tell others about.
Click to expand...

This is a good thought, Mark. Make something that people have to see. It's a pretty basic idea, and probably doesn't need to be complicated, at all.

But, when there are examples cited, then there's a complication. Why did BlinkyTM get seen? Because, Ruairi is steadily mastering his VFX ability. Because the core element of his short is something he could pull off well, and there's a horror element (genre tag), and it looks great in general. That's something that people want to share.

Had it been a straight out and out drama, with no CGi plugged into it, would it have had the same impact? And, are we saying now that making something people have to see relies on adding fantastic elements that look believable? I don't have those answers, of course, but I do have my own opinions that probably apply to only my path.

Others mileage may vary.

So, yeah, make something that people want to watch. That's a great basic idea. Depending on the path of an individual, understanding that people are interested more in one thing than they are in another doesn't hurt, me thinks.
 
I sometimes forget how helpful the members of this board can be, very valuable information i shall be coming back to :) I think I may go with horror, the script is not your typical horror film it's very suggestive and symbolic to biblical mysteries that are popular topics today.

Following on from the previous comments, would you guys say that a solid short is enough to gear up interest and talk from "the people who matter" or would a feature hold more kudos despite not obtaining theatrical distribution etc
 
Kholi said:
This is a good thought, Mark. Make something that people have to see. It's a pretty basic idea, and probably doesn't need to be complicated, at all.

But, when there are examples cited, then there's a complication. Why did BlinkyTM get seen? Because, Ruairi is steadily mastering his VFX ability. Because the core element of his short is something he could pull off well, and there's a horror element (genre tag), and it looks great in general. That's something that people want to share.

Had it been a straight out and out drama, with no CGi plugged into it, would it have had the same impact? And, are we saying now that making something people have to see relies on adding fantastic elements that look believable? I don't have those answers, of course, but I do have my own opinions that probably apply to only my path.

Others mileage may vary.

So, yeah, make something that people want to watch. That's a great basic idea. Depending on the path of an individual, understanding that people are interested more in one thing than they are in another doesn't hurt, me thinks.
Click to expand...

All true, but I still think there is some secret sauce that work beyond just the effects, etc. But yeah, you're right in terms of picking a genre, maybe one will give you a better shot at achieving that "wow" factor, than another, so that's something to consider. But I think an amazing comedy has the potential to have the same impact.

Another example was a theater piece I've been raving about here in NYC. I came out of it and I told everyone I know they had to see it. They would say: "yeah, okay, I'll check it out." and I would say: "No. You HAVE to see it." And every person I know who saw it said the same thing to others. I don't remember the last time that happened for me with any piece of entertainment.

My main point is that I don't think using studio-type calculations for a "wide" audience is going to get a first time director any closer to a success than having something amazing to say and saying it in an amazing way.
 
Alicia Ferrows said:
I sometimes forget how helpful the members of this board can be, very valuable information i shall be coming back to :) I think I may go with horror, the script is not your typical horror film it's very suggestive and symbolic to biblical mysteries that are popular topics today.

Following on from the previous comments, would you guys say that a solid short is enough to gear up interest and talk from "the people who matter" or would a feature hold more kudos despite not obtaining theatrical distribution etc
Click to expand...

Well a script alone is enough to gear up interest. Or not even a script. A great story. I personally know two published novelists who got studio feature film directing deals for the adaptations of their own work. Neither had ever set foot on a movie set in their lives.
 
Mark Harris said:
All true, but I still think there is some secret sauce that work beyond just the effects, etc. But yeah, you're right in terms of picking a genre, maybe one will give you a better shot at achieving that "wow" factor, than another, so that's something to consider. But I think an amazing comedy has the potential to have the same impact.
Click to expand...

Haha, yeah not sure that I'm right, though. I mean, one of my favorite movies (top three) is Primer, and there aren't any VFX in it. It's a Sci-Fi/Drama/Thriller..something or another and it works well for me.

I do think that Mr. Robinson's short traveled so far because of the concept presented, which hinged mostly on his ability to replicate a creepy-looking robot that looked photorealistic.

Too be taken into account, I'd say.
Another example was a theater piece I've been raving about here in NYC. I came out of it and I told everyone I know they had to see it. They would say: "yeah, okay, I'll check it out." and I would say: "No. You HAVE to see it." And every person I know who saw it said the same thing to others. I don't remember the last time that happened for me with any piece of entertainment.

My main point is that I don't think using studio-type calculations for a "wide" audience is going to get a first time director any closer to a success than having something amazing to say and saying it in an amazing way.
Click to expand...

To me, they're both on the same level. I love both ways of thinking and applaud them. There are examples out there: MONSTERS moved Gareth Edwards to GODZILLA, and mumblecore phenom TINY FURNITURE was the opposite of that. So, choose to do what you can pull off competently. Some of us will auto-magically go "Sci-Fi/Action", because we have the means and the tools, connections, to get it done and make it entertaining enough slash watchable.

Others will go the opposite way and do something that probably matters a lot more to a society in need of rich storytelling and connective experiences.

Neither are wrong, choose your weapon and fight.
 
Alicia Ferrows said:
I sometimes forget how helpful the members of this board can be, very valuable information i shall be coming back to :) I think I may go with horror, the script is not your typical horror film it's very suggestive and symbolic to biblical mysteries that are popular topics today.

Following on from the previous comments, would you guys say that a solid short is enough to gear up interest and talk from "the people who matter" or would a feature hold more kudos despite not obtaining theatrical distribution etc
Click to expand...

Mark's comment is great. A good script will drum up interests, and even sometimes an option of the content. A short can do something similar, and may be the stronger tool to not only get your material optioned, but also to get the chance to direct it on someone else's money. There are a lot of examples out there.

I will say that I think a short needs to be even stronger than a feature to get this kind of opportunity. Where you have eighty or so minutes to make a few mistakes and then redeem yourself, a short is less forgiving. Also, how much time and money are you going to put into a short film? And, could you apply that same time and money to creating the feature version, which is something you could probably sell and (maybe) break even on?

Since we're all peers here, at the same level, here's what I think about writing scripts, generating interest, shooting shorts, etc...

Try it out for a few months, see how it works, then chalk it up as experience and get to doing it yourself. The climate seems ripe for doers, people who have ideas and the ability to execute, COMPLETE, and deliver. With technology having taken a leap in the last few years, there's an open door to showcase yourself beyond a short film.

Interests aren't anything to me, now. People will placate you by saying "Hey, I'm interested, I want to see more... can you do this or that?" and heck, you may do this or that, but then it's more placating after that. Then you wait for money, etc. I know that I'm impatient, so again... others mileage may vary... but, I wouldn't wait on anyone's more-than-likely-flimsy interest in my progress as a filmmaker...

I'd carve my own path with whatever tools I've got at my disposal, and with the help of others who want to come along.
 
Mark Harris said:
A great story
Click to expand...

... is the single most important thing, IMO. Next is that it's well written (script), then told (acted/directed/edited)...and so on...

There are any number of films every year at all budget levels that fail both critically and commercially almost entirely because of weak (or in too many cases, almost non-existent) storytelling. And it's the 'cheapest' thing to get right. But far from the easiest...

So, whichever genre you choose (and I agree with almost all the other comments here regarding that), above all, do everything in your power to assure that the story/script is as outstanding as you can possibly make it. Succeed at that and you will start out head and shoulders above 99% of your competition. Which is exactly where you will need to be to actually get where you want to go...

My $.02
 
In addition to what Ted says, not in opposition, make sure you realize what YOUR level of Outstanding is, not someone else's. Anyone who expect you to churn out a Shawshank Redemption (which is an adaption of existing literature) is probably, not purposely though, steering you toward a career that will never exist.

To each their own path, of course, but I believe we must first learn to entertain and execute on a basic level before attempting to be the best of a group.

Great Story, Great Script... you spend years on those. The people who do tend to hit their later years before they get the chance to sell that story, and not even direct it.

With technology as it is now, and while I do believe in competent storytelling and an interesting story/script, there's no reason not to go out and learn how to BE something, versus someone who talks about being it, etc. Speaking generally here.

And, yes, Alicia, I recognize that you're ready to move on doing so the post is more a general post to anyone paying attention and looking for various perspectives.

Again, I am impatient, so please take that into consideration.
 
Kholi i love your outlook on things, makes me want to just go out there and do it. Having that solid story really is key Ted I agree, I think i may just have that ;) If not I'm at least going to make the footage look amazing and learn an expensive lesson in what actually passes for a good script hehe
 
Kholi said:
Comedy - Not too hard, but not the easiest.
Click to expand...

I usually agree with most things Kholi says, but I'll take issue here. Comedy is pretty notoriously hard, as most industry-insider types would agree, both from an acting and a writing standpoint. Because:

Bad comedy is bad comedy. That's not subjective. If it's not funny, it's a fail.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You see, it appears that Kholi actually knows this (that it's hard, at least for most people). From what I can see (which is admittedly very little so far), his comedy "Superseeds" may actually *be* funny. And that's not terribly hard for people who have that gift. Thing is, those people are rarer than hen's teeth. To wit:

You need to have talent that can pull off what you're writing, or you need to be able to direct talent that can't pull it off in the proper fashion. In post, you'll need someone who can cut comedy and make punchlines work, a comedic sense of timing overall...
Click to expand...

Sound easy to you? Not to me...

And back to "bad comedy" for a moment:

Comedy has a unique place in entertainment. When other genres are bad, most of the time we describe them as boring, corny, over the top, uninteresting, hokey... But comedy gone wrong can actively 'stink' in a way that none of the others ever quite do. Ever hear a stand-up comedian refer to a bad night on the stage as "dying"? Well, that's (all but literally) not an understatement. Ever tell a joke that bombed (and who hasn't)? Makes you really, really wish you hadn't even tried, right? There are many, many people who *never* attempt to tell jokes for this reason. They learned early, the hard way.

Thus, bad comedy = as close to 'death by (attempted) entertainment' as you will ever come.

So it's hard...really hard...to be funny *unless* you have the gift. Therefore, IMHO comedy is perhaps the *only* genre that should *not* be attempted by anyone who doesn't *really, really* know what they're doing.

One last point: comedy is absolutely positively not going to be (reliably) achieved just by giving people silly costumes, names, jobs, etc., and/or having them do silly actions/dances/songs, in silly/goofy situations. This is (unfortunately) one of the staples of crap comedies, and while all of it actually *can* be funny (see Monty Python, Marx Brothers, Caddyshack), it's just as hard to pull off successfully as any other kind, if not harder. Which means: very, very hard.

I recently read a feature script by a colleague who attempted a comedy in this manner (and in fairness, it was his first such attempt), and I very reluctantly felt I had to tell him afterwards (as kindly as one could possibly say such a thing, and privately) that I honestly thought it should be scrapped entirely; there was nothing there worthy of *even a rewrite*. I did not laugh one single time during the entire ~90 pages.

Not. Once.

*Death*

And he and his equally comedy-virginal co-writer thought it was absolutely hilarious.

Argh...

In all of my life I have personally known only a very few people (aside from professional comedians I've worked with) who were *genuinely funny*. Speaking of pros, Conan O'Brien used to live in my apartment building when he was still here in NYC. That guy could crack me up in the elevator between the ground floor and when I got off on the 4th (he lived in the penthouse). About *anything*. About the mail I was holding (this literally happened)...

Now that's a funny guy...

Ok...sorry for the rant...off the soapbox now...
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
In addition to what Ted says, not in opposition, make sure you realize what YOUR level of Outstanding is, not someone else's. Anyone who expect you to churn out a Shawshank Redemption (which is an adaption of existing literature) is probably, not purposely though, steering you toward a career that will never exist.
Click to expand...

Yes. All things in good measure. I'm mainly cautioning against what I see all too often - a massive underpurposing of the story/script in favor of technical concerns. Acting gets short-shrift way too often too. As Kholi (along with a few others!) well knows by now, it's a big pet peeve with me : )
 
Nah, TedSpencer, I agree with you on the comedy thing. I had a bit of a skewed rating system there, but you draw really solid points.

Glad it got the discussion going, however. In that case, I would probably throw Comedy and Drama on the same level.
 
Kholi said:
Nah, TedSpencer, I agree with you on the comedy thing. I had a bit of a skewed rating system there, but you draw really solid points.

Glad it got the discussion going, however. In that case, I would probably throw Comedy and Drama on the same level.
Click to expand...

I just was about to kick in about the comedy. Comedy can be especially daunting. There is in my believe no other genre that has so many-sub-genres that might perfectly not work together if mixed in the wrong way. And Ted is absolutely right: One can bomb with a comedy like with no other genre. I know it, I've been there.... ;-(

Comedy works on conventions within a culture, within a social group, within a generation, within a level of education. And it's incredibly easy to hit the wrong mark here. One may find a classic Italian comedy with actor Toto either funny or completely idiotic - depending from what point an audience looks at it. I've been sitting with twelve of my co-students in the first German screening of "Jabberwocky" and me and a friend of mine laughed our heads off.... the other ten were sitting stone faced and marble-assed in their chairs and were sure that we were blaring idiots for finding THAT funny.

I have come to the conclusion to never expect a comedy being liked by the complete audience but only by certain segments of it. There are usually three things a lot of people may not agree on: What or who is sexy. What or who is funny. What music we like.

My advice would be in comedy: Have a solid dramatic construction to begin with. "Modern Times" by Charly Chaplin could also be told as a dramatic movie about a worker being destroyed by modern technology. Why did "french Kiss" work? Solid dramatic backbone. This is not be applicable to all genres of comedy, but it's a good starting point.

And try to avoid mixing too many comic sub-levels. You can "merge" some screwball-elements into a dramatic or romantic comedy, even sprinkles of slapstick may work if apllied carefully. But the moment you over-step into the realms of the burlesque, the grotesque or even satire you may lose your "dramedy" movie. And the other way round if you want to make a satire don't expect an audience to accept if you switch to dramatic comedy in the same movie.

We need to have a clearer view of our audience with comedy. Much more, imho, than with any other genre.

postscriptum: Good comedy is a great drama in disguise.
 
Last edited:
Alicia Ferrows said:
My question to you filmmakers out there is which genre would you suggest i tackle as my first feature?
Click to expand...

If you can get a good make-up artist. I would say go for the Horror, and try and stay away from as much post Visual FX as you could. One thing that can kill a horror is cheesy make-up. What can kill it worst is cheesy Visual FX. Unless your making a cheesy horror which is it's own Genre. But it seems your trying to make something serious. But if you are targeting a broader audience I would say Horror, because Horror fans are a dedicated bunch, especially if done right.

Good luck.
 
I think comedy is the HARDEST of all the styles to get right. Just look at the number of films with great comic actors in them that just bombed, or were just plain bad. Comedy has to walk a very fine line to work - the timing, rhythm, jokes, dramatic undertones, and script all have to be spot on. Comedy is like the Punk Rock of the film world - it sounds/appears easy to do, but every little thing is important.
I agree with Kholi about horror being a good crutch, but if you feel you can pull off the psychological thriller and have some good actors to work with - I'd honestly go that route. Horror movies have saturated the low budget market (for all the reasons Kholi brought up) so I think you'll stand out more with a good thriller. For example, lets say you get invited to a local film festival - and the audience has sat through 3 horror films already - your film will stand out. (Good actors are REALLY key though)
 
Haha! Goes to show you: not everyone's bar-o-meter's start out the same.

I'm going to edit my post to reflect the consensus here. And, can I say how glad I am to see a topic like this gathering interest and well-thought-out posts?

Sorry, I missed the mark a little on the scale, Alicia and others that were reading.

It's crazy, though, that an unfunny comedy is actually pretty painful. I will admit, I've been trying to figure out a way to NOT brand Superseeds as a comedy, and instead as a Sci-Fi/Urban Adventure.

I hope it works.

I also like the post related to Horror and achieving effects to help sell it. That's a good idea and brings up another sub-topic...

... How much does STYLE count in your first directorial effort? For me, it's probably THE biggest component that needs to be expressed as much as possible, regardless of budget. Your style is pretty much your mark, your vision, on content.

Even if the content is redone, rehashed, or over-saturated your STYLE can still stand out and speak to an audience me thinks. But, might be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top