Is it harder or easier to make it as a filmmaker in 2013?
- Thread starter EDV
- Start date
hscully
Veteran
I guess it depends on what you mean by "make it." If you mean you get to see your indy film realized on the screen, I would say that it's WAY easier because of the availability of the tools. No news there, I suppose.
If what you mean is "make it" where by merit you are whisked away to Hollywood and given lavish budgets to realize your work then I would say it's the same or harder.
If you mean that your indy film is picked up for distribution and that is "making it" and you make your money back then I would say it's more crowded and again, by just the numbers, rising above the noise, as they say, harder.
For me, "making it" means literally making it, realizing it in moving images, with an important second being people actually seeing it, on line or on demand or by some great fortune, in a theater. People seeing it is equal in importance to actually making it and then... well that to me is "making it."
So... what do you mean when you say "making it?"
If what you mean is "make it" where by merit you are whisked away to Hollywood and given lavish budgets to realize your work then I would say it's the same or harder.
If you mean that your indy film is picked up for distribution and that is "making it" and you make your money back then I would say it's more crowded and again, by just the numbers, rising above the noise, as they say, harder.
For me, "making it" means literally making it, realizing it in moving images, with an important second being people actually seeing it, on line or on demand or by some great fortune, in a theater. People seeing it is equal in importance to actually making it and then... well that to me is "making it."
So... what do you mean when you say "making it?"
hscully
Veteran
How, in your vision of "making it" are they able to continue making docs, features, etc. Sorry if I sound a bit dim on this but I'm curious about the specifics.
Does this mean that the indy film maker is making his or her living solely from their work? If so do you mean that their films make a profit which provides their sole source of income or that they, as a result of their good work on indies make their living for hire as directors or cinematographers or writers, etc?
Is it then the "lavish budgets provided by studios... " model which defines success? Some intermediate state?
What does it look like to have "made it?"
Does this mean that the indy film maker is making his or her living solely from their work? If so do you mean that their films make a profit which provides their sole source of income or that they, as a result of their good work on indies make their living for hire as directors or cinematographers or writers, etc?
Is it then the "lavish budgets provided by studios... " model which defines success? Some intermediate state?
What does it look like to have "made it?"
Last edited:
EDV
Well-known member
I wouldn't get too caught up in the meaning of "making it". Obviously success can manifest itself in many different ways. But like I said, if someone is able to keep making films year after year, he's obviously doing something right. The expense involved in making films makes it unlikely that someone could be funding his own projects year after year. Especially since one short film can go over $100 000 at the indy level. It's a similar thing with music videos and documentaries, maybe not as expensive, but still pretty expensive at the pro level.
Well . . . how can you ask if it's easier or harder to "make it" if the meaning of "make it" doesn't really matter? It's an unanswerable question, then.
Would you say someone who has a full-time job in an unrelated field, funding his own projects year after year, is "making it" as a filmmaker?
Would you say someone who has a full-time job in an unrelated field, funding his own projects year after year, is "making it" as a filmmaker?
hscully
Veteran
I think so. Unless "making it" only means that it pays you enough so that you don't have to work doing anything else. That's pretty narrow. If you are working for hire, say shooting events, and making a living that way, which is great, is that related to film making? If you're a gaffer on an indy and making money that way, is that related to being a writer/director?
Have you guys seen this from Francis Ford Coppola? It's inspiring to me. I think you could say that he has made it! It's why I'm being a bit of a gadfly on this thread. No harm meant.... it's just that I think about this question a lot.
How does an aspiring artist bridge the gap between distribution and commerce?
"We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it’s only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script.
This idea of Metallica or some rock n’ roll singer being rich, that’s not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I’m going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?"
The whole article http://99u.com/articles/6973/francis-ford-coppola-on-risk-money-craft-collaboration
Last edited:
I would say if it doesn't mean that, or at least something close to that, then it doesn't really mean anything.
Well, that's correct, and one of the things that bugs me about people who say they want to learn the "business" of film, when in reality, all they really want is to figure out how to get someone to give them money to make their films.
EDV
Well-known member
I don't think someone who works in an unrelated field has really made it as a filmmaker. Someone mentioned this story about a Doctor who bought himself a RED and used it for hobby films. Impressive but I have more admiration for the struggling filmmaker who is able to keep making films year after year. The struggling filmmaker may not be using a RED like the Doctor I mentioned, but his films are likely of a higher standard because more time, energy and expertise have gone into them.
hscully
Veteran
Exactly! What is the "something right?" Where does the money come from? It's important, I think. Is he self-producing with Kickstarter? Is success like Lee Daniels who is a major genius at getting independent funding? Is it David O. Russell who is a brilliant writer who directs and is able to garner investment?
It's a continuum, no? Easier or harder to do what?
hscully
Veteran
True! I agree, Coppolla notwithstanding. So maybe "made it" means that I can focus on nothing but my art, my film making, and know that I'll make enough dough that way to pay the bills, keep the house, and drive a decent car. That's fair.
By that criteria I would answer the original question: Harder. The eco-system, especially with the web, is providing smaller budgets, greater amounts of content, and a modern viewer who does not want to pay for stuff. Definitely, harder to make a living but that's a lofty goal.
It's like acting. I act. I book stuff. I had an indy come out last year, and just did a mini-series 20 day shoot 2 weeks ago. I get paid for stuff but I still have to work at other stuff. I can say without shame or the hint of a doubt that I have not "made it" as an actor. SAG-AFTRA represents > 160,000 actors. That's working union actors, not including non-union actors. Think some of them might be working at something else? You think sculptors make a good living? Artists? Poets?
Lots of folks do other stuff until they "make it."
I will shut up but I just think that pursing any of this stuff with the goal of "making it" is a hollow pursuit. Better to seek expression, collaboration, and the ability to touch as many people with your inspirations as you can. Then if you "make it" ... freakin' great!
Last edited:
EDV
Well-known member
Maybe the question was flawed. 15 or 20 years ago almost NOBODY was making short films / music videos / documentaries independently. The whole "indy filmmaker" wave started when the DVX100 was introduced. But I think there was the Sony PD150 or VX1000 which some people used for documentaries.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
It will always be the same difficulty to make a good film. It was no harder 30 years ago to tell a good story, as it is now. Good story telling is as old as time and I don't think it is any easier or harder to captivate the audience. However, I think the tools are there now to help people who may not know their potential, realize it. Meaning, you'd have to be lucky or very ambitious to ever get your hands on a film camera in 1930, in order to see if you *could* tell a story on film. Now-a-days, there are apps that allow for in-camera editing of iPhone material, and I think that access can jump start many into being interested or discovering their potential in the medium of temporal/visual storytelling.
The indy wave didn't start with digital cameras at all. "Indy" has typically meant not funded by Hollywood, and that's been going on a long time before there were any digital cameras.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Artists
I"d say that it's much harder now to "make it". The digital equipment is cheaper and more accessible, but that's really the smallest part of teh equation. The bigger and more expensive part of making a good movie has always been access to labor, talent in front of the camera, behind the camera, lighting, wardrobe, make up, set design, etc. It's very hard to get people to do that for free, just because most people ahve to work to pay their rent so they can't just quit their day job to work on an indy fim. That means you need money to pay them.
That money used to be easier to get. There was an entire system of "indy" film making that is now gone. Basically, you got a script and a budget together, and maybe a B list actor with a bit of name recognition. You went to a State in teh US with incentives, and there's a chunk of your budget. Then you sell the foreign rights which distributors would buy in the days of VHS and video rental stores, before netflix and hulu. Then with some State incentives, Foreign distribution money, you just need a little bit of private investor money which they are willing to give since you already have 2/3 of your budget in hand, so Bam! you have a small movie budget!
That system has disappeared, and the financing is pretty much dried up. There's no money to make since you can't compete with Hulu, Netflix, cats in hats on youtube, pirating, 24/7 reality TV, etc.
What netflix pays you will not recoup your budget. Without major ad money you won't get enough of an audience outside of netflix to make any serious money so you could fund another film.
Last edited:
People had 8 mm cameras for shooting the kids unwrapping Christmas gifts. I'ts never about the technology. It's about the people that work on a film, the actors, the crew. That part will never get any easier no matter how cheap digital cameras become. Give people a Red 4k camera and the software to edit it for free, and they still can't make a good movie without good actors, good writers, and a good crew. That's the hard part.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
What can you possibly mean by this? *Head scratch*
DVX100 was the first 24p handheld prosumer/professional camera. Dudes were making TONS of content with a 1,000 other flavors of SD/HD video as well as film. I mean TONS. Maybe I missed the context to which you were responding, but I remember the days before the DVX100 and it was full of VHS, S-VHS, 1/2" tape, 3/4" tape, Betacam's, MiniDV, DVCPRO, etc, etc. There were even thousands of indie shorts, music videos and documentaries shot on film.
The "indie filmmaker wave", if you are truly talking about independently produced works, was introduced well before DVX100... perhaps by decades. Maybe more like the late 1960's into the 1970's. My opinion would be during the time as the grasp of the Hollywood Studio Golden Age was coming to an end as was the French New Wave movement, which should get much credit as to starting the indie movement. I would say 'Easy Rider' (1969) is the definitive proof of the indie movement coming to term, as it proved to be (what many consider) the first commercially successful indie feature to successfully challenge studio films post golden era.
Indie filmmakers, of all sizes, were a recognized force in 1969, if not very long before that.
EDIT: Ok, yes there were def indie films before this time period, and I think I may have confused Easy Rider as being indie, when it was really a low budget. Low budget does not mean indie, and indie does not mean low budget, although often they are paired together. Either way, point made, if not more so in my correction that indie films did well post Golden Era Hollywood in the 1960's, if not before with some examples from the 1950's. See the next post below by Gillvane
Last edited:
