Is it harder or easier to make it as a filmmaker in 2013?

Gillvane said:
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.
Click to expand...

It isn't about how good the technology is. It's about being able to have access to it. 8mm is a great example of what I am talking about, as it gave many people the chance to experiment with this artistic medium who otherwise would not have had the opportunity before, since 16mm/35mm film cameras and film costs were much more expensive, thus prohibiting.

Example: If my parents hadn't bought me a VHS video camera when I was 12 years old to satisfy my creative curiosities, I would not be where I am today. I'm sure of that. I was a lucky upper-middle class WASP male with loving parents in 20th century America. It's a decent hand to be dealt as far as uninhibited opportunities come. My parents continued to support my passion by purchasing me a video mixing board, editing software, etc. This is beyond supportive and very few in this world get to experiment and pursue passions with such ease and encouragement. Had I been a poor child from a less fortunate circumstance (as is most of the world), I don't think I may have ever 'caught the film bug' for visual storytelling.


My original point being:
I think it is just as hard to write, direct, and shoot films on a competitive and contemporary level as it ever was. There have always been masters of the art to compete with even if audience, language, context and taste in the medium was ever-shifting as did the culture. Despite what you think of Griffith, Eisenstein, Chaplin, Wells, Kubrick, etc... despite all being different in style, language and approach, they were all masters of their craft. I bet Griffith had the same challenges doing his job as did Kubrick; it was just in different ways, technically. I think in that context, being a filmmaker today is JUST as hard. It's hard to tell an exceptionally good story! It always has been and it always will be. It's not easier in 2013 to be creative, compelling, humorous, entertaining, sensational, evoking or honest to your fellow man.

However, regarding technology, I think access to try the artform will open the door for many to discover a passion, talent and voice they otherwise would have never found.

Out of the 5 Billion+ people on this planet, only a bucket from the proverbial ocean of people would have had the opportunity to experiment with the medium of visual storytelling... and only a drop out of that bucket would ever get to do it on a scale of what we think of as professional filmmaking. Now with 95% of the populace not included in the bucket, do you think some of the greatest filmmakers of our time might have been left out? How many children, being smart and brilliant visual thinkers but from unfortunate circumstance were left out; not given a chance? How many musicians? How many photographers?

I think having YouTube, cell phone cameras, and all of the other modern and more-accessible-than-ever tools will help people, who otherwise would never have had a chance, to discover and embrace a passion and a talent for this art.

As FF Coppola once said:
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure many (if not majority) of people on this forum "have made it" - that is the filmmaking is their primary (if not only) source of income.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
It's hard to tell an exceptionally good story! It always has been and it always will be. It's not easier in 2013 to be creative, compelling, humorous, entertaining, sensational, evoking or honest to your fellow man.
Click to expand...

Agree!

Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
I think having YouTube, cell phone cameras, and all of the other modern and more-accessible-than-ever tools will help people, who otherwise would never have had a chance, to discover and embrace a passion and a talent for this art.
Click to expand...

STRONGLY disagree. The statement is not posed correctly as the access to all that technology vastly changes the medium. Access to technology doesn't equal "more talented folks that normally would be left out have access." That's why this Coppola quote is a bit naive because it presumed that with access more creativity would start flowing but it hasn't been exactly the case. We are drowning in content of average proportions - quality content isn't exactly easy to find. The "Staff Picks" on vimeo are nothing but eye candy - so much so that you can skip through 3 min video in 10 sec as there is usually NOTHING other than attractive images and attractive images only go so far in my book. The conversation about meaning is almost non-existent. Yeah, yeah, yeah, in post-modern world "there is no meaning" but even that repeated long enough produces some kind of statement (thus meaning) about the world.

The world is vastly different than it was 10 years ago. Even though being "creative, compelling, humorous, entertaining, sensational, evoking or honest to your fellow man" might be as hard as it's ever been i'm not sure it matters anymore to more than just a handful old timers longing for the "better times of their past."

BTW - since i'm an an "old-timer" i started a blog about meaning of images:
http://swlthemovie.wordpress.com/
 
As far as 'making it' goes, I agree with some other posters that have said the barriers of entry have basically just moved, not decreased. I do think there is a new 'lower end' though that didn't exist 20 years ago thanks to YouTube and a significant price drop in hardware and software. Even then though, the success of things like Video Game High School and Annoying Orange still represent an incredibly small percentage of people trying to make money via YT.



David Jimerson said:
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.
Click to expand...

Isn't using 'other people's money' the most base part of the business though? A director, producer, writer, etc., tries to get a studio to foot the bill to make the movie. The studio then tries to get outside investors to foot the bill. On a lower budget production Kickstarter might enter the equation. Everyone wants to minimize their monetary risk in a project as much as they can (while of course maximizing their monetary reward as much as they can).


Patryk_Rebisz said:
STRONGLY disagree. The statement is not posed correctly as the access to all that technology vastly changes the medium. Access to technology doesn't equal "more talented folks that normally would be left out have access." That's why this Coppola quote is a bit naive because it presumed that with access more creativity would start flowing but it hasn't been exactly the case. We are drowning in content of average proportions - quality content isn't exactly easy to find.
Click to expand...

I think more talented people will have access but they will be outnumber 10,000 to 1 by people without talent.


-Andrew
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
However, regarding technology, I think access to try the artform will open the door for many to discover a passion, talent and voice they otherwise would have never found.
Click to expand...

The technology has been here for 50 years already. People had 8mm cameras in their homes, then VHS for 50 years now. There is no lack of access that is suddenly being served because we have better digital cameras now. People have had access to the tools to make movies for a very, very long time, way before HD.

Yes, everyone has a smartphone that takes video now. And they are going to take video of their cats with them. Anyone that wanted to do more has been able to afford an 8mm camera, or some sort of camera, for over 50 years now.

We don't have more access, just more cat videos. But they look very cinematic!

I will take great actors and a Hollywood crew, lights, dp, wardrobe, hair, make up, FX and any camera from the 50's, 60's or 70's over a Red Epic and no crew and a couple of locals that can't act very well any day.

The secret of making Hollywood quality movies is the crew and the actors. Griffith, Eisenstein, Chaplin, Wells, Kubrick, etc. would all make crap with no crew and amatuer actors. Don't get me wrong, most people, probably myself included would make crap with a crew and great actors, but people just discount what I think is the most important element of producing quality movies. I'ts not the camera. It's having a fully staffed crew and great actors. Kubrick had John Alcott as DP and John Alcott had 2 ton grip trucks, cranes, and you name it to make those shots happen. give Kubrick and Red Epic and no crew and see what you get. Not much. I mean, Kubrick is deceased, but you get what I mean. Hell, Chaplin couldn't even operate a camera at all afaik.
 
Last edited:
Im a full time shooter / director. I make a good living doing so. As far as being a film maker... Im not even close.

Film making for me is to create feature narratives that will make people, laugh or cry or... thats the whole shebang for me - to move people with visual stories. Im a million miles from there.

The question posed, is it harder or easier to make it as a film maker in 2013? I think for most people its actually easier. It seems many people these days though don’t need to go far to feel as though they’ve made it. Many people seem to believe that by being, they’ve made it. I guess no one ever asks a carpenter if they’ve made it, they’re trained and then they are, so there is some sense to it.

Fred (?) is on deaths door and is asked:

Q: What did you do with your life?
A: I was a film maker.

Q:Were you successful?
A: Are you talking about fame or fortune here? Or are you referring to the fact that by being a film maker I lived a full, rich life with some incredible experiences and met many incredible people along the way?

FWIW Im not saying those two experiences are mutually exclusive to each other either, Im just identifying that its down to the individual and their perception of “made it”.
 
Another way to put it is that what's gotten easier is making a pretty image. I think that's true. Making a good movie? Not the same thing as making a pretty image. Making a good movie has gotten harder because funding has dried up, and what you really need is a good crew, actors, and locations, wardrobes, sets, scripts, and they cost money.
 
EDV said:
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.
Click to expand...

wot i was doing 20 years ago;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gz1l-mIjgI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTE219tLouM

does that count?
not easy then, film stock + transfer = $, alot easier now i think....
 
Am I the only one who's seeing that this entire thread is made up of arguing semantics for an answer to a question no one knows?

First, EDV has to clarify what he considers "indie" - a short film can cost far less than $100K. I've produced short films ranging from $500-$20,000. I certainly would not consider a short film that was made for over $100K, "indie".

The DVX started a revolution of its own but it definitely doesn't mean people weren't making independent products before.

There are so many fallacies within this thread, it's hard to know when to stop pointing them out...

What's the point of this question again?
 
We will re-open this thread, but do not repost anything that was deleted, and take things in a different direction. The path it was going down was bad.
 
the technology is better and there are more options for funding, so that makes it easier to make a film. but that also means people's expectations have gone up, so it probably balances out and is just as hard to "make it" as a filmmaker as it was 15-20 years ago.
 
it's all who you know... I'm super lucky to be pretty much booked out for 2014. That's not me bragging in ANY way, I'm saying I'm genuinely lucky and it's been because of making the right contacts. And frankly, 2015 could be totally different. I've learned over the years how important it is to network. Literally, everyone you talk to is a potential client. Never let a chance pass, and you'll have a better opportunity at "making it".

be the best in your whole city and fail to network, and complain about how hard impossible it is to make it.

If people don't know you exist, you can't get work. And if people genuinely like you, their apt to not shop elsewhere. So I've learned on EVERY plane ride, coffee shop, workshop, time someone stops me on the street to ask what I'm doing, etc. to be friendly, personable, and look for potential clients or gigs. Literally, some of my best connections have come from some of the most random interactions that I could have easily blown off: the annoying guy next to me on the plane. The 10th stranger to ask me about my camera in a one hour period. The old guy next to me at a workshop who seemed clueless about stuff and turned out to be a multi-million dollar production business owner in the 80s looking to get back into the field. Etc.

So I'd say: it's not about the year. It's not about the profession. It's all about who you know. So get to know EVERYONE.
 
filmguy123 said:
it's all who you know... I'm super lucky to be pretty much booked out for 2014. That's not me bragging in ANY way, I'm saying I'm genuinely lucky and it's been because of making the right contacts. And frankly, 2015 could be totally different. I've learned over the years how important it is to network. Literally, everyone you talk to is a potential client. Never let a chance pass, and you'll have a better opportunity at "making it".

be the best in your whole city and fail to network, and complain about how hard impossible it is to make it.

If people don't know you exist, you can't get work. And if people genuinely like you, their apt to not shop elsewhere. So I've learned on EVERY plane ride, coffee shop, workshop, time someone stops me on the street to ask what I'm doing, etc. to be friendly, personable, and look for potential clients or gigs. Literally, some of my best connections have come from some of the most random interactions that I could have easily blown off: the annoying guy next to me on the plane. The 10th stranger to ask me about my camera in a one hour period. The old guy next to me at a workshop who seemed clueless about stuff and turned out to be a multi-million dollar production business owner in the 80s looking to get back into the field. Etc.

So I'd say: it's not about the year. It's not about the profession. It's all about who you know. So get to know EVERYONE.
Click to expand...


yowza. Not sure if it applies 100% to indie filmmaking but great post. Like the saying goes, 'the harder I work, the luckier I seem to get.

I've got a few of those airplane/workshop stories, it's the truth.
 
Kegan said:
Am I the only one who's seeing that this entire thread is made up of arguing semantics for an answer to a question no one knows?

First, EDV has to clarify what he considers "indie" - a short film can cost far less than $100K. I've produced short films ranging from $500-$20,000. I certainly would not consider a short film that was made for over $100K, "indie".

The DVX started a revolution of its own but it definitely doesn't mean people weren't making independent products before.

There are so many fallacies within this thread, it's hard to know when to stop pointing them out...

What's the point of this question again?
Click to expand...

Indy means independent, as in not made by Hollywood studios. I don't think there's a dollar amount attached.
 
Right, but the dollar amount matters. Everything changes at different budget levels and the initial question was posed with the intention of staying at the "indie" level of filmmaking, which doesn't make sense.

To put it into perspective, I can make a lot of short films with budgets of less than $20,000 but will someone give me $500,000 to make a feature if I needed it? Certainly not as easily in my case. Maybe the question should have been, is it cheaper to make films in 2013?
 
filmguy123 said:
it's all who you know... I'm super lucky to be pretty much booked out for 2014. That's not me bragging in ANY way, I'm saying I'm genuinely lucky and it's been because of making the right contacts. And frankly, 2015 could be totally different. I've learned over the years how important it is to network. Literally, everyone you talk to is a potential client. Never let a chance pass, and you'll have a better opportunity at "making it".

be the best in your whole city and fail to network, and complain about how hard impossible it is to make it.

If people don't know you exist, you can't get work. And if people genuinely like you, their apt to not shop elsewhere. So I've learned on EVERY plane ride, coffee shop, workshop, time someone stops me on the street to ask what I'm doing, etc. to be friendly, personable, and look for potential clients or gigs. Literally, some of my best connections have come from some of the most random interactions that I could have easily blown off: the annoying guy next to me on the plane. The 10th stranger to ask me about my camera in a one hour period. The old guy next to me at a workshop who seemed clueless about stuff and turned out to be a multi-million dollar production business owner in the 80s looking to get back into the field. Etc.

So I'd say: it's not about the year. It's not about the profession. It's all about who you know. So get to know EVERYONE.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to quote this because it's a great post.
 
Kegan said:
Right, but the dollar amount matters. Everything changes at different budget levels and the initial question was posed with the intention of staying at the "indie" level of filmmaking, which doesn't make sense.

To put it into perspective, I can make a lot of short films with budgets of less than $20,000 but will someone give me $500,000 to make a feature if I needed it? Certainly not as easily in my case. Maybe the question should have been, is it cheaper to make films in 2013?
Click to expand...

Indie at Cannes means it wasn't made by MGM or Paramount or some Hollywood studio, but a few million or more might have been the budget and Hollywood stars might be in the cast.

People also use Indie to describe no budget films, films made in your backyard with your Black Magic camera and free crew and local talent, and not spending any money except pizza to feed the crew.

I think because the market has changed it's harder now to get 500K to make a feature. At the same time it's easier for the Stars of Veronica Mars to nudge the studios by getting a Kickstarter for funds. It's easier to shoot whatever you want and put it on youtube. You can make a feature film with your iphone and put it on youtube if you want. Probably no one will watch it because they'll be watching cats wearing funny hats or something, but you can do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top