Possibly my last post anywhere...

Ted Spencer said:
Which, speaking of Tarantino, is exactly how he got the chance to make $50M movies. By making "Reservoir Dogs" for...well...a whole hell of a lot lot less than that. But it was the script, once it got into Harvey Keitel's hands (through a student in an acting class QT attended, IIRC), that really launched him. So, again and again...it's the *writing*, stupid... (not meaning you, Chip)

And the beauty is there's absolutely no "risk" in settling for nothing less than great writing. Plenty of risk in not doing so and still going ahead with production though...
Click to expand...

I understand, not one director in hollywood started with a $50m budget, they were all little indies at one time. I do think indies are gettng thrown off course trying to mimic what was done 15 years ago or even 2 years ago. Times have changes so drastically the old been there done that thinking or comparsons no longer work.

100,000 indie movies are looking for distribution right now! Somebody better think outside the box or it'll be just a hobby which is also ok, it's chaeper than drag racing or the horse track although the best odds will always be the casino :)
 
Ted Spencer said:
Which, speaking of Tarantino, is exactly how he got the chance to make $50M movies. By making "Reservoir Dogs" for...well...a whole hell of a lot lot less than that. ...
Click to expand...

Reservoir Dogs was the movie Tarantino made after going through good old Dov Simens two day film school course, which is how to get your stuff made for cheap and get it distributed.

So there you are and with a recipe to boot! What was Dov's catch phrase again..... oh yeah, "First you make a film, then you make a Deal"!
 
craigbowman said:
Reservoir Dogs was the movie Tarantino made after going through good old Dov Simens two day film school course, which is how to get your stuff made for cheap and get it distributed.

So there you are and with a recipe to boot! What was Dov's catch phrase again..... oh yeah, "First you make a film, then you make a Deal"!
Click to expand...

I have Dov Simens' DVDs too...

Remember his #1 rule? The single most important thing in making a successful movie?

"A great script. Not a good script, a *great* script."
 
craigbowman said:
Reservoir Dogs was the movie Tarantino made after going through good old Dov Simens two day film school course, which is how to get your stuff made for cheap and get it distributed.

So there you are and with a recipe to boot! What was Dov's catch phrase again..... oh yeah, "First you make a film, then you make a Deal"!
Click to expand...

Craig, you know how much the distibution models and business has changed since that happened, it's good to say that for inspiration but it won't help indies know what they need to know, what they need to know today is 10x more than tarentino new when he made Dogs.
 
Barry_Green said:
Yes, but Reservoir Dogs was also 17 years ago. What worked then does not necessarily work today.
Click to expand...

The point is that Tarantino is/was a *great* writer, and that *that* was the fundamental reason why he got his shot at success. Given his talent and dedication I find it relatively easy to believe he'd repeat that even if he were starting right now.

Back to the music business for a second, the same flooding of the industry with micro-budget home-brew projects began in the late 80s/early 90s with the advent of midi and cheap multitrack audio recorders. Suddenly every yahoo with a credit card could have his very own "recording studio" at home. Sound famliar? So it massively increased the number of aspiring recording artists entering the marketplace. But it didn't markedly increase the number of successes (although yes, there were a few). I worked with countless of these types in my many years as a recording engineer, and the same thing applied then as it does now with indie filmmaking - the vast, vast majority of these efforts are, plainly and simply, crap. Why? well first and foremost, the songs (or scripts) suck. The rest doesn't matter.

The ones that emerged from the fray didn't actually need those super-cheap "recording studios" the other 99% got so excited about. They had the *actual ability* to do the work *really well*, so they rose, like cream, to the top. All it took was someone smart enough to recognize the difference.

So, call me an optimist, but I still believe that truly great filmmakers (hopefully including some of the folks we all know here), will rise similarly. But I do believe that if they do, it will be *on the merits of their films* that they do so. Not chutzpah (seen a million of 'em, thanks), not "luck" (so rare in pure form it's almost not even a subject), not gear (see above), not money (see "Pearl Harbor")...

Let me ask you, Barry, since you've (at least hypothetically) offered to bankroll films that you consider worthy - if the script for "Reservoir Dogs" or Rodriguez's original cut of "El Maraichi" came across your desk today for consideration (and they were still unknowns), would you get excited enough to help take them to the next level? I submit that it's not hard to recognize that both of these properties are far, far superior to the vast majority of what indie-people produce these days. They pretty clearly *are* in that elusive 1% IMHO. And someone smart, like you, would see that.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't have touched El Mariachi with a 10 foot pole 15 years ago to be honest with you, Rodriguez sold himself not a movie for that deal, Hollywood was hard up for fresh directors and very little indie content was circulating.

Dogs, tough to say, in the early 90's I would have probably thought it was too different for the times, the oposite thinkng of what's required today.
 
Here's How I'd sum up the difference, now and then:

-Back in 'the day', if 100 movies got made, 10 might be good.

-Nowadays, if 1000 movies get made...10 might be good. Ok...maybe 12. The point is that, for all intents and purposes, the second number in the sentence *has not changed*...

So, while the 'signal to noise ratio' is undoubtedly way up, it's really just the 'noise' (crap) that's increased - the 'signal' (quality work) hasn't. You can democratize the gear, but talent lives in a place that has its own rules.
 
I think the writing is incredibly important, but I think that being able to show what you can do technically is a big help as well. Push the envelope on your budget.

The Purchase Brothers did Escape from City 17, they now have agents.

Blomkamp did Alive in Jo Burg (which looks fantastic), he's repped by Ari Emanuel and did D9 after Halo fell apart.

Both of those guys did something new and showed off what they had. Hollywood is looking for talent. Distribution is looking for something good.

Two of which are things that most indies lack. You can have the best written script in the world but if it technically sucks. It won't go anywhere.

You can have the best idea in the world, but someone in a development office doesn't agree and the script isn't bought.
 
ChipG said:
I wouldn't have touched El Mariachi with a 10 foot pole 15 years ago to be honest with you, Rodriguez sold himself not a movie for that deal, Hollywood was hard up for fresh directors and very little indie content was circulating.
Click to expand...

Well, you sure would have been wrong, huh?

Dogs, tough to say, in the early 90's I would have probably thought it was too different for the times, the oposite thinkng of what's required today.
Click to expand...

How many spec or micro-budget indie scripts have you read? For myself, I don't think I've never read one anywhere near as strikingly good as that.

I just went here:

http://www.godamongdirectors.com/scripts/reservoir.shtml

..and read a page or two again. It's frickin' brilliant, right off the bat. I'd sign the guy today in a heartbeat.

Quality is quality, crap is crap, pretty much whenever and wherever you find it. The stuff in the middle's a lot tougher to call, but for my money 'Reservoir Dogs' isn't anywhere near the middle...
 
Mattykins said:
You can have the best written script in the world but if it technically sucks. It won't go anywhere.
Click to expand...

Movies are really expensive to make, as we all know. If someone really did have "the best written script in the world", it's pretty hard to imagine it being produced by complete idiots. Can you cite any examples of (all but) inarguably great scripts (in the opinions of a significant number of Important People Who Know About These Things) that became movies that "technically sucked and went nowhere"? I can't...

You can have the best idea in the world, but someone in a development office doesn't agree and the script isn't bought.
Click to expand...

That does happen, sure. But usually, someone does (like RR and QT, not to mention Chris Nolan...). IIRC, a few people got fired for *not* signing RR...
 
I actually didn't like Reservoir Dogs. Didn't like the script, didn't like the film. I would have passed on it and wouldn't have looked back. And I wouldn't have felt like I missed the oprotunity. In fact, Reservoir Dogs was a box office failure. Not just a flop, this was epically bad in the box office. $2,832,029. Granted it cost 1 and change to make, that doesn't include the marketing and (limited) distribution.

And my point was that I don't think City 17 was well written, in fact, I think the writing was pretty bad. But it looked good. People were impressed. They have agents.

Alive in Jo Burg, not terribly well written, but it looks fantastic. Impressive, damn impressive. If I was an agent and that came across my desk - I'd sign him instantly. Same with the Purchase Brothers.

I guess my point is, the script isn't everything, and if it was everything, it really wouldn't matter.

I've read a good number of unproduced scripts I thought were great. But they won't get made. Just because you have a great script doesn't automatically translate into (going to be made, Hollywood glory). It's not the way the system works. And to think otherwise would be stupid.
 
Ted Spencer said:
Well, you sure would have been wrong, huh?
Click to expand...

Ted, the studio lost money on it's theatrical run, after they spent the money on fixing it and marketing it only grossed $2m.

It did make money on dvd but only after it was turned into a novelty for indies, a novelty, not a good solid movie or script by any means but a novelty to wanna be film makers, cult marketing made it profitable.
 
ChipG said:
Ted, the studio lost money on it's theatrical run, after they spent the money on fixing it and marketing it only grossed $2m.
Click to expand...

As I understand it they spent about $1M fixing it up and advertising it. If that's accurate, it doubled its investment, which is very respectable for a micro.

But I may have the numbers wrong of course... : )
 
Mattykins said:
In fact, Reservoir Dogs was a box office failure. Not just a flop, this was epically bad in the box office. $2,832,029. Granted it cost 1 and change to make, that doesn't include the marketing and (limited) distribution.
Click to expand...

Grossing $2.8M on a $1.2M budget (figure maybe $1.6 or so after other costs) means a profit of about $1M, or almost double the investment. Not bad for a limited distro first film at all, I think.

Just because you have a great script doesn't automatically translate into (going to be made, Hollywood glory). It's not the way the system works.
Click to expand...

Of course not. But a poor one will pretty much guarantee the opposite. And that's the important part...
 
Just because a budget of a film is 1.2 million doesn't mean it's Actual Break Even is 1.2 million...

And would you really say most of the hollywood blockbusters are well written? Writing isn't everything. In film, nothing is everything.
 
El Mariachi lost money on it's theatrical run and Miramax lost money on Dogs theatrical run...
 
Miramax didn't make a dime on home video for Dogs Lions Gate cleaned up on that, Harvey ended up losing money on the theatrical deal, he developed a relationship with tarantino that did pay off on future movies but wipped out on Grind house and some others, but back on Bastards, ok I'll stop here. No more talk from me about tarantino in this thread.

FTR Tarantino's profit that he personally made from Dogs was $40k that's $40,000 bucks...
 
I never said story doesn't mean anything. I said in film nothing is everything. [Meaning story isn't everything, script isn't everything, sound isn't everything...etc] It is a combination of everything that makes a film work. And sometimes different components outweigh others. A la: Transformers. Written well? Nope. Acted well? Nope. Packed with Action? Yep. Good popcorn film? Yep. Box Office success? Yuppers.

So, action outweighs the script here.

I didn't like Res Dogs, I don't like Tarantino. I would feel just fine (as a studio exec) without Tarantino working for my studio (I am not a studio exec). That doesn't make me a bad person.

My examples aforementioned were examples of the system today. I thought Alive in Jo Burg was a great concept. But it helped he is repped by one of the biggest agents in Hollywood. He is reped by one of the biggest agents in Hollywood as a director because of his capacity to create visually arresting material on a budget that is actually entertaining. That's why I used it as an example of people getting hired based on their technical capabilities and their general talent. D-9 wouldn't exist today if Halo didn't die. And if you watch Alive in Jo Burg, it isn't the best written film ever. It's really not.

I don't think anyone goes out planning to write a terrible script. I know how scripts make their way through the system. I've talked with writers that had their scripts destroyed by Hollywood. I've talked with Execs who have seen writers fired from their scripts only to take the concept.

I think the general discussion here is "how to make a film" not "how to break in". And what is wrong with selling a spec as a way to get in? I'd recommend it. I'm just saying that just because you have a good script doesn't mean -

A) Your film will get made
B) Your film will get distributed

You need flawless execution of all fronts, including script, including visually, including aurally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top