Possibly my last post anywhere...

[Melvin Harris]

.... So the whole negativity I've seen here, I have for so long thought, well, people on DVXUser are smart filmmakers, I should listen to them, etc., but I feel I would never do anything if I listened to people here -- no offense. That negative reality doesn't seem to be the case in the type of circles I'm working in, and I don't believe that because someone made a crappy indie film for $100K and didn't make their money back that it means somehow it's impossible. I think I understand the risks fully, and I'll take my chances, because if I had listened to people who told me this or that was impossible, I would never have gotten anything done in my life. Everything great I have accomplished has been "impossible" to most people, so I have to conclude that sometimes it's better to just do it, as Nike says, than think about it too much.

This is exactly why I asked the question in the first place... The people here are smart filmmakers/moviemakers but can make accomplishing the task sound inconceivable. I wanted to know why people say this, JonathanLB, and through this discussion I am beginning to understand. It does not daunt me, and it shouldn't daunt you given your experience, or anyone else for that matter, but we all should move in to this with the benefit of intellect and experience guiding our decisions and not the common place, "no, you would be a half wordless monkey for even considering it, moron," type of attitude. The posters here have been awesome to dialogue with because it's not emotional, there is sound prudent advice and personal experience coming from both sides of the argument.

Jack Daniel Stanley-

Your point is well taken...

When I was working as a gigging musician, I was often told by many a producer, A&R exec, etc. that the only thing a CD really is is a business card for live venue gigs where you really make money... I have been of this same mind for my first foray into feature moviemaking. I want to put my best into this project because it heralds something, but if the best only costs 45K...

I think that this is important for me, and others to hear, because we focus too much on the budget and not the process. Hell, you could have a hundred million dollars and every sweet toy in the world, plus a great script and A-list actors, but fail to plan, plan to fail...

Money is an interesting thing. It affords whoever has it certain undeniable freedoms, and time is the ultimate of these freedoms. If I understand everyone correctly, a larger budget allows for the assembling of a better creative team, talent team, and labor team. The lack thereof, however, means that certain adjustments must be made in thought, execution, and motivation, but can be done although many have not been able to pull the trigger for whatever reason (not trying to oversimplify but trying to congeal points to make another).
Can it be said, and please forgive me for being glib, that instead of time= (is) money, money= (is) time? Maybe most nano to micro budget indie movies/films suck because their budget doesn't afford them time for problem solving, for rewrites, for pickups, for music licensing, whatever, and if they had either the time to think things through, or resources (commented on by Zak Forsman, Jack Daniel Stanley, ChrisHurn) to make it easier to surmount issues, the quality of the movies/films would go up?

 

[Ted Spencer]

The thing about Rodriguez's story, is he was a package ready to go. He was ready to make something bigger with a budget. Kind of like when a major record label looks for a new artist, they want a complete package, something they can sell, or someone that has already done a lot of work for themselves and has shown they can get people to come to their shows, etc. Become a walking dollar bill, you'll get found.

But the film better be f**king great. And that's where the majority of people fail. Not in the budget, they fail in the script, they fail in the production design, the acting, the direction, etc. If you can pull it off, then do it.

Make a good film and the people will come!

^All the above is not only absolutely, completely 100% correct, but it is, for all intents and purposes, the *only* really important point to take away on the subject. It also (inversely) describes the exact, precise, #1 reason why 99% of micro-indie features fail:

Here it comes...

Drum roll please...

Believe it or not...

It's actually...

Because...

THEY AREN'T GOOD.

 

[Barry_Green]

If you want to know what the practical aspects of a sale are, don't talk to cinematographers or UPM's. Talk to producers and distributors. Talk to the buyers. Talk to the people with the finished films and ask them how their sales experience is going.

Do you know anyone who's personally spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to make their own film, got rave reviews from Sundance attendees, and still hasn't sold it? I do. Do you know anyone who's spent $7k to make a micro-budget feature and never managed to sell it or even give it away? I do.

Then listen to what Chip, and Zak, and Luis Caffesse are saying about distribution models. They're changing faster than you can imagine. Anything you've read in any book is old/outdated information. If it was written two years ago, it doesn't apply anymore.

And "El Mariachi" was 15 years ago.

For some reason people seem to be attributing what I'm saying to "negativity". I'm not being anti-filmmaker, I'm being anti-foolishness. Anyone who says "you can't make a film for under $150k and lose money" -- I respectfully submit there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who manage to do this every year.

So if you're going to do it, go into it smart.

If everyone around you says "don't touch the hot stove", you can choose to think that they're just being negative or chicken or whatnot, that's your choice -- but the fact remains that the stove's hot and you shouldn't touch it. So just putting on your blinders and saying "I'm going to go ahead and do it anyway, no matter what anyone says" -- well, don't be surprised if the stove burns you when you touch it.

Back to what Jack said -- if you want to make a "calling card" feature, and spend nothing on it, and see where it takes you -- that's obviously fine. That's not a "business venture", that's an investment in yourself, and you know, going in, that you're not likely to ever see a penny back from that project. But it's worth it to you to see what you can do, learn what you can do, and show everyone else what you can do. And maybe it'll lead to something else, something bigger. If it's money you've got saved up, that you'll never miss, then by all means, go ahead.

But to spend $150k on a film thinking "there's no way to lose" -- I think all that's going to happen there is that someone's going to get a pretty quick education on exactly how you CAN lose $150k making a film! But hey, if there's some magic formula, show it to me -- I'll bankroll $150k films all day long, left and right, as long as I "can't lose". Show me the distribution agreements in place, ironclad contracts guaranteeing $150k, and I'll put up the $150k to make the pic right now.*

Now, look -- there are ways to put the odds in your favor. There are ways to minimize your risk. But to just jump in and make some film and run up $10,000 or $30,000 or $50,000 worth of debt -- that's ... extraordinarily unwise. That's what I'm saying. Forget about making a film until you've made a plan, until you have a complete plan for getting all the money back, and the actual film's the only missing component in the plan. When you've got that structured, then financing the film makes sense.

To run up credit card debt with the idea "we'll just enter the film in Sundance and wait for the bidding war to begin" -- that's insanity. Yet read these forums, and other forums, and ... that's pretty much about as far as most micro-cine filmmakers go with the whole distribution plan.

You want to risk a grand or two making a complete no-budget movie? Just about anyone can take that hit, so go right ahead, jump in, I have no problem with that. But I do have a real big problem with people telling our members (or, well, anyone else) to run up massive credit card debt making a movie. That kind of "advice" leads to bankruptcies, divorces, depression, and who knows what other consequences.

Well, that's where I'm coming from in this whole discussion. And I know that the attitude I'm battling against may not be the exact attitude of some of the people in this thread, but it's certainly a widespread attitude in the "indie world" and it needs to be examined very carefully.

*usual disclaimers, there's certain types content I won't be associated with, it depends on the credibility of the distribution/sales company, the production team has to convince me that they'll succeed in producing the product successfully, on- or under-budget, etc...

 

[Ted Spencer]

It boils down to content and execution across the board.

Bingo.

Ditto on my comments above.

 

[Ted Spencer]

I do have a real big problem with people telling our members (or, well, anyone else) to run up massive credit card debt making a movie. That kind of "advice" leads to bankruptcies, divorces, depression, and who knows what other consequences.

Right. It's been described by some as "criminal". Too harsh words perhaps, but perhaps not...

Bankrupting yourself, your extended family, your business associates and your friends on an ill-conceived cinematic pipe-dream is a tragedy, and it happens far too often.

 

[Melvin Harris]

Now, look -- there are ways to put the odds in your favor. There are ways to minimize your risk. But to just jump in and make some film and run up $10,000 or $30,000 or $50,000 worth of debt -- that's ... extraordinarily unwise. That's what I'm saying. Forget about making a film until you've made a plan, until you have a complete plan for getting all the money back, and the actual film's the only missing component in the plan. When you've got that structured, then financing the film makes sense.

To run up credit card debt with the idea "we'll just enter the film in Sundance and wait for the bidding war to begin" -- that's insanity. Yet read these forums, and other forums, and ... that's pretty much about as far as most micro-cine filmmakers go with the whole distribution plan.

You want to risk a grand or two making a complete no-budget movie? Just about anyone can take that hit, so go right ahead, jump in, I have no problem with that. But I do have a real big problem with people telling our members (or, well, anyone else) to run up massive credit card debt making a movie. That kind of "advice" leads to bankruptcies, divorces, depression, and who knows what other consequences.

Well, that's where I'm coming from in this whole discussion. And I know that the attitude I'm battling against may not be the exact attitude of some of the people in this thread, but it's certainly a widespread attitude in the "indie world" and it needs to be examined very carefully.

Best advice so far.

 

[ChipG]

I was poping popcorn when this thread started but it turned out to be one pretty sweet thread. :thumbup:

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Robert Rodriguez filmed El Mariachi on a $7,000 and he had it WAY harder than we all do today with modern technology. ...

Yea right, 100,000 indie movies were competing with it... Read my above post. Competition will kill you faster than anything. It'll work once, maybe twice, Blair Witch didn't even work twice btw.

...
And "El Mariachi" was 15 years ago.

...

I think El Mariachi would get swallowed whole and completely disappear if it was on the scene now.

There are so many more "made for a $5 and a dream" features, shorts etc. Out there than there were 15 years ago. The novelty of "wow you made this for pennies" is completely gone. I mean we, as DIY/aspiring filmmakers, think its really cool. But festival programmers, critics, audience members don't care anymore. The hyper low budget is a footnote at best, then it's judged on it's looks and content against every other film. If the content and look is amazing, then the micro budget will get you extra kudos on top of that. But no one is going to grade on a curve anymore like they would when El Mariachi came out, flabbergasted by the fact that the movie was completed. Now it's "of course you can make it for that, of course it can look great for that, now lets watch the movie". So microbudget success story used to actually adjust the curve. Now you get graded just like the big boys and the micro budget will get you small bonus (extra credit) on top of that maybe.

 

[jpastuch]

All "hobby" comments aside, it's time for new ways of making films like some have suggested in here. Filmmaking is still the most expensive art, but look at how spoiled we are. The problem is that technology has made cameras like the DVX100 and GH-1 available to everyone, but instead of embracing DIY freedom, people get obessed with other technological advances to make their films look like "real films".

Do you have still have to learn how those cameras work, and how sound works? Yeah. Do you still need really expensive professionals and really expensive equipment and really expensive labs and really expensive film? No. Godard, Tarkovsky, Marker- these guys would have done SO MUCH with SO LITTLE based on the technology we have today.

Do you still need professionals to make your films look like Hollywood productions? Of course, and if people want to hire professionals and work with them, that's great. I'm a big Sven Nykvist fan, a true professional and amazing cinematographer.

But you can't afford Sven Nykvist (well, he's dead too, but). so, what do you do? Get creative. Make a film that consists of just you holding the camcorder taping various things (not just random things, I mean a concept based off of that). Why not? "People may not want to watch it". No one knows anything, no one knows who will want to watch who's film.

The point is, the filmmaking revolution that so many artists of the past used to wish for, the freedom from big technological equipment and hollywood producers is here. It's been here. People on here have embraced it. Look at the name of this board. DVXuser. Damn straight. Gh-1 is 1500 bucks. Don't sit around whining that you can't afford the RED or that you can't afford a 35mm adapter or that you don't want to shoot your film because you don't have the latest HD cam. These might make your films better in one sense, but the limitations you have will drive you to create something more unique. Someone else with a million dollar camera will never be able to make what you make, just like someone with a million dollar pen can't write what Albert Camus wrote.

You can do so much with what we have. The camera, some day very soon, will be like the pen. Everyone in the world will have one (we are very close to this now) but not everyone will be able to make a piece of cinema. That comes from talent, experience, and studying of art. Look at paintings, look at other things. Think about plays. In theory, they should cost nothing, but plays, with sets, costumes, lighting, etc, cost tens of thousands of dollars- and I'm talking about the lowbudget ones- like the one put on in my former high school. Yet, you could put a play on in the street for 0 dollars.

Think differently. Forget Rodriguez. Rodgriguez had no model, neither should you. You have a infinite number of possibilities. Don't kid yourself though- your film can't have a house exploding in it. Why? You can't afford to blow up a house. Your film will not be DP'd by Sven Nykvist. Get over it. You can't afford a pro sound guy? Learn enough about sound to get what you need. Yeah, learn about stuff. Or get a friend who knows about sound. Feed him. Or forget all this, make a documentary about something really important in your life. Add ficitional elements. Ignore people who dislike your films. Just make them. You don't have pro actors? Use non-actors- but be AWARE of this. Don't treat them like they've been studying acting for the past 20 years. Look at Robert Bresson- he almost NEVER used pro actors, and he treated them differently, created a new, unique form of acting in cinema.

Anyway, I've rambled but my point is, the most important thing is thinking deeply about what you want to say in cinema. The trick isn't "making it" or "selling it", it's about putting yourself into your work and being honest, truthful, genuine in what you want to say, and being willing to risk things and fail in trying new things, especially when you're young (when you don't have to pay RENT yet, for instance!). So go and do things.

 

[Ted Spencer]

First and foremost, narrative filmmaking, like all arts that involve language, sinks or swims on the writing. Without a really good story (first) that becomes a really good script (second) you will not have a successful movie. No amount *of anything else* will overcome this limitation in all but 'freak exception' cases, which almost certainly amount to way under 1% of all films produced.

This is *the exact thing* that virtually all failed films fail at, at all budget levels.

Everything else matters - a lot - but quality writing is *the one thing* that is absolutely essential.

In my humble opinion, of course ; )

 

[jpastuch]

But not all filmmaking is narrative filmmaking, and not all "narrative" filmmaking focuses on the actual writing and not all filmmaking aims to tell stories.

 

[JonathanLB]

Barry

Barry

Barry, I would never suggest someone spend money they don't even have, that's an unwise investment. But when you say you know all of these people who lost their money -- fine. I know some of those too. But they also made bad movies. And your version of UPM probably isn't my version of UPM. He IS a producer, that's what a UPM is, a producer. Unit Production Manager. On a smaller film that is often the only producer besides the person bankrolling the film, i.e. the writer-director. And the point with both the DP I know and the UPM is they are friends with the people who bankroll these films, directors generally, small production companies, etc. They have had almost no experience with their films losing any money, and in fact generally have made money. These aren't the type of people who work on a project then that's it. They maintain contact with these people, so it's not like they were unaware when the films actually sold.

Of course you need a plan, but to say you can make a really great business model for an indie feature is just silly. What's your business plan? There's nothing reasonable you can even make. It's art. It's built to be somewhat commercial one would hope. The business plan is the same for them all -- make great film, sell film to distributor. You can't guarantee that either will happen. Even Hollywood can't guarantee the first one, but they at least have the means of distribution and hope to earn their money back through that. An indie feature cannot be made at all if not for passion. You can't make it as a money exercise, because it simply doesn't work that way. If you don't realize that, you're more jaded than anyone! And it's just bad advice to tell people not to make a feature because odds are it will suck and it won't sell. Whose odds are those? Not my odds! Odds are whatever I make will be VERY good. Odds are what someone else makes might suck, sure, but that's not my concern. I'm not them! Most indie short films suck, but when I made mine I knew it would be good. Why? Because I know how to plan and execute a shoot, and I had a good script with a good character and good actors to play everyone.

Even if you say that 95 out of 100 indie features don't make their money back, even if that's true, it says little. It only says something if you can show me 100 great indie features that didn't make their money back. And I'm sorry, but no, that doesn't happen. You can find TONS of crappy indie films that made a profit, especially horror features. It's almost a slam dunk with some of that work.

The whole point is NOT everyone says, "Don't touch that burning stove." It seems to be only people who haven't done it themselves who say that. Most people I actually know who have spent the money on a feature or worked on a feature of the $100K to $300K variety have made their money back and are doing fine. Maybe this isn't the case if you live in Montana or something, but the people I know in Los Angeles, this is the case. The only people saying "No, don't do it!" are people on DVX User I don't even know, haha. I'm not saying it's bad advice to be extremely cautious, and if you're making an indie feature because you think that's the best use of your money investment-wise, you have to be crazy. It isn't. But if you're trying to establish yourself as a writer-director, and you have a great script you're excited to shoot, plus you have the money, you should ABSOLUTELY do it, and let nobody tell you otherwise. You will never make it in this business without taking risks. Just make sure those risks are calculated and acceptable.

 

[jpastuch]

I don't think I said this before, but it occured to me- how old are you? Why are film students- people my age (early 20s), so worried about "hitting it big" or even making a feature film? This time right now, where someone else supports you or you don't have to pay back your loans- is a golden time to learn. In every way.

Sit and think. What kind of films do you want to make? what important things do you want to show and question the world? What kind of style will you develop? Why not shoot around with a camcorder? For a whole week, drive around to different places that you find beautiful/like to sit and think, and just shoot these places by yourself. Use up an entire MiniDV tape (they're super cheap, after all). What things do you study? What do you find most important?

At the end of the week, take the 7 tapes, and go through them. Edit them together into something, preferably 15 minutes or under. DON'T add music. Either recorder sounds seperately in a similar way or use no sound at all.

When you're done, sit back and take a look at the whole thing. What have you made?

Watch films by great directors, then read books about them. Go to your library and check out books by great authors and read them. Go look at paintings by Van Gogh. Don't worry about the technical stuff because once you start these things, you'll naturally want to learn whatever technical details you need to know, I think. If you care that much about it, it should come naturally.

Anyway, these are just thoughts that come to me. I think we as young people (myself included, from time to time) worry so much about becoming big name directors without learning or living life first.

I found this tonight on youtube and find it very inspiring. I've only seen a bit of this director's work, but his ideas are that digital cinema has made it more possible for directors to make more personal films.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0W2Zjq6YIc

 

[JonathanLB]

Well I think it's good to have a goal of where you want to be one day, and you have to set about getting there somehow. The problem is of course like you said, if you don't know who you are or what you have to say that's unique, it's probably misguided to spend your time on filmmaking... instead, you should focus on becoming a more interesting, knowledgeable person so you can share some of your insights with the world. I would say that most 20-somethings don't have much to say about the world, honestly. It's because they are pretty much a product of the culture around them, and haven't defined themselves. But that is no criticism of them, to be honest. I don't think most 50-somethings have anything interesting to say either, frankly. Nobody does who goes with the herd. They are not unique, or individual, they are just products of their time, and have gained little true insight into the world besides average observations.

Then again, most people aren't storytellers, and they probably know they don't have what it takes to be one. If you're a filmmaker, you better have what it takes. Everyone thinks they can pick up a camera and tell a great story, but the fact is clearly they cannot, since most people's stories are just not that interesting.

I remember when I started as a filmmaker, not that long ago of course, but I remember thinking that it was scary if all of the equipment would be getting better at such a rate that everyone would be able to own what I had bought, and make professional movies. Then as I learned more and grew, I realized I don't care if everyone has all of the equipment in the world, that won't help them make great work. Great work is not made because you have the tools, any more than you could hand me the tools to build a house and I'd end up building a beautiful mansion. I wouldn't be able to put together a toolshed let alone a mansion, lol. The tools are great, you do need tools to make a professional product, but they are the very beginning of what you need. Now I realize that my only competition is other very talented people with the means to make a great film. Not just random people with money enough to buy great equipment.

I definitely didn't want to make a feature film too early, and part of me still thinks I'm not ready, but I don't want to procrastinate too long. If I am very happy with the script, if it's something I think is really good, then I want to shoot it. I will never fully be "ready" anyway, but I can do my best and I think rise to the occasion. Since I know how to get quality work technically, and have zero worries about that, then it comes down to whether I can get great performances. I know both of my leads already, they have worked with me once before and twice before, respectively, and I've seen a lot of their work, one won a Best Actor award earlier this year, both are up-and-coming, and since they are dating in real life I am unconcerned by whether they have "chemistry" together -- they obviously do. So a lot of my work is already done for me. It's more a matter of working with the supporting roles and finding great talent for those roles, and being able to pull together the entire production.

Ultimately, if I didn't think I could make a very good feature film, I wouldn't bother at all. I'm not interested in doing anything just for the sake of doing it. Either it's really good and I'm happy, or it sucks and I just wasted my money and time. But ultimately if I made a really good film, high quality, funny, well done, etc., and it lost money but got me exposure, I'd still be pleased with that outcome. It's a life goal to direct a feature film anyway, but only if it's good, and if I can pull that off I will be satisfied and believe it will open doors for me.

 

[ChipG]

I don't think I said this before, but it occured to me- how old are you? Why are film students- people my age (early 20s), so worried about "hitting it big" or even making a feature film?

I'm glad you brought this up, the people who know the media biz the best are you guys who see it change every 3 months, it's been forced on you. I wonder and wonder and wonder why some of you guys just sit around and take it all in without using what you know about it to benefit yourselves?

 

[ChrisHurn]

I don't think I said this before, but it occured to me- how old are you? Why are film students- people my age (early 20s), so worried about "hitting it big" or even making a feature film

I agree with this to a point. But not everybody wants to make films that make audiences think too hard. You don't need to have seen all the third world countries and beyond to make a film about a bunch of high school kids who get their heads cut off by a crazy lunatic. You need a wild, active, creative mind. Maybe it's better that you're young and stupid for these kind of films. (let's be honest, there's been a whole bunch of remakes and new films by 40+ year old hacks recently that suck big time.)

I'm young now, I want to make films all the way through my life. But I don't want to make films that 3 people will see up until my big "meaningful" film when I'm 40. No thanks. I'm going to make films that are relevant to my time, relevant to my life and my immagination where it stands right now. And I can always make serious films later in my life when I have more to say. (Not that I don't have anything to say right now, that is)

If you start a career by "making it big" younger, and making cool looking films with interesting characters and stories, then you develop a reuputation, you meet people. People that might help you out when you're ten years older and have a few more lines in your head.

I think if you know too much about something, you end up becoming a critic, and not the filmmaker you thought you'd be when you were young. This might not be true to everyone, but the more I sit around and "talk" about film, the less I actively go out and do something about it. I agree that directing is not something that should be rushed into at all, it requires a calm, creative, extremely controlled and experienced mind. But that is something you could learn by directing too.

 

[JonathanLB]

Ryan hits the nail on the head here. I've read this a lot in screenwriting books as well, from people who have done a lot of script reading (either in their younger days for a studio, friends' scripts, etc.), that too many scripts seem to be a collage of scenes and characters from other films, but not only do the individual parts lack originality, the work as a whole lacks originality.

I also think some people fall into the trap of thinking nothing can be really original. I disagree with this. It's true there are established structures, established story types, etc. But as long as there is new technology, there are new human interactions, new consequences, and new things to explore. Both of my first feature scripts revolve around either relatively recent technology or technology still in development, yet they are not sci-fi scripts really (one is, kind of, the other is a romantic comedy). They are about the characters.

Chris makes some good points too, but I think what Ryan is saying is if you want to be discovered, and you want to show the world your talents, you need a unique voice. I don't know what it takes for each person to find their voice, because everyone is different clearly. I know for me, my path to film had major obstacles, and at the time let me tell you I wasn't pleased about them. I was kind of pissed. I just wanted to go right into filmmaking, didn't want to do anything else, and was even annoyed by the idea of core classes in college because all I wanted to do was film (felt like I had enough of the other boring stuff from high school). But I ended up having some personal struggles, went from a film school back to a state school closer to home, no film program, and I majored instead in philosophy. My knowledge of film blossomed as I became more of a critic and film historian than hopeful filmmaker at the time, but I also learned so much from philosophy about human interactions, values, political ideals and struggles, artistic arguments spanning the centuries, etc. I learned a lot about what has meaning to people and the basic human quest for knowledge. By the time I was ready to return to film, as a hopeful filmmaker, I had grown a lot and had much more to say. I wasn't just a high school kid who wanted to make movies, but a philosopher who wanted to tell stories and examine issues of interest to me. So in the end, those obstacles and challenges ended up being valuable to me and I feel like if I had went right into film at 18, I would currently be a technically more talented filmmaker, with a variety of knowledge about every position on set that I may not have now, but I would be a less interesting person without a clear voice and nothing to set me apart from the many other skilled workers down here.

As for films that have something to say, they need not be quirky art house nonsense that most of us don't really like but pretend is great because the "critics" like it and it's supposedly sophisticated to like it (I was never that critic -- if a movie sucks, it sucks, I don't care if 95% of critics give it a great review; yes, I'm talking about you Monster's Ball and In the Bedroom -- I'd rather watch any crappy blockbuster in the last 10 years, ANY ONE). Minority Report is a great example of a masterpiece, a very thoughtful film, that is wrapped in the clothing of a blockbuster. Blockbuster director, blockbuster star, great special effects, sci-fi film, etc. Yet as a philosophy major, I was fascinated with the film, and so were others in the department, because it examines one of the most fascinating issues (I took an entire 400-level seminar class on the subject) of free will versus determinism. It takes what for most people may be a pretty academic, pointless (in the sense that an answer cannot be surely arrived at) debate, one they wouldn't really spend time out of their day considering, and makes it relevant in a really interesting way. You can enjoy that movie as purely entertainment, like a beautiful film that has nice action sequences, cool gadgets, just a lot of fun, but if you delve deeper you see what is truly a brilliant screenplay and story setup that pits these two sides of the philosophical debate against one another using great characters with whom you can relate. Both sides seem to have their merits, and ultimately the climax of the film shows this clash of ideologies with a clear preference for free will triumphing over determinism. And that movie made a LOT of money! But it's still more intelligent and more interesting than 99% of art house films. There are plenty of other examples, The Thirteenth Floor, The Matrix, eXistenZ, The Truman Show are all reality-altering type of films, or the Terminator Films, Blade Runner, Bicentennial Man, A.I. etc. are examples of films looking at the issue of robots developing artificial intelligence, what implications that would have, etc.

I think most of the great stories have something to say about the world around us, some great message hidden within, and it's not always apparent if you turn your brain off and just watch for fun, but it's usually there. Granted, most of your slasher flick, teen comedy, etc. type of movies don't really have much interesting to say, but they have their place too and you can at least try to embed some useful wisdom in them.

 

[RockmanX3]

After reading this thread, I feel scared, discouraged, and probably want to run away in the other direction from my dream of filmmaking.

But this is probably one of the most important threads I have ever read on this forum.

 

[Ted Spencer]

A realistic self-appraisal would hopefully be the outcome. If you lack real talent, training, preparedness and an appetite for extraordinarily hard work, then perhaps being "discouraged" is a blessing. If you genuinely have those attributes though, let nothing and no one discourage you...

 

[J.R. Hudson]

$100,000 budget ?

Hell yeah.