Possibly my last post anywhere...

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

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.

If this thread alone makes you want to run from filmmaking. You probably should. It's a lot tougher than this thread.

I've been through a couple of different theater training programs (as an actor, then as a director) and at least 2 or 3 people said to the actors in each instance: "if you can be happy doing anything else, do that". It's a road of heartbreak, rejection, and closed doors.

You can focus on the statistics. Or you can do what you love if you feel that's what you should really be doing.

People surmount odds greater than what's being lade out in this thread all the time. Both in terms of getting your movie made for pennies and in terms of selling it.

Look at this guy - he makes art on the head of pins that sells for $300K a pop:
http://www.actiononline.biz/technology/william-wigans-pinhead-art/
(he does it by lowering his heartbeat through meditation and making carving strokes between heartbeats)

If you have that kind of dedication and ingenuity then you can make your $10K feature, no question.

How many of us would say "you can't carve Snowwhite and the 7 dwarfs inside the eye of a needle and sell it for $300K". A feat marginally harder than making a film for $10K and selling it for anything worthwhile if at all. But it can be done. Those are just the odds you're up against.

 

[RockmanX3]

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...

Don't worry, I don't plan on running away. I work as an editor now, and transitioning from a hobby editor to a working editor was scary in itself, but after a year, I'm absolutely loving it despite the hardships in and out of the editing room.

Looking forward to the hardships of doing something I love. But seriously, this thread was a good eye opener for me and I appreciate everyone's responses.

 

[Mattykins]

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

It depends on what your dream is. Would you be content with being a set designer working for Hollywood films? (We have a member doing just that)

Would you be content paving a path for independent productions working cooperatively and on a nano-budget? (We have a member there too)

Editing pieces for the Academy Awards (DVXuser's been there too)

Shooting Behind the Scenes segments for ABC (Got a user there too)

Visual Effects supervisor (we have a member there too)

There are thousands of jobs you can have in film. Many of the high end positions you work into. If your dream is to be a director, then start making a plan for how to get there.

You can work from PA and make it up to 1st AD and then bump into Directing.

If you want to be in the camera department, start working in camera. Indie's are a good [read: great] place to start. You are only as strong as your network. And if you really want it, you can be working in film.

But if you are afraid of the system that is Hollywood (or even film), you aren't going to be successful.

 

[jpastuch]

I think it's important, now more than ever, to make films that dig down deep and ask deeper questions. Not in the ham-handed "issue" picture way, a la Stanley Kramer. Honest films. Ones that question more than answer, rather than just making "silly slasher movies" for fun. I just can't wrap my mind around doing that when I have an oppurtunity to say something really important.

Look at Charlie Chaplin- were his films SERIOUS in the way we think of it, where people cry in cliched close-ups? No. Did he deny all of the struggles of life (being poor, injustice, working until we become like robots)? Nope. He took his comedy seriously. He never pretended like people weren't important, and he never shyed away from the truth. He showed all of the problems of the world and he dealt with it in his own way- through comedy.

People can do what they want, but I can't really support making something that you're aware of being mindless. We can't complain about big studios making calculated dummy pictures for money and then turn around and do the same thing. But hey, to each his own.


Oh, and that pin art thing- gave me a heart attack just reading it. THAT's discipline. I'd love to see that guy take his technique and make something more than just a curiousity though- imagine him building an entire city full of people? Imagine the intricut designs he could make in a huge sculpture or painting? I think we should start meditating before we do a take in a film. Imagine what the results might be?

 

[Jason Ramsey]

Zak said something early on that I think is a really great thing to keep in mind if you are attempting an ultra low-budget. And, that is don't try to do a story that is bigger than the resources you have available to you. If you have two people working for free and a porch, then build a story using that... just a random example

also, a nano-budget film doesn't have to be the lottery winning film you made for a few thousand bucks. Barry is always good about pointing out that fact. But, where it may lack in production value, it can make up for in creativity, good story, etc, etc. and can serve as a stepping stone to the next thing. Thinking of it more as a ladder, rather than a make that one film that's going to launch you is probably a more wise path for most.

Maybe you made a 10 minute film based around a great premise that you have and you did it for peanuts. Maybe that ten minute film will pave the way for a larger budget version of that story, or a new project, etc.

Just my personal opinion... from someone who hasn't even scraped the micro-surface of "making it"

Anyways, I think it can often times become a pitfall when people try to make a film that is bigger than their resources. There is a certain standard for car chases and gun fights, etc (for example) that costs money to re-produce (most of the time). Otherwise, it often just ends up being seen as cheesy.

Later,
Jason

 

[JonathanLB]

Yup

Yup

Totally agree with you Jason. Making an action movie on a $100K budget is generally just silly. There's no way it's going to be EVEN CLOSE to as good as ANY Hollywood action picture. Not unless it's made in Hong Kong by a martial arts school or something, lol. But for the most part... just no.

If you have a $100K budget, you should be making something dramatic, comedic, etc. Something you can pull off without needing stunts, action, complicated locations, all of that stuff.

You definitely have to take advantage of the resources you have. And it's kind of brutal because on a $100K budget, you're going to have to underpay basically everyone. Nobody is going to make what they would like, but you have to hope you can pull people together who are good and talented, professionals, who are willing to take the hit on this project because they believe in it, or believe in you, have the time and opportunity, etc.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Anyways, I think it can often times become a pitfall when people try to make a film that is bigger than their resources. There is a certain standard for car chases and gun fights, etc (for example) that costs money to re-produce (most of the time). Otherwise, it often just ends up being seen as cheesy.

Later,
Jason

This has been my approach since reading some people's 'feature' length scripts elsewhere... as in 'why try to make a feature length film' at the level that most of the scripts were at... it seems to me that writing and making 20 shorts, with average length of 6 minutes, would serve better in 'learning' than one, and often abandoned even before it's fully filmed, 120 minute 'feature'... or heck a 90.001 minute feature...



Unfortunately for me, even making shorts this year has been problematic with my 'day job' schedule...

 

[Mattykins]

Therein lies the problem with most indie and student [especially student] films. They try to make a feature out of something that is not feature material. They push a short out as far as they can and it turns into a waste of 60 - 120 minutes of ones life.

 

[JonathanLB]

haha, well that's true. You have to know what's a feature and what's a short. I wrote what I think was a very good short, and I've gotten people asking (after seeing it), "Are you going to make it into a feature?" and "Do you have a feature script for this idea?" No. I don't really think the character and story lends itself to a feature. It's a wonderful little short, and that's what it should be.

I have another idea I think is really clever and kind of funny, it's sort of a suspense/horror short but with a bit of dark, dark humor, and I know it cannot possibly be a feature. It's one idea, one location, two characters, and should be maybe 6 minutes long. I think any longer than that and it will drag on and overstay its welcome.

But then I've just written two feature scripts, and both were definitely feature-length concepts. One started as a short that did indeed just keep getting longer, and after having about 12 pages, with two characters I felt were pretty one-dimensional and stereotypical, I realized this just wasn't a short film idea, and it was either time to ditch it completely because it would be a lousy short, or turn it into a feature and expand upon these characters, make them really interesting and complicated people, not just cutouts, and so that is what I did. You just have to know where the material fits best.

 

[El Director]

My outlook on the whole thing is this. Why not make a feature for less than $10,000? I like to make films. I enjoy it. If I have the means to make a zero budget feature, yeah, it might not get picked up. But you know what? I know I'll have a good time doing it. And I know that I'll learn a ton that will make the next one better. And so on. I had someone tell me that if I didn't have the money to "do it right", I shouldn't bother. If we all followed that advice, films would look and feel the same they did in the 20's. There is no right way to make a picture. The way I see it, the creme of the crop will rise regardless of the budget. Like someone said earier on, Chris Nolan shot a film for $6,000 and someone saw it and said, "I think he has talent", and gave him money to make a larger budget film. So honestly, I think people need to check their motives. If you make pictures because you enjoy doing it, who cares what you spend on it or if you even make it back?

My lead actor asked me a few weeks ago what I would have done differently if I had a larger budget. My response was simple. Pay people, get insurance, and upgrade the camera. I would have made exactly the same film I made because I had a script that could be done regardless of the budget. Money would have just made things "easier", but wouldn't have changed thing.

 

[Barry_Green]

JLB, seriously -- I look forward to hearing your report of how you get on with the can't-lose film. Because if you can deliver a formula that shows how someone can't lose, I can put together a team of investors to bankroll those films all day long, all week long, all month long, all year long. We could turn DVXUser into the world's largest studio. I just don't believe it, is all. We all hear of the guys who don't lose their shirts ("Napoleon Dynamite", "Blair Witch", "El Mariachi") -- but that's because those are the guys who don't lose their shirts, so that's news and we hear about it.

To all the filmmakers at large: there is a way to put the odds clearly in your favor. And that is, don't do what everyone else tries to do. Everyone else (and by everyone, I mean pretty much EVERYONE) tries to make a Hollywood-style picture "without the hollywood budget." You can't. Hollywood employs the very best filmmakers in the world, the best in every craft, the biggest budgets, and they do what they do, and they do it better than anyone else.

They don't need you to do what they're already doing. And they don't want you to. You can't compete with them. Don't try to make a slick-looking romantic comedy, it'll go nowhere -- they're a million times better at it than you are. (and yes, they are.) Sorry, but it's true. People look at hollywood films and say "I can do better than that" but the evidence is sadly not backing up that assessment.

So -- how do you "beat" them? Do something that they DON'T do. Look at all the examples we're talking about -- how many of these films are conventional Hollywood fare? El Mariachi? No. Blair Witch? No way. Open Water? Nope. Following? No. Napoleon Dynamite? Definitely not. These are films made the way that Hollywood wouldn't dare. They all have a very unique voice. I happen to think that two of them were hideously bad, two others technically mediocre but interesting, and the highest-budget one was the most entertaining. They don't have to be the best films in the world. They just have to be fresh and original and new.

Now, if you can raise the budget, you can do it the hollywood way and win (rarely). Look at Robert Duvall and his story of getting "The Apostle" made -- he shopped that thing around for years, and got rejected everywhere. Eventually he put up his own money, $5,000,000.00 to make it. And he got himself an Academy Award nomination and three Independent Spirit Awards too. It only grossed $20m, but that's probably enough to get his money back.

If you've got five million, you can do it.

But trying a "hollywood" style film on $100k is just asking for a world of hurt and an education in the school of hard knocks.

So use what you DO have. Your vision. Your unique voice. Tell a story in your own way, not the hollywood way. Have something unique to say. Spike Lee. Quentin Tarantino. Even Kevin Smith. These all started out as distinctly "non" hollywood filmmakers. And they stood out.

Clerks is not a technical masterpiece, and it's not a "hollywood" film. And that's the key. You don't need to have all that, if you've got something unique to say and if you have a unique style. Why was "El Mariachi" or "Evil Dead" or "Brain Dead" a hit? Because of the slick, polished, Hollywood-style filmmaking on display? Or because of the style, the originality, the way of portraying things that we hadn't seen before? (and, in El Mariachi's case, I'd say that a large, large percentage of its success is the backstory of Rodriguez raising the money to make the film by incarcerating himself as a human lab rat in a drug-testing facility).

Have a unique vision, have a distinct style, and have a great backstory to go with it.

Do what Hollywood doesn't. Haven't you heard the complaining -- sequels and sequels, rehashes of TV shows, and how many more comic-book movies do we really need to see? Hollywood does what works, and they rarely step outside of that to try something new.

THAT's where you come in.

That's where the indie filmmaker fills his/her role.

(just don't try to serve up the same old hash of guys pointing guns and pretend that that's indie filmmaking, or something new... 'cause it ain't. Seriously, do something different, something new. And if you don't have something new to offer the world... rethink whether indie filmmaking is where you should be.)

 

[ChipG]

What he said ^

 

[jpastuch]

yeah finally. That's what I've been dumbfounded about- we've had the technology and people have already been utilizing it. Be CREATIVE and stop worrying about the RED Camera that you can't afford, that's for professional cinematographers to oogle over.

I'd add one more thing to Barry's request for my fellow young filmmakers- something I said before- SAY SOMETHING IMPORTANT. That's another reason we have bad films clogging up theaters. Hollywood can't or won't say certain things. You have no censorship bar over your mouth, and filmmaking and art is about communicating and asking big questions. What are your biggest fears? Your biggest, unanswered questions? What bothers you about the human condition, or the world? Put all this into your characters, your frame, because the world's in a lot of trouble and believe it or not- Art is supposed to help us out of that trouble, in part. Save our generation from American Idol, iPhones, ultra-gore, and other madness. It can be a documentary, comedy, drama- anything. Just don't give in to cliches.

Films with a unique voice and unique style and something important and challenging to say are more likely to catch people's eye than ZANY SEX COMEDY and more people will care about your film if YOU actually care about what you're saying in it.


EDIT: Actually I just saw Barry's tiny text at the bottom, which said basically what I said more succinctly.

 

[Ted Spencer]

I agree with Barry's point, which is largely about originality, but only to a limited extent. Real originality is a very, very tough b*tch to own, and frankly, aside from the innate originality of a genuine auteur/genius's voice (like maybe Tarantino, Lucas, Scorsese and/or a handful of others, depending on your own personal auteur/genius-ometer), pretty much everything *completely original* has been done already. The movies Barry cited: El Mariachi, Blair Witch, Open Water, Napoleon Dynamite (I haven't seen Following), are only "original" to a limited degree. They all have their feet squarely in one or another of cinema's long-established forms. This is not to say they weren't fresh takes on those forms, or *relatively* original. They were. But to label them 'original' as such is giving them too much credit. Which leads me to my point: originality is fine if you can mix it into the cinematic stew, but what will really make a film taste good is simpler, but at least as elusive: great storytelling (I know - I keep saying this everywhere - but darn it, it's true).

In my now very long career in the music business, and as it pertains to making pop records in particular, I've seen one hell of a lot of aspiring artists who are absolutely determined to be original, different, call it what you will, and would fiercely eschew any other approach that didn't qualify (in their minds) as such. In recalling these artists, I'll try to think now of how many have achieved notable success (as numerous other then-unknown artists I've worked with have, such as John Mellencamp, Hall & Oates and Lady Gaga, to name a few):

Ok... I'm thinking now...

Let's see...

Um...

Ok...I've added them up:

ZERO

On the other hand, Mellencamp, H & O and Lady Gaga all do have genuine-auteur mojo (Gaga wrote all her hits so far in case you didn't know), and are arguably 'original' to an extent. But Mellencamp was *heavily* influenced by Mitch Ryder (remember him?) and Springsteen; H & O are right out of the Philly/Motown Soul tradition (imagine any of their hits as performed by the Four Tops); and Lady Gaga's path was nicely blazed for her by Madonna among others.

And all the above succeeded massively, while not really spending a hell of a lot of time *trying to be original*. So originality is great, but exceedingly hard to genuinely accomplish, and quite possibly a fool's errand if you let the pursuit of it take you away from what is the single most important thing (IMHO). And it's something that all the 'auteur' filmmakers and recording artists I cited above accomplished by the way, certainly at least as I see it:

GREAT WRITING

I'll close my little sermon with a mention of last night's '60 Minutes' tribute to its recently passed producer Don Hewitt, inarguably the mastermind behind this spectacularly successful (and truly great) TV show. He was asked several times (in archival footage) throughout the show what the secret formula was to the show's immense success. His answer, each time, was:

"Four words: Tell me a story."

THAT IS WISDOM (to quote our loquacious but more recently absent forum-mate Adam Cultraro of "Corrado" fame).

As I've said before, and I'll keep banging this drum until someone takes my sticks away, *filmmaking is about the storytelling*, first and foremost. If it was, as Hewitt made relentlessly clear, the fundamental currency of '60 Minutes' massive success (and that's a TV *news* show for gods sake), then its preeminent importance in filmmaking (a pure, pay-to-see-once entertainment medium) should be obvious.

Ok...putting down the sticks again...for now...

 

[Sad Max]

*shrug* listen to successful 'auteurs' in music, film, painting, literature or virtually anything else, and much of the time they're most eager to rap about the people and the work that was influential upon them.

I'm doing something totally original and never seen before is probably more the mark of the poser, than the creative maverick.

 

[Ted Spencer]

*shrug* listen to successful 'auteurs' in music, film, painting, literature or virtually anything else, and much of the time they're most eager to rap about the people and the work that was influential upon them.

I'm doing something totally original and never seen before is probably more the mark of the poser, than the creative maverick.

Right. Tarantino, for example, not only talks (endlessly) about his influences in interviews, but puts all kinds of references to them in his films. In his own 'original' way of course : ) The title of "Inglourious Basterds" was taken from a 1978 Italian movie of the same name (but not misspelled) that Tarantine bought the rights to. I believe the movies are otherwise unrelated.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

*shrug* listen to successful 'auteurs' in music, film, painting, literature or virtually anything else, and much of the time they're most eager to rap about the people and the work that was influential upon them.

I'm doing something totally original and never seen before is probably more the mark of the poser, than the creative maverick.

Yeah we all know collage was the artform of the 20th century and maybe homage is the artform of the 21st. Everybody has influences. Nothing is original. Yadayadayda.

The point was about emulating Hollywood movies and style rather than finding a meeting place between your own distinct voice and your means / resources. Not completely reinventing the wheel.

Right. Tarantino, for example, not only talks (endlessly) about his influences in interviews, but puts all kinds of references to them in his films. In his own 'original' way of course : )

Exactly. And talk about a distinct voice.

 

[Barry_Green]

Jack hits it on the head. Be a distinct voice. Even if you're just Shyamalan.

You can be influenced by whatever and whoever you want, but if you just do what everyone else is doing, what value do you bring? Uh huh.

Be unique, and be good. Have something to say, and say it in an entertaining way.

 

[ChipG]

This thread should NOT be about other famous directors that have $50m + budgets but about ways indies can limit financial risk by taking big risks in story structure and content.

 

[Ted Spencer]

This thread should NOT be about other famous directors that have $50m + budgets but about ways indies can limit financial risk by taking big risks in story structure and content.

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...