Possibly my last post anywhere...

Mattykins said:
Just because a budget of a film is 1.2 million doesn't mean it's Actual Break Even is 1.2 million...
Click to expand...

Right, which is why I upped the (estimated) figure to 1.6M. Even if it's 1.8, it still cleared a million, which is a pretty decent return.

Others here tell me it didn't make any money, which means that the studio spent more than $1.6M (additional) to put a $1.2M production out into the world, offsetting the $2.8M gross. In my experience in low budget films it's pretty unusual for a studio to spend that much more than the production budget on P&A for a first-time, *limited release*. More so back in 1992. Can someone point me to reliable data that supports this?
 
Mattykins said:
Transformers. Written well? Nope. Acted well? Nope.
Click to expand...

Well, we're all entitled to our opinions (especially me! lol), but I thought Transformers" (the first - haven't seen the second), was *very* well written for the first hour and a half or so (which was basically the whole script aside from another hour of stuff blowing up) with some particularly funny scenes and dailog, acted very well (IMHO), mostly by Shia LaBoeuf, who I think is an exceptionally talented actor. Like I said, the story did devolve into a Michael Bay action-orgy later, which I found numbing in an almost completely bad way, but I think to dismiss the film and the acting entirely as simply "bad" does it a disservice. Most micro-indies would (or should) kill for scenes and acting of that quality.

But that's just my opinion, of course...
 
Ohh geez, I need some ritalin now...

EDIT: Not from you Zaza, I thought this post was above yours :)
 
Last edited:
Okay, if we talk scripts and blockbusters and popularity then we should talk about the recent GI Joe fiasco... but, we aren't- the conversation has moved to the quality of the script as a function of or measure of the potential of a film. So, there is one fundamental question to ask as a director in this financial dilemma, what makes a great script? What constitutes great storytelling...

Now on this, I can speak at length.

The whole thing is so subjective it's not funny. It's an apoplectic idea. I hear so many people talking about great screenplays and fantastic scripts, but no one gives a criteria past the hackneyed Syd Field Model (yes, for God's sake it is, it is... just like the monomyth, the 5 paragraph inverted pyramid essay form, the reader response theory, and the Lazarus "no more 3 act" method). There is no one way to write. One should seek an amalgamation of techniques after understanding form and structure in order create a voice. Learn the basics, master the basics, and then improvise.

But we are still left with the question of what a great script is and how it relates to a great movie.

I loved The Way of the Gun- Christopher McQuarrie, but hated Milk. I loved both the book and the movie No Country for Old Men (for differing reasons) because I am a McCarthy scholar; my senior thesis was a comparative, new critical examination of the archetype of evil as portrayed in Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian (Judge Holden) and Charles Johnson's Oxherding Tale (Horace Bannon, the Soulcatcher). I fell all over myself for Doubt, but The Reader was annoying. The Hurt Locker and District 9 were brilliant, but Angels and Demons, Valkyrie, and Benjamin Button (the short story is phenomenal) were like having a lobotomy through the anus.

I say all that to say this...

My notion of movies, of stories, is mine, personal. It formulated by my experience and certain devices don't work on me because of it, so I can not for sure say what constitutes a "great" (again, a completely subjective idea with no criteria or basis) story and I have studied storytelling for 15 years now... could you all explain your idea of a "great" story so I can be equipped as a director to find and serve it like I should?
 
ChipG said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what has changed with distribution. You still have to cut deals and you can't cut deals based on air. Not making a feature means you have nothing to distribute whether it follows older models or gets beamed into someone's head on CineBrain.


The only thing you need to know is how to cut deals. That's been a constant since Oog sold his first wheel. You can hire people to do everything else.
 
pharpsied said:
I have studied storytelling for 15 years now
Click to expand...

Then you're way, way ahead of about 98% of micro-indie filmmakers. If you'd only read a few key books on it (like Hero With A Thousand Faces, McKee's Story and a couple others), the number would still be about 95%.

... could you all explain your idea of a "great" story so I can be equipped as a director to find and serve it like I should?
Click to expand...

If you've done your homework like you say you have, then I presumably have little to offer. I will cite Dara Marks' "Inside Story" though, which is quite recent, and does an outstanding job of concisely answering the very question you ask.

Beyond that however, you're absolutely right. It's subjective judgement, prone to all kinds of disagreements on any specific case. McKee, for example, looks dimly upon "Titanic", which I think is a fine example of storytelling/screenwriting. So there you go.

The main point of my drum-beating on all this though, is to encourage more micro-indie filmmakers to do what you've done. Because no one who's made any kind of a serious study of story would (or at least should) settle for what passes their muster as such in the vast majority of cases. And that, IMHO, is the 99% reason why they fail.

Again, from '60 Minutes' Don Hewitt:

"Four words: Tell me a story"
 
Last edited:
A "great story" is a story that makes your audience care.

Probably too generic to be useful, but the best I could think of.
 
And of course, very few people have a genuine talent for writing stories/screenplays anyway, no matter how much they 'know' about it. Talent is the real magic ingredient that makes any artist what he is, and it can't be taught.

But a basic, solid understanding of what makes good storytelling can.
 
heh

heh

1) If you think Reservoir Dogs isn't a good script, you wouldn't know a good script if it ran up and bit you in the ass. No offense intended, you just probably shouldn't be either 1) writing scripts, or 2) giving anyone advice on them when you clearly don't know what you're talking about ;)

2) Tarantino is a brilliant director. You should aspire to be like him, and if you were a studio head, you'd want him on your side. Leading to another point, which is don't be a studio head since you clearly don't have much of an eye for talent either.

3) Lady Gaga sucks horribly. "Gaga"? Are you kidding me? We live in a society where it's acceptable to name yourself after the sound of a baby noise or something? Then again I guess it's appropriate because her music isn't much better. The lyrics are TERRIBLE, it's interesting to learn she writes them herself -- there is clearly a reason why they don't usually let musicians do that, then. Next time I open my mouth about how musicians are barely even real artists because they don't write their own material, I'm going to remember Lady Gaga and just forget about it. Ugg. I'd rather blow myself away with a shotgun than listen to her crap all day.

4) Barry, I 95% agree with what you wrote. But it seems more productive to mention the important points I don't agree with. Notably, I didn't even know Open Water was an indie film until I think someone on this forum happened to mention it. It looked like a studio picture to me. It looks fantastic, and it isn't particularly original, it's just entertaining. I really like it. Napoleon Dynamite isn't funny; it sucks. But it did very well, so I get your point. Blair Witch Project was an original idea, despite the fact that it sucks horribly, it was definitely a "moment in time" that left its mark, especially on guerilla marketing through the Internet.

You are totally right to suggest that people NOT try to copy big budget Hollywood endeavors with no budget. It just doesn't work. You have to make something original and unique, something different. But you're totally wrong to say that a romantic comedy doesn't fit that mold. It absolutely does. That is THE type of film you should make on an indie budget, that and dramas without too many locations, low budget horror movies, etc. I'd say horror first from a business perspective, romantic comedy second, then drama. But you have to stay away from action and hardcore sci-fi for the most part, budget-wise. And no, Hollywood can't do romantic comedy better than anyone. Romantic comedy is based on scripts, that's it. A great script is going to make a great romantic comedy with the right actors. It's not that dependent on how it looks, although you can achieve Hollywood-quality looks on a $100K budget, no problem. You just can't have as many locations, can't throw in a chase scene, etc. But each scene you DO have CAN and SHOULD look fully professional, and should sound it. There's no reason that can't be done. If you can't even get the basics down like that, don't bother making a film.

Also, I never said there was a GUARANTEE, I said that if you do everything right and have a good script, you shouldn't be too worried, you'll find distribution. A lot of people evidently think that's very difficult. I don't think so. It's not that difficult at all to make a quality product, it just takes time and hard work. It's not rocket science.
 
Good points. I agree that Reservoir dogs is an excellent script. Not exactly my favourite script, but I can appreciate it for how good it is, and leave it there.

Barrys post was also very good. Doing what Hollywood is afraid to do is a great idea. I think some people go too far and that's where you get stories that nobody cares about. So I guess it goes both ways.

I also think a lot of indie films look like TV movies. They get their adaptors, and suddenly, everything is a close up shot with a low depth of field, it looks like I'm watching an episode of (insert TV drama here). Close ups galore! No real build ups or cool shots, just coverage....with a low depth of field in every shot.
 
Not that I believe this dignifies a response but...

1) If you think Reservoir Dogs isn't a good script, you wouldn't know a good script if it ran up and bit you in the ass. No offense intended, you just probably shouldn't be either 1) writing scripts, or 2) giving anyone advice on them when you clearly don't know what you're talking about ;)

2) Tarantino is a brilliant director. You should aspire to be like him, and if you were a studio head, you'd want him on your side. Leading to another point, which is don't be a studio head since you clearly don't have much of an eye for talent either.
Click to expand...

I don't want to be like Tarantino. I want to be me.

There is personal taste everywhere in film. From readers to development execs, to producers, to yes - studio heads.

Not every studio is the same. What would you say to the execs that passed on Star Wars? Yeah - that was shopped around quite a bit. I'd say that's a good script (the original ones). But the execs that passed clearly shouldn't be execs right?

Films go through turnaround all the time because people don't like projects. It's the nature of the industry we work in.

You think Disney would pick up Tarantino? They are a studio? How about Dreamworks? Or HBO?

Each studio is different in what they are looking for. I think he is talented - yes. I don't like his work. Again, that doesn't make me any less of a filmmaker than you. It doesn't make me any less intelligent than you. I just don't like him. I don't think he is the film messiah that people make him out to be. He is incredibly intelligent, yes. But I personally don't like him.

I have my opinions on work. I give my opinions on stuff quite frequently than comes across me. But at the end of the day, all I have is an opinion.

But since I don't think Tarantino is a God, I guess I'm worthless.

That's all I got for this one. I can do debate - what I can't do is general douchbaggery.
 
starting to get a touch personal, so let's just chill a bit :)

whether a script is good or not, is completely subjective at the end of the day...
 
Mattykins said:
Not that I believe this dignifies a response but...

I don't want to be like Tarantino. I want to be me.

I think he is talented - yes. I don't like his work. Again, that doesn't make me any less of a filmmaker than you. It doesn't make me any less intelligent than you. I just don't like him. I don't think he is the film messiah that people make him out to be. He is incredibly intelligent, yes. But I personally don't like him.

I have my opinions on work. I give my opinions on stuff quite frequently than comes across me. But at the end of the day, all I have is an opinion.

But since I don't think Tarantino is a God, I guess I'm worthless.
Click to expand...

Good for you mate.

I respect Tarantino, but I do not idolize him, nor any film maker.

Do you think Tarantino looks to respect his ancestral film makers, or idolize them?

After watching Inglourious Basterds, I've realised he is like most successful film makers; he looks for styles, techniques, story structures and basically everything he likes in other movies, and adapts it in his own in a new film.

A few years ago I was told by a wise man, that no matter how original you think you are, you're not.

So relax guys, make your movies so they're enjoyable. Your determination, Matty, should be enough to get you where you want... someday, somehow and perhaps what you embark on doing, isn't what you want in the end.
 
Does anyone here realize that today in this market (NOT 17 years ago) Resivor Dogs would lose it's ass financially.

Argue all you want, I'm sorry but that's where the market is TODAY for indie film makers, don't yell at me for it, I do like tarantino as a director FTR, never said I didn't.

Indies need to be just as knowledgeable if not more about the current business and market as they do about scripts, I assure you guys I have a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, GIGANTIC head start on any person on this board in the movie business and have not seen anything yet that would be todays next Dogs or El Mariachi (for home video distribution) that would make me want to go forwad with a production.

Live in the past if you want, see where it gets you if your trying to be successfull, there is nothing wrong with making a movie for a hobby or an education, production is fun!

There is more to be gained from this thread from realizing what's not said, you can kind of see what the problem really is.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Paige said:
The shot-on-DV movie about two people treading water for an hour or so?

At this point, Reservoir Dogs would probably be seen as a rip-off of the millions of Tarantino rip-offs that came after his success.

I don't think anybody here is trying to make Reservoir Dogs, though, especially since doing so would go against many of the points that are being made (don't just rip-off the movies you like).
Click to expand...

Thanks Ryan... I hope no one tries to do Resivor Dogs ftr.

I didn't mention the name for it to be associated that way, it was mentioned as an example in reference to looking for the next break out indie film, one that takes Sundance by storm, a movie that could come to be seen as an important and highly-influential milestone of independent filmmaking.

Appreciate the tip.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top