Possibly my last post anywhere...
- Thread starter Melvin Harris
- Start date
None taken man, I understand what you were saying, guess I wasn't clear. My bad.
Melvin Harris
Black Flag Member
There is one thing that is not being looked at in the back and forths; Dogs, Blair Witch, El Mariachi, they were defining films, they inspired clones and repeat offenders, they created the very market that we are finding cliche and that we are denigrating today. A more interesting question is if these films had been made today, in in this market, who would they be imitating from 17 years ago. It's like saying that Jaco Pastorius, the Beatles, Micheal Jackson, NWA, Wu-Tang, or Garth Brooks would tank in today's market... they helped define today's market. Sure their time may have come and gone, but their influence is still felt and is no less important.
I think what is being said is that no one is defining anything anymore. There are no Usual Suspects right now, and that's the problem. I loved Napoleon Dynamite! I though it was brilliant because it was the loser story told in the most interesting way imaginable. I found myself wondering why I was still watching, but unable to stop because it was so stupid and puerile and was a great excape from the unbearable heaviness of most indie films. If Seinfeld, a show admittedly about nothing, can become so immensely popular then why can't a slice of life movie about the ultimate loser becoming just a supreme loser... and more importantly what was it cloning?
Tarantino is an amazing director. So am I, and so are you, so are many. It's just that Tarantino has found his voice, his way of doing things, and a lot of us haven't (because we skip fundamentals, avoid the basics, and do not study), so many go around photocopying his method and style- and every time you photocopy something it gets uglier and uglier. What many don't realize is that you can't sit around butt sniffing a person you think is cool because they give credit or emulate. The fact is the person who you are sitting around teenybopping while microwaving Hot Pockets and Pizza Rolls is working and making stuff while you argue about who is more awesome- millionaire working director number one, or millionaire working director number two.
Melvin Harris
Black Flag Member
No, I think it's a small part of what the spirited discussion is about :thumbsup:
Tom Judd
Member
Far out, I know what you mean.
I'm not saying my script is magnificent, but when I was in the process of getting my latest script out there to a few places, a friend I met in LA asked me to email it to him and said he'd read it, I got a response like this:
I tried to read your screenplay I am going to recommend that you read good fiction, read books about the crafts of fiction writing and screenwriting, and you read film criticism.
I suggest you work on your critical thinking. To be professional, you need to be able to identify what makes a story concept original. I think you mentioned that you have an advisor there who is encouraging you to submit this script to professional readers at production companies. In my opiniom, that's not good advise.
[FONT="]If you submit this type of work now you'll be remembered as someone who doesn't know the difference between good and bad writing[/FONT]
--
There was a heap more, but basically his concerns after (not) reading it, was that I'd be blacklisted for wasting people's time had I sent it to production companies... I'd worked for months on this thing, I had a story advisor and editor going through it constantly. I had a professional in the field I was writing about, crossing-out the things that "wouldn't happen".
I never expected it to be a masterpiece, but I wanted to at least give it a shot. Living life is about knowing you've tried, not regretting that you didn't.
rahulvictor
Active member
Lots of good things in this thread, right before it turned into a Tarantino-Rodriguez love/hate fest with ambiguous claims which cannot be proven or unproven 
The script argument is fine, except as others have pointed out, what is good to me (character development, etc) might not be important to others while what I think is crappy story-wise (99% of horror movies, transformers, slumdog, etc) might be right up someone's alley (and there is something to be said of entertaining vs. critically acclaimed films). Point being, while you need a script, what is 'good' is subjective.
So I'm more curious about practical considerations. Here's a hypothetical situation: I work in corporate america for 5 years, save up at least $200k, then buy myself a camera system for about 30k (the Red, scarlet, etc). I invest another 10k in lights/audio equipment. That leaves at least $150k.
My question is, what practical considerations would make it difficult to make really cheap films (say $10k-20k)? You could make like 4-5 of these types of films and see where each one goes. If at the end you are nowhere closer to your dream, then you get the hint and go back to good old corporate life.
I want to know why people might think this is impractical, what difficulties one might face. Tear the plan to shreds so that the pitfalls are exposed And if anyone has done something like this, chime in!
The script argument is fine, except as others have pointed out, what is good to me (character development, etc) might not be important to others while what I think is crappy story-wise (99% of horror movies, transformers, slumdog, etc) might be right up someone's alley (and there is something to be said of entertaining vs. critically acclaimed films). Point being, while you need a script, what is 'good' is subjective.
So I'm more curious about practical considerations. Here's a hypothetical situation: I work in corporate america for 5 years, save up at least $200k, then buy myself a camera system for about 30k (the Red, scarlet, etc). I invest another 10k in lights/audio equipment. That leaves at least $150k.
My question is, what practical considerations would make it difficult to make really cheap films (say $10k-20k)? You could make like 4-5 of these types of films and see where each one goes. If at the end you are nowhere closer to your dream, then you get the hint and go back to good old corporate life.
I want to know why people might think this is impractical, what difficulties one might face. Tear the plan to shreds so that the pitfalls are exposed
And if anyone has done something like this, chime in!JonathanLB
Carbonite Member
I don't believe any sort of quality film can be made for that, and I don't think anyone who is serious about film believes that either. Some users here obviously think you can -- and if they took an objective look at their work, they'd know it was crap. You can't shoot a good feature for $10K or $20K. You can do it for $100K MAYBE, if you're very talented. I'm hoping to do it (as you said, with equipment already owned) with $125K to $140K and it'll be TOUGH, very tough. The odds are stacked against you. It would start to get easier around $400K to $500K.
But christ, I made a low budget short film using every way possible to cut corners on costs and it was still $10,000 for a two-day shoot. You just can't make quality work and not pay money for it.
Anyone who says you can ends up making something really crappy. I've seen plenty of $100K indie features and most of them suck, but occasionally one looks and sounds pretty good and has a decent plot. Technical proficiency requires professionals, and professionals do not work for free. A good sound guy is going to cost you $250/day no question. And usually you'll still need a boom guy, who you might be able to get for $100/day and have be competent, hopefully, maybe. A good DP is going to cost you $250-300/day, maybe you can miraculously get someone good looking for experience for like $150/day. I mean, who knows, but it's not likely.
The point is you are not going to have a good looking and good sounding film without a professional crew of people and good luck getting any sort of acting talent for free either. If you want to sell your film, you need some name talent, even if it's just B listers, and that costs money. My budget for that alone would be $25,000 or so, to get one or two B-listers for a few days if we're lucky.
So use the $150K and shoot a good film, don't waste it shooting a bunch of amateur crap.
But christ, I made a low budget short film using every way possible to cut corners on costs and it was still $10,000 for a two-day shoot. You just can't make quality work and not pay money for it.
Anyone who says you can ends up making something really crappy. I've seen plenty of $100K indie features and most of them suck, but occasionally one looks and sounds pretty good and has a decent plot. Technical proficiency requires professionals, and professionals do not work for free. A good sound guy is going to cost you $250/day no question. And usually you'll still need a boom guy, who you might be able to get for $100/day and have be competent, hopefully, maybe. A good DP is going to cost you $250-300/day, maybe you can miraculously get someone good looking for experience for like $150/day. I mean, who knows, but it's not likely.
The point is you are not going to have a good looking and good sounding film without a professional crew of people and good luck getting any sort of acting talent for free either. If you want to sell your film, you need some name talent, even if it's just B listers, and that costs money. My budget for that alone would be $25,000 or so, to get one or two B-listers for a few days if we're lucky.
So use the $150K and shoot a good film, don't waste it shooting a bunch of amateur crap.
jls4
Veteran
Lots of good things in this thread, right before it turned into a Tarantino-Rodriguez love/hate fest with ambiguous claims which cannot be proven or unproven
The script argument is fine, except as others have pointed out, what is good to me (character development, etc) might not be important to others ...
...I work in corporate america for 5 years, save up at least $200k, then buy myself a camera system for about 30k (the Red, scarlet, etc). I invest another 10k in lights/audio equipment. That leaves at least $150k.
My question is, what practical considerations would make it difficult to make really cheap films (say $10k-20k)? ....
I want to know why people might think this is impractical, what difficulties one might face. Tear the plan to shreds so that the pitfalls are exposed
I'm kinda frustrated today so I'll chime in on this one - sides I've been really quiet lately and I won't get to 1000 posts without saying something eventually. I'll also admit before I start that I haven't read this thread completely.
Anyway, is it possible, yes. Is it practical, no.
The fact is that over 99% of the people I've run into in reguards to anything don't like leaving their comfort zone. This goes beyond movies, it's simply human nature. If we are told we are good at something, most of us will continue to do that "thing" because of the praise. Like if someone can sing, they continue to sing, but for those who are told they can't, usually quit.
Back to movies. Most people will never master more than 2 or 3 technical skills when it comes to filmmaking because they simply don't believe they can or they don't have the desire to do so. This puts pressure on Indiependent Cinema because as Jonathan said, it's unlikely that you'll get decent crew members to work for cheap or for free. So what you have to do is fill in the gaps with
A. People who are learning (which hurts prod quality)
B. People who know, but now you have to convince them to help you and work inbetween their schedules
C. Learn as much as you can to fill in the blanks.
And usually what you have to do is a combination of things. Then the sucky part is your problems don't stop right there.
Going back to Rodriguez, he had made several shorts and was proficent in filmmaking way before he made El Mariachi. Then he knew people in the industry, while a few, he knew some. They opened the door for him in ways others filmmakers have never nor will ever see. The fact that he had an agent for his first movie that he didn't have to pay (he got the hookup), in itself is a 1 in a 100 chance.
As for stories, here's where I'm really Devil's Advocate today. I'll argue that you don't have to have a good story to make money on movies. When all is said and done movies are about making money - that's it. If you sat down to make the coolest 2 minute trailer ever. I mean write the trailer first and put $100K in the trailer, then put another $50K in the rest of the 88 minutes. Then had $200K to market the movie, you may very well walk away with a sizable profit.
In movies, once someone sees the movie, they've given a vote of "yes" whether they don't like the movie or not. At that point only people who have seen the movie and would give it a strong "no" will ever say anything. I've personally walked through the video store and watched people pick up bad movies that I know are bad. About 50% of the time I'll say something, the other 50% I won't. I've had several occasaions when I've told someone a movie wasn't good and they put it back only to sneak back and grab it once they see me walk away. Their curiosity is so strong because of the media hype.
Don't think media hype works? Then why are people so pressed to make purchases for products that they don't need. It's the basis behind all consumerism. But in movies it works to the advantage of those that know it because the product is purchased once it has been seen. Unlike if you were to buy bread, which you'll consume and need more in a week or two. If the bread was bad, you won't buy that brand again. But if the movie was bad, you'll simply try another one. Only when movies are constantly bad is their ever a problem.
Like you mentioned about story concepts. Good is 99% subjective. Half of the movies my non-filmmaker friends like, I hate and can't see why they would sit and watch them. Yet many of the movies I adore, some people can't stomach them. When it all boils down its about what you can sell and what is marketable to make the money back you put into the project.
So... let the argument begin! LOL
jls4
Veteran
Wow this is an amazing post. I think this is a right on the nose assesment of many "filmmakers" in the world. And admittedly even myself to a degree.
Right now my focus has been about trying to get something out there and get to a point of money. And in doing so I study others and they are changing the voice that I had. I'm not too worried because I do have several ideas on in my safe and don't plan on opening them until I get a $100 Mill budget. (Sorry I think big) But until then I have to get these sub $500K movies to a point where they are working and right now I'm at sub $50K LOL
Martay
Veteran
Lots of interesting discussion and it may have morphed from the original point but oh well. Fun thread anyway.
I think that an argument for talent has been lacking. Someone talked about films being defining, etc. and while yeah, they wouldn't define anything today, much less work as an inspirational model (Clerks, Metropolitan are models I'd hoped to emulate at one time) for us (indie filmmakers who haven't shown at Sundance...YET!), they were a cut above and worthy of the attention at that time.
What someone working on the sub 100K budget must do is somehow be that attention-worthy as well.
The media is always looking for those folks too, so if you do become buzz-worthy, you'll do fine.
For example, Christopher Nolan, he didn't have the same adulation that Tarantino, Rodriguez, or even K. Smith did when they made their splash but he was able to parlay the note-worthiness of Following and to a greater extent Memento into an incredibly MAJOR career thus far (heck, he could stop now and it'd still be a hell of a career)...but he showed that Talent...it got that little crack of notice that he needed.
Making one movie for 10K may or may not get anyone attention at all. However, if it shows a glimmer to others that the talent is there to go further...then perhaps it'll propell the filmmaker forward...whether that individual film is successful or not ultimately.
I believe in the young director of my newest film Battle which I wrote and am producing with my own (and my partner's) money. Why don't I direct it myself? I want to do so, I believe I can be a good director (and have been servicable in the past), but I believe this young man has IT...that something that will get him noticed (and the film as well) which will give the film an even better chance at success than my mere competence at making a movie.
So, we'll see what happens but don't Underestimate the hard to define quality of Talent in the equation...whether you actually like them or not....Tarantino and Rodriguez do possess talent.
my .02
-M
battlethemovie.blogspot.com
I think that an argument for talent has been lacking. Someone talked about films being defining, etc. and while yeah, they wouldn't define anything today, much less work as an inspirational model (Clerks, Metropolitan are models I'd hoped to emulate at one time) for us (indie filmmakers who haven't shown at Sundance...YET!), they were a cut above and worthy of the attention at that time.
What someone working on the sub 100K budget must do is somehow be that attention-worthy as well.
The media is always looking for those folks too, so if you do become buzz-worthy, you'll do fine.
For example, Christopher Nolan, he didn't have the same adulation that Tarantino, Rodriguez, or even K. Smith did when they made their splash but he was able to parlay the note-worthiness of Following and to a greater extent Memento into an incredibly MAJOR career thus far (heck, he could stop now and it'd still be a hell of a career)...but he showed that Talent...it got that little crack of notice that he needed.
Making one movie for 10K may or may not get anyone attention at all. However, if it shows a glimmer to others that the talent is there to go further...then perhaps it'll propell the filmmaker forward...whether that individual film is successful or not ultimately.
I believe in the young director of my newest film Battle which I wrote and am producing with my own (and my partner's) money. Why don't I direct it myself? I want to do so, I believe I can be a good director (and have been servicable in the past), but I believe this young man has IT...that something that will get him noticed (and the film as well) which will give the film an even better chance at success than my mere competence at making a movie.
So, we'll see what happens but don't Underestimate the hard to define quality of Talent in the equation...whether you actually like them or not....Tarantino and Rodriguez do possess talent.
my .02
-M
battlethemovie.blogspot.com
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Despite whatever difference in terminology we may employ, I think we essentially agree on this point. "Talent" is the essential ingredient in success in any art. Lots of other attributes are most certainly needed, but none is as fundamental as that.
I was thinking about this thread in general recently, not having posted to it in a while, and I think one point to make regards perspective (and this applies perfectly to my experience in the music business as well). So here's how it might look:
------------------
FROM THE INDIE FILMMAKER'S SIDE OF THE FENCE:
"Hollywood insiders", "the film business", or whatever we're calling it, are nothing but a big bunch of short-sighted, unimaginative bean-counters (or...whatever) who wouldn't know a fresh, new, original [add favorite adjective here] film if it bit them in the ass. They seem to exist only for the pleasure of saying "no" to the legions of earnest, innovative indie filmmakers like us, and for making derivative, cash-cow movies that have nothing new to say.
They just don't get it. Not at all...
FROM THE "HOLLYWOOD INSIDER" SIDE OF THE FENCE:
We're constantly on the lookout for new talent - writers, directors, actors - everything. We send our people to film festivals all over the world, hire staffs of full-time script readers, and hold countless pitch meetings with prospective directors, writers and producers. We devote very substantial amounts of our resources to this end, and when we find success with one (Smith, Tarantino, Nolan, Rodriguez), we wear it like a badge of honor.
But 99% of what comes our way is just plain crap. Weak writing (first and foremost), and bad everything else - acting, directing, camerawork, lighting, editing, sound...by the truckload. No, wait - a fleet of truckloads. Years ago we sifted through 100 prospects for every good one to consider seriously. Now it's 1000 for the same one, or maybe two. Oy...
Why didn't the other 998 wannabes start by learning their craft? Learn how to write a good story/script, first of all, then learn something about acting and directing, (or hire someone else competent to do it for them)? And - please - don't get us started with the sound...
They just don't get it. Not at all...
-------------------
The bad news for the "us" side, is that "they" have all the cards. The good news is the old cliche: "build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door". Yes, "Holllywood" is *looking* for great films/filmmakers. Actively, every day. That is many folks' *entire job* in Hollywood.
So, aspiring filmmakers, take a good, hard look at your skills, knowledge, standards of quality, and every other metric, and if you can't honestly say you've done all that and more *to the highest level of quality you can possibly manage*, then stop and make it so before you go on. If you can't stand high above the pile of 998, you'll be in it.
Rant mode: off
Last edited:
Melvin Harris
Black Flag Member
I was wondering when someone would mention talent. I like the way it was put in your post, but I do have a problem with the concept of talent as the sole linchpin of success. What makes a talented director is sometimes, honestly- only sometimes, as subjective as what makes a great script. I think Tarantino (an admitted borrower and repurposer of ideas) is phenomenally talented, but I think that Rodriguez is well read, naturally defiant, and supremely adventurous, and that makes his some of films interesting. Also, one may love him or hate him, but Zach Snyder is another director that may not be as talented as some (according to some) but has made a name for himself by utilizing other innate abilities and synthesizing them into his directing style- and he doesn't do so much shakey camera, thank God.
Melvin Harris
Black Flag Member
Barry_Green
Moderator
Ted's exactly right. Please listen to him.
For some reason, indies want to think Hollywood is trying to "keep them out". Hollywood would like nothing better than for you to succeed! They're begging you to succeed. Why? They are craving the opportunity to pick up well-made, great films for pennies on the dollar. If they had the choice of spending $200m to make a movie, or buying yours outright for $1m cash, which do you think they'd rather do?
And it goes further than that -- putting up that $200m is not only difficult and exorbitantly expensive to arrange, but it's fraught with risk. What if your lead actress pulls a Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears style meltdown? Or, worse, gets decapitated by a helicopter? What if your director dies, or your lead pulls a Robert Downey Jr. and gets himself sentenced to jail? So very many things can go wrong, it's a risky business all the way. But yours? Heck, yours is done -- there's so much less risk, all they have to do is watch it and if it's great, they can pull out their checkbooks and buy it for *pennies* on the dollar, compared to what it would have cost them to make it.
Problem is, indies just plain aren't supplying quality product that an audience will pay to see.
Solve that part of the problem and you'll find the red carpet rolled out and the checks waiting to be handed over.
For some reason, indies want to think Hollywood is trying to "keep them out". Hollywood would like nothing better than for you to succeed! They're begging you to succeed. Why? They are craving the opportunity to pick up well-made, great films for pennies on the dollar. If they had the choice of spending $200m to make a movie, or buying yours outright for $1m cash, which do you think they'd rather do?
And it goes further than that -- putting up that $200m is not only difficult and exorbitantly expensive to arrange, but it's fraught with risk. What if your lead actress pulls a Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears style meltdown? Or, worse, gets decapitated by a helicopter? What if your director dies, or your lead pulls a Robert Downey Jr. and gets himself sentenced to jail? So very many things can go wrong, it's a risky business all the way. But yours? Heck, yours is done -- there's so much less risk, all they have to do is watch it and if it's great, they can pull out their checkbooks and buy it for *pennies* on the dollar, compared to what it would have cost them to make it.
Problem is, indies just plain aren't supplying quality product that an audience will pay to see.
Solve that part of the problem and you'll find the red carpet rolled out and the checks waiting to be handed over.
Martay
Veteran
Keep the rant mode: on...it's good stuff.
I do think we agree I just hadn't really seen where folks were bringing that back into the discussion. Perhaps we were taking it for granted. You can almost take it for granted when discussing those that have achieved what many of us are trying to achieve...(I mean Tarantino, Rodriguez, Nolan, etc.) but we can't talk about THEM in hypothetical which is kinda what the discussion is all about. At one point, they were out here too and were asking similar questions. How do I make a movie that will be a success? Etc.
Even Tarantino made a bad 1st movie prior to "Dogs" that as far as I know hasn't seen the light of day (or perhaps even been completed) and I think he had optioned a script prior to his big break...which gives me hope that I may be on the right track. I mean, I've made films and sold scripts and all, just nothing of incredible note as yet.
However, when they got their shot, their talent shined...which for whatever flaws there might have been in their "big break" works...that "talent" was recognized.
-M
Last edited:
Martay
Veteran
I don't mean to imply the sole linchpin. I mean, a talented filmmaker can make a really bad movie, or five, before they get it together. But a decent script, decent acting, solid production value, etc. doesn't stand out on it's own. A talented filmmaker makes it "pop".
Martin
p.s. like your quote from Common
Martay
Veteran
Barry,
I know they are but then again...NOT REALLY...they (sometimes admittedly) wouldn't know a good script from a hole in the ground and are just as overwhelmed as anyone with content that is very hard to differentiate. It comes down to their own personal taste and hunches which can be as arbitrary as anything.
For example, I became a semi-active participant here earlier this year. I thought I'd check out every trailer, every short, etc. in the User Film section and that most people were doing the same as me.
Well, first of all, that's not possible. I overlook many a post. I usually check out the ones with lots of hits and discussion over the ones with little...well, that's exactly the same thing that Hollywood does. So, they're not turning over stones trying to "discover" anybody...they'll check out whoever is making the most noise. That often is related to marketing, connections, etc. and may not correlate to talented filmmaking whatsoever.
So, yeah, they want to find up-and-comers...IF they happen across them.
The same relative thing happens in music (which I used to be heavily involved with until it took a backseat to filmmaking)...if you're selling tones of units out of your trunk, they'll check you out. It doesn't mean you're any good, it means your making waves.
-M
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Yes, their talent shined bright, but also, almost as importantly, their skill. QT, RR, Nolan...all are extremely smart, hardworking, very, very skilled filmmakers, and likely were very, very astute even as beginners. Same thing with Spielberg, Scorsese, Lucas, Howard, Cameron and so on. It's the combination of the two that makes it all work.
Sadly, there have been a few famous instances where an exceptionally talented player ultimately failed due to a critical lack of one or more of the other necessary skills. Orson Welles comes to mind immediately: one undisputed masterpiece, "Citizen Kane", followed by...um...I can't remember any others right now. He ultimately failed, at least in the long run, not in the talent or even filmmaking chops departments, but elsewhere. I'll leave it to the film historians and biographers to describe exactly what that failing was, but his career all but ended at age 25, after "Kane", despite almost inarguably massive talent. Shyamalan may be on a similarly enigmatic path, but at least we can point to his series of increasingly inferior films to explain it, despite his considerable skill, talent, and an (IMHO) *outstanding* first movie, "Sixth Sense".
jls4
Veteran
Wow I had this really long post and deleted it cause I just figured it was redundant, but this sums up what I was saying almost perfectly.
I believe as an indie if you just don't luck upon it, you'll need 10x the talent and/or mastery of certain key skills to make it.
Barry_Green
Moderator
No, I think you totally missed what I was saying. I'm not talking about good scripts, there's way too much risk at the script stage.
I'm talking about you delivering a finished feature film to them. That's what they want to buy.
At that point it has nothing to do with their own tastes. They screen it in front of a test audience -- if the audience loves it, they buy it. If the audience hates it, they pass.
I think a lot of times people get confused by what "hollywood" is all about. Hollywood is about making money. Give them a film that people will pay money to see, and they'll gladly buy it from you. And frankly, as far as they're concerned, that's pretty much all that matters: is there an audience? Will they sell tickets, and DVDs? If so, it's a valuable property that they'll buy. If not, then (from their perspective) WHO CARES whether it's a visionary director or a thought-provoking story or it was done on less than $5,000 or ... ANYTHING else? Who cares? They certainly don't. "Will an audience pay to see it?" That's the one end-all and be-all of the decision-making process, on their end.
That, on the other hand, is exactly what I'm talking about. Show them that there's an audience, and they'll take over from there. If you can't demonstrate an audience, then the risk goes up enormously -- and down goes your potential chances of making a deal.