Sell your videos on Vimeo ..

[squig]

The way I see it, the story is not the script. The story is the movie we watch.

The director is going to take the script and interpret it the way he or she wants to.

The editor will interpret the footage.

Executives may change the story for their own reasons.

In the end, the story is whatever we get to see, regardless of how it was rejiggered, stepped on, or enhanced by whoever touched it in between the script and the release.

These points are good examples of why online distribution, crowdfunding, and digital cine are so great for indie filmmaking, we're not forced to give up creative control and our artistic integrity. I could take the easy path and just sell my screenplay, but I'm afraid Hollywood would make a $100 million B-grade movie and I'd have to self terminate. There's no fun taking the easy path either.

 

[Gillvane]

It's one of the problems I have with "long arc" television series. The writers almost never have the whole story figured out when they begin, and often shift gears abruptly in the middle of it when they decide they want to go in a different direction (sometimes when new writers take over), because they never really had a final destination in mind. Or they changed it. The result is often very dissatisfying.

When you're a novelist, if you want to change the story, you can rewrite earlier chapters, but you can't with a TV series.

I really liked Being Human on the Scyfy channel and I think that happened with their 3rd season. Instead of starting where they left off they begin the 3rd season where like 18 months have passed and suddenly everything is different. Tthe entire world has changed. I was like, WTF? Is this the same series I was watching?

Suddenly there has been a Vampire virus and all the Vampires are dying from biting infected humans, and this has been going on for a year and a half, and the new season starts right in the middle of this epidemic. I have a feeling they writers just came up with this and it certainly doesn't feel like the last 2 seasons were headed in that direction.

 

[David G. Smith]

When I say "content is king" I"m talking about narrative films. If there's no narrative, then obviously it doesn't apply.

I went to the Heinekin beer brewery and you watched a movie first where you pretended to be a bottle going through the bottling plant. It was fun and I really enjoyed it, but sure there was no story. I saw the IMAX footage from teh space shuttle and it was really cool. But I don't think it's instructive to compare those or Baraka to Pulp Fiction or the Life of Pi.

The point is in a narrative, the best directing, the best acting, the best lighting, the best CGI special FX, the best advertising, cannot help if you have a bad story. I.e, content is king.

So then do you think that Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of "Psycho" is as "Good" as the original version directed by Alfred Hitchcock? Now, I do coincide that making that judgement is always going to be skewed by the success and impact of the Hitchcock version, which is a cultural icon. Go through the lists of remade films below and ponder the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_A-M

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_N-Z

The classic example of a movie "Made" in the editing room is the 1977 Best Picture Oscar winner "Annie Hall" directed by Woody Allen, which ironically also won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. As for the screenplay..."The draft that Allen presented to the film's editor, Ralph Rosenblum, concluded with the words, "ending to be shot." It was "like a first draft of a novel ... from which two or three films could possibly be assembled," Rosenblum says." It is my understanding that Rosenblum and Allen had a falling out after Rosenblum's book, "When the Shooting Stops, the Cutting Begins: A Film Editor's Story." was published in 1979 because of revelations in the book about how Rosenblum help save Allen's first film, "Take The Money and Run", in the editing room. No one can argue that a good script and basic story are essential to making a good film, but it is not the only thing.



To the OP, I am excited about the introduction of Vimeo VOD. I have been around awhile and I have seen several incarnations of "The Dawning of A Golden Age of Independent Filmmaking". Very few here may know about the time when independent low budget filmmakers were excited and inspired by this guy:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0685314/

http://pirromount.com/

When he made over one million dollars in TV and home video sales with this film, shot on Super 8 for $2500.00,

That was at the beginning of direct to video explosion of the 1980s and '90's. Vimeo VOD is an evolution of that of course, but I think it is a pretty big leap forward. It is still going to be as hard, if not harder, to make a buck with it like the direct to video producers did back in the day. Vimeo VOD takes out one of the last "Gatekeeper" indies have to deal with, the video distributor, and very much streamlines the process for the DIYers. It is exciting.


BONUS:

"A Polish Vampire in Burbank" making of featurette.

An article on low budget direct to video pioneers:

http://www.fearnet.com/news/news-article/lawless-land-direct-video-micro-budget-80s90s-cinema

 

[Samuel H]

^ great post

 

[Gillvane]

So then do you think that Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of "Psycho" is as "Good" as the original version directed by Alfred Hitchcock?

I don't think that's relevant to the point I was making. You'd have to look at Gus Van Sant's version as if the original had never been made which isn't really possible.

A story is different when you see it again years later because you're a different person, and the world is different.

I think a better example than comparing a remake to an original would be to make a movie 5 times concurrently with 5 different directors.