The way to write a good independent Feature is?

Kholi said:
Success is subjective as well. Because, honestly, if you look at numbers then the idea that story is king is further dispelled.

Honestly, great camera work and proper casting will make a boring story more interesting to watch. This isn't a writers medium, movies, it's a director's medium. I'm not saying that it's going to make it good, but every case you're stating is diametric to your point.

Nobody's telling anyone anything new by saying "story is king" or what-have-you. It's not profound, it's not enlightening, it's just another filmmakers diatribe.

I do believe that script is second to execution. Story and Script are not synonymous; as a self-proclaimed writer you probably already know this.
Click to expand...
Great stuff, guys. I agree with most of this save that 'script is second to execution'. While I get your point completely I still think a terrible script in the hands of Nolan is still a terrible movie. So-so at best. Can he improve it with execution and great actors? Sure. I agree with that so I get your point.

It obviously doesn't need to be said but it's best to start off with the strongest script possible. I'm not trying to come up with a script that I like. I'm trying to come up with a script that will blow me away. I think that's the only way I personally will have a fighting chance.

Of course all the 'pieces' need to come together for it to work but I would put actors before DP work as well. I can watch two great actors sitting at a desk in a static shot as long as the story and acting is great/intriguing.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
I can watch two great actors sitting at a desk in a static shot as long as the story and acting is great/intriguing.
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen Louis Malle's "My Dinner With Andre" (1981)? It's a feature that's exactly that (except at a dinner table instead of a desk - for 110 minutes). While it's by no means the greatest movie ever made, it's quite entertaining IMHO, and does prove a certain minimalist cinematic point. I re-watched it a year or so ago when it came out on Netflix and found I still enjoyed it.

With respect to your point above, I believe it was only generally scripted, and only semi 'acted' by Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory. A famously experimental art-film to be sure...

And it will *most certainly not* be everyone's cup of tea...er...glass of wine... : )

According to the-numbers.com it grossed $5.25M theatrically. That'd be about $15M now. Plus VHS rentals back in the day, etc....

And talk about a low budget... : )
 
Last edited:
Ted Spencer said:
Have you ever seen Louis Malle's "My Dinner With Andre" (1981)? It's a feature that's exactly that (except at a dinner table instead of a desk - for 110 minutes). While it's by no means the greatest movie ever made, it's quite entertaining IMHO, and does prove a certain minimalist cinematic point. I re-watched it a year or so ago when it came out on Netflix and found I still enjoyed it.

With respect to your point above, I believe it was only generally scripted, and only semi 'acted' by Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory. A famously experimental art-film to be sure...

And it will *most certainly not* be everyone's cup of tea...er...glass of wine... : )

According to the-numbers.com it grossed $5.25M theatrically. That'd be about $15M now. Plus VHS rentals back in the day, etc....

And talk about a low budget... : )
Click to expand...
Interesting. I'll have to look that one up.

While I personally would never shoot an entire film like that I wouldn't be apposed to shooting scenes in that manner. The acting and writing would have to be pretty engaging for sure.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
It obviously doesn't need to be said but it's best to start off with the strongest script possible. I'm not trying to come up with a script that I like. I'm trying to come up with a script that will blow me away. I think that's the only way I personally will have a fighting chance.

Of course all the 'pieces' need to come together for it to work but I would put actors before DP work as well. I can watch two great actors sitting at a desk in a static shot as long as the story and acting is great/intriguing.
Click to expand...

I still think you're confusing story with script, but mevermind that n

Its obvious that a good blueprint is also key, right. Was only saying that it doesn't make a good movie.

When you say fighting chance, a fightng chance at what?
 
Kholi said:
I still think you're confusing story with script, but mevermind that n

Its obvious that a good blueprint is also key, right. Was only saying that it doesn't make a good movie.

When you say fighting chance, a fightng chance at what?
Click to expand...
I may be lumping story and script together but I'm not confusing them. I do understand the difference. Fighting chance at getting into some top festivals.
 
Are you planing to shoot your script yourself? I'm not sure if a got this.

If this is the case I think you should have in mind your limitations while you write. Like number and type of locations and the props necessary for your set ups. But don't get stuck with that. Better write you first draft and then figure up how to execute it. What to live and what to go.

In any case I think the story must come first. That is one of the main difference between independent cinema and studio films. In hollywood the spec writers start from the log line of the script, the log line which will sell more tickets and popcorn in the features and from there they go of telling the same old rubbish all over again.
Here,.. Again I start sounding pretentious, but I can't help it.

Good luck
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
While I get your point completely I still think a terrible script in the hands of Nolan is still a terrible movie.
Click to expand...

This is sort of a 'strange' statement... I do have an example of someone, famous, shooting a so, so, script, that did not measure up to the previous installments... that is "Godfather III"(1990). Ok, maybe it wasn't a 'terrible' script, but the script and the resulting movie didn't measure up to the expectations of the 'audience'...

Now, the question is why did Coppola make the third film, when for years he had pretty much stated that II was 'the end' for him... well, during the 80's he had a series of not so hot showings, and needed the money... so, according to his tell, took the project on, to get money...

Personally the only real quibble I have with the film is that a certain actress was used... perhaps an example of nepotism... and some of the acting of the more acclaimed actors, was not up to their previous standard... everyone struck me as 'tired'...

So, the reason why I think this is a strange statement, is at the present moment, Nolan or the other current luminaries have no apparent need to 'shoot a terrible script'... but rather may not shoot at all until they see a script they can work with...

Which leads me to a view that the 'great/good' directors are able to see a 'good script'... perhaps a diamond in the rough at some point and work it into something... or pass on the project, or leave the project due to 'creative differences'...
 
Ask_the_dusk said:
Are you planing to shoot your script yourself? I'm not sure if a got this.

If this is the case I think you should have in mind your limitations while you write. Like number and type of locations and the props necessary for your set ups. But don't get stuck with that. Better write you first draft and then figure up how to execute it. What to live and what to go.

In any case I think the story must come first. That is one of the main difference between independent cinema and studio films. In hollywood the spec writers start from the log line of the script, the log line which will sell more tickets and popcorn in the features and from there they go of telling the same old rubbish all over again.
Here,.. Again I start sounding pretentious, but I can't help it.

Good luck
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I may shoot it myself. I'm starting to write a little more "free" if you will. I'm keeping myself aware of what I can and can't accomplish but I'm also trying to push the limits. I'm throwing in stuff that I may not be able to pull off but that won't ruin things if I can't. I'm going to do my best to push myself throughout. It's a fine line though and I don't want to cross it too much. On the other hand, I don't want to just play it safe either.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
This is sort of a 'strange' statement... I do have an example of someone, famous, shooting a so, so, script, that did not measure up to the previous installments... that is "Godfather III"(1990). Ok, maybe it wasn't a 'terrible' script, but the script and the resulting movie didn't measure up to the expectations of the 'audience'...

Now, the question is why did Coppola make the third film, when for years he had pretty much stated that II was 'the end' for him... well, during the 80's he had a series of not so hot showings, and needed the money... so, according to his tell, took the project on, to get money...

Personally the only real quibble I have with the film is that a certain actress was used... perhaps an example of nepotism... and some of the acting of the more acclaimed actors, was not up to their previous standard... everyone struck me as 'tired'...

So, the reason why I think this is a strange statement, is at the present moment, Nolan or the other current luminaries have no apparent need to 'shoot a terrible script'... but rather may not shoot at all until they see a script they can work with...

Which leads me to a view that the 'great/good' directors are able to see a 'good script'... perhaps a diamond in the rough at some point and work it into something... or pass on the project, or leave the project due to 'creative differences'...
Click to expand...

People were talking about whether a great director could turn a garbage script into something much better. That's kind of what I was pointing at. While I think they can improve on it I don't think they can turn it into a great film. Not unless the garbage script is scrapped and turned into something else. If that's the case, it's no longer a garbage script.
 
Further to my earlier reply on page 7.

What I was really trying to imply, which I failed to do, was that your goal for the film should influence the script you write.

I see in your first post that you mention avoiding heavy SFX Sci-Fi, which seems wise. However if it's your aspiration to make sci-fi films, it would make sense to write a sci-fi feature...just one that was low budget. So your inspiration is something like Pi. Knowing you can't hide behind CGI means you take care to be more creative with the story, have strong characters etc.

If you look at the film Following which has been mentioned on here several times...it was made with what Nolan had available, even non-actors. But he used it to pitch Memento and got the funding.

So basically, what you want is a script that enables you to make a film good enough to further your own individual ambitions...which in the first instance is probably to get funding for the next one.

Widening the scope a little bit, I see there is the usual talk of great scripts etc. I don't know where I stand on all that to be honest. I try and write great scripts and that's my ultimate goal (as well as to make truly great films), but is that really what it's about? I'm not sure. A Producer once said to me that great is the enemy of good. He'd seen a zero budget short film I'd made, one of my first, and liked it enough that he wanted to give me a small amount to make my first feature (£40,000 to be exact). I rather foolishly turned it down because I didn't feel ready to make a feature. But the point is that for him the attempt to try and wait for the greatness prevented me from making a merely good feature...his further point being that three good features down the road I'd be in a much better position to make a great film. With hindsight I see he was right of course, I'm still making shorts to try and develop the confidence to jump into a feature whereas with his plan I'd be shooting my third feature by now.


A lot of films that critics say are great flop badly at the Cinema because audiences aren't interested in them or they feel they are too pretentious. Conversely a lot of films that are based on more modest scripts seem to do very well.

Fitness for purpose seems a better way of looking at it to me.

What makes a good horror film for the horror crowd is not the same as what makes a good film on an objective scale for the avergae cinema goer or the high end critics.

Human Centipede was not a great script, or a great film (I liked it more than most). However its premise was so interesting and ghastly that the film has entered the collective cultural conscience.

That's one good example of something an independent story might be advised to have: A marketing hook of some kind that garners it attention. Independent films can be more controversial, subversive, honest etc.

Another mediocre film that seems to have made some waves is Hobo with a Shotgun. Is that a great script? I don't know, but the premise was so silly and out there it really caught a mood. Relevance to a current zeitgeist might be another way of saying that...pick a sore topic or hit a genre that's under-catered to.

Another point is that you can tell pretty much any story with no to low budget, often it's just a case of point of view. For instance...planetary alien invasion. Independence Day vs Signs. Signs could have been made on a very low budget. Might not have Gibson, might have to do the alien effects a little differently, but the film was mainly just a family in a farmhouse.
 
DecadenceFilms said:
Another point is that you can tell pretty much any story with no to low budget, often it's just a case of point of view. For instance...planetary alien invasion. Independence Day vs Signs. Signs could have been made on a very low budget. Might not have Gibson, might have to do the alien effects a little differently, but the film was mainly just a family in a farmhouse.
Click to expand...


Despite certain 'critiques' of Shyamalan, most of his movies could very well have been 'low budget'... despite the critiques, he tends to be far more 'character' oriented than shock and awe...
 
make it smart and a
make it obvious whois the good and bad guy by adding small details, never send it to people to edit your work, dont let anyonoe rape your idea.Bad movies are made this way, decent script is being sent to some tasteless writers who pump it up with all possible cliches to fit the genre and there you go, another stupid movie.
Dont add very contrasty things to character, if audience will see that main character behaves like a good guy but he likes to visit prostitutes then you will lost audience completely, many movies made those mistakes, "good guy" helps people who not deserve to be helped and falls in "love" with prostitutes or whatever moronic person who's over "love" thing long time ago and is a wreck of human being deep inside.I cant believe some people in hollywood think that audience can identify themselves with this kind of good guy.
Avoid bad endings just for the sake of being different like one of the recent movies "unthinkable" for example where similar problem was solved 1000000 times better in TV series "24", we have A LOT of bad endings in real life, this is not entertaining, only depressing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top