Thesis about the indiefilmmakers

C

czdodo

New member
Hi

I'm new on this forum, but not so much in the media industry. I'm about to write my thesis in the next few weeks, and I'm looking for some help. Help, as in personal information, experience from you guys.
My thesis is gonna be about the digital revolution in communication and film. (For example: web2.0, dslr, red,) Part of my document is about the independent filmmaker, and newly appeared digital cowboys :) as a "middle" layer between professional and amateurs.

I'm one of you guys, also making films, but my story is only a small part in this thesis, the bigger part is those people who have been in this market for a couple of years and have their own experience and vision about the past and the future of this thick but widening market.
So you guys! I'm looking for your experience, your theories your opinion about what kind of digital technology do you use in your work, or by advertising it? (a few buzzword might start a a few ideas: 5d, videocopilot, torrent, facebook, adobe, instagram, twixtor etcetcetc...)


So if you have the time and the energy to help me and tell about it, feel free to share it.

Thank you!:thumbup:
 
- digital revolution made all the gear cheaper and easier for "average joe" to use
- this in turn made everyone assume it's easy to make a film because the image is readily viewable and everyone can afford to buy their dream camera
- this in turn create a huge influx of content of mediocre quality
- this in turn made everyone question how to get the content noticed
- this in turn made everyone with experience realize that making films is NOT easy and probably actually much harder than it has ever been
 
Last edited:
Well said, Patryk and Barry. Agree 100%. Czdodo, I will be very interested in reading your thesis and hope you post it on DVXUser. Add into the mix that the internet is fast becoming the primary release format for these "inbetween films" (requiring a much lower quality standard), and the ingredients result in extremely lower standards by clients (the folks that pay the bills). Just look at the recent piece from Audi with Nimoy and Quito. Great idea - not so great execution technically. Some will say - oh, that's part of the charm - it's almost a documentary. The filmmaker contractor is fast becoming a thing of the past. If you manage to get on staff somewhere, you can make it. Otherwise, you'll be fighting with the millions of new "filmmakers" as your competition. AAnd there is always someone who will do it cheaper. I'm not bitching, just calling it the way I see it. I continue making films, but it can no longer be my primary source of income.
 
Thank you for your feedbacks!

My first thought was the same, digital revolution encourages amateurs to make "movies" destroying the market. Just like stock photos lowering photo prices, since it is easier for a designer to find it online for a couple of dollars than pay for a studio to make it. But after long hours of reading trough boring and boring forums i feel like it's not that black and white. First of all this planet is about to be overpopulated, so its not just the filmmaker's market :P
Secondly... hmm are you guys familiar with Barney Stinsons cheerleader effect? When you take a look at a bunch of cheerleaders they seem to be beautiful, BUT if you look at them one by one, you will realise separately they are not good at all, none of them. Its a mixture of group and prejudice -> you expect them to be beautiful because they are girls and young and wearing uniforms.
IMHO its almost the same with young filmmakers, when you have a conversation with them about the 5dmk III useless h264 codec over the c500 beautiful moire and aliasing and artifact free picture, they seem to know so much, with such a confidence. (of course they don't own any serious equipment. 60d+kit lens is the max) But if you are in a set with one they are lost like a needle in the hayrick.
They don't seem to be very durable... at all. It's not just the technical knowledge, and the talents.
I think if you are shooting you need to be very determined, and patient, and well prepared. It's a real challenge fot your personality and your professionality. So sometimes it's about other qualifications, weak/lazy people simply just can't make it trough all by themselves. And since media/news/filmmaking seems an easy money making field with tons of cool cameras it's tempting for those who don't really want work... tempting at first!

And even a mid-level company's PR manager simply just cannot afford any amateur, wanabe filmmaker. If anyone, ever burned himself/herself with low cost - fast working neewbies, next time they willing to pay more just to work with pros, and to be sure.

So my conclusion so far is: yes, easier accessibility of the equipment (dslr) and knowledge (tutorials) watering down the quality of the filmmakers market, but in long terms it's only makes natural selection slower.

sorry for my English :) AND i'm still looking forward your opinions!!
 
These are my thoughts on indie film making.

The standard is Hollywood, so everyone wants to make a film that looks like a Hollywood film.
Film making is a collaborative effort. You need a sound department, DP, lighting, grips, camera, wardrobe, etc., to produce a Hollywood quality product.
You cannot do this alone. If you are the camera operator, sound guy, DP, prop department, and trying to do a shot list, and trying to get a great performance from the actors, something will usually suffer.
To get a good crew you can either pay them, or use inexperienced people willing to work for free, but still a large part of your effort will be keeping your crew happy since they are working for free.

Everyone knows the crew and the actors are the largest part of a Hollywood feature film budget, not the equipment, camera, lights, etc.

Making indie films will remain a monumental endeavor because no matter how good or how cheap the gear and post production tools become, you still need a good crew and good actors. Getting a good crew will always require a herculean effort in social skills to get them for free, or significant amounts of money to pay them so they show up when and where you want them.

The free crew will generally be of a certain skill level and no more, because beyond that level they are working in Hollywood and either to busy to work for you, or unwilling to work for free. Sure, if you're Zach Braff maybe your buddy that's a famous DP is willing to work for scale or reduced pay because he's between gigs and he likes your project or whatever, but for most this won't be an option.

To sum it up, if you want to be a camera operator, there are low cost high quality cameras. If you want to be a DP there are inexpensive light kits and you need less lights now with sensitive digital cameras.

but if you want to be a good director, you need a good DP and a good camera operator and crew to support them, plus good actors. Those are harder or more expensive to get for an indie budget than good gear.

That is why I reccomend shooting everything with sock puppets. You can take your time to light it and get the correct camera settings, and all your actors will always be on time.

oscars-flight-sock-puppets-02262013-164547.jpg
 
Well your opinion, puts this topic to a new aspect.
First of all sock puppets: once they get on the "director's bed" they head gets full of every kind of useless junk, so my experience are not so good with them :/

Secondly in this video based filmmaking world everyone wants to be a one man army, but after a point of expectations and quality you are just not enough by yourself. There is where a good crew needs to be involved, the harder the project is, the bigger the crew is.
I just meet this kind of opinion more and more often in the past few days.
Thanks for your help anyways! :)
 
Barry_Green said:
The "DSLR Revolution" turned a $1500/day job into a $150/day job.
Click to expand...

I went through the same thing with professional photography in the mid 90's, where clients no longer wanted to pay for professional photography fees when they could "fix anything on the computer".

So $1,500 day rates became $400 day rates and you now had to quote against a dozen other low-ball shooters.
 
Maybe I'm in a unique situation, but everytime there is a cheaper familymember around I just agree. And let them do it
 
Noel Evans said:
Im starting to see a turnaround on this.
Click to expand...
Good. Although that should also be considered predictable; it was the same way when desktop publishing was first getting established and everyone bought a laserwriter and declared themselves a desktop publisher... there was a race to the bottom in pricing, and the clients eventually figured out that the really cheap guys were terrible... same thing happened with web design, and hopefully we'll have a shakeout in camera ops and producers will start to recognize that there really is a quality difference between operators and they'll hopefully start demanding (and paying for) quality again...
 
groveChuck said:
My 13 year old nephew can do it even cheaper...
Click to expand...

Touche.

Actually I should clarify, I don't have an 18 year-old nephew. Just a jab at bottom-feeder client's excuses for backing out of productions, etc.

I would also put forth a vote that things are turning around. And I agree with czdodo…..if the client is a grinder, let the kid shoot it. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Barry_Green said:
Good. Although that should also be considered predictable; it was the same way when desktop publishing was first getting established and everyone bought a laserwriter and declared themselves a desktop publisher... there was a race to the bottom in pricing, and the clients eventually figured out that the really cheap guys were terrible... same thing happened with web design, and hopefully we'll have a shakeout in camera ops and producers will start to recognize that there really is a quality difference between operators and they'll hopefully start demanding (and paying for) quality again...
Click to expand...


The people that "need" quality will always pay for it. Top companies that are representing important brand names for example. I think it's just that many don't need quality and are quite happy with crap and prefer to pay for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top