What every newb filmmaker should know. (My Top 5)

[Egg Born Son]

This seems so wrong to me. Filmmaking shouldn't be about pleasing an audience, or tailoring your film to meet certain criteria, or even having critics on your mind. That's ridiculous. Film is an art form. Of course you hope people enjoy your work, but you don't change anything or do things a certain way so that they do enjoy it. And if you do, you're missing the point. I don't need to have made a film to say that. Your reasons for making a film shouldn't be to make money or to please an audience, it should be to get across what you want to say. If that pleases an audience and makes money for you then that's a bonus, but if that's your motivation then you're not going to make anything ground-breaking. It pisses me off when people say the most important thing in filmmaking is the story and to be creative in telling the story, and then they make their film following some sort of conventional, recognised recipe, perhaps with a few extra ingredients to make their film 'unique'. Section 2 is such bulls*%t.

Filmmaking is a craft. While some blacksmiths are artisans, others make horseshoes. A filigree candelabra is nice but empires have been built on a good horseshoe. If I understand correctly from another thread, Kodak has supplied more film to the NFL than hollywood. Most people watch the news for an hour every day and a movie only a couple of times a week. Most couples will save their precious wedding video from a fire before they reach for their indie dvd collection. What you are talking about is masturbation, called R&D in any other industry. It is important and there is a place for it but I can't agree it carries more value than the workhorses of the moving picture. Incidently my approach is largely in accordance with your sentiment but I have to disagree that it is the only or even best way to go about it.

2. Watch films to learn what NOT to do not what to do.

I bought 'Mutant Chronicles' to watch over and over again just to see how to ruin a movie. Steam powered spaceships, Malcovich, Perlman, WWI aesthetic - how could this go wrong? Alas it turns out that character development is important. A character does need to save a kitten from a tree before you kill them. Perlman shouldn't do accents. FX do not make a movie. In the absence of character and script at least make the monsters interesting. Any computer game does a better job. Every time I watch this I discover something new they did wrong, this should have been one of great fanboy movies. It's not even mediocre.

It takes half a lifetime to learn a craft, and a whole lifetime to have something to say.
Better start soon.

Great quote. Although the thing you have to say generally ends up being: 'TURN THAT MUSIC DOWN...damn kids...' :furious3:

 

[Bruce Watson]

Filmmaking shouldn't be about pleasing an audience, or tailoring your film to meet certain criteria, or even having critics on your mind. That's ridiculous. Film is an art form.

Really? Hitchcock disagreed. Rather vehemently.

I just finished watching the re-release of The 39 Steps on blu-ray (vintage B&W is so beautiful, especially in the hands of a master like Hitchcock!) There's an extra on disc that's about 40 minutes of interview with Hitchcock made in the 1960s or 1970s looks like. Watch that interview -- might change your mind. Making art and pleasing an audience are not in any way mutually exclusive.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

Really? Hitchcock disagreed. Rather vehemently.

I just finished watching the re-release of The 39 Steps on blu-ray (vintage B&W is so beautiful, especially in the hands of a master like Hitchcock!) There's an extra on disc that's about 40 minutes of interview with Hitchcock made in the 1960s or 1970s looks like. Watch that interview -- might change your mind. Making art and pleasing an audience are not in any way mutually exclusive.

Making "art" with no concern for the audience has an analogue in life... masturbation.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Really? Hitchcock disagreed. Rather vehemently.

I just finished watching the re-release of The 39 Steps on blu-ray (vintage B&W is so beautiful, especially in the hands of a master like Hitchcock!) There's an extra on disc that's about 40 minutes of interview with Hitchcock made in the 1960s or 1970s looks like. Watch that interview -- might change your mind.

“The 39 Steps” did nothing for me. It never entertained me or gave me any intellectual pleasure. In that sense the filmmaker failed to please at least one member of his audience.

Making art and pleasing an audience are not in any way mutually exclusive.

This statement is so broad it verges on the edge of extreme naivete. What is ‘art’? What’s ‘pleasing audience’?
Pleasing the audiences assumes that you are second guessing yourself to align your viewpoint or artistic pursuit with what you assume the audience will appreciate. This in effect is a false approach because you are defining the market and then creating the product for that market. This is not a bad approach with any manufacturing but is not so great when dealing with ‘art’ mostly because art encompasses so many variables that for anyone to assume that one can consider all those variables is a pure lunacy. Which leaves us with the ‘art’ part... Do what feels right to you with hope that you are sane enough not to fall into narcissistic self indulgence.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Making "art" with no concern for the audience has an analogue in life... masturbation.

Comparing anything to masturbation is a cheap cop-out from the conversation.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Filmmaking is a craft. While some blacksmiths are artisans, others make horseshoes. A filigree candelabra is nice but empires have been built on a good horseshoe. If I understand correctly from another thread, Kodak has supplied more film to the NFL than hollywood. Most people watch the news for an hour every day and a movie only a couple of times a week. Most couples will save their precious wedding video from a fire before they reach for their indie dvd collection. What you are talking about is masturbation, called R&D in any other industry. It is important and there is a place for it but I can't agree it carries more value than the workhorses of the moving picture. Incidently my approach is largely in accordance with your sentiment but I have to disagree that it is the only or even best way to go about it.

Any by the same sentiment McDonalds being the largest restaurant chain on the planet should prove to all those chefs with one or two restaurants trying to do unique things with fresh ingredients and original recipes that they go about it in a wrong way. It’s not about the food but how you market it! I’m being sarcastic here because it’s choice. Although the original quote seems too strict because filmmaking can be about selling cheap crap to the masses (as McDonalds or Hollywood does) or about art i do agree with iamWZA. The reason why i do is because noone here has access to a factory or a huge chain where we should start worrying about marketing our goods but rather we are all artisans where the art of it should of the highest importance.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

I thought that was a brilliant line from Patryk. If it's already been done, then -- it's been done, so if you spend efforts chasing after what someone else has already done, then what's the point of that?

It's the ultimate way to avoid cliche in your work too. Basically, if you've ever seen it done before, don't do that. Try to do something different, something new, invent something new, innovate instead of imitate, and all that...

I said it then you said it then i re-say it again!

 

[iamWZA]

I'm glad my outburst sparked some discussion, but I want to simplify and rephrase what I originally posted:

If you make a film with other people's opinions in mind then you will make compromises. If you make those particular compromises then your film won't be a true expression, and that's a damn shame.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

Comparing anything to masturbation is a cheap cop-out from the conversation.

No, it's a pretty apt analogy.

Nobody says you have to "compromise your vision" for the audience. However, you DO have to consider what you are trying to communicate, how you are communicating it, and whether the audience has any chance of understanding that. Otherwise you are, as I said, jerking off. You are making the film for your own amusement and your own purposes, a totally narcissistic act. That's fine, but then don't get all high and mighty when people aren't particularly interested in your doodling.

 

[Gillvane]

No, it's a pretty apt analogy.

Nobody says you have to "compromise your vision" for the audience. However, you DO have to consider what you are trying to communicate, how you are communicating it, and whether the audience has any chance of understanding that. Otherwise you are, as I said, jerking off. You are making the film for your own amusement and your own purposes, a totally narcissistic act. That's fine, but then don't get all high and mighty when people aren't particularly interested in your doodling.

This is correct. There's a difference between staying true to your vision, and making something only you will understand and appreciate.

New film makers often get the two things confused. They make something that is unentertaining and incomprehehsible, and defend that by saying they were "remaining true to their vision". But the reason it sucks is they didn't give a crap about whether anyone else would understand it or be entertained by it.

If you remain true to your vision with utter disregard for your audience you'll end up being the only one that wants to watch what you produce.

Or, you can make something only you care about or understand once you can spend 50 million on set design and digital FX and can afford to hire Charlize Theron to star in it even if her character doesn't do anything important. People will still watch to see the awesome sets, FX, and Charlize Theron.

But what if you have a 5d Mark II, no name actors, and 5 thousand bucks for pizza and props? You better take your audience into consideration if you want anyone to watch.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

No, it's a pretty apt analogy.

Nobody says you have to "compromise your vision" for the audience. However, you DO have to consider what you are trying to communicate, how you are communicating it, and whether the audience has any chance of understanding that. Otherwise you are, as I said, jerking off. You are making the film for your own amusement and your own purposes, a totally narcissistic act. That's fine, but then don't get all high and mighty when people aren't particularly interested in your doodling.

“Whether the audience has any chance of understanding that” is the issue of contention here. In your logic a filmmaker or an artist has ability to predict the audience response which i call bull. Although there is certain way of predicting outcomes with finite number of variable - politics for example where the public is asked to say if they liked one opponent over another. It’s totally different game when trying to deal with: why did you pick this film over 5000 others available this year, or why this film streaming tonight on netflix over dozens if not hundreds of thousands of others... The variables are simply too vast. And you don’t have to take my word for it. Every week a few big budget movies come out with an army of specialists dedicated to making, packaging, marketing behind it and so few of those films break through. And here you are telling me one person, a lone indie filmmaker, can out do that “army”... If this is not the ultimate act of narcissism then i don't know what is.

 

[Gillvane]

Any by the same sentiment McDonalds being the largest restaurant chain on the planet should prove to all those chefs with one or two restaurants trying to do unique things with fresh ingredients and original recipes that they go about it in a wrong way. It’s not about the food but how you market it! I’m being sarcastic here because it’s choice. Although the original quote seems too strict because filmmaking can be about selling cheap crap to the masses (as McDonalds or Hollywood does) or about art i do agree with iamWZA. The reason why i do is because noone here has access to a factory or a huge chain where we should start worrying about marketing our goods but rather we are all artisans where the art of it should of the highest importance.

Let's use your analogy.

How many people are going to order foie gras and caviar at McDonald's? What if you said, that's my vision and I"m the owner of McDonald's so screw those people I'm putting foie gras on the menu.

Or, what if you had the nicest restaurant in your downtown area where all the nice restaurants are and you decided, you know what? Most of the restaurants around here serve fine wines, but I"m just going to serve grape soda because that's my vision.

You're not "staying true to your vision" you're just saying F you to your intended audience. That doesn't really get you anywhere.

Just like people going to McDonald's or a fine dining restaurant expect certain things, people going to see a Romance, Sci Fi, or Drama expect certain things.

Why would you not give that to them and just tell them to F off? How is that going to make a better movie?

That being said you don't have to make a Romance, Sci Fi, or Drama. You can make anything you want including something experimental like a David Lynch film or Fellini. But whatever it is there are going to be audience expectations and you can either understand them so you can deliver and make a good movie, or tell the audience to F off and make crap that only you want to watch.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Let's use your analogy.

How many people are going to order foie gras and caviar at McDonald's? What if you said, that's my vision and I"m the owner of McDonald's so screw those people I'm putting foie gras on the menu.

Or, what if you had the nicest restaurant in your downtown area where all the nice restaurants are and you decided, you know what? Most of the restaurants around here serve fine wines, but I"m just going to serve grape soda because that's my vision.

You're not "staying true to your vision" you're just saying F you to your intended audience. That doesn't really get you anywhere.

Just like people going to McDonald's or a fine dining restaurant expect certain things, people going to see a Romance, Sci Fi, or Drama expect certain things.

Why would you not give that to them and just tell them to F off? How is that going to make a better movie?

That being said you don't have to make a Romance, Sci Fi, or Drama. You can make anything you want including something experimental like a David Lynch film or Fellini. But whatever it is there are going to be audience expectations and you can either understand them so you can deliver and make a good movie, or tell the audience to F off and make crap that only you want to watch.

NOBODY here has a McDonald restaurant (equivalent of many millions of dollars for a film) or even a small restaurant ($500k+ film). We are all talking about making small $0-200k films and yet we spend wast amounts of time giving each other advice of what the McDonald next door or even the restaurant down the streets is or not doing right. ...Meanwhile we have a bucket with ice and can sell pealed mangoes at most.

 

[prexdealer]

NOBODY here has a McDonald restaurant (equivalent of many millions of dollars for a film) or even a small restaurant ($500k+ film). We are all talking about making small $0-200k films and yet we spend wast amounts of time giving each other advice of what the McDonald next door or even the restaurant down the streets is or not doing right. ...Meanwhile we have a bucket with ice and can sell pealed mangoes at most.

I wouldn't make such a broad assumption that no one has the capacity to raise or make million dollar movies. I think many (not all) of those that can, also realize the risks of investing such capital and therefore are cautious about it. That kind of money is hard earned and shouldn't be invested foolishly. Especially if the money is given to someone who has no concern for a successful commercial outcome.

Without trying to make a personal attack, the fact that you cannot fathom that there are people on this board (not one person) who can make a $500K+ movie in a way shows how absolute your thinking is. No new information is allowed in. If you recall this thread http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?284011-Trailer-for-our-love-story-narrative which was about something you made, every comment was fought back by you. I think the thread died because it was clear that it wasn't going any where.

I get it Patryk, you are an artist and we don't know anything. I am not an artist, I want to have fun and be entertained. I wrote a horror short that I am trying to get done. People seem to like the script, but it isn't "The Shawshank Redemption." Which I know wasn't a horror, just that I love "The Shawshank Redemption." And I am ok with that. If it gets liked by others, great, if not, great. I tried and hopefully learned from it. But I don't plan on saying they don't know anything.

In stocks, the market is always right. Yes, each analyst thinks they know which stocks should go up etc. But end of the day, the market is right. You can't fight the market. I mean, you could. But you won't have any money left.

My experience, and experience not being truth, is that nothing we say will change your position. I find it sort of entertaining, not trying to be antagonizing.

Many things, almost all, are derivative of other ideas. Sometimes it is just applying new technologies or approaches. Oftentimes, it is just marrying two existing ideas to make a "new" one. The critical success factor is usually in execution. That is what separates those that win and fail. The genius is in seeing the possibilities.

 

[Barry_Green]

If you make a film with other people's opinions in mind then you will make compromises. If you make those particular compromises then your film won't be a true expression, and that's a damn shame.

Apparently that's what George Lucas thought. By gum, he wasn't gonna compromise on the new ones, he was gonna make Star Wars films his way, with no interference from anyone else, no studio involvement, no masters to answer to, and definitely not worried about pleasing the fans...

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

I wouldn't make such a broad assumption that no one has the capacity to raise or make million dollar movies. I think many (not all) of those that can, also realize the risks of investing such capital and therefore are cautious about it. That kind of money is hard earned and shouldn't be invested foolishly. Especially if the money is given to someone who has no concern for a successful commercial outcome.

Without trying to make a personal attack, the fact that you cannot fathom that there are people on this board (not one person) who can make a $500K+ movie in a way shows how absolute your thinking is. No new information is allowed in. If you recall this thread http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?284011-Trailer-for-our-love-story-narrative which was about something you made, every comment was fought back by you. I think the thread died because it was clear that it wasn't going any where.

I get it Patryk, you are an artist and we don't know anything. I am not an artist, I want to have fun and be entertained. I wrote a horror short that I am trying to get done. People seem to like the script, but it isn't "The Shawshank Redemption." Which I know wasn't a horror, just that I love "The Shawshank Redemption." And I am ok with that. If it gets liked by others, great, if not, great. I tried and hopefully learned from it. But I don't plan on saying they don't know anything.

In stocks, the market is always right. Yes, each analyst thinks they know which stocks should go up etc. But end of the day, the market is right. You can't fight the market. I mean, you could. But you won't have any money left.

My experience, and experience not being truth, is that nothing we say will change your position. I find it sort of entertaining, not trying to be antagonizing.

Many things, almost all, are derivative of other ideas. Sometimes it is just applying new technologies or approaches. Oftentimes, it is just marrying two existing ideas to make a "new" one. The critical success factor is usually in execution. That is what separates those that win and fail. The genius is in seeing the possibilities.

And... Talking about me specifically as a person helps this thread exactly how???????????

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

What I'm talking about is language, the language of film, that we have all learned since we were little kids and that has evolved slowly over the last 100 years. Making a movie that has any chance of connecting with an audience requires that you know who that audience is and what dialect of film language they speak. You can throw new stuff at them, you can twist and contort language they understand in funny and ironic ways, but you have to give them an ability to stay with you by talking a lot in terms they know. Going in with an "I don't give a damn if they understand me or not I'm not thinking about it" is a prescription for audiences to hate the film. or at best think "what the F was that?"

 

[mail4joeg]

Is this really just about "experimental" films? There's a corrective factor here. Movies cost a lot of money to make. If they don't return the money somehow, you're not going to be making another one.

I have no problem with a person of taste, skill and intelligence making the perfect movie to please themselves. Because odds are, that will also please me too.

It's the lessers...

 

[Kholi]

(1)The reason why i do is because noone here has access to a factory or a huge chain where we should start worrying about marketing our goods but (2)rather we are all artisans where the art of it should of the highest importance.

1. There area a handful of people on this board, that I know of, that do have access to said factory.

2. Not everyone's got the same goal in mind. Some people's goals change over time, some are very narrow from the onset. It seems to me that the only thing that should be of the highest importance is what's right for the path that you have chosen (or sometimes what has been chosen for you).

 

[CallaghanFilms]

1. You


2. Are


3. Storytellers


4. Not


5. Technicians