What is most important to the process of making a movie?

K

Kholi

Section Moderator
Pretty much a controversial thread title, but on purpose. It's going to be opinion-based for the most part, and then again, I feel like there IS a goal that takes presidence over all others when creating a movie.

I use the term MOVIE because it encompasses all things about the medium, and we're specifically talking movies here (feature length) or even short films, not television or short episodics.

So, if you are a filmmaker what is the most important aspect on your way to achieving the goal? Whether that's money or notoriety?

Story? Theme? Concept? Cast? Camera? Audio?
 
I think Werner Herzog said "Money doesn't make films, you just have to take the initiative."...So I'd say initiative on the part of the filmmaker is most important to the process of MAKING a movie...What's most important to the actual movie?...Story...story...story. Without a good script, it's all for naught.
 
Kholi, it's because you are just a controversial person.

I personally think first and foremost, one needs to realize the ultimate reason for the making of a film. That is the most important, as it is hard work and takes sacrifice to create something. That is what sets the tone for the rest of the process. Once that is realized, all subsequent decisions are made with that in mind.

And basically it comes down to one of two reasons (though many people blur the two together) The priority will be either make money (that's not just the cash kind--Reputation, Experience, Notoriety all are "spendable" commodities) or make art/entertainment. When the dust settles, one will take priority over the other.

EDIT: and each person on the team may have different priorities. Who are we talking about here? Since a film, even at it's inception, has multiple people involved.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you'll probably get the award for the most controversial thread after this is over with..

If you're in it for notoriety...

Your story is key, but not JUST your story - the timing of your movie and promotional campaign. If your story isn't relevant or "trendy" to what's currently out there, the chances of your success greatly diminish in my opinion.

If you're in it for the money...

Your cast is key, but not JUST having a name will be enough validation. You need a GOOD/STRONG name that people know right off the bat, that's selling in foreign markets. You need to find the right name to drive your genre and provided you have the right name(s), you should have some level of success (DVD sales, VOD, etc).

I've retyped this like five times and still want to add that everything else is equally important...

Kegan
 
Last edited:
I think it's a mistake to 1) think there's any one most important thing, and 2) think you know what it is.
 
David Jimerson said:
I think it's a mistake to 1) think there's any one most important thing, and 2) think you know what it is.
Click to expand...

Well the problem here is that the question is incredibly broad. Taking it literally, regarding the PROCESS of making a movie, I stand by my belief that taking the inititive to see a project through is most important. I don't think that's what he meant, though. I think he meant it in broader terms, and you'll get a million answers there.
 
I don't think that this thread is going to be that controversial. Kholi did the smart thing and did not qualify his question by asking about a "Good movie", or "Quality movie", but just "A" movie.

I am actually going to take a little different take on this. Yes, I also believe that the script and story, or in some instances, the clearly defined concept of the movie, is the most important, followed by the performances and then the storytelling abilities of the filmmakers. However, I think that this really applies to what makes a movie I want to watch, and when it is all said and done, this all takes a back seat to what I describe below.

To just boil it down to what is most important to the process of making "A" movie, good, bad, or otherwise, I think that it is an almost indescribable "X Factor". What it really takes (IMHO, of course) is an entity (Person or group) that has the ability to put together all of the element necessary to make a movie and then GETS IT MADE! From a $200 Million blockbuster to a micro-budget film shot in your mom and dad'd basement, that quality of GETTING IT MADE is absolutely necessary. This "X Factor" is a very complex and nuanced set of skills and personality traits, but I think that it is absolutely THE necessary ingredient in the process of making "A" movie.

I think this "X Factor" is at the basis of the admiration, among aspiring filmmakers, for the likes of Roger Corman, Lloyd Kaufman, Ed Wood or even Robert Rodriguez's "El Mariachi" . How many times have you heard it said about these guys, "Well, I don't really like their movies, but I like they way they made them..."?.
 
I hate to break into this Mod love-in....

But before it goes all esoteric and deep here, anyone who has ever had anything to do with making a movie already knows the most important thing behind the creative process...

coffee.jpg


Everything else comes second.
 
Pookie said:
I hate to break into this Mod love-in....

But before it goes all esoteric and deep here, anyone who has ever had anything to do with making a movie already knows the most important thing behind the creative process...

coffee.jpg


Everything else comes second.
Click to expand...

Shaaaaaa!!!
 
Batutta said:
Well the problem here is that the question is incredibly broad. Taking it literally, regarding the PROCESS of making a movie, I stand by my belief that taking the inititive to see a project through is most important. I don't think that's what he meant, though. I think he meant it in broader terms, and you'll get a million answers there.
Click to expand...

I don't really mean to argue with anyone; I just think it's not an answerable question, especially from movie to movie.

Surely, initiative to see something through is a requisite for getting any project done.
 
Batutta said:
Well the problem here is that the question is incredibly broad. Taking it literally, regarding the PROCESS of making a movie, I stand by my belief that taking the inititive to see a project through is most important. I don't think that's what he meant, though. I think he meant it in broader terms, and you'll get a million answers there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was more broad and to insight conversation. Well, I hope, anyway. xD

I asked because recently I submitted for a directing gig as director-for-hire and managed to actually make it to the top three choices. The budget was decent, three times what I had on my last, the people were great and the meetings went really well. The problem was...

The script... I had a few issues with it, enough to where I had to respectfully decline the opportunity to add another credit to my non-existant list. But, that made me think a lot about what a movie was supposed to be... and what was important to myself.

I was TEMPTED to take on the job just to see if I could turn something I didn't really like it something everyone could love, and would represent my voice. In this case, what became important wasn't the script, but the execution and crafting an overall experience.

But, isn't that what a movie is about? The experience over anything else? I remember movies that I had a great time watching or experiencing, I've watched bad movies on purpose with friends because the experience was going to be great. Birdemic was funny as all get out. I'm still quoting it days later and still laughing about it, even though it was horrible.

And, I've paid to see THE ROOM in theaters TWICE. That experience you just can't put down on paper, it's a MUST see event. The way the people react and the fun... I have NEVER been to a movie where people actually throw stuff at the screen and it's encouraged, or get up and run to the screen to interact with the movie (inappropriately, LoL).

Party hats, cheering, quoting, cursing, and screaming the entire time.

You can't write that into a script.

I have to take people to see it over and over, just to share that. And, because of that, this terrible movie is making GOBS of money, and it's Four-Walled. I'm just wondering how far off I might be in that all of these things are either less important to execution and crafting an experience, or equally important to each other at all times.

That probably made no sense. xD
 
Movies like The Room or Birdemic can't really be replicated on purpose. That's part of the joke, that the filmmakers sincerely believed in what they were doing. Trying to reproduce that would seem disingenuous to audiences. It's probably part of why the new Grindhouse style movies have failed to catch on at the box office.
 
I've said a hundred times

The Talent (Actors)

Every thing else is negligible.

You can fake the story, fake the direction, fake the cinematography, the music, anything. But not your talent.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
I've said a hundred times

The Talent (Actors)

Every thing else is negligible.

You can fake the story, fake the direction, fake the cinematography, the music, anything. But not your talent.
Click to expand...

I think you're overstating your case. Those other things aren't negligible. Cinematography, directing, music, they can be so-so if the actors and story are decent. Kevin Smith has made an entire career on that principle. But I don't think you can fake a story.
 
I think you can.

There are hundreds of films that are 'Okay'. You know, 'it's alright', it was 'watchable' ......

Hundreds of films with blase direction; not exactly mastery in visual terms

Films with less than polished cinematography and lighting

But if you have the talent too carry the picture, and I don't mean De Niro, but competent actors. You can get away with everything else being less. The second an actor CAN'T ACT, the audience will see right though it.

The typical movie going audience will never notice direction, lightning, et al ..

-

And will can act. He isn't going too win an OScar, but the dude is a solid talent.
 
Kholi;2424553 And said:
Ha, Ha, Ha.., that is exactly the experience of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"! I am not going to use the "Z" word... but I think it may be applicable to films like that, and the times.
Click to expand...
 
J.R. Hudson said:
I think you can.

There are hundreds of films that are 'Okay'. You know, 'it's alright', it was 'watchable' ......

Hundreds of films with blase direction; not exactly mastery in visual terms

Films with less than polished cinematography and lighting

But if you have the talent too carry the picture, and I don't mean De Niro, but competent actors. You can get away with everything else being less. The second an actor CAN'T ACT, the audience will see right though it.

The typical movie going audience will never notice direction, lightning, et al ..

-

And will can act. He isn't going too win an OScar, but the dude is a solid talent.
Click to expand...


I agree on most of that, just not the story part. Great acting won't make a lousy script into a good film. At best a mediocre one. Maybe faking isn't the best choice of words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top