Why do so many people think making the movie is all there is to it?

JonathanLB said:
Waaay too many newer filmmakers think that just because they think something is interesting, surely other people will too. I had a friend who wanted to make a feature film about his deceased uncle, and I said why? What's so special about him? He went on about how he was a war veteran and he coached high school sports and he was a really great guy and people loved him. The fact is, all that may be true but it won't be interesting to almost anyone except for his family. To the rest of us, it's a big fat who cares. You have to be a pretty major celebrity to be worth covering in a feature film.
Click to expand...
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but I have to disagree. "Stand and Deliver", "A Beautiful Mind", "Black Hawk Down", "Dangerous Minds", "Men of Honor", and "Monster" are just some examples of feature films about people who don't have "pretty major celebrity" status.


To speak more generally on the thread, I agree that flimmakers have to do things to let the world know their film exists and I don't think art and commerce are two mutually exclusive things. "Memento", for example, isn't exactly a 'cookie cutter' film yet it was able to secure distribution and make about 4x its production costs.


-Andrew
 
That's not what I was saying at all. You are talking about extraordinary stories, that isn't even in the same ballpark as what I was talking about. Obviously you can make a movie about an amazing story, no matter who it happened to, and Black Hawk Down is a major historical event, why even bring that up? I don't think you got the point at all, so I'm not going to go on and on about what I think is pretty obvious -- don't make movies that are about people who aren't interesting.

You just cited a bunch of movies about people who are interesting and their stories are interesting.
 
JonathanLB said:
That's not what I was saying at all. You are talking about extraordinary stories, that isn't even in the same ballpark as what I was talking about. Obviously you can make a movie about an amazing story, no matter who it happened to, and Black Hawk Down is a major historical event, why even bring that up? I don't think you got the point at all, so I'm not going to go on and on about what I think is pretty obvious -- don't make movies that are about people who aren't interesting.

You just cited a bunch of movies about people who are interesting and their stories are interesting.
Click to expand...
Interesting and celebrity aren't the same thing though. If your point was that the subject matter needs to be interesting I agree, but that's not what you said initially.

No need to get defensive when someone possibly disagrees w/you and is looking for clarification of what you said.


-Andrew
 
I'm not defensive, you just are steering the thread in a different direction when I think the meaning was very clear. The point is only that you cannot make a movie out of a story that is not interesting to the average person or to a large niche group, at least. You can't make a movie about your uncle just because you personally find him interesting. That is what was said.

It's very simple, and I don't think needs explanation, but some filmmakers can't figure it out:

Ordinary people doing extraordinary things, or extraordinary people doing extraordinary things. NOT ordinary people doing ordinary things. That is boring! haha
 
Yeah exactly, don't bore the audience, that's all. Sometimes relatively mundane things can become very watchable and interesting with a really good story and capable team, like Lost in Translation comes to mind. It's a bit meandering and you're not entirely sure at the time what it's about, as you're watching, but it's a wonderful movie and just really well done, and you have a sense by the end that there is a pretty cool message there! I think Garden State is also like that.

I would list both as films I don't usually like, that type of movie usually bores me, but when they're done well like those two were, they really work. One that I think is an absolute piece of poo-doo, I don't care how great critics think it is, is Gosford Park. That is THE most boring movie ever made in the history of cinema and has no right to exist whatsoever. I felt like it was about 18 hours of my life in that cinema watching grass grow. The guy behind me actually fell asleep and started snoring, and my mom was like, "Wow I can't believe he fell asleep in the theater!" I said, "Yeah, I can, I wish I could fall asleep, I don't blame him at all." I wanted to leave because I was just so bored, but I never walk out on a movie just out of respect for the art, I guess. I don't know how that movie could work for anyone, it was unbearably boring.
 
The only movie I walked out on was when I was in college; "Soggybottom USA" Not even the slightly buzzed state and $1 ticket night made it palatable.

Michael
 
I really liked Gosford Park. I put off seeing it for a long time because it didn't seem like something I would like. The great thing about cinema is we all don't have to like the same movies.
 
Yeah, well, the issue is you have to sell a film at least 3 times; to potential investors, to a distributor, and to an audience. It's possible you also have to sell it to a cast or at least one "name" actor and possibly to key members of a potential crew also.

That means you must have a film (or a potential film) that could be of value to a minimum number of audience. And it can't be a huge "maybe".

Even if most people hate a film and it's still possible maybe 1/20 of people who watch movies might pay to watch it, that could be enough to make money depending on the production budget. Studios use formulas and they know based on the elements alone (cast, effects, production value, nudity, violence, etc.), regardless of the script, that they'll more than likely make a certain amount of money. It's about return first, then everything else.

I rarely have worked on a feature that didn't have a writer/director that was emotionally attached to their film who let that blind them to the facts that a mass audience most likely would not share their passion. If your screenplay doesn't get people excited, then I'd say you have a problem because there's no magic that will occur during production that will transform a boring screenplay into a compelling film.

When I see garbage films, I generally fall asleep also, and some of these make money regardless because they have some big movie star(s) in the cast that translates into ____ number of ticket sales/DVD sales and rentals/etc.

Indie filmmakers have such a huge handicap since they have to compete with every single studio film out there and yet they, time after time, seem to opt to emulate the $80 Million dollar films rather than mine subject matter that the studios wouldn't or couldn't touch.

Anyone ever hear of a film called "Brick?" "The Man From Earth?" "Delirious?"

.
 
JonathanLB said:
Yeah exactly, don't bore the audience, that's all. Sometimes relatively mundane things can become very watchable and interesting with a really good story and capable team, like Lost in Translation comes to mind. It's a bit meandering and you're not entirely sure at the time what it's about, as you're watching, but it's a wonderful movie and just really well done, and you have a sense by the end that there is a pretty cool message there! I think Garden State is also like that.
.
Click to expand...

Was wondering would bring this up and coffee and cigarettes.

In the end? Just do what you want to do and don't listen to people you don't look up to in some way or who's work you've seen and respect, admire, would like to emulate.

Always see people giving advice on how to sell a feature but haven't seen their work. That speaks louder to me.

Original topic: because,everyone has to Learn somehow?
 
You guys want to know how 2 very successful studio guys got to where they are at today?

They learned how to promote FIRST, both the guys I'm talking about started in college promoting concerts. Harvey Weinstein and Brad Grey (paramounts CEO), Brad Grey used to work for Harvey when they were in their early 20's. Most small filmmakers don't want do this, Faith Grainger Deuce of Spades thread is a good example of a small first time filmmaker who understands this and how important it is. It's everything.

The biz is really more about promoting than anything else, if you guys don't want to do it make sure you have a producer or partner who does and is good at it.
 
Kholi said:
Was wondering would bring this up and coffee and cigarettes.

In the end? Just do what you want to do and don't listen to people you don't look up to in some way or who's work you've seen and respect, admire, would like to emulate.

Always see people giving advice on how to sell a feature but haven't seen their work. That speaks louder to me.

Original topic: because,everyone has to Learn somehow?
Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to having my work out there, too. We'll have a trailer ready in September, picture lock is end of this month for my first feature, and then it'll be done in mid-October probably.

You should do what you want to do if it's your money, but always be aware that as Chip says marketing is a big part of success and that means making a film that has a target audience and one that you can exploit.
 
Jonathan, please let us know when your trailer is up. I have enjoyed your posts, and would like to see what you came up with.

Hopefully this isn't too off topic. I think there are a lot of parallels between different creative disciplines. Going back to the subject of story structure and whether it's a good thing or not, I see it as sort of a parallel to music theory. Almost all popular Western music in every genre uses 12 notes per octave and some variation of a set of common chord changes. This structure is flexible enough to accommodate everything from Radiohead to Garth Brooks to Beethoven and beyond.

There are also musicians who go farther outside of this box, eschewing some or all normal western music conventions. Some of this can be brilliant, and some of it just sounds (to a lot of people) like unfocused noise. You're never going to get 20,000 people to pay money to attend your concert if it's just two chords and a bunch of guitar pedals feeding back on themselves.

Ultimately, The Beatles have sold a lot more records than John Cage, and it's not because they sold out or compromised their art, but because they crafted wonderful timeless songs that a lot of people really enjoy.

Most bands will tell you that they only make music for themselves and with no consideration as to whether anyone will actually like it or not. However, the more successful bands, even at the indie level, are the ones that ended up making songs that people enjoyed and cared about enough to go to live shows and buy their albums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top