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

Azmyth

Azmyth

Veteran
Why do alot of film makers believe that all they have to do is make the movie they want to make, and everything else will happen on its own?

That people will automatically want to see it. without advertising, without promotions, without a webpage, without a buzz.

A good movie to me, is not a good "film" its something that you've made people want to see. Twilight, love it or hate it.. is a "good" movie.. because they've made millions of people want to see it. Is it a good "film" probably not..

I try to see the picture from both sides. What good is a movie noone ever gets to see because they didn't know about it.
 
Amen. To add to the list, most movies people make (or want to make) aren't really things that other people would care to see, even IF they knew about them!
 
probably a general lack of knowledge on the business side of things. that's why a business plan is essential. some people may have a 'great' script, but what factors decide its greatness? and even if it's actually great (by mainstream/marketable standards), it seems that most productions lack (as you mentioned) promotion, advertising, etc. i.e. the whole package.

i think a 'good script' is vaguely understood by some filmmakers. maybe not.
 
Snazzy Flapper said:
Amen. To add to the list, most movies people make (or want to make) aren't really things that other people would care to see, even IF they knew about them!
Click to expand...

Yep. Just because you think people wearing leotards dancing on top of boxes in an empty room with country music playing in the background is entertaining doesn't mean everyone else will feel that way.
 
Because they assume others will eventually recognize their greatness. The world is full of people that have this expectation.

.
 
Chris Santucci said:
Because they assume others will eventually recognize their greatness. The world is full of people that have this expectation.

.
Click to expand...

+1,000,000

The world is full of people are delusional. I sat next to a therapist on a flight and he said narcissism is on the rise in a bad way.
 
Hmm

Hmm

Yeah, I agree with that wholeheartedly. I have tossed around ideas that I ultimately rejected because I didn't believe they had enough appeal to work.

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. My dad went from a poor family upbringing to building a business empire and he's one of the more inspirational people in my life as far as what one person can do with passion, discipline, and drive, but even still I would not write a feature film script on his life. It's not cinematic. Could it be made so? Perhaps, maybe, but I'm sorry I just don't think it works that way. You need to tell a story about someone who has captured the public fascination, an Ali or a Tiger Woods or a president or something like that. Frankly there are a lot of very successful, very rich people whose lives wouldn't make good movies despite them being interesting, ambitious people.

I think a lot of times people also get hung up on, "But this is the way it really happened in life..." -- I don't care. Nobody else does either. That's one reason I really just laugh and shake my head in disbelief at historians or other scholars talking about a Hollywood film and saying how it skews history or whatnot. Who the frick cares?! It's about making a good movie, a film that works dramatically, history doesn't always work as a film when told exactly. Parts have to be left out, added, etc. You don't go to see a movie for historical accuracy. I'd rather watch a great movie. Like to say that Gladiator isn't historically accurate, haha, yeah whatever I never saw Gladiator as a historical film by any means, just a great story.

It may sound a bit crass but I really believe you should be thinking about your film's marketing and market potential and how to build buzz before you even write the script. It's part of the filmmaking process. To ignore the business in filmmaking and concentrate only on the art is a sure way to make sure 1) You likely never even make your film, and 2) If you do make it, nobody watches it. I'd rather have a movie where I make some artistic compromises (within reason) to maximize its crowd-pleasing potential if that means I can have a lot of people see my work and hopefully get the essence of my message out to the world. That's what's really important.

Take Minority Report. I could do a film with a determinist vs. indeterminist argument for $200,000 with no effects, no stars, and no action. It would be very philosophical and interesting... to the 785 philosophy majors who might watch it ;) It would be very boring too. What they did instead is make a really energetic, visually magnificent, action-packed film WITH a deep message, a film that is truly a masterpiece, but it appeals even to Joe Blow public who totally missed the main point of the film -- that human beings have free will and there is no deterministic system ruling everything. Maybe even 75% of the people who see the movie will just think, "Wow that was a fun ride, great action and cool effects, I was entertained!" But the 25% who are smart enough to look harder and analyze the movie see this masterfully designed argument against determinism that we debated and looked at in philosophy class at university!
 
It's not just filmmakers. I've spent a lot of time trying to convince businesses, non-profits, and (the hardest sell) artists that some conscious marketing will help them. Most people just don't understand that, I think because they lack the ability to put themselves in someone else's head. So they, at least on some subconscious level, think people see the world- and what's wanted- the same way they do.

I had an associate who abandoned a previous project of mine, leading to a lot of people being let down, and me deciding I need to trust people a bit less. Before it collapsed he wanted to totally change it due to a lack of resources, to be about a guy trying to make a movie... which would have been fine, except he filled it with a bunch of stupid stuff no one cared about so that it was autobiographical. When I called him on it he said "but this stuff really happened!". I had a hard time explaining to him that just because these things are important in his life doesn't mean anyone else cares, and I'm not going to get a crew together to make him feel better; I need people to watch it. Obviously I never get through to him.
 
HAHA so true Cassius, a lot of people do that. To be honest, a lot of it is ego. I think a large percentage of filmmakers think their life stories are in fact interesting enough to be movies. Everyone's life is interesting in some ways, I don't care who it is, but interesting enough to captivate millions of people potentially? Not really. Most people's stories are interesting on a personal level, when you know them and are talking to them, not as much when it's put up on the BIG screen ;)

Honestly it's all about tact and subtlety, like I put a little bit of myself and my friends and experiences in every project I do. My short film definitely is "me," if you know me, but none of the characters are me... yet at the same time probably most of the characters have some element of me in them, as I wrote the script. The feature has all kinds of little things in it that if you know me, you'll realize, "Yup that's Jonathan, this is his movie!" But it's just tidbits. Like we cleared Gears of War 2, one of my favorite games, and I put that in my movie because one of my characters is a nerdy gamer. I rarely play games anymore, just don't have time, but I play that game with a few friends.

The main character starts a fan site about his celebrity girlfriend, behind her back. When I was 16 through about 18, I ran several Celebrity fan sites (Vin Diesel, Jennifer Love Hewitt) and made some good money on them, learned how to promote them, all of that. My background with that helped me write my main character, for instance.

My second script is a topic I'm very passionate about because it's something I really believe in, but not one of the characters really has anything in common with me whatsoever. Yet if you read the script and you know me, you'd know it's something that I would have written. It's philosophical, political, economic, and social, but it's not preachy and it's not a "message" film -- it's a character drama about people. Stories are about people, not about messages. Messages should be hidden in the subtext, you can't beat your viewers / readers over the head with them or it just doesn't work. I've seen religious-based films like that and they are just awful. But if you hide the message in great characters in interesting, unique situations, you can deliver a message without people being immediately conscious of what you're doing. It's a lot like a magic trick, and the difference between a good magician and a bad one is you can't see the strings with a good magician ;)
 
Filmmaking is fun. I like doing it. Not everything has to be about "finding an audience".

You only need to worry about a market or an audience when you're spending other peoples money (or time -- and then, only if they're expecting renumeration eventually).

Self-fund your films, use inexpensive but good equipment and you can afford to make films, hone your craft, and eventually get paid to make stuff other people want to see. Until you're getting paid, the only people that might be seeing your film are festivals committees, friends and family, and agents. You don't have to do much up front work for any of them.

Also, going "commercial" too early -- meaning, trying to make stuff you think OTHER people will like -- is a great way to make bland, copy cat, cliche-ridden films. Or a great way to put off learning the craft because it won't be good enough (you know who you are).
 
You should make films that you like and that will have at least a market appeal, even if that's a niche, that's ok.

I mean if you want to spend your money making home movies, go for it! Nobody should stop you, haha. But if you want to be in the industry and be a professional, you have to think of film like a business because that's what it is.
 
Chris Santucci said:
Because they assume others will eventually recognize their greatness. The world is full of people that have this expectation.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

However, they expect it immiediately not eventually.

I run into this all the time particularly with screenwriting.

I run a screenwriters group in Atlanta (www.atlscript.org) and many times when new people email me for information about joining, they like to inform me of how great their 1st script is or is going to be. :)

The majority of the time, when we workshop a 1st time script it isn't that great but despite the obvious flaws, some can't accept the constructive criticism. It never ceases to amaze me when that happens.

And someone mentioned the "but that's how it happened in real life" thing. Yes, screenwriters always say this when something critical comes their way as if that is a bandaid that should heal a flawed script.

And to the point of the 1st post in the thread...yes, it must be marketed, and even then you can NEVER market your film enough. I'm struggling with that now with Battle...I market every day, to every place imaginable and there have been results and some level of awareness has been built...but there's SO MUCH more to be done on that front which is hard on an indie level.

But there are folks who make a movie and just think SONY is going to track them down and release it on 3000 screens :)

-M
 
Martay said:
However, they expect it immiediately not eventually.
Click to expand...

We know that. I was just being nice...

Martay said:
And someone mentioned the "but that's how it happened in real life" thing. Yes, screenwriters always say this when something critical comes their way as if that is a bandaid that should heal a flawed script.
Click to expand...

OMG, don't get me started on the writing and the bandaids and the "real life." It's as if people are SO enamored of their lives that they are convinced it's all so interesting, which it could be - but, it still needs to be a compelling film story in the end which it almost never is.

I tend to subscribe to Dr. Waxling's advice (from "Search and Destroy"):

"Just because it happened to you does not make it interesting."

.
 
Martay said:
Indeed.

However, they expect it immiediately not eventually.

I run into this all the time particularly with screenwriting.

I run a screenwriters group in Atlanta (www.atlscript.org) and many times when new people email me for information about joining, they like to inform me of how great their 1st script is or is going to be. :)

The majority of the time, when we workshop a 1st time script it isn't that great but despite the obvious flaws, some can't accept the constructive criticism. It never ceases to amaze me when that happens.

And someone mentioned the "but that's how it happened in real life" thing. Yes, screenwriters always say this when something critical comes their way as if that is a bandaid that should heal a flawed script.

And to the point of the 1st post in the thread...yes, it must be marketed, and even then you can NEVER market your film enough. I'm struggling with that now with Battle...I market every day, to every place imaginable and there have been results and some level of awareness has been built...but there's SO MUCH more to be done on that front which is hard on an indie level.

But there are folks who make a movie and just think SONY is going to track them down and release it on 3000 screens :)

-M
Click to expand...

See, I don't agree that something creative can be flawed. I think that's a notion perpetuated by money managers in Hollywood and university professors. A lot of the greatest playwrights and even some novelists don't do much editing or retooling at all. Is it because they understand formula and story at some higher more complex level and so from inception to completion they never need to worry about stumbling? Maybe. But, more likely, they're reflecting the truth of moment in their writing because they understand their characters on a deep and very personal level. Any story or script is just this: a moment. You have 3 or 5 or 16 people, and you've taken a snap shot of a moment in their lives. The only "editing" should be where you start and end that moment.

Any "flaw" in a script, IMO, probably has to do with someone attempting to do something rather than them just existing in truth and the organic process.

Honestly, though, like music and anything else, there's true creativity and ingenuity, and then there's just stuff that sells lunch boxes. I will always and forever be of the mind that you have to keep business and art separate. It doesn't mean that you can't be a great business person for your art, but if you allow business to influence your art, you're not creating anything of value or that's contemplative or that will educate or insight change, which is what art is meant for.

.02
 
Chamber005 said:
Any "flaw" in a script, IMO, probably has to do with someone attempting to do something rather than them just existing in truth and the organic process.
Click to expand...


Man... oh man... I could tell you about "flaws" and "someone attempting to do something". Wow.

I can't tell you how many times I cross paths with "writers" who refuse to take good advice about screenplays and bask in the adulation of friends and family while throwing money into the toilet.

Films are films. They are based on stories that people have come to expect as being "film stories." The trouble starts when the artistes think they can write a film story when in fact they have little understanding of what a normal film story format is, or even how a film should look and sound.

It's your experience? Nobody cares! It just needs to be compelling on-screen. That's ALL an audience cares about. And, they don't care if it's "original" if it's boring.

"Just because it happened to you does not make it interesting."

.
 
Chamber005 said:
Honestly, though, like music and anything else, there's true creativity and ingenuity, and then there's just stuff that sells lunch boxes. I will always and forever be of the mind that you have to keep business and art separate. It doesn't mean that you can't be a great business person for your art, but if you allow business to influence your art, you're not creating anything of value or that's contemplative or that will educate or insight change, which is what art is meant for. .02
Click to expand...

I disagree. Before I invest time into writing a story I wear the business hat and think about things like "Who would give a rat's ass about this story?" and "Would anyone with talent want to play this character for more than just a paycheck?", etc.

Those are all business questions. I don't write to appease myself and feel giddy. I write because I want to share something with an audience. That's where I have to listen to the business side of my brain and realize I need to explore universal themes.

True expressionistic art doesn't belong in the cinema, it belongs on a flat panel screen in a corner of an art exhibit.
 
Snazzy Flapper said:
I disagree. Before I invest time into writing a story I wear the business hat and think about things like "Who would give a rat's ass about this story?" and "Would anyone with talent want to play this character for more than just a paycheck?", etc.

Those are all business questions. I don't write to appease myself and feel giddy. I write because I want to share something with an audience. That's where I have to listen to the business side of my brain and realize I need to explore universal themes.

True expressionistic art doesn't belong in the cinema, it belongs on a flat panel screen in a corner of an art exhibit.
Click to expand...

Really well put, I fully agree. That has to be the first question you ask is who would actually want to sit through the movie that I want to make based on this screenplay?

It's an especially relevant question if you're writing something dramatic and with some heft to it, rather than just a genre picture. With my first screenplay, it's a romantic comedy, and it's not hard to answer the question of who would want to watch because it's funny, the story is original and entertaining, etc. But my second screenplay is a drama, about an issue I consider very important, so in reality the goal is to make sure it's not about "an issue" but about people, characters, and how they experience the world and the situations they are put into, and through that I have the opportunity to deliver the message I want, as part of the underlining story but not beating anyone over the head with it.

The idea that art can't be flawed because it's art is kind of silly to me. Of course a lot of it is based on opinion and taste, and rest-assured if 100 people had directed my script we'd have 100 different movies, but there are still things you need to consider that work dramatically and are tried and true.
 
Chamber, I think you misinterpret 'flaw'. No one said anything about formulas and rules... but if the writer's work doesn't clearly communicate their idea, or is written in such a way that the audience loses interest and doesn't get to the important parts, then it hasn't accomplished its goal. That is a flaw.

The people I'm talking about don't write a script they naturally like and expect a market to find it (which is certainly plausible). They write a script they like, but they only like it because they wrote it. The content triggers connections in their minds that no one else really has, so no one else is going to care.

As for the comment on spending other people's money? I don't like to waste my own. I have a lot of things I'd like to do with it. And even if that weren't the case, my crew and actors' time is worth a lot to me, as well as the pride they can feel when we finish the project. That's probably more important to me than selling the product, and certainly more valuable than mere dollars.
 
With all the comments here opposed to creating something out of the artist's need to create it rather than sell copies or theatre tickets, you have to wonder how writers existed prior to Writer's Digest Magazine and the Hollywood Reporter.

Seriously, this is all rubbish. Jonathan, Snazzy, you guys actually sit down to create something and ask yourself "Is this saleable" and "will people like it"? That is the reason you decide to create something?

Wow. I mean, I know this is the business forum, but I can't imagine a statement with less integrity. That's the kind of mindset you should have if selling toothbrushes or leather cleaner. Do you know what this kind of thinking does to our culture? You're helping to turn people into high fructose corn syrup junkies so that when they taste real maple syrup they cringe.

This kind of position is why I think reality television is the greatest thing to ever happen to the arts, because you no longer have to be an athlete or "artist" in order to be rich and famous. I guess that only helped the people who are actors, though, not necessarily those who are writers or directors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top