Why do so many people think making the movie is all there is to it?
- Thread starter Azmyth
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
When you're spending twenty thousand to 200 million dollars to produce something, it would be profoundly irresponsible to plummet forward without considering the commercial ramifications of how you intend to recover that investment.
If all you want to do is write, with no concern over whether it will sell or find an audience, go right ahead.
But when you're talking about taking money from people to produce a work as incredibly expensive as film is... well, you talk about integrity, I think it would demonstrate an utter lack of integrity to take people's money and blow it on some narcissistic endeavor with no regard to the responsibility you owe to those investors to recover their investment.
Writing is free. Writing is art in its purest form. Producing a film is business. It's a manufacturing endeavor.
If you want to write for the sake of writing, that's art, go right ahead, and if it never amounts to anything other than a hundred pages on your bookcase, well, if it made you happy then it was worth it. But if you want to write something so that it is practical to be produced, then how can you possibly not consider the commercial ramifications of what you're doing? This is show business, not show art.
If all you want to do is write, with no concern over whether it will sell or find an audience, go right ahead.
But when you're talking about taking money from people to produce a work as incredibly expensive as film is... well, you talk about integrity, I think it would demonstrate an utter lack of integrity to take people's money and blow it on some narcissistic endeavor with no regard to the responsibility you owe to those investors to recover their investment.
Writing is free. Writing is art in its purest form. Producing a film is business. It's a manufacturing endeavor.
If you want to write for the sake of writing, that's art, go right ahead, and if it never amounts to anything other than a hundred pages on your bookcase, well, if it made you happy then it was worth it. But if you want to write something so that it is practical to be produced, then how can you possibly not consider the commercial ramifications of what you're doing? This is show business, not show art.
Last edited:
+1,000,000,000,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I invested in a film, got some friend's and family to put in also. It is a commercially viable product (I cannot say any more about the film). I come from a different business world (other investments). In my world, we need to have skin the game, so that other investors, banks etc feel like you are at risk. If you don't care if it is commercially viable, get out your credit cards, sell blood, get another 10 jobs, but stop trying to make it other people's fault they don't give you money because your idea says nothing but a money loser on it. Only parents may help, but how selfish is that to go and intentionally lose your parent's money?
Not to make this personal, but I have met many film people who think that they should be given money to do their thing and they don't care about the outcome. Who the **** are you people? And how did this belief system get developed? Investors are lucky to be around you, is that the thinking? To me that thinking shows a lack of respect, and once I think someone lacks respect, the hammer comes out.
Another film I was going to invest in, there was a dispute over an actor, and the director insisted on this person though it would have huuuuuuuge financial impacts. A fair, logical, and respectful person would say "Ok, how do we figure this out, protect the investors and the integrity of the film, etc." Let's just recast the role. They refused to budge and the deal is dead. People and their f*cking egos.
Make a commercially viable film, make money, take that money and make your art piece.
Last edited:
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
The moment I stopped viewing the business of filmmaking and the art of filmmaking as separate entities at war with each other, real solutions for how I was going to sustain a lifetime of filmmaking began to emerge. A small example of this: I'm currently in New Mexico, a state with a good tax rebate for filmmakers, scouting locations to provide creative inspiration for five feature-length motion pictures on our development slate. Will likely be scouting Illinois next.
JonathanLB
Carbonite Member
Haha, listen to yourself! You think it's a GOOD thing that people with no talent whatsoever in retarded reality TV shows can become famous? That's the worst thing about our society today! Reality TV is the bane of creativity.
And yes, of course I think about the audience when I'm coming up with ideas! I come up with something I really like, a story I want to tell, but I think about how it will appeal to other people and what is the audience for the work. Some of us live in reality where to get a project funded, or put your own dollars behind it, a significant investment, you need to be able to convince others to spend their time and/or money supporting your project. If there's no market, it's not going to get made. All good scripts and stories have a formula. It's not a limiting factor to creation at all, it's a simple dramatic truth. Well written stories follow a certain story arc that makes them dramatic, fast-moving, interesting, and facilitates character growth. You don't just sit down and write a rambling script where nothing happens and expect people to give you money to make it.
When people talk about indie filmmakers not having a business sense, they're talking about attitudes like yours. If you don't care about having an audience for your work whatsoever, uhh, great, have fun making home videos while I'm directing hit movies that actually make money and that people watch.
And yes, of course I think about the audience when I'm coming up with ideas! I come up with something I really like, a story I want to tell, but I think about how it will appeal to other people and what is the audience for the work. Some of us live in reality where to get a project funded, or put your own dollars behind it, a significant investment, you need to be able to convince others to spend their time and/or money supporting your project. If there's no market, it's not going to get made. All good scripts and stories have a formula. It's not a limiting factor to creation at all, it's a simple dramatic truth. Well written stories follow a certain story arc that makes them dramatic, fast-moving, interesting, and facilitates character growth. You don't just sit down and write a rambling script where nothing happens and expect people to give you money to make it.
When people talk about indie filmmakers not having a business sense, they're talking about attitudes like yours. If you don't care about having an audience for your work whatsoever, uhh, great, have fun making home videos while I'm directing hit movies that actually make money and that people watch.
Chamber005
Carbonite Member
Mucho respect to both you and Barry, and honestly I agree with both of your comments. My point is that the idea of creating something because it can be profitable, or changing the artistic process to formulate something more profitable, to me is the antithesis of art (be it filmmaking or otherwise).
What a producer (even if that's you) decides to produce can be based on any of these financial matters, but the creative process, if influenced by saleability -- nothing innovative is being accomplished in that manner.
I know everyone will strike me down further for this, but in the end, IMO, creative pieces should never have mass appeal, if they do either the person had a stroke of genius (The Matrix, Donnie Darko -- again, IMO), or they created something that was entertaining but of no real social value.
Theatre and film -- these are vessels for creative people to come together and manifest a writer's (or collective's) unique and thought-provoking position. There's nothing more powerful or influential in the human experience than film. Film can literally alter millions of people's lives, the way they speak and react to things, in a matter of a couple hours. After dropping out of high school, I saw the film Rudy and so I went back and finished because of that film. I saw friends die and get put in jail because they watched Goodfellas, Boyz in the Hood and Menace 2 Society insighting them to go pick up guns and shoot at people. Film can change entire societies. Using that kind of vessel primarily for profiteering just feels like such an utter waste of time and a life.
But I think it's going to be an agree to disagree with most of the people here. Again, Zak and Barry -- mucho respect to both of you. I know both of you have a lot of integrity in your ambitions. My position is strictly about the financial/business interfering with and ultimately altering the creative process. No good can come of that, IMO.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
A buddy of mine worked across the hall from the guys producing Forrest Gump while they were producing that film. He told me those guys were crapping their pants because they had no idea if the film would ever find an audience.
It was an odd story about an odd character and certainly very fairy-tale like, while also having a large budget, so their anxiety is understandable. I mean... here they are making an epic about a mentally challenged man with $50 Million+ and really only a few names in the cast. Woof!
Certainly there's plenty of room in the world for formulaic studio films that have huge budgets, because people like the escapism of movie stars making pretend onscreen and cars exploding and people shooting at each other and special effects.
I (for one) believe Indie filmmakers should be making films the studios can't. Does that mean taking chances? Yeah. But the film still has to be a film, not some experimental nebulous ego monument that puts people to sleep.
Millions of dollars are spent every year by Indie filmmakers who never bothered to stack the deck in their favor and instead relied upon their own ego-driven expectation that an audience would just take to their sloppy work. It's as if these people are gambling and they believe they can be lucky.
Studios produce multiple films per year because (they can, and) they know some will fail and as smart investors know - you have to diversify.
An Indie project is generally something a filmmaker lives with for 2 or 3 years while more than likely not working on another film at the same time.
Should it be about "breaking new ground" for Indies? Heck yeah, it should. That's the advantage Indie filmmakers have - they can "break new ground" because they don't need to make back many millions just to break even.
But, sorry to say, the bottom line is, when it comes to a film - it has to at the very least pay for itself before it becomes a big neon arrow that points to the genius that made it. And the only way a film will pay for itself is if it has an audience that's willing to pay to see it. Period.
You're not making a film for yourself, you're making a film for other people and they might not find you and your viewpoints as interesting as you yourself do.
.
Last edited:
polfilmblog
Well-known member
Well I guess I need to weigh in.
" 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. "
There's accuracy of minutia and then there's twisting history into a lie. When you concoct events, change their meanings, distort the reasons events happened then you have no business making the film. Talk about integrity and lack thereof.
There are outright whores who will film anything for a buck, and then there are those who respect history. I'm with the latter.
" 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. "
There's accuracy of minutia and then there's twisting history into a lie. When you concoct events, change their meanings, distort the reasons events happened then you have no business making the film. Talk about integrity and lack thereof.
There are outright whores who will film anything for a buck, and then there are those who respect history. I'm with the latter.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
I agree with erich ocean up to a point if you're a hobbyist. but even he writes "and eventually get paid to make stuff other people want to see". which makes his post akin to...
1. self-fund your movie
2. use inexpensive, but good equipment
3. ???
4. profit!
1. self-fund your movie
2. use inexpensive, but good equipment
3. ???
4. profit!
Erich Ocean
Active member
If you're really serious about earning a living as a filmmaker, the answer to 3. is to write a script that Hollywood wants to make. That's BY FAR the easiest route into feature films if you direct films more or less like the hundreds of other guys Hollywood would prefer to hire instead of you. (This is what I'm doing, even though I'd like to think I'm good enough to go the next route.)
If you're a unique, one-of-a-kind filmmaker, then step 3. is: submit your films to festivals and agents. Eventually one will hit if Hollywood thinks you can reach an audience.
Last edited:
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
I've worked in the hollywood machine long enough and have been on enough sets to know that it is a miserable way to make (compromised) films. I'm much happier on the path of a professional working-class filmmaker outside the studio system. I wish it were different, but festivals are not a path for being "discovered", unless you're strategy is based on "winning the lottery". one can be much more proactive in carving avenues for the distribution, sales, and discovery of their films by surrounding well executed filmmaking with the proper support of marketing, cast, genre, and more.
my own goals (and these are not right for everyone) would be for #3 to be "build your own mini-major" -- but that step is comprised of a thousand lesser steps.
my own goals (and these are not right for everyone) would be for #3 to be "build your own mini-major" -- but that step is comprised of a thousand lesser steps.
hey Zak, could you elaborate?
i ask because i thought the 'festival route' was the thing to do as far as indie films are concerned. i'd like to hear about building 'your own mini-major'. Are you speaking of total control of production through to distribution?
Erich Ocean
Active member
I get where you're coming from. I guess my problem with the overall approach where a flimmaker needs to also master marketing, distribution, sales and a whole host of other things that are more-or-less required to sell a film to an audience is that the competition isn't doing it.
Look, Hollywood makes less than 600 movies a year. Of those, 10-15% are by existing actors and writers moving into film. Another maybe 25% are first time directors with a script Hollywood really wants to make and they couldn't get rid of the guy (or girl). For the vast majority of them, that'll be the last film they make for Hollywood. The remaining 60-65% of films, roughly 400 movies a year, are made by directors in the DGA who do NOT market, distribute, sell, budget or otherwise do non-filmmaking things for their film. Because they don't do those things, they're better at what they DO do, which is direct.
These directors are your competition. Filmmaking is a performance art. It takes place on a specific day and time and you either get what you need or you don't. Within limits, there aren't "do overs". It's not like writing a book, making a sculpture, or painting a picture. It's more like dancing or singing. You practice, practice, practice and when the day comes, you perform.
Anyone who wants to be a filmmaker should be shooting at least three days a week, rain or shine. You have to keep doing it or your performance suffers.
So that's what I do. I've done commercials. I've done short films. I've gotten paid to do both. But my passion is features, and I write scripts and shoot constantly. Will I make it? The statistics say I won't. That's why you've got to love what you do *today*. I make films because I love it, and I can't imagine doing anything else.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
I'll try to expand on this tonight. in the middle of scouting locations for our next feature-length pictures. but check out this series of videos I produced on the subject.
http://vimeo.com/channels/newbreed
Loved reading this post. It's so obvious who you're competing with, but it just needs to be said, you know?
And, people commenting on writers taking criticism: let's face it, most people aren't writers, so why take criticism from people you don't trust, you aren't paying to do coverage or people who are trying to do the same thing as yourself?
I've got a trusted circle of people who promise to rip me apart after a read. I wouldn't listen to anyone else.
That isn't me saying that you shouldn't take criticism. I do, and do it well. You need it to grow as a writer, but you need it from people with some sort of success and real experience.
I'm going to write for Newbreed, finally.
You have a message on your Facebook! CHEX IT
arroway
Well-known member
Pursuing a future as a professional filmmaker, putting all your eggs in that basket, is one of the ballsiest career endeavors someone can embark upon with very real, very dire consequences should you never actually gain a foothold. For the amount of risk, for the amount of talent, for the amount of work, and the amount of expense REQUIRED to succeed in this endeavor, a "working class" income is, to me, unacceptable. The risk/reward ratio would be completely imbalanced.
JonathanLB
Carbonite Member
I agree with that to an extent. I think the point of reaching for something incredibly difficult to attain is a reward that few people will ever know -- fame, fortune, and power. If there's no possibility for that, why work so hard? But with film, alas, there is! In fact nobody can attain more wealth and fame than in our industry. Of course it's not easy, but it is possible and that's the silver lining to all of that hard work.
Day to day, though, you better love it if you want to keep doing it, as was said. I love what I do every day I'm working on film projects, and I wouldn't want to do anything else. That being said, with what I have risked and put forward, would I be happy making $50,000 a year? No, absolutely not.
thanks, man. i'll check them out. good luck with the scouting.