Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Technology and story-telling

freezer said:
David you named the problem exactly. Some years ago I produced and worked on a 110 min feature for 3 years in my spare time, together with a lot of other people who dedicated their time and energy to the project. It was exhausting, after 3 years I was almost burned out (100+ hours working week) and had no money anymore (so did the rest of the team). I worked as the producer (doing all the budget calculations and lots of paper work), lighting cameraman, technical & visual effects supervisor, compositor, color grader, dvd author and cover designer. I spent a lot of time in learning my stuff. The project came out quite well and we nearly crossed the zero line, so at least we did not lose a lot of money. We got a name in the business and I can now make a so so living from working in film business.

But I cannot afford such a project again and I wouldn't participate in such a kamikaze project for other people without being paid for my work.

If you want to make a feature, at least you need money to pay people for their work.



Sorry, but I don't want to see movies with bad actors (and wife and friends are almost 100% certain bad actors). To get my movie watched by others I have to make sure that certain levels of quality have been reached. That means at least a good story, believeable actors and acceptable sound. If you are planning to make a full feature, then you have to dedicate a lot of time and energy to deliver a good product. Making some bucks out of your movie means normally to invest a lot of your money and time into the production, distribution and marketing.




There is a huge difference in the effort to make some indie photography versus an indie movie. We are talking about years versus days.



I don't get it why people are so anti Hollywood. I have a huge collection of movies on DVD, Hollywood and Arthouse, European and Asian movies - I enjoyed them all. Sometimes I prefer to watch a well crafted Hollywood blockbuster, sometimes I prefer some artsy flick, sometimes it is just Kitsch I watch - all depending on the mood.
Click to expand...

You are right, I too, am not into some amateurish guy shooting his wife on the weekends with some dorky friends doing stiff acting. I took the example of Cassavetes as he assembled a great cast out of his friends and family. He also worked in both the highly commercial world of Hollywood and made his own films as an independent.

The point I was trying to make was not to focus on only one or the other, but to use both worlds for what they are. And perhaps the personal projects doesn't have to be as elaborate, long or in other ways as expensive as what the studios do.
 
Mis Felicitaciones !

(for your input)

dvazp said:
I'm a little bit concerned because it seems there are a lot people on this forum who do not make a living from film/tv production and yet are willing to spend thousands of hard-earned dollars on technology they think will make them into great filmmakers.

I find it very shocking and very sad. You have all heard this before, but technology is not the most important thing to making a great movie. The most important thing is having something to say. I recently saw an amazing film directed by 19-year old Ryo Nakajima which was made on a budget of about $10000 and which has been winning awards at film festivals around the world. That budget is for everything from actors to props to equipment. It's less than what most of us would spend on a camera/edit suite combination.

My advice would be: if you really want to make films don't spend thousands of dollars on equipment promising to make you the next Spielberg or Scorsese. Think about what you've got to say, develop a story and work around your limitations. You don't need an expensive camera or a professional editing suite. You need creativity and a story, and if you don't have that no technology can help you.

Btw, go to the film's webiste at http://peijafilm.nightfall.jp/ You can contact the director and he'll send you a copy of the film.
Click to expand...
 
Let me see if I can give you another example. Let's take the piano business. In recent years, digital pianos have been all the rage. They are coming closer and closer to accurately representing real pianos. As such, many individuals are now purchasing them as an alternative to having a real piano. The problem is that as more and more digital pianos are purchased, more and more piano companies are going out of business. Even Steinway is now starting to dip it's toes into the digital world. The problem is that as less pianos are being produced, a problem starts to emerge. What happens when acoustic pianos are no longer affordable enough to be produced at all when compared to digital?

Currently digital pianos use sampling technology (recordings of a real piano) in order to get their sound. Once acoustic pianos are no longer being produced, the parts to fix them will also no longer be produced, and thus there will be no quality pianos to sample. When this happens, we will be stuck with whatever was the last decent recording to be done. As digital pianos may never completely reproduce all the subtle things that make a real piano sound the way that it does, we will be left in a state of mediocrity.

The same thing can happen to films. Once the big budget companies are gone, we will be left in the state of mediocrity that independent films often are. The top "independent" films are more often than not crewed/cast by some of the top professionals in the Hollywood world. If you think those people are going to stick around in this business to work on your low-budget indie film when they are no longer making money, you are very mistaken. They work on indie films now for the love of film-making, but they don't do it exclusively (i.e. they still work on Hollywood films) because they need to eat, they need to pay their mortgage, and they need to send their kid to college. Face it, Hollywood isn't your enemy, your bad attitude is.

Now you might be saying, well good riddance to those who don't stay. Well, I'm sorry to tell you that your friends usually aren't going to give you the best quality that you're looking for. Jim-Bob from down the street might do a great job putting up all the Christmas lights, but that doesn't mean he's going to be able to do lighting for your film. Yes, sometimes there are diamonds in the rough, but that's luck. If you're gonna base your whole career on a little bit of luck like that, then you're no better than the homeless person who's buying lottery tickets with the money he panhandled.

Again, the idea that anyone can make movies now is great. But some people are just a little worried about it going too far.
 
mralmostpopular,

Have you read "The Long Tail" by Chris Anderson?

Scarlet will, as a bi-product, increase the amount of available crap. Society will simply create better ways to filter that crap. Personally I'm hoping for an art house revival, the actual house, not the genre.
 
The increasing volumes of crap will also increase the quality stuff.

And with every piece of crap you make, you learn.

Make 10 pieces of crap and you'll have learned a ton about how things happen.

And then, finally, maybe... you'll make your diamond.
 
the people who make crap will continue to. why even worry about it. things that are bad will die on the vine. things that are good will flourish. people who are telling compelling stories will be able to make them compelling , beautiful and high quality with low cost tools. up until recently they were restricted in what they could do. now all the tools are within reach of mere mortals. this can only be a good thing.
 
How many threads are running with this same theme, my goodness? If you want to give filmmaking a try because you think you can make it big is fine. If you make it big fine, and if you don’t make it big, that’s fine too.
Don’t worry about how much others are going to spend on the Scarlet or not. That is their business, not yours. If you can’t afford one, don’t get it. Simple as that. Stop meddling in other peoples affair and worry about yours. That is why we are in so much trouble nowadays.
 
Rohclem said:
when i was a boy, i dreamed of becoming a film director. perhaps my dream has been conceptualized because of my active participation on our school drama. i would have wanted to go to a film school or take broadcasting/ communication or theater arts to fulfill my dream. but my parents wouldn't let me. i was from a poor family from a third world country. when you are poor, being artistic is not an option. during my time and where i came from, it's only the rich parents who have the priviledge to waste money in sending their children to this kind of school. i said waste because filmmaking is not being considered as serious career that would pay the bill. so i became an xray technologist instead. yeah, it doesn't pay much but at least i'm sure that i'm gonna receive a pay check at the end of the month. my dream still lingers in my whole being. it always haunt me in my sleep. then, few years ago, i was fortunate to come to the UK to work in the NHS. the brits pay good money for medical jobs. now that i'm a bit settled in life, i am now having a glimpse of the light at the end of the tunnel. but i don't have time to queue to beg a film production to hear my pitch. i rather work overtime to buy/rent things needed to do my own film at my own pace. with digital film equipments becoming really affordable these days, i think i'm gonna fulfill my dream sooner than i thought. right now, i am just shooting with a cheap gs500. i did 2 shorts with it just to practice the process of making film. i am now working on a script for my feature film. i'm not in a hurry and i will definitely wait for SCARLET.

and with regards to this thread, technology gave me hope to fulfill my dream in story-telling. THANK YOU, JIM. you are GOD's sent, indeed.
Click to expand...

SWEET.

thank you for this story!
 
3500 movies are submitted to Sundance and 112-130 are selected ...
hollywood sells entertainment not "art" ... several "art" movies might get released but so far in the US the masses do not want to pay $10-14 to see art - they will pay that much to be entertained ...

the Pacific Film Archives at the berkeley campus features a wide variety of Films from around the world - but the box office does not cover their expenses .. if it didn't have support from grants & UC system it would have closed may years ago ...

i'm not so sure the current alternative distribution can support above 1mil budgets at this time ...

anybody know how Mark Cuban is doing with his HDnet , 2929 & one other company ( is it lions gate ) productions ?
 
this brings up an interesting question: what can you really do digitally for under a million dollars

where would you spend the money realizing that the more expensive the budget is, the more you have to rely on a bigger audience

to make a reduser example, if Tom spent 15,000 dollars on a trip around the world by himself with his still camera and made a half hour baraka style movie, and then only spent 5,000 dollars on advertising for it by posting on forums, entering festivals and such, 4000 people would have to pay 5 dollars downloading it for it to break even. (hope its ok Tom that I used your movie as an example, it was just so inexpensively done and yet so beautiful)

at a million - including distribution costs - you need 100 thousand people spending 10 bucks each

just curious how people are thinking about their independent budgets
 
anybody know how Mark Cuban is doing with his HDnet , 2929 & one other company ( is it lions gate ) productions ?
Click to expand...

Hi Donatello, nice to meet you at NAB.

Don't know how successful Cuban is, but he keeps pursuing his new distribution model and it seems to be working. His other companies (that I know of) are HDNet films (actually separate from HDNet, though they are obviously linked), Landmark Theatres (so he always gets a theatrical run), and Magnolia Pictures, which seems to be more of a distribution channel when he can't negotiate a better deal with Warners, Weinstein, or Lion's Gate (which he also owns a stake in). And of course, there's still the Mavericks.

What he seems to support are what Hollywood calls "Under Fives," which is a production budget of 3-5 million, with established directors and known stars.

But he also owns a part of Truly Indie Films, which may be worth pursuing for some RED users. They set up a distribution deal for your film if they find it has merit. They have a website at www.trulyindie.com.
 
dvazp said:
I'm a little bit concerned because it seems there are a lot people on this forum who do not make a living from film/tv production and yet are willing to spend thousands of hard-earned dollars on technology they think will make them into great filmmakers....
Click to expand...


Oh c'mon dont kill their dreams too early, you never now! And dont forget that 3K for 3K is steal. You sounds like: "Dont fly to the Moon, its expensive and we don't need it"
Oh, how would be nice to watch my footage from childhood in 3K and not that blury shades at 8mm in 16 fps ...:angry2:
 
Roulette, Vegas or Hollywood?

Roulette, Vegas or Hollywood?

Tzedekh said:
Or, if Sturgeon's law holds, then 100 times the amount of crap also means 100 times the amount of good stuff.
Click to expand...

If 3000 Scarlet (tm) are sold and 1 in a 1000 "films" made get picked up that would be 3 successes.

Having worked with 35mm film for many years I can only say that the end result from working with low compression 2K to 4K Digital Frames will be better. The $5000 price for Scarlet (tm) will be equal to about 10000 feet of 35mm which would yeld maybe one minute of finshed usable footage. Even the price of a RED ONE (tm) is so far below the cost of using film for a two hour project and the quality of the end result will be better.

I would not recomend using "Video" equipment to any "Filmmaker". Digital Cinema is not like "Video", and being able to use uncompressed 4K Digital Frames yelds better results than film scans at a lower cost since you can delete the 20:1 ratio of bad shots. Being able to shoot extra takes can only help people who are learning.

Yes having a good camera will not make what is in front "much" better, but having a lousy "Video" camera will make it look like yuck, go see "Inland Empire".

Before anyone starts a film they should ask themselves what logistics that can manage. I have been running ads looking for people to make features with (to shake down my post software), offering to pay for the film, lab, and to do the post, shoot the thing, score it, and do the mix, all they have to do is give me some actors, locations, and sets to point the camera at. We could work on the script and story board together. Of the several people that replied all backed out when I asked them to select some DVDs to show me that would let me see what level of production value they could wrangle.

I think that is a good test, go to the DVD store and purchase 10 DVDs that match or are under the level of production value you can wrangle. Do this in a sober way, so that you can truly say to yourself and anyone else you can show those DVDs to "I can match that DVD shot for shot, and do better on every one." If you cannot find ANY DVD in a store that you can "out shoot" in the real world, then what are you getting into filmmaking for?

I mean, can you do better than "Chan Is Missing (1982)"? That film would probably not see the light of Xenon today, would it?

As for the cost, I am working on a free 4K+ uncompressed post system, that any filmmaker can use to make better results. I have worked very hard on the audio porton with its 512 tracks and 16 channels of output, auto bloping on sound cuts, noise gates on each track and compressors on each of the 16 outout channels. Good sound can be big help to low budget films, so with my program there are no excuses about the cost of going to "Sky Walker".

For myself, I would rather watch crap that looks good than crap that looks bad, I do not think a few thousand dollars in the hands of someone with a "Video" camera will make their crap into a miracle, but if it would I wish them luck.

But before anyone starts making a "film" they should ask themselevs one question:

"Would I go see my film if I was not the one making it?"

I try to ask myself that, if the answer is really yes then at least there will be one person in the theater on opening night.
 
Some months ago Mark Cuban closed down hdnetfilms.com, and fired the staff, for predictable reasons. The usual suspects were producing the usual safe films nobody is interested in seeing, bland unchallenging stuff with celebrities attached, but which give the executives, including Mark Cuban, cover. The last one they financed was directed by John Casavettes' daughter. Which tells you all you need to know.

I never heard of Sturgeon's Law before, but I don't think it holds water. If all these filmmakers are working with minimal resources, and most of them have the same level of accomplishment (or lack thereof) it doesn't matter how many of them are going at it. The total number of good films won't increase with the total number of bad ones.
 
with scarlet and the tools available , FCS 2 , After Effects , Red Giant Software you can almost pull off anything the big boys can. true having a good lighting package helps too. hi end colour correction and compositing and even 3d apps are only a few hundred dollars. you can learn to use them all on lynda.com for 25 dollars a month. the only real limitations are access to good actors , money is becoming less a factor with these tools and this kind of camera for that price. we're right on the cusp of high quality desktop centric movie making for anyone who wants it
 
darkkelt said:
with scarlet and the tools available , FCS 2 , After Effects , Red Giant Software you can almost pull off anything the big boys can. true having a good lighting package helps too. hi end colour correction and compositing and even 3d apps are only a few hundred dollars. you can learn to use them all on lynda.com for 25 dollars a month. the only real limitations are access to good actors , money is becoming less a factor with these tools and this kind of camera for that price. we're right on the cusp of high quality desktop centric movie making for anyone who wants it
Click to expand...

This argument gets made over and over again. You have to wonder if people making it actually bother to look independent film in the U.S. before letting loose with it. Production budget is indeed much less a factor in the prospect of indie feature distribution than most people think, but for reasons having nothing to do with production value.

Before the so-called DV revolution in the late 90s, virtually all indie films where shot on 16mm or 35mm. As late as 1998, at a well-known international shorts festival in this country, not one of the films, including the low-budget American stuff, originated on video. And yet during the prior 10 year period, from the boom which started in the late 80s with sex, lies and videotape, thousands of features shot on film never got distribution. Most were not even seen widely at festivals.

Or look at the big indie sleeper hit of 2007 ("Once"). Was it shot on 35mm? S16mm? Genesis? HDCAM? Varicam? SDX900? HVX200? HV20? Hundreds of indie films were shot on all of those formats in the preceding year or two. But no, the one and only indie "hit" of 2007 was shot on DV, with minimal production resources. Don't even think they were up to a DVX100.

What does that tell you?
 
dvazp said:
I'm a little bit concerned because it seems there are a lot people on this forum who do not make a living from film/tv production and yet are willing to spend thousands of hard-earned dollars on technology they think will make them into great filmmakers....
Click to expand...
What right do any of you have to tell people where they can spend their disposable income? If I buy a Scarlet, I'm not going to be making a living with it (I have several degrees in engineering and physics to do that), and the only person I'm going to have to justify the purchase to is my wife.

Since we met making films for the shear enjoyment of the hobby, somehow, I don't think she'll mind too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top