I got a case of "The Reds" - a thread for Feature Writer/Directors

[Keith Alan Morris]

Do you suddenly have a case of "the Reds" like me? That is, is the depression setting in that you wont have your camera for many months, yet you're obsessively F5'ing in the Red One section on this site? Are you a writer/director of features? Well, then this thread is for you! Lets beat "the Reds" together.

I saw the screengrabs posted, and I realized ANYTHING is possible. That's kinda crazy to think about. So, I took an actual bike ride (recommended) and thought alot about how to beat "the Reds." Its time to get serious about SCRIPTS. About planning. I have a year (Spring 2008) and thats gonna come up real fast.

I've got 3 films planned. What about others? What are your films about? How is your planning and using this new technology together going? That is, how and what are you planning differently?

Since technology is making us legitimate one-man armies more and more each day, and there are alot of sharp cats on this site, lets hear what others have to say and build a dialogue.

How can we make revolutionary films? I say, for one, doing so much on our own. Two: Making something that looks 4 times better than Collateral (or whatever), and doing it on a shoestring.

We dont have to raise millions anymore... If we build it they will come... We gotta work fast before theres a glut in the market...

Are you focusing on your script or are you F5'ing?

So this is the first Red Support Group, I guess. :)
Kemosabe

[Tom Lowe]

I'm planning to use the RED to shoot the most beautiful movie possible in late summer 2008 - a long way off! I'll spend this summer writing the script and location scouting, the fall raising 200k for SAG ultra-low, then cast real early. It's a roadtrip/love story shot in spectacular outdoor locations like Zion, Tahoe, Moab, Arches, Baja, the Sierras, Joshua Tree, etc, almost exclusively with natural light during magic hours, and night shots lit with practicals, campfires, candles..... with two REDs rocking high-speed primes.

The real beauty of the RED is that I will not have to compromise on image-quality. My shots will be every bit as beautiful as 35mm, but I can shoot a crazy ratio -- the equivalent of millions of feet of film -- so in fact I will be able to capture shots I would not have been able to get on film. Then, to top it all off, you can edit and CC the whole picture on a high-end computer! Booya!

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I already have some scripts, two of them features. But I'm going to start with a couple shorts first. I only have one script ready for a short, but I'm going to have to work a bit with RED and try and come up with a pretty good sized budget for this one -- it's going to be pretty heavy on FX and if I'm going to do it, I'm going to go all out on it.

I need to come up with a few more budget-friendly shorts and some simpler stuff to start out with on RED. The previous mentioned short could easily need a budget of $1M or more and I'm not going to be ready to jump into something like that or a full feature until later next year (hopefully).

[number6]

Scripps? I doan need no stinkin' scripps!

Reason is, I have most of my storylines in my head. With Red, I will be able to shoot a scene multiple times with differing dialog, then use the best of the lot in edit.

[Tom Lowe]

Scripps? I doan need no stinkin' scripps!

Reason is, I have most of my storylines in my head. With Red, I will be able to shoot a scene multiple times with differing dialog, then use the best of the lot in edit.

Heh. Try telling that to actors and investors. :umm:

If you watch the Criterion bonus disc of In the Mood for Love, Wong Kar Wai's actors spend half their time bitching that he doesn't use a script and just makes stuff up as he goes along. Malick does the same thing. I think this is the best kind of auteur filmmaking, but you have to be up front with your actors.

[Keith Alan Morris]

Tom, I'd say put a 65 dollar ad in Backstage NY and get everyone from there. You can get non-SAG actors that are just as good. Its worked wonders for us.

I just watched Half Nelson and was really impressed. I saw the short at Sundance and met the directors (also from Brooklyn). Never thought they'd get a budget to do a full feature, bc I was the one of only two people who approached them after their screening. It was great too. Called Gowanus Brooklyn.

For Half Nelson, they shot super16 and you could really tell, lots of giveaway grain. Has anyone else seen it? Thats gonna be gone now, right--with the Red? And for a look like Collateral, grainy nights are going to be a distant memory, too...? I was ok with Collateral, but Miami Vice was way too grainy.

[Tom Lowe]

Yeah Half Nelson was one of my favorite movies from last year. Great movie. And the girl was outstanding.

As far as Backstage, yeah, I've come across some amazing non-union actors, but I've also had some trouble with non-union actors being unreliable. I'm gonna go SAG ultra-low this time, so my actors will be more accountable, and also because I want to snag at one established TV or film actor. I'm writing this movie specifically to only have 3 actors (a love triangle/ménage à trois) so I can concentrate on cinematography and the core of the story. There will be a few side characters here and there, but 90% of the film will only be my three leads.

My last shoot had like 20 actors and only 10 crew... total disaster! heh. This time it's gonna be 20 crew and 3 actors. :)

[Jason Francois]

Ménage å trois? Need some crew? :)

It's funny that KM started this post, because part way through NAB I started re-thinking my stories...mainly out of shear inspiration from seeing such an amazing product evolution.

I'm now thinking about doing a couple of shorts first, this Winter and then in the Winter start to work on a feature that will have to be shot over about 9 months time...something I normally wouldn't do, but that might be very feasible with RED.

It won't be the most cinematic movie of all time, but it will need to incorporate mock-news footage, homemovies and re-inactments. A project like none I've never done, but by being able to cook up different recipes to shoot with I should be able to make it work very well for the project. It is called, STOLEN BY THE HEAVENS: The Tyler Braddick Story. We'lll see how it goes.

If all this fails, I'll just make porn movies so the scripts are more simplistic to writie. :)

[Shawn Nelson]

Whoa! I thought Red meant we didn't have to write scripts! Dang it, how else am I going to make it? ;-)

(/end sarcasm)

[soundoc]

Do you suddenly have a case of "the Reds" like me? That is, is the depression setting in that you wont have your camera for many months, yet you're obsessively F5'ing in the Red One section on this site? Are you a writer/director of features? Well, then this thread is for you! Lets beat "the Reds" together.

I saw the screengrabs posted, and I realized ANYTHING is possible. That's kinda crazy to think about. So, I took an actual bike ride (recommended) and thought alot about how to beat "the Reds." Its time to get serious about SCRIPTS. About planning. I have a year (Spring 2008) and thats gonna come up real fast.

I've got 3 films planned. What about others? What are your films about? How is your planning and using this new technology together going? That is, how and what are you planning differently?

Since technology is making us legitimate one-man armies more and more each day, and there are alot of sharp cats on this site, lets hear what others have to say and build a dialogue.

How can we make revolutionary films? I say, for one, doing so much on our own. Two: Making something that looks 4 times better than Collateral (or whatever), and doing it on a shoestring.

We dont have to raise millions anymore... If we build it they will come... We gotta work fast before theres a glut in the market...

Are you focusing on your script or are you F5'ing?

So this is the first Red Support Group, I guess. :)
Kemosabe
I'm getting mine in Sept. Like you my mind is having a hard time grasping the reality that the camera is for real and I am getting one. pinch me I think I,m dreaming. I had a lot of low budget films to make, now they are not worthy of the red. Got to go for the big one.

[Dan Blanchett]

I've been plugging away on my script since last summer. :pinch: I've raised some money (and will be cashing in my 401K to get the RED) and hopefully will be going into production in Oct/Nov of this year if all goes well. I'm considering the IndieSAG route for utlra low budgets. I want to cast a large net and see what I can get. The movie is SciFi action/thriller with a "Memento" flavor. 4 or 5 main actors, crew of 20 or so, mostly shot here in San Diego county. It's my first feature length project, so it will be fun and stressful. I've been wanting to take this plunge for a while now and timing is everything...

[number6]

Call me a Wallyanna, but I'm thinking that Red is breaking the mould of the (molded?) idea of movie making. To me, it's the Ichypod Crain of cameras (without the accompanying DRM of the initial MP3's setup.) That is to say, one can dounload unlimited footage from a set until something good, or at least acceptable, emerges. That's why I think a set script is unnecessary, and why too, I think independent filmakers will quite possibly produce higher quality films than mainstream movie makers. By making the camera and the director the centerpiece of the film, mostly the talent of the filmaker and the pains (read time) he or she takes in putting it together will ultimately decide the quality of the product. I am of course, offering this as my opinion ... for your consideration.

[donatello b]

i have to tip my hat to Thinkbug and others that put it all on the line for their projects and i wish you all the BEST !!!
please keep us informed on your project(s) ...

[Adam C Lubkin]

Call me a Wallyanna, but I'm thinking that Red is breaking the mould of the (molded?) idea of movie making. To me, it's the Ichypod Crain of cameras (without the accompanying DRM of the initial MP3's setup.) That is to say, one can dounload unlimited footage from a set until something good, or at least acceptable, emerges. That's why I think a set script is unnecessary, and why too, I think independent filmakers will quite possibly produce higher quality films than mainstream movie makers. By making the camera and the director the centerpiece of the film, mostly the talent of the filmaker and the pains (read time) he or she takes in putting it together will ultimately decide the quality of the product. I am of course, offering this as my opinion ... for your consideration.


While I think that going to the set without a script is generally courting disaster, I do believe that new forms of filmmaking (filmlessmaking?) will emerge. Most likely these forms will idiosyncratic to the filmmaker (sorry, there I go again) and will not be widely adopted or copied. An example in the film world are the films of Mike Leigh, which are improvised into being through his unique rehearsal methods, but then shot strictly according to the evolved "script". His methods developed while he had one foot in the theater and another trying to step into cinema. He makes truly brilliant movies, but his methods are his own and as far as I know haven't largely been imitated. I say go with your instincts, just don't bet the house on it just yet and be prepared to modify your approach based on what you discover. Everyone is different, and no one can say what will work for you. Through your work you will discover what your particular talents are.

[Keith Alan Morris]

Funny you should mention Mike Leigh, adaml. i am "imitating" his technique right now. which brings me to another way of how to shake "the reds." i had a major project fall thru this year after a year of hard work and i was majorly bummed (name actors, major financers, everything). when i had another opportunity open up, i was screwed--i couldnt change gears and create a new (cheap) project quick. then an old prof recommended the leigh style. in a nutshell:

1. find intellects with opposite opinions

2. buy wine

3. turn on cameras (DVXs, whatever)

4. leave room

after 3 or 4 shoots, i had over 100 pages of bristling dialogue/argument from which to pick and choose from for the bare bones of a script. i only gave them the topics, and only led the witnesses a bit, i swear, your honor. (altman is good at it too.) and it worked.

i got totally natural performances out of my people. and it was gripping. it'll make great back-end DVD stuff, i highly suggest this route to take. godard did it alot too, so it aint a new idea... but it works. i wrote my whole graduate thesis around it.

and tom, i hope you have an amazing script, bc thats what it takes to get name actors to work for cheap. it aint easy. in NYC, you've got tons of people who would KILL to be in a movie, bc theyre usually stuck in off-off broadway productions seen by 20 people. and theyre not flakes. they gotta be tough and smart to live in the city. i've only had LA actors flake. i'll never use em again.

[Jaime Vallés]

Very good thread here. My brother and I are working hard on our next screenplay right now. We'll see when it's finished (hopefully by the end of July). Then it's fundraising time. Woo hoo!!! :glare:

For me, I can't even think of going on location with actors and a crew and not know exactly what the day's goals are, or what words need to be spoken and shots set up. Heck, for our last feature almost every single shot in the movie was storyboarded! When working for cheap, actors and crew need to feel like the director is in control and has a rock-solid plan. The only way I can fit that description is by having a rock-solid airtight killer screenplay as the backbone of the production.

But hey, if not having a script works for some people, then great! If it works, it works, and that's all that matters. The ability to record 2 hours of uninterrupted 4K footage on a RED-Drive may allow for some really interesting improv situations.

Good luck to everyone on this thread writing and directing movies!

[Dan Blanchett]

Heck, for our last feature almost every single shot in the movie was storyboarded!

To each their own, but I'm in this camp, at least for features. I actually really enjoy the storyboard process. It can clarify the vision for the crew (and me) and can help expose any weaknesses in the script. Plus it facilitates production, obviously, when you can create more accurate shooting schedules and anticipate challenges. Once you know what you need for coverage, you can always experiment if time allows.

But I welcome all styles and stories told by RED Users and look forward to seeing what you do with your new cameras. Like Tank said in The Matrix: "I'm fairly excited to see what you're capable of...a very exciting time. We got a lot to do. We got to get to it."

[Dan Blanchett]

i have to tip my hat to Thinkbug and others that put it all on the line for their projects and i wish you all the BEST !!!
please keep us informed on your project(s) ...

Thanks Donatello.

[Tom Lowe]

Yeah, different directors are going to have totally different approaches when it comes to scripts, storyboarding, etc. Some of that is dictated by the type of project. Some of it by personality and goals.

In my case, the directors I really admire these days, like Wong Kar Wai and Terrence Malick, arrive on the set with only vague ideas about how the day will go. Lots of improvising. Some actors really like this, some hate it! Obviously this would not work at all for a sci-fi picture with FX, that needs to be storyboarded down the shot.

In my case, not only do I plan to do a lot of improvising on set and take advantage of opportunities that come up, I also plan to shoot basically in sequence, which is a big bonus if you are improvising regularly. My story is a big looping roadtrip through several states, so I am essentially forced to shoot in sequence anyway.

[Dan Blanchett]

In my case, not only do I plan to do a lot of improvising on set and take advantage of opportunities that come up, I also plan to shoot basically in sequence, which is a big bonus if you are improvising regularly. My story is a big looping roadtrip through several states, so I am essentially forced to shoot in sequence anyway.

That sounds like a great project, Tom! I think many actors would love to shoot in sequence when they can, as it allows them to develop their characters in a logical, linear fashion. I'm looking forward to seeing The Wind That Shakes the Barley with Cillian Murphy; I read that it was shot in sequence as well.

[Tom Lowe]

I really want to see that movie as well.

Yeah, I think it will be very interesting to shoot in sequence. It gives you all kinds of freedom to change the story as you go. Of course that can be a dangerous thing, too, if you make the wrong choices.

[Mardi_Gras]

Tom,

You might find this WKW interview, interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UI3DWu01zk&mode=related&search=

[Tom Lowe]

Yes, great interview! It's from the Criterion bonus disc, which is available on netflix. I highly, highly, highly recommend it to all filmmakers, and even actors. Glad to know it's on youtube so I can share it with others. Thanks!

[Adam C Lubkin]

That sounds like a great project, Tom! I think many actors would love to shoot in sequence when they can, as it allows them to develop their characters in a logical, linear fashion. I'm looking forward to seeing The Wind That Shakes the Barley with Cillian Murphy; I read that it was shot in sequence as well.

Directed by Ken Loach, one of my top most favoritest directors. He gets some of the most amazing performances, often from people with no prior acting experience. Check out Sweet Sixteen. One of his methods is to withhold the script from the actors, only letting them have it for the day they're shooting. The only behind-the-scenes of him working that I've seen is on the dvd of Tickets. If anyone knows of any other footage please let me know.

[number6]

Very good thread here. My brother and I are working hard on our next screenplay right now. We'll see when it's finished (hopefully by the end of July). Then it's fundraising time. Woo hoo!!! :glare:

For me, I can't even think of going on location with actors and a crew and not know exactly what the day's goals are, or what words need to be spoken and shots set up. Heck, for our last feature almost every single shot in the movie was storyboarded! When working for cheap, actors and crew need to feel like the director is in control and has a rock-solid plan. The only way I can fit that description is by having a rock-solid airtight killer screenplay as the backbone of the production.

But hey, if not having a script works for some people, then great! If it works, it works, and that's all that matters. The ability to record 2 hours of uninterrupted 4K footage on a RED-Drive may allow for some really interesting improv situations.

Good luck to everyone on this thread writing and directing movies!


Certainly agree with different strokes etc. My personality is simply that I feel restrained by too much structure. Some is necessary, but when I write something doun, I almost feel locked in... as though I'm through and do not need to revisit. I keep central bits of dialogue on one of those little mp3 flash drive/recorders. I figure the memorable line is all that is essential, and just about any old rubbish can get you to it, and past it. And since I will not be using named, or in many cases, professional actors, I will be able to feed them lines and just keep the Red rolling as we do rapid fire takes. That's the basis for my believing that this camera will put the small budget filmaker on a higher plane.

[number6]

While I think that going to the set without a script is generally courting disaster, I do believe that new forms of filmmaking (filmlessmaking?) will emerge.... I say go with your instincts, just don't bet the house on it just yet and be prepared to modify your approach based on what you discover. Everyone is different, and no one can say what will work for you. Through your work you will discover what your particular talents are.

Good advice, not betting the house on it. That's why I've spun the house deed off from the farm abstract. When I get the farm paid for, I will then bet the farm on it, though. And if it fails, well, I didn't like farming all that much anyway.

[Victor]

I'm re-writing a short movie I shot on the DVX100A and making it into a real 2 hour feature. I'd love to re-shoot it with RED, but RED is still in the fantasy stage for me. However, if all goes as planned, by the time my other big movie idea is written, I will be shooting with RED.

[Keith Alan Morris]

i'm rereading some of these posts and i was wondering: why are some of you guys planning on having such big crews (20+)? i like smaller crews, i hate having a ton of people standing around watching me work.

[Tom Lowe]

Well on a 2-camera RED shoot I guess:

1) Director
2) Producer
3) AD
4) 1st AC
5) Camera 2 Op
6) 2nd AC
7) Sound mixer
8) Boom Op/Grip
9) Key Grip
10) Wardrobe/Makeup
11) Scripty/HD tech

In my case I probably wont even need a scripty.

[Dan Blanchett]

why are some of you guys planning on having such big crews (20+)

Actually, 20 is probably more than I will have on hand at any one time, and my ability to feed these people will be a limiting factor. It also depends on what is being shot that day. Other positions include stunt coordinator and crew (for my film), FX supervisor, security personnel, Kraft services, and PAs. So maybe not all technically "crew" but just "involved." I've had small crews (for short films) where the actors doubled as grips. etc. This is a much bigger project and I'm hoping for a smoother experience. (but not expecting it!)

[Thom Steinhoff]

The real problem with "getting the Reds" is you try to treat it with "RedUser.Net" which ends up sucking up all the time you thought you would spend writing. it's a catch 22. You feel if you don't spend the time on RedUser, you won't be ready to use the camera when it comes--but if you do send your time on RedUser--you won't get your script finished.

RedUser is the cure for "the reds" but it is way too addictive to be healthy!

[number6]

...2 hour feature. I'd love to re-shoot it with RED, but RED is still in the fantasy stage for me. However, if all goes as planned, by the time my other big movie idea is written, I will be shooting with RED.

I identify with you completely, Victor. And since it will be such a long interim between now and (for me anyway) Red, I ordered another camera (don't want to mention another company's name here, so I will just refer to it as a GZ HD7). This other camera is supposed to do 1920 X 1080i (field rate of 60, I think) video using an MPEG2 Codec and write it to an onboard HDD at up to 30 Mbps. And although I don't know RED, this is obviously no RED. But I think it will give those of us with lesser funds an opportunity to do some work that will prepare us for the days of RED and Roses. You know, the coming salad days when RED means something other than vaginal bruising.

[Jaime Vallés]

You know, the coming salad days when RED means something other than vaginal bruising.
:blink:

[Jeremy Torrie]

All I can say is if you think your script will be ready to shoot as soon as its done...well, good luck. The development process is there for a reason and the need for subsequent drafts with a cooling off period in between is a must. You should have at least two drafts and a polish with coverage by people who aren't going to tongue your privates.

However, for those who ignore this (And enjoy having their privates tongued), at least they won't be burning through expensive film stock trying to figure it out.

[number6]

All I can say is if you think your script will be ready to shoot as soon as its done...well, good luck. The development process is there for a reason and the need for subsequent drafts with a cooling off period in between is a must. You should have at least two drafts and a polish with coverage by people who aren't going to tongue your privates.

However, for those who ignore this (And enjoy having their privates tongued), at least they won't be burning through expensive film stock trying to figure it out.

Put me in the Ba-tongua line (Where Angelique Kidjoe is singing Batonga). Also put me in the non-plodding line. My theory is that the best films are created on the set and then in the editing room, not the script writing torture chamber. I doubt anyone alive today will be making a War and Peace or a X Commandments. Plus, if you lumped 600 teenagers together, you wouldn't have enough overall attention span to watch even the first half of a Gone With The Wind, and the youthies are probably a film's most likely audience... especially if you can get an x rating... which is pretty hard to do nowadays. Sure, scripts are important when you go begging, but RED will set you free from the Moneychangers, don't you think?

[number6]

How can we make revolutionary films? I say, for one, doing so much on our own. Two: Making something that looks 4 times better than Collateral (or whatever), and doing it on a shoestring.

We dont have to raise millions anymore... If we build it they will come... We gotta work fast before theres a glut in the market...

Are you focusing on your script or are you F5'ing?

So this is the first Red Support Group, I guess. :)
Kemosabe

Just went back and read posts that I previously only scanned, and realized I have been reiterating pretty much what you said in this thread's initial post. I do agree in large part (not the glut in the market part because Pooh Tube has shown us there is an insatiable appetite for content) with your opening post and did not consciously or intentionally plagerize.

[Keith Alan Morris]

I do agree in large part (not the glut in the market part because Pooh Tube has shown us there is an insatiable appetite for content)

ya know, you got a point there... i like how you think! the world is flat and has a long tail. (friedman)

[Curran Giddens]

Scripps? I doan need no stinkin' scripps!

Reason is, I have most of my storylines in my head. With Red, I will be able to shoot a scene multiple times with differing dialog, then use the best of the lot in edit.

I will most likely be using non-actors. With RED, I will be able to shoot a scene as many times as needed to get it right. Also, the "actors" will be the only ones on-set getting paid by the hour. Everyone else (like 3 or 4 people) will be shareholders in my corporation, with a percentage of the profit.

Most of the shots will be on greenscreen. If the "actors" don't physically interact with each other, the takes can be shot on different days (works well for availability reasons).

And even more off topic: Since my crew will be really small, I will be using Curt's Mirus head (and dolly/jib?) + remote-, repeatable follow FIZ on almost every shot. As long as the actor stays within the same path for each take, you don't have to use a camera op., ac, etc. for all but the initial setup.

Sorry for the long, off-topic post. I've been without internet for like a week....:angry2:

[number6]

I will most likely be using non-actors. With RED, I will be able to shoot a scene as many times as needed to get it right. Also, the "actors" will be the only ones on-set getting paid by the hour. Everyone else (like 3 or 4 people) will be shareholders in my corporation, with a percentage of the profit.

Most of the shots will be on greenscreen. If the "actors" don't physically interact with each other, the takes can be shot on different days (works well for availability reasons).

And even more off topic: Since my crew will be really small, I will be using Curt's Mirus head (and dolly/jib?) + remote-, repeatable follow FIZ on almost every shot. As long as the actor stays within the same path for each take, you don't have to use a camera op., ac, etc. for all but the initial setup.

Sorry for the long, off-topic post. I've been without internet for like a week....:angry2:


I have much the same business model as you, with the exception that I will also "pay" my actors with a share of the film. Every time I am reminded of the Hillary Swank experience where she received an Oscar for her first performance but only about $3500 in pay, my sense of fairplay just explodes. If I ever hit it big, then those who were along for the ride will prosper also. On the other hand, they will lose their time spent working on a failure.

Does anyone have a link to a standard contract for this type arrangement? I have a lawyer friend who also does a little screenwriting, and he claims he has no idea how to word such a document. (Guess I should have offered to pay him) In today's litigious society, lawyers scare me more than even terrorists!

[Curran Giddens]

I will probably end up having to "pay" my actors with a share of the film too. With the announcement of all the new products from RED, I won't have any money left after paying for all this gear.

I was issued 1500 shares of stock when I incorporated. I was just going to divy up the stock with my co-owners based on involvement. But with actors who are only in for one feature...?

[Jeremy Torrie]

This is one of the interesting dilemmas with the intro of RED. What was once unaffordable is now available to pretty much anyone who wishes to incur the expense. Some cool things will likely come about as a result of the experimentation, but there are fundamentals that have to be met.

I see this strictly in the sense of a cinematographic tool to help with projects we've professionally developed with notes and coverage from distributors and broadcasters (the end user/investor). Will this camera package bring down the overall budget? Absolutely...no need for courier and lab charges and transfers to HD SR or otherwise. But it is only a tool to achieve the telling of the story, which should have its audience defined before anything is shot. Really, think about what you're shooting and why.

Storyline is in your head...that calls for disaster. The only way an investor is going to allow you to experiment is if you've got a proven track record, otherwise you are the investor (and maybe some family members too). It's best to shoot with a DVX if this is what you're aiming for. RED sounds like overkill.

I'm as much an artist as anybody (I get paid to write, direct and produce, and sometimes edit other works, and camera too) but you have to think business too. Above anything it comes down to the script. Good actors will fall in love with the story and the journey the character must take.

[Curran Giddens]

I will have a script, but even if I did have enough money for known actors, I would still rather use unknown actors. One benefit from using unknown actors over know actors -- you don't get taken out of the story by the fact that you know the person from other films.

Of course, if Angelina Jolie wants to be in my movie, well, the story does have a "Lara Croft Tomb Raider" aspect to it....

[number6]

Storyline is in your head...that calls for disaster. The only way an investor is going to allow you to experiment is if you've got a proven track record, otherwise you are the investor (and maybe some family members too). It's best to shoot with a DVX if this is what you're aiming for. RED sounds like overkill.

I'm as much an artist as anybody (I get paid to write, direct and produce, and sometimes edit other works, and camera too) but you have to think business too. Above anything it comes down to the script. Good actors will fall in love with the story and the journey the character must take.

Torrie, there's no doubt we are talking apples and oranges here... you're the apple and I am the orange...(maybe orang-utang is more appropriate). Anyway, I'm sure you are capable of doing satisfactory work and are well-respected among the business community. Probably will even be able to retire someday, and land a job teaching in some instituition. Yours is the tried and true model.

But in today's society, it just doesn't stick when one says that doing things other than the way they've always been done "calls for disaster".

Years ago, I once told my Dad that I had an idea where you inject liquid fertilzer into a sprinkler irrigation system and fertilize the crop through the leaves of the plant. He laughed and said, "You dummy... if that would have worked someone would already have thought of it!" A few years later someone else did.

So, I understand the culture of thinking that would believe that only what one already knows works, and just about everything else would be courting disaster. And for you, that may well be true. But there really are more ways than one to skin a cat. I know of six, personally, and a friend tells me there are at least a dozen that he knows about. And while I only use one favorite one, I do not necessarily think that the other ways will not work.

So, here again, we come back to the camera... for you it will solidify your model of filmaking... and for me and others, it will open up completely new ways of filmaking. IMAHO (the A is for apoplectic)

[Keith Alan Morris]

Number 6, I highly suggest contracts, releases, and use lawyers before you commit to shooting ONE FRAME. I didnt have them for my first feature and when it got distrib offers (i wasnt expecting that), i had to run back around and get everyone to sign off and it was a MAJOR MAJOR pain. I used contracts, releases and lawyers for my second feature, and it was a huge load off my mind. the thing is, in post, i replaced my scorer and my new one wouldn't sign right away, and i had a deadline, so i didnt think much of it. now, i may have to replace him bc he changed his mind about the terms.

as an indie, i suggest getting everyone to pay YOU to be in (or even crew) the film. its a calling card for them if they're an unknown. but thats a whole 'nother thread and you gotta really bring the goods.

[number6]

Number 6, I highly suggest contracts, releases, and use lawyers before you commit to shooting ONE FRAME. I didnt have them for my first feature and when it got distrib offers (i wasnt expecting that), i had to run back around and get everyone to sign off and it was a MAJOR MAJOR pain. I used contracts, releases and lawyers for my second feature, and it was a huge load off my mind. the thing is, in post, i replaced my scorer and my new one wouldn't sign right away, and i had a deadline, so i didnt think much of it. now, i may have to replace him bc he changed his mind about the terms.

as an indie, i suggest getting everyone to pay YOU to be in (or even crew) the film. its a calling card for them if they're an unknown. but thats a whole 'nother thread and you gotta really bring the goods.

I appreciate the advice, and will follow it. I had hoped there was a standardized form similar to a release form that would cover my behind, but I realize that is trying to oversimlify.

Your statement about getting actors and crew to actually pay to be in the film is intriguing, though. A token amount for a small interest might cover me arse. Will explore that option before things get off the ground. Looks like I've got plenty of time.

[Jeremy Torrie]

I've actually done a lot outside of the conventional norm (and was one of the first independent prod co's to buy an HDcam and VTR), but when the stakes are higher and you're dealing with a few million bucks, you realize you have to be responsible, especially if you are one of the investors and have put up your house as collateral on a 2nd mortgage and your credit cards with debilitating interest...there is a very real cost to all of it, and it adds up quickly. And the thought of putting your family out on the street because you thought you'd wing it is as close to irresponsible as one can get...I don't play with fire -I've worked far too hard to lose what I value in life.

Don't get me wrong -I think films like Primer are awesome for pushing the envelope, but even they went with a solidly rehearsed script, storyboarded the hell out of it, and you could tell he set everything up meticulously so he didn't waste a dime. And the script was written and rewritten extensively.

What does RED enable me to do? Put more money back into the film -maybe it's more cash for the art department or a more ambitious lighting scheme from my DP or the dough to get a decent actor to do a cameo (and put him or her up in a reasonable hotel and fly them first class as a goodwill gesture because they're doing it for way less than their usual fee)...a film is collaboration from every single department. Sure you can do stuff with minimal crew -it is refreshing to work that way sometimes- but when you've got A-list talent and they are being forced to wait on you because you don't have your act together...they walk or sit in their trailer and call their agent to tell them what a hack you are, and how did he get conned into this? (I'm not saying this is my experience, but it's an example of stuff I have witnessed).

One must be intelligent to think outside the box and use the resources available to them to meet the end -in this case a story that is supposed to engage the viewer, have them enjoy what they're watching, and maybe get other people to watch it...and maybe even pay for the privilege.

[number6]

...but when the stakes are higher and you're dealing with a few million bucks, you realize you have to be responsible, especially if you are one of the investors and have put up your house as collateral on a 2nd mortgage and your credit cards with debilitating interest...there is a very real cost to all of it, and it adds up quickly. And the thought of putting your family out on the street because you thought you'd wing it is as close to irresponsible as one can get...I don't play with fire -I've worked far too hard to lose what I value in life.

...to get a decent actor to do a cameo (and put him or her up in a reasonable hotel and fly them first class as a goodwill gesture because they're doing it for way less than their usual fee)...a film is collaboration from every single department. Sure you can do stuff with minimal crew -it is refreshing to work that way sometimes- but when you've got A-list talent and they are being forced to wait on you because you don't have your act together...they walk or sit in their trailer and call their agent to tell them what a hack you are, and how did he get conned into this? (I'm not saying this is my experience, but it's an example of stuff I have witnessed).

One must be intelligent to think outside the box and use the resources available to them to meet the end -in this case a story that is supposed to engage the viewer, have them enjoy what they're watching, and maybe get other people to watch it...and maybe even pay for the privilege.

Torrie, my hat's off to you. I could never do what you do without being on the edge of a nervous breakdoun. That's why I will maintain my approach of throwing something against the screen and seeing if it sticks. If it doesn't, I'll put more spit in the mud and throw another batch up. I do not fear failure... but I do fear rote.

[Steven M. Bailey]

I've got a great way to deal with the Reds. Try to build a 5,000sq foot, three story house while you wait for your redone. One part of you, can't wait for your Red to come, while another part realizes that you have four months to build and sell a monster before your serial#s come up. Very stressful!!

I can say though from my very own personal experiance that the time just flies by.

Anybody need a house in nor-cal? Might throw in a script for those of you that use them. For those of you that dont..well..good luck

1200 sq foot theater/bar/pool hall w/16foot screen included.:construction:

[Keith Alan Morris]

my case of the reds leads me to ask: will the Red hold up in extreme heat? like Honduras Spring/Summer heat? 120 degrees f? equator-make-you-bald heat?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

One part of you, can't wait for your Red to come, while another part realizes that you have four months to build and sell a monster before your serial#s come up. Very stressful!!

lol. Did the same thing myself last year... Had to put both my current house at the time up for sale as well as the new spec house. Ended up moving into the new one and selling the old one even though it wasn't supposed to work that way. But I needed to move on to another project and needed the cash.

[Sean]

Heh. Try telling that to actors and investors. :umm:

If you watch the Criterion bonus disc of In the Mood for Love, Wong Kar Wai's actors spend half their time bitching that he doesn't use a script and just makes stuff up as he goes along. Malick does the same thing. I think this is the best kind of auteur filmmaking, but you have to be up front with your actors.

Yikes, no wonder I hated In the Mood For Love. Beautifully shot...and the most boring movie ever. Did it end better than the first hour? We couldn't stand anymore and walked out.

Pretty as it was, Malick's New World would have greatly benefited from a better script.

I'm hoping Redusers are as thorough in their screenwriting (or better yet, hiring of screenwriters) as they are in their careful analysis of image artifacts, dynamic range and workflow issues. Making up stories as you go along is for the MASTERS and the very lucky. If you can't write a good script with the luxury of months of thinking time, how can you possibly structure a good story on the fly during a two week shoot?

I should add to Jannard's list of "shooting mistakes" (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1823): shoot without a script.

[Vincent Rice]

Torrie, my hat's off to you. I could never do what you do without being on the edge of a nervous breakdoun. That's why I will maintain my approach of throwing something against the screen and seeing if it sticks. If it doesn't, I'll put more spit in the mud and throw another batch up. I do not fear failure... but I do fear rote.

I admire your balls but the reality of it is that if you stick to this attitude you will likely be 'throwing stuff at the screen' for a good ten years before anything of value sticks. At some point you will learn a valuable lesson... Art is created in the nooks and crannies of structure and cultural resonance, not by pretending to ignore them.

[Bruce Allen]

Scripps? I doan need no stinkin' scripps!

Reason is, I have most of my storylines in my head. With Red, I will be able to shoot a scene multiple times with differing dialog, then use the best of the lot in edit.

?!?! How about instead of shooting the scene multiple times, you simply turn the camera off, put the lights away, send the crew home... and just workshop the scene beforehand with your actors? Use the best of what they say to make your script and THEN shoot.

Much cheaper - Red or no Red.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[number6]

Art is created in the nooks and crannies of structure and cultural resonance, not by pretending to ignore them.

Art? Art?? This is about making movies... not art. The triple XXX filmakers make art. I'm just hoping to create some entertainment. (Wouldn't mind mixing in an occasional one X scene ala those "art" people, though)

Really, I'm not putting doun script rigidity. It's just that I have in my head an outline and a general idea of what the dialogue will be about. As I said earlier, I will have one central line of dialogue in a scene and will shoot numerous and varied ways to get to that central (hopefully memorable) line. With RED, one can even let an actor have a shot at performing the scene the way it feels best for them. By having the freedom to affordably shoot take after take, in edit one can choose and use the one that grabs your goatee by the horns. And I do understand how those who are properly mentored or professionally trained, believe that their way is the best way.

But something I've seen over the years suggests that occasionally someone who attempts to do something they have not been trained for, because their thinking is not constrained can take a shortcut that just may be more scenic, as well as less tiring.

On the other hand, I respect all who challenge this particular course of action because it causes me to rethink if I'm capable of following that way, or if I should abandon that approach and "GO NORMAL!". (shudder-shudder)

[Bruce Allen]

As I said earlier, I will have one central line of dialogue in a scene and will shoot numerous and varied ways to get to that central (hopefully memorable) line. With RED, one can even let an actor have a shot at performing the scene the way it feels best for them.

But what are you going to do if your actor starts to suck more each take? Some of the best actors I've worked with get really tired really quickly. Others take a while to warm up. Timing it so that they are on all cylinders at their key moments is the real trick.

I like the freshness of your idea. It seems like you might have a voice and might make a good film. But the other part of me is wondering if you've put in enough time working with actors. Maybe you have a couple thousand hours' rehearsal experience and am tired of the way things are currently done or maybe you don't have any. I am interested, what is your previous directing / acting experience? How has it led you to decide to shoot in this way?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[number6]

But what are you going to do if your actor starts to suck more each take? Some of the best actors I've worked with get really tired really quickly. Others take a while to warm up. Timing it so that they are on all cylinders at their key moments is the real trick.

I like the freshness of your idea. It seems like you might have a voice and might make a good film. But the other part of me is wondering if you've put in enough time working with actors. Maybe you have a couple thousand hours' rehearsal experience and am tired of the way things are currently done or maybe you don't have any. I am interested, what is your previous directing / acting experience? How has it led you to decide to shoot in this way?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com


Bruce, all good points. Let me address them, not necessarily in the order you posed them. First off, directing/acting experience=0. That is why I will be acting and directing my first film. Reason is, since I have no directing experience, I would be unlikely to direct a lot of inexperienced people to give me what I envision in their character, so the cast will be small. And since I will have only one other (co-lead) main character, I will know what I have in mind for myself, and should be able to deliver. The person I have in mind for a co-lead is someone I trust to handle the other role, because he emotes naturally. He would be the one constant that would probably be the driving force for any changes I would make on the fly for my character and even some of the lesser ones. (Problem is, I haven't even approached him about the part, since I do not want to commit to anything before all else falls into place. Besides, I might just be talking to someone someday and decide they were a better fit for the role.)

And, there will be only a few small parts that should be easily played by anyone who isn't self-concious about their part. This will likely be something I can overcome by letting them do the scene in their own way if they will agree to do a couple of takes my way. Besides, what little experience I've had with videoing, I found that most people actually gravitate to the front of a camera, and knowing which ones to encourage and which ones to settle doun to just being themselves will allow you what you need for a good edit. Besides, I don't remember many pictures getting bad reviews for bad acting in minor roles. And since there will only be 2 major ones, that will cut the odds doun considerably for less than stellar role playing.

And now for the overide... the fail-safe.... the fall back. By allowing the actors and crew (minimal... I will be lighting, editing, most of the camera work even.) a part of the project, they will be motivated to do their best work. And at the end, if an impartial screening shows I've missed the mark, I will submit the film to various film festivals. Why submit a failure? Because I believe in the story, and I also believe those who screen films for festivals can see through bad acting/production/editing etc. and know if a story works. If it does, then we (cast and crew are in for their fair share) distribute the proceeds from the sale. I keep the rights to the original movie, and if someone does it big budget, I release my little flop on DVD to the ridiculously curious.

[Tom Lowe]

Yikes, no wonder I hated In the Mood For Love. Beautifully shot...and the most boring movie ever. Did it end better than the first hour? We couldn't stand anymore and walked out.

Pretty as it was, Malick's New World would have greatly benefited from a better script.


Haha, well we will have to agree to disagree on this, as In the Mood and The New World are my favorite films of the last 10 years or so. :biggrin:

[Obin Olson]

I hope to be shooting our Teen Drama TV show on the RED, and our feature thriller ...along with some more made for mobile fun www.mobijokes.tv I can't even THINk how a MobiJoke will look on the RED!!

[Keith Alan Morris]

agreed, different strokes for different folks. number 6, i suggest shooting lots of natural light. keep your actors to two per scene as much as possible. make the smallest film you can make. you'll naturally focus on the characters and the dialogue more. my first film was shot this way--i sometimes got the scenes out to the actors the night before and it still worked out. but this was NYC and the actors are pros. (and i did 3 months of casting to get the right people.) we won best screenplay at a NYC fest and got taken to cannes and got distrib offers. ultimately, however, the studios said "too low budget, too indie." (then they stole the idea and made Anger Management.) if i wouldve looked at what i thought was a real film as RESEARCH, as i do now, and RESHOOT with all the trimmings, then we would've made something that crossed over, and gotten a real advance. what i'm saying is, do what you want, but shoot your rehearsals. call everything you shoot a Rehearsal--at least in your own mind. :)

[C.H.Haskell]

Scripts...yes!

I need a stack of 5 on my desk by tomorrow morning! Maybe I will write one tonight...maybe not.

I see RED People.

I think I will go ahead and reserve one now, I can afford 10% ;)
Bon Voyage everyone on your RED journey. Salud, Proost, Cheers for the Red revolution.

[number6]

agreed, different strokes for different folks. number 6, i suggest shooting lots of natural light. keep your actors to two per scene as much as possible. make the smallest film you can make. you'll naturally focus on the characters and the dialogue more. :)

Yeah, I just did a run-through in my mind, and I didn't see a single scene that wasn't a daylight shot, even one late evening shot away from civilization will be sufficiently lit, and a few indoor scenes (a cafe) will have good window lighting... and one or two indoor scenes will have ample yellow flourescent lighting for a homey mood. Ratio of maybe 20 percent long shots with the rest split between medium and close. Probably 65 or 70 per cent will be two person shots with dialog or just mobility, while about another 20 percent will be three, occasionally 4 person, dialogue and another 20 percent will be multiple character shots, with minimal dialogue. (Yes, I can add... I just believe in giving 110 percent.) Anyway, appreciate the thought provoking advice. When walking through a minefield it's best to step in fresh tracks... as long as you can see that the tread has not been smoothed over in one of them.

[Steven M. Bailey]

As a building architect who builds his own designs, I have to commit to a set of blue prints at the beginning of a project, otherwise I would change my mind everyday. While the later is more fun, it usually costs me an arm and a leg. The creative side of me has to get out. It burns at me every minute. I have to build something, Write something, explore something, learn something or shoot something(guns:gun: or digital, both fun). but not at the cost of chaos.

The thought of shooting without at least a developed scriptment, scares the hell out of me. Who knows what kind of madness would ensue

(The funny thing is that just because you have a script, doesn't mean you have to follow it. I haven't built a house true to prints yet. Even though I have the plans, I let the walls speak to me as I go. I let them tell their own story. live-in-art)

As long as the structure is there, all of the life, character, and soul of a project can be found along the road.

Probably different for everyone, good luck with your own creative time bombs
You know eventually were all gonna blow :nuke: Steven

[Mark Thorpe]

OK, so where is the symposium for those with fantastic, super, blockbuster feature ideas?? Been putting something around in my head for the past few years, or was that the last time the missus trusted me with the shopping list??

Oh well, whatever. I have an idea, some underwater, obviously, but a doozee of a plot.

mums the word or did I say NDA?

Cheers,
Mark.

[Sean]

Haha, well we will have to agree to disagree on this, as In the Mood and The New World are my favorite films of the last 10 years or so. :biggrin:

You're not alone. I went to In the Mood for Love in the first place because critics were giving it five stars. Just tell me...is the last third of the film worth the wait? I'll try again.

[number6]

Scripts...yes!



I dunno... scripts run the risk of becoming scriptures. And then scriptures become religions. And while a movie-making religion would probably have a lot of foreplay in the afterlife, still, I don't think we need another religion.

[Keith Alan Morris]

Scripts...yes!

I need a stack of 5 on my desk by tomorrow morning! Maybe I will write one tonight...maybe not.

I see RED People.

I think I will go ahead and reserve one now, I can afford 10% ;)
Bon Voyage everyone on your RED journey. Salud, Proost, Cheers for the Red revolution.


welcome to the club. BROOKLYN IN THE HOUSE!

[C.H.Haskell]

Cheers Km9000…ty

Yeah I was not talking religions... I never have any scripts laying around honestly, if I did I would not be here now perhaps. Seems like Malick mainly a screenplay as something to show an investor that they were "good to go". Malick script is just backbone to fall on but goes with the flow when he comes to the set, of course this does not work for many and not even for Malick in the case of "New World"...or did it?

I have CUBA on my RED horizon. My previous Cuba experience was a short that I shot down there with my DVX called Lyra Lezama. http://haskellfilms.com/lyra.php It was scripted but became more of a rough guide for the locals to work from. I used only natural light and the end result felt more organic and rooted then the screenplay. I am still learning and always will be but I am please to be onboard with RED.

RED is a an amazing tool but since it wont problem solve my story, I am going to keep taking notes and writing as much as I can. Best of luck all!

[Bruce Allen]

Bruce, all good points. Let me address them, not necessarily in the order you posed them. First off, directing/acting experience=0. That is why I will be acting and directing my first film. Reason is, since I have no directing experience, I would be unlikely to direct a lot of inexperienced people to give me what I envision in their character, so the cast will be small.

Small cast is good! The Greeks did it with 2 plus a chorus, nothing wrong with that model.

Just a thought: have you considered doing some theatre work to give yourself some practice actually acting / working with actors before you shoot? It's not expensive and you quickly learn a lot.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Sean]

The thought of shooting without at least a developed scriptment, scares the hell out of me. Who knows what kind of madness would ensue.

I know what kind of madness would ensue. Unwatchable madness. 99.9% of the time anyhow.

But maybe we're talking about two different things: (A) a solid script that must be adhered to on pain of death, or (B) something that is not a script (i.e., no dialogue) but is still a carefully crafted story complete with dramatic beats and structure. I agree that if you have great actors and they're amazing improvisers you can get a great movie with (B). Waiting For Guffman was conceived this way, I believe. But those performers specialize in improvisation. They're sort of geniuses at it. Now, if you're trying to make a feature length dramatic movie without either A or B, I really doubt you could pay people to watch the results.

And even if you're considering the "treatment" route rather than a script, I'm still a believer that "religiously" adhering to a great script might be exactly what the movie needs. Fincher and writer
Andrew Walker fought the studio tooth and nail to keep Se7en's ending with the head in the box. That's a SCRIPT. It's the ending of the movie, and it was planned and everything before it is designed to culminate in this ending. To randomly deviate from that ending while on set might feel like you're a brilliant, spontaneous director, but would have decimated one of the most memorable movie endings of all time.

[Tom Lowe]

You're not alone. I went to In the Mood for Love in the first place because critics were giving it five stars. Just tell me...is the last third of the film worth the wait? I'll try again.

Oh hell yes. It's such a great movie. Even just in terms of the camera work, it boasts the best use of overcranking I have probably ever seen, or at least that I can remember. The framing is legendary.

Storywise, it's very reserved, poignant, artistic, and beautiful. It also packs an emotional punch if you invest your time.

But then again, it is really is a piece of art, so some will love it while others may yawn.

[Tom Lowe]

For 99% of filmmakers, they should stick to the script. But it's that 1% like Wong or Malick who impress me the most.

[Miltos Pilalitos]

Hey Tom,

Why do you say that Malick doesn't stick to the scripts he writes? I never heard this detail about him before i read this thread.

Speaking from a director's perspective (although my last short film was over 6 years ago...) i believe that it's healthy to leave some room for the unexpected and the spontaneous when you shoot. Sometimes something might happen that is really better than what's written on the paper. More or less we all do this and so does Malick.

The way it is presented here is as if he writes one script and then he goes and shoots another! :)

[Steven M. Bailey]

But maybe we're talking about two different things: (A) a solid script that must be adhered to on pain of death, or (B) something that is not a script (i.e., no dialogue) but is still a carefully crafted story complete with dramatic beats and structure. I agree that if you have great actors and they're amazing improvisers you can get a great movie with (B). Waiting For Guffman was conceived this way, I believe. But those performers specialize in improvisation. They're sort of geniuses at it. Now, if you're trying to make a feature length dramatic movie without either A or B, I really doubt you could pay people to watch the results.

I agree for the most part, but I don't think that the whole answer lies completely in A or B, but in a well concieved and controlled ratio of A and B.

Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, (writers of Pirate's of the Caribbean, Aladin, Small Soldiers..on and on), write some of the most seen and best executed screenplay's around. But even they realize that often times the actors will find a better line or even totally replace a line with a simple facial expression.

(of course if you work with Robin Williams or Johnny Depp you may not have a chioce in this.)

This does't negate the script, but brings life to its presentation.

Actual story structure and the release of audiance information is absolutly critical and must be respected at all costs. I won't say that anything is impossible, but I don't know how you could do this on the fly. We have to keep people captivated, Interested, intellectually and emotionally involved, otherwise all were doing is making expensive sleep aids.

[Miltos Pilalitos]

...otherwise all were doing is making expensive sleep aids.

I second that!

[number6]

And even if you're considering the "treatment" route rather than a script, I'm still a believer that "religiously" adhering to a great script might be exactly what the movie needs. Fincher and writer
Andrew Walker fought the studio tooth and nail to keep Se7en's ending with the head in the box. That's a SCRIPT. It's the ending of the movie, and it was planned and everything before it is designed to culminate in this ending. To randomly deviate from that ending while on set might feel like you're a brilliant, spontaneous director, but would have decimated one of the most memorable movie endings of all time.

Rhetorical: What if that ending hadn't been in the script, and it just came to the director in a flash of brilliance? And how many movies have been panned that could have been saved by simply taking a chance?

[number6]

Small cast is good! The Greeks did it with 2 plus a chorus, nothing wrong with that model.

Just a thought: have you considered doing some theatre work to give yourself some practice actually acting / working with actors before you shoot? It's not expensive and you quickly learn a lot.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Bruce, my story is such that acting might ruin it......(pregnant pause).......... (ouch) ...o.k., the baby is out. Plus, I do not plan on acting after I get this first one, maybe the second one done, and don't want to spend my time practicing for just one or two acting attempts when I can better utilize it training with the needed software updates for editing. By then I should be a little further along on the learning curve and can simply stay in the director's chair. Besides, there are currently outside demands on my time. And, believe it or not, I relish the challenge of going in cold. And it is not "life-changing" important that this film work. If it doesn't... maybe the next one or the next one will.

If I got a paid-for RED, and some Rye Crispbread, I'll keep shootin' and shootin' and shootin'

[Tom Lowe]

Hey Tom,

Why do you say that Malick doesn't stick to the scripts he writes? I never heard this detail about him before i read this thread.

Speaking from a director's perspective (although my last short film was over 6 years ago...) i believe that it's healthy to leave some room for the unexpected and the spontaneous when you shoot. Sometimes something might happen that is really better than what's written on the paper. More or less we all do this and so does Malick.

The way it is presented here is as if he writes one script and then he goes and shoots another! :)

Heh. Well I'm the biggest Malick disciple you're likely to come across in everyday life. I worship Terry and I think his cinema is visual poetry.

Here's a quote from Q'Orianka Kilcher that might demonstrate something about his style of directing:


"Even though there'd be a plan of what we were supposed to do that day, we never knew what to expect. Terry would get so inspired. For example, he'd see a fennel field blowing in the wind and he'd tell me, 'Oh, Q'orianka, could you take your shoes off and run through that field? Be the wind, be the wind! Oh good, oh good!' It was such a wonderful working environment because I loved going on my impulses, even at the risk of looking extremely silly or wrong. He was that kind of director."

Even so, Kilcher had to adapt to Malick's habit of asking his performers to disregard long sections of dialogue they'd already memorized, thereby radically reshaping a script that he'd spent 25 years writing.

[Miltos Pilalitos]

Ouch!

[Keith Alan Morris]

"Matte Box woes" has more views than us. Gaah!

[Steven M. Bailey]

Heh. Well I'm the biggest Malick disciple you're likely to come across in everyday life. I worship Terry and I think his cinema is visual poet:

I had to rack my brain to remember what movie I had recently seen that was directed by Terry Malick. Then I was reminded by my writing partner. "A New World"
To start out positively:
The film was beautifully shot, It had some Stunning footage, brilliant lighting, incredible sets, the Costumes were authentic, it had a very real feeling.

too real

So real in fact that by the end of the movie I was fast asleep. As beautiful and artistic as it was, it was also mind numbingly boring, lacking even the basic story structure

beautifully, expensive, sleep aids

[Jeremy Torrie]

Finally -someone who agrees. I wanted so much to love this film, in part because I always shoot scenes backlit when outdoors, and in part because I am Ojibway, but I became fidgety wondering where the story was, and where it would go. The love story didn't work. It seemed to be more about choreographing imagery and actors in the frame rather than emotion. And here you've got some very high caliber actors to humanize these people, and it didn't happen. I thought I caught Colin Farrell wondering where his direction was going to come from...(Here's the DP thinking: well, we want to make sure we keep the sun behind his head for as much of the shot as possible...and CUT! Looks fantastic! Terry? What do you think? Did we get it? TM: Fabulous! (looks at continuity) We're going to use the wide and one close up for three minutes)

I had the same problem -I too fell asleep and had to rewind the DVD to go back to the spot I nodded off, and guess what? I didn't miss anything.

Malick had a chance to step it up, and to really take this part of North American history to the public and do some good -i.e. that not all Indians are savages and/or dumb, or whatever else people may have cooked in their brains. Instead the story will never have an opportunity to be told again on that budget scale. Really, really a shame.

[KETCH ROSSi]

I have 5 films in the works, as soon as I recive my 3 RED's I will start shoting some test in preproduction and casting sections for screen test ecc. then start Principal Photography shortly there after.

This ar part of a AutoBiography, casting and location scouting are also done by me, very very large and pretencious project but is going to be not only the first but also probably my last, so not only my Heart is in it but my all Soul.

Pretending to not only be the principal Actor but also, Co/Writer, Co/casting Director, Co/Director of Photography, Co/Director, Co/Producer, Co/Executive Producer and basically do put my two cents and a half in about anything also.

I already have being told more then once that I'm out of my mind for the way I intend to do this project and the list of Stars I espect to pool in to this project.

But, so waht, I can still try my absolute best, can I not?

Ciao,

KETCH ROSSI
www.KETCHFRAME.com

[Keith Alan Morris]

this is cool: yesterday i took a full day off from lurking on reduser to actually work on a script some folks have shown interest in. i wrote this script a year ago and now for the first time i was able to look at it with RED eyes. what a difference a year makes. i wrote so much more confidently knowing that the Red can handle it. i was able to add a bunch of stuff that will make the movie better. go back to your old scripts and look at em with Red eyes, you'll see what i mean...

[number6]

I think my order number means there are about 6.7 billion people in line ahead of me, which means that some who have not yet been born will get their camera before I will. However, I do not wish any wars or pandemics or tsunamis on mankind just so I will move up in line. Reason is, thanks to this forum I am "going to school" on a lot of knowledge that is preparing me to make a better film.

Many on the REDUSER forum are experts, and many are RED principals. I do not want to become a builder of an imaging system or an expert in any one field of movie-making. I do want an overall perspective of how the parts fit while still retaining the holes in my knowledge-base that will cause me to jury-rig to achieve an aim.

While I'm thanking everyone who posts on this entire forum, the majority of my posts have been on this thread so I'm posting it here.

And in closing, I just want to say to all you wonderful guys on BIGREDUSERS, or whatever, that I will never for...(snff)... (sorry, give me a sec).................... that I will... be thinking of you wonderful guys every minute when I make my first film.

I Love you manz!!! (Are ya'll gonna drink that last Bud? Can I have it?)

[Clint Johnson]

I'll start off by saying that if you are making the movie for your own appreciation and for the love of making that movie- then you should make it how your passion dictates. If you want anyone else to enjoy it then I have something else to tell you...


It all starts with the script.

If the script isn't good then the best director and the best actor can't fix it. Writing a good script is hard work and not something to be winged on set. A usable script can be built through rehearsals or ad libbing dialog within rigidly structured parameters based on a story structure that has been written and rewritten over months or years. Those are usually difficult to watch and create almost zero audience satisfaction.

I wouldn't go to the set with a script that I haven't polished to as close to perfect as I can. Once on the set I do want feedback from the actors and if there is time in the schedule I'll let them play it their way... once I get a solid take of my way. I see this on set flexibility as the final polish on the script and if there are very many changes that means you did a crappy job of writing before you got on set.

I value every frame captured and every word spoken. It takes weeks of going over each and every line, getting feedback and then doing it again. If this writing and rewriting process is attempted on set and under a time constraint (even if that constraint is just continuity with the light) then what happens is you find a line that works good enough and move on. You never realize that was only the third iteration on the way through ten others that were each better than the one before.

Every line can't be a memorably line but it can't be from lack of trying.

Going without a well developed script is a recipe for mediocrity at best. Maybe not mediocre material by everyones consideration, just that of the 99.99% of the people who are looking for a good story well told. If it is an artistic choice on your part and you are happy with it, that is good for you. Just be prepared for nobody else to want to watch it. If there are serendipitously beautiful moments and scenes you may end up with the equivalent of small, shiny objects that glitter and attract the eye but are devoid of any real deep content. It isn't a matter of this being a “new way of making film” since it has been tried many thousands of times in the past and it has been received with resounding financial, popular and critical indifference.

I have helped friends on two short film shoots like this. The first one had an outline with some dialog but quite a bit was done on the fly. This one was enjoyable to watch... for those who were involved with it and pretty much nobody else. The second one was almost entirely done on the fly and I don't think that they even bothered trying to edit it into something coherent. If they did they haven't let anyone know about it.

The script is the single most important element and everything else is a compromise towards achieving the ideal potential of that script. Casting the right talent is the biggest obstacle towards that ideal and the director can't fix miscast actors. Going with the non-professional actors is dangerous unless you get very, very lucky or you are a very, very good director. I've been lucky with some casting and I've also failed more than a couple actors because I wasn't a good enough director (hope I've learned from that). There is only one actor that I can think of that could not have been saved and I blame myself for casting him in the first place. An inexperienced actor can give a good performance if they have a strong understanding of the story and the part they play in it.

That isn't always the case as the following short clip from my rough cut attests... this guy right here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Zha-kIYUc) knew the story better than anyone else and he still gives a stilted performance that I can't smooth over in editing. Fading early on him and grading the shot so we hardly see him helps but do you really want to have to do things like that?

I've done a little bit of storyboarding and I'm beta testing some animation/machinima software called Moviestorm with the idea of also using it to create animatics and extracting storyboards - as well as the animation is is being designed for. While it isn't going to be Zviz, I think that it will be a good tool to work the more demanding scenes out in.

As for directors who say that they wing the story and improvise most of it, I think that a lot of them fall into the same category as the actors who insist that they made up a lot of their dialog on the day... if you get your hands on the shooting script you'll find that damn near everything is in there right down to the umms, ahhs and smacking the hood of the taxi while saying “I'm walkin' here!”. Too many of them need validation so much that they will usurp credit wherever they can and the lowly scriptwriter is an easy target. I'm not saying that is the case with all of them, it is just a trend I have noted.

Of course, that is just my opinion and I may be proven wrong someday.

[Steven M. Bailey]

Clint,
preach on brother, preach on

Nice cover, you probably shot him.:gun: Kind of like the Dick Chainy hunting accident.

clips too short. I have to guess on the back story,
"I think that guy stole leftovers out of my fridge in collage, I just had to kill him." Putting laxitives in the milk just didn't send a strong enough message."
"I'm sorry you had to see that." "Could you help me drag this body?"
Sorry, I Get carried away.
Steve:gun:

[Gbabymogul]

I think there is a difference between directors who use a script as a complete blueprint and directors who use a script as a framework.

The directors who i'm aware of who do the latter, like Wong Kar Wai, don't go in with a handful of characters and start shooting. What they do is set up a theme, the relationships, detailed character studies of the main participants, and the emotional beats that underpin it all. Some allow a variety of input into the story and plot - WKW doesn't allow any - while other directors allow a lot more.

Some backstory on WKW - he was a professional writer for Hong Kong T.V and features. For those who don't know, the pace of production during that era was incredible. To be a head writer (as he was) you would work with a dozen different genres and need to know the complexities of each. You would also have to work at a non-leisurely pace in turning out material for a half dozen different departments (he won some awards for writing) while staying original (very competitive industry). WKW also was an ardent reader and fan of classic literature like Dostoevsky. From the interviews i've read and seen he has immense respect for the written word. And several of his films have stayed close to his written script (mostly to placate the Studio).

One of his methods is to come up with all the elements mentioned above, and then 'find' the movie as he shoots. With In the Mood For Love, and other flicks, he would find a coffee shop and write at the beggining and end of each shoot day, carefully crafting the plot and performances as the story and more importantly the themes emerged. I don't recommend anyone but very very talented writers/directors even attempt this. The fact that he eventually emerges with a multilayered movie is a testament to him knowing what material he will need to craft a story and plot from his general thematic and specific visual cues. I would venture, that for Mallick and WKW, they know that a great amount of the meaning from their films will come from the fleeting visual moments, compositions and the poetry naturally occuring with their locations, plus unexpected emotional beats of their actors. Check out Chris Doyles BBC interview where he talks about allowing the locaton to lend subtext and theme to a simple scene. Indeed, i can understand how merely using a framework could be a better shooting scenario for a specific director who has a great grasp of story (without the need to lay it all out) and has the backers who are willing to let the director explore it.

This whole way of shooting is akin to an experienced DP who throws away his light meter (or almost never takes it out) because he's so finely attuned to his craft. A writer/director who goes in with a bare framework had better be as accomplished with the craft of writing and story, unless it's a more experimental piece.

Regardless, there's more than one way to achieve resonance. And I have to agree with Tom that it's a rare director who can create movies this way. But when succeed there is a blend of naturalism and poignancy that is glorious.

Some writers, like Hemingway crafted every word to add to the total. Often, he'd go over one word until he found the perfect one. Doestevsky wrote in a rush of long handed exuberance (little editing afterword). Both found meaning and lasting legacies.

As others have mentioned - Script is Paramount. But for the very few, it's a springboard to something greater. Can you tell i really dug the "New World" ? hehe.

->>> WKW's "My Blueberry Nights" has a script that he filmed close to the original, so we'll know by Cannes (or a year later for us T.O guys :( if it's any good.

[Tom Lowe]

Great post, gbaby. Great post.

While I agree with Clint for 99% of directors, there are some, as gbaby has pointed out, who are able to really make a picture "happen on set." That is not to say they disregard writing. In fact Malick is considered to be a great writer and poet. He taught philosophy at MIT and translated Heidegger. And as gbaby pointed out, WKW comes from a writing background as well.

I don't say that I want to only have a light script for my first feature because I am too lazy to write one or that I don't like writing. I come from a writing background as a novelist, speechwriter and professional writer for more than 10 years. It's just that film is such a visual medium for me that I want to be able to go with the flow and take advantage to opportunities I see come up as we're shooting.

Still, having said this, maybe I will find that I personally don't have the talent to pull this off. And generally speaking, as Clint notes, trying to shoot a feature without a full, great script falls under the category of: "don't try this at home."

[Clint Johnson]

I think that my little snippet of a scene actually illustrates rather well my philosophy on creating movies and television.

The story called for the killer to be interrupted before he could complete his job. That could have been accomplished any of a thousand ways and maybe there are directors who could have pulled something beautiful out of the moment. Me, I wrote and rewrote it until I have a couple layers there and was happy with it. I found I wanted to show that the killer is a bit of a coward to start with so that he has an arc towards a more blasé attitude after he is killed- so I had him chased off by a single unarmed man. I decided to put in a dig to all those scenes where the hero coming to the rescue the day and boldly states that “I won't let anything happen to you.” by immediately cutting to the morgue with the guy slabbed out. On top of that, I decided that there was great meta irony in having the line delivered by the writer/director who is in the process of destroying everything this character holds dear... I like that. It might not be great writing but I like that layering both within the story and back out into the real world... as long as it doesn't take too many people out of the story.

And Steve, this is actually pulled from the first minute of the show and at that point there is no back story. Arlyss has to figure out who killed him and why.

I do think that a lot of the films like those of Wong Kar Wai and Malick are vague enough that most of their greatness is projected upon them by the viewer and very little is actually contained within the film itself. It seems that a small percentage of the population will subconsciously connect the dots and fill in the storyline with something that resonates deeply with them. When there is too much structure for them they will not enjoy the film anywhere near as much. For them I am glad that they have these beautiful shot films that let them fill in the blanks. I don't think that there will ever be much wide spread appeal to these films though since the vast majority of the population wants the story to be up there on the screen.

I want the story up there on the screen but I want it to be a thing of beauty itself, structured and layered and well plotted. This is more important to me than the cinematography... but I'll still strive for the beautiful visuals to bolster the story.

Maybe I am missing out and the enjoyment a person gets out of this intellectual interaction with the filmmaker gives them a far richer movie going experience than I will ever have. Just remember that the best that one can hope for with this type of film is a small handful of heartfelt fans and it will be damned hard to find those few.

It is nice that we both usually get a movie or two each year that suits our tastes.

[Tom Lowe]

In the cases of Malick and Wong, they have more than a handful of very loyal and dedicated fans.

Just me personally, I would rather please myself and please astute cinema fans than make Michael-Bay style movies that rake in huge cash and audiences. That is not to say I don't dream of making a blockbuster. Movies like Black Hawk Down, Crouching Tiger, Braveheart, Empire Strikes Back, Princess Mononoke -- these films do a good job of combining art with mass appeal.

[Joel Kaye]

Movies like Black Hawk Down, Crouching Tiger, Braveheart, Empire Strikes Back, Princess Mononoke -- these films do a good job of combining art with mass appeal.

Unless someone is financially independent they are going to have to figure that blend out. If you can make a very low budget movie you don't need to sell your soul provided enough fans pay.

When I was watching some behind the scenes for Lord of the Rings I was very surprised to find the actors were given new dialog almost daily. It was literally being rewritten on the set.

I think there's plenty of room for high concept movies that actually have a brain & soul too. But writing one ain't exactly easy. :-)

[Clint Johnson]

In the cases of Malick and Wong, they have more than a handful of very loyal and dedicated fans.

Just me personally, I would rather please myself and please astute cinema fans than make Michael-Bay style movies that rake in huge cash and audiences. That is not to say I don't dream of making a blockbuster. Movies like Black Hawk Down, Crouching Tiger, Braveheart, Empire Strikes Back, Princess Mononoke -- these films do a good job of combining art with mass appeal.

Wong Kar Wai and Terrence Malick do only have a handful of fans. The opening weekend for In the Mood for Love was $113,280 and its total box office in the US barely topped $2.7 million. It took 112 days in release to get to that. His 2046 made only about half of that.

The New World cost over $30 million dollars and on its opening weekend it took in a grand total of $57,000. The $12.7 million that it ended up making over about 120 days probably didn't even cover the advertising and promotions budget.

They don't have enough fans to make their movies economically viable unless they are done on a very, very small scale. The financiers for Wong's The Lady from Shanghai have to be worried about putting $15 million into a film with a guy who just doesn't have enough fans to pay that back. I wouldn't be surprised if Malick's Tree of Life doesn't make it into production at all because nobody wants to spend $50 million dollars to get back $25 million.

This is a viable area to work in if you know that there aren't going to be a lot of people paying to see your movies and budget appropriately. It will be hard for you to get anything made and brutally hard to get anyone to distribute it once it is made. If that is where your muse takes you then that is where you should go... just don't expect many people to follow you.

If you make movies like Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, that are incredibly good films and very popular, then you will continue making movies even when you get a clunker or three. This means Ridley Scott will have four films in production and nine more in development... along with four television projects in production.

[Tom Lowe]

In the Mood for Love was quite a hit in Asia, I believe. It certainly brought prestige and recognition to Hong Kong cinema, so I really wouldn't judge a film like that based on what retarded American audiences thought of it. I'm sure Larry the Cable guy made more money its opening weekend than any of Wong's films, but who cares. Big Momma's House 2 drove The New World from my local multiplex, but again, this only shows the retardation of the general public.

You are not going to convince artists like Wong or Malick to give up making the types of films they want to make. Indeed, the reason they keep getting funded is because they are artists, and deep down, many of these studio people still want to feel like they are making art and contributing something to humanity. So they greenlight 20 stupid movies and kick Malick down 30 mil on the side so they can retain at least a few shreds of honor, dignity, and hope. :)

I agree with you, though, that it's probably a good idea to mix your art films with some crowdpleasers, so you can keep making pictures. I think Darren Aronofsky just learned that lesson.

[Gbabymogul]

They don't have enough fans to make their movies economically viable unless they are done on a very, very small scale. The financiers for Wong's The Lady from Shanghai have to be worried about putting $15 million into a film with a guy who just doesn't have enough fans to pay that back. Clint, with all due respect, that is just wrong. Wong Kar Wai can easily finance his films because they are so profitable - not Spidey profitable, but profitable. He has a few key realtionships with E.U backers (France's Canal plus/ Paradis) that he co-produces with. If you take a look a box office mojo (which doesn't include DVD sales) his films return a decent profit , mostly through overseas markets. If you include DVD sales, he is as good as a municipal bond. While the U.S is one of the largest markets in the world it isn't the only one. Also, since he has a decent following they don't have trouble marketing the film overseas - it's sort of like how a Marty Scorsese pic carries it's own marketing buzz in the U.S.

WKW co-funds his films with his jet tone productions and has a decent E.U bank sharing equity/ completion (funds) business model (the closest comparable is the Weinsteins line of credit).

Recently, he's wanted to branch out and try some Western movies (at least with Western stars) which is why there's negotiations involved. It's not the budget or roi they were contemplating but his mode of working. However, he's in the enviable position of being able to work when he wants to work up to a certain budget (I'd guesstimate around 18 million).

For some, having a smaller piece of the lemon pie is a fair deal.



:beer:

[Clint Johnson]

They did do marginally better in some foreign markets but they still only get a sliver of the audience and I don't really think that it is because the all of the other 99.99% can't appreciate great film.

If filmmakers like Wong and Malick gave up making the types of films they want to make then the world would be the poorer for it. That said, I have to count myself amongst the "retarded" who find their work shallow and uninteresting... but full of pretty pictures.

I did sit through The New World and didn't hate it... it just left me bored and fighting sleep. I don't know if Big Momma's House 2 was any more interesting because nobody held a gun to my head to make me watch it.

[Tom Lowe]

To each his own, my friend.

[Clint Johnson]

Clint, with all due respect, that is just wrong. Wong Kar Wai can easily finance his films because they are so profitable - not Spidey profitable, but profitable. He has a few key realtionships with E.U backers (France's Canal plus/ Paradis) that he co-produces with. If you take a look a box office mojo (which doesn't include DVD sales) his films return a decent profit , mostly through overseas markets. If you include DVD sales, he is as good as a municipal bond. While the U.S is one of the largest markets in the world it isn't the only one. Also, since he has a decent following they don't have trouble marketing the film overseas - it's sort of like how a Marty Scorsese pic carries it's own marketing buzz in the U.S.

WKW co-funds his films with his jet tone productions and has a decent E.U bank sharing equity/ completion (funds) business model (the closest comparable is the Weinsteins line of credit).

Recently, he's wanted to branch out and try some Western movies (at least with Western stars) which is why there's negotiations involved. It's not the budget or roi they were contemplating but his mode of working. However, he's in the enviable position of being able to work when he wants to work up to a certain budget (I'd guesstimate around 18 million).

For some, having a smaller piece of the lemon pie is a fair deal.



:beer:

$12 million box office over the entire planet means that there weren't very many people wanting to see In the Mood for Love. Like I said, it is a viable area to work in as long as you budget appropriately... and if you try and budget $15 million for The Lady from Shanghai you gotta be worried. Especially when you tack on the prints and advertising that add millions of dollars all on their own. You also have to remember that the production company will get less than half of that box office – the theatre has to make money too. So to break even, that $15 million movie will have to gross over $40 million from all sources.

His 2046 had a working budget of $12 million and it made about $20 million world wide. Box Office Mojo doesn't give DVD sales but for the sake of argument let's say that they cancel out the P&A that Mojo also doesn't include in the numbers. Getting half of that box office puts them $2 million in debt.

They don't give a budget for In the Mood for Love but working backwards, for that $12 million to beat a safe and modest 10% bond it couldn't have cost much more than $3 million... and that is with zero security. It could easily have been Happy Together and only make $320,000.

I'll stand by that being a tiny audience appropriate only for low budget films that are risky and rarely profitable. I admire him for being able to keep making films the way he wants to... I'm just glad that way doesn't interest me in the least. I want to make beautiful, well constructed stories that are also very popular because those are generally the kind of movies that I love.


To each his own, my friend.

And that is one of the things that make the world a more interesting and beautiful place. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of following their dreams, I just want to give them a heads up and let them know that the path they are on is fraught with danger, difficulty and heartbreak... and then wish them the very best of luck.

[Elijah Kelley]

Definitely have the fever "The Reds." Obsessing on the website, talked to Jared on the phone for twenty minutes today and googled every imaginable review. I've shot two features in as many years. The last one, which was a comedy, mystery, musical we finished on April 14, 2007 and was SAG ultra-low with actors from the wire, and the upcoming Vivica Fox movie [I]THREE CAN PLAY THAT GAME[I] I will definitely continue to do SAG films bc the actors are held accountable. I currently use an hvx200 with redrock and zeiss prime set. Having just heard this week of RED on apple's final cut site I will reserve my red next week complete with the works (prime set, 300mm, lcd and possible viewfinder.) I have three scripts done and ready so I'm dissapointed that I won't be able to use the RED until Jan. 2008 but I won't wait to get the RED before I shoot another. However, the prospect of being able to do 35mm camera quality is awesome. So until I get it in the mail I'll write and shoot. I'll use what I have to tell great stories. First it was poetry, then stage now it's with motion pictures that I convey a message. The media is the vehicle and without a driver the vehicle is an empty shell. If you can ride a bike to meet friends and connect, even though it takes four times as long then driving, but you don't have a car it wouldn't make sense not to meet your friends because you don't have a car. So, tell your story because you respect the craft and want to add to what's real. Technology does not drive stories, people do. RED is wow but only one thing legitamizes a movie maker and that's their passion to tell stories through pictures. Be easy. Tell a story that'll encourage a child to believe in love, a grandmother to keep hoping that her grands will visit tomorrow or a father not to abuse his little ones.

[Tom Lowe]

Welcome, Eleeahoo!

Are you in LA?

[Elijah Kelley]

Thanks Tom. I'm on the East coast. Baltimore, MD. Query: I've tried to load my 20 KB Jpeg pic but it won't load. Any suggestions?

[Gbabymogul]

Clint, i dig the verve, but to keep this on topic i'll just reiterate that WKW has zero trouble financing his films, and is well known to be a profitable director (maybe minor leagues but still profitable). When you add up all the costs and revenue (you forgot t.v sales and ancillaries btw) there are only a couple films that didn't turn a decent profit. Whether you want to believe that or not is up to you.

The fact is, if you are soley going by doing what it takes to have a career, then choose low budget genre pics, deliver on budget and on time, and repeat. There's a reason that the DGA isn't all Speilbergs, Leans and Scorseses. It's called talent.

There's no sure thing whatever style or aesthetic or genre of film you choose to work in. IMO, to get to the very top (like those people you mentioned) of any of those is a horse race. It takes a lot to pip the post.

It's funny because i mostly agree with you, and i'm not advocating shooting any one style although it may sound like that.

For me >>> Follow your passion. Trite but true.

:beer:

I'm excited to see what RED plus passionate film makers (or digital cinema makers) come up with. Hopefully, we'll see a ALL styles of films and projects, including Ralph's bikini babes :wink:

[Tom Lowe]

Joe Campbell said it best: "Follow your Bliss."

[Gbabymogul]

Joe Campbell said it best: "Follow your Bliss."
He stole that from me:tongue:

[Tom Lowe]

Lies. :)

[Clint Johnson]

Gbabymogul, what I find hilarious is that we are pretty much in complete and utter agreement but it sounds like we are arguing! We just have different idea on how big an audience needs to be before it is considered popular and what we figure is a comfortable and safe return on investment from a financial point of view.

I wasn't going into all the other windows because I didn't think that they added up to a great deal of money. I can't remember them ever hitting pay per view and I don't think that there is enough interest from the networks to fork over much more than a couple hundred thousands dollars for the rights to air any of Wong Kar Wai's films. They are viciously focused on the bottom line.

Wong continues to make films so they obviously are making some money at it... just sayin' it's a slim margin.

And the last thing I would suggest is for anyone to go all Uwe Boll on the film world! Oh for the love of cinema, one Uwe is enough.