Best Microbudget Film Setup

[pat@hpnc.com]

Hi guys/gals I know a lot of you have done a lot of research on this subject so would like to get some feedback. The plan is to do a microbudget short feature (40 minutes) without going in debt. Or to be more exact staying in responsible debt. So if something goes on the credit card I have to be able to pay it of in two or three months. Basicly do not destroy my credit or life on gamble of making money on a film when the odds are stacked agaist me. Also I have a very up and down income as an illustrator and part time VFX artist so it has to fit into the plan of being able to pay rent in a slow month. So with all that being said here is the plan :) ...

1. Camera - HV-20 I can get it for $927 at Fry's Electronics with no Tax. I used to work there so I can get it at %10 above cost using a friends AP. And I live in Texas so I can get it tax free since I will distribute it in limited form myself if I have to.

2. Build or buy 35mm lense adapter. Will do something like the rig on the other thread. And I already have a Canon 20D and some nice fast sharp lenses. And will buy more lenses since I can use them on both.

3. Make the most of what I have. Illustration and FX background etc. Becouse of what I do for a living all of the software packages are taken care of from editing to FX. Atleast for the most part.

4. Be creative and ruthless on making do and saving money.

5. Creat something I am truely interested in that I can work on for a long time becouse time in many cases can replace money.

Any way thats the plan this is the site http://www.theheavenmovie.com . And I know the subject matter is not to everyones tast but their is a market. And it is what I am interested in. Also note that test images and samples are very early and of course will look better. Honestly most were very rushed.

Any way thanks very much in adance for the feedback.

[ColinSmith]

on 2. be aware of the difficulties in using EOS lenses on an adapter - that there is no way to adjust the appature other than mount the lens on the slr body, set it, and mount it back on the video setup.

Depending on the lenses you want to use it may be worthwhile buying some old Nikons, just for the time you'd save.

[David Mullen ASC]

Isn't a 40 minute "short" a little like being the tallest midget? Is there a specific reason why it has to be 40 minutes long? Is it for an hour TV slot with commercials?

[pat@hpnc.com]

Thanks Colin and David for the responses. I will have to do more research on the adapters but I thought you could get an adapter with a powered appature control but I could be completly wrong.

As for the length I chose it as my understanding is its the shortest length considered to be a feature atleast by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the American Film Institute, and the British Film Institute other groups have longer time. Also it will probobly never really be in theaters but will probobly be on TV. And the main reason is I think thats about the correct running time for the material I have. But we will see how it goes as I finish the writing finaly.

And I am open to any suggestions:)

[pat@hpnc.com]

Oh and here is a round about way of controlling appature http://redrockmicro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3137 And I am pretty sure someone else reverse engineered the way the Canon camera controls the lense and created a small control box.

But I will check on older Nikon and Canon lenses and see what rout makes more sense money wise. Thanks again for the headsup.

[PaulClements]

...American Film Institute, and the British Film Institute other groups have longer time.

Actually I think it's 40 minutes for these too.


And I am pretty sure someone else reverse engineered the way the Canon camera controls the lense and created a small control box.

You're probably refering to the ef232 from Birger (www.birger.com) who are re-engineering the device as a Canon mount for the RedOne. It can be currently bought for $980. I've just emailed Brian Valente from RedRock about the possibility of using the ef323 with their M2 adapter and if it cannot be used whether they would consider looking into adapting it.

All in all the HV20, M2 adapter, Birger mount will set you back $2457. Not bad considering the results you ought to be able to get from that. It actually makes a great budget setup for RedOne owners who need a spare and are using Canon EOS lenses on the upcoming mount. It's by no means a replacement but in certain situations it will perform fairly well by comparison I should think.

Cheers

Paul

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

I was also wondering about the 40 minute thing. From what everyone told me, and from everything I have read, you should either make a short that is 15 minutes or shorter, or a feature that is 80 minutes or longer, and usually more like 85-90 minutes. I've never heard anyone calling 40 minutes a feature, but I have heard them saying 40 minutes or less is still a short. The point is, we were told 15 minutes or less because most peoples' patience on a short is very, well, short, and that even 7-8 really good minutes is preferable to 15 minutes that kind of drag.

I know theaters won't play movies that are less than about 75 minutes long generally, and stuff that short is usually animated, from Disney or DreamWorks or something. Now I know you said that you're not interested really in a theatrical release, but from what I have understood 40 minutes is really neither here nor there, it's kind of that nether region.

Of course, if the plan is to put it on an hour-long television spot, it makes perfect sense, because TV shows now are about 40-42 minutes long (ten years ago, they were 44-45, twenty years ago, 46-48 -- *sigh* how depressing). Anyway I'm not trying to tell you how long it should be, haha, just relaying what I have heard and my understanding of the market.

[Brian Valente]

Hi Paul

I received your email, but saw this post first :)

This has already been addressed by a resourceful Redrocker

http://redrockmicro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3137

I can't comment on future Redrock product plans at the moment :)

[Clint Johnson]

I think that the subject may be problematical in that there is no real concrete biblical description of the Abrahamic Religion's heaven and anyone trying to recreate it would be creating their own very personal version. The faith based cinematic works that do well with that market tend to be the ones that follow the existing literature most closely and in this case there really isn't any material to follow.

One man's heaven will be another man's blasphemy.

Asgard! Now there is a heaven that has plenty of literary material to follow and that would be very cinematic... but I'm thinking that isn't what you are looking for even if it was within your budget.

And I'll have to side with those thinking - under 20 minutes or over 85 minutes - if you want to show it at any festivals or get it into any theatres. A 40 minute run time may be workable for a low priced DVD but if you charge more than$9.99 for it the viewer might feel that they aren't getting their monies worth.

With that out of the way, the first thing you do is go to Stu Maschwitz's blog (http://prolost.blogspot.com/) to read all his posts, buy his book- The DV Rebel's Guide (http://rebelsguide.com/DV%20Rebel%27s%20Guide/The%20DV%20Rebel%27s%20Guide.html) and browse through the associated forum (http://rebelsguide.com/forum/). Stu is all about the microbudget and he covers it better than I've seen it covered anywhere else.

[Brian Valente]

er, well, I can definitely vouch for stu's blog and especially his book DV Rebel's Guide.

Can't comment too much on Abrahamic Religion, etc. :)

[Finner]

As for the length I chose it as my understanding is its the shortest length considered to be a feature atleast by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the American Film Institute, and the British Film Institute other groups have longer time. Also it will probobly never really be in theaters but will probobly be on TV.

And I am open to any suggestions:)

Last I knew a TV hour was 43min and half hour was 21.5 minutes but I would suggest highly checking and knowing these exact numbers.

Also I feel the biggest mistake people make is feeling they have to make something long. Long with no money and a new director quite often = boring. A person that does Six, 5minute shorts will have a much better chance of having one become a popular festival film then 1- 30 minute short. Plus It will likely not be the first one you do because it will probably stink. I feel too many directors think there first film will be fantastic and then when it flops become discouraged, have dept if they tried to make it to long and quit and go do some other career. Think about it what in your life were you really good at the first time you tried? Good most often means practice.

You have the exact right idea in many ways though. Buy the cheapest decent camera you can get your hands on (hv20) pimp it out with a 35mm stills adapter. From there I recomend you make a couple 5-6 minute shorts (99.9% chance these will be bad and that is fine) then make a couple more shorts (if you have some talent what you have learned from previous shorts will probably make these 2 okay) then you make some more shorts (these will probably be good and with any luck one will become a festival hit).

Like I mentioned you have completely the right idea with your budget plan of staying cheap with the camera. By a long way the people I see making the biggest mistake here are the ones with little to no experience and money stretching themselves to buy a complicated, fairly expensive red one camera that they do not have the money to outfit properly or the experience to use. They are clearly setting themselves up for failure and I would believe that a newer director/Dp would make better images with the simpier camera set up you mention then a person that does not know what they are doing with a red. In fact a red used wrong will look far crappier then a hv20.

One more thing if you feel you have to go long stick with the half hour tv model and cut one version at 21.5 minutes for TV and make a 2nd cut at 20 minutes for festivals.

best of luck

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Good advice I think for sure. My friend Bryan said once that everyone has a certain amount of crap in them to make before they can make something good, i.e. your first shorts are going to be bad, but that's ok, because you learn from them and then hopefully can make something good. I think my first two shorts (well, first since quite a few shorts back in the day that sucked) turned out pretty well overall, I mean they are not what I would call like "good" work in a sense, when I see them now I just think of what I'd want to change, but they were good efforts. I think a few more shorts will be better but still not very good. I think maybe the tenth short from now will be really good, haha.

[David Mullen ASC]

The reason why the film academies and archives, whatnot, consider 40 minutes to be a feature is due to the Silent Era, which started to make movies at this length (a "four reeler").

Most distributors require that a movie be at least 80 minutes long before they consider it a feature. So I'd talk to some potential distributors for your project to see what they expect. Perhaps for a straight-to-DVD project of this nature, it doesn't matter, or maybe it can be paired with something else to add to the length of the DVD. There are plenty of hour-long documentaries on DVD, for example.

But typically, you should be considering something over 80 minutes (for a feature) or under 20 minutes (if you want to make a short for film festivals). Unless, as I said, this is for an hour-slot on TV.

[P Andersson]

http://www.theheavenmovie.com/audio/Bobby_Poem02.mp3

congratulations on this guys voice, it sounds amazing for your project

[Jason Francois]

Also I feel the biggest mistake people make is feeling they have to make something long. Long with no money and a new director quite often = boring. A person that does Six, 5minute shorts will have a much better chance of having one become a popular festival film then 1- 30 minute short. Plus It will likely not be the first one you do because it will probably stink. I feel too many directors think there first film will be fantastic and then when it flops become discouraged, have dept if they tried to make it to long and quit and go do some other career. Think about it what in your life were you really good at the first time you tried? Good most often means practice.


words from Heaven. I wish somebody would have talked me out of doing a feature straight out of film school..actually a couple tried and I told my self it was their own squashed dreams, bitterness, etc.

Like Finner said, I thought it would be fantastic .....and it was flawed and boring and took me about 7 years to recover from. For those 7 years I wasn't even able to muster the energy or resources to practice with short projects.

I'm a fairly intelligent and mature person, but I still fell into this ego trap. A lesson learned the very hard way.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Good advice. Maybe we can all learn from your mistake insanity so that we don't have to experience that pain and anguish ;) hehe.

I want to direct a feature but I know I'm not ready for that, I think a year and a half from now I will be. If not I will wait another year, etc.

[pat@hpnc.com]

Wow thanks very much for all the good advice.

Also I should have given more information about the running time. The 40 minute number was not exact but about as I am still in planning stage. But why I mentioned it is it fit in with where the video is going. Being honest it will probobly be shown at 3ABN its a Seventh Day Adventist Channel that I have contacts with that is always hurting for new content. Or Hope TV another Adventist Channel. Neither have a normal format with true commercials. So I will be tayloring it their needs. It will also go to DVD probobly thru Amazing Facts (www.amazingfacts.org . Also becouse its the best fit and I have contacts their. They have a wide distrabution network using the Adventist Book Centers. I believe their last DVD has already sold over 1 million copies in this system.

Also thanks for the honest and true feedback about peoples first work. And I agree. I also tend to be very harsh judging my own work. Its the only way to get better. So it might end up being a short. But my basic thought is I know I can make look good as I have been an artist/illustrator my entire life. So I have a good understanding of lighting, color, composition etc. And becouse of other short experments I have done I am sure I can get music and narration the target audiance will really enjoy. But as far as pacing etc it could be a complete disaster:)

Also I really am going to think hard and long about the length before really starting production. I would rather it be an amazing short than a terrible long boring project.

And as for film festivals being honest it will not do well becouse of the content and the way its presented. Unless they are chrisitan festivals. So really they are secoundary considerations.

Any way thanks again for all the great advice and if any one has any more I would love to hear it.

Oh and thanks agwah I really liked his voice also. I listened to hundreds and hundreds of people for the narration befor picking Barry.

[Keith Alan Morris]

Wow thanks very much for all the good advice.

Also I should have given more information about the running time. The 40 minute number was not exact but about as I am still in planning stage. But why I mentioned it is it fit in with where the video is going. Being honest it will probobly be shown at 3ABN its a Seventh Day Adventist Channel that I have contacts with that is always hurting for new content. Or Hope TV another Adventist Channel. Neither have a normal format with true commercials. So I will be tayloring it their needs. It will also go to DVD probobly thru Amazing Facts (www.amazingfacts.org . Also becouse its the best fit and I have contacts their. They have a wide distrabution network using the Adventist Book Centers. I believe their last DVD has already sold over 1 million copies in this system.

Also thanks for the honest and true feedback about peoples first work. And I agree. I also tend to be very harsh judging my own work. Its the only way to get better. So it might end up being a short. But my basic thought is I know I can make look good as I have been an artist/illustrator my entire life. So I have a good understanding of lighting, color, composition etc. And becouse of other short experments I have done I am sure I can get music and narration the target audiance will really enjoy. But as far as pacing etc it could be a complete disaster:)

Also I really am going to think hard and long about the length before really starting production. I would rather it be an amazing short than a terrible long boring project.

And as for film festivals being honest it will not do well becouse of the content and the way its presented. Unless they are chrisitan festivals. So really they are secoundary considerations.

Any way thanks again for all the great advice and if any one has any more I would love to hear it.

Oh and thanks agwah I really liked his voice also. I listened to hundreds and hundreds of people for the narration befor picking Barry.

Don't count out the studios. I just met with a bunch in LA and they said everyone went down to Bentonville to talk to WalMart in Dec. They said WalMart owns 35-45 percent of the DVD market and all the studios want to get their products in their stores, so they went down to Bentonville to suckle from the mother hen.

They said the first question WalMart asked everybody was, "What Christian movies do you have?" They said they all went, "Doh!" and now they've all been scrambling to get more Christian content for the past 6 months. Even the Weinsteins. These studios said they've had people in pitching projects that have no business doing it, who have no experience and made themselves look ridiculous--just because there's not enough Christian filmmakers in the biz. And the studios want some of that Passion money.

This market thats not being reached enough is called the "Late Adopters." People in the midwest etc, mostly relatively conservative, who dont mind violence but dont want sex in their movies. They want names though--they're highly attracted to star power, its almost a must with them--if you're playing it safe.

The second question WalMart asked the studios: Now what Hispanic content do you have?

[PaulClements]

http://www.theheavenmovie.com/audio/Bobby_Poem02.mp3

congratulations on this guys voice, it sounds amazing for your project

I thought it was Michael Gambon (Dumbledor (sp) in the last couple of Harry Potters). He does have a good voice actually and well suited to the material as you point out agwah.

[pat@hpnc.com]

km9000 thanks for the heads up on the new scramble for Christian content. I will have to do more research into it. But it is good news.

Paul thanks for the possitive feedback on the narrator. Choosing one was tough and you dont always know if most people will like them as much as you do.

[Finner]

Hi Pat

I assume Pat is your name. If you are interested in seeing the best religous based production on the market right now take a look at NOOMA at www.nooma.com. They put together these 12minute videos that are inspiring and incredibly done. The main presenter they use is named Rob Bell and is the best speaker I have ever heard. I have been told each 10-14 minute piece has a $150,000 budget and is shot on film. You can see they use steady cams, cranes, dollys, swing and tilt lenses and other high end equipment. check it out, the first time I saw one I was blown away. i think they have done 15 or so different ones.

If you go to www.nooma.com and look on the bottom bar that shows the different productions they have done click on "01 rain" and then in the play box click on rain film (not clip) it will let you watch that whole production the rest of the productions only show short clips. This was the first one done and the production value in the other ones is a little higher but rain is still really good.

The below link should quickly get you directly to the movie.

http://www.nooma.com/Shopping/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=270&Mode=WMV&PMID=122

[Chris Forbes]

http://www.nooma.com/Shopping/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=270&Mode=WMV&PMID=122

Thank you.

[Robert Sanders]

Don't count out the studios. I just met with a bunch in LA and they said everyone went down to Bentonville to talk to WalMart in Dec. They said WalMart owns 35-45 percent of the DVD market and all the studios want to get their products in their stores, so they went down to Bentonville to suckle from the mother hen.

They said the first question WalMart asked everybody was, "What Christian movies do you have?" They said they all went, "Doh!" and now they've all been scrambling to get more Christian content for the past 6 months. Even the Weinsteins. These studios said they've had people in pitching projects that have no business doing it, who have no experience and made themselves look ridiculous--just because there's not enough Christian filmmakers in the biz. And the studios want some of that Passion money.

This market thats not being reached enough is called the "Late Adopters." People in the midwest etc, mostly relatively conservative, who dont mind violence but dont want sex in their movies. They want names though--they're highly attracted to star power, its almost a must with them--if you're playing it safe.

The second question WalMart asked the studios: Now what Hispanic content do you have?

Yup. I've heard similar stories. I also heard that at last years Berlin film festival the buyers were surprised there were very little creature features for sale.

While America wants religious and ethnic content, Europe wants pure entertainment with lots of violence and tasteful sex.

[pat@hpnc.com]

Hi Finner yes its Patrick my fathers name is Pat so I just tend to go by Patrick so things dont get any more confusing.

I looked at the Nooma.com site and they are well done. Thanks for sharing it with me:) Have to get time to watch all of them.

[pat@hpnc.com]

Good to know Robert. The main thing I am interested in is religious and documentary work.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

While America wants religious and ethnic content, Europe wants pure entertainment with lots of violence and tasteful sex.

Hmm, I should be making films for the European audience then! lol, there's no hope in America for me ;)

[Erik Widding]

Oh and here is a round about way of controlling appature http://redrockmicro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3137 And I am pretty sure someone else reverse engineered the way the Canon camera controls the lense and created a small control box.

A few of our customers are already using our existing EF controller on the M2. For example:
http://www.redrockmicro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24814&sid=d7958346968ce06014cff75be24bd234


You're probably refering to the ef232 from Birger (www.birger.com) who are re-engineering the device as a Canon mount for the RedOne. It can be currently bought for $980. I've just emailed Brian Valente from RedRock about the possibility of using the ef323 with their M2 adapter and if it cannot be used whether they would consider looking into adapting it.

For the time being we are using our industrial product on a mechanical adapter to go on the M2. When the RED version of the mount is available, we will offer a different mechanical adapter (for about $80) to attach it to the M2. Until we come out with our hand controller, a PDA or other device with an RS232 port can be used to control the iris. And, if you don't like cables, a BlueTooth to rs232 module can be used.


All in all the HV20, M2 adapter, Birger mount will set you back $2457. Not bad considering the results you ought to be able to get from that. It actually makes a great budget setup for RedOne owners who need a spare and are using Canon EOS lenses on the upcoming mount.

It seems to me am HV20 and an Redrock M2 (or any other 35mm adapter)would be a great way to do some preproduction work for specific projects, as well as to log some hours honing the craft before renting or buying a RED for that big shoot...

I'll do you one better... If any RedRock customers want to use our existing product with th the M2 in the interim, we will offer full trade in value against a RED mount, which will be usable on both the RED and the M2. We have been meaning to talk to Brevis/Cinevate and the other adapter people to make sure we can hit anything people might want to use. If anybody works for a "cinema lens adapter" company (i.e. brevis/cinevate) and wants to have support for our product on his, send me an email... and drawings...

Stay tuned... As I stated in a previous post, we will be announcing our RED/cinema specific product line on 2 July on reduser.

[PaulClements]

I'll do you one better... If any RedRock customers want to use our existing product with th the M2 in the interim, we will offer full trade in value against a RED mount, which will be usable on both the RED and the M2. We have been meaning to talk to Brevis/Cinevate and the other adapter people to make sure we can hit anything people might want to use. If anybody works for a "cinema lens adapter" company (i.e. brevis/cinevate) and wants to have support for our product on his, send me an email... and drawings...

That's amazingly generous of you Eric. If I was currently using Canon EOS I'd certainly take you up on that.

One question, do you know whether the Red Mount will be shipping with the first orders? Obviously if I or anyone was to buy a number of eos lenses to use now, it'd be good to know we could use them on the mount when our Red ships instead of having a bunch of lenses we can only use on M2 adapters until the mount is ready.

Cheers

Paul

[Erik Widding]

One question, do you know whether the Red Mount will be shipping with the first orders?

Yes. More details on Monday.

[number6]

Like I mentioned you have completely the right idea with your budget plan of staying cheap with the camera. By a long way the people I see making the biggest mistake here are the ones with little to no experience and money stretching themselves to buy a complicated, fairly expensive red one camera that they do not have the money to outfit properly or the experience to use. They are clearly setting themselves up for failure and I would believe that a newer director/Dp would make better images with the simpier camera set up you mention then a person that does not know what they are doing with a red. In fact a red used wrong will look far crappier then a hv20.



REMIND you of anyone? Heh, Heh....

Patrick, if you are this easily talked out of doing your project then you should maybe fold your tent and just foget aboud id! Don't be doin' the "turn the other cheeky" thing. Get some cohones and get out there and MAKE YOUR MOVIE YOUR WAY! If it fails, then you will have learned more about movie-making than Finner will ever impart. And if you get up off your ass and try again, then you will have learned more about yourself than you ever could by being eternally successful.

I'm sure your a nice guy, but you said you were a countryman of mine, that is, a Texan American! For crying out loud man, go eat a plate of calf-fries and MAKE A MOVIE!

P.S. i'm not suggesting anything illegal here, but maybe if in your church you are the one in charge of the collection plate, when in the annex, throw all the money up in the air while saying "Lord, keep what you want and send the rest doun to me to put toward a RED." The checks will probably float doun slowly, so you can assume all the cash is yours and the rest is the Lord's. RED takes cash.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

LOL, that's what I'd do.

[pat@hpnc.com]

Thanks birgerEngineer for the extra info and I am sure the offer of full trade value will be appreciated by everyone.


Patrick, if you are this easily talked out of doing your project then you should maybe fold your tent and just foget aboud id! Don't be doin' the "turn the other cheeky" thing. Get some cohones and get out there and MAKE YOUR MOVIE YOUR WAY! If it fails, then you will have learned more about movie-making than Finner will ever impart. And if you get up off your ass and try again, then you will have learned more about yourself than you ever could by being eternally successful. Hmm odd I have not been talked out of anything. Really the only thing that could look like it would be the length but that was flexible BEFORE I posted as its about what works best with the material.


I'm sure your a nice guy, but you said you were a countryman of mine, that is, a Texan American! For crying out loud man, go eat a plate of calf-fries and MAKE A MOVIE! I really have no idea where you are getting this view I am not making a movie? Matter of fact I have been spending all my extra money and time working on preproduction to do it right so its not trash when it gets done. I really dont mind the SHUT UP AND DO IT attitude its just I think you misunderstood my will to make this and what I have been doing up to now. :mellow: As a matter of fact thats the basic thing I say to a lot of my friends. Stop wishing you could do this or that get off your *&^ and go do it.


P.S. i'm not suggesting anything illegal here, but maybe if in your church you are the one in charge of the collection plate, when in the annex, throw all the money up in the air while saying "Lord, keep what you want and send the rest doun to me to put toward a RED." The checks will probably float doun slowly, so you can assume all the cash is yours and the rest is the Lord's. RED takes cash.Truth is I have real faith and know if I REALLY need a Red at this point it would happen. Normaly there is a difference between what we think we need and what we really need.

[Finner]

Very wise words Patrick.



Get some cohones and get out there and MAKE YOUR MOVIE YOUR WAY! If it fails, then you will have learned more about movie-making than Finner will ever impart. And if you get up off your ass and try again, then you will have learned more about yourself than you ever could by being eternally successful.

Patrick will more then likely be around to make a liftime of films rather then betting the farm on red23 and losing everything. Did you not read insanityfw post? I have seen people over the years do what you suggest and not one of them found any success or is even still in the film industry. Filmaking is like any other bussiness you have to learn to crawl before you can run. You don't see any indy car racers that did not begin in lower classes and smaller cars. I have seen your "work" #6 and it is painfully clear that you are not anywhere near ready to shoot anything watchable with a RED or shoot a full feature film for that matter. Anyone who thinks I am being unreasonable and way to harsh please feel free to correct me all I ask is that you first watch #6's work at www.mallowmedia.com and then post your thoughts. Honestly I may come accross as a little mean #6 but I am just trying to help you succeed by suggesting you taking things a few steps at a time.




"Lord, keep what you want and send the rest doun to me to put toward a RED." The checks will probably float doun slowly, so you can assume all the cash is yours and the rest is the Lord's. RED takes cash.

Also please for the love of God try and learn that down is spelled "down" and not "doun". I do not feel that I am a good speller by any means but this is a word we all learned to spell in grade 1.

[number6]

Very wise words Patrick.




Patrick will more then likely be around to make a liftime of films rather then betting the farm on red23 and losing everything. Did you not read insanityfw post? I have seen people over the years do what you suggest and not one of them found any success or is even still in the film industry. Filmaking is like any other bussiness you have to learn to crawl before you can run. You don't see any indy car racers that did not begin in lower classes and smaller cars. I have seen your "work" #6 and it is painfully clear that you are not anywhere near ready to shoot anything watchable with a RED or shoot a full feature film for that matter. Anyone who thinks I am being unreasonable and way to harsh please feel free to correct me all I ask is that you first watch #6's work at www.mallowmedia.com and then post your thoughts. Honestly I may come accross as a little mean #6 but I am just trying to help you succeed by suggesting you taking things a few steps at a time.

Thanks for the plug to (one of my) website(s)... that is actually not my work. More like my play.

That aside, and while this is a rehash of an earlier discussion, I still think we have a fundamental disagreement of the future. You still see the centralized model where one takes baby steps by going through the apprenticeship process over a period of time. I'm not sure you see the Red as anything more than a hammer. I see it as both a hammer and chisel where one with a little know-how can carve out a story in a way that is acceptable to the majority of today's viewers of content.

In short, I see the RED as a Multi-tool that will allow me to substitute machinery (a second Red) in place of expensive professionals (perhaps like yourself) so that I can record a scene in RAW data, and then dress the little nude film up in whatever clothing suits it best. If I may play a psychiatrist on the internet (I'm not a real life psychiatrist) I wonder if you maybe aren't so concerned by my approach because it may render you.... redundant (sorry, but it's probably best if you confront it now)



Also please for the love of God try and learn that down is spelled "down" and not "doun". I do not feel that I am a good speller by any means but this is a word we all learned to spell in grade 1.

O.K., I can't argue with you on this one. It's just that I had down syndrome as a kid, and it really makes me feel inferior when I think of it. So, by writing the word as 'doun', I do not relapse. Please, if you are not a sadistic, unfeeling, (redundant) person, please, please.... start spelling it doun.

[number6]

Hmm odd I have not been talked out of anything. Really the only thing that could look like it would be the length but that was flexible BEFORE I posted as its about what works best with the material.

I really have no idea where you are getting this view I am not making a movie? Matter of fact I have been spending all my extra money and time working on preproduction to do it right so its not trash when it gets done. I really dont mind the SHUT UP AND DO IT attitude its just I think you misunderstood my will to make this and what I have been doing up to now. :mellow: As a matter of fact thats the basic thing I say to a lot of my friends. Stop wishing you could do this or that get off your *&^ and go do it.

Truth is I have real faith and know if I REALLY need a Red at this point it would happen. Normaly there is a difference between what we think we need and what we really need.

Needs a little more edge, but still, a nice retort.

[Finner]

It's just that I had down syndrome as a kid,

It all makes a lot more sense with that tid-bit of information.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

HAHA, I'm getting a kick out of you guys.

1) Whatever I want is always what I need, I make no distinction between wants and needs. I buy on the first impulse of wanting something. That's how I learned to evaluate the world as a philosophy major. Haha, just kidding, of course. ;) There are so many unnecessary wants in this world... I'm as guilty as anyone.

2) As much as I love the RED, and I really do love the RED (I mean, as much as someone can without having actually used it, you know), I still don't see it as more than just a really awesome tool. Don't get me wrong, it will enable me to do a lot of things I otherwise could not, but without the strong background of how to make a good product, I mean the real hard work of having a good story, a good idea, etc., I really don't see how the RED is very useful. If I filmed a great story on MiniDV I think people could overlook the lack of quality, if they were watching good actors, good dialogue, and good production values. I really don't think anyone can overlook an awful story no matter whether it's shot in 4K or 35mm or whatever else.

The only additional thing that the RED does for me that it might not do for many other people here is it gives me a viable backup option in case my path in the music video field doesn't prove very lucrative. I at least will know that with the equipment I have I can make a living, and more than that I can get on sets I might otherwise not have been able to be on, meet people in the process, learn by watching and doing, etc. It's definitely a tool that has more than just one use (filming). For me, it's one that puts a lot more power in my hands. Of course, that being said, it must be wielded correctly, like anything, and my big goal is to make sure I am a competent storyteller with the visual medium before I try to make any really serious work that I'd be plowing my own money into. Which leads to...

3) We all have dreams of making feature films, but if you make one and spend a lot of money on it, it turns out poorly, you can't sell it or make any cash on it, this is a very discouraging experience that may force you out of the industry entirely. It takes a lot of persistence to make another one. I know for me, I wrote a very good first book, I finished it when I was in high school, it was so good in fact that I signed with New York's top literary agent Richard Curtis (who reps. Leonard Maltin, for instance, among more than 100 other noted authors; he reports $8 million a year in author earnings). He loved my book, so did a few other agents who actually became interested in me after I had signed with Richard, wondering why he signed this young man with no book publishing experience (I was not only Richard's youngest signing, but he only signs 2-3 authors per year). Well, long story short, despite the merits of this book, it was rejected by about seven major publishers, and those are the publishers with which Richard deals, so eventually the book fell back to me, the agency contract having ended, and of course my spirits were pretty crushed over the whole thing. Every book you read tells you that finding an agent is actually harder than finding a publisher, and I thought once I signed with the best, I'd be looking at a nice advance, instant stardom, etc., all of these dreams an 18-year-old has that aren't quite founded in reality. ;)

But, eventually, I published that book, years later, and it went on to moderate success for a small title, less sales than I would have liked, but consistently very good to great reviews. I finally am publishing my second book six years later. I started it a year ago. So the point I am trying to get at -- it took me five years to try again, after that first book. Now, I'm pinning my hopes on this new book, with much more realistic expectations, and I realize that for me it is more the joy of having a great finished product than the idea of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. But the point is, even when you do really good work, especially in film, it's still a TOUGH industry to get distribution or make your money back (writing a book, you don't have much overhead; making a film, you do), so if you aren't ready to do professional work proceed slowly. I think that's all Finner is really saying, although you two have been back and forth, at heart I don't think he's giving you bad advice or trying to discourage you.

[pat@hpnc.com]

Interesting replies and by the way I am dyslexic so I personaly think perfect spelling is overrated haha.

By the way one reason I am taking my step by step aproach is becouse I have learned painting, drawing, still photography etc. And making movies just like them will have a learning curve. Any one who thinks it does not is insane. Really the best you can hope for is your early works to look like they were made by a very talented amature becouse thats what you are.

[David Mullen ASC]

Not to get dragged into this, but to be clear, I only questioned the proposed 40 minute length -- the archives and film academies only consider 40 minutes to be a feature because of the Silent Era features of that length. Most distributors consider something twice that length to be a feature, so just check with the most likely distributors of what you will be making as to their requirements. If this is for broadcast on a Christian TV network, they may prefer something that fits into a hour time slot, so you may be right to aim for 40 minutes. I'd look for something similar, of a similar length, as an example.

As others have pointed out, there's a market for Christian-themed product, so best of luck in that area.

[Joel Kaye]

But as far as pacing etc it could be a complete disaster

In the end, the story and the emotions are going to matter a lot more than a cool look. (a cool look is nice though).

My vote would be to write a 5 minute short and complete that first. Do a one or two day shoot and then go all the way through post with it to make sure you've got EVERYTHING figured out. It can even be one scene out of the 40 minute movie.

The point is, if you can't make a high quality entertaining 5 minutes don't waste your time trying to make 40. You're not there yet.

And 40 is a really weird length -- unless you're making it to be shown in a predetermined place and you don't care if anyone else sees it beyond that. I'm a convert to 3-5 minutes. iPhone, YouTube and festival ready. Or do a series of 8 5 minute shows - like a TV series and see if you can get a following.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Yeah I've noticed that it's even tough doing a 12-minute short for online distribution, it's just too long, 3-5 minutes is good if there's any way you can tell a story in that little time. It forces you to be creative.

[pat@hpnc.com]

Thanks David appreciate the clarification and the well thought out advice.

joelnet thanks for the suggestions on possibly doing a complete scene out of the movie. Probobly would be a good test of the concept.

[pat@hpnc.com]

Interesting point JonathanLB but thinking about it I wounder if it has more to do with quality. I have watch hour length British Comedies on youtube all the time. And full length movies on Stage6. But most of the stuff made for the web really just does not have the story and quality to hold some one very long. Atleast thats what I find. I see watch a lot of shorts online and most have secound rate story, writing and production values.

By the way take a look at Four Eyed Monsters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8rRFFi_stY Its 71 minutes and decent quality and doing well on youtube. They have a sponsor spout.com and since they have added it to youtube on june 8 they have made about $31,000. There is a running total next to their video on spout.com. They also have 635,511 views, 4627 ratings (4/5), 2955 comments, and its been Favorited 4235 times. Any way a really interesting idea and it confirms to me its more about quality than length.

Oh and here is a wired article on it also http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/news/2007/06/youtubefest

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Eh, sometimes, but I'm convinced most people on those sites don't want quality at all. My first short had a nice, dramatic story, it was well told visually, coherent, etc., but got a very mediocre rating (on MetaCafe) then I click over to some fart jokes or 30 second long things with hot chicks and they get 4 out of 5 ratings. I mean, ok, whatever! People rate high what they enjoy, and most people don't really enjoy much on those sites besides humor. I'm the same way, though, I frankly don't go to YouTube or other video sites to see serious films, I go to see stupid comedy shorts.

Instead of getting angry about people being too crass on YouTube and other sites, I'm more interested in playing to their demographic. I'd rather just make short 1-5 minute things with hot chicks and comedy and get the viewings and ratings, because that's taking advantage of your audience. No use making things they won't watch.

[pat@hpnc.com]

Look at the dographics "Men are 20 percent more likely to visit YouTube than women...
Visitors between 12-17 years old index the highest among the various
age groups... They are nearly 1.5 times more likely than the average
Web user to go to YouTube.". Having teenage boys as the main audiance is part of what you are seeing. You also have a large demographic of people at work watching something quick and funny. But I think the Four Eyed Monsters link I posted shows something long and dramatic can do well. Also possibly it really is just very mediocre?

[pat@hpnc.com]

By the way I have been doing a little research on 35MM adapters and I think I am just going to make my own using this tutorial. http://www.dj-hosi.de/bilder/bilder/diy_35dof_video.mov . I have a hard time paying more for the adapter than I will for the camera. And I can build this one for about $150 probobly

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

LOL, no it's better than almost anything else on YouTube, but it isn't funny at all. I mean it's a story about a guy trying to come to terms with losing his girlfriend, so it's really not a story most guys are going to be like, "Oh yeah, great story, I'll send this to all of my friends!" I wouldn't rate the video as anything great, of course, but it deserves better than a 2.2-something-whatever out of 5. It's definitely a 3 to a 3.5 quality work. But the ratings mean nothing. I would be more concerned if I made something for that demographic and THEN got a 2.2 or something, that's bad.

I guarantee I could get nothing but 4s and higher if I was just casting hot girls (easy to do, man oh man, lots of them around) and then throwing them into comedy bits or something. It's not hard to figure out what gets a good rating. It usually has nothing to do with video quality, sound quality, story, etc. It's all about whether it entertains the audience. Drama isn't entertaining to this demographic, at least not on YouTube, they might like drama but they might just not want to see it when they're browsing sites like that.

[pat@hpnc.com]

OK so the question is why is did Four Eyed Monster getting such good ratings and comments? It does not fit what you describe. Any thoughts?

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

*shrug* I'm sure there are some exceptions. But if the right audience is finding it, that would explain it pretty well. When you put something up randomly and only have a few hundred people see it, you're going to get a random demographic from that group, not the focused demographic you need.

[pat@hpnc.com]

That probobly explains it. From my experence on youtube you need to still promote the video. For example on forums for indie film makers etc. This will help get high ratings and views to start with so other people see it. You an also make your video a response to one that has the demographic you want that is getting lots of hits already. As an experment I did that with a little short I made as a test with a real budget of $0:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXQFqlVMrrc It did ok just posting on Christian forums to get feedback. But after I made it a response to the other video the number of views a day it gets has shotup. So at the moment its getting about 1000 views every 8 days or so.

Another thing I am going to do as soon as I get my camera is start a production log and post those videos and sample shots on lots of video sharing sites and indie film sites. Start building interest and getting feedback early on in the process.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Classic example of a well seen YouTube video, HOT chicks, hehe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keKWacq2dso&feature=dir

[Adrian Correia]

I actually thought that the technical low number for a feature is either 55 or 56 minutes.

[pat@hpnc.com]

Depends on the orginization.

[David Mullen ASC]

What matters more is what your potential buyer wants than what a film archive or cataloger considers a feature. I've seen many deliverables requirement letters to producers from distributors buying the movie, and often the letter says that the movie cannot run shorter than 80 minutes. But that time figure tends to be particular to a distribution company and what market they are aiming for.

[Clint Johnson]

OK so the question is why is did Four Eyed Monster getting such good ratings and comments? It does not fit what you describe. Any thoughts?

Seeing as how YouTube only counts how many times someone started watching the video, my guess is that only one in a thousand who started watching actually finished it and most of the ones that dropped out after a few minutes didn't bother rating it except for the few that really dislike it. If you invest over an hour in a show then- one, you probably liked it and -two, you are more likely to take the time to rate it and leave comments.

[number6]

What matters more is what your potential buyer wants than what a film archive or cataloger considers a feature. I've seen many deliverables requirement letters to producers from distributors buying the movie, and often the letter says that the movie cannot run shorter than 80 minutes. But that time figure tends to be particular to a distribution company and what market they are aiming for.

David, perhaps you can shed some light on something. I assume that most big-budget movies are made with distribution decided beforehand. But if an Independent movie maker does a film, should it be done with the idea of finding a way to shorten or lengthen the film and not disrupt the flow of the story? I am also assuming there is seldom a deal between a distributor and the maker of a low budget movie done beforehand,

[Bruce Allen]

David, perhaps you can shed some light on something. I assume that most big-budget movies are made with distribution decided beforehand. But if an Independent movie maker does a film, should it be done with the idea of finding a way to shorten or lengthen the film and not disrupt the flow of the story? I am also assuming there is seldom a deal between a distributor and the maker of a low budget movie done beforehand,

The aim is to write your script so it is the right length for your target market, not make the film so that you can shorten or lengthen it to match a distributor's whims. With a tight script, every scene drives the story forward. So, you can't take a single scene out easily because then the story will be missing something without it. That's a good thing.

Scenes that aren't essential to the story always feel boring. It's not like a modular thing that you can add pieces to in case the distributor wants more. The best way to tell if a scene should be in a movie or not is to take it out and see your movie gets worse. If it doesn't, you made the right move in taking the scene out.

Of course, that is only the ideal and in reality a lot gets chopped and changed. And that's sometimes a good thing!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Joel Kaye]

Four Eyed Monsters

The Daily Reel: Tell me a little about the genesis of the film FEM (and your marketing of it) over the past four years. What is unique about the different ways you've released the film?

Arin Crumley: Susan and I met on the Internet towards the end of 2002. We started making the movie about how our relationship began at the end of 2003; submitted to festivals at the end of 2004; showed a rough cut of the film at festivals through out 2005; started posting monthly video podcast installments about the story behind creating the film in the end of 2005 and through out 2006; and then in the end of 2006 and 2007 we posted video blogs about self-distributing our film.

THOSE GUYS MARKETED THEIR BUTTS OFF FOR YEARS. Finally they got a deal with youtube to feature their movie (which runs 80+ minutes).

Look, I can find you 52 people that become millionaires this year -- by playing the lottery. That doesn't mean playing the lottery is a viable movie funding gameplan. You shouldn't base anything on the ONE example you can find. Actually, what you can take from FEM is that marketing is, was and will be king. Word of mouth marketing is the Nirvana everyone hopes for.

OTOH - there is PLENTY of content is good and under 5 minutes and get a zillion views - and generating money. Short AND GOOD have value these days and going forward. Long and Good have value. Medium length and good just doesn't have many examples supporting it.

[Joel Kaye]

The aim is to write your script so it is the right length for your target market, not make the film so that you can shorten or lengthen it to match a distributor's whims.

Tell that to a TV writer. An hour show has 4 acts and have to nail EACH commercial break to the second with a cliffhanger. The best writers in the world seem to be writing the top TV shows. Think about how Sopranos and ROME etc. hit it to the minute. TV commercial writers seem to nail their constraints too.

I think if you're a good writer you can hit a time pretty closely.

I think when Internet distribution is more fully fleshed out and lots of people are really selling downloads then perhaps typical time formats could get broken. But right now you're shutting yourself off from many income opportunities by doing that.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

I'm amazed at how successful television shows are at nailing those time constraints, I mean for me personally I would not want to do that. I'm not saying that one day given the opportunity to write and direct for TV wouldn't be a total blast, but man, it'd be really tough, and it's not something I'd consider ideal. I think it's a pretty tongue-in-cheek argument to suggest that you're cutting to make the story "flow better," when really you're just cutting for commercials and everyone knows it. The story is only important insofar as it allows more commercials to be played in the future. It bothers me, but that's how they make money. I guess the way I'd want to do it is to make something that was close enough, then it could be trimmed slightly for TV, with the deal being in my contract that when those episodes hit DVD everything is put back to the director's cut.

If I couldn't have that much power over the content, which really isn't asking much, considering that most people would rather have more content on the DVDs than less (gives the studio a nice marketing device: "See the episodes in their full length, more than 1 hour of added footage for the season!"), then I wouldn't be interested anyway.

What they do is amazing, though, how close they time it. Very impressive.

[David Mullen ASC]

But if an Independent movie maker does a film, should it be done with the idea of finding a way to shorten or lengthen the film and not disrupt the flow of the story? I am also assuming there is seldom a deal between a distributor and the maker of a low budget movie done beforehand,

An indie filmmaker makes the best film he can and shows it to a potential distributor. Now sometimes there are discussions about changes before or after a deal is made, not always good ones. Depends on the distributor.

But you can't really make an open-ended film -- you just make the best film you can. Just try and make it a length that is commonly used in the market you are aiming for. Yes, sometimes it runs long and the distributor wants it shorter. Even more rare is when it runs short and the distributor wants to lengthen it. That may be as simple as adding a scene back in that you cut out, or adding more scenic shots, or going out and shooting a new scene to put in.

I photographed this indie film called "The Quiet" which went through many months of editing to solve certain problems, and a version showed at the Toronto Film Festival and was bought by Sony / Screen Gems. They asked for fairly serious recuts before it was released, and the released version is quite different than the Toronto Film Festival version. But this is not very common -- usually a distributor is happy with the movie (that's why they want to buy it) and they don't want to spend money on more post work, reshoots, etc. if they don't have to. So changes tend to be minor ones, if any. You have a choice not to sell the movie to anyone who wants to make changes to it.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Thank you David for the great insight, as always of course. It's interesting to hear about a scenario like that.

My personal interest as a hopeful writer-director with features is to have the kind of creative control that would allow me to produce work I'm proud of rather than just being paid to make something that could be edited in any given way by the studio that funded it. I'd rather make small projects on my own and sell them as is than huge projects even with huge pay where I have to endure a stressful fight every time with idiotic execs who have no clue what's going on trying to meddle with what I created. This happens constantly on TV and in movies, and it's just something I'd prefer to avoid. If I'm doing work for a client and it's like a music video, heck, they can tell me to do what they want, they're paying me for it and it's not really my passion, it's just their video. But if I write a script and I want to make my movie, it's going to get made my way. Even if that means I have to fund it myself.

[number6]

Thank you David for the great insight, as always of course. It's interesting to hear about a scenario like that.

My personal interest as a hopeful writer-director with features is to have the kind of creative control that would allow me to produce work I'm proud of rather than just being paid to make something that could be edited in any given way by the studio that funded it. I'd rather make small projects on my own and sell them as is than huge projects even with huge pay where I have to endure a stressful fight every time with idiotic execs who have no clue what's going on trying to meddle with what I created. This happens constantly on TV and in movies, and it's just something I'd prefer to avoid. If I'm doing work for a client and it's like a music video, heck, they can tell me to do what they want, they're paying me for it and it's not really my passion, it's just their video. But if I write a script and I want to make my movie, it's going to get made my way. Even if that means I have to fund it myself.

Jonathan, if I understand correctly, you are saying pick your battles. If so, then I certainly agree. Sometimes I think you let your work be redesigned to fit the buyer's needs. When you have a vision, you fight for it, unrelentingly. Which is, I guess, pretty much what David was advocating as well.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Yeah, basically that is what I am saying. I guess from my perspective, this is just how I feel and I understand it may not be true of everyone, but I see the writer, the person who made the story, as being the voice of the project. When someone else directs it, to me, their job is to bring the writer's vision to the screen. Not to screw over the writer and re-imagine everything themselves. So although my style is much more in the auteur theory of directing, i.e. write and direct my own films and have as much creative control and input as possible, I can't honestly say that if one day a studio admired my work and said, "Well, hey, how about directing this franchise film we've got, we'll pay you $10 million to do it," that I would turn that offer down. Because there's just no way. But then I would have a different attitude about it. I would direct it to the best of my ability, working with the screenwriter(s) to make sure their vision gets told. If the studio then stepped in after it was done and made a bunch of edits I thought were lame, I'd give it a half-hearted battle, more like suggestions about why I think it plays better with those scenes untouched or as they were before, but ultimately I wouldn't be too angered by the experience. I would consider it the writer's job to be angry if they didn't like how it turned out. It wasn't my project, really, I was just hired to do a job, and I got paid for that job, so if the studio wants it this way or that way, they paid for it, they are free to do that.

But on my projects where I write and direct them, I would much rather write something I know I can fund myself completely out of pocket where I have ultimate creative control -- even if that's a documentary or something -- than to write and direct something that eventually turns to crap because someone else funding it decided they didn't like the way I made my own story, which to me is nonsense. It's my story, there's only one right way to tell my story and that's however I decide. Otherwise it wouldn't be mine. That's how I feel, anyway, I'm very adamant about that. I'm the same with book writing. I'd rather publish the book myself and have ultimate control than to publish with a major publisher that says I have to do what they tell me to do. I am the artist, I expect nearly 100% creative control over my work. Otherwise I don't want my name attached to it. Now like I said if someone else wrote it, I don't consider it my work, then I consider it a job and it's never going to be my vision really, it's just going to be the best I could do with that material and it's a much more collaborative process where the writer, director, and studio all have a certain degree of input (and the actors, cinematographer, etc., really). Then there's no use really stressing out over it.

That being said, film is a collaborative medium, and when I say creative control I don't mean telling the DP what his job is, telling the actors exactly what to say, etc. In fact I'm far from that. Their vision of what I may want may be much more distinct than mine. I'm not an expert DP, I'm not an actor, so I find that actors' instincts are often superior to what I had written, and I prefer to let actors go with the flow and become the character, even if that means totally changing what I had written. The DP, same thing, I will give him an idea what I'm looking for, the mood I want, the feeling of the scene, etc. But what he does with that information is his creative control, and since he's presumably far better at it than I am, my film benefits from his expertise and letting him be in control of that aspect. Same with production design.

When I say creative control all I mean is the ability to say, "Well, no I don't really like that, could you stick with what we have in the script because I think in this particular instance it works the best for the character," or "That lighting is good, but what about...?" That's totally different than having a studio say, "Well we find that 87% of males prefer that a horror movie has a naked woman who runs for at least 50 feet before being slashed to pieces by the killer, so we're going to need to do reshoots to add that scene." Umm, no, I'm the film expert, you are the money expert, let me do my job so you can do your job. That part is unacceptable to me and not something I want to tolerate, even if it means toiling in relative obscurity on personal projects that have small devoted fan bases rather than making huge budget films and big bucks selling my soul to the corporate machine. ;)

[number6]

The aim is to write your script so it is the right length for your target market, not make the film so that you can shorten or lengthen it to match a distributor's whims. With a tight script, every scene drives the story forward. So, you can't take a single scene out easily because then the story will be missing something without it. That's a good thing.

I suppose the key phrase here is "tight script". My feeling is that any scene is capable of bifurcation. Many times the writer or director cannot see more than one way, so it is assumed that the finished product of a successful movie was the one true way. But in movies, unlike in real life, we can go back and see what would have happened if we had taken the other path. It's like writing... sometimes you don't like what you have written and you go back and change it. Maybe you even change it back. But you walked doun a different path when you rewrote it. To me, movie making is not linear. That is why I do not plan to use a set script. If I'm not restricted by time, money, outside influences, then I can work at making the best movie I can. If I am constrained by said influences, then I'll make the best one I can under those parameters.


Scenes that aren't essential to the story always feel boring. It's not like a modular thing that you can add pieces to in case the distributor wants more. The best way to tell if a scene should be in a movie or not is to take it out and see your movie gets worse. If it doesn't, you made the right move in taking the scene out.

Of course, that is only the ideal and in reality a lot gets chopped and changed. And that's sometimes a good thing!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

I think if you can get enough footage you can change a scene in edit that conveys a completely new meaning. I don't see scenes as modular, but as pieces of action that are pieced together to create a scene. Some probably do treat a script as modular, but I just don't view the process that way, and I think one can shoot in such ways, by thinking ahead, to say something using more or say the same thing using less. But as David said in his post, it's probably best to just put what you think is your best foot, forward. If you got hammer toes, someone will tell you and you can present the other foot.

[P Andersson]

Yeah, basically that is what I am saying. I guess from my perspective, this is just how I feel and I understand it may not be true of everyone, but I see the writer, the person who made the story, as being the voice of the project.

To me it seems a bit like the game "Telephone" where you wisper a sentence in the ear of one person and then it goes round in a circle and when it comes back to the origin it is a completely different sentence.

At each stage of the process the project changes a little, some ideas are very clear to begin, and they may remain true to original form, some change dramatically and become completely different end results.

In both cases where the story remains the same or when it changes, all the people involved are part of the voice of the story, either to have the strength to keep it focused, or to have the creative genius to change and perhaps improve it.

Most of my favorite movies are unique versions that have been "adjusted" from the original written form. And this is even more true when the writer is the director, as they tend to change and alter the material as they are filming. So if you always alter your own material when you are on set, why not alter someone else's.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm not sure that total creative freedom always produces the best movies. Art thrives under restrictions sometimes, even seemingly arbitrary ones (like the Dogma 95 "rules of chastity" or whatever). Even budgetary ones.

Certainly having a solid script that you believe in is a great anchor for making decisions around, directorial, acting-wise, budgetary, etc. Open-ended projects tend to have open-ended budgets, and ultimately, almost no one has endless resources. And working from a good script doesn't mean that you aren't free to deviate from it if something inspired happens at the moment of shooting. Being prepared doesn't make you less creative -- it can make you more creative, because you have a launching-off point for trying things.

Trouble with improvising is that not everyone is a genius at it.

I remember this story about Hitchcock where Truffaut asked him the value of using dreams for story ideas. Hitchcock told this story of a director who had a dream of a brilliant movie so he wrote it down immediately in the middle of the night. When he woke up, all he had written was "Boy meets girl." Which is to say that not all flashes of inspiration are always great or particularly special or original.

[P Andersson]

Hitchcock even played Telephone with himself whispering across 22 years

"The man who knew too much" 1934
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025452/

"The man who knew too much" 1956
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049470/

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

All good points, and I think all valid. Sometimes when a director has too much control, I think he abuses it, or can't handle it. There are directors who absolutely cannot cut their own work down, so the director's cut ends up being ungainly long and you almost end up thinking sadly the studio release was superior.

I'm generally only like that at first. I mainly have my two books to use as reference, but at first I know what kind of research I put into every section so I'm reluctant to cut any of it. Then as the book goes to its 4th, 5th, 6th drafts, and on and on, everything gets cut that doesn't benefit the book because by that point I can't remember and don't care how long I spent finding X or Y piece of information. All I care about by that point is how good the finished product is, even if that means cutting pages I spent many hours writing. Ultimately, who cares how much time I spent on them, if they don't work as part of the whole they are worthless.

For the first short I did, that was also the case, we had a really good scene that worked in the script and seemed to make sense, like narratively I thought it was necessary, but the scene didn't turn out quite as planned, it was still good but had flaws, and I ended up saying, "Why do we even have this here? Do we really need this scene?" It got the ax. Too bad because it was one guy's only role in the film, haha, but what can you do?

[David Mullen ASC]

This editor told me a story about cutting a bunch of low-budget movies. There was the bit actor who played small parts in all of these movies, and for some reason, all his scenes usually ended up being cut out for various reasons, not necessarily because he wasn't a good actor.

This actor found out that the same editor was behind these movies and told him at the wrap party of the latest one -- "I'm almost every scene in this movie so there's no way you're going to be able to cut me out!" But sure enough, as the movie was edited, for some reason every shot of this actor was cut out. But while cutting a love scene between the lead actors, the editor needed a cutaway of some nudity that wasn't filmed, and the only footage he could find was a shot of the naked rear end of this bit actor that had been removed from the movie. So now he found himself in the awkward position of having to call that actor's agent to get permission to use a shot of his rear end in a movie that he no longer appeared in.

Don't know what happened though.

[pat@hpnc.com]

Sounds like a very unlucky guy haha.

[number6]

This editor told me a story about cutting a bunch of low-budget movies. There was the bit actor who played small parts in all of these movies, and for some reason, all his scenes usually ended up being cut out for various reasons, not necessarily because he wasn't a good actor.

This actor found out that the same editor was behind these movies and told him at the wrap party of the latest one -- "I'm almost every scene in this movie so there's no way you're going to be able to cut me out!" But sure enough, as the movie was edited, for some reason every shot of this actor was cut out. But while cutting a love scene between the lead actors, the editor needed a cutaway of some nudity that wasn't filmed, and the only footage he could find was a shot of the naked rear end of this bit actor that had been removed from the movie. So now he found himself in the awkward position of having to call that actor's agent to get permission to use a shot of his rear end in a movie that he no longer appeared in.

Don't know what happened though.

Hah! I guess the moral of the story is, "keep working (out), you never know when you will be called upon!"

Great behind (no pun etc.)-the-scenes story, David. For some reason, I am often more drawn to the behind-the-scenes tales than a particular movie itself.

[Clint Johnson]

I think it's a pretty tongue-in-cheek argument to suggest that you're cutting to make the story "flow better," when really you're just cutting for commercials and everyone knows it. The story is only important insofar as it allows more commercials to be played in the future. It bothers me, but that's how they make money.

Don't forget the story in feature films is only important insofar as it can get people into the theatre to buy popcorn, soda and chocolate bars at the concessions stand.

Just sayin'

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

*sigh* Sad, but true.

[Clint Johnson]

*grin* I'm a capitalist pig who welcomes those commercials and that concessions stand which allow the creation of some very engaging material such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer or The Lord of the Rings. If a person has to work within a few restrictions to make it go smoother... I just see it as another set of parameters.

If you are making an animated film for children then you don't start throwing the F bombs around as well as laying off the nudity and the decapitations... these are bigger restrictions than trying to put in an audience grabbing moment every 8 to 12 minutes.

I do feel that these restrictions can actually make us think more about the subject and story, to the point where we come up with better and more interesting possibilities than if we just went with the first idea that worked.

I actually enjoy writing to the four or five act structure that is network television one hour drama- and I think it makes my stories faster paced and more exciting than they might otherwise have been. I'll even look at my feature film scripts through an eight act structure just to keep it as tight and engaging as it can be.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Yeah, that's true, I mean sometimes working within a framework like that produces a tighter, more interesting final product.

I love Buffy by the way. ;) But Angel to me is even better, maybe that is blasphemy, but when I got into Angel after being into Buffy I just thought it was amazing. What was greatest to me is that every season, for me personally, was fantastic, I couldn't even choose a favorite. For Buffy, Season Six was mostly pretty rocky, I won't say bad, but I won't say good either.