Director and DP fired by Warner Bros.

[Bill Totolo]

http://thehollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/a...t_id=1000603880

 

Screenwriter Ted Griffin, who was making his directorial debut on

Warners' update of The Graduate, is being replaced by Rob Reiner after

only a week of filming.

 

Thought you guys might find this article interesting.

They claim he spent too much time setting up shots and not enough time working with the actors.

 

Also the lighting of the actresses was criticized.

[David Mullen ASC]

They said that the DP, Ed Lachman, was also being replaced. Sounds like the actress is running the show and the studio just wants to placate her.

 

First time I heard of a director and DP being fired on a major studio film for caring too much about the shots -- imagine Michael Bay or Tony Scott being fired for seeming too interested in how their films were going to look.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and this director really did short-shrift the actors every day, not talking to them, etc. Not sure why the DP would also have to be fired though for a failing in the director to pay attention to his actors. It's not like Ed Lachman hasn't done actor-intensive movies or managed to cater to bigger actresses' needs (like Julia Roberts in "Erin Brokovich").

[Matt Pacini]

Yep, reeks of the fiasco of "The Island of Dr. Mareua", where Val Kilmer got the director fired, after he himself didn't show for the first 3 days shooting, then decided he was going to play a different character than he was contracted to play, etc.

Pretty much ruined Richard Stanley's career.

Didn't work for 5 years after that.

 

After reading the tagline, I'd have to say this sounds like one of the lamer plot ideas in recent years though. How do films like this get made?

 

"...for the romantic comedy, which centers on a young woman (Jennifer Aniston) who discovers that her grandmother (Shirley MacLaine) was the basis for the character of Mrs. Robinson in the 1967 film "The Graduate."

 

Uh, yeah, that sounds fascinating.

They've made so many bad remakes, that now they're creating unbelievably bad "sequels" to old sucessful movies.

 

Matt Pacini

[Wendell_Greene]

Well if Aniston is calling the shots then I doubt they'll consider bringing in Robert Brinkman as cinematographer since Mena Suvari is co-starring ;)

 

BTW, wasn't it the late great Conrad Hall who said you're really not a cinematographer until you've been fired off a picture? Or was it Vilmos Zsigmond? Anyway, I know it's happened to more than one cinematographer for one reason or another. Sometimes the lack of chemistry can take place behind the scene as well as in front of it.

[DanStewart]

I met Alan Parker once and asked him for the most important bit of advice he could give me as a filmmaker. He said 'never get in over your head'.

So many first time directors let the scale of the project get so big that the production ends up with a big star, a huge budget and a rookie director they don't trust in charge. At that point they're looking for an excuse.

[Kevin Zanit]

Ed Lachman is a great DP, I wonder why he?s gone. Then again, Conie Hall was fired from a film also, so I guess talent doesn?t have much to do with it.

 

My experience with Jennifer Aniston was nothing but great. I doubt it was diva antics on her part.

 

Interesting article though.

 

 

Kevin Zanit

[Landon D. Parks]

THIS POST WAS EDITED FOR CONTENT. I GOT TO OUT OF HAND WITH MY LAST COMMENT. HERE IS MY UPDATED COMMENT:

 

 

I WAS JUST USING MIRAMAX AS AN EXAMPLE. I STILL DONT LIKE MOST ANY OF THERE FILMS, BUT AGAIN, THEY ARE HOLLYWOOD, THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT. AS LONG AS THEY DONT TRY TO TAKE OVER MY FILM THERE FINE WITH ME.

 

AND I WAS REFERING THAT I WOULD NOT LIKE TO MAKE A FILM FOR THEM, I WILL SELL THEM A FILM IF THEY WANT IT THOUGH. THEY MAY BE AN INDIES BEST DREAM. IF SO, THEN GREAT.

 

IM COOLED DOWN NOW. HOLLYWOOD CAN FIRE ANYONE IT WANTS TO. ITS NOT MY FILM, SO THATS OK. IM NOT MAD AT MIRAMAX, I WAS MAD AT WARNER FOR FIRING A DIRECTOR. AS IF THE JOB IS NOT HARD ENOUGH, THEY HAVE TO GO AND TEAR UP PEOPLE CAREERS JUST BECUSE THEY DONT LIKE SOMTHING.

 

IF IT WAS ME, I WOULD NOT HIRE SOMEONE IF I WAS GOING TO FIRE THEM. IF I HIRED THEM, IM NOT ABOUT TO TELL SOMEONE TO TAKE A HIKE AFTER ALL THE HARD WORK IT TAKES TO EVEN GET TO PRINCIPLE PHOTOGRAPHY.

 

I JUST THINK THEY COULD HAVE FOUND SOMEWAY AROUND FIRING THEM. THEY FIND WAYS AROUND EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE INDUSTRY.

 

BUT STILL, I THINK FIRING SOMEONE OVER TAKING TO MUCH TIME WITH HOW THE FILM LOOKED IS THE MOST STUPID THING I HAVE HEARD OF. BIT FOR HOLLYWOOD, IT DONT SURPRISE ME.

 

AND I ALSO DONT THINK THE CAST SHOULD HAVE ANY SAY IN THE FILM. THEY ARE HIRED TO ACT IN THE FILM, IF THEY DONT LIKE IT. THEY CAN QUIT. OR NOT HAVE TAKEN IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[Kevin Zanit]

I am sure in the contracts there is a clause stating that if the studio (the people with the real money on the line) is not happy with the progress of the show, they can make the changes necessary to get back on schedule.

 

It also does not mean the director/ DP will not get their salary, it just means they are not involved with the picture.

 

This guy is a first time director, its not like firing Spielberg. In other words, this guy has very little clout, and getting fired from a film can severely hinder his chances of directing another film in the near future.

 

"I would make sure they had a BAD reputation with crew and cast."

 

Ahh the sound of sweet naivety. Warner could care less about their reputation with the people they hire. Don?t forget who cuts the cheeks at the end of the week.

 

This kind of stuff happens all the times. And while it is done for the wrong reasons at times, it also usually has some firm grounds.

 

 

Kevin Zanit

[Brad Grimmett]

Id like to see them try to fire me from a movie set. there would'nt have any money left to film another movie.....

 

YOU'D HAVE TO SUE THEM FOR HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AND WIN, TO EVEN HINDER THEIR ABILITY TO MAKE ANOTHER MOVIE. NOT TO MENTION THAT SUING A STUDIO WOULD BE VERY BAD FOR YOUR CAREER.

 

also, after watching project greenlight I relized how stuck up and stubern studios really are.

 

WELCOME TO THE BUSINESS. ALTHOUGH WATCHING PROJECT GREENLIGHT ISN'T EXACTLY THE BEST WAY TO FORM AN OPINION ABOUT A STUDIO.

 

Miramax will never get my business, poor Pete Jones could'nt get $1.8 million for that film, which I though was about the best thing Miramax has turned out to date.

 

Then they have the nerve to release it in 14 theaters... hmm.

 

IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE A BUNCH OF IDIOTS. THEY'RE BUSINESSMEN AND THEY'RE JOB IS TO MAKE THE MOST MONEY THEY CAN FOR THEIR STOCKHOLDERS, AND IF THEY WEREN'T MAKING MONEY THEY WOULDN'T BE WORKING FOR LONG.

 

I dont see how they can just "Replace" other productions heads either. They are contracted right?!?!?

 

JUST LIKE IN ANY OTHER BUSINESS, PEOPLE CAN GET FIRED. IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY.

 

They may own the film, that does not give them the right to go back on contracts though.

 

JUST BECAUSE WARNER BROTHERS FIRED SOMEONE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY DIDN'T HONOR A CONTRACT. I'M SURE BOTH THE DIRECTOR AND DP WERE PAID FOR THEIR WORK.

 

I dont think its up to theme to say how the director works. if the Director is getting the job done, then hes perfect for the roll.

 

I THINK THE POINT OF FIRING HIM WAS THAT THEY DIDN'T THINK HE WAS GETTING THE JOB DONE. AND IT IS UP TO THEM TO "SAY HOW THE DIRECTOR WORKS". THEY'RE THE ONES WITH THE CASH. IF A DIRECTOR WANTS TOTAL CONTROL OVER A FILM THEN HE SHOULD FINANCE IT HIMSELF. NO STUDIO, OR INDIE PRODUCTION COMPANY FOR THAT MATTER, IS GOING TO GIVE SOMEONE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND THEN NOT PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT THE FILMMAKER IS DOING WITH THE MONEY.

REMEMBER, THIS IS A BUSINESS. IT'S NOT PLAY MONEY. ANY COMPANY, WHETHER FILM RELATED OR NOT, WILL CUT THEIR LOSSES VERY QUICKLY WHEN THEY THINK THEY ARE ON COURSE TO LOSE A LOT OF MONEY.

My responses to your post are in bold within your post.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Thats why I never want to work for a studio. I would just as soon film indies.

 

>GOOD LUCK. LET US KNOW HOW THAT WORKS OUT FOR YOU.

 

We dont  need studios to make the films. We can do just fine without them.

 

>REALLY? HOW MUCH OF THE BOX OFFICE THIS YEAR DO YOU THINK WILL BE ATTRIBUTED TO INDEPENDEDNT FILMS? THE BUSINESS WOULD CEASE TO EXIST WITHOUT STUDIOS, LIKE IT OR NOT.

 

also, after watching project greenlight I relized how stuck up and stubern studios really are.

 

>MY WIFE WATCHES THE BACHELOR. DOES THAT MAKE ME REALIZE HOW STUCK UP AND STUBBORN SINGLE WOMEN ARE IN THEIR 30S? P.G. IS JUST ANOTHER REALITY T.V. SHOW, NOT ALWAYS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF LIFE.

TRY READING A BOOK FOR A CHANGE.

 

Miramax will never get my business

 

>I'LL BET YOU YOU YOU ALREADY HAVE.

 

Then they have the nerve to release it in 14 theaters... hmm.

 

>PROBABLY BECAUSE IT WAS THE SMARTEST BUSINESS DECISION

 

I dont see how they can just "Replace" other productions heads either. They are contracted right?!?!?

 

>WHEN YOU ARE OLD ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY SIGN A CONTRACT YOU WILL SEE THAT THEY CONTAIN THINGS CALLED CLAUSES WHICH PROVIDE EITHER PARTY A WAY OUT OF A CONTRACT SHOULD A PROBLEM OR SERIES OF EVENTS ARISE.

 

Seems to me Warner is trying to act like the big boy on campus, when in fact, there setting there self up for a downfall.

 

>THEY'RE NOT ONE OF THE OLDEST STUDIOS AROUND BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE SOUND DECISIONS.

 

They may own the film, that does not give them the right to go back on contracts though.

 

>SEE ABOVE COMMENT REGARDING CLAUSES

 

I dont think its up to theme to say how the director works. if the Director is getting the job done, then hes perfect for the roll.

 

>HE WHO GIVETH THE DIRECTOR THE JOB MAY ALSO TAKETH AWAY. THEY WOULDN'T DO IT UNLESS THEY HAD TO. IT'S NOT IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

 

Actors ARE NOT the only part of a the film you know. If they Director leave EVERYTHGING up to everyone else, he will be unsatisfied with the final result.

 

Man Im mad at Warner bros. right now.

MY COMMENTS ARE IN CAPS.

 

I'm not trying to be an ass, but come on. People should know what they're talking about.

[Josh Hill]

I agree with the other two commentaries on your statement, Landon. But here's a little bit of advice from an independent filmmaker to me:

 

"You wanna make the movie look good, be a cinematographer. You want to be a director you're working with the actors."

 

I think its true. Actors need attention in film everyday, because its not like theatre where they rehearse twelve hour days for a month before performing. Sometimes there are no time for rehearsals at all in preproduction schedules, or very little rehearsals.

 

Also, cinematographers are hired to bring about a specific look to the picture, or because of a certain background. I think as a director you have ot know how to spread yourself around, make decisions quickly, and be able to communicated efficiently and succinctly with your key crew. Most of the major decisions on the look and feel of the movie should be made in pre-production where tests will be made. Haven't you ever see making-of DVDs where shots are storyboarded extensively? Where directors know precisely the look they want? It is up to the DP to produce the look they are looking for, and it should not warrant hours of discussion on set.

 

If you want to make independent films, go right ahead. Just because you make an independent film, even a good one, it doesn't mean its going to be seen. I just got a copy of my friend's movie <i>Eddie Presley</i> which was shot at the same time Tarantino was making <i>Reservoir Dogs</i> (they even watched their dailies in rooms across from one another). It was taken to festivals in 93, and it was a full DECADE later before it was ever released to the public thanks to the magic of DVD. And its quite a good movie.

 

As for taking the "payoff" from each movie to make a bigger one ... well ... you'd be making spectacularly good movies if you are going to make enough from your first one to make your second one with a bigger budget. After all, most independent filmmakers are lucky to just BREAK EVEN, that is if they ever even complete their projects.

 

Studios aren't that bad. They give people money to make movies. Sometimes they take some of the freedoms away, but look at how many movies studios produce every year. Then look at the total number of bad studio experiences. You hear about them because they're interesting, not because they're so frequent.

 

And if you think STOLEN SUMMER was about the best thing Miramax has put out so far I want to know what planet you are living on. Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, the Crying Game, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago, Cider House Rules, Cold Mountain, Gangs of New York, Good Will Hunting, The Crow, Fahrenheit 9/11, Frida, Four Rooms ... need I go on?

 

Miramax is the independent filmmakers friend. If you make an indie film Miramax is who you want on your side when you're ready to distribute and Miramax is who you want to produce. Look at the Oscar clout that Miramax wields. Miramax knows movies, and Miramax knows best. Harvey Weinstein may be a jerk sometimes, but he knows what is good, he knows what is bad, and he knows how to market movies so they make money.

 

C'mon Landon ... don't try to be outraged to be cool in the forum. If I were Warner Brothers I would have probably done the same thing. Why? Because its business. As I have been told by more than one professional filmmaker: "Making movies is not fun. Making movies is a job. It can be a job thats fun, but it is a job first and foremost."

[Landon D. Parks]

OK, SO ,MAYBEE I WAS A LITTLE SARCASTIC IN THAT POST, IM SORRY. BUT I WAS SO PISSED WHEN I WROTE IT, THAT WAS WHAT MADE SENCE AT THE TIME. FORGET A SAID IT.

 

I WAS JUST USING MIRAMAX AS AN EXAMPLE. I STILL DONT LIKE MOST ANY OF THERE FILMS, BUT AGAIN, THEY ARE HOLLYWOOD, THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT. AS LONG AS THEY DONT TRY TO TAKE OVER MY FILM THERE FINE WITH ME.

 

AND I WAS REFERING THAT I WOULD NOT LIKE TO MAKE A FILM FOR THEM, I WILL SELL THEM A FILM IF THEY WANT IT THOUGH. THEY MAY BE AN INDIES BEST DREAM. IF SO, THEN GREAT.

 

IM COOLED DOWN NOW. HOLLYWOOD CAN FIRE ANYONE IT WANTS TO. ITS NOT MY FILM, SO THATS OK. IM NOT MAD AT MIRAMAX, I WAS MAD AT WARNER FOR FIRING A DIRECTOR. AS IF THE JOB IS NOT HARD ENOUGH, THEY HAVE TO GO AND TEAR UP PEOPLE CAREERS JUST BECUSE THEY DONT LIKE SOMTHING.

 

IF IT WAS ME, I WOULD NOT HIRE SOMEONE IF I WAS GOING TO FIRE THEM. IF I HIRED THEM, IM NOT ABOUT TO TELL SOMEONE TO TAKE A HIKE AFTER ALL THE HARD WORK IT TAKES TO EVEN GET TO PRINCIPLE PHOTOGRAPHY.

 

I JUST THINK THEY COULD HAVE FOUND SOMEWAY AROUND FIRING THEM. THEY FIND WAYS AROUND EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE INDUSTRY.

 

BUT STILL, I THINK FIRING SOMEONE OVER TAKING TO MUCH TIME WITH HOW THE FILM LOOKED IS THE MOST STUPID THING I HAVE HEARD OF. BIT FOR HOLLYWOOD, IT DONT SURPRISE ME.

 

AND I ALSO DONT THINK THE CAST SHOULD HAVE ANY SAY IN THE FILM. THEY ARE HIRED TO ACT IN THE FILM, IF THEY DONT LIKE IT. THEY CAN QUIT. OR NOT HAVE TAKEN IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

 

IM NOT SURE WHERE YOUR ALL FROM, BUT IM FROM AMERICA. AND IM INTITLED TO FREE SPEACH. AND THIS IS HOW I SEE IT.

 

I AM NOT TRYING TO MAKE ANYONE TAKE MY OPINIONS, THAT IS UP TO YOU. BUT I BELEIVE THIS WAS ORIGIONALY POSTED FOR COMMENTS, AND I HAVE GIVEN MINE.

 

MAYBEE I SHOULD NOT COMMENT BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE MAY DISAGREE WITH ME.?!?!?! THEN IT APPEARS EVERYONE IS ON THE STUDIOS SIDE HERE. IM NOT.

 

SORRY FOR GETTING OUT OF HAND IN THE ABOVE POST. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN WHAT I ORIGIONALY POSTED, NOT THAT. AGAIN, SORRY.

 

"Making movies is not fun.

NOT FUN? WHY IN GODS GREEN EARTHE WOULD YOU MAKE THEM THEN? YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE IN THE LAW INDUSTRY. WHY BECOME A DIRECTOR IF ITS NOT FUN? MAKES NO SINCE TO ME.

 

"Making movies is a job. It can be a job thats fun, but it is a job first and foremost."

I AGREE THAT IT IS TECHNICALLY A JOB, BUT IN MY OPINION, THE ART AND FUN SHOULD COME FIRST. IF YOU APPROACH FILMMAKING AS JUST A FUN JOB, THEN I THINK YOU'LL MAKE IT FARE IN THE INDUSTRY. TALENTED PEOPLE WHO APPROACH IT AS A FUN ACTIVITY (ME) USUALLY GET THROWN OUT OF THE DOOR BECUSE THEY CARE TO MUCH ABOUT THE FILM, AND NOT ENOUGH ABOUT THE STUDIOS "INTEREST" IN THE FILM.

 

AGAIN, THESE ARE MY OPINIONS, I DONT EXPECT ANYONE TO AGREE WITH ME.

[Landon D. Parks]

As for taking the "payoff" from each movie to make a bigger one ... well ... you'd be making spectacularly good movies if you are going to make enough from your first one to make your second one with a bigger budget. After all, most independent filmmakers are lucky to just BREAK EVEN, that is if they ever even complete their projects.

 

IM ONLY INTERESTED IF THE STUDIO WANTS TO BUY THE FILM. IM NOT INTERESTED IN THERE DEAL IF THEY JUST WANT THE RIGHTS TO DISTRIBUTE IT.

 

LOOK AT THE BLAIR WHITCH PROJECT. IT WAS SOLD FOR $1 MILLION, THEY MADE IT FOR 30,000... SEEMS LIKE A GOOD PAYOFF TO ME.

 

IF I MADE A FILM THAT HAD AT LEAST 2 OR 3 MAJOR STARS ATTACHED TO IT IN ANYWAY, EVEN JUST AS ONE DAY CAMEOS. THE MINIMUM I WOULD ACCEPT FOR THE PAYOUT WOULD BE $3 MILLION. ANYTHING LESS AND THEY CAN GO FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO CHEAT.

 

Haven't you ever see making-of DVDs where shots are storyboarded extensively? Where directors know precisely the look they want?

I HAVE WATCHED MAKING OF;S TO ABOUT 50 FILMS SO FARE. AND SOME DO STORYBOARD IN PREPRODUCTION. BUT I DONT USE STORYBOARDS. YOU CANT JUST IMAGINE HOW IT WILL LOOK, AND THEN JUST TELL YTHE DP THAT IF HE DOES NOT GET THAT PERFECTLY, HES FIRED.

 

I WOULD WAIT TILL I WAS SHOOTING IT. THEN SAY, OK THAT LIGHTING LOOKS GOOD, OR OK, JOHN (ACTOR) YOUR STADNING IN A GOOD SPOT.

 

SOME THINGS SHOULD BE SORTED OUT IN PRE-PRODUCTION, BUT I DONT THINK YOU SHOULD MAKE THE FINAL DETAILS OF HOW THE FILM SHOULD LOOK WITHOUT KNOWING HOW IT PLAYS OUT IN REAL LIFE.

 

I GUESS IM JUST NOT HOLLYWOOD MATERIAL.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sorry, but by just reading that last post, I would never invest money in a film you were directing. You are obviously over-confident. Someone doing their first feature should plan everything in great detail KNOWING that things will change on the set, knowing that they can change their minds if something better than the plan presents itself.

 

It's not that "winging it" on the day of the shoot might not yield good results, but unless you are experienced, you can't rely on your gut instincts and sparks of inspiration to get you through the day reliably. Spielberg and Welles relied heavily on pre-planning for their first features, and they were considered geniuses, but for some reason, you think you can plan all the coverage brilliantly just by watching a blocking rehearsal on the shooting day?

 

I remember advice I got from Allen Daviau before I shot my first feature: know your first week of shooting forwards and backwards, every shot you are going to do, etc. You cannot be over-prepared.

 

Best advice I ever got.

 

You don't even know the difference between "there" and "their" and yet you claim your know enough about filmmaking to make a feature?

 

And this whole "I won't accept less than three million dollars" is a joke. If you made a feature for $160,000, you should be happy if someone bought it off of you for $200,000. Most people don't even sell the movie. The three Polish Brothers movies I shot were all sold for theatrical distribution above their production costs but I don't think any of them sold for 3 million dollars, not even the last one, which cost 1.75 million to make, and this was with actors like Nick Nolte, James Woods, Daryl Hannah, Anthony Edwards, etc. in the movie. Yet it did make a profit. What, if you can't sell it for three million dollars, you'd rather just eat all the production costs and let it go undistributed??? That implies you are more interested in making money than making movies, and to be a filmmaker that can raise money for their next film, you need to get distribution more than anything else because that legitimizes you. Getting your movie out there to an audience should mean more to you than making 3 million dollars.

[Matt Pacini]

Landon, I don't mean to jump on the bandwagon of criticism here, but you have to realize a few things to be shaken into reality about show biz':

 

1. The way studios operate has been refined over more than 100 years.

It's not perfect, but it works, as is evidenced by the lines you see every time you go to the theater or video rental house.

 

2. The entertainment industry is extremely complicated, and nobody who knows anything at all about it (particularly from personal experience), is under the delusion that it is, or should be, all about art.

Nobody opens up their checkbook and writes an $80 million dollar check, if they're not planning on seeing a profit.

This is not one great big huge art charity going on here, it's all business.

If someone is screwing up, they get canned, just like in the "real" world.

Nobody who is in charge of the checkbook cares about the "directors vision" unless that vision = $$$$$$.

 

3. Your mindset about "Hollywood" and "the Studios" being idiots who don't care about anything and just make stupid movies, is from the marketing technique of "alternative" and "independent" film PR, which basically uses these concepts to make a certain part of the audience think they're doing something out of the mainstream, when in reality, they're not.

 

It's just exactly the same in the music business; I don't care what a band sounds like, or if they're hyped as being "alternative".

They are all marketed the same way:

You hear them on the radio, you see their concert, you hear word of mouth - you buy their CD.

It's the same mechanism that they use to sell Britney Spears product or Smashmouth. No diff.

 

Same with movies:

You see ads, you see trailers, you hear word of mouth - you go see the film.

It doesn't matter if it's Spiderman 2, or Napolean Dynamite... same mechanism.

There's just all this "alternative-independent" language to make you think you're cool and not following a trend, but it's all the same, and the end result is the same - you spending your money on their movie.

 

And besides that, everyone I've ever talked to who has gone on and on about the crap Hollywood makes, and how great indie films are, when I ask them to list their all time favorite movies, they're almost always huge studio films like Star Wars, etc. (go ahead; list your top twenty, and be honest. I'll bet 17+ are huge studio films).

 

You watch as many studio films as the next guy does.

Pretending that you don't like them doesn't change anything, so why not just admit you like Spiderman 2, Star Wars, Sixth Sense, etc. and just enjoy the films?

 

Matt Pacini

[Felipe Perez-Burchard]

Someone once said that you have to plan and plan and know everything front and back and only then you can be free to improvise...

 

I think its true, spielberg is a great example, only now is he starting to "wing" it if you want to put it that way, but he can "wing" because his EXPERIENCE allows him to.

 

just my two cents.

 

-felipe.

[Brad Grimmett]

Someone once said that you have to plan and plan and know everything front and back and only then you can be free to improvise...

 

I think its true, spielberg is a great example, only now is he starting to "wing" it if you want to put it that way, but he can "wing" because his EXPERIENCE allows him to.

 

just my two cents.

 

-felipe.

Landon,

I think what a lot of people are trying to tell you with their criticism is that you should slow down a little with some of the "absolutes" you're using in some of your statements. I think pretty much everyone here would happily support you in making a film. But before they did that they would have to see that you don't THINK you know everything about making a film. Whether it's intentional or not, you've come across as someone who seems to think he knows everything about making a film and doesn't want to hear that he's wrong, even if it's from someone who's shot 20 features in the past and is a highly respected member of the film community. I think you're doing a lot of the right things....reading books about filmmaking and watching films is a good start. But there are many variables that go into making a film, and there are probably many more things that you should learn about before you try to make a film of your own that will help you immensly when you are on set. Being around the business and working within it is probably something you could benefit from. Some of the most important things I ever learned about filmmaking I learned as a P.A. I was able to observe, and learn, from other people's mistakes and accomplishments without any risk to myself. That doesn't mean I don't make mistakes, but I can refer to some of the things I've learned to try to save myself from making some of the same mistakes I've seen happen to other people. This kind of experience could be very beneficial to you. I'm not trying to discourage you from going out and making a film, but I think you should try to make every attempt possible to be as knowledgeable as you can before you take that risk. You owe it to yourself, and you owe it to your investors.

This is meant in goodwill and hopefully to help you.

One criticism I do have that I think is very important is this: your spelling. It's atrocious. I'm not saying that to be mean, but sometimes it's hard to figure out what you're trying to say because your spelling is so bad. This could be a significant problem for you when you try to fund a film. If you give a script to a potential investor with spelling errors like you make on this site, then you are basically shooting yourself in the foot. I'm not saying that your spelling has to be perfect, but it should certainly be better than what I see on this site. Just some helpful criticism.

I think everyone here will happily wish you good luck and offer you any help you need if you show some humility and willingness to learn as much as you can.

[solid snake]

That sounds rediculous. A directors job is to look over everything. If a movie is a flop and looks like poop, people blame the director not the DP or the actors. So I think this is complete bullshit. One more reason to hate WB.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, Brad's right -- we're all here to help in any way we can. I feel guilty about dumping on a 16-year-old... but I'd feel even guiltier if I didn't make some attempt to set them straight on how things work.

 

Just back off on the proclamations, and learn to spell and punctuate. If you were from another country, I'd naturally cut you some slack, but either you are going to the worst school in the USA for English or you don't have enough respect for us to make an attempt to write clearly. We have to struggle through some of your sloppy posts and then we take the time to compose a proper response.

[Josh Hill]

Landon, I agree. You definitely have to work on verbal skills. (David, being 16 isn't an excuse for not being knowledgable and write properly.) Also, don't use all caps, its hard on the reader and it comes off like you're screaming.

 

solid_snake: The DP is a part of the key crew. All discussions of style and shots should really have been discussed thoroughly and tested during pre-production. I know thats my opinion, but I think a lot of people here would probably agree. The director is indeed the one who will be looked down on at the end of the production if everything doesn't go well, and thats why there is pre-production ... to get all the ducks in a row before having to juggle cast AND crew. And if you leave someone to their own devices, it should most certainly be the crew. Why? Because you've already had pre-production to get them into your mindset. Actors are a different sort. You leave an actor alone to work on a character there is a good chance they will come back with a completely different view of it than you have. If you leave an experienced DP, whom you have already discussed the look of the film with, to setup a shot you will probably come away with some semblence of what you want, and if you don't I'm sure it will still look pretty good.

 

And really, I think people should really look at the rights first time directors have in Hollywood. Less and less when you look at deals the DGA and WGA are making. Few people are being given Citizen Kane's to direct, with full control over every aspect of production.

 

And if WB was giving him a feature, I'm sure they'll give him another feature sometime. I doubt being fired has ruined his career, it has probably just taught him a lesson.

 

Then too, some screenwriters are not cut out to direct. (Look at Maximum Overdrive, Stephen King, brilliant writer, didn't direct a good movie ... why? because he didn't spend time with the actors, he prefered the technical to the interaction between director and actor, but he couldn't be fired because he holds too much clout of his own.)

[Landon D. Parks]

Ok, #1: Im not looking for Investments. #2: I did not post that for you to rate how I make films. do you wanna come work on my film set? and see how I make movies. I think you'll be surprised.

 

Everyone does it different. Whats right for you maybee be way wronge for others. And it just so happends that this is the way I make a movie, like it or not.

 

You know what? I may not be "Doing it right". But there is no right way, it works in all ways. and so fare it has worked just fine for me. I think that I have a pretty fast turnaround on my films also.

 

However im doing it, It must be right in some way.

 

I know a lot more than you think.

 

I was not saying. "Just wait till you get there, then figure it out". I was saying that one should not plan EVERYTHING in advance. Not only does it not work, but it makes everyones job boring once on set.

 

Planning EXACTLY how a shot will look in pre-production is not right. You can plan it just to get a basic idea of what you want, but I dont suggest saying... "Ok, this is where Joe will be, where gonna light over here and there should be enough light we dont need to lug the whole light kit around, lets just take a little to this location."

 

You know, I think thats the problem with so many movies there days. Everything is so planned that Everyones job on set boring. in pre-production you have already planned were everyone will be, how they will act, how the lighting is, camera angels and such. now on set, what is the director suppose to do? Everything is already planned.

 

Now his job is just to yell action and cut. That is why so many directors make one film every 7 years, becuase they are so tired of the same old process, just like Robert Rodrequez says.

 

And I think he has some wise words that 70% of you should listen to.

 

Again though, im not here to prove anything to you guys. Once my film is in theaters you will see how capable I am of making a great movie.

 

#3: Yes, $3 milllion. I must say the process os fun, but lets get one thing straight, Directing is a "Job", and it makes money.

 

And yes, I think if I had Johnny depp for one day and Antonio Banderas for 2 days and maybee a few other lesser know but equaly great actors for a few days, I think a studio would buy it for $3 million or more.

 

Johnny depp sells tickets. I can promise you that once a studio see's hes in a movie they would be beating my door down. same with a lot of other actors.

 

Can you imagin a Johnny Depp movie not getting a Distrobution deal!?!?!?!?! lol. and a Wide one for that.

 

Now, again, like this or not, it is my movie. I will run it how I feel free to. This is how I run it, and I think everyone should just accept my way as just one of the other 5,000 ways someone makes a movie.

 

Im not here for you to tell me how terrible I am, or how Im crazy or dont know what Im talking about.

 

Maybee I think you process is Crazy? ever thought of that?

 

Ok. So im not answering anymore if all people can post is how im doing it wronge, there is more productive things in life.

[Landon D. Parks]

P>S)

Im not interested in writing skills here, im interested in tellijng you what you want to hear so you can yell more at me. If im writing a report, yes, i'll watch my writing skills. But here, Im in to much of a hurry to type this so I can do more productive stuff.

 

sorry for the caps. I was not yelling, I just fotgot to take them off I guess.

 

are you my teacher?!? Why does it matter to you how I spell.

 

Oh and P.S) I made an A- in Writing for your info, and I made it to the 10th grade. So, yes I know how to write very fine thank you.

 

 

I feel guilty about dumping on a 16-year-old

Why? Here goes the age thing again. I dont consider myself 16. I think im much more grown up than that. And I can take being dumped on, I just dont always agree with whats dumped on me.

[Landon D. Parks]

Ok, I just read one post I skiped.

 

But before they did that they would have to see that you don't THINK you know everything about making a film.

I was not trying to come over that way, I was just saying HOW I make a movie, right or wronge, its tested and proven by me.

 

give a script to a potential investor with spelling errors like you make on this site, then you are basically shooting yourself in the foot.

Refer to my last post

[Josh Hill]

> But there is no right way, it works in all ways.

...

> Planning EXACTLY how a shot will look in pre-production is not right.

 

So which is it? When someone criticises you, you rattle off how there is no right way to make a movie. When you criticise someone else you tell them they are not right.

 

>You know, I think thats the problem with so many movies there days. Everything >is so planned that Everyones job on set boring. in pre-production you have >already planned were everyone will be, how they will act, how the lighting is, >camera angels and such. now on set, what is the director suppose to do? >Everything is already planned.

 

>Now his job is just to yell action and cut. That is why so many directors make >one film every 7 years, becuase they are so tired of the same old process, just >ike Robert Rodrequez says.

 

Or perhaps they make one film every seven years because of the planning that goes into making a good movie? And of course Robert Rodriguez is going to be tired, he practically makes the movies himself. Did you look at his credits? Director, Writer, Cinematographer, Production designer, costume designer, composers, etc etc. And quite frankly, I think his movies suffer because of it. As it is said: "Jack of all trades, master of none."

 

As for a set being boring. I've never seen it happen. And I've been going out and working PA on the same indie film for two years. TWO YEARS of the same movie and never once has it gotten boring.

 

>Again though, im not here to prove anything to you guys. Once my film is in >theaters you will see how capable I am of making a great movie.

 

I await, with baited breath, your masterpiece.

 

>And yes, I think if I had Johnny depp for one day and Antonio Banderas for 2 >days and maybee a few other lesser know but equaly great actors for a few >days, I think a studio would buy it for $3 million or more.

 

Well, yeah, probably they would pay more than 3 million. So when is Johnny and Antonio coming in to be on set? How is SAG treating you? What is for lunch? Are their drivers doing okay?

 

Unless you had something absolutely fabulous where big name actors were accepting parts left and right, I doubt you'd get Johnny and Antonio for a two days, not without some serious payment. Plus all the perks that would be in the contract to have to give the actors ... SAG is hard to deal with a lot of the time, especially for lower budget films.

 

You mentioned Blair Witch earlier. How much directing do you think really went into that? Not a lot. They put three kids in the woods and scared the crap out of them for several days. I guess you can kind of call that directing. But other than in the editing room, the director had very little say over the visual style of the movie, the acting, or anything else. Its a testament to the actors (who were also the crew) as to why that movie came out, and its success can only be attributed to them and the brilliance of the creators to do something so crazy as to send ACTORS out with cameras and have them come back with a shot movie.

 

If you want to make indies, you do have to understand ... the success stories you hear only represent one in a thousand filmmakers ... maybe one in ten thousand. Its great that you're making movies, but don't be so holier-than-thou about it. There are people here who have more experience than you are old.

 

And I think everyone here just wants to help you. Maybe you are brilliant, we don't know. But you will never win over friends in the industry by saying: "You don't know what you're talking about. I do. I'm brilliant. My movies are good. I'm going to get a distribution deal. I don't need you because I do it my own way. I know more than you think I do."

 

If you want good financing, you really do need to plan things out. Tentative shot lists. Story boards. DETAILED budgets. Not just "I think I'll take the camera out and shoot for a day or two and see what happens." No one wants to hear that, and you will get no significant monies by doing that.

 

I don't even know why I'm posting this really. I should have the common sense to realize that you are naive and think you're right, but I figured I ought to go ahead and say something.

 

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying LISTEN to yourself (or read yourself, since you're not actually speaking). These grandiose things you are saying are just that, grandiose. They are not practical and they are not reasonable for the most part.

 

No one is really attacking you, except for the fact that I think people may be insulted by your brazen lack of respect for the people here. Your attitude of "I'm right, you're wrong" is the wrong way to go about talking to the professionals and serious amateurs who post here. I think in your posts you have been rude and disrespectful in the way you post.

 

If you were god's gift to filmmaking I think we would all know who you are by now.

[Landon D. Parks]

You know, I do like you guys. And Im not trying to make you mad at me. I just wish I could make the movie they way I want. Thats one problem I had one time, the crew kept trying to tell me how to do everything. I told them kindly to let me run it, they did and it turned out fine.

 

I dont want to make people mad at me, and I thank you all for your willingness to help me on whats wronge. But Im just going on what HAS worked for me.

 

If Im not doing it right, please tell me how it should be done. I would welcome advice right now.

 

Thanks