Thanks for your help, see the results

[Miska Draskoczy]

Hello,

 

I asked quite a few questions here a year ago when I was getting started with my short film. You were all very helpful and I just wanted to say thanks and share with you some of my project which is now finally finished after much blood sweat and tears. I just had a preview screening with great response here in nyc at the tribeca grand and am moving forwards with festivals this year.

 

http://www.perfectheatfilm.com

 

I ended up shooting on 35mm, going to HD D5 and conformed everything manually in After Effects after having my tape selects digitized to files (long story). I am so happy I went with 35mm, even a projection of the dvd looked great and I'm going to be doing my output to HD and final color correct in Jan, and hopefully a film out eventually.

 

Thanks again for all your help and I hope you enjoy the work, I wish I could show you all the whole film. Pierrot Colonna was my DP and he did a fantastic job.

 

Happy holidays...

 

 

-miska

[David Mullen ASC]

Looks really interesting. Could you give us more details? Stocks, filters, etc.

[Miska Draskoczy]

We shot short ends of 5218 on a moviecam with zeiss primes for all the lab set and interview scenes, no filters. I shot some flashback scenes on 16mm color reversal on a beaulieu with an angenieux zoom which aren't in the trailer but are in the stills. I learned first hand in telecine just how incredible the vision2 stock is, we had a shot that was straight into 4 lights silhouetting the actresss. On default settings it came up completely white and then dialed down several stops on the spirit and brough out all detail in her face and even the filaments in the bulbs.

 

Everything was telecined on the spirit to D5 and I did an offline edit on minDV downconverts. I thought I was going to do an HD online but then I was lucky to get my whole film digitized to frames as a favor and because of a new piece of gear (the sledgehammer, a framestore/fileserver/digitizer) Thus I was able to conform and do fx and prelim color manipluation at my own pace in my studio. I've done a basic color correct in after effects with the color finesse plugin, but otherwise no effects or filters except on the obvious cg shots. Soon I'll be dumping my file sequence back to D5 and doing a proper tape to tape color correct.

 

Going the film/DI route seems like such a great way to work, albeit more expensive and complicated than say HD. I hope I can continue to shoot on film in the future, but to be honest it does bring up a lot of problems in doing heavy FX/animation in post and its still tempting to go video. I'm looking at the sdx900 for some of my upcoming broadcast projects which won't be on a big screen, but I think for narrative stuff I want to try and stick to film/DI at all costs.

 

-miska

[Ram Shani]

hi

 

one of the stills shows the top light what is this black silk????

 

never saw anything like this

 

ram

[Kevin Zanit]

Looked like black silk to me. A smart way to build up some contrast in a set like that.

 

Looks real good.

[Ram Shani]

kevin

 

but whats the effect of a black silk ??

 

i read same where that outdoor when you use it it cut flares

 

but indoor?????

 

ram

[DavidSloan]

From what I know regarding black silks they are used to diffuse light but not to create a huge soft source. I'd be interested to know how the DP approached the use of black silk, here.

 

I'm not sure if I'm right, but do the units seem too close to the silk?

[Miska Draskoczy]

From what I know regarding black silks they are used to diffuse light but not to create a huge soft source.  I'd be interested to know how the DP approached the use of black silk, here. 

 

I'm not sure if I'm right, but do the units seem too close to the silk?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Funny that you noticed, actually that silk had a hole burned through it while we were shooting :) As to the function of it, thats a little beyond my area of knowledge, I'd have to ask the gaffer or DP.

 

-m

[Guest Frank Gossimier]

Looks very good.

 

So what happens now? The festivals and a three picture deal with Warner Bros?

 

It's interesting the genre you have chosen, my short films are also shot on 35mm and of the sci-fi action type of genre.

 

I do it just for fun though. Launching a film career making shorts is next to impossible. You have a better chance of hitting the lottery.

 

Sad thing is that no matter how talented you are, Hollywood doesn't want you. It's a closed society you have to be born into. There are a few exceptions of course.

 

But one does have to follow ones dream :-) And all these "film schools" that advertise on the web prey on peoples dreams by taking their money, some times lots of it, all the while knowing full well these kids won't get any where.

 

Frank

[Miska Draskoczy]

Looks very good.

 

So what happens now?  The festivals and a three picture deal with Warner Bros?

 

Frank

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Of course I'll be going to festivals with the film and after that, well, making more films.... I'm focusing more on writing, working on a feature script, planning another short and then looking to add some more commercial projects to my reel, music videos and spec commercials. My background is as a graphic designer/animator/editor so I'm starting to transition my commercial work to the directing side.

 

I don't pretend to think that anyone is going to give me money to direct a feature based on one (or even a few) shorts. To me the primary function of shorts is to practice. There's hardly a feature director out there who didn't make shorts first, or otherwise came from the commercial side making videos and spots.

 

Even when I'm ready to do a feature, I don't imagine waiting years trying to convince someone to give me tons of money to do a first feature. I'd rather raise 50-100k privately and through savings and shoot something independently so I have full control. My basic philosophy is to keep moving, get things done any way I can, and try not to worry too much if I'm doing it the 'right' way.

 

As to Hollywood, I can't say not having spent much time there, but in nyc watching artists, designers and filmmakers around me taking off in their careers the main ingredient I always see is perseverance. If you can consistently work hard over the long haul and are looking to move up then it will only be a matter of time. Connections come as a natural result of this. But really it boils down to being driven because you love what you do. Making films is what gets me out of bed in the morning so there isn't much else I want to do anyway.

 

I could have gone to school this year (AFI) but in the end I decided against it. Its a heck of a lot of money, I would have had to delay or abandon finishing my current film, and I just wasn't convinced I'd be any better off than learning by continuing to work in the industry and make films on my own without the restrictions imposed by film school.

 

-m

[Guest Frank Gossimier]

Well of course I wasn't being serious asking if you'd get a three picture deal :-)

 

I agree that determination is always the key ingredient and you can't win the "lottery" if you don't buy a ticket.

 

It's just that the film industry is really pathetic in the sense that more often than not the useless people make it to the top because they are born with connections all of us here could only dream of.

 

If you graduate from medical school for instance you are guaranteed the chance to work in your field. In the film industry talent and ability is 1% who you know is 99%. Life isn't fair I know, and that's just the way it is.

 

There's the odd person that "breaks in" but the statistical odds are so incredibly low.

 

My belief has always been that vertical integration is the way to beat Hollywood. Make your own product and then go around them direct to the consumer. A company in Utah does this, they are called Feature Films For Families. They make their own features, and then sell them direct to the public via their own in house marketing system. Their US arm sells 100,000 tapes a month!!

 

Hollywood can't stop them, I'm sure many in Hollywood are furious about what they do.

"How dare they market to OUR consumers!!" the Hollywood execs must be screaming.

 

Making a feature and then hoping for distribution after the fact is the kiss of death.

 

Frank

[David Mullen ASC]

My belief has always been that vertical integration is the way to beat Hollywood.  Make your own product and then go around them direct to the consumer.  A company in Utah does this, they are called Feature Films For Families.  They make their own features, and then sell them direct to the public via their own in house marketing system.  Their US arm sells 100,000 tapes a month!!

Frank

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's fine if that's the sort of movies you want to make for the rest of your life. But if your goal is to be shooting or directing multi-million dollar films that get theatrical release and get access to mainstream awards and recognition, not to mention the publicity machine of magazines, television, etc., it's hard to go around the studio distribution system.

 

I'm mean, how many of us here in this forum -- more saavy about the film business than the average person -- can name some titles from Feature Films For Families or have seen one of these movies?

[Guest Frank Gossimier]

The product from Feature Films For Families is excellent, I have several. FFFF has millions of customers around the globe, so lots of people have seen their films.

 

I don't think not being able to name one of their titles has any relevance. People can name lots of Hollywood movies filled with smut and filth, is that some thing Hollywood can be proud of?

 

David, you know as well as I do that a person has a higher chance of winning the lottery than directing a multi-million dollar Hollywood movie, it's not really relevant. Talent and ability has little to do with it, there are right now hundreds of people in Hollywood that could successfully direct a multi-million dollar feature film. There are just so few opportunities to do so when you're working with budgets that large. There will never be enough films made to accomodate all of the people that want to work on films.

 

Here's a cold hard fact, look it up on the web. 90% of film school graduates will NOT be working in the film industry five years after graduation. Why is this?

 

Find me another field where 90% of the people who study that field will not be working in their chosen industry five years after graduation?

 

Frank

[David Mullen ASC]

You were talking about "beating Hollywood" -- which suggests achieving something equivalent, career-wise.

 

I'm not knocking other ways of making a living, whether it is for TV shows, direct to home video, commercials, industrials, training films, music videos, EPK's, whatever. I'm just saying that making features for direct-to-video -- I know, I've done several myself! -- has its limitations if your goal is to shoot the sort of mainstream films that the general public will see in a theater. And yes, of course that is the hardest career of all to attempt with the highest degree of failure. And of course people should explore the alternatives in order to make a living.

 

But that does not "beat Hollywood" merely sidesteps it. It's like saying to beat the pop music industry and become a pop artist you should go become a gospel singer. That's great -- if what you want to do is sing gospel. Or if you want to play the violin in a classical orchestra, you should learn to play drums for a rock band because there are more jobs in that. If what you want to do is make family movies for the direct to video market, then that's what you should do if you can. If you don't want to make family movies for the direct to video market, THEN what do you do?

 

I see some of the movies I've shot for the home video market play on Lifetime Network as well as come out on DVD, but it doesn't give me the same thrill as to see one of my movies play in front of a large audience at Sundance, get written about in magazines, etc. Has nothing to do with how much money I can make but the types of movies I want to make and the ways in which they get distributed.

 

I became a filmmaker because of mainstream theatrical movies I saw as a kid. I want to someday make movies that inspire some teenager to go out and make movies... and generally the straight-to-video market does not generate that level of excitement in the viewer, partly because of the home viewing environment and partly because of the generic (and lower-budgeted) nature of the material. Yes, most theatrical films don't generate that feeling either these days but I can't imagine a kid becoming a filmmaker someday because of some family film his parents rented on DVD.

 

Of course being able to remember the name of a movie has some relevance! How would you like to be the author of books that no one can recall reading or hearing the name of?

 

But if you can make a living shooting movies for direct-to-video, that's great. But I'm just saying that that's not "beating Hollywood" just travelling down an alternative career path.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Frankly I think it's incredibly stupid to plan to be working in theatrical feature production, if only because it's damn near certainly going to be wasted effort. Okay, you can't stop yourself wanting to do it, but personally I find the most santiy-preserving route is to realise very clearly that it isn't going to happen and go for related fields. Then, if the opportunity comes up, fine. Don't waste a ton of time working on it because that will simply be time wasted.

 

And, to be brutally honest, if it isn't clearly going to be a realistic possibility by the time you've left school, you're not in the right family or educational establishment. Sorry, truth hurts.

 

Phil

[Guest Frank Gossimier]

I appreciate your comments David, but I take exception to this point that you make....

 

"I can't imagine a kid becoming a filmmaker someday because of some family film his parents rented on DVD."

 

I think you're wrong here, there are lots of kids inspired by direct to DVD family movies. Many more than you might think. They are kids who are disgusted by the crap Hollywood puts on the big screen, and want to make films the entire family can enjoy. Seeing these types of films on DVD only inspires them MORE not less. They can see that there is a market for their creative vision that doesn't include showing teenagers having sex with each other like a pack of wild dogs in heat.

 

Here's a question for you David: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I have just written the greatest screenplay of the 21st century. A film that will win 10 Academy Awards if it where to be made and earn more than Titanic. How do I as a complete unkown, with no Hollywood connections, go about getting my script into the hands of studio execs that can make the film a reality?

 

Frank

[Kevin Zanit]

. . . there are right now hundreds of people in Hollywood that could successfully direct a multi-million dollar feature film.  There are just so few opportunities to do so when you're working with budgets that large.  There will never be enough films made to accommodate [sic] all of the people that want to work on films.

 

Here's a cold hard fact, look it up on the web.  90% of film school graduates will NOT be working in the film industry five years after graduation.  Why is this?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To be honest, the more I work, the more I realize that in fact there are not hundreds of people that could handle a multi-million dollar production. When one reaches projects of that size, it is an entirely different beast. I have met many, many of these "directors who could direct a multi-million dollar project", fact is they probably can not.

 

Don?t kid yourself, talent has much to do about weather one gets these opportunities. Someone is not just handed $50 million to make a feature because their uncle is head of a studio. Doesn?t happen; if you disagree give me an example. There are many more factors, such as stock holders that people answer to that prohibits them from taking these kind of risks.

 

90% of film school grads don?t work in the film business for several reasons: One, most film school grads frankly just don?t have what it takes to work in this business, two it is extremely competitive field (obviously), three most students stop their efforts due to having to pay the bills, four most film schools don't equip their students with the knowledge it takes to work in other aspects of the business to pay the bills (i.e. set electric, etc).

 

There are more jobs than directing and shooting in the film industry, many of them are in fact creatively satisfying.

 

I generally find the same people who make generalizations like the above, are the same people who think people either direct or shoot. This is usually because they have zero experience with the film industry at the level they are generalizing about.

 

 

Kevin Zanit

[Guest Frank Gossimier]

Here's the classic example Kevin of a guy with little talent and lots of connections that has done very well in Hollywood: Kevin Kostner.

 

How much was blown on "Waterworld?" Then how much was blown on the even worse

"The Postman."

 

My point is that he is backed because of his connections, obviously his product is sub standard.

 

You seem to be advocating the idea that the cream will rise to the top in Hollywood, regardless of how far outside the Hollywood system they start, we both know that isn't true.

 

Frank

[Michael Nash]

Frankly I think it's incredibly stupid to plan to be working in theatrical feature production, if only because it's damn near certainly going to be wasted effort.

 

And, to be brutally honest, if it isn't clearly going to be a realistic possibility by the time you've left school, you're not in the right family or educational establishment. Sorry, truth hurts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, only that philosophy does! It's like the old saying, "whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right!"

 

It's really not that hard to become gainfully employed in the filmmaking industry. You learn how to do a job (or jobs), you start knocking on doors and making phone calls, tough it out for a few years and eventually you're working.

 

Don't forget that simply working in the film industry is an attainable goal, and usually a prerequisite for attaining any kind of success in a creative capacity (within film). It's rare that someone graduates film school and starts directing professionally, but it's very common that people graduate film school and get an entry level position, and move up the food chain over time.

 

I think the "failure factor" here is likely the result of unrealistic expectations -- to expect to get a job at a high level in the chain of command because you studied that job in school. Maybe that's where film school graduates become disillusioned or frustrated and change careers. It just doesn't work that way, any more than it does with say law school. You have to work your way up, and the industry tends to reward ability that's proven by experience and references -- not education.

 

Phil, I know your opinion is based in part on the lack of film jobs there in England, and the same is definitely true for smaller markets. That's why I got out of mine and moved to L.A. It's really not that hard to find work in a major producton center, and to move upward from there. I worked for 10 years in corporate/industrial video, with zero feature work in that time. I moved to LA, and the first gig I got was shooting a micro-budget feature. Shorts followed on the success of that, and the contacts led to more feature work in a variety of capacities. That's after a college degree and 10 years of corporate work in a small market. And I still work in "related fields" (TV mostly), but balance that with feature work.

 

If I had taken the attitude that "it isn't going to happen," I wouldn't be here doing it now.

[Filip Plesha]

Looks nice and catchy, I'd love to see it if it were in regular distribution.

 

Reminds me of THX1138 , not in cinematography, but set design.

[Brad Grimmett]

Find me another field where 90% of the people who study that field will not be working in their chosen industry five years after graduation?

 

Frank

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know about 90%, but most law school graduates never practice law.

[Brad Grimmett]

Seeing these types of films on DVD only inspires them MORE not less.  They can see that there is a market for their creative vision that doesn't include showing teenagers having sex with each other like a pack of wild dogs in heat.

 

Frank

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sensing some kind of "moral" thing going on with you Frank, which is fine, but don't assume that everyone agrees with you. If the kid is an evangelical christian then I guess they would like these types of films more, but most any kid besides the ultra religious is much more likely to enjoy a theatrical release over a christian video. I agree with David on this one. Most kids aren't inspired by a direct to video release as much as watching something in the theater.

[Michael Nash]

I've got a book called "The Movie Business Book" that talks about a lot of this stuff, as well as dispelling some myths about Hollywood. Each chapter is written by someone who really works in that area (Sydney Pollack, Mel Brooks, Davis Puttnam, Jack Valenti..).

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

 

Relavent to this thread is the chapter on independent film, by Henry Jaglom. His basic business model is to make a movie for no more than $1 million and distribute it through small art-house distributors to ensure a profit.

 

Lots of ways to go in this business, depending on what you want to do.

[DavidSloan]

Here's the classic example Kevin of a guy with little talent and lots of connections that has done very well in Hollywood: Kevin Kostner.

 

How much was blown on "Waterworld?" Then how much was blown on the even worse

"The Postman."

 

My point is that he is backed because of his connections, obviously his product is sub standard.

 

You seem to be advocating the idea that the cream will rise to the top in Hollywood, regardless of how far outside the Hollywood system they start, we both know that isn't true.

 

Frank

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Complete nonsense, Frank. Kevin Costner has proven to be a very talented and banakble actor. Remember a little film called Dances with Wolves? It had a production budget of $22 million...it has since earned close to a half a billion dollars. This is a film that he both directed and starred in!

 

I perfectly understand that this isn't an industry that guarantees a living...those who are paying the bills working in cinema are very privledged, indeed. And while I do agree that connections are essential to working in this business that doesn't mean that Spielberg is going to let his son direct a $50 milion dollar movie because he's his son. Most directors, DPs, and producers in Hollywood are outsiders. As a matter of fact the entire Hollywood system was built by Eastern European Jewish immigrants that came to Hollywood from Brooklyn!

 

Out of curiousity, how old are you?

[David Mullen ASC]

There's a lot of factors that cause success in Hollywood: timing, connections, dumb luck, more connections, talent, hard work, etc. And did I mention dumb luck? The failure rate is pretty high for directors, a little less for writers, editors, DP's etc. If you want to be a grip or electric, your chances are a little better.

 

There's no grand scheme at work and the only measurement of success that people seem to pay attention to is financial: how much money can you earn, put together for a project, make in profit, etc.

 

I'd disagree that Costner is some example of a no-talent guy with connections who gets to keep making pictures. "Dances with Wolves" was an independent non-union feature, relatively small-scale (I think the budget was more like 16 million dollars), and something he nursemaided for years before he gained success as an actor. But not a lot of people in Hollywood had faith in him. Yet the film went on to become a great success both critically and at the box office. And when his films stopped making money, he found it harder and harder to get them made. But certainly he has connections that he uses. No one gets millions of dollars to make a movie based on merit alone.

 

I'd also disagree with the characterization of Hollywood movies being about teenagers having sex; that's a pretty limited view. I saw fourteen Hollywood features in theaters during the holiday season and there was very little teenage sex going on.

 

I don't really disagree that much with you, Frank, about the difficulties of success in Hollywood other than your assertion that the direct-to-video direct-mail market is the way to "beat Hollywood". As a DP for example, I certainly couldn't make a living just doing those sorts of films. The ones I was shooting had an average budget of $700,000 and paid the DP about $6000 total and even when I shot three a year, which was a stretch, I was making $18,000 a year, which is pretty low in Los Angeles.

 

This Feature Films for Families scheme is nothing new. Remember Sun Classic Pictures? Fairly successful in its day. I'm sure there were news articles in the 1970's about how Sun Classic Pictures was beating Hollywood at its own game. But Hollywood is still standing; they weren't beaten by Sun Classic Pictures.

 

I would think we all secretly want to be making the sorts of films that inspired us as youths, whether fantasy, adventure, or even foreign art films. If you can find artistic satifaction in making family films that go straight to DVD, I'm happy for you because that's probably a more achievable goal.