Four Points Film Project Submission.

[John E Clark]

In November I participated in a 77 Hour film project, under the umbrella of the 48 Hour Film Project organization. It was titled the "Four Points Film Project".

It was an 'online' event, and so I received an email with the mission statement at 7 pm my local time Friday, and had to submit a film or at least an MD5 hash of my film by 11:59 pm Monday, and all 'uploading' completed by 12:00 pm Tuesday. The MD5 hash would be compared with the uploaded media, and if it was not the same, the submission would be disqualified.

I had 3 other people on the project, 2 of whom have never 'made a film'... but we produced something...

There was a screening in a real theater, with DCP converted versions of our submission last week. It is the first time I've ever seen my material on something other than a computer screen or a home TV display.

I was not embarrassed by the big screen results. There many things that I will attend to next time, but the image quality from the BMPCC to the big screen was very good, so I won't worry so much about that and attend to such things as 'better sound' or 'better acting(hey this is my acting debut...)', and better production values... and maybe even better writing...

Tech details

BMPCC ISO 800 for the daytime shots, ISO 1600 for the night shots. Lumix 14-140 lens for the day shots, f/5.6-f/8 and final scene. Night shots Nikon 28mm f/2.0-f/2.8. 24 fps. All footage used RAW capture mode.

Resolve was used to color correct and generate a ProRes HQ master. While I did do some preliminary editing in Resolve, I exported the project to Premiere to do the final editing activities, and matching up the sound and dialog. Audition was used for the sound processing.

The final edited film clips were give a Unsharp mask filter with settings of 75% and a radius varying between 1-2. I set the viewing window on my computer to 200% and monitored the resulting 'sharpening' effects to avoid 'enhancing' any moire or line jaggies.

The final for DCP processing result was a MPeg4 output with bit rates of max 25 Mbs and target bit rate of 20 Mbs.

The password is:

MinorPlayers

[joshua gallegos]

Looking back at my failed filmmaking attempts, it's really so easy to see how intermediate/ professional filmmakers differ from a novice, and it's really so simple. Time and money make a huge difference. My second short film was an 8 page screenplay which i shot in 8 hours, and Orson Welles couldn't have said it better, the adage "what you see, is what you get" is profoundly true. A film requires time and attention, and rushed work will look like rushed work. Cinema has a certain prestige which all audiences have gotten used to, and a lot of them will usually nod off or just give up after three seconds, and that's because people have the attention span of a fruit fly, and so it's very difficult to produce something that can compete with other short films that have 10k dollar budgets. What's funny is that most of these high budget short films look like a Progressive TV commercial, the cinematics are quite exaggerated, with ultra fast cutting, you hardly have time to absorb what's going on. Usually i've seen that most Vimeo short films use gimmicks like silent films "guy dies, goes to heaven" "guy in walrus costume runs to ocean", "man digs hole, gets arrested, daughter finishes digging hole", it's hardly a well sough out narrative. Short films are certainly very different from feature film narratives, in this case, I think an episode of Hitchcock Presents is a short film, because story-wise, they are far more superior than what's being put out there.

 

 

just look at this short film from Vimeo, it's one of the top short films. The production value is high, but it's not a real story, this is a softcore porn movie, I personally would've made the white guy a Muslim and would've entitled the short 'Abdullah and the 72 Virgins', and make it more relevant. But really, nowadays contests like SXSW and AFI look at the visuals, they want eye candy- and it's difficult to produce if you can't raise the money.

[joshua gallegos]

I should add, very rarely there comes a time, when someone can make a short film with hardly any money. This is one of Ryan Coogler's short films, which is one of the ones I truly admire. It's one of his student films, and he worked with a pretty big crew, so having people who share the same passion and on top of that possess some technical expertise is the key to making something worthwhile. You can tell Ryan was deeply passionate about the story and it was rather tenderhearted, you can tell this is something he has personally struggled with, the prejudice of being treated by the way he looks. Also he captures the poor side of Oakland so well, the setting is defined, so it helps make the story much more real. It's really an impressive film, because we experience his fears and paranoia just by the shot selection, it's very Rear Window-like. So, this is proof that great composition, story structure, and performance can excel any high budget short film. It's certainly not easy to do, but I think it's just a matter of finding the right story.

 

Edited December 28, 2015 by joshua gallegos

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea, but it's more then story. It's also about dedicating a lot of time and money into something you won't get any financial gains from. There are a lot of great storytellers out their, who simply can't afford to tell their stories. A person walking around on the streets of Oakland, shot with a borrowed film school camera with MOS (no set sound) is a whole hell of a lot different then a non-student, trying to tell a more complex story. It's far easier to tell a story with non-actors who don't need to speak, then with non actors who do. A lot of the low/no budget films that work, aren't dialog driven. Those that ARE, like the heaven film above, that was grossly expensive to produce. So it's treading that fine line between spending little to no money, but producing an excellent product.

 

There is a HUGE difference between making a film with a bunch of friends on your personal camera, then paying for professional actors and crew to create a professional look for your film. That's all down to money in the long run and most people don't put in the effort because lets face it, digital or film, the real cost is the decent crew, locations, production design, lighting, actors and post work. One man bands (myself included) we can only do SO much and I think the better films are really made by people who write and/or direct only. Saving things like cinematography, editing and even acting, for the pro's.

 

So where digital technology has helped people tell their story for less money, it's not necessarily opened the doors for better products being made. You still need a decent amount of money to make it work.

[John E Clark]

So where digital technology has helped people tell their story for less money, it's not necessarily opened the doors for better products being made. You still need a decent amount of money to make it work.

 

Well... 'better'... to be sure my effort could be vastly improved, and the next 48-hour deal I do I'm going to start earlier and get more people involved (everyone I called about 2 weeks before the event was 'otherwise occupied' so my 'crew' was from a couple of craiglist ads...).

 

And it is my new years resolution to make at least 4 short films, one a quarter, next year...

 

Anyway, back to 'better'... there is a technical 'better' and then there's a 'better' suited story for a given audience. One of my complaints about the current big league players it they are often trying so hard to fit a 'story' in to the famous 'four quadrant' market, that it sort reduces down on many stories, and their 'visual' adaptation...

 

For example, because to meet the 4-Q market, a couple is shown perhaps 'in bed' but with the sheets/blankets drawn up around their necks, and when they exit the bed, they are so modest as to only show a 'bare' ankle... ok, perhaps a bare butt... but still perhaps things have changed in the last 35 years since I 'dated'... but I don't recall any young woman who shared a bed and attendant 'action'... would be so modest... but then perhaps times have changed...

 

Then again, someone may object to the 'soft porn' as noted above... or think 'soft porn' is not something to show in certain 'fests/situations'... fine...

 

The current 'cheap' acquisition technology allows those who don't like X to make films that don't include X, and market to those who also don't like X... but by the same token... for those who don't mind, or parish the thought... like X... they can have a films made that allow for such... Heck, I'd like to see better XXX films... but I digress...

 

I'll use something like the "Dallas Buyer's Club"(2013) I don't think it would have been produced if profit was the only motive, as it is not a story that would garner... what is it now for Star Wars VIII... shooting for 1 Billion... while the budget is probably far greater than most people posting here would ever have... the 'story' is one that could be told by those who are posting here...

 

I also don't think that people get better by either 1) not shooting anything... 2) shooting in a vacuum. I think people should shoot more short films, despite not having 'pros', and get feedback on what is shot, and work for 'better' in future shooting.

 

One of the more irritating outcomes of 'youtube' is not that a bunch of people post crappy offerings... but with the few viral clips... everyone seems to be expecting their offering crappy as it may be.... will be one of those viral clips.

 

I got 'kicked out' of a filmmaking group about 3 years ago on this very point... as I wanted to make a series of ever better films, with little thought for viral, but the meetup owner thought otherwise... last year... well... 2014's group effort sort of petered out due to the realization on the part of the members that filmmaking is hard... duh...

Edited December 29, 2015 by John E Clark

[joshua gallegos]

So where digital technology has helped people tell their story for less money, it's not necessarily opened the doors for better products being made. You still need a decent amount of money to make it work.

 

That's true, the sad part about filmmaking is that it requires a budget, because without it the creativity will be stifled due to lack of resources and time. With writing you only need a pen and paper, with painting you need a few essential tools, but with movies, you have to truly hustle to get any project off the ground. But again, to reiterate, there have been some filmmakers who have gotten around that obstacle like Richard Linklater, his early films don't look cinematic, and his composition isn't exactly terrific, but his writing is so strong that people could forgive the subpar quality of the image. But he still had a crew working and he had made several other short films before that, so he was already a seasoned filmmaker.

 

The hard part for me is dealing with people, I can recall my first short film, I had my small canon t4i on a flimsy tripod that creaked, and the most awful thing was trying to level the tripod legs, it was so time consuming. I also had to change lenses, and the actors gave me looks, and I realized they didn't care the moment they showed up. So, I was alone, and I'm glad I at least finished it, and the audio guy which I paid money, quit on me and returned some of that money back. But, it's great to take a beating, because even then I managed to make a second short film, and I still want to make more. So, I know it's not a fluke, I really love this and, I guess the way love works is you have to take so much poop and still care at the end of the day. But I know deep inside that, those two short films I made is not the best I can do, it's the lack of technical expertise that hinders me and stifles my creativity. And I specifically wrote them to fit a non-budget scenario, because there's no way a no one with no prior experience in the business can raise any kind of money on Kickstarter or other crowd funding sites, you need legitimacy. And I was apathetic to the stuff I had written, I really considered them experiments, if I write something that I'm truly passionate about, I'd be willing to go through hell to make it happen and to make it work, which means I'd raise the money myself somehow. I'm still trying to figure out what short films mean to me, there's no way i could ever make a good short film if i don't get what this thing is. To do this you have to be self-motivated, and be incredibly tenacious and do everything within your power to make the film better, it's all about going beyond the distance to capture an image that is worthy of being captured.

Edited December 30, 2015 by joshua gallegos

[Tyler Purcell]

it's all about going beyond the distance to capture an image that is worthy of being captured.

Worthy in your own mind, which is part of the problem.

 

I agree that experimentation is critical, like any artist understanding the medium you're working with is important. However, I don't think experimenting for the sake of experimenting is important. I also think it's far more critical to write something more main stream. We all know what main stream films are suppose to look like, so it's an instant gauge to judge your own work. How close can you get to the polished feel of many main stream films? Is your story main stream enough to interest others and get them to watch?

 

If people aren't watching your film and giving you positive feedback, it's hard as a filmmaker to learn from your mistakes. In YOUR mind, you'll see the mistakes YOU made, but may never see the one's others find. Those are the mistakes you truly learn from, it's feedback from random people that make the learning experience so vital and you won't get that feedback, if your film sounds like crap, looks uninteresting or has a stupid story because people will shut it off.

 

I fast forwarded through 'Limbo' because honestly, there was no mystery, no intrigue, nothing to keep me watching and nobody wants to watch some egg head middle age guy screw some hot chicks. At least 'Locks' was short, sweet, to the point and simply put together. Sure I would have probably cut it tighter, but it worked. So production value, doesn't matter too much if it's believable and in my eyes 'Locks' was a real true to the heart story.

 

I know I've posted this a lot... but in 2010, I co-wrote, produced, shot and edited a 48hr film as an experiment to see if we could make something decent in two days. We shot this in 24hrs and had a cut done, with all-original music by the end of our second day. I did wind up spending another week tweaking the final cut and doing color, but it could have been done in 48hrs no problem. No money, shot with an HDV camcorder, non-actors and first-time director.

 

[Bill DiPietra]

And I specifically wrote them to fit a non-budget scenario, because there's no way a no one with no prior experience in the business can raise any kind of money on Kickstarter or other crowd funding sites, you need legitimacy.

 

That's nonsense, Josh. I just helped finance a 16mm short film that was crowdfunded on Kickstarter. They had a great concept that really pulled me in and if the campaign hadn't been successful, I was considering funding it myself. And these were student film-makers with no credentials whatsoever. You just have to come up with a concept that will appeal to enough people so that you can finance the project. If you're passionate about something it will be quite evident to others. You really don't give yourself enough credit, Josh.

 

I agree that experimentation is critical, like any artist understanding the medium you're working with is important. However, I don't think experimenting for the sake of experimenting is important. I also think it's far more critical to write something more main stream. We all know what main stream films are suppose to look like, so it's an instant gauge to judge your own work.

 

Again...nonsense. Tyler, we've been through this on other threads, but you seem to be looking at film-making through only one lens...not multiple ones. Josh is a new film-maker, so now is the time for him to experiment for the sake of experimenting. As long as you have the time and access to the necessary resources, I would experiment with everything I could - whether they be short films, lighting tests, camera tests, whatever. When else is he going to experiment? Certainly not on a set a few years from now when someone is paying him to deliver a very specific product. Now is time to take risks and learn, Josh.

 

Tyler, why should he be writing something "more main-stream?" Again, he should write whatever he is passionate about at this stage because that is ultimately what will show through. You are giving advice based on your past experiences and the current industry standards that may opens doors for people and that is by no means a bad thing. Normally, I would be backing you up on those kinds of realities. But my point here is that Josh is still developing himself as a film-maker and I sense a true passion in him. The fact that he has very eclectic tastes in older films & directors impresses me because it's something you just don't see very often. Most film students' history doesn't go past 1990, these days.

 

So why restrict him to writing something more main-stream? Let him make an avant-garde film if he wants. I completely understand where you are coming from, Tyler. But Josh will have plenty of time to learn the harsh realities of the film business. Right now, I think it's more important to simply let his passion flourish.

[Tyler Purcell]

I wasn't only talking to Josh, just making a generalized statement to anyone reading.

 

I mean, there are two ways to go... mess around and never make something worth watching OR take the time you have at school, where you've got access to equipment and the talents of other students and attempt to produce content that will give you a potential career boost. If a career making movies doesn't interest someone, then who cares what they produce. Most of the time however, student films become the work that defines a filmmaker. Plus, once graduated, it's very challenging to have a full-time job AND make films. So using that precious college time for producing something special, is pretty smart.

 

I spent a lot of time in school helping other filmmakers with their projects. I saw the ones with stellar student films eventually get involved in the film industry and those who didn't put in the effort, fall to the wayside.

 

As we said in other threads, passion is great, but it can be misleading. Talent is far more important then passion and you can't really measure talent unless it's on the screen, unless people are able to sit down and watch it.

 

Anyway, these are just some tips I've learned over the 20+ years I've been in the industry. I've looked back on the mistakes I made as a young filmmaker and know today how simple it would have been to fix them. I just wish to share what I learned and what I know today, so people don't go the same direction I did. I got lucky because I'm also very technically minded and that's kept me employed for years. Yet, there is a much smoother/cleaner path to becoming a filmmaker and the films you make as a student will haunt you forever if you don't do them right... assuming you want to be a filmmaker.

[joshua gallegos]

In the coming year I was thinking of making films about cults and religion. I think short films should at least be a voice for something that is socially relevant, I wouldn't want to do any gimmicky stories that deal with nonsensical things, The medium of the short film should have a higher purpose in my own view. I think people try to masquerade behind beliefs to hide the fact that life is utterly meaningless. We like to pretend we are at the center of the universe, that there is a god that watches over us, and I tend to have very nihilistic views about that. Every major religion started as a cult, it's only through exponential growth where it becomes a religion, and it's interesting because nowadays terrorism masquerades behind religion and it is highly infectious like a virus. The problem today is extremist Muslim groups who attack people's sense of self and sense of reality. Brainwashing is nothing like it's presented in the Manchurian Candidate. Every person feels they are at the center of the universe and that they exist for a higher purpose. So I can imagine some little boy, who lives in destitution in Iraq, perhaps with resentful emotions toward Americans, for causing so much grief. And here comes an ISIS recruitment group, looking for holy warriors to die for a higher cause, and these recruiters use this resentment as a foundation to implant an idea. And it's the idea of giving people a higher purpose in life that drives them to commit suicidal acts of terror. So, this war against terror can't be fought with weapons, because the idea itself needs to be destroyed. And, I think that's near impossible, because extremist Muslims are growing exponentially, and it has become a pervasive issue all over the world, and it's tearing the world apart. It's just fascinating how an idea can infect an entire population. There's great stories surrounding smaller cults like Heaven's Gate. I know when people hear the word "cult", they think about Charles Manson, but that's not even close to what they truly are and how they prey on the vulnerable to grow and capitalize. I can't even tell you how cults have a major influence on Hollywood, something Kubrick tried to show us in Eyes Wide Shut, his daughter Vivian is actually a Scientologist.

 

But that's the driving force for my next slew of short films, it's deeply fascinating stuff, and something that hasn't been shown in movies too often.

[Bill DiPietra]

I mean, there are two ways to go... mess around and never make something worth watching OR take the time you have at school, where you've got access to equipment and the talents of other students and attempt to produce content that will give you a potential career boost.

 

I never said people should "mess around." I fully agree that people should be honing their respective crafts while in school, but experimentation is part of the learning process. And now is the time to do it.

 

Most of the time however, student films become the work that defines a filmmaker.

 

The only way a student film will define a film-maker is if that film-maker allows it to be seen. To be honest, much of the work I've seen these days in the way of student films is quite underwhelming...because they are students. They are still developing their skill-sets. It's not the 60s where you had budding talents like Scorsese coming out of NYU and making a splash with Who's That Knocking At My Door (1967) right out of grad school. You hardly ever hear about anyone getting into the industry that way anymore. Most people pay their dues by doing a lot of short films first. Some are more fortunate and get in faster, so it all depends. But this leads me to my age-old complaint: where are all the Kubricks, Bergmans & Tarkovskys of this generation? But that's another thread...

 

My point is that there are so many other paths into the industry than there were 40 years ago (almost too many) - and anyone with a computer is a "film-maker," these days - that people are better off devoting time to developing their film-making skills while in school, rather than rushing to put together a product that will most likely look like a student film. If you take the time to learn - technically and aesthetically - you have a better chance of standing out from the rest of the crowd.

 

Plus, once graduated, it's very challenging to have a full-time job AND make films.

 

I don't know where you're getting this, but it's nonsense. As someone who's had a full-time job since he graduated college, I can tell you that it's more than do-able, provided you are devoted to whatever project you are working on. Plus, a lot of creative freedom comes with that steady paycheck. The reality is that most people will wind up having to get at least part-time jobs once they graduate college, simply to pay the bills and make films in their spare time.

 

Talent is far more important then passion and you can't really measure talent unless it's on the screen, unless people are able to sit down and watch it.

 

They are equally important. Passion is what drives someone to become talented at a given craft.

[John E Clark]

 

The only way a student film will define a film-maker is if that film-maker allows it to be seen. To be honest, much of the work I've seen these days in the way of student films is quite underwhelming...because they are students. They are still developing their skill-sets. It's not the 60s where you had budding talents like Scorsese coming out of NYU and making a splash with Who's That Knocking At My Door (1967) right out of grad school. You hardly ever hear about anyone getting into the industry that way anymore. Most people pay their dues by doing a lot of short films first. Some are more fortunate and get in faster, so it all depends. But this leads me to my age-old complaint: where are all the Kubricks, Bergmans & Tarkovskys of this generation? But that's another thread...

 

I would point out that in the case of Scorsese and quite a few others there was Roger Corman... whose 'schlock' movies, drive-in and 24 hour theater fodder they were, were cheap to make on the backs of even cheaper labor (I think I read an article/interview that Corman 'always made money'... which is to say he cut corners, paid little, got 'talent' to wear multiple hats, etc... to get that cheap production...). I would also say that 99% of those involved in a Corman production never made it to the heavenly stardom of the Scorsese, the Coppolas, or Jack Nicholsons.

 

I would also note there was a totally different mind set in the 'youth' movie going public... in terms of 'production' values, most of the now film school classics of that era often were so far inferior to the 'studio' production, that the contemporary critics had much derision to lay on such a film, if they bothered at all. Then there's Roger Ebert... but I digress...

 

There was a great rise in sex and violence and realistic/gritty portrayals. In some cases major studios backed films that were released on under the X rating, such as "Midnight Cowboy"(1969) or "Last Tango in Paris"(1972). Heck there isn't even a modern equivalent to the "Groove Tube"(1974) (which was 'born' form an avantgard play (whatever...) in NYC...). And further heck heck... there isn't even a porn equivalent to "Deepthroat"(1972).

 

Why do I mention these types of 'low class almost porn films'... because these films were barrier breakers. In the case of "Midnight Cowboy" the subject of 'homosexual' and 'homosexual prostitution' was depicted in full blazing color on screen... "Last Tango" depicted the decline and fall of an 'aging' actor... in more ways that one... but I digress.

 

And of course, 'porn for porn' sake was as part of the barrier breaking movement.

 

What do we see to day... mostly nice 'pg-13' films for the 4 quadrant audience. In the olden days there would be one screen in a theater and 'nice' movies played on the 'north' side of the tracks, while 'porn' or 'schlock' movies played on the south side of town... were not only movies of 'low morals' could be seen, other 'vices' could be supplied.

 

What have we today... metroplexes that won't take a 'risky' relative to MPAA ratings movie for fear of scaring off customers aka 'families' from the other screens a few feet away.

The 'gentrified' downtown areas made save for urban middle class young people, have no 'crappy' theaters that can make a buck on a 50 cent admission... in fact, in some places a glass of water costs $5 to discourage 'transients' from coming into the establishment...

 

So there is far fewer places that will take risks on crap, and thus any 'Scorsese early 'gold'' is lost in the wash as well.

 

The only film that I've seen that has given me the same sort of 'feeling' of the late 60's in recent times was "Dallas Buyer's Club"(2013). But even that production was far 'slicker' than 99% of the 'issue/social' consciousness films of the 60's.

 

Then there's Andy Warhol... I don't even see that sort of 'experimental' film making... all that seems to happen is copycat of his 'style'... I'm excepting the Morressey collaborations but rather the Warhol "Empire State Building' or the 'Sleep' type experimental films.

 

I'll leave off my geriatric rant for the moment... but I'll just part with... the melieu of the 60's does not exist in this time frame, nor does it appear that the social consciousness exist either... the 'occupy wall street' movement was weak... anemic... relative to the protests of the 60's... even the protests/riots of Ferguson were a weak echo of the racial tensions of the 60's...

 

All of that gave rise to the Scorseses of that era.

[Bill DiPietra]

... the melieu of the 60's does not exist in this time frame, nor does it appear that the social consciousness exist either...

 

That's exactly my point. So why conform to industry standards when you are still a student? We both seem to agree that very few people are willing to "take a chance" on anyone anymore, so why wouldn't you use this time to make films that you want?...

[John E Clark]

 

That's exactly my point. So why conform to industry standards when you are still a student? We both seem to agree that very few people are willing to "take a chance" on anyone anymore, so why wouldn't you use this time to make films that you want?...

 

I don't have a good answer for that, relative to the 'yout's of today'... my 'excuse' is I'm not in school... I did take a couple of film production courses at the local junior college, and was 'amazed' at the complete lack of interest in doing any thing 'social consciousness' wise... or heck even crappy 'risque' wise... (In the Wife's film production classes at the local UC some of the submissions at least included 'nudity'... not the Wife's of course... she is too much too high class for that sort of sordid thing... but I digress...).

 

My production used a standard 'suicide trope', but I did put the story in the setting of a Marine wife who looses her husband in war... given that I live within hearing distances of 155mm canons going off during training... and I did get some 'real live' Marines to play roles... fortunately it was not so military negative that they would have been chastized for participation ... other than not getting an official dispensation to be in the film...

 

But the other students only produced a bare minimum of films...

[Tyler Purcell]

Good points ya'll, nice to hear you're thinking about things.

 

I do think our modern audiences are to a certain extent are so desensitized, it's hard to make something different they'd be interested in. People today don't appreciate good filmmaking. I was very impressed with 'Carol' for instance, such fantastic filmmaking, but it's never going to make any money. Sure, it's won and will continue to win awards, but sometimes that's not enough. Had a first time filmmaker made 'Carol', I bet they'd have trouble finding funding for further projects. As much as I liked 'Carol', it's not something I'd watch again. Where more fun films, things that are truly simply entertainment, I'd watch over and over again.

 

Picking a modern socially relevant topic and writing short films around it is a great idea. I'm actually doing that right now about the Muslim situation. I've got a great little story about a muslim kid who is picked on in school and starts to become radicalized as a consequence. It's actually based on a true story that a friend brought me and it's very relevant. We'll be writing the treatment soon and probably shoot it with my existing Fuji stock for whatever money I can dig up. I think social relevance is critical for short films, it's something I tried to do in 'The Perfect Moment' which is one of my shorts, which circles around government greed and how one government official's daughter feels the only way to stop it is to kill her father.

 

That's exactly my point. So why conform to industry standards when you are still a student? We both seem to agree that very few people are willing to "take a chance" on anyone anymore, so why wouldn't you use this time to make films that you want?...

Umm because when you're older and have money, you can make anything you want. When you're young and don't have money, you're kind of forced to make what you can afford to produce.