Why LA?

[Guest]

Do you realize that each of you has written enough words to fill a 90 page screenplay?

 

Seriously.

 

R,

[Landon D. Parks]

Do you realize that each of you has written enough words to fill a 90 page screenplay?

 

Seriously.

 

R,

 

Yeah, what's really weird: It took me 4 months to write a 50 page script, yet only a few days to write on this thread. <_<

 

Oh well, back to work :)

 

Hey Tyler.. Wanna collaborate on 'Cinematography: the movie'?

Edited April 1, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Tyler Purcell]

I'm going to simply agree that there are multiple ways to reach an end target, not just one. Rather you can agree with me on this or not I cannot say, though I at least seem to have Richard's agreement on THAT ONE front - that there is more than one way to skin a cat in this industry.

Yes, I think the one thing we can ALL agree on, is there are many ways to make and release a product.

 

The difference in my philosophy and yours, is that you depend on a strike of lighting to be successful.

 

To suggest that Criterion movies will never end up in the dollar bin is say that Criterion movies are better than every other studio product out there, because most end up there when they don't sell all their copies. Criterion is not the one that puts them there - the retailer does. I actually just got back from Target... You know what was sitting on their DVD shelf? No less five separate Criterion titles. Since earlier you mentioned 'being on the shelves of target is a sign of failure', exactly what will your opinion be IF your movie is one of the lucky few Criterion puts out to end up there? I'm very interested to hear this one...

Everyone who sells DVD's, sells Criterion today, our film will absolutely be sold at Target and Walmart on the shelf in the eye line of the consumer passing by. My earlier point was that those lower-end DVD distributors don't get that placement. Their films are generally located in a different place like the $4.99 bin. Besides, Criterion are releasing it on VOD as well, so that's iTunes and Netflix as well.

 

You aren't going to make much money off a DVD sitting in the $4.99 bin.

 

Well, I'll say it again... This was not some 'backyard' operation.

Well it sounds like you've got some VFX experience. I don't understand why you'd make s $25,000 film with all that experience. You could be making 6 figure salary here in Los Angeles doing VFX work. If you know the main programs fluently; Nuke, Maya, Cinema 4D and After Effects, you can get HUGE bank living here.

 

But wait... you said you're not doing any modeling work. So is the only thing your doing adjusting pre-made models, compositing them in AE with green screen elements? Umm...

 

The reason why VFX in Hollywood cost so much money is because the VFX studios KNOW Hollywood has the money to spend.

Yea, but you say that now and the difference will be night and day. Your movie will look like a video game and in the top guy's movie, you won't be able to tell the difference.

 

Same reasons Directors demand millions of dollars when they could live perfectly happy lives on 1/10 of that. The reason Hollywood films with a lot of VFX take a long time to render out is because a lot of them, like Pixar and ILM, still rely on their massive CPU server farms - which are often times hundreds of times slower than a GPU render would be, not to mention many of these scenes are rendered out at 4k or even 6k resolutions.

Dude, GPU's are fast for ray tracing, but when you add global illumination, GPU's can't deal with the processing due to the lack of memory. Even the 12GB memory cards like the Titan X and Z, are still very limited compared to a bunch of CPU's. I've done the tests as I've built 3 render farms for clients who make product that's on broadcast television. A good render engine, extremely fast multi-threaded CPU's, with gobs of memory, can process complex tasks at a speed a few GPU's can only dream of. If all you do is simple ray tracing like video games, then GPU's are WAY faster then CPU's. This is why ALL of the effects houses use CPU based render farms.

 

You mention 4k and 6k, but even for 2k to make the lighting/grading look realistic, requires much more processing time then you let on. Most of the work I've been involved with was all done at 1920x1080.

 

No one should bet on technology as any method for distribution. Your goal for distribution should be appropriate for the project. If you're making a feature, of course you want to see it in theaters. What filmmakers wouldn't? The reality is though, many features are released direct to DVD every year, and they can make a bucket load of money. Because they didn't break the bank making them, they don't have to recoup millions of dollars to turn a profit.

Right, but who said anything about millions of dollars. How about recouping $500k, which is a reasonable budget for a feature that COULD get some serious attention if done right. Yes it's true that many films never get distribution, some of them are very good. At the same time, I think you'll find those filmmakers worked forwards not backwards. As many of us have said during this and other threads, you have to work backwards first. Find a sales agent first, find out what they want and what they'd do with it. How much money can they get for XYZ property. Once you learn those things, then you can write a script around what they want AND the kind of actors you can afford. Keep the agent in the loop the whole time and sell the product to investors as already having some sort of distribution. Plus, the market changes yearly, so what people want in 2015, isn't necessarily what people want in 2017. You have to predict the future and you also have to be able to make a film FAST. It's also good to make something that directly competes with another property, 'Miles Ahead' and 'Born to be Blue', both films about extremely similar topics, releasing this year. THAT's how you think a head, that's how you get your film released because you can build on the buzz of another film. The low-budget community has been doing that forever and it honestly works.

 

The other way is to make a passion project that nobody will see. Far better to take your passion and make it into a short film that could lead to something bigger. Just look at 'Whiplash', it's a perfect example of this. Non filmmakers, started with a great short and next thing they know, nominated for oscars. In my eyes, that's not "luck", that's just something done right and those guys DIDN'T have any money. They just knew the story they had was unique and could work well.

 

If you're making a web series, I'd aim to get it on a REAL network before putting it out there on Youtube. Not saying you will, and not saying Youtube is a bad way to get noticed, either...

Networks won't talk with you, I'm sorry, but they won't. The only way for a no-name to get a product on television these days is to start with a high-budget web series that you fund with your high paying job. You bring in some top hollywood crew people to make it, including writers and a producer. They get all excited and into the series, share it with all their industry friends and the next thing you know, you're off on a roll. What happens is one of those people on your top crew, is someone way high on the food chain. They take 5 minutes out of their day to watch a few seconds of your show because they saw it on facebook and if they like it, you may have something worth while. The problem is, making a killer multi-episode youtube series like the ones that were picked up, is hardly easy. The examples you gave earlier were ALL from people who were industry insiders already and spent millions on those series. Giving them away for a year or two and then finally getting broadcast distribution.

 

What you don't understand about ANY of this stuff is that your crew... they don't have connections man. They are going to bodies, turning knobs and doing what you say. Do you think top industry people are on their facebook, linked in or twitter pages? I don't think so man. You pay for the good crew as marketing man. I'm facebook friends with a top cinematographer who posts constantly about his projects, his rate is worth it's weight in gold because his facebook friends are ALL the other people he's worked with. Meaning... HUGE filmmakers who will see your little project on his feed. I mean that sort of promotion is invaluable and again, IMPOSSIBLE to get if you aren't in the industry so to speak.

 

I've been prepping a feature film for most of 2015 and our cast decision was based solely on facebook and twitter followers. One of the actresses had 15 million subscribers and the other had 50 million. Sure, the one with 50 million was going to be more expensive, but dude... 50 million people will hear about your little movie.

 

Again, this is the power of working in Los Angeles. You'd have to import everyone to Ohio to even get close to making those kinds of connections and frankly with a low budget, how can you do that?

 

As for how many disc's one will press for a filmmakers first feature: that depends on the feature. Is Johnny Depp in it? Does it have a title that would bring press in the industry? Is it based on a famous book? There are more than a few criteria used by distributors to determine the sales potential for any DVD, rather it's had a theatrical run or not. Just because it's someones first film does not mean they will not press more than a few thousand discs.

Talking about a $25,000 indy movie vs a multi-million dollar hollywood movie.

 

Nobody is going to press more then a few thousand of an indy movie. So lets say they press 5,000 total, that's a pretty reasonable number. That means only 5,000 people will ever see your movie, right? How is that worth while in the grand scheme of things? Even if they pressed a million disks, if your show is good and you can promote it somehow, you could have millions of hits online right? Sure, its lower paying, but you'll have more viewership. This goes back to my point above about marketing and advertising. If all your money goes into making your product and you don't have high end crew who have connections to help your project succeed, if the only way of seeing your product is in the $4.99 bin mixed with with top hollywood films... umm, starting to see the picture?

 

... to assume that all the advice I give is false or misleading is sort of elitist in my opinion, when much of the advice I gave on the original topic of this thread (Why LA) was to move where the jobs are... Which, I'm sure most would agree, applies not just to the film industry - but many others as well.

How can you give ANY advice about living in Los Angeles? It's like me giving advice on sky diving. I know a lot about it, I've watched videos, met people who dive constantly, been in the planes, done everything BUT actually jump out of one. Until you jump... and I mean by yourself, not tethered to someone, you don't know jack poop about it. All your advice is based on "book knowledge", so my analogy is spot on. Landon, to truly know what it's like here and what it's like to work in the film industry, you have to take that jump. You've gotta leave your home town, you've gotta get a place here and you've gotta figure out how to make it work.

 

Now earlier in this thread I did say, it's a smart idea to come here with some products under your belt. I also said you've gotta move here with A LOT of money. I don't recall how much I said then, but bare minimal $10k. You've also gotta have a job right when you land, which is tricky, but absolutely doable if you work hard to make it happen. If you can barely afford to pay rent and survive, living in a non-industry town, you aren't going to be a successful filmmaker. As someone pointed out above, why are you going to school if you wanna make movies? They are two polar opposite things to be doing and frankly, pieces of paper don't mean jack poop in the entertainment industry. Your resume will be a one sheet with all the shows you've worked on. Even if all those shows are short subjects; commercials, promo's, trailers, educational, narrative/documentary, it doesn't matter. Nobody is going to be watching them, all they want to see is your IMDB has some credits and if you're applying for a creative position, what your demo reel looks like.

 

So... what do you really wanna do? Teach business or make movies?

[Tyler Purcell]

Do you realize that each of you has written enough words to fill a 90 page screenplay?

ROFL!!! Yea, I do like typing... keeps me busy between renders! Tho I must admit, not much rendering today! Waiting for client approval. YEAY!

[Landon D. Parks]

“CINEMATOGRAPHY: THE EPIC MOVIE – PART 2”

Written by Landon Parks, aka 'Spielberg Parks'.

 

 

An epic told in 8 parts, er, quotes.

 

(note: I love writing. I have written a novel over 150,000 words that is not yet finished... I also love debating, which is what I did as a hobby in high school. Can't you tell?)

 

 

 

The difference in my philosophy and yours, is that you depend on a strike of lighting to be successful.

 

 

I will spend the most time here. Yes, my method DOES require some pretty good odds. You know what, more than likely anyone who follows my advice will fail miserably. However, for you to suggest that your advice is somehow NOT a lighting-strike kind of odds is just odd to me.

 

You see, when I see success in Hollywood – I’m talking about the top players. I’m talking about the DGA directors working $50 million dollar films, and the Producers who can bring projects to the top studio brass. I’m not really talking about someone making $500k or even $1 million features. That is not success to me. So perhaps the issue we are having is our individual definition of Hollywood success story. Yours seems to be working actively in the industry, making a living, and hopefully earning that top spot one day.

 

I can tell you, your odds of going from set PA to having dinner with the head of production at Paramount is about as great as my idea to make a feature as your calling card. You can show me some people who have followed your method, and I can show you people who followed mine (well not really my advice, but the same advice I’m offering). Sure, is your movie going to be the next Paranormal Activity, El Mariachi, Blair Witch Project? I doubt it, BUT, if it’s a good movie that tells a good story and has a catch to hook people, you can get distribution with that, even without major stars – or any stars at all. Of course, such success is rare, and in fact in trying to name recent films that took this route and became major blockbusters, I can count on one hand in the past 20 years. Only 8 features get picked up by the majors at Sundance this year…

 

You see, with my Idea, if you make a good feature, and you get that into festivals and it wins awards (entirely possible, stars not required), you will attain the eye of agents and distributors. If you happen to be lucky enough to get that film picked up and released, and it makes money for that distributor – guess who has just sky-rocketed to the top of the pile? So, while you’re still working as a PA and working you’re way up, all it takes is one good film to skyrocket someone from nothing to the top. Is it a gamble? Yes. So is playing the lottery. So is having a dream of ever working at the top in Hollywood.

 

There is no such thing as an easy way into Hollywood. No such thing whatsoever.

 

 

Well it sounds like you've got some VFX experience. I don't understand why you'd make s $25,000 film with all that experience. You could be making 6 figure salary here in Los Angeles doing VFX work.

 

 

I could probably, yes. In fact, there are a lot of jobs in creative positions I could take if I wanted to. I have been designing book covers and other graphics for years, and could easily get a job in that as well. I know my well around Blender, Maya, and Softimage SXI. I also know (and own) Vue Infinite. I have spent years working on a video game on the side as well, working in Unreal Engine. But you know what, as exciting as an occasional foray into such things are – I have no drive to do it full time working for someone else.

 

 

 

But wait... you said you're not doing any modeling work. So is the only thing your doing adjusting pre-made models, compositing them in AE with green screen elements? Umm...

 

 

When did I say that? The previous sentence I said I have been working with people for over a year on models and others things of that nature. I did say we bought some assets, and we did. Most of those assets are things like trees and other distance items that would make little sense to re-invent the wheel on.

 

As for modeling, I CAN do that as well… But I choose not to. I don’t really care for it that well, as I’m more of a ‘level builder’ of sorts. As such, I have been taking the models and other items from those people and arranging them similar to what a video game level designer does.

 

What I DID say was that it is possible for a filmmaker to buy nothing but premade models and use them as backgrounds against a green screen and make a perfectly viable looking movie. It might look generic since someone else can use that same dungeon or cityscape, but then again it depends on what you’re doing with it. I did not say that was what I was doing.

 

 

 

This is why ALL of the effects houses use CPU based render farms.

 

 

Not quite. The main reason is because to upgrade that multi-million dollar render farm and pipeline to work with GPU vs CPU would require millions, probably tens of millions in upgrades. Since Hollywood is in no real need to be a hurry for these things, there is little reason to make such an investment.

 

Not saying GPU’s can produce all the same effects as CPU’s can, though GPU rendering blender now supports most everything CPU rendering does, and GPU rendering is much cheaper than CPU rendering.

 

 

 

Most of the work I've been involved with was all done at 1920x1080.

 

 

Which is actually larger (by only a little) than a 2048x858 (1,757,184 pixels) frame, or DCP cinemascope. So it should take LESS time to render that same scene than a 1080p (2,073,600 pixels) scene.

 

 

 

Your movie will look like a video game

 

Welcome to the world of the green screen movie. Most all of them look like video games, even the big Hollywood ones. But, that doesn’t really seem to hurt box office numbers. BTW) Have you seen recent video games? I’ve seen less real things in real life. Now of course, the whole project is not green screen, and much of the VFX come in with things like set extensions and replacements.

 

 

As someone pointed out above, why are you going to school if you wanna make movies?

 

 

 

Easy. I want a backup plan. Because I’m realistic, and don’t consider my ‘success’ to be working 16 hour days as a PA. I’d rather be a Teacher making the same amount of money and making movies on the side than I would be a set PA for the rest of my life.

 

So, why not a degree in film? Because no one gives two craps about a degree in the film industry. Spending a hundred thousand at Full Sail would be the biggest waste of $100,000 I could think of.

 

I am not getting my degree in teaching with larger aspirations to be a teacher, any more than I got my degree in business as a larger aspiration to be a general manager at Wendy’s. Neither jobs would be my ‘first’ pick, but I want a degree in something as a backup in case (actually in the likelihood) that I never make it in the film industry beyond making small projects for fun.

 

Do I want to be the next Spielberg? You bet I do… The difference is, I’m not counting on it.

 

Also, my degree in business has helped me multiple times in my film, thearte, and other ventures. As a filmmaker with a business degree, I understand better than many filmmakers do how to structure a business and raise investor funding than they could ever dream of knowing.

 

 

all they want to see is your IMDB has some credits and if you're applying for a creative position, what your demo reel looks like.

 

 

Wait a sec here. Hold the phone… So, what you’re now saying is that what they care about is what IMDb credits you have and what your demo reel looks like?

 

This is what I been saying all along, more or less. IMDb will give you credit for anything you can get seen, including web series, short films, features in the $4.99 bin…. You can build a reel of your work outside of Hollywood.

 

Of course, having IMDb credits and a reel alone is not going to land you a job for a studio… You need to get that meeting in the first place, where you can show your resume and your reel. You say you get there via working your way up and meeting people, I say an equally valid way is to work outside of Hollywood until you have something to use a calling card.

 

And all of this has little to do with 'producing movies in Ohio'. By all means, once you have the budget to start working with industry professionals - you're now ready for Hollywood and LA. Until then, don't put the cart before the horse. Though, due to massive tax credits and reduced expenditures from LA, I'd still suggest bringing that project here to shoot.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Landon D. Parks]

Just to add a couple of other advantages to shooting in OH over LA:

 

You see, here in Ohio - I don't have anywhere near the same red tape as in LA. Since my project involves child actors in major roles, the red tape for that alone in CA is massive. Coogan accounts, work permits, court approved contracts... on and on and on. Here in Ohio, minor's are exempt from all state level laws and need no permits or Coogan accounts. Makes getting a movie made without the need for a high priced entertainment attorney much easier.

 

Instead of relying on the nanny state like CA does, productions here are allowed to govern themselves for the most part. Of course, we still follow the SAG Young Performers handbook for working rules, but it's a major help not to have the state breathing down your back.

 

We also don't have that pesky $800 a year LLC fee, either, so we can actually become legal for a one time (more or less) fee.

 

We also don't have the difficult permit requirements to shoot in LA. No need for deposits, and in most cases no need for insurance (thought I'd still get it). Local state parks allow you shoot there for a $40 one time permit fee, most cities require no permits at all, and the local metropark system allows me to shoot anything I want, all year long, for a $100 annual permit fee.

 

Try that in CA.

 

Now the first part may not apply to all movies being made, so that part may or may not apply.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Satsuki Murashige]

I think I'll wait for this movie to show up on basic cable...

[Guest]

Since my project involves child actors in major roles, the red tape for that alone in CA is massive. Coogan accounts, work permits, court approved contracts... on and on and on. Here in Ohio, minor's are exempt from all state level laws and need no permits or Coogan accounts. Makes getting a movie made without the need for a high priced entertainment attorney much easier.

 

Instead of relying on the nanny state like CA does, productions here are allowed to govern themselves for the most part. Of course, we still follow the SAG Young Performers handbook for working rules, but it's a major help not to have the state breathing down your back.

 

Uh, no actually. If the kids are in SAG then you'll be following all the SAG rules regardless of the fact you are in Ohio. And that DOES mean a Coogan account, which they would have set up already anyway. It also means very limited hours for kids under 12 and THREE hours of on set schooling per day when school is in session.

 

If they are not SAG then they will most certainly be covered under state employment laws that stop people from sending kids down mines or making them do child labour for free.

 

Having now made three movies with kids in the leads roles I can tell you you're gonna have to do a lot more research on this point. Heck even South Africa has stricter rules for having kids on a film set than Canada does!!

 

As for: "Makes getting a movie made without the need for a high priced entertainment attorney much easier."

 

You will not escape this no matter how hard you try, sorry. If you do use SAG those actors have lawyers and they'll be up your arse like you would not believe! Then there's the high priced entertainment attorney you'll be paying to get you out of all those legal jams you will surely get yourself into as a new producer. Trust me, it will happen.

 

Some of Tyler's points are well founded in the sense that you do have a lot to learn. You will make a lot of mistakes trying to get a first feature made, that is unavoidable. But the lawyers and the unions will come for you, no matter where you are.

 

The smart producer uses this to their advantage...they hire better lawyers than everyone else has, and when the crew bitches and moans about their rate of pay, you simply say...I'm sorry, you'll need to take that up with your union. Then you walk way.

 

R,

[JD Hartman]

See: http://www.bizparentz.org/californiacooganlaw.html

[Landon D. Parks]

Of course, SAG productions are subject to SAG rules, regardless of the State. This is not a SAG production, though we are planning to follow the SAG Young Performer handbook rules, which in-and-of themselves set-out certain restrictions.

 

My point was, we are not subject to these laws at the State level.

 

I can point you to the Ohio Revised code, here: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4109.

 

An except from that code, which is the code that governs child labor in Ohio:

 

4109.06 Chapter not applicable.

(A) This chapter does not apply to the following:

(1) Minors who are students working on any properly guarded machines in the manual training department of any school when the work is performed under the personal supervision of an instructor;

(2) Students participating in a vocational program approved by the Ohio department of education;

(3) A minor participating in a play, pageant, or concert produced by an outdoor historical drama corporation, a professional traveling theatrical production, a professional concert tour, or a personal appearance tour as a professional motion picture star, or as an actor or performer in motion pictures or in radio or television productions in accordance with the rules adopted pursuant to division (A) of section 4109.05 of the Revised Code;

This information was not obtained from my sources, but directly from the Ohio Film Office, which I have been working with.

I can also point you to the states offical film office FAQ section, available here, which states the following, and is available here: http://development.ohio.gov/filmoffice/PermitsProcedures.html

FROM: Ohio Film Office FAQ

 

Ohio minor labor laws do not include minors involved with film productions according to chapter 4109.06 a-3.

It states:

4109.06 chapter not applicable.

(a) this chapter does not apply to the following: (3) a minor participating in a play, pageant, or concert produced by an outdoor historical drama corporation, a professional traveling theatrical production, a professional concert tour, or a personal appearance tour as a professional motion picture star, or as an actor or performer in motion pictures or in radio or television productions in accordance with the rules adopted pursuant to division (a) of section 4109.05 of the revised code;

For a detailed explanation of Ohio minor labor laws, please go to http://198.234.41.198/w3/webwh.nsf/allbykey/0a2cc2509843265a852566180051af2e

 

The only rules that DO apply are safety rules:

 

 

4109.05 Rules prohibiting employment of minors in hazardous or detrimental occupations.

(A) The director of commerce, after consultation with the director of health, shall adopt rules, in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code, prohibiting the employment of minors in occupations which are hazardous or detrimental to the health and well-being of minors.

In adopting the rules, the director of commerce shall consider the orders issued pursuant to the "Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938," 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C. 201, as amended.

(B) No minor may be employed in any occupation found hazardous or detrimental to the health and well-being of minors under the rules adopted pursuant to division (A) of this section.

 

Ohio is not the only State that does not regulate child entertainers. Most Midwestern and southern states do not. none of our bordering states of KY or IN do. PA does require permits, though.

 

For the most part, it's because we don't have enough of an industry in film to make laws about.

 

Now of course this does not mean you can pull a child out of school or endanger them, as these are laws that are different from labor laws, and are compulsory education and safety regulations. The state does not require a Coogan account or other trust either, though of course if it was a SAG production, you'd need one anyway.

 

You see, it's stuff like this that having a degree in business and a minor in business law really helps with.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Tyler Purcell]

Yes, my method DOES require some pretty good odds. You know what, more than likely anyone who follows my advice will fail miserably.

Which is the scary part. That's why in my responses, I've given the ol' tried and true method, which is far more time consuming, but more likely to work. There is an absolutely formula to this and I've learned it from some of the top people in the industry,

 

To me success is having a satisfying life living off your art. You can't do that however, if nobody wants to buy your art.

 

 

I can tell you, your odds of going from set PA to having dinner with the head of production at Paramount is about as great as my idea to make a feature as your calling card.

Well, that's not exactly how it works. Again... it's all about connections. You sit at the dinner table across from someone who is in a higher position then you are. You get to know these people (especially on syndicated TV shows) and likewise, you will slowly move up the ladder. First its PA, next it's working in the grip team, then you move up into the lighting department and so on. As you do these moves, you make friends with lots of people, you go to their parties, you connect on linked in and facebook. Next thing you know, when it's time to make YOUR project, you've got all these great connections to help you out. One of your laundry list of people knows a financier, one of them knows a great publicist, another knows a sales agent, etc. Since this fictional character has been making shorts and music video's for fun in between gigs, they've got a portfolio that their facebook friends can share with others. People like the work, they see the filmmaker is talented and next thing you know stuff starts happening.

 

This, by the way, is how MOST of the people got into the industry. Yes, even Spielberg was a set PA at one point. This is also not the 60's and 70's where you could climb over a fence and hang out on a studio lot all day, bumping into top people and them offering you a job. Doesn't work that way anymore.

 

Of course, such success is rare, and in fact in trying to name recent films that took this route and became major blockbusters, I can count on one hand in the past 20 years. Only 8 features get picked up by the majors at Sundance this year… [/size][/font]

You don't need to be a major blockbuster to be successful. Selling a movie for more then it cost to make, getting a theatrical run, getting top billing VOD/DVD distribution and being able to secure financing for your next project as a result, that's a great definition of success. Yes, the film has to perform in the box office, but it doesn't need to be a "blockbuster" in any way. If it makes back what the distributor bought it for plus their expenses and some profit to boot, that's a huge win.

 

You see, with my Idea, if you make a good feature, and you get that into festivals and it wins awards (entirely possible, stars not required), you will attain the eye of agents and distributors.

There are three major festivals in the US, Sundance, Tribeca and South By Southwest. Those are really the only one's with qualified buyers.

 

Getting into those festivals requires a sales agent. If you fill out the paperwork and submit it, you will be rejected. That's not hearsay, that's absolute fact. Getting a sales agent in the first place who is willing to talk with a no-name filmmaker with a $25,000 movie shot on a green screen, is the first hurtle. They have to truly believe your project will be vital to those festivals to put their neck on the line for you. A sheer bet film like 'Whiplash' or 'Beasts of No Nation', that sales agent doesn't have much to say and probably won't cost that much. Typical agents start at $5k and the bigger shows spend upwards of $50. Here is the worst part, if your sales agent fails to get your film into one festival, you don't get your money back and a lot of times, the word gets around about your rejection. Once your rejected from any one of those majors, it's hard to get into one of the other one's. Also, if your film gets in, but doesn't play well, you might as well throw it away.

 

Now what about smaller US festivals? Well, they may not have qualified sales agents at them. So where you still need an agent for most of them, the likelihood you have a qualified buyer watching, is very slim. Most buyers will be intersected by sales agents to help promote your film to them, but it's up to them to sit down and watch. Again, if they stand up and walk away, throw your film in the trash and start over.

 

The best thing that can happen is you spend the money on the agent, you get into one of the smaller festivals, the film is reviewed well and you leave unscathed. Winning awards with a feature film at a big festival, is the biggest pipe dream I've ever heard from a young filmmaker. It's like that 13 year old kid who's lost in life and says; "I wanna become president when I grow up", yea, yea kid likely story. Now, winning awards at a super small festival like one your home town puts on, well... that's a different story. I know many, not so great films that won awards because they were made by the local guy. In fact, I won an award for a little piece of poop I shat out 10 years ago called 'Baglady Dairies'. We submitted it to a small festival in New England (forgot the name) and it won best comedy because the actress was from there. She submitted the film without me even knowing, but I bet only a few people watched it. So if you're the big fish in the small pond, maybe you can win something. However, finding a buyer at those festivals is not going to happen.

 

The worst part is, the US market may not be the right one for your film. There are HUGE festivals in other countries which may suit your project more, but the cost of dealing with them is astronomical. If you take the festival route, you can easily spend tens of thousands dealing with it, for what? In my eyes, festivals are a complete waste of time for an ultra low budget feature. They're great for decent budget films where the filmmakers have a lot left over to hire the right people to make it worth while. Even my $500k feature budget, doesn't cover festivals... that's because I think it's crazy to do so unless you've got the next big hit under your belt.

 

So, while you’re still working as a PA and working you’re way up, all it takes is one good film to skyrocket someone from nothing to the top. Is it a gamble? Yes. So is playing the lottery. So is having a dream of ever working at the top in Hollywood.

Dude, I was just like you when I was 16. I was like screw hollywood, I hate that place. I wanted to make all my movies in Boston, which by the way back then, had a thriving filmmaking community. This was pre internet, pre digital, pre all of that crap and we had a great time producing stuff. Yet it took me moving here 8 years later to realize I was wrong all that time. I actually made a huge mistake thinking I could make stuff on my own, without real actors, without a real crew, without some help on the script, without excellent post production. I learned a huge lesson and it took me what, 10 years of living here to figure poop out and make it work. I wish all those years ago I had just been willing to start at the ground level and take any film set work because THAT's where you grow. I was too naive and full of myself to accept it and I look back on that as being a huge mistake. The most humble people on a film set are the people who are eventually successful.

 

At least playing the lottery isn't very expensive. Making a feature film is not just expensive cost wise, but also time wise. I learned years ago that time is money. So if you spend 5 years making something that you only sell for $50k... you've lost A LOT of money.

 

So even if you you pass all these tests. Your film is made and it's good. You get into a top festival, you get awards. You find a buyer who will give you 2x it's value and throws it in the theaters. That doesn't guarantee you anything really. In fact, from my experience working with some pretty heavy hitters, you're most likely going to be successful outside of your own small, self funded productions. Why? Because the industry is fickle and what's in vogue, may not be the next and that includes you. Industry people don't like outsiders, even if they made a good product. You're still considered an outsider unless you somehow are connected to tinsel town.

 

There is no such thing as an easy way into Hollywood. No such thing whatsoever.

Says you... I did it. A lot of the guys on this forum have done it. I said what you need to do, but you simply refuse to believe it, even though most of the top filmmakers have used my methods to be successful. Just start typing names and doing research, you will find their short films and you will find out a lot of them worked at PA's.

 

I want a backup plan. Because I’m realistic, and don’t consider my ‘success’ to be working 16 hour days as a PA. I’d rather be a Teacher making the same amount of money and making movies on the side than I would be a set PA for the rest of my life.

Well, you aren't going to be a PA for long if you're smart, but I understand your point. A backup plan is huge, but a backup plan which is bigger then your A plan, isn't wise because you can get stuck doing it like I did. Getting months away from work to make a movie is very hard, especially with so many qualified people who can fill your shoes. So it's something to think about.

 

Wait a sec here. Hold the phone… So, what you’re now saying is that what they care about is what IMDb credits you have and what your demo reel looks like?

If you want a job in hollywood

 

You see, here in Ohio - I don't have anywhere near the same red tape as in LA. Since my project involves child actors in major roles, the red tape for that alone in CA is massive. Coogan accounts, work permits, court approved contracts... on and on and on. Here in Ohio, minor's are exempt from all state level laws and need no permits or Coogan accounts. Makes getting a movie made without the need for a high priced entertainment attorney much easier.

I've worked on many shows with kids, the paperwork isn't a big deal. Parents fill it out in advance and you write a check to the parents.

 

Not only that, but you don't have to shoot in down town Los Angeles. There are so many areas that nobody cares about, it's actually pretty damn easy to make something here once you know how. The benefits of shooting in a small urban town are pretty nice, no doubt about it. If you aren't flying in big actors and lots of crew members, then who cares. However, once you add the expense of a real crew and decent cast, which are necessary items for selling your movie, then the logistics become very complicated and costly. So from my experience, it's far better to shoot where the actors live, so they can get in their car, drive to set and home again every day. If it means I'm limited to my locations in order to have better actors, then so be it. Actors are #1, they are what people watch and if you can make a film with decent actors in Los Angeles vs no-names in Ohio, for the same money... which one would YOU choose?

[Guest]

You see, it's stuff like this that having a degree in business and a minor in business law really helps with.

 

Er um yeah, well looks like you have it all figured out.

 

R,

[Landon D. Parks]

 

Er um yeah, well looks like you have it all figured out.

 

R,

 

No, that isn't what I said. I said having a degree in business helps one to understand business things, which includes labor laws that apply. I did not mean that to assume that because I had a degree I knew everything about everything, only that I do know how to follow proper legal procedures and business practices - which can be a huge help when one is making a movie of any sort... Or doing anything involving business - which is ultimately what any movie should be treated as.

 

Most filmmakers would not know this information, and would need to hire attorney's to help them navigate the state labor laws and such in a case like this. Of course, it also helps when the information is readily available at the State level by a simple google search - but not all states make it that easy for filmmakers, and most filmmakers would not be able to read and understand state revised codes, let alone know the Fair Labor Standards Act.

 

So when asked earlier why I went to school instead of making a movie: you know now. What little I spent for school might well save me more money later down the road, due to not needing attorney's to hold my hand every step of the way.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Guest]

Well Landon what can I say, the army of professional producers out there that employ lawyers (like me) are not very bright.

 

BTW, here is the bank closing documents from my law office for the last movie.

 

R,

 

 

[Landon D. Parks]

Well Landon what can I say, the army of professional producers out there that employ lawyers (like me) are not very bright.

 

BTW, here is the bank closing documents from my law office for the last movie.

 

R,

 

 

 

Yeah, that is pretty massive. Don't envy the person that needs to read that. I'm also not suggesting that any filmmaker try to understand a document like that - but then again, it all depends on how comfortable you are and what is at stake if you miss something in the fine print. When you're dealing with millions of dollars, attaching a lawyer is probably pretty vital, not only because you might miss something in documents that deep, but also because your busy doing other things and don't have the time to properly read such a document.

 

I'm more suggesting that a business degree would help a filmmaking when they are writing a operating agreement for an LLC, or filing LLC articles of organization, or writing up actor/crew contracts and/or unit purchase agreements for an LLC. Such a degree comes in handy for minor topics like labor laws - which is actually an entire class I took to get the degree. If you're planning to obtain (or attempt to obtain) public financing for your indie movie, it'll also help you to understand filling out forms like the Regulation A registration document, issuing a proper business plan along with it, and other things like that.

 

If one was comfortable enough to read such a document as you posted, someone with a business degree should be able to make out what the document is setting out. Though if I had millions of dollars and no time to do it, I'd more than happily hire a lawyer to review such documents for me and simply tell me where to sign.

 

Not feeling comfortable reading and comprehending such a document does not make one stupid or an idiot at all, even if one had a degree in business or even law. After all, a lot of attorney's have attorney's.... I'm certainly not suggesting a production dealing with real assets not have an attorney - a lot of it comes down to the SIZE of said production. If you're making a small film and you cannot afford an attorney, having a degree in a business or law subject can be a godsend to you.

 

Of course, understanding such documents can be vital, even if you have an attorney.... Attorney's can and do take advantage of people who put total trust in them. Chances are, I'd still read every line of that document before I affixed a signature, even with an attorney.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Tyler Purcell]

You really think a director wants to be doing paperwork? That's the job of the producer and if you have a shitty producer, you aren't going to make a good movie. Directors should be focused on creative side, not the business side.

[Guest]

You really think a director wants to be doing paperwork? That's the job of the producer and if you have a shitty producer, you aren't going to make a good movie. Directors should be focused on creative side, not the business side.

 

You know.....I don't know which one of you needs to be schooled more anymore?

 

You both make ridiculous comments about subject matter neither one of you knows anything about.

 

You seem to be implying that any director that does both, like me, is somehow less of a director?

 

In all your decades of watching movies Tyler you've never seen the following credit on screen?:

 

"Produced and Directed By"

 

R,

[Guest]

I'd still read every line of that document before I affixed a signature, even with an attorney.

 

Most intelligent thing you've said.

 

R,

[Landon D. Parks]

You really think a director wants to be doing paperwork? That's the job of the producer and if you have a shitty producer, you aren't going to make a good movie. Directors should be focused on creative side, not the business side.

 

:huh:

 

I must not be making myself clear enough about what I'm really talking about.

 

When I say 'Filmmaker', I am referring to someone bringing a production to light. While this MIGHT well be the director as well, this person is primarily the producer or chief producer on the project. A director has little need for a degree in anything really, unless he also wants to be a producer. So no, I'm not suggesting any director attempt to take the time to do this, since hopefully their producer is doing that for them. Now, if they are a one man team, aka 'Produced and Directed By', then YES, I am suggesting that if you don't get a degree, you at least take the time to learn to lingo of legal documents. A Producer, unlike a director, is very much the CEO of a film. The CEO of any business should have knowledge in this area.

 

If you're a director wanting to get a project made, and you don't have the ability to understand all legal issues related to business - then you need to find a co-producer who can help you. You can hire all the attorney's you want, but unless you can check the work they do - you're not being very safe about it. Like I said, as a Producer, I'd read every sentence of that document Richard posted before signing it. Would it take a while? Damn right... But that is your job as a Producer, to ensure the well being of the project. An attorney works for you, the Producer, not the other way around.

 

There also seems to be an issue with what I'm actually talking about throughout this thread. For some reason, the focus shifted from getting a job in LA to making a film, which are really two different things entirely. Then somehow, it became about me and my project(s) which really bare no relevance to the threads topic. Really, my only comment was that LA did not seem to be all it was cracked up to be when I went there for 3 weeks.

 

I'll try to better explain what I'm talking about here, as it's clear I probably haven't been to clear going along:

 

My opinion on getting a job in any industry (not just film): Move where the jobs are. That might be LA, or it could be any number of other cities. However, before you make a move to LA or NY, or really anywhere else on the coast - make sure you have your ducks in a row first. Moving to LA with nothing to show for yourself is about as wise as an actor moving to NY to be on Broadway, when they have never acted before.

 

My suggestion is that to get a job, you first need experience. You can gain that experience however you like, though I would suggest moving to where the work is and starting there.

 

There is no secret that LA's film industry is not expanding. If anything, it has became stagnant. LA and CA no longer offer the incentives for productions to shoot there, and since most productions are only going to carry their key crew with them from LA, if you're working in a below the line field, you're better off moving to were those productions are actually shooting at - not where they are being produced from, since below the line crew are not involved in the finances or distribution of a film.

 

Now, if you want a job as a key crew member - then it's an entirely different ballgame. If you want to be a hired director, you might as well give up until you have many of your own projects under your belt and are proven to be able to make profitable movies. For other key crew, you can move to LA, but make sure you have some film credits under your belt before you do.

 

My opinion on making a movie in LA vs. Nowheresville:

 

This is entirely different from working in Hollywood, at least by my definition of 'work'. The person I am talking to here is a PRODUCER. that Producer might also be a director, and might want to be a one man crew on his film. It doesn't really matter at that stage. Producer's are not 'hired' most of the time, they bring projects to the people who agree to fund them. Warner Bros. did not 'hire' David Heyman to Make the Harry Potter movies. He packaged the product and brought it to them, attained the funding, and his production company - Heyday films - made the movie.

 

Producer's need a product to sell. That product is called a package, and it's the producer's job to compile that package before ever approaching a studio. That package includes a script, a budget, and a list of deal memos from cast members who agree to be in the movie.

 

The problem with this is that until you have proven yourself a profitable producer, no one in Hollywood want's to talk to you. It really doesn't matter who you know, if you don't have the clout to demand Paramount give you $100 million for your next epic, you won't get that meeting. I find it very hard to swallow that making a nice short film as your calling card will get you that meeting at the studio. Studios, at the very least, want a produce who has shown they can bring a project to life - a FEATURE length project. If you're only a director, it matters less - because your selling your artistic ability rather than your ability to see a multi-million dollar business from concept through execution.

 

It is for the PRODUCER wanna-be who I suggest making their calling card feature outside of Hollywood. Producer's should only approach Hollywood when they are ready to get that meeting at the studio, and even then - many filmmakers have proven that since the studios don't actually 'make' the movie - you can setup your own production office and studios anywhere you want to actually make that movie. Sure, you need to have the meetings with the heads - but that does not mean you need to live there.

 

As for my project(s):

This thread is really not the place for discussion about it, since it's not the subject of said thread. There will be plenty of time to provide negative feedback in a few weeks.

 

As for my advice, and about me:

I have a degree in business with a minor in business law. I am 28 years old. I have about 10 years of management and executive-level experience, including headlining a small professional theatre as the executive and artistic director, where I not only oversaw all business aspects, from fundraising to tax returns, contracts to paychecks, but also selected all the shows, hired and/or approved of creative crew and talent. I have about 15 total years experience in theatre, in all positions.

 

For film, I have brought a documentary all the way through post, including a DCP. Said documentary will be hitting some limited festivals this fall before going to VOD and DVD through an aggrigator. My remaining experience in film comes from a combination of book knowledge and hobby tinkering. I own all my own filmmaking equipment, from camera to lighting, to all the extension cords. I own a post-production setup capable of all post services, from Rec 709 Color Correction to 5.1 sound mixing, editing to VFX through Fusion and other post softwares.

 

NOW that I have stated my experiences, I would advise everyone to take what I say with an understanding that I'm more coming from a 'general business' standpoint on these subject's than directly from the filmmaking perspective.

 

Does that qualify me to give advice? On business matters, yes it does. On non-business matters, these are more my OPINIONS of what one should do, and not stone-cold advice.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Tyler Purcell]

You seem to be implying that any director that does both, like me, is somehow less of a director?

Not at all. I was simply stating that it's better to bring in someone to deal with the business side of things to take that weight off the director.

[Freya Black]

 

Just make it Landon and let the chips fall where they may. The studios green-light mega budget flops every year, so you have just as much of a chance of succeeding as anyone else.

 

R,

 

 

Best advice so far, and you learn a lot by doing things. You can learn a lot from books and forums but actually doing things is the best way of learning of all.

 

Just do it.

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

There also seems to be an issue with what I'm actually talking about throughout this thread. For some reason, the focus shifted from getting a job in LA to making a film, which are really two different things entirely. Then somehow, it became about me and my project(s) which really bare no relevance to the threads topic. Really, my only comment was that LA did not seem to be all it was cracked up to be when I went there for 3 weeks.

 

 

You keep saying it's all about you Landon. Even back when a lot of people were talking about Canadian immigration and how wonderful South Africa is.

 

It's mostly you and Tyler having an extended discussion. You talked about a bunch of stuff such as making your movie outside of LA and people (well mostly Tyler) engaged with you on that. It's not exactly magic. There is no mystery to this and no unknown reason. You continue to post about this stuff and people continue to reply, It's straightforward and it's quite usual for threads to drift off all over the place, like how hard it is to get into Canada and if you would actually want to and if it is too cold and expensive and full of bears or whatever. It's no big deal.

[John E Clark]

 

 

You keep saying it's all about you Landon. Even back when a lot of people were talking about Canadian immigration and how wonderful South Africa is.

 

It's mostly you and Tyler having an extended discussion. You talked about a bunch of stuff such as making your movie outside of LA and people (well mostly Tyler) engaged with you on that. It's not exactly magic. There is no mystery to this and no unknown reason. You continue to post about this stuff and people continue to reply, It's straightforward and it's quite usual for threads to drift off all over the place, like how hard it is to get into Canada and if you would actually want to and if it is too cold and expensive and full of bears or whatever. It's no big deal.

 

Nah... at least in Vancouver the biggest danger is getting parked in during the riot after an important hockey game or some such...

 

And given the accent in Vancouver I wouldn't even have to change how I say 'about'...

 

For me, in regard to LA, the 'best' case for relocating is if you have some proven skill, a 'real' contact, and almost a guaranteed job waiting... One only gets that sort of thing by having some contacts with some one who has some connection with the industry here... For acting talent it is a manager or agent (there's a legal distinction...). While I would imagine that a person working in some other 'high profile' trade, such as 'director' or 'cinematographer' they also could use the services of manager or agent.

 

For under the line work, having a friend/acquaintance in a trade union would be advantageous... etc.

 

The worst case would be show up at LAX (or in the olden days Union Station...) with naught but a pocket of dreams...

 

If that is the case... have enough money in that pocket of dreams to live in LA for 2-3 years, while those contacts mentioned above are made.

 

Lottery winners happen all the time... so who knows... one's first 'smooze' party attendance could pay off with a good gig...

[Mark Dunn]

and full of bears or whatever

:lol:

Perhaps that's why Richard B went to SA. Even lions behave better when it's warm.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Mark Dunn

[Guest]

and full of bears or whatever

:lol:

Perhaps that's why Richard B went to SA. Even lions behave better when it's warm.

 

Guess what Mark we have bears in my residential neighbourhood, no foolin. A raccoon will do a nice job on your bird feeder, a bear? Well, there will be no bird feeder after he's done with it.

 

R,