Landon D. Parks

Just got back from seeing the 30th anniversary of Labyrinth in theaters. It was one of those 'fathom' events. Saw it in a nice new theater, one of the new Cinemark's with luxury loungers... Now, having seen Labyrinth tonight and Neverending Story last week, I have come to realize just how grainy some of the 80's film could be. Must be that I'm use to all the digital camera's and new fine film stocks, but seeing these older flicks projected on a 60 foot screen looked almost as bad as trying to watch an 8mm movie. In the bright areas, the grain was so noticeable as to be distracting. Anyone experience similar things when watching older films projected, or is it just me. Not trying to start a film vs. digital debate, as even the newer film stocks seemed to eliminate this problem.

ALL filmmaking is luck, just different degrees of it.

I mean when things go south, not in general. Disagreements can become heated, and if you have no intention of working for said filmmaker again, they might like to find any way they can screw you over in the process, just like you screwed them. Not saying it's common, but you are taking a slight risk hiring 1099 for film crew and actors. Personally, I have seen enough lawsuits myself to know to follow the book. Of course, I know that for many small producers this risk won't matter. Most are already throwing everything they have at the production, so there is little left to worry about getting sued for. However, someone serious about their financial affairs should try to stay on book. Just my experience...

To save time, I have replied in BOLD within the quote below:

Phil is on-par in all areas, but I just want to second his opinion on this. DO NOT overlook production value. That fabled 'film look' everyone talks about has nothing (or very little) to do with modern camera choices. Back in the day you needed a good camera for it to be HD, non-interlaced, 24p, etc. Now, even cell phones have this covered. The most important step to achieving a film look is in three areas: Lighting, Design, and Post-Production. Lighting is important, because often times 'TV' is shot very theatrically with overhead lights and such to get fast coverage with multiple cameras. This often leads to that flat TV look with hard shadows a few dark or blind spots. In single camera film work, you have more leeway to play with lighting - USE IT. This is not a lighting primer though, as that would be too difficult to go into in any great detail. Design is equally important, as the overall design of a project will affect how filmic it looks in the end. Again, this is not a production design primer, so do your own research here. Finally, a lot of what one thinks of as 'film look' is achieved in post production - namely the grading suite. Color correction and grading will play one of the largest roles in the final outcome of your project. Don't skimp here. If you do not have experience in software like Resolve you'll find yourself struggling to get a good 'film' look, since so much of it is attained from experience.

I am currently going through the SAG/AFTRA New Media process as a producer for the web series in pre-production now. Actually becoming signatory is not difficult at all - Simply go the website and fill out the form. its the mounds of ongoing work that pose the problems. The entire reason for going SAG now is because we have attached two local SAG actors, so now that becomes a requirement. It's honestly one I'd rather avoid, but as I said above - it's part of the game you have to play. In a file on my desk in front of me is the entire text of the new media agreement, as well as the rule book. The ongoing requirements are fairly stringent, as is what one can do with the final product. The on-set rules are strict and must be followed to a T, lest there be a fine imposed that alone would make up a large portion of the entire budget. Working with children is even harder under SAG, as we have a special young performers handbook and rules in addition to the regular rule-book. SAG rules for minors VAST exceed what I think is nessecary, and certainly outpace what Ohio requires of minor actors by a thousandfold.There has also been some talk of requiring a payroll deposit in addition to the standard payments - meaning we need to possible look at going over-budget right up front to deposit funds into an account where they will sit in case we don't pay everyone, being released as some time after production has ended - a period I have been told varies from a week to 'whenever they are satisfied everything is closed up'. I heard a friend tell me it was 'easy' to become a SAG production company - they get you in the ongoing reporting requirements, restrictions, and such. He was right. But what can you do? In fact, the fact that SAG is so easy to become attached too now is going to send a lot of newbies into a tailspin when they actually reach the production and distribution phase, and realize that SAG now holds a lot of cards over them. It's like those high interest credits cards... Easy as heck to get, just complete the small form... But you don't realize the real cost until you get the first bill. Working with Equity in theatre was much easier. But as I said, it's the nature of the business. Love or hate SAG, there is little choice in many instances.

No legit production should be hiring crew members as 1099. This is the arena of tiny indie producers, in which case you're better off just volunteering your time and avoiding the paperwork. I made a video about this earlier. In general, you don't want to 1099 anyone who is not a true contractor. Not only can the 'employee' turn you in at his own choosing at any time, but YOU (the producer) are the one who will suffer from this by being fined and forced to repay the government all due taxes. NEVER give someone something to hold over your head as leverage, which is exactly what any producer employing people as 1099 are doing. Yes, yes, I know.... No one cares and will do it anyway. Well, that won't stop me from spreading the word. Any producing doing 1099's should be prepared to be blackmailed by their employee at any time, and know that that employee can turn you in any time they want - and the government takes such violations very seriously, no matter how much money you (the producer) has. Either hire your crew as a W2 employee and suffer the needed paperwork, or bring them on as 'members' in an LLC - where you can legally avoid paying them upfront since they are part-owners and not employees or contractors. As for Unions, I have no opinion one way or the other. Some are good, some are bad. Some are mandatory, especially here in the US. Want to get any distribution for your film? Chances are you'll need a SAG actor, which means jumping through hoops so large it'd intimidate an Olympic hoop jumper. It's just the nature of the business. As for Payroll companies, I have used them twice on theatre (non-film) related jobs. As a producer, I'd much rather just cut the checks myself and avoid paying the fee of the payroll company. It's really not that hard to establish workers comp policies and such.

Looks is simply a plugin for your NLE. Personally, it depends on what material you're working with. There is also a difference between color correction and color grading. Color correction is used to 'correct' clips or to get them into a standard tone. Grading is used to achieve final results or particular looks. These need to be done in different steps. For correction, you don't need Looks at all. In fact, using looks as a correction tool is a mistake. If starting from raw footage, you need to first add a LUT to bring the raw to REC 709, and then play around with your NLE's color tools to match the color tones between the clips. Resolve has a much easier feature for this, and I'd suggest doing all color work in Resolve. For grading, you can use what you want. I use Resolve with the Red Giant plugin set to achieve the looks.

As Brian says, your computer us under-powered for Resolve. It should WORK, at least in theory, but you're going to experience issues, a lot of which arise from your Intel integrated graphics card. Despite a free version of Resolve being available, that does not mean that Resolve is an easy program to use or run. It's basically one of the standard go-to programs for Hollywood color correction. Best bet with your setup is to try something like Vegas movie studio or similar. Even Premiere and AE will crawl on that machine, and the intel graphics will not help with the playback engine or gpu-accelerated features. I run Resolve on my editing workstation: 8-core 4.8GHz AMD FX, 64GB RAM, 2 x nVidia GTX1080, external RAID drives, etc. Resolve also works better with an external monitor that is color corrected for at least REC 709, but you'll need the $150 BM mini monitor at a minimum. Really, unless you're running a fairly beefy setup, I'd avoid Resolve for now.

I don't see why more theatres don't abandon the IMAX brand and simply setup their own similar system. Back in the day, IMAX had their own patented projectors and cameras and such. Now, they basically use off-the-shelf stuff with minor tweaks. And really, most of these cinemaplex IMAX screens are simply a little bigger, with an upgraded sound system, and the seats moved closer to the screen to simulate a larger screen size. I guess because IMAX still has saturation among audience members.

Well Tyler - you seem to be generalizing the east and west coast as cool, and everywhere else to be a bunch of red neck, gun-toting, bible-thumpers.... I can tell you right now, that is just not true. This is often the opinion of those who don't regularly hang out in areas other than the coasts - much like how we all condemn the southern states as being full of red-necks. Yes, the Midwest and other areas do have more than their fair share of those types, but I can assure you - we have a lot of liberal city-slicker Bernie supporters - me being one. Just don't be so quick to suggest that the east coast and west coast should form their own country - because they are obviously where the smart and cool people live, and everyone else should stay in their gun-toting areas... As for the suggestion of breaking up the union, I'm all for it, though I'd say each state should remain independent, and the US government should become an EU-like organization. But that is just me, and this is not a political forum.

Part of the problem is people arguing over which camera is best - arguing against cameras because of minor things such as codec. No camera is perfect, not even the Alexa. Each camera has it's trade-off's for its pluses. The reality is, you're not getting Alexa quality in any camera under the Alexa price point. So, I like Panasonic... Tyler likes Black Magic... Robin likes Sony... I can tell you right now, that if you put these cameras side-by-side with the same lenses and with the same material in a delivery format, very few people, if any, could name which camera was which. Maybe you can, or maybe even I could... But 99% of your audience cannot tell, nor do they care rather you shot it at 4:4:4 12-bit vs 4:2:2 10-bit or 4:2:0 8-bit. I don't recall mass hysteria when Star Wars Ep 3 was released about the low quality codec. I also don't recall any rave reviews about a movie because it was shot raw. By the time that image reaches the cinema screen (which it won't in 98% of cases), and especially by the time it reaches the highly compressed DVD, Bluray or streaming markets - no one will be able to tell what codec you shot it on. Viewing 4:4:4 12-bit through a 4:2:0 8-bit codec will look no better than something originated at that codec. So, don't make the mistake many people who are 'techies' make - go and buy the most feature-rich camera your budget can afford and shoot your movie. Waiting for the next big codec, or putting off purchasing something because the specs are less than you might want is just a waste of time.

In my opinion, PreViz is the new storyboards.

If you're good with design you could probably make one that would pass muster. From the outside those ancient cameras weren't always the pillar of design, after all. Otherwise, have you tried some houses in America like www.propserviceswest.com/ or maybe even Warner Bros Prop supply?

'Even Nikon doesn't use MPEG anymore' That part was pretty funny... Canon make great stills cameras - and back when they where basically the pioneers of DSLR video they had descent cameras for that as well. However, there are so many better options in the DSLR/Mirrorless world now that going with Canon over another manufacturer (unless you already own thousands in Canon glass) is pretty stupid. Canon has neglected their DSLR video line for a long time, precisely because they believe that adding more cine features would cut into their cine line of overpriced cameras. Meanwhile, Panasonic actually listened to their consumers - and made the prosumer GH4 a very robust 4k camera with many professional cine features, des[pite having their own Cine line of cameras - camera's that are usually even more affordable than the Canon options. In fact, of all the DSLR's right now, I'd say the GH4 still has some of the most robust features for professional video - and at 1/3-1/4 the cost of others. Then again, I never was a Canon fan - even for my still photography, so take this rant with a grain of salt.

For fear of getting into a BMPCC argument, I'll just say this: The BMPCC has its quirks. Sub $1000 it's hard to beat for picture quality - but if you have some money to spent I'd suggest a GH4 w/ Atomos Flame to get 4k 10-bit 4:2:2. Plus, the GH4 has a larger sensor. Of course, that setup will run you close to $3,000 or thereabouts, and will pretty much require a professional camera rig - losing the 'small' advantage the micro/pocket have. With the Micro, you'll need an external monitor. I just recently purchased the BM Micro. In my opinion, it's a mechanical improvement over the pocket. Yes, it requires a monitor - but the camera feels more like a professional camera, it seems better built, the batteries are MUCH easier to get to, and it doesn't have that unprofessional point-and-shoot look. I still think I can get better picture quality off my GH4 w/ Atomos though, but that is just my preference - and given that the GH4 setup is 3x as expensive, I'd expect some improvement anyway.

In the United States, if you were 'hired' as a W2 employee (as would be the legal way to do it), then state law dictates when you get paid. Most states require your employer render payments no later than bi-weekly (every two weeks). If you're working under the table on contract, then you're contract will dictate. However, if they refuse to pay you - threaten to report them to the state. Technically, it's illegal to hire employees on a contract basis. Rather or not you intend to, letting them know this and making the threat might just get the wheels moving. If you're not in the US, then your local law will dictate and some or none of this advice might apply. *Not legal advice. Always seek the advice of a competent attorney.

That is a special case. Most fan films will not face legal action because the IP owner is okay with them and it is funded and produced properly for a fan film. You do have to be very careful though in producing fan films - you really need to research the IP holder and see what their previous stance has been on fan films. If they seem okay with it, just follow some fan-film standards like no profit and you should be good. Remember though, nothing is ever for certain.

Don't feel 'embarrassed' about asking the question - it's a valid question. And really, I'd say if you're not doing anything else and you like the material, why not give it a shot? Who are you afraid will 'look down on it'? One of the most important things about this industry is the network and meet other people. Working on a fan film may not earn you a lot of street cred (though, it probably won't hurt) - but it could gain you a few more contacts, which might pan out into real projects in the future. If not, maybe these people could help you on your own project. I'd never turn down a project because of what I thought someone else might think of it. A lot of it would depend on if you like the material and have the free time to do it. If they're paying you, have at it! Fan films don't always equal bad... Now that equipment and VFX are affordable even lowly fan films are becoming 'Hollywood-ized'.

I'm no lawyer, but I can tell you that fan films are a subject to approach carefully. In some cases, such as Star Wars, they welcome fan films - and even have contests for them at Lucasfilm. In some cases, even the mere thought of penning a fan film will result in a cease and desist letter. The one universal deal though is this: You cannot charge anything for the film. Nothing. Not a penny. You really should not even accept donations. Any inkling that your profiting from the venture is a no-no in the fan film genre. Wanna put it up on Youtube? Make sure monitiization with ads is off. As for how its viewed, I'd say it depends. What is your role? If you're the cinematographer, then a good looking reel is a good looking reel, and few should care what the basis for the material was. In reality, it should be the same for most creative positions - directors included. The one area I would think would not look favorably upon it would be as a Producer - though I could be wrong about this. The reality is, most fan films are crap. Chances are, it will neither hinder not advance your career. On the off chance it's a successful fan film (I don't mean financially, I mean thinking along the lines of Born of Hope, the Lord of the Rings Fan films) then it could potentially even open doors.

Se habla espano, Richard?

Richard, we all know you Canadians are too nice for that... :rolleyes:

I have been a big proponent of a backup plan... Film is tough, and most people will not make it who try. It's just the reality of things. It sucks, but what can you do about it? Personally, I'd say there are two types of people in the industry: Those that want to do it because they have stories tell, and those who think it's a lucrative market. The first person should probably try to find a way to do their art as a side job - and then work on using that to break into the industry. The second person should find another industry all-together. If you are they type who has a story tell and just has to tell it --- then you'd be better of getting a first career / working toward a degree that allows you to make some big money - not only so you can help fund your baby, but your family as well. Once you have your baby done, you'll have to hope it's good. Film is not the only medium where those with stories to tell will do it as a second career. Authors: do you really think 99% of them make enough to live on? No. Actors? No. Those in theatre? No.

But where do we do draw the line? What is simply showing, and what is gratifying it? Game of Thrones really doesn't gratify sex or violence. Pretty much every time it presents either one, it's in a bad light - and it rarely leads to any good for the person doing the sex or violence... So is GoT really promoting violence? I'd argue no.

Well, because it can also sell really well, just in it's own way. For example, to make a family flick a blockbuster requires a hundred million dollars plus probably another 60-70 mil in marketing. Yes, the movie can tread into the top 20 of all time, but it also costs a lot to get it there, and there is a lot of risk that it'll fail and lose big. Horror movies, for example, tend to have a built in audience. They can be made for $20-$40 million with a-list actors, need only niche marketing, etc. So while they might not pull in the same sheer number of people as a blockbuster family flick - they don't need to. When a horror movie fails, it tends to do so in less dramatic way. And I do enjoy the occasional horror and thriller as well. PS) Horror movies and other r-rated stuff tend to appeal to young adult - which is a segment that does not do well with the more family oriented films... So by making content for the young and old in one category, and the young adults in another - you are cornering both markets. Same reason in theatre we'd still do the adult-type shows.... Because the old people liked them and showed up. The older crowd, while not as large an audience, were more apt to donate money or subscribe than the younger crowds.