Jump to content

Jim Keller

Basic Member
  • Posts

    290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jim Keller

  1. I actually would not put such an individual in a position where he actually has authority over the actors, because if he hasn't learned his lesson, it will make it even easier to give direction and undermine you. If you want to give him authority (and if he's good at having such authority), but not give him any creative control, assigning him as your production manager may be a better choice. But don't undermine your production by making him happy. Put him where he will do the best job. Period. That said, I've seen it happen many, many times when working with college students that someone who was a real nightmare just a semester ago somehow figured it out (usually because someone they respect gave them a stern talking to) and became a dream to work with thereafter, so I would always give such a student the benefit of the doubt. You should also arrange to give the whole crew the "I respect all the voices of my team, and I encourage to come to me with your ideas, but when we're on the set please respect that the cast and crew need direction to be coming from a single source, which will be me," speech before the first day of shooting.
  2. We archive to DVDs. When the contents of the card are larger than the capacity of a dual-layer DVD, I simply create a second DVD with a folder on it that's called "Add to such-and-such folder" and dump some of the additional files there. We haven't had any problems, but of course, we've only been doing this for a few years now. To that end, I suspect a Blue burner would serve your needs adequately, assuming the time eaten up in a burn and then a transfer back to the hard drive isn't an issue for you.
  3. Every deal is unique. I've seen producers take as little as 5% of the "producer's gross" (the money paid to you by the distributor), returning 95% to the investors. I've seen producers take 50% of the producer's gross, returning 50% to the investors. More common is a sliding scale, where the investors receive a significantly higher percentage (even 100%) until the film recoups their initial investment, and then the producer's percentage increases with each subsequent full return. As for cast and crew, the ethical thing to do is to treat them as investors as well. That means their usual salary is considered an investment and they're paid back on the same schedule, (out of producer's gross, not net). If the cash investors balk at this arrangement, inform them that it can be avoided by them coughing up more money so they can be paid up front. Note that if you're on a union contract, residuals will also be owed out of the producer's gross, so don't promise more return than you can deliver. No one will let you renegotiate later to correct your mistake, and bankruptcy will be your only option.
  4. The sad truth is that there's a huge population in this industry that really are hobbyists (either with trust funds or high-earning spouses) rather than people who truly make a living from their craft. As long as these people would rather be doing *something* rather than sitting around bored, they'll always be willing to undercut those who actually have to earn a living, and therefore producers feel free to offer no/low pay first to see who nibbles. The trick, if you want to earn a living at what you're doing, is to make sure your work is significantly better than everyone else's in order to make it clear that you *deserve* just compensation for your efforts. Collective bargaining also helps a lot, too, provided it doesn't put the cost of production out of reach for anyone who doesn't have a studio budget (which is why there's so much pressure on union members not to take non-union jobs). As for why the pros in the U.S. don't just lower their quote to match their Eastern European counterparts, remember that the cost of living here is significantly higher. Our poverty line would be an upper-middle-class income in many other nations. So the pros just can't afford to lower their quotes enough to compete with the folks overseas. All we can do is, again, make sure our work is that much better, and/or work to improve the standard of living overseas in order to make runaway production less and less cost effective. Well, that or adopt a bunch of protectionist legislation that is well-intentioned but ultimately does more harm than good, but I don't want to start that debate. (Oops.)
  5. When negotiating your deferred payment, make sure it's based on gross profits or set to trigger upon sale or distribution, not based on net profits. If you are working without pay, you are investing in the project, and your repayment must be of the same priority as those who wrote a check to get the film made. I've yet to meet anyone who got paid on a net profits deal, including some who worked on films that we would term "blockbusters."
  6. Absolutely horrifying! Can't decide if I love it or hate it...
  7. Yeah, but benchmark tests comparing cameras are so easily misleading...
  8. Don't worry, if the discussion gets yanked for being off-topic, someone will. :)
  9. No one is going to think you're pushy or obnoxious if you say, "by the way, I'm in the industry, too," and tell them what you do, as long as you're courteous enough to stay out of their way and let them do their jobs.
  10. You can use any typical bulk loader with 100' daylight spools. Used to do it all the time before RGB Lab shut down, and I had nowhere to process it any more.
  11. I don't see an actual contract on the site, but BizParents.org is a great place to start. Producer resources at http://www.bizparentz.org/toolsforproducers.html
  12. I'd be curious to hear if people think there's less production, of if the production that there normally is has been down-budgeted.
  13. That's really a matter of personal preference. Some people like to lay down a music track and then edit to that track -- even if it's not the track that's ultimately going to be used -- letting the music guide the flow of the scene. Others like to edit the scene without regards to music, and leave it up to the composer (or the luck of synchronicity) to get the music to accentuate the key moments. I'd say try editing a short project (there's lots of "found footage" available on the internet for experimentation) both ways, and see what works well for you.
  14. In addition to the obvious cold issue, remember that even in summer months, sunlight in the arctic is low-angle, and significantly dimmer than you're used to (or the solar cell manufacturer's consider). When getting specs, be sure to ask about your specific needs. Please let us know what you find out...
  15. I can concur with what most everyone else has responded, but figured that I should chime in that excellent music is often available at very low cost. Composing is one of those fields where there are a few very well-known people doing 95% of the (paying) work out there, and a huge population of people scrambling to get enough credits to get that remaining 5%. I've used several no-name, ultra-low-cost composers, and been happy each time. The trick, of course, is to be able to determine whose music will work for you and who communicates well with you, as opposed to just going with the "Oh, my little brother writes music..." recommendation. For the no-cost option, when you're ready for music (i.e., your picture is locked and there won't be any more editing done to it, unless you're doing a musical, of course) get notices out to schools that have a film composition program. If there aren't any in your area and you prefer to work face-to-face, then any local college with a serious music composition program might have a few students with a strong interest in film. See what the students can bring you. Low-cost options are widely available, too. Most composers have websites now, so ask people who they've been happy with, or just see whose music you like when you're watching other projects and then Google them. John Williams and Danny Elfman are probably going to be out of your price range, but there are a lot of excellent composers out there whose names you wouldn't recognize whose rates are therefore very reasonable (especially if you're not on a particular schedule and/or if your project is something that they could really use for their reel). Therefore, I would advise that you not try to score the film or trailer yourself, unless you have an excellent command of both the film and the music vocabularies, and the skills to deliver what you need without that critical check of the director's ears determining if it's working or not. Even Jerry Goldsmith told stories of directors rejecting whole scores, and subsequently deciding they made the right call. Too many projects have failed because someone thought they could do it all...
  16. Yes, actors will always ask for the complete script. The reason is simple. If you've written a good script, there's important information that will color their interpretation on every page, far beyond what you could ever get into a breakdown or what they could glean from the sides. Since every actor who auditions wants the role, they want to walk in being as close to what you're going to ultimately need as possible. Ergo, they want the full context of the entire script before making any choices. Very few productions (especially in Hollywood) will take the time to redirect someone who comes in to an audition giving a very good performance, but one that isn't quite right based on the entirety of the script. They'll simply move on to another actor who (by luck or by virtue of having read the entire script) nails it right off the bat. Actors have to assume you're in this camp. I wouldn't worry so much about theft. Those who have legitimate need for the material are also professionals, and therefore are (in general) very good about not redistributing inappropriately. If there's truly a security issue, mark every copy you distribute with a unique code (physical or electronic) that will allow you to trace who let the script leak, and then inform everyone that every copy is tagged as such.
  17. The biggest "rule" I'm seeing break down currently is in editing. Not long ago, one would never cut from a shot to another shot from the the same setup. If you wanted to cut different takes of the same performer together, you would always go from closeup to long shot, or vice versa. However, nowadays, you can cut the closeup to the same closeup, or the long shot to the same long shot. The first time I recall seeing this done was in Another Day in Paradise, a decade ago now, and the effect was jarring (but worked nicely with Larry Clark's faux-documentary style). But now that it's the de facto shooting/editing style of choice of every internet vlog, I'm beginning to see it done with great regularity, both in comedies and dramas, and especially on television. It still rankles me, but I'm sort of old-school. :)
  18. One thing that I find perpetually confuses directors and producers (and therefore you must be an expert in as the cinematographer) is what will and will not look "real" on camera. To that end, I'd suggest getting as many objects/pieces/etc. that have both a real and a "fake" counterpart. e.g. get a wax apple, a wooden apple, and a real apple. Get a real wood door, a doors painted with several different wood treatments. Having a good sense of how different objects "read" on camera (and it's not always intuitive -- often you have to use something fake to convince an audience it's real) will be essential in your career, and it's ultimately the cinematographer's job to know -- ahead of time -- if what the art department is preparing is right or not.
  19. The most common source of film funding is a rich relative. If you don't have one of those, my suggestion is (always) to start by shooting something that you can afford (usually a short) and getting it into the festivals. As you build your skills and your reputation, the money will start to find you.
  20. Since no one has chimed in here, I'm going to ask that if you find any good ones, please share. Personally, I've never had any luck outside the University system.
  21. I don't know of you've got a theatrical design program there, but a good theatre lighting design class would be very beneficial to you, as these are exactly the sorts of issues lighting designers are trained in. Unfortunately, there are many answers to the question. I've heard "happy" lighting described by intensity, evenness, color, even gobos. No two lighting designers seem to agree. I tend to operate on the "I know it when I see it" principal. Personally, I'd be very curious to see the results of your experiments. Sounds like a fascinating exercise.
  22. Yeah, "conservative budget" is a good description. :) Thanks for the info!
  23. I'm very confident the HD1 isn't going to be able to cope, because JVC very helpfully decided that in manual mode I should have control over the aperture or the shutter speed, not both. As a result, it's an auto-exposure camera no matter what, and I'd lay good money that I'm going to end up with blown-out actors and noisy, not-black background. I can darken the background, but not recover the blown-out actors. The HVX-200, unfortunately, isn't available for this shoot because it belongs to my full-time gig, and this is a personal project. However, I've fallen in love with the P2 workflow and have therefore been seriously considering a HPX-170 for my own purposes. Maybe I need to come up with a similar project for work so I can justify running some tests with the HVX-200. :) Thanks for the info!
  24. That's a fascinating setup you've got there, Cesar! Have you tried it with a Mac workflow? Heretofore I've discounted shooting uncompressed because two of the scenes I'm worried about are on a remote location (a campfire scene and a flashlight scene) and I haven't been relishing the notion of dragging my MacPro out into the field and trying to run it off a generator. However, seeing some of your samples, it does appear that it would probably do what I need...
×
×
  • Create New...