Jump to content

joshua gallegos

Basic Member
  • Posts

    334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by joshua gallegos

  1. I did a short film with the Canon 6D about a year ago, and it's a full frame camera, my biggest complaint would be pulling focus and the battery life. If you're filming for about 35 minutes continuously the camera tends to overheat, and you have to have an extra battery handy. You'll also need an external monitor as the camera doesn't have a flip monitor like the newer rebel models. I thought the camera was inadequate for any type of filmmaking, as it's too bulky and difficult to hold. Stability is also an issue when working with EF lenses, and using an EFS lens will decrease the image quality as the glass is subpar to EF quality. I would recommend the Canon EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 USM, if you're using nothing but your bare hands, which i'd never recommend. It's always better to work with a fixed lens, but only if you have some kind of support, in this case a "flycam" would be ideal. I would personally never use a Canon 6D to film videos, Sony a7s do have a better picture quality, and they're a lot easier to hold due to their size, and you'll be able to use Zeiss lenses, which is much better glass.

  2. Happy holidays everyone! And for my money, 'Joy' is the holiday film to watch, it was so superbly done, what's interesting is that it kind of reminded me of the same form 'The Magnificent Ambersons' had with the narration, the opening is somewhat of an homage to Citizen Kane as well. I love David O. Russell's humor, it's fantastic.

  3. Oh, indie movies lose money all the time, Joshua -- production costs might only be 1 million, but distribution and ads can add another 2 million to that, and many indie movies don't make more than 3 million at the box office, though in the long run, they might turn a profit.

     

    I suppose, but what matters is that most of them get a shot of making another film, which is everything. I think as long as any filmmaker is able to make more movies, that's being successful. I don't think anyone should ever expect for their films to become commercially successful, at best a cult classic would be ideal. Guys like Richard Linklater never found mainstream success, but they're still hanging on and making movies. I guess we're the few who believe that money isn't everything.

  4. And really it's nearly impossible for indie films to lose money, seeing that they're usually made for 1 million dollars or less. Lena Dunham made Tiny Furniture with 50k dollars, Ana Lily Amirpour funded 'A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night' on Kickstarter and made it for thousands of dollars, Juno was another indie that made over 100M dollars. Indie film producers are always looking to find interesting projects, and they usually make these films because they believe in the story the filmmakers are telling, that's not the case for major studios, since they lean toward established franchises or best selling novels. So the true original voices will always emerge from nothing, they don't have to worry about how much money their film will make, I think they feel deep satisfaction in a work well done, and believe it or not some of them invest their own money to make their films better. And there's a lot of these young filmmakers like Zal Batmanglij (Sound of My Voice), Mike Cahill (Another Earth). Stanley Kubrick's first film 'Fear and Desire' wasn't even released, it played in one theater and made no money, but he was wise enough to make a feature that cost him 10,000 dollars, which gave him credibility as a filmmaker. I think the point has been established that you don't have to be JJ Abrams to make movies.

  5. But you have to understand that every film is a risk, there's no such thing as a film that's destined to succeed or fail, it's impossible to tell. No one predicted a little film like Beasts of the Southern Wild would make more than 100M dollars, no one thought the new Fantastic Four movie would flop. it's like trying to predict weather, you can't do it. My point is that no filmmaker should compromise their vision and think about whether or not their movie will make money, because it's a waste of time. Francis Ford Coppola stayed true to his vision when he made Apocalypse Now, he invested his own money to finish the picture, and it was a complete gamble. In the end, no one will remember how much your movie made, if it finds a cult following, then there's an audience for it. Paul Thomas Anderson has lost money with his films, but he's still making movies because he's one of the greatest American directors of our time, it's just too bad not many people realize that. Megan Ellison helped Paul make The Master when every other studio said no. There's no such thing as making the right movie that will make hundreds of millions of dollars, no one knows such things. Every investor takes a risk, even Steven Spielberg movies have flopped.

  6. Well, I guess we didn't see the same movie. The one I saw (for the 3rd time on sat) was an over-the-top unbelievable stage play set in the old west. It's a complete work of fiction, designed specifically to entertain and a lot of it is built around absurdity to the point of the audience forcing the laughs, due to it being so over-the-top. We laugh because it's revolting, like all the N words, like a naked man sucking the dick of a black man and grotesque bloody violence. Does the audience really need to see those things in order to tell a story? No... Quentin showed us those things because they are humorous to him AND his fans. If it were realistic, it would have been over the moment they entered the haberdashery.

     

     

    Actually the mere definition of cinema is to entertain, that's why it exists.

     

    If you look at box office receipts, the movies that do the best, are the one's that are pure entertainment. Some people call them "popcorn movies", but in the end, the point is to watch, be entertained and go home.

     

    Look at 'Mad Max Fury Road', it's one of the top movies this year and it has almost no dialog, it's all visual story telling.

     

     

    There are absolutely groups of people who attend screenings of dramatic pieces like 'Carol' or 'Suffragette' for the emotional aspect. That is a very specific genera of cinema, but it's not the popular kind. Both of those wonderful pieces of art, did poorly in the box office.

     

     

    Man, I'm so glad you feel that way. However, it's an unrealistic point of view in the grand scheme of things. This is why the mindless drivel entertainment movies are so popular and have huge financial rewards, yet the intelligent works of art, tend to barely break even.

     

     

    How can anyone relate to a belligerent butt who keeps everything to himself? He also doesn't grow or change during the film, he's the same butt from the open to the close. Why would anyone talk to him ever? Well, because in reality he wasn't that bad and he had more good moments then bad ones. 'Steve Jobs' showed only ONE SIDE of a very multidimensional person. Plus, everyone around him seemed to somehow accept his behavior, which is just ridiculous. It's so fabricated and over the top, it was hard to swallow and it's a real shame.

     

     

    Ohh no doubt that SOME cinema can be highly influential, but the majority of it is mindless entertainment. Look at the action, horror and comedy genera's as a whole, they are the top three box-office genera's. Do you really think 'Jurassic World', 'Dumb and Dumber II' or 'Crimson Peak' are influential in any way? Do you think people go to those films because they are looking for character development?

     

    You can't measure a film's success by its box office revenue. I agree that films have to at least break even, it is an industry and more often than not, the art is lost, because it's impossible to please everyone. Art and money are completely incongruent to one another, and every now and then there comes a film which can merge both successfully. Hollywood is riddled with money hungry hyenas who are merely investing in films to make a profit, and more often than not they fail miserably because they either don't care or they just don't know a thing about movies. Most studios are targeting teenage audiences, and they're the cause of this inflation of mindless entertainment. I absolutely agree that to a lesser, uncaring audience, cinema is just a meaningless pass time, a form of escapism.

    But that's certainly not the case for some people who are passionate about film, and there are production companies trying to create better films to enrich us, just look at Annapurna Pictures or the films Dana Brunetti and Michael De Luca are producing under Sony. I hope other exciting and newer filmmakers keep trying to make something different, something unique and not settle for something unoriginal for the sake of making money. it's important to care, and we have to remember that one point Hollywood was on the verge of death when a few passionate young filmmakers revitalized the movies.It was Martin Scorsese, DePalma, Francis Coppola...

     

    We both have differing perspectives, I maintain some optimism, I still believe

  7.  

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

     

     

    Okay, that's fair. But there are stunning visuals in all of those films which tell their own story within the larger context of the overall film. Tarantino's films have never left much of a visual imprint on me and the story structure of his films has never been the kind that you can turn the sound off and still be able to follow what's going on.

     

     

    Yes, exactly! Something all filmmakers should be learning how to do, these days.

     

    There's a great film called 'The Barefoot Contessa' where Humphrey Bogart plays a film director who discovers a beautiful Spanish dancer in a club (played by Ava Gardner), and he's trying to convince her to go to Hollywood, and they have a conversation weighing the possibilities, and there's a moment when Bogart says- "there's more to talking than just words". And it's very true, when someone speaks from the heart, it becomes nothing short of poetry, something classic films did substantially well. Of course many people today won't even look that far back, because they might find the sentimentality a bit too melodramatic, but that's one of the greater aspects I love about cinema. It makes sense that The Revenant has very little dialogue since DiCaprio is all alone for 70% of the movie, it's practically a survival movie, but I felt nothing for the revenge aspect of it, because I didn't really care for his son, perhaps if his son was younger I would've cared a little more, since he;s absolutely defenseless, maybe Tom Hardy could have drowned him as Dicaprio watched helplessly, the stabbing was too swift. But that's just me, I think that aspect of the film needed to be heightened, but everyone thinks they can do better- I'm just another one of those guys.

     

    And I can envision The Hateful Eight as a silent film, it's a murder mystery, it can be done. The film might be 70 minutes long as a silent film, but it would work if it was presented in a proper sequential order, but talk is a part of cinema, it has been since 1930, it shouldn't be averted just because it's not visual enough, it has to be there whether people like it or not.

  8. Please, the whole premise is completely foolish and lacks any common sense. Even Tarantino admitted the whole idea is a film full of "guest stars" and if you don't get his "HUMOR" you won't get the film. It is a down-right funny film because everything that happens is just plain silly. In reality, the story would have ended the moment the carriage arrived at the haberdashery. But no, we spend the next 2 hours going in circles, which is fine and all, but completely unnecessary.

     

     

    I saw Steve Jobs last night... it was very one sided. Knowing the Steve Jobs story very well myself, it's a real shame they made him out to be such a bully. It was well made though, Sorkin's screenplay was really fun and I really enjoyed the performances, but they were ALL over the top. The only reason why it works is because the audience has no time to sit and contemplate until after the fact.

     

     

    It is a visual medium. If you wish to watch people talk at one another constantly, go to the theatre.

     

    'The Revenant' doesn't really have much of a screenplay, but like 'Gravity' it a wonderful piece of adventure entertainment. It uses the visual medium in a way that not very many filmmakers have, which is why it will win a lot of awards.

     

     

    I agree, he is a wizard of story structure and dialog. He also knows how to make dialog entertaining, something that a lot of filmmakers don't really know how to do.

     

     

    They're main focus is entertainment, like a good showman from the vaudeville days. They are going to take you for a ride and that's what makes their movies so powerful. Cinema is in the end, just entertainment after all. So where it's awesome that guys like Quentin and Sorkin exist, it does take several viewings of their films to get the nuances that make those stories so interesting. You have to be devoted to translating what's being heard, process it and of course, pay attention to the visuals at the same time. The vast majority of people are only looking for entertainment to drag them away from their every day life.

     

     

    He landed in a tree and was so effed up, he could barely move.

     

    It's very difficult to talk about The Hateful Eight without giving anything away, but the story is not foolish, because every circumstance that takes place in the film is absolutely believable. So many grand personalities clash in that one little place, and you have to remember that Kurt Russell is set up as one of the baddest bounty hunters in the territory, and he has her chained up to him, so there's no way disaster can be averted as Kurt is on very high guard and extremely protective of his prisoner from the very beginning. So, it definitely works. Beyond that there's almost a Ox-Bow Incident moment, which I will not disclose involving a letter, and to me that transcended the film to something more than just entertainment. People don't go to the movies to just be entertained, it's not a circus. People go to the cinema to feel, to bond. In a screening of Creed some people were cheering, crying, and that's what it's all about. People appreciate a great film when they see one, they don't just sit down to kill boredom, they want to experience something, and perhaps connect with these characters and be inspired to overcome some of their own issues. Cinema is bigger than life, but every film must offer something that is deeply human and relatable. I'm sure so many fathers out there can relate to the relationship Steve Jobs had with Lisa, it's not just entertainment, believe it or not, cinema is a unique art form that can alter the way we think, and sometimes we can learn a little something that we didn't know before. To some effect, The Clockwork Orange incited terrible acts of violence in England, it just shows you how influential and realistic cinema can be when it is done well, perhaps it doesn't mirror our reality in a conventional sense, but it is a distorted reality that touches us in different ways. I think you're underestimating just how powerful and influential films are, if you don't believe me watch the films of Leni Riefenstahl and how they brainwashed an entire nation, or the ads ISIS is producing to influence younger people to blow themselves up.

  9. Let's not pretend this film hasn't been made before, because Apocalypto was actually a far more superior film than The Revenant, and not to mention Jeremiah Johnson. The opening of the film reminded me so much of Saving Private Ryan, and I don't particularly care for the extreme long takes, I thought it was an absolutely pretentious film that was saved by Dicaprio's performance, and the connection between Dicaprio and his son wasn't even set up very well compared to the relationship Steve Jobs has with Lisa. When it comes to choosing style over substance, I'll always choose substance, and the characterization in Steve Jobs or The Hateful Eight for that matter is what makes great cinema,

  10. I didn't think The Hateful Eight was "silly" in any shape or form, the film is an operatic murder mystery/western, and it's certainly the best film of the year. In fact I think the best films of the year are Steve Jobs and The Hateful Eight, there's more to cinema than just beautiful images like The Revenant, and Lubezki tends to be way too artsy, so much so that his images become the main attraction of the film. Tarantino is the master of story structure, his ability to craft a story is matched by none and it just so happens that many so called "visual films" are heavy with dialogue. For instance Vertigo is riddled with dialogue, and it's mainly expositional, so is Citizen Kane and Casablanca. I certainly don't see how Cuaron or Inarritu are innovators of storytelling, I mean shying a way from dialogue would in a way be going back to the time of silent films. And how did Dicaprio survive that massive fall from a cliff??? The horse splattered its guts on the hard snow and strangely Dicaprio survived this 50 ft drop.

  11. I think the sad reality is that most of us weren't meant to create at the capacity that we would like to. I look back at all the great films and filmmakers that inspired me, and at the same time it makes it impossible to live up to their great work. In a way it shrinks you, it's a pit of despair that sucks all the fun out of the work, because you know you'll never be as good as they were. Introspectively, the medium should be left alone if there's nothing that we truly need to say, if we're not burning with desire to tell a story- then film should be respected and left alone. That's certainly my situation, I can't speak for anyone in here. I don't care about making money, if I had money I'd probably spend all of it making films- the sad part about the art form is that it requires a lot of money- even if it's a 50k dollar indie film- how the hell do you raise that kind of money? It might as well be a million.

  12. I've realized I'm doing it all wrong- the idea of somehow chasing a way to make movies. I hope studio films die and collapse. I should just make them on my own like I used to- they weren't any good, but at least I was still making movies. I really think movie theaters will become a thing of the past- how long can people withstand Marvel movies- reboots, prequels and sequels. Streaming is the future.

     

    I'll just not worry about chasing something that isn't there to begin with and not worry about finding success- it's the wrong reason to even consider to make movies to begin with. Thanks for the advice.

  13. The link is one of my professional evaluations from The Blacklist.

     

    And most of the screenplays I've written have fallen well under the 5 million dollar budget mark. I know how to break down and budget. I underestimate me, that's fine. I didn't post here to prove anything to anyone. I keep repeating myself- moving to LA is crucial for any ASPIRING screenwriter- if by some chance any aspiring screenwriter lands an agent, etc. You have to be based in LA to get work. It's common sense.

     

    I shouldn't have brought up the subject of screenwriting in a cinematography forum. It's something not many people in here know much about.

  14. I merely asked for advice and the conversation evolved to this... :mellow:

     

    I plan on entering all the important writing contests in the coming year, since most of them are closed for entry. That's truly the only way to prove yourself. Unless you can manage to successfully produce your own work and write and direct them, which is even harder to do. And then there's The Black List- which evaluates your work with professional readers. Some of the scripts on The Black List ( a small margin) have been produced, some of which includes Nightingale which won an Emmy- and a lot more which have landed writers agents/managers.

     

    My first script got some attention as it scored a little high-

     

    http://dixiefilms.tumblr.com/post/132268299982

     

    That was last year's script and this year I made a new one- which scored just about the same. So, maybe I'm not so bad at it, and it's my best chance of somehow breaking in and then truly I can try to finance my short films and make them right. That's the idea- but who knows what will happen. if it all goes wrong, I'll keep making 200-300 dollar short films and that's the end. I'm too stupid to like filmmaking and cinema, but it can't be helped.

  15.  

    And I suspect a lot of people who aren't screenwriters have written screenplays worthy of attention and got nowhere at all.

     

    P

     

    That's not exactly true, good work is found out if it's put out there no matter what. If the work is ignored or doesn't even make it into the "quarter-finalist" list in a contest, it's very likely the script wasn't good at all or not good enough. You have to realize that there are many emerging production companies who are looking to find that one unproduced gem that will get their company rolling- they might be looking for an awards contender or the next Judd Apatow who has a wealth of ideas that will bring in the cash. They usually look at important film/writing contests and ignore the bunch who are trying to "slip in" their scripts. There are no shortcuts, it's a matter of coming up with exceptional work. Having said that, the reason why most aspiring screenwriters move to LA, is that if by some chance they get a manager or agent, they're going to have to live in the area for pitch meetings or important meetings to land assignments or ghost writing work etc. All film production companies are based in LA and if they want to meet face to face, it's going to be a big issue if you live somewhere else. Just because you know someone in LA who can do wonders, it doesn't mean that you'll get a free pass- the talent needs to be there one way or another.

     

    The road to becoming a professional screenwriter is incredibly difficult, but it only takes that one script to break things open- it's certainly not impossible.

  16.  

    Really?

     

    There are two problems with that. First is that there are many good scripts avaialble. Thousands of them, for every script made. Tens of thousands. It isn't that hard. The second is that it doesn't matter. I was looking at the top UK box office this year - it's Jurassic World, which was a terrible, terrible script.

     

    Yes, everyone can name a rock star. Those people are famous because they are very, very, very rare.

     

    P

    That's actually very true. There are many "good" screenplays out there- that is why screenwriters have to dish out exceptional stories- which are incredibly rare. I wouldn't say writing a good script "isn't that hard"- it's actually not that simple, unless you're an exception. The real work is in fixing a script- rewriting it to make it better. Even though scripts may not get produced, there are a plethora of them which are optioned and sit in a production company's database for decades. A lot of screenwriters have managed to get representation by merely writing a screenplay worthy of attention. A lot of good scripts can become good writing samples to attract managers or agents. No good script ever goes to waste.

     

    Of course it's not easy to make it anywhere- Hollywood is no exception. It's a cut-throat business.

  17. It's really not that simple. Producers will never read unsolicited material because of potential lawsuits. Therefore the first objective for any spec writer is to attain representation and management- and that usually happens to writers who win the Nicholl screenplay competition and to the top finalists. In order for that to happen you have to be at the very top of your game as there a thousands upon thousands of submissions. Another way would be to write/direct a short film that makes it to Cannes or Sundance- or any other major festival. It's not as simple as many people think as most producers don't have time to waste on unknowns.

  18. Okay, you guys convinced me, LA is most likely a huge misstep. I think LA is the last and final step you take once you've actually succeeded at something, grabbing attention from major agencies, etc, otherwise, the doors will be closed to unknowns. So, there's no way in unless you've proven yourself by doing something so good that they can't ignore you. Houston is still a terrible film city, so Austin sounds like the right place for me, Spec screenplays are rarely optioned nowadays- I think there's only been about 60 last year, which is an incredibly small amount- this by major studios. I'll check out Stage 32, thanks.

  19. Screenwriting is my passion, but as I've mentioned before I want to be able to direct my own work. I've done it before unsuccessfully- and I did it by writing a couple of shorts that were incredibly cheap to shoot, so I regard them as simple experiments. From those shorts I learned that a director requires a sense of leadership- knowing every aspect of a production, from the moment a film idea is developed to post-production. Having the ability to make decisions and collaborate is the key to a film's success. I am not a professional in anything- therefore, I must learn how professionals work. I want to see professional people in a working environment and learn from them. Simple.

     

    I think a lot of people have a misconception when it comes to writing. Writing for the screen is nothing like writing a novel. Screenwriting is a craft, the structure of a story is the most important aspect of writing- it's not so much about what you write, but HOW you write it that counts. Writing about ones life experiences will amount to a boring autobiography. A screenplay requires a sense of imagination- a touch for the dramatic- learning how to build conflicts with sequences and bits of action. A screenplay can be anything but one thing.... boring. "Living life" whatever that means is horrendous advice. Everyone is living a life, every conscious thing that is aware and feels are living life. Consider J.K. Rowling, she was working as a secretary, Stephen King was a school teacher- but these people were avid readers and had a great imagination.

     

    Being an adventurer or traveler will make you cultured but it won't make you a good writer. In fact Hemingway himself was a lousy screenwriter, so was F. Scott Fitzgerald and William Faulkner- despite being world renown novelists. Writing is a craft like cinematography- the craft can be learned by anyone, but it requires some talent and a lot of hard work, it requires the ability to form an idea and construct it in a way that is dramatically satisfying, Seeing something in a cinematic context and placing it within a genre so that it is marketable is a requirement. It's a business, first and foremost- it's the sad reality, but I think enough filmmakers have found a way to be artistic in the business. I've been writing for about seven years now, and until now I feel like I'm ready- some of my work was ranked higher than some of the people who ranked as quarter-finalists in the Nicholl screenwriting competition (the most prestigious of them all) on The Black List, and it was a good feeling. Most screenwriters hit their prime in their 30s and i'm willing to work hard to get there AND learn how film productions are handled. Maybe then I'll invest my own money to make a short film worthy of filming with a real cast and crew. Who knows...

  20. Instead of 'dethroning' someone, I would think of getting yourself ready to step up to the next position when that person moves up. In order to do that, you need to develop a wide network of contacts, get more set experience, and always keep improving your technical abilities and people skills. Filmmaking requires a lot of sustained interpersonal interaction under often stressful and potentially dangerous circumstances, so don't overlook how important it is to maintain a level head, have a good attitude, and be someone that others want to be around. Everything else can be taught.

    Great advice!

  21.  

    I believe that. It's where the studio meetings take place. I think there are two conversations going on. We have a massive sound stage here in Chicago, but no New Line studio execs. I doubt being a PA is ever going to get you a writing job, so I'm not sure moving where there's lots of film production is going to help unless you would rather make money being a PA while you write rather than working in a gas station while you write.

     

    I say, write, pack your bags, write, move to LA, write, get a job, write... write... write... and do whatever it takes to get your scripts in front of producers and readers. It goes without saying the odds of success are very, very, slim, but you can't succeed without trying.

     

    This guy gives a lot of helpful advice to new screenwriters...

     

    http://www.scriptsecrets.net

     

    I was reading this great article from SCRIPTMAG which made sense http://www.scriptmag.com/features/primetime-do-all-screenwriters-have-to-live-in-l-a

     

    Starting off as a PA or working in the mail room of any production office would be a great way to get started. I know failure is a huge part of trying- I'm not delusional thinking overnight success will happen, because it won't. But I'd rather take my chances and get rid of all doubt than to settle in some boring job. And there's also the porn industry, I've seriously considered working in porn as a part time gig if the opportunity is there.

  22. Atlanta because Georgia tax incentives.

     

    You gotta go where the work is. Film and tv shows in North America are currently made in LA, New York, Atlanta, Louisiana, New Mexico, Vancouver, and Toronto (right now). I've pretty much come to the conclusion that there will never be much film and tv work in SF, the bread and butter work here for better or worse revolves around the tech industry. If you move here or somewhere else without an current established film industry and expect to have a career like Greg Irwin, it's just not gonna happen.

    But won't taxes be raised at some point, once it becomes too congested with productions? I know TBS and Tyler Perry are mostly responsible for its growth, but I feel it won't last long, things will get too expensive at one point. I know I won't break in easily anywhere, it's a matter of doing degradable PA work and finding a way to dethrone someone from their job and take it. It's so difficult to even know where to begin. Some say LA, other's say here or there.... it's chaos, it's a miracle how anyone makes it anywhere.

  23. Good luck with whatever you decide. I had heard that Shreveport has more film work than Nola. If I were moving, I'd go to Atlanta, Ga.,ARRI wouldn't have set up a rental facility there if there wasn't business to support it.

    I think that's mainly because of The Walking Dead which uses Arri products on all their productions, and they're filming for a vast majority of the year. I can't imagine why other productions would film in Atlanta- doesn't seem like an interesting city.

×
×
  • Create New...