Yes it's another 'which camera should I buy post' :)

[Samuel Laseke]

Yaron, I don't think it was a bad decision at all. You got some amazing lenses and a strong performing camera. This video proves the camera is better than most of us can do with it.

[Samuel Laseke]

So if you have a film that is narrative but someone just shoots it, maybe in a 3 camera studio with camera operators and a director in the gallery, it's lit completely flat but it's heavily scripted is that cinematography, even tho the cinematographer isn't present?

 

 

As much as I love these semantic traps you set out for me it's really quite simple. Cinematography is the art of telling a story with light, composition, and movement. If you don't have lighting, composition, and movement motivated artistically by a story then you don't have cinematography. You can have a camera operator point a camera at something and shoot it and that won't be cinematography either. It's a composite of things. I have said all this before. You can't disprove what I am saying because it's a core fundamental of the art of cinematography. You may disagree but you won't find any cite's to back up your claims or refute the many that I have provided.

 

So you are saying the music videos that aren't scripted are just the filming of events and thus are not cinematography?

 

Please see the above posts and cites from the most highly skilled professionals of our time on what is and is not cinematography. Seriously watch the Zacuto video I posted you will learn really fast what cinematography is all about because they break down your notions and why your wrong. You don't have to agree with them but they are masters of cinematography.

[Freya Black]

Please see the above posts and cites from the most highly skilled professionals of our time on what is and is not cinematography. Seriously watch the Zacuto video I posted you will learn really fast what cinematography is all about because they break down your notions and why your wrong. You don't have to agree with them but they are masters of cinematography.

 

I watched the video, and they did not discuss music video's at all. How does this connect with my question about music videos?

You have not answered my question at all, you have just made an appeal to authority.

 

The video is not discussing what I am talking about.

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

You can't tell me the Cinematographer is not a part of the story telling since he is responsible for approving the majority of the movie and researching the script, period, and characters. Why would that at all be important if it was not story telling?

 

I've not said that the cinematographer can not be a part of story telling at all! Why are you implying I would?

Cinematography can certainly contribute to story telling. That does not make it the same thing as story telling.

 

This seems to be the thing you are having an issue with. If someone talks about cinematography in the context of story telling, you interpret that to mean that cinematography IS storytelling. They are not the same thing.

 

Freya

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Samuel, I have stayed out of your debate with Freya but I must jump in. As someone who produces (funds) directs, and usually DPs his own stuff, I am a bit appalled at your attitude about story telling.

 

The Director is the final and absolute authority on the issue of story telling and vision for the film (unless it is a content issue that concerns the Producer). You like to quote ASC members so I will quote David Mullen, ASC who said, when asked about the relationship between directors and DPs, to the effect of "it is not a relationship of equals. The Director is the boss and has the final say." This is a paraphrase but I believe the sentiment was there of what he was getting across.

 

I only quoted Mr. Mullen because you can only understand the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. What any Cinematographer says is merely their opinion as it is an art and not a science. There is some science to it in the sense of the technical angle but what it is is largely what you make of it. But first and foremost, film making is a BUSINESS and the business has a hierarchy. Cnematography isnt some standardized term that means a certain thing. Some directors give DPs free reign and others keep the DP on a short leash and even wish to look through the viewfinder before approving a shot. You are not a story teller as a DP. You are an associate to the real story teller which is the Director. It is his/her vision alone and everyone on the set is the supporting cast. If it doesnt work in this way then you have a poor situation which will fail.

 

Im sorry to disagree with you but you needed to be set straight. Your attitude is not a good one to display publically because you will turn off potential directors who might want to work with you. They want a helper, not a control freak. Rant over.

[Samuel Laseke]

I watched the video, and they did not discuss music video's at all. How does this connect with my question about music videos?

You have not answered my question at all, you have just made an appeal to authority.

 

The video is not discussing what I am talking about.

 

Freya

 

How about you deal with the subject on a whole and not try to win this debate on semantics. This is about cinematography which is not limited to music videos. Cinematography is cinematography regardless of what specific argument you want to make. It is what it is no matter what format you would like to choose. I will not chase you down a rabbit hole. I have no interest in a futile argument that just goes in circles. I have laid out a strong case and you have not. So give me a stronger case that proves the authorities on the matter are wrong and we can move to the finer points.

[Freya Black]

So, finally, after much hesitation I went with the Panasonic GH3. I'm not yet 100% sure it was the right decision and only time will tell... First and foremost, I think that although with my approximate budget of about 5000$ I could have gotten some "better"

 

 

Apologies we have hijacked your thread soooo badly! ;)

 

I think the GH3 is a great decision, as it's a difficult time to find anything around that price bracket.

Having access to a variety of lenses can really give you a lot more options with the cinematography and the MFT mount is great from that point of view!

 

I recommend you also get a MFT to FD adapter too as there are some great lenses in that format for a good price.

 

Hope it works out really well for you! :)

 

Freya

Edited February 5, 2013 by Freya Black

[Samuel Laseke]

I've not said that the cinematographer can not be a part of story telling at all! Why are you implying I would?

Cinematography can certainly contribute to story telling. That does not make it the same thing as story telling.

 

This seems to be the thing you are having an issue with. If someone talks about cinematography in the context of story telling, you interpret that to mean that cinematography IS storytelling. They are not the same thing.

 

If you are contributing to the telling of a story you are telling the story. It's an immutable truth that they are one and the same. You can't play an instrument with a band and say your not making music your just contributing. This is a ridiculous statement base on nothing at all. Sorry to be so blunt but you are just completely wrong on so many levels.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

If you are contributing to the telling of a story you are telling the story. It's an immutable truth that they are one and the same. You can't play an instrument with a band and say your not making music your just contributing. This is a ridiculous statement base on nothing at all. Sorry to be so blunt but you are just completely wrong on so many levels.

 

Samuel, if I play a Beethoven piece, am I a composer? Not at all. Performing a craft is different than being the brains behind the thing. I dont see how you cant comprehend this?

[Freya Black]

How about you deal with the subject on a whole and not try to win this debate on semantics.

 

Yikes! I wasn't trying to "win" a debate at all! I wasn't looking at it as a competition and don't really want to be involved in a competition. I was just trying to help you to see that cinematography is not the same thing as story telling.

 

This is about cinematography which is not limited to music videos. Cinematography is cinematography regardless of what specific argument you want to make. It is what it is no matter what format you would like to choose. I will not chase you down a rabbit hole. I have no interest in a futile argument that just goes in circles. I have laid out a strong case and you have not. So give me a stronger case that proves the authorities on the matter are wrong and we can move to the finer points.

 

I was just trying to use music videos as an example because they are well known and there are obviously non narrative music videos out there. I was trying to make the point that the existence of cinematography in that context must mean that cinematography is not the same thing as story telling. Basically the point I've tried to make a number of ways is that if cinematography exists outside of story telling it cannot actually BE storytelling. Although it can obviously significantly contribute to story telling. So by looking at a part of it, I was trying to make a point about the whole.

 

I'm sorry you have been viewing this as a competition, and did not mean to upset you, was just trying to help you to see outside of the way you are thinking. I'm obviously doing a bad job at that tho and upsetting you, so I do apologise.

 

I wasn't trying to deliberately antagonise and annoy you.

 

You can of course view everything as a story if you want to. There is an old saying "The whole worlds a stage" or something similar. :)

 

Freya

Edited February 5, 2013 by Freya Black

[Samuel Laseke]

Im sorry to disagree with you but you needed to be set straight. Your attitude is not a good one to display publically because you will turn off potential directors who might want to work with you. They want a helper, not a control freak. Rant over.

 

Please re-read my posts because I said exactly the same thing you are saying. As a Producer, Director, DP, Editor, and VFX artist I can tell you and have multiple times stated the director is the chief story teller. It's their vision and their in charge. They do however hire department heads for a reason. There have been two directors both of them first time directors that have told me how to do my job instead of asking me how I can give them what they want to see. One of those two directors project turned out way better than I thought it would. That director actually grabbed my camera and forced me to move where he wanted effectively make me a steady cam rig. That was a bit over the top but I can work with anything. He also admitted he should have listened to me because we would have gotten all the shots he wanted faster and with less expense.

 

The second director's movie was not so fortunate. He told me what he wanted and that's what I gave him. It was not my place to question him after all. He told me during editing that my lighting was terrible, my movement went against the story and my composition was perfect but next time he needed a monitor to see what I was doing. The lighting and movement were all defined in detail by the director down to the gel we were using. I learned very quickly that letting the director go unchallenged and not standing up for what you know is technically and artistically correct is a disservice to the director. That is why they hire you. As a director I expect my DP to catch what I don't and add to the creative process just as the vast majority of directors have expected of me. Ultimately it's their movie and they will get exactly what they want. I have also developed my view of cinematography from directors early on telling me the camera is a member of the cast and it's point of view tells the story. I happen to be in charge of that camera. So you take form their comments and that reality what you like. But I would say the vast majority of cinematographers in the world don't find the relationship with the director to be as rigid and controlling as you make it out to be. Certainly in my experience with 90 or so directors it's not been that way more than twice.

[Samuel Laseke]

Samuel, if I play a Beethoven piece, am I a composer? Not at all. Performing a craft is different than being the brains behind the thing. I dont see how you cant comprehend this?

 

What I take from your comment is that a DP is nothing more than a worker with no input into the movie and the director tells them how to light, how to move, and how to compose? They just take all those instructions and execute them? I have to say that's not the experience I have had as a Director, DP, Gaffer, or Production Coordinator. That has been my experience with editing actually but rarely.

 

Let's use your analogy. If you play a song you are nothing more than a musician. If you are the person recording the song, editing the song, or mastering the song you are an artist responsible for that songs production. That's why you get royalties forever and why you can win a Grammy. Sadly the guy writing the song probably got less than anyone and they were the actual brains behind the music.

 

As a director of a movie you are the vision behind the movie. You are not the only person involved and you can't make the movie on your own. This is not an assembly line. Each of the people involved in making the movie is applying not only their craft but their artistic impression on that movie. Unless of course you are actually going around and controlling every decision and movement of the movie. There are some directors that actually control their actors micro expressions. As a director which I am more often than a DP I would never degrade my department heads so far as to tell them they are simply craftsmen performing a job. They are artists not mere craftsmen doing a job from a detailed spec sheet. If that were true than anyone could do their job. I can tell you from experience this is not how I have been treated by good directors and it's not how I direct. If you actually look at the duties of a DP provided by an ASC cinematographer which appears to be a paraphrased version of the camera unions defined roles and duties you will find that a DP's role is far more than merely performing a craft.

 

In my experience as a director I was not the all powerful brains of the operation either. Because there is always a producer over you. There is always finance and studios above them. So who is really the brains? I have had plenty of my productions hijacked by producers. Those producers don't know how to do my job. So should I just let them rail road me and create a terrible movie because their my boss? As a director I am really just a craftsmen in your example and the real brains are the producer because they hired me and told me how I was going to make their movie in a lot of cases. Many times they have somebody telling them how they want the movie to be made as well. Which brings us back to the modern interpretation of movie making where it's a collaboration between many artists and not merely one individuals work. I do believe that is why many movies get Academy Awards for different categories and not just directing. The best picture Academy Award goes to the producer not the director. Everyone has a role to play and a movie is only as strong as it's leadership and the artists and craftsmen putting it together. Same holds true for your Beethoven analogy in modern times by the way.

[Samuel Laseke]

Yikes! I wasn't trying to "win" a debate at all! I wasn't looking at it as a competition and don't really want to be involved in a competition. I was just trying to help you to see that cinematography is not the same thing as story telling.

 

I am not upset at all Freya. I just know there is a point when no matter how much evidence you provide someone they are never going to acknowledge it. You seem to believe that all forms of visual recording are cinema and cinematography. That is why this debate is pointless. You have your own definition and I have provided several references to what cinematography actually is. It's clear without evidence proving your point I am never going to deny all evidence to the contrary and take up your position.

 

Out of curiosity are you by chance a director or a documentary filmmaker?

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Samuel, of course DPs play a role and CAN be a huge creative force behind a film. All I was pointing out was that the extent of what a DP can do is limited by the relationship they have with the director. I would never encourage hiring any department head and then micromanaging them. That is why I personally seldom work with DPs. My financial constraints shooting on film, specifically, cause me to realize that I use less film shooting it myself than explaining my vision to someone else. But if I did have the resources to utilize a good DP, I would respect their role and give them relative creative input.

 

My point was that, since the practical working duties of a cinematographer are largely based on the directing style of the director, it is difficult to determine that "cinematography is story telling" or any particular thing in general. Outside of the vague idea that cinematography is the visual portion of the film, you cant look in some ASC manual and say "Gee, I will be doing x or y on a job." Even your own experience mentions that directors are different. When I was doing audio gigs, I saw some directors who had no technical savvy whatsoever and so they had no input at all into how a DP did their job. That gave the DP a sort of "expert power" that allowed the DP great latitude in the film. But some directors can get into lens selection and a few even want to color grade.

 

With the rise of digital, I am even hearing about some DITs that are trying to undermine some of the duties of the DP. I am much against this and this is part of why I prefer a film workflow. Tents full of people mucking with the images is not the way an efficient set should be ran IMO.

[Samuel Laseke]

If your working on a professional set the DP is in charge of the production unit. So DIT should not be undermining the DP. That's been my experience. Things are wildly different between low budget indie movies and professional productions as well. The less experience a director has the more likely they are to not want anything to do with photography or they micro manage them. I have worked for both extremes and they both end in the same result. A very disjointed and poorly made movie. Which is odd since a cinematographers job is not story telling I know. :) It's less of a problem with more experienced directors that can actually provide good direction instead of telling me what equipment I should be using for every shot. With those directors we collaborate on how things will look and I figure out how to bring their vision to life. That's why they hire you.

 

I actually like directing with no DP on my short films and commercials. I know what I want and so I do it myself a lot of the time. It's hard to find a good cinematographer much else one willing to work on a small project for a low budget. It's actually how I went from directing to being a DP. I much prefer being a DP but I end up directing far more often. I love that job too so it works out.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

If your working on a professional set the DP is in charge of the production unit. So DIT should not be undermining the DP. That's been my experience.

 

This may be your experience but this isnt the only case for pro sets. Someone posted an article awhile ago about members of the BSC's opinions and thoughts on the shift to digital and practically every member mentioned the frustation with the issue of DITs and too many people on set modifying images. I wish I had the link...if I find it, ill post it...truly a fascinating read.

[Samuel Laseke]

If somebody tries hard enough they will always find a way to contradict your experience with anecdotal evidence of somebody else's experience. If you don't get it in your contract that you are in charge of the final image then your results will vary. If you choose to work with a director that wants to do your job your results may vary. There is as much business savvy necessary to do this job as there is technical and artistic skill. To make things even more interesting commercials, television, reality tv, music videos, and documentaries all have different rules. The British industry has different rules than the American industry. What is true for Britain is probably not what is true for America. Each of them have a standard way of doing business. That is ever changing but that's why you need to be a professional and understand the nature of the business so you can negotiate in your contract to protect your reputation. On indie movies I have a strict rule in my contract that I control the final image and approve the final edit. On professional jobs I don't get that kind of control and I honestly don't need it. But it's standard in my contract to always approve the final image. That will likely change as the industry changes and I move up the ladder.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

There is as much business savvy necessary to do this job as there is technical and artistic skill.

 

This is by far the wisest statement I have heard in awhile. Completely agree.

 

On indie movies I have a strict rule in my contract that I control the final image and approve the final edit. On professional jobs I don't get that kind of control and I honestly don't need it. But it's standard in my contract to always approve the final image. That will likely change as the industry changes and I move up the ladder.

 

Well then, I can rule you out for future projects. I spend money for MY project and I, and only I, approve the final image. I would think this would ESPECIALLY be the case for indie projects which are normally funded by the filmmaker. No disrespect, but who are you to have the final say over something that someone else paid for?

[Samuel Laseke]

Well then, I can rule you out for future projects. I spend money for MY project and I, and only I, approve the final image. I would think this would ESPECIALLY be the case for indie projects which are normally funded by the filmmaker. No disrespect, but who are you to have the final say over something that someone else paid for?

 

Mathew no disrespect but I would not Dp any movie you were directing or producing. I would be cool working with you on things but it's clear your directing style is not collaborative. There's nothing wrong with that if you can make it work. I have never seen it work out well on any production I have worked. I know there are many great movies that have made it work.

 

I think you are over reacting over a power struggle that doesn't exist. I give the producer an image they have requested. I give the director his vision in the image technically and artistically correct to the best of my ability. If the directors vision is bad and he is rigid that's on him. If he wants to use a shot where an actor missed their mark and are 2 stops over exposed then it's my reputation if he decides that's the shot to use. I have actually had directors try to use bad takes on a complex dolly crane shot where they bumped the crane trying to see the image. If the producer wants to put out a failed take or ruin the image that's my reputation their destroying.

 

I have never had any conflicts with any producer or directors over an image once I tell them why it needs to be fixed. It's their job to define the creative requirements. It's my job to give them what they want technically and artistically. Sure they can fire me but it's never happened. Why would they hire a DP if they could do the job themselves. This doesn't even only apply to DP's. Editors, Actors, and Producers all try to negotiate in their contract quality controls and roles and responsibilities. Their not doing the directors job. Rather the director is not doing something he doesn't understand by doing their job. As a director I provide more input on the camera and lighting than any director I have ever worked with. My DP loves it. He comes back to me with his ideas and usually they are an improvement to achieve better storytelling. My art director is almost always smarter than me about how to put together the world the actors live in. That is not a threat to my authority. I tell them what I want and they give me options and my DP approves those options with me. I have not lost any creative control. I have only gained a higher quality product.

 

If you think working with me would be outrageous you should check into what the still photographers get away with. Not only do they have final say on the image but they own them. You paid for them to shoot the pictures. Then you paid for them to edit the pictures. Then you pay for each print and you never own the copyright unless they have an option for you to pay a lot more for it. This is of course all in their contracts because if you hire them legally you own the copyright all all work performed under your employ. I have not found any that will work a job without their contract protecting their intellectual property.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Mathew no disrespect but I would not Dp any movie you were directing or producing.

That's good because you werent asked :D

 

If the directors vision is bad and he is rigid that's on him. If he wants to use a shot where an actor missed their mark and are 2 stops over exposed then it's my reputation if he decides that's the shot to use.

 

So you are saying here, if Im correct, that if a director disagrees with you, they have a bad vision? That is some ego you have.

 

I have never had any conflicts with any producer or directors over an image once I tell them why it needs to be fixed. It's their job to define the creative requirements. It's my job to give them what they want technically and artistically.

 

Then you havent been in this business long enough...wait.

 

Why would they hire a DP if they could do the job themselves.

Many directors are "capable" but that doesnt mean they wish to spread themselves that thin. Some DPs even direct...does that mean they couldnt do the job if they wanted to?

 

If you think working with me would be outrageous you should check into what the still photographers get away with. Not only do they have final say on the image but they own them. You paid for them to shoot the pictures. Then you paid for them to edit the pictures. Then you pay for each print and you never own the copyright unless they have an option for you to pay a lot more for it. This is of course all in their contracts because if you hire them legally you own the copyright all all work performed under your employ. I have not found any that will work a job without their contract protecting their intellectual property.

 

Ok, I pay a person to paint my house too but if the job sucks, IMO, then they can redo it, refund me, or get bad word of mouth and never get hired again. YOU are providing a service. The one who pays YOUR salary is your employer. Having an arrogant attitude is not befitting of a DP...that is the director's job. ;)

[Samuel Laseke]

Mathew I don't understand where your attitude comes from. Seriously if your vision as a director sucks that's on you. It's not my arrogance that causes a directors vision to be terrible. Your entire attitude about directing is pretty arrogant honestly. I am not terribly interested in your opinion of what makes a good DP or not since you can't trust them to work on your films for what you are willing to pay. Which makes me wonder what vast amount of experience are you drawing from to make these assumptions about what will or won't happen in my career? I mean if you were a DP or director with decades of experience I might care what you have to say. Your certainly talking like you have decades of professional experience.

 

I don't have decades of professional experience. I am however almost always working on a production and I work as a professional director for music videos and commercials and a professional DP for two feature films currently. I don't consider myself an authority on the subject of cinematography but I do have actual real world experience that drives my views. So before you continue on your rants and complaints please share with me where your vast amount of knowledge on the subject of directing and DP work is derived from. I mean you may be somebody I should be listening to even though everything you say is contrary to everything I have seen. I don't consider self funded short filmmaking on 16mm film industry experience by itself. If you vastly more experience than me on this subject please do share. I would assume you do since you so vehemently defend your total despotic control over your movie and what constitutes a good DP.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Samuel, I keep my ears open. You learn when you actually LISTEN to people and do not suppose things based on your own fictional universe. Listen to your carrying on with Freya? You refused to listen to anything Freya said. I quoted David Mullen and many BSC members and you brushed it off as the "across the pond" situation which has nothing to do with America. I used to be more cocky than I am now but the realities of life have taken hold more than they used to so I learned to listen just a little bit.

 

Im sorry that you dont regard self funding films to be industry experience. I am funding a feature, btw, not just shorts. Not that it matters to you. But using your own funds teaches you way more than you could ever learn from being an employee who reports to work and leaves at the end of the day. How you can discount being involved in every facet of the making of a film is beyond me.

 

The thing is, I am positive that I come from a different backgroun than you. I was not a film school grad. I have a business degree and am working on a grad degree in Computer Science. Film is a passion, not a career. But having a business background, I see things different than the starving artist. I spend MY money to make projects...I strongly believe that gives me a right to whatever I desire and can pay for. There are people on this board I would love to have as DP and I would respect their work. But that is because they have a track record of not only skill and dedication, but more importantly being understanding of their role in the film making process. In fact, the only reason I havent worked with some of them is financial and logistical, not attitude issues. Hell, Ive learned most of what I know from these people so I trust them. But the ones I trust have a spirit of humility and dont come off like you do. I come off as a jerk because I am a director and I am expected to always show confidence on set and have an answer for everything. Sometimes I carry that ego on here and it gets me in much trouble.

 

But the fact that I am willing to put up large amounts of money relative to my income for a passion that has little chance of generating a return may not give me your idea of experience but it certainly requires balls.

[Samuel Laseke]

You learn when you actually LISTEN to people and do not suppose things based on your own fictional universe. Listen to your carrying on with Freya? You refused to listen to anything Freya said. I quoted David Mullen and many BSC members and you brushed it off as the "across the pond" situation which has nothing to do with America.

 

 

It's funny because I cited several ASC's and provided a link to a video on this very subject with ASC's and BSC's where they talked about the difference between America and British productions. I guess maybe masters of this industry and craft need to LISTEN to you and Freya too.

 

 

 

Im sorry that you dont regard self funding films to be industry experience. I am funding a feature, btw, not just shorts. Not that it matters to you. But using your own funds teaches you way more than you could ever learn from being an employee who reports to work and leaves at the end of the day. How you can discount being involved in every facet of the making of a film is beyond me.

 

 

I totally respect people who are passionate about something doing it at any cost. I would just point out that by definition if your funding your hobby it's not "industry" experience. I would also point out that you don't actually know whether or not you can learn more from your hobby vs my profession. I have done this self funded and still do in fact. I also work professionally in the industry. While nothing is definitive your statement is based completely on nothing at all. I can speak from experience on this one.

 

 

 

The thing is, I am positive that I come from a different backgroun than you. I was not a film school grad. I have a business degree and am working on a grad degree in Computer Science. Film is a passion, not a career. But having a business background, I see things different than the starving artist.

 

 

 

 

Well I am positive that you don't know my background and it's a bit arrogant to assume you do. I am a high school drop out that became a self taught network architect and worked my way from the loading dock to being the lead Architect of a multinational corporations network in 12 months. I went on to become the lead architect on a 4 billion dollar network design and implementation project after 24 months. I can tell you what I thought I knew was not even enough to know what I did not know. I see things very differently than most people. Until you have been a starving artist and earned an income from your art I dont' think you can really know what your talking about. This is a business which you learn on day one working for somebody else. But what do I know. People on internet forums who have never been there and done that, read something and suddenly they are an authority on the subject. I am not authority on the subject as I have said several times and I have been on all sides of your scenario.

 

 

I spend MY money to make projects...I strongly believe that gives me a right to whatever I desire and can pay for.

 

 

I strongly believe your right. That doesn't make you a good director or your film any better though.

 

 

 

I come off as a jerk because I am a director and I am expected to always show confidence on set and have an answer for everything. Sometimes I carry that ego on here and it gets me in much trouble.

 

I think you would find that arrogance and confidence are not the same thing. I think you will also find that people respond much better to you when your honest and not pretending to know everything on set. I don't BS my cast or my crew. If I don't know something I ask for help. That's what they are there for. Arrogance may be common amongst directors but it's not a good trait.

 

I have provided references which clearly state what I have said. You just keep telling me to believe yours as did Freya. What evidence have you provided which refutes mine? None and neither did she. It's arrogant to believe that I should suddenly disregard everything I have ever learned, been told, experienced, or seen based on two peoples opinions. Now if you could find reputable evidence that I am wrong I would stand corrected. The entire concept you are both trying convince me is absolute is based on your opinion. It's not the least bit arrogant to be confident in ones experience and the stated experience of masters of this art and craft.

 

 

 

But the fact that I am willing to put up large amounts of money relative to my income for a passion that has little chance of generating a return may not give me your idea of experience but it certainly requires balls.

 

 

Well millions of people before you have done this and a handful have been successful. Passion will make you do crazy things. I have no doubt you will gain experience from this. But it's ver different funding your own movie and having no producer over you and convincing a producer to give you money and control of their project. Everyone should follow their dreams. I know a lot of self funded directors making features and I support all of them even if they don't know how to make a movie. Most learn from the experience and it's cheaper than film school in most cases. Tarantino did this and never showed the movie to anyone. But he doesn't regret it. I did it with my production company and so far it's been successful. I truly do wish you the best in your endeavors Mathew.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Samuel, I dont think you are as experienced as you believe yourself to be. I realize I am not but I dont care what others think because I dont work for them. You are the "professional" here so act like it. ;)

Good luck in your endeavors.

 

EDIT: Just out of curiosity, are you the Samuel Laseke who has a blog that says that people can now make movies on their phones? Just curious.

[Samuel Laseke]

Samuel, I dont think you are as experienced as you believe yourself to be. I realize I am not but I dont care what others think because I dont work for them. You are the "professional" here so act like it. ;)

Good luck in your endeavors.

 

Well like I have said so MANY times already I am not that experienced. All I have said is what my experience has been. You really should read what I have said before making comments like this. :lol: