Selling DVD to Video Rental Centers...

[David Mullen ASC]

For instance I probably wouldn't have guessed that 28 Days Later was shot on video, unless I was told and then looked out for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It was pretty obvious in the movie theaters, but I felt the "grunge" look was appropriately creepy. Would have been harder to justify for a period romance, for example.

[Landon D. Parks]

what sucks is I didnt see 28 days later in theaters, so I missed out on what it looked like. :(

[Max Jacoby]

Gee Landon, you signature is way bigger than your posts. And don't you think you should FINISH your first feature first before you call yourself a feature director? Or maybe even wait until it gets distributed, since anybody can take a video camera nowadays and make a 'feature' with some friends.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

It was pretty obvious in the movie theaters, but I felt the "grunge" look was appropriately creepy. Would have been harder to justify for a period romance, for example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what sucks is I didnt see 28 days later in theaters, so I missed out on what it looked like.

Trouble is I never got to see it in the cinemas either, but on the other hand, maybe that's a good thing, apparently in the cinemas it didn't look very good. Just wondering David, what do you mean by "grunge" look?

 

Gee Landon, you signature is way bigger than your posts. And don't you think you should FINISH your first feature first before you call yourself a feature director? Or maybe even wait until it gets distributed, since anybody can take a video camera nowadays and make a 'feature' with some friends.

Max although I agree with what your saying, maybe it's just a good idea to let him have it, I mean, wouldn't you be excited and be wanting to show it off? I see what your saying but, best to leave it be. Atleast let him enjoy the thought of it for now.

Edited May 17, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Jonathan Spear]

"""Gee Landon, you signature is way bigger than your posts. And don't you think you should FINISH your first feature first before you call yourself a feature director? Or maybe even wait until it gets distributed, since anybody can take a video camera nowadays and make a 'feature' with some friends."""

 

:rolleyes:

 

Well maybe he did make a feature with some friends and a video camera.

And if he directed it, than he is a feature director.

What's wrong with that?

You make it sound like a crime.

 

OHhhhhh...

 

You must mean that he's young and not filthy rich yet.

 

Ok, now I get it.

[Max Jacoby]

Ok, now I get it.

 

No you obviously don't. Try harder.

[Jonathan Spear]

"Let the fools have their tar-tar sauce!" / C. Montgomery Burns

 

"Mmmmm. Tartar sauce." / Homer Simpson

[Max Jacoby]

Look Jonathan, don't think that myself and other people have not yet noticed the silly games that you are playing here. It's always the same pattern: You are constantly trying to provoke people into personal arguments.

 

In fact I cannot remember even one single piece of meaningful information that you have contributed to this forum. So to be honest I don't really see why you are so intent on wasting people's time.

[Guest]

Come on Landon, Daniel, and Jonathan, let's be half way reasonable here.

 

David Mullen started a thread a few months back regarding signing your posts. He pointed out that you should use your real name and your real credentials. This is a pro forum so I think what he was saying was 100% reasonable.

 

There are many who post here and sign their threads as "students." There are also tons of people here with extensive credits who don't try and show them off in their signatures. If you want to find out what they've done you can always check IMDB on your own. However, as I have also stated in the past IMDB is not an accurate reflection of people's expertise as they don't list credits for commercials. And many here have some pretty incredible commercial reels.

 

Consider people new to the forum who may actually think Landon is a "feature film director" in the REAL sense of the term.

 

There's no point in dismissing working professionals with REAL credits when they ask that others post their REAL credits as well.

 

Perhaps a more accurate and humble signature would serve Landon better until he has his work in distribution.

 

R.

 

PS: Guys, we have made an informal truce so let's keep things that way. I have been respectful and logical in my post, so I expect others to do the same in this situation.

[Landon D. Parks]

Consider people new to the forum who may actually think Landon is a "feature film director" in the REAL sense of the term.

Exactly whats yout idea of "The real since of the term?". If me directing a feature film does make me a REAL feature film director, then I dont know what does. If you mean REAL, by someone with a lot of directing credits, then you seem to be saying that even though a person directs a feature, they are still not a feature director. I never did buy into that load of bull dung.

 

NOW, I have not completed my film yet, so if thats what your rambling about.... Then know this: If at any time this film dont turn out, I will of course remove the "Feature Director" title, but until then, I dont see it hurting no one, and it does accuratly represent what im doing at this present time...

 

PS) Just to make you happy I'll shorten it some, and make it smaller. :rolleyes:

 

PSS) Also to make your happy, I'll remove my "Future" credit, that is till I start working on it anyway. But I WILL NOT remove the credit to the one Im working on now, unless the project fails.

Edited May 17, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Landon D. Parks]

In fact I cannot remember even one single piece of meaningful information that you have contributed to this forum. So to be honest I don't really see why you are so intent on wasting people's time.

Max, you seem to be the one thats starts all the fights in the first place. Everytime I post something you dont approave of, you have to make a big deal out of it.

[Jonathan Spear]

Max, you're half right.

 

Yes, I tend to provoke people sometimes - fine. They deserve it IMO.

I can stop doing it if it's that annoying and insulting.

I can just as easily point out things which others say that I find equally ridiculous and annoying but I won't since I'm a 'nobody'.

 

I don't offer information on things I'm not an expert at.

I don't pretend to understand or have the knowledge and experience some of you have, however, I also am at the same point in my life as Daniel and Landon are.

We all want to be great DP's/directors/etc someday and we're allowed (especially on the internet) to be open about our hopes and dreams - regardless of how "ridiculous" they may seem to others.

Who ever said I think your posts are wonderful and informative?

Do I have to agree with each and every opinion of yours because you have more experience than I do?

Hell no, I can say or think whatever I want.

Within the boundries of common decency of course.

If someone's being a jerk to someone who's younger and less experienced than you will get it right back in your face.

That's a promise.

[Guest]

Landon,

 

That is certainly an improved signature. Although the term "feature film director" is still some what dubious.

 

There may come a time when Tim Tyler has to start enforcing a policy of accurate credits in the forum in order to preserve the integrity of the forum. Landon is just one case. There are many other times where people list themselves as a "director of photography" while they are asking the most basic of all questions with regard to cinematography. So this begs the obvious question, what kind of DOP are they?

 

Why do people that put stock in IMDB put stock in it? Because you have to prove to the IMDB editors that what you say is in fact true. It's not a resume posting service, films that you intend to make in the future don't count. For obvious reasons.

 

R.

[Mark Allen]

It's not a resume posting service, films that you intend to make in the future don't count.  For obvious reasons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually there are lots of movies listed which are purely based on intention. Usually when you look at major producers/directors/actors - int heir future films are one or two which will eventually disappear of the list.

[Max Jacoby]

NOW, I have not completed my film yet, so if thats what your rambling about.... Then know this: If at any time this film dont turn out, I will of course remove the "Feature Director" title, but until then, I dont see it hurting no one, and it does accuratly represent what im doing at this present time...

 

I have yet to meet a real director (and by that I mean someone who earns a living doing this), who called him/herself 'feature director'. In fact I have never some accross that term until you started using it. If the description 'director' is good enough for professionals, it should be good enough for you too. Anything else is just wishful thinkign from your part. Just because you like to call yourself 'feature director' doesn't make you one.

[Guest]

Ah yes Mark, but as you point out....

 

"Usually when you look at major producers/directors/actors"

 

The key word there is "major" ie Steven Spielberg, Harrison Ford. That same procedure would not be applied to me, I would have to have my project in the can first and in distribution.

 

Just making the film doesn't count for non-famous people, it also has to be screened at film festivals or be available for distribution to the public.

 

R.

[Alessandro Machi]

28 days however was converted to film, which tends to make it look more like film.

 

Standard video still has a "live" in the moment look to it. Film and the 24-30 conversion gives film that storytelling look. Inital 24P seemed to have only field resolution and I could always spot that in an instant and I hated it.

 

I recently saw 24P that looked more like film on a computer monitor, but I didn't get to see it on a standard def monitor, which to me is the final test.

[Landon D. Parks]

lets think about that: There are a lot of unknowns on IMDB with projects that say something like "Announced" beside there name. Carry Conran, Jonathan Liebesman and the list goes on and on. There is also 10 times more unknowns with Pre-Production credits. While Carry Conran and Jonathan Liebesman may not be completly unknown, they are not lucas either...

[Guest]

Ok you're right, I've decided to add a few of my credits to my posts.

 

R.

 

RICHARD DC BODDINGTON

 

Feature Film Director

 

The Monster That Ate New York (100 million dollar feature, announced)

The Monster That Ate Albany (75 Million dollar feature, announced)

The Monster That Ate Buffalo (80 Million dollar feature, announced)

 

Richard Boddington Screenwriter

 

The Creature That Ate Los Angeles (115 million dollar feature, announced)

The Creature That Ate San Diego (80 million dollar feature, announced)

The Creature That Ate San Francisco (75 million dollar feature, announced)

The Creature That Barfed Up The California Cities ($500.00 DV feature, announced)

 

Richard Boddington, Director Of Photography

 

The Beast That Ate Miami (113 million dollar feature, announced)

The Beast That Jacksonville (123 million dollar feature, announced)

The Beast That Ate Clearwater (114 million dollar feature, announced)

The Beast That Barfed Up Miami, Jacksonville, and Clearwater Because Florida Is America?s Wang ($134.00 DV feature, announced)

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Oooook, what the hell happened here, I went out this morning to college, just got back from the theatre and world war 3 seems to have broken out.

 

I've kinda learnt my lesson now, I'm not puffing out my chest anymore, I'll just let my films do the talking. Although, I sometimes don't see what the deal is with the more experienced ones, I mean, put it this way, WE need YOU a lot more than you need us, so... why exactly are you bothering? I think saying your trying to *help* can sometimes just be a load of bull, i.e. your just bullying. And, this I've NEVER got my head around... some people on this board claim to be very experienced, if your so wonderfull, then how is it you have time to sit at home writing, let along arguing, on an online forum? Surely if your so high up in the industry, you haven't got anything to be threatened about, your quite busy making films anyway, surely your life isn't *that* sad that you spend all your time arguing on the internet... Don't you people have girlfriends/boyfriends/wives to take out for dinner somewhere? Surely doing that is a lot more entertaining (although, more expensive) than sitting at home writing this crap.

 

I mean, if I was a pro, the second a younger one started being offensive to me, I just wouldn't waste my time on them again. But I'm not sad enough to spend my free time arguing with kids 20 years younger than me that I probably won't even meet.

 

I spend some of my time on here, mostly at night, when I'm bored. Other than that I'm busy at college, work, theatre, filming, out with my girlfriend.

Edited May 17, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Guest]

"Surely if your so high up in the industry, you haven't got anything to be threatened about, your quite busy making films anyway, surely your life isn't *that* sad that you spend all your time arguing on the internet"

 

Simple answers to your question:

 

1) Film is an on again, off again, occupation. One might work five weeks on a shoot and then have nothing to do for five weeks.

 

2) Many are successful enough that they DON'T have to work. They choose when they feel like working. When they are not working they are enjoying the nice homes that they paid for with their own money. Not living rent free in mommy and daddy's house.

 

Or they are playing with their children, planning a vacation, looking at new car brochures, things I'm guessing you're not doing right now.

 

In my case my office is in my house, I don't have to go to a day job. I was fortunate enough to "retire" from that nonsense five years ago. So I have plenty of time to post things in on-line forums and play chess on the Yahoo chess site.

 

Thanks, and don't forget to read over my credits below. Very important.

 

R.

 

RICHARD DC BODDINGTON

 

Feature Film Director

 

The Monster That Ate New York (100 million dollar feature, announced)

The Monster That Ate Albany (75 Million dollar feature, announced)

The Monster That Ate Buffalo (80 Million dollar feature, announced)

 

Richard Boddington Screenwriter

 

The Creature That Ate Los Angeles (115 million dollar feature, announced)

The Creature That Ate San Diego (80 million dollar feature, announced)

The Creature That Ate San Francisco (75 million dollar feature, announced)

The Creature That Barfed Up The California Cities ($500.00 DV feature, announced)

 

Richard Boddington, Director Of Photography

 

The Beast That Ate Miami (113 million dollar feature, announced)

The Beast That Jacksonville (123 million dollar feature, announced)

The Beast That Ate Clearwater (114 million dollar feature, announced)

The Beast That Barfed Up Miami, Jacksonville, and Clearwater Because Florida Is America?s Wang ($134.00 DV feature, announced)

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

2) Many are successful enough that they DON'T have to work. They choose when they feel like working. When they are not working they are enjoying the nice homes that they paid for with their own money. Not living rent free in mommy and daddy's house.

 

Or they are playing with their children, planning a vacation, looking at new car brochures, things I'm guessing you're not doing right now.

Then, why don't you do that? Surely that's a lot better than sitting arguing with a bunch of teens on the internet. If I ever start my own family, I think I'd rather be spending time with my kids/wife than on here. Maybe some people don't have familys, but surely they'd rather be going out to the local leisure centre (or the local pub). I still have quite a bit of time on my hands, I fill most of my time with fun things, karate, table tennis, acting at the theatre, going out with girlfriend, going out with mates, band practice, gigs e.t.c. Whatever time I get left I usually spend on the internet.

 

To be honest I think you have to be shooting the real big films before you can decide when you want to work or not. I remember David Mullen making a post ages ago saying that he has to do atleast 2 films every year, maybe he just has a rich life style or something...

 

Anyway, about this whole "credits" thing. You lot are pretty mean to start having a go at him for sharing his fortunes. He's excited... are you going to take that away from him? And you going to slap him for sharing his excitement? You lot are worse than I thought!

[Guest]

"To be honest I think you have to be shooting the real big films before you can decide when you want to work or not. I remember David Mullen making a post ages ago saying that he has to do atleast 2 films every year, maybe he just has a rich life style or something..."

 

Actually no you don't. I don't use that business model, because there is no "RI" factor, Residual Income.

 

All of my work has a substantial RI factor attached to it, do the work once, get paid for it over and over again.

 

If you go out and shoot for others and get paid a day rate, then you have to keep working because there is no RI.

 

Why is George Lucas worth three billion? Because he owns his franchises and all the spin offs, that's where the money is.

 

I don't work on any thing with no RI, why would I? You work your pants off so that some one else can own all your hard work. Doesn't make sense.

 

So take note, with RI you can actually sit back and take it easy without having to work, or at least choosing when you feel like working.

 

R.

 

PS: My son is sitting on my lap while I type this, I'm with him 24/7. All my friends rarely see their kids, they're working 50-60 hours a week outside the home. Again, they have zero RI.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't work on any thing with no RI, why would I?  You work your pants off so that some one else can own all your hard work.  Doesn't make sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Depends on if your main motivation is to make money... or to work on movies, particularly feature films, as a cinematographer. Particularly studio feature films.

 

If I had a choice between shooting stock footage and getting an "R.I." or working on features and being paid a salary, it's not a tough choice for me. What interests me about cinematography is telling stories through images, interpreting scripts visually.

 

Now if producers started offering me an "R.I.", I'd take it, but either way, I'd still be trying to do what I'm doing. The only reason I've lasted as LONG as I have is because money hasn't been my primary motivation, nor job security. If it were, I probably would have drifted into some other direction, maybe even shooting stock footage or producing infomercials & industrials, who knows. But that's not what I want to do.

 

Not that every film I shoot is what I truly want to be shooting at that moment, but I'd rather be shooting than sitting on my hands and waiting for the "perfect" project that might never come along (partially because by sitting on my hands, I wouldn't have any experience!)

 

Now if you can tell me some famous cinematographers that transitioned from a successful career producing stock footage into studio feature shooting, then maybe I should have followed that path.

 

Either way, it all depends on your goals.

 

Not to knock your profession or success, but your flippant "why would I?" sounds like you think most of us are fools for working on salary as cinematographers.

[Guest]

David,

 

"Now if you can tell me some famous cinematographers that transitioned from a successful career producing stock footage into studio feature shooting, then maybe I should have followed that path."

 

Simple, I do both. Have a residual income, and work on narrative films. I just have the luxury of doing what ever I want to do. To answer your question about a famous DP who has gone down the stock footage path, ever hear of Al Giddings?

 

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0317255/

 

http://www.algiddings.com

 

"Either way, it all depends on your goals.

Not to knock your profession or success, but your flippant "why would I?" sounds like you think most of us are fools for working on salary as cinematographers. "

 

How did I know you would get that impression? My "why would I" was not intended to be flippant that is just how you interpreted it. I don't think you're fools for using a more traditional method of money creation, it's just not a model I want to use. I'm constantly being asked by people to advise them on how they can "escape" their day jobs. I present the RI method as an alternative to working for others.

 

I've had plenty of opportunites to work on series, but it doesn't sound like much fun to me. On set before the sun comes up, and there well after it goes down, day after day. It's great for some, but just not for me.

 

I could choose to interpret your comment here in an offensive way....

 

"maybe even shooting stock footage or producing infomercials & industrials, who knows."

 

Seems you are lumping stock footage into the "lesser" fields of infomercials and industrials. (It's curious that you chose informercials and industrials.) But I don't think you in any way meant for it to be offensive, so I don't take it as such.

 

R.