Jump to content

New to cinematography.com


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Richard, I imagine you learned in college that you cant use logical fallacies such as the rule of small numbers. "I had a friend" means nothing because there are other things at play that may be different for Phil than your friend. Connections? Luck? Who knows but saying you had a friend who did it is a weak argument.

But that is the original (and correct) meaning of the "Black Swan" scenario: 10 million white swans do not prove the statement: "All swans are white" is true, but a single black swan serves to prove it false.

If somebody is saying: "Nobody in the UK could possibly do XXXXXX" , but you know somebody in the UK who did in fact do XXXXXX then obviously the first statement is false.

But then we start getting into the "No True Scotsman" arena, you know: "Oh yes, well HE did, but he's not a REAL example of the sort of of person I'm talking about..." and so on and so on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, okay, let's get one thing straight: one of the reasons that I'm cautious about advising people on any course of action leading to production work in the UK is that it is almost always unpaid.

 

I'm not kidding, I'm not exaggerating, and I'm not being Marvin the Paranoid Android for comic effect. Most film and TV work in the UK is not paid. At all.

 

People will object to this, claiming that they make £75k a year as a grip or whatever, but the point remains. By absolute number of jobs, and working on the basis that there are many thousands of people trying to get into filmmaking and working on a not-even-expenses basis on indie shorts, compared to the couple of hundred people who will work on Star Wars, the overwhelming majority of film work in the UK is unpaid. Yes, it's illegal, but nobody gives a damn about enforcing it because the people who are being stomped on are poor, and therefore are assumed not to matter (class-based societies are wonderful, don't you think?)

 

So it isn't about not being paid enough, it's about being paid at all. And no matter how attractive the work is, I am personally unable to live on zero money, especially if I'm being expected to own and give away tens of thousands in camera gear at least in order to get these jobs. The fact that all of these productions will be junk that you'd hesitate to show anyone is another miserable, depressing matter.

 

And no, unless you are outrageously lucky, YouTube is not going to pay for anything approaching worthwhile cinematography. Notice that almost everyone who makes a living out of it does so by sitting in their bedroom talking to a webcam. More power to them, I say, it's all very helpful and alternatives to the big commercial incumbents are great, but if you're interested in making nice images, there's nothing going on.

 

To drag this conversation back on topic, if our original poster finds this prospect attractive, fine, but don't say I didn't tell you.

 

P

Phil, NOBODY gets paid on film sets when you're first starting out. Same thing in the USA. The first PAID gig I got as a grip was 50 bucks a day for a 16 hour day NOT INCLUDING WRAP. Get over it, you're only gonna make decent money once you've earned a glowing reputation and THAT'S only if you keep the glow otherwise you loose everything you worked for and sone kid half your age with fire in his / her eyes steals your thunder and you're kicked to the curb. No one ever said being in the movie business was gonna be easy. What's that line from An Officer and A Gentleman, "My grandmamma want's to fly JETS!!" Not everybody can do this work. We, the select few can and there's no point in wasting precious production funds on people who don't have the drive to put up with the hardships, stick to their commitment and make their drwams come true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

. Liked yhe fish and chips comment though, not sure what you mean by that though I assume it has something to do with the beer you wash down the fish and chips with and yes, I was drinking last night, and am about to drink tonight a little as it is a holiday weekend here in the states which probably didn't help my spelling, which I generally suck at anyway, totally sober. But, hey, that's why God and Microsoft invented spellcheck, unfortunatly, this cellphone AIN'T got it.

No, no, it's just that the salty grease on chips tends to bugger up touchscreens rather badly :D

Regarding the spellchecker, a lot of big companies (including the one I work for) are experimenting with replacing its aging fleet of Win XP based PCs and laptops with tablet type PCs running Google Apps. After all the crap people love to shove on Microsoft, it's interesting to see all the little things you're going to have to do without, if you're going to move to Android Tablets, IPads etc. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I know the fallacy as secundum quid,

 

Toffee-nosed 21 year old upper-class twit wif' a degree in Media 'n' Fine Arts from some decomposing 16th century University, (not really understanding):

"Sorry Mr Rhodes? You want another Pound a day?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

Toffee-nosed 21 year old upper-class twit wif' a degree in Media 'n' Fine Arts from some decomposing 16th century University, (not really understanding):

"Sorry Mr Rhodes? You want another Pound a day?"

I'm sorry, Keith, I forgot...what are your academic qualifications again that make you an authority on everything from electrical engineering to English mechanics?

 

Edit: regarding the grammar vs spelling argument, it seems trivial and petty. Coming from a Computer Science background, these two things are more or less the same. I realize in English that it is different. But to me, it is all "syntax error." Either something works or it doesn't. Excuse me for not being proper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Keith, I forgot...what are your academic qualifications again that make you an authority on everything from electrical engineering to English mechanics?

 

We've been asking this question for years.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is proof that it is possible for your friend. Good for him but still no evidence that it is possible for Phil. That is like me saying that "Because Michael Jordan was such a great b-ball player that it is possible for me to be that good." No, it definitely isn't.

What was the thing about to be argued over? I feel a muddle brewing.

 

If it's posed that something is impossible, only one contrary example needs to be offered.

Did someone pose that it was possible for everyone.....

 

I have heard of people jumping out of aeroplanes without parachutes (or ones that work) and surviving. One version is by landing somehow softly enough that they survived quite well, the other is as a skydiving stunt where they hook up with someone else on the way down. So the relevance there to the positive thinking idea? In the first version, positive thinking may or may not have played a part, one may succeed (survive) even while in a state of terror, counting the seconds to the ultimate failure. In the second version, positive thinking will be taken for granted as a part of the preparation.

 

So if it was contended that jumping out of an aeroplane without a parachute was impossible, one can easily disprove that twice over.

 

So how many people could be expected to survive if they jumped en mass and only one in ten had a parachute and no one had the training.

 

Oh, between think this and posting it Keith already covered it and everyone has moved on a few millimeters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

What was the thing about to be argued over? I feel a muddle brewing.

The point, to me at least, is that Phil has the right to feel however he wishes about things. I have foolish optimism when it comes to the industry which is why I am willing to spend my own money to make films while others are wanking about not getting a large enough rate. It is true that projects of the nature that I am undertaking are unlikely to result in success. Phil is right in that regard. Just because some dude managed to do it doesn't make it a sound decision. I realize I am a nutter when it comes to this because the odds of getting any return at all are bleak. Can't blame the man for living in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm sorry, Keith, I forgot...what are your academic qualifications again that make you an authority on everything from electrical engineering to English mechanics?

 

Edit: regarding the grammar vs spelling argument, it seems trivial and petty. Coming from a Computer Science background, these two things are more or less the same. I realize in English that it is different. But to me, it is all "syntax error." Either something works or it doesn't. Excuse me for not being proper.

Sigh. We hear so much in the media about the misuse of medical and surgical practices in developing countries, for supposedly "cultural" reasons.

Much of this outrage comes from the US, and yet, they remain bafflingly mute over one of the most widespread, unnecessary and truly hideous unnecessary medical procedures, routinely performed on their own citizens: The Irony Bypass.... :rolleyes:

 

It was actually Americans who invented the smilie, because they appear to be the only people in the world who need to have EVERY joke, ironic reference and witticism clearly marked so they know when to laugh. Then again, they also invented "Canned Laughter" . Let's not leave anything to chance.

 

Basically, it's clear most of you have no bloody idea what I'm talking about, whether it's the technicalities of video acquisition systems, correct spelling and grammar, or whether I'm simply taking the piss out out some pretentious prat. But by all means, let's have your devastating ripostes, we need some light relief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

We've been asking this question for years.

 

R,

Bollocks. YOU only started asking that question a couple of months back, after I suggested that your own personal anti-downloading crusade was likely to be counter-productive, and you took umbrage. (Although they managed to get your stomach pumped out in time) :rolleyes:

 

At the moment, Herr Movie Mogul, on a scale of zero to Steven Spielberg, you're currently not even producing the minutest twitch of the pointer.

 

I've only seen two reviews of your latest film so far, that were actual punter reviews, and not the result of you sending somebody a pre-screener. On the basis of these two, I can't see that situation changing anything soon.

 

Who is Boddington and Why is he Making These Terrible Movies

10.gif

Author: PrairieCal from USA

18 May 2014

Take two really dumb (and irritating) kids, a silly, clichéd plot, mediocre acting, idiotic writing, poor directing, and one begins to wonder why this film was even made. The thing is, I LOVE family movies and have since I was a little kid ... good ones, that is, not this drivel. Be warned not to waste your time or money. Rewatch "Alaska" again instead, sit back and enjoy it. It's basically the same story in reverse, far, far superior and thoroughly entertaining.

 

After ten minutes I began to fast forward hoping the clichés would end. They only got worse. I finally gave up and came to IMDb to vent. Anyone who can sit through this deserves an award. This copy is going to the Goodwill. I pity the poor wretch who buys it.

 

not bad but not that good either

40.gif

Author: matskiuk from Lincoln, England

13 May 2014

kids might like it, its an OK waste of an hour and so on acting not that good, from the lead actress, script could of been better, for example, when the see plane lands, they young lad says "i think the plane is here", really? when the plane crashes, )i wont say that as a spoiler as it so obvious that's how it all starts off), the kids are hardly scratched, the young lass asks her brother, have you got your phone?, he gets it out of his pocket, "broken he says", wow weak phone!

 

but the most laughable part is just before the plane crashes, the person in charge of doing the background window shots (obviously not in a real flying plane), just watch the direction of the trees, each shot of the kids the outside view looks like they are flying sideways sometimes right sometimes left, and one of the last shots, from the lads view is the plane is appearing to be going backwards!!

 

i would say this as a Sunday afternoon family film where kids might get bored whilst the parents doze on the sofa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith, you're a major idiot you know that? You really should stop posting here you are just embarrassing yourself now. Look, I know you work as a stock boy at Woolworths Australia. So I would quit coming on here and acting like you have anything at all to do with the film industry! You have ZERO credits doing anything, you are hardly in any position to criticize anything I do or have done.

 

Not that any serious filmmaker pays any attention to web reviews like you posted above, but I could easily link you to about 40 positive reviews for my last film. Guess what....I don't care and I don't have time for total idiots like you either!

 

Clearly I'm not the only forum member who thinks you have zero industry credibility.

 

Do us, and the world a favour Keith, bugger off!!

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm with Richard. You are just being rude. It used to be funny but now is just insulting. You are not superior to anyone here at anything. But you appear to be a legend in your own mind. At least Richard is making films and living his dream. I am trying to do that but I have dues to pay. And I speak about technology from actually having university education on the matter. But I admit I have much to learn.

 

In fact, everyone on this forum has asked a question or admitted to being uninformed about something at some time except for you. It is amazing that you seem to know everything but yet you have not accomplished anything of note.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

 

Phil, NOBODY gets paid on film sets when you're first starting out. Same thing in the USA.

 

Well, that might be OK so long as there was a moderate chance of a real job at the end of it. Well, actually, I take the considered position that it's probably not OK even then, but for the sake of brevity, let's overlook it.

 

What's clearly and completely unacceptable, though, is what goes on here, where people exploit the enthusiasm of others on projects which are going nowhere, with crews who are going nowhere, and the producers know this full well, and they ask people to work for free anyway.

 

There is next to no chance whatsoever of any one person being able to make a living in the film industry in the UK, because there is in effect no film industry to work in. This is widely known and there are no excuses for employing people for no money. The situation may possibly differ internationally.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Look, I know you work as a stock boy at Woolworths Australia.

 

I was right! You ARE JIm Jannard!

 

I could easily link you to about 40 positive reviews for my last film

Where? The only ones I can find seem to be from people hoping to sell you a copy (or an illegal download).

OK I managed to found a Dutch site with a couple of punter reviews. From what I can make out they said: Great cinematography, stunning scenery, wonderful score, diabolical script....

I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

I can't wait to see this movie. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Ok Phil, enjoy the wollow of your own self pitty. Whatever you need to justify your own short falls, keep posting it.

 

I thought this forum was full of professionals, seems I was wrong.

:blink: Whatever gave you that idea?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's fair to say that in the UK people commonly work in both film and television. On one TV job I was on, the cameraman had been one of the second unit operators on the most recent Bond film at the time..

This is encouraging to hear. I personally don't care to much where the product ends up, whether it's the big screen, TV or internet. As long as I'm shooting stuff I believe in (i.e. Not weddings or corporate), I really don't mind. Obviously it would be fantastic to DOP a blockbuster, but if I end on Downton, hey ho

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is encouraging to hear. I personally don't care to much where the product ends up, whether it's the big screen, TV or internet. As long as I'm shooting stuff I believe in (i.e. Not weddings or corporate), I really don't mind. Obviously it would be fantastic to DOP a blockbuster, but if I end on Downton, hey ho

 

Theres becoming less and less difference between TV and the big screen anyway, after all the big screen is usually using a video projector these days. TV and "Cinema" are merging, although strictly speaking it's more that everything is merging into the digital puddle. In fact a lot of people are trying to get out of "Cinema" and into TV as movies these days are mostly just superhero and monster movies. Most of the actual British movies tend to be basically made for TV affairs anyway, as broadcast companies are the main source of funding int the UK.

 

It sounds like you have a lot of great connections, and you should definitely make the most of those. Getting work as a DP is all about having the right connections more than anything else and if you have those you are really well placed to got further. If you don't, well not so much! ;)

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this forum was full of professionals, seems I was wrong.

 

I think theres a wide variety of people on here at very different levels.

 

Also, something I notice a lot about forums is that people seem to go on them expecting an answer to a question and are then shocked and even sometimes upset when they get a wide variety of replies. One of the good things about forums is the very fact that there are a wide variety of people with different experiences. This is a good thing but often people get upset that they think someone is giving them the wrong answer. The truth is that there often isn't one answer and that people can have very different answers to a question and they can all be right! A lot of it depends on someones circumstances which can be very varied.

 

The answer to a question might not be right for you but it might be totally right for the person replying.

I actually find forums useful for this very reason. You can hear a wide variety of opinions and use that information to try and work out what might work for you.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I end on Downton, hey ho

 

Oh yes. If you end up being a major success, hey bloody ho.

 

To dip a toe daringly into the two-bit psychoanalysis we seem to have fallen to in this thread, that sort of attitude isn't going to get you very far either. I'm sure the director of photography on Downton Abbey would be absolutely overwhelmed to discover that you consider his position, for which he can probably have been said to have worked his entire career, "hey ho."

 

The concept of someone like you or I getting anywhere near Downton Abbey is so fatuous and beyond reason it makes me weep. It's an incredibly rare example of a UK company producing something to the sort of standards Americans will watch, as evidenced by its international success. It's about as good as it gets here. And it is incredibly rare. There are currently 31 episodes - not even two seasons of the average American drama, stretched out across four years.

 

And you think you're going to get that slot? You don't have to listen to me, but you can presumably count, at least? The number of new entrants required to these roles per year hovers somewhere around an average of zero. And then there's the small matter of actually being capable of running a crew on that sort of show and making it look right, which is more than a slightly different skillset than shooting snowboarding. But that obviously hasn't really occurred either, has it?

 

And yes, Freya, I was beginning to come to the conclusion that our original poster in this thread simply wasn't going to be willing to hear any answer he didn't like.

 

By the way, corporates were at one time a pretty useful source of income. The people are far nicer and much more professional, the money is better, there's more creative freedom and the material isn't usually as objectionable to shoot as people fear. Unfortunately, that market has been more or less destroyed by the belief that this stuff can adequately be shot on the managing director's iPhone.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The concept of someone like you or I getting anywhere near Downton Abbey is so fatuous and beyond reason it makes me weep. It's an incredibly rare example of a UK company producing something to the sort of standards Americans will watch, as evidenced by its international success. It's about as good as it gets here. And it is incredibly rare. There are currently 31 episodes - not even two seasons of the average American drama, stretched out across four years.

 

er, hate to point this out but Carnival is owned by NBCUniversal.

When it was pitched to ITV they weren't interested until Carnival offered to put up 100% of the production costs.

Of course while this meant that ITV took no risk on the project it also means that they havn't benefited so much from its success.

 

Anyway I thought I would point that out as it's another one of those things that is often misrepresented.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's an incredibly rare example of a UK company producing something to the sort of standards Americans will watch, as evidenced by its international success. It's about as good as it gets here. And it is incredibly rare. There are currently 31 episodes - not even two seasons of the average American drama, stretched out across four years.

 

Actually British TV companies are presently doing fantastic business in the states, mostly exporting cheap reality TV tat over there. Just in time really as the market is kind of falling out of reality tv as youtube in now so huge and is even more "real"! (Probably a reason for the sudden resurgence of interest in TV drama) Also this has brought the UK market to the attention of the American companies who are presently gobbling up as many of the indies as they can.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...