Thoughts on Film and Digital

[Tyler Purcell]

You do not get to dictate to me what a good film is just because you repeat yourself.

WOW, who said I dictated what film was good. I said "we" know what films are good. "We" the viewing public.

[Stuart Brereton]

You do know it's takes longer then a week to even get a feature film synched up, let alone cut it.

My DIT delivers sync dailies to the editor every day, who generally starts cutting within a few days of photography commencing. It's not unusual to have an assembly edit complete within a week of wrap on these low budget movies.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

WOW, who said I dictated what film was good. I said "we" know what films are good. "We" the viewing public.

Tyler, the viewing public doesnt agree on everything and you know this. Even Academy pictures are sometimes argued about by the public because some feel certain pictures got snubbed while others are viewed as not worthy of what they got.

 

What defines a "good" picture anyway? Good technicals? Good acting? Even acting is a charged word because different people feel differently based on who they connect with. Some like the more subdued approach of actors while others like the "larger than life" performance. I have worked with people who come from play and musical backgrounds and those are other approaches to acting as well. Maybe a "good" picture is something that helps you unwind after a long day. Maybe it is a movie with unintentional humor but still a pleasure to watch? Who really ever defined what a "good" movie is? I suppose I missed the memo.

 

Edit: Next, we will discuss what "good" music is and who fits the bill.

[Tyler Purcell]

My DIT delivers sync dailies to the editor every day, who generally starts cutting within a few days of photography commencing. It's not unusual to have an assembly edit complete within a week of wrap on these low budget movies.

That would have been nice. I had to transcode and sync everything myself... I was the DIT on one of the projects, so I guess it doesn't count.

[Tyler Purcell]

Tyler, the viewing public doesnt agree on everything and you know this.

Yea, but if it's good, there is FAR more "agreement" amongst the public.

 

If it's not so good, that's when things fall apart and personal opinion makes a difference.

[Guest]

Who really ever defined what a "good" movie is? I suppose I missed the memo.

 

Come on Matthew you know what we mean. A few weeks ago you were explaining that Dark Reprieve was a POS, so you had a pretty good idea back then.

 

R,

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

Come on Matthew you know what we mean. A few weeks ago you were explaining that Dark Reprieve was a POS, so you had a pretty good idea back then.

 

R,

More like a few months ago and, no, I never said Dark Reprieve was a POS. I just didn't understand what was going on. I was fond of the visual style though. And those two months grew me up a great deal too which is why I apologized to you.

[Patrick Anton Saefkow Seaman_64263]

God is this argument pedantic. Haven't we reached an age where neither is objectively superior, but it's all down to preference? I think with the normalcy of digital the trend now is going the direction of picking formats for the sake of story. The dslr revolution has run it's course so serious artists are done experimenting, and will work with whatever suits them. Audiences accept both, so it from our end it's more like picking a lens for it's qualities; rather than from a technical standpoint.

[Guest]

More like a few months ago and, no, I never said Dark Reprieve was a POS. I just didn't understand what was going on. I was fond of the visual style though. And those two months grew me up a great deal too which is why I apologized to you.

 

Ok, but you had an opinion, you didn't think it was a good film. And fair enough, that's fine. I stated on here that I was shocked by how bad, Batman vs Superman was. But evidently....a lot of people did like it.

 

R,

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

Ok, but you had an opinion, you didn't think it was a good film. And fair enough, that's fine. I stated on here that I was shocked by how bad, Batman vs Superman was. But evidently....a lot of people did like it.

 

R,

Richard, I was not jumping into this to defend Batman vs Superman. I was jumping into this because Tyler sounded like he was implying that indies should not make films. I know he didnt say it like that but the implication was there.

 

You of all people should know that we need MORE indie films, not less.

[Tyler Purcell]

Richard, I was not jumping into this to defend Batman vs Superman. I was jumping into this because Tyler sounded like he was implying that indies should not make films. I know he didnt say it like that but the implication was there.

I was implying that indy filmmakers should hone their craft and learn the business of filmmaking prior to churning out feature-length products.

 

I was also stating that due to the decreasing budgets, there is less and less decent paid work for skilled tradesmen. Most of the super talented people I know in the industry today, work more then they have in the past AND make far less money.

 

I'd rather see 50 $1.5M indy's a year then hundreds of sub 100k one's, like we have today... all fighting for the same positioning within the industry.

[George Ebersole]

 

I love how the term "bad" is being thrown around in this thread as though there is some universal standard about what is entertaining and what isnt.

 

Well, let's take "Singing in the Rain" for example. It's a musical (a genre you don't see anymore) with slap stick humor that doesn't rely on groin kicking or fart jokes (again, you don't see that anymore), and has clever wit that's minus R-rated language and references.

 

But it's technically just as competent as any of the superhero junk or any of the single-white-female movies to hit the theatres since it [singing in the Rain] was released.

 

And, even though it's G-Rated, it's not aimed at young kids, has romance, is not completely devoid of sexuality but keeps it in a tasteful presentation.

 

And, further, it doesn't rely solely on the female-fantasy formula that's hogged the studios and screens over the last ten years.

 

So, you tell me. Which would you rather go see [if you were forced to sit to see a movie]; some Marvel superhero piece of trash, Interstellar, Tomorrowland, the recent Star Wars film, or Singing in the Rain?

 

I don't watch Singing in the Rain regularly. I'm not a film snob in that it has deep profound meaning for society, shows a different and superior film on every account, but the ethics that went into producing "Singing in the Rain" are simply gone.

 

I can't go to a kids' film without seeing fart and groin kicking joke. I can't go to a romantic comedy without sexuallty explicit jokes that really aren't that funny. I can't go to an action movie that's loud, obnoxious and has no core values other than the bad guys are terrorist knockoffs. Today's studio films, idieally, are more technically advanced than anything produced when Singing in the Rain was in production. And yet they don't have the lasting power that Singing in the Rain does.

 

Can you remember a really good drama from 1995? 1999? 2000? I can't. Shawshank Redemption? Saving Private Ryan? How about a good comedy? Forest Gump? I don't know. Seems like legendary films are a thing of the past because the bar was lowered in the 1990s, again well before the prosumer digital revolution.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I was implying that indy filmmakers should hone their craft and learn the business of filmmaking prior to churning out feature-length products.

 

I was also stating that due to the decreasing budgets, there is less and less decent paid work for skilled tradesmen. Most of the super talented people I know in the industry today, work more then they have in the past AND make far less money.

 

I'd rather see 50 $1.5M indy's a year then hundreds of sub 100k one's, like we have today... all fighting for the same positioning within the industry.

Tyler, I do not see why it matters to you what someone "churns out?" Is this an axe to grind because you do not feel you are compensated well enough? You are able to turn down work if you wish.

 

Funny enough, the industry has always had tiny budget films. When you factor in film costs in years passed, I imagine the working budget (after stock + process) was about as low as some nowadays.

[Tyler Purcell]

Tyler, I do not see why it matters to you what someone "churns out?"

It matters because I actually care about what's happening in our society thanks to modern entertainment. I see it first hand and a lot of people have turned a blind eye to it. I also care because when I'm ready to make a feature, when my ducks are all in a row and I've got the funding in place, it maybe nearly impossible for ME to make something good because the channels for distribution will be clogged with static, it will be hard for a little, well-made movie to sneak through.

 

The only reason I'm living here is to make movies. Otherwise I'd be in an entirely different industry living somewhere else. My livelihood is hinged on making movies and so are the lives of the people I hang out with. I see the struggles they go through, they see the hard work I put in and we all look at each other and understand full well, what the problem is.

 

Funny enough, the industry has always had tiny budget films. When you factor in film costs in years passed, I imagine the working budget (after stock + process) was about as low as some nowadays.

Here is the difference... the cost of living has skyrocketed in the last 10 - 15 years. It's not gone up with inflation like it has in years previous. It was actually a lot less money to make movies even 15 years ago. But there was also far more investment then there is today.

 

Please do a $250k budget for a 90 minute feature film and tell me how much you'd pay your sales agent, your talent, your cinematographer or even yourself. Then see if any of the numbers make a living wage for the people who you hire.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

It matters because I actually care about what's happening in our society thanks to modern entertainment. I see it first hand and a lot of people have turned a blind eye to it. I also care because when I'm ready to make a feature, when my ducks are all in a row and I've got the funding in place, it maybe nearly impossible for ME to make something good because the channels for distribution will be clogged with static, it will be hard for a little, well-made movie to sneak through.

 

The only reason I'm living here is to make movies. Otherwise I'd be in an entirely different industry living somewhere else. My livelihood is hinged on making movies and so are the lives of the people I hang out with. I see the struggles they go through, they see the hard work I put in and we all look at each other and understand full well, what the problem is.

 

 

Here is the difference... the cost of living has skyrocketed in the last 10 - 15 years. It's not gone up with inflation like it has in years previous. It was actually a lot less money to make movies even 15 years ago. But there was also far more investment then there is today.

 

Please do a $250k budget for a 90 minute feature film and tell me how much you'd pay your sales agent, your talent, your cinematographer or even yourself. Then see if any of the numbers make a living wage for the people who you hire.

If I had $250k for a feature and I wanted to hire a DP, I would pay them well. In my thinking, you take care of the DP and the Sound Guy first. Then you allocate money for the final sound mix. Then you worry about everything else. I realize many low budget films worry about trying to squeeze some A-lister or B-lister for one scene at the expense of the whole production.

 

I do not feel like $250k is an unreachable goal to make a quality feature with a well paid, albeit modestly sized, crew. Of course this depends on the script and how grounded the Director is in reality about the expectations of the project.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Apparently, according to IMDB, Napolean Dynamite had a budget of 400k...not much more than you mentioned and that was a wildly successful venture.

[George Ebersole]

Tyler; I don't know of anyone who's ever been able to produce a low budget film, remain in the low budget realm of things, and pay and earn a living wage. Here in the Bay Area every gaffer, every grip, every DP or other crew person I've ever known has always had some form of supplementary income. A lot of them were married, or shared an apartment with between eight to a dozen other people.

 

I told this to a director, Robert Russo who lives here locally in Mill Valley, and he laughed out loud and flatly told me that he didn't believe it for one minute, and told me I was full of poop. All the while in the mean time his production manager at the time, Ernst, was rooming with nine other people in loft two blocks away from Golden Gate Park.

 

Now that "the digital revolution" has taken place, all those would be directors can get their stuff done. But industrials for all the big local corporations, Intel, Apple, Chevron, Toyota, AMD, Kodak and so forth, can have their pick of producers wiling to work for slave wages. That's just kind of the nature of the beast.

 

Films aren't the big draw they once were, thank goodness. Which means more people can get their messages out there. But since the equipment is cheaper, so is the quality and the money people are wiling to shell out.

 

Kind of the nature of the beast.

[Satsuki Murashige]

But industrials for all the big local corporations, Intel, Apple, Chevron, Toyota, AMD, Kodak and so forth, can have their pick of producers wiling to work for slave wages. That's just kind of the nature of the beast.

 

George, this is not an accurate depiction of the state of film work in the Bay Area at this time. Corporate and commercial work here have the highest rates of anywhere in the country. Producers from NYC and LA are routinely surprised to find that they have to budget more to shoot here. It's certainly not the most glamorous work, especially corporate. But it pays the bills for a lot of folks.

 

Meanwhile, actual narrative film and television work here is slim but does exist. There are about three union shows right now sucking up a lot of local technicians. Many local Gaffers, Grips, ACs, DITs, Sound Mixers, HMU, Wardobe, VTR, Teamsters, Coordinators, ADs, and PAs are all quite busy right now. And I know a lot of them are buying homes, getting married, having babies, sending their kids to college, or just retiring based on only film work. So it is still possible to make a living doing this work up here...

[Guest]

You of all people should know that we need MORE indie films, not less.

 

Like I said earlier....I used to think jumping into a first feature was the way to go, but I have changed my views on that based on the truly awful first films I've been seeing over the last year. All the filmmaker ends up with is a headache and usually owing a lot of money.

 

Yes, you have to start somewhere that is true. However I think a lot of people need to be better trained and more experienced before they dive in. Otherwise they end up with a useless product that will be neither a commercial or critical success.

 

I just finished watching Sleeping Giant which was a first feature and had a Cannes Premiere. I know all the guys behind it very well. The critic at the Toronto Star called it, "the best Canadian film of the year." The interesting thing here is that Andrew the director made it as a short film first, then expanded it into a feature film. It would not have been as successful as it was without him making the short version first.

 

Enter, "Sleeping Giant" into Google and see how many hits you get.

 

So I think a lot of these people making low budget indie features need a lot more experience and training before they make the jump to a feature length project, otherwise they are completely wasting their time.

 

R,

[Guest]

Apparently, according to IMDB, Napolean Dynamite had a budget of 400k...not much more than you mentioned and that was a wildly successful venture.

 

Also.....made as a short film before the feature length version was made.

 

Interesting, eh?

 

R,

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

Like I said earlier....I used to think jumping into a first feature was the way to go, but I have changed my views on that based on the truly awful first films I've been seeing over the last year. All the filmmaker ends up with is a headache and usually owing a lot of money.

Care to share any names so that I may check them out? If you do not feel right about calling them out publicly, I welcome a PM.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

Also.....made as a short film before the feature length version was made.

 

Interesting, eh?

 

R,

If your argument is that filmmakers should have SOME level of experience by having made one or more shorts before, I am in complete agreement.

 

But there is a big gap from saying one needs some familiarity with filmmaking before shooting a feature and saying one needs to have a 1.5 mil budget with all union cast/crew. If one wants to make the latter statement then there are too many good counterexamples to disprove that.

[Guest]

Andrew made Sleeping Giant with about $60, 000.00. Far from 1.5M.

 

But he learned his craft before he dove in, and that made all the difference. I'm seeing a lot of guys dive into a first feature with so little film experience, and they are ending up with total garbage.

 

R,

[Tyler Purcell]

Apparently, according to IMDB, Napolean Dynamite had a budget of 400k...not much more than you mentioned and that was a wildly successful venture.

I've done dozens of budgets and have recently spent a lot of time learning from some pretty decent UPM's. What I've learned is pretty interesting and for sure changes my opinion on the matter.

 

$400k with no real cast, is absolutely doable. Heck, you "could" squeeze a few days of an A lister in there if you wanted AND probably have a decent B+ actor.

 

My personal philosophy also doesn't jive with most filmmakers. I tend to pace myself during production, rather then rush through scenes just to get the shot. So I tend to schedule/budget 18 - 20 day shoots, rather then the typical two week shows we see so much. Obviously if you can make a feature in two weeks, the budget will be a lot less. However, the reduced stress on the crew AND attention to detail you get by adding a few days, really pays off in my opinion. It's far better to have a slightly smaller crew that's very mobile and in-tune with what the director wants on a slightly longer schedule, then a huge crew on a shorter schedule trying to bang out scenes as quickly as possible. That's just my opinion, having worked on both sides of the fence.

 

If you want me to send you some budgets, I'd be more then happy to show you what I'm talking about. I have a pretty decent spreadsheet and you can see where the money goes. It's the little things that kill budgets, the "creature comforts" which bloat them. If you've got a script that's set in one location and everyone drives in every day to set, that's going to cost a lot less then a show that's set in many different locations all around the place, with potentially hotels and travel involved. So the "scope" of your picture makes a huge difference and it's part of the issue when writing a script. You can keep it very simple, but will it be interesting enough to be bought?

 

Finally, I don't believe in freebee's. So I budget for everything from storyboard artist through sales agent. From pre-production days to four wall private and public screenings once finished. These are ALL critical parts of your budget and a lot of people just flash right over them like they don't exist. Again, if you don't care about your movie ever going into theaters, NONE of this is even worth discussing. Go make your little digital movie and put it on iTunes for a few grand. I'm only discussing theatrical.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

But he learned his craft before he dove in, and that made all the difference. I'm seeing a lot of guys dive into a first feature with so little film experience, and they are ending up with total garbage.

 

R,

Not saying I don't believe you but I have yet to get any examples to explore for myself. Maybe it is the college boy in me but I like evidence before coming to conclusions.