Stop wasting time & first feature film

[JD Hartman]

LOL :P

 

Books are too "permanent" and what works today, may not work 3 years down the road. It's far better to be on the forums and give advice because you can do it on your spare time.

 

 

Just my 2 cents. :)

 

I'm all for burning every copy of R.R's book Rebel Without a Crew.

[Guest]

Books are too "permanent" and what works today, may not work 3 years down the road.

 

 

Yes, quite right, except in film I would adjust your number to, three weeks, that's how fast things change. Incredible really.

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

Please do write a book, in detail, about exactly how you've done what you've done. I know the sort of people who read that sort of book, and they richly deserve it.

 

Don't, however, propose that anybody can duplicate what you've done by duplicating your behaviour. That's the only objection I've ever had, because it has the potential to waste a lot of the time and money of young, impressionable people who have little of either to spare.

 

That's the problem. Such a book wouldn't be a phenomenal resource. It'd be information on how someone did something in the circumstances that pertained at the time, and it would have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to anyone else who wanted to do that thing in wildly differing circumstances.

 

P

[Guest]

Please do write a book, in detail, about exactly how you've done what you've done. I know the sort of people who read that sort of book, and they richly deserve it.

 

 

Not sure I follow? Please elaborate.

 

R,

[Guest]

Here's one advertised below on this very site, topic well covered I am sure:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Independent-Film-Producing-Outsiders-Feature/dp/0615343562/ref=sm_n_au_dka_CA_pr_con_0_2?sigts=1484874275864&sig=1d90ef12780853f5cd419fa36d91c748a0ebb631&adId=0615343562&creativeASIN=0615343562&linkId=cb1f6ee44fd7a33adfa543238da337ca&tag=cinematographyco&linkCode=w41&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinematography.com%2Findex.php&slotNum=0&imprToken=P78-5Ft3MwBgRA1w7qSN2A

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

That's a bit like saying that no advice or education has value because the circumstances vary too much to be applicable.

 

The thing is that passing on experience does have a value because you never know what particular bit of information will come in handy for someone else. I still read interviews with cinematographers from the 1940's despite the fact that most of the technology and styles have changed, but I never know what little piece of knowledge might still be useful.

 

There's no harm in being informed. I think it's an exaggeration to say that experience passed on has "no relevance whatsoever" when the circumstances are wildly different. You never know if some bit of knowledge that Kurosawa passed on about shooting a period samurai movie will actually be useful one day when you are shooting some modern urban drama because some filmmaking problems are universal or repeat themselves -- screen direction problems, for example, affect both big and little productions. Dealing with actors is not that different across different genres or budgets.

 

An artist reading about the life of Da Vinci or Michelangelo might find some common ground in there.

 

If someone who reads a book by a successful person thinks that the book will lead to success themselves.... well, that's their problem, not the successful person who wrote the book.

[Tyler Purcell]

I personally feel the more one-on-one approach like being mentored, is a far better educational tool, then simply reading a book as your only connection to the information.

 

I've mentored with many top industry people over the years, I'm currently working with one right now. I like to experiment with ideas and then learn from the master on how he would accomplish the task. Since my situation - like everyone else's - is entirely different then his, it only makes sense to learn what you're missing, rather then what you already know. That may sound like a jaded approach, it won't work for everyone, but that's why mentoring works and books don't. I've learned more on these forums then I've ever learned in a book. Why? Because you can question the process and by doing so, fully comprehend the reasons behind it. This is the reason why people spend gobs of money to attend school's and training courses.

 

Now telling someone you're story via book? Well, yea there is some merit to that. Reading Richard's stories (or anyone else's for that matter) would be fun, but would you gain as much knowledge as just asking him a question via PM? Probably not.

[Mendes Nabil]

A huge Thanks for your answers all! And thank you Tyler for your encouraging words, that means a lot! I will definitely send you my email ;)

So to clarify a few things, like i said i « write - direct - DP - edit and color grade » all by myself which means that when i write a line on the paper, i have a clear vision of everything, from the lens i will use to when will start the music in the final edit,

so not having the possibility to review a shoot is not a problem..

And i already own a Red camera, i would have love to simply use it instead of spending a huge amount of money for film stocks and lab’ process, but don’t we say that « The best camera is the one that suits the project » ?

The project has to be shot on Super 16mm for visual reasons, no digital camera today can emulate the film look, absolutely none..

My question was « should i go wild in the scenario process and write the piece i truly want or should i restrain myself and write a more humble piece? With less characters but not less artistic.

I will never make something to please the audience, and because of that state of mind (which is unfortunately necessary most of the time) we have the Cinema we have today, a cinema that tells nothing new and nothing important..

English is not my first language, but if we had this conversation in French you would have seen that i’m a man of letters and that i have a profound love for words, a deep respect, i can’t use a pen to write mediocrity or something i’m not proud of..

David Mullen employed important words: « Make something strong and bold », you‘re really right my friend..

My film has a philosophical aspect and a Super heroes feel to it, a kind of Watchmen made by Christopher Nolan and Wong Kar Wai,

the scene takes place in the seventies and is about three characters including two brothers, a musician and a boxer, so what is the audience? I truly don’t know but i have two choices, going crazy in the writing (which is already the case) or slowing down, wiping off a character and being more humble..

I’m also thinking about reaching artists and labels (i don’t know how) and make a few music videos to finance a part of the film, any tips or opinion is hugely welcome!

Didn’t Christopher Nolan « write - direct - dp - edit and produce » his first feature film « Following » ?

I will definitely check the book of Robert Rodriguez, thanks for the advice!

[Justin Hayward]

 

Don't, however, propose that anybody can duplicate what you've done by duplicating your behaviour. That's the only objection I've ever had, because it has the potential to waste a lot of the time and money of young, impressionable people who have little of either to spare.

 

After listening to Richard for four hours tell me a fraction of what goes into producing one of his movies, I don't think a book from him would cause young people to waste their time and money. I think a book from him would scare them off.

[Justin Hayward]

 

Didn’t Christopher Nolan « write - direct - dp - edit and produce » his first feature film « Following » ?

 

Yes he did. He's a huge talent and something to aspire to.

[Michael LaVoie]

Someone here recommended this book that I've read a few times now. It's incredibly detailed on the process. You need to read it a few times and even then, it's daunting. It's probably going to have an updated version soon but the latest isn't that old and still applies. The total opposite of those "Rebel Without a Crew" type of guides.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Producers-Business-Handbook-Balanced-Producer/dp/0240814630

[Guest]

 

After listening to Richard for four hours tell me a fraction of what goes into producing one of his movies, I don't think a book from him would cause young people to waste their time and money. I think a book from him would scare them off.

 

 

If I re-posted some of these emails I am getting now from the banks and insurance companies for this next project, it would be enough to put EVERYONE off, LOL. :)

 

R,

[Michael Rodin]

I will definitely check the book of Robert Rodriguez, thanks for the advice!

Don't do it - it's a waste of time.

It's a feel-good book for amateurs which lists every excuse for not learning the art&craft. Very disrespectful of veteran pros, camera and G&E guys - R.R. is full of s-t to the extent he blames the crew for his own inability to manage any sort of a film production department.

Nevertheless, it sold quite well to its intended auditory of nihilist "we-know-everything-better" wannabes who think they're geniuses.

 

I remember reading an interview with R.R. where he complained about 35mm film "not seeing the color in actor's eyes" and an F900 "seeing" it. I own an F900 and shoot film - I know it's bullshit. But some beginner might believe these drunk fantasies. Maybe learn how to light first, instead of bitching about format you can't expose properly, Mr Amateur?

Edited January 20, 2017 by Michael Rodin

[Phil Rhodes]

Paperwork is hardly the problem. Anyone can sign a piece of paper. Taking risks is easy if you aren't fully aware of what you're getting into, as is attested by the explosion of cataclysmic personal debt in the western world.

 

My concern has always been that this sort of thing is exactly what will happen to people who read Rebel Without a Crew, in which they're likely to waste $7,000, or How To Be Richard Boddington, in which case they're liable to waste seven figures.

 

Information on filmmaking is one thing. It isn't particularly difficult to make a feature film; you just hire the right people. The difficulty is finding a way to make it worth doing that. I suspect that any attempt at describing the process of making a feature film financially worthwhile would inevitably fail on at least one of the following issues:

 

- These things change so fast that information about the process used on one production could never be used again on any other, or

 

- it's so situationally specific, so dependent on chance encounters and personal contacts, that describing one person's process would be of zero value to anyone else, or

 

- any other circumstance, which would involve techniques that were somehow guaranteed to make a film financially successful, and would therefore be so commercially sensitive that nobody would ever make it public.

 

My further suspicion is that almost all of it falls under the second clause - in short, it relies overwhelmingly on blind luck - to the point that someone could Boddington-level business acumen and Boddington-level production ability, and fail anyway.

 

I'll say it again. Telling people to make feature films, or suggesting it's a business opportunity, is grossly irresponsible. In the modern world, it's increasingly difficult for young people to get a job that pays a living wage, let alone selling them fantasies about being a cigar-smoking mogul. It's asinine.

 

P

[Aapo Lettinen]

one of the biggest problems of indie filmmakers is that they want to do all by themselves which causes troubles in both learning the craft and also when trying to advance in the pro movie circles.

the general impression from the outside is that these people are doing everything by themselves because they are either:

- not able to work with other creative people to make collaborative art; either too introvert to communicate with creative personnel or do not have strong enough vision to express it clearly

- are afraid to collaborate with other people because they fear that someone wants to change their perfect movie to conformist crap, thus wanting to do everything by themselves to protect their "perfect ideas"

- only want to do non-compromise art stuff by their own rules and don't want anybody to interfere with their creative processes, especially someone from the selling POV (producers, sales agents, etc) or audience side (distributors, friend and family, collagues etc.)

- are probably not interested in making movies which would be distributed widely and would likely be commercial successes (because they are only interested in making perfect movies by their own terms and not necessarily making a movie someone else would like to see)

- may be egoists who think their ideas are best in the whole world and won't listen to any comments or critique not would change anything even a bit because their original idea is the best there is

 

I'm not meaning to be harsh, but from a producer's POV you may look like a really bad choice for a director position if your CV is full of projects you have mostly made by yourself. It gives an impression that you are only used to making your own art stuff by your own rules and you may have lots of problems to adapt to a different environment where you need to work with a separate producer, editor, DP, colorist, line producers and whatnot.

It may seem like a good idea to do a project all by yourself but if you want to get more work with it, it's extremely risky and it would be much better to let more people in to help you with the production and to build a somewhat similar environment than a commercial feature production would be. And it does not hurt your art a bit but can add lots of value to it actually because other people's creative ideas may sometimes be much better than your own. It may be hard at first if one is used to doing everything by himself but it will benefit A LOT in the long run. And one will never hear the other people's possibly better ideas if not working with them in the first place. that is what I meant when saying it is not a good way for a indie filmmaker to learn to do only one man band projects and own artsy stuff.

I think R. Rodriguez would maybe be much better director if he would let someone else to produce and shoot and edit his movies and concentrate on the directing and writing part

[Justin Hayward]

It isn't particularly difficult to make a feature film; you just hire the right people.

 

But isn't this is also a little misinforming. It's really, really, hard to make a movie no matter what resources you have. I've done some well budgeted commercials with all the best folks and still came out the other end a ball of mush. And that's a small handful of shoot days.

[Tyler Purcell]

So to clarify a few things, like i said i « write - direct - DP - edit and color grade » all by myself which means that when i write a line on the paper, i have a clear vision of everything, from the lens i will use to when will start the music in the final edit.

Which in itself seems like a great idea... but honestly, it only damages your vision and here's why.

 

Filmmaking is a collaborative process for a very good reason. If you don't have other people as checks and balances, from script through distribution, you may make something unwatchable without realizing it. Just because you see the world in a certain light, doesn't mean audiences want to see the same light you see. Remember, as artists we want people to see our work. If they have no interest or dislike your work for whatever reason, then as an artist you won't be able to grow.

 

Yes, there have been a hand-full of "do it yourself" movies that made filmmakers successful enough to not worry about money... robert rodriguez being one of them. As a teenager, I idolized Rodriguez because he did something I wanted to do. Yet as an adult, when I re-watched his movies and saw how he made them, I was kind of disgusted. He isn't some great talent, he's someone who got his friends together and because he shot his first movie on film (looks good) and put quite a bit of money into the post aspects to make it sellable, he at the time broke NEW ground. Today, anyone can make a digital feature film for peanuts and sell it for 100k and make profit. So his words and advice are kind of very much based in the 90's, prior to the digital cinema boom and flooding of ultra-low budget feature films on the market place.

 

Now... I too am a writer, director, operator, DP, editor and colorist. LOL :) There are a lot of pro's to doing all those jobs... it costs less money, it takes less time, finish product matches script and directors vision more clearly. Yet... no checks and balances. Nobody to say "hey I have a better idea for a shot" or "you could cut this a different way and get MORE emotion out of it". Even though I do all of those jobs, I have checks and balances built into each of them. I have a script writing team I work with, 4 people who I'll spend months with, re-tweaking scenes and dialog. I have a phenomenal producing team, which lifts the loads of producing off my shoulders entirely so I can focus on the directing. I have a great AC and Operator who can take care of the camera if need be. I've got a great gaffing team I started working with last year, they're top notch and can take care of everything. I've got an assistant editor who puts dailies together and sends out cut scenes. I even have two other top industry editors who I bring on board for "sweetening" after the fact. So it's still a very collaborative process and unlike many directors, I'm very open to people adding their own input.

 

So the way I get away with doing all of those jobs, is by having substantial crew people prop me up. On set I can work with the gaffer first and organize the lighting setup. Then I can go to the camera guys and get them on track for composition, focal length and even stop. I'll then work with the actors one-on-one. I rehearse the scenes several times because rolling the camera is expensive. I'll let the camera operator rehearse with us and give any suggestions. Once satisfied, I will take my seat behind the camera and call action from that position. I generally dislike watching monitors on set, so I rarely use them for myself. I let the producers and other crew sit behind them.

 

The only reason I DP my own stuff is because I like the job too much. Removing myself from that role is like taking away the fun for me. I'm a very visual filmmaker, my feature scrips could all be told with no dialog and just music for emotional cues if need be. Eventually, I will have to work with a DP because finding funding for a project without a DP, it hard. People are already scared about funding, if you give the more reasons to be scared, you're kind of in trouble. It's one thing to budget yourself as the editor and colorist, it's another to budget yourself as DP... that's difficult, even on an indy.

 

My question was « should i go wild in the scenario process and write the piece i truly want or should i restrain myself and write a more humble piece? With less characters but not less artistic.

Yes, you should "tame" it down a bit and compromise on your first film. Find places to save money, but still keep the visual and story content at a high level.

 

I will never make something to please the audience, and because of that state of mind (which is unfortunately necessary most of the time) we have the Cinema we have today, a cinema that tells nothing new and nothing important..

Right, but you can't "crack" cinema with one movie. You can't fix it overnight... it takes time. Remember, most filmmakers get ONE CHANCE to do it right. Even if they make the biggest, most beautiful work of art, if financiers don't get their money back, you could be washed up as a filmmaker. Plus, you could make something great that nobody see's and in the end, as an artist, isn't it our goal to share our art?

 

Didn’t Christopher Nolan « write - direct - dp - edit and produce » his first feature film « Following »

Yep, sure did! In 1997, the world was a very different place.

[Hrishikesh Jha]

First off, I love your short. I watched it twice, you've got some talent there! :)

 

As a teacher of filmmaking, I have a phenomenal powerpoint presentation that I just delivered to my students. It breaks down the whole process of taking your script idea, how to build momentum for fundraising and how to get eyes on the finished product. I acquired the information by working on the distribution side of filmmaking and actually paying for seat time with top distributors.

 

Now yes, I do live in America and we don't have subsidies for the arts here like they do in Europe. So I teach my students the not-so-straight-forward path to "success" and ultimately it's a lot of work and dedication. Most people who've I've given the speech to, don't realize how difficult the process is. A lot of them just want to make something on the weekends and give it away, just to get something made. There are a lot of "positives" to that idea as well.

 

If you send me your e-mail address, I will gladly forward the presentation to you, this way you can see the steps involved. But it's the actual, real-life, no bullshit process. It has all sorts of little details that people wouldn't think about, which is the reason I wrote it. There are some details missing, but most of them are only related to US distribution and order of operations based on releasing an "indy" in the states.

 

There is a catch 22 conundrum in the film/television industry that plagues young and new artists; if you haven't done something before, it's hard to get people on-board for your vision. This goes for any set position, any post position and especially the top roles of writer, cinematographer, editor, producer and director. Example... if I've been shooting documentaries and nature stuff for years, I would be ignored if I wanted to start shooting narratives. It's the same for directors, just because you've done a short, doesn't mean you can helm a feature. They are two completely different things that really don't share much in common with one another. A short can be made in a weekend, where a watchable feature takes a lot more time and money, which means far more commitment from crew, cast, yourself and financiers. I always tell people to work on a feature film in some capacity first, just so you understand the complexity of the circus you're about to get involved with.

 

To highlight some of the key comments from above...

 

Producer... Yes, god yes! Actually, you really need TWO people. You need a "name" producer to help you get cast, marketing and financing. You need a "line" producer, to help get your assets in order and figure out how to make your movie. These are generally two different people, but you COULD find one person to do both jobs. Focus on the line producer first, use their connections and if you NEED someone else, bring them in to help score you some cast. As my powerpoint says, you need "representation" because you don't have the clout yet. NOBODY is going to watch your short film and say "yea I'll give this kid a chance", it's just not going to happen. Any producers you bring on board, you will need to know them personally and get them on board based on who you are and your vision, rather then the finances.

 

Distribution... There is an astronomical difference from having a distribution deal memo "guarantee" prior to shooting, vs pre-selling your movie. A deal memo is not a contract, it's just an agreement that whoever gave you the memo has first rights to the movie. This is what you'd use to get funding and sometimes even cast on board. Pre-selling is when you have a complete/full contract with usually a sales agent, that basically works out all of the details before the movie is even shot. Generally pre-sales are a bad business model for GOOD movies. If your movie is going to be crap, pre-selling maybe the way to go because at least if you do the deal right, your investors will get paid off eventually. Generally speaking, you should find a successful production company willing to help you work out a deal memo with a studio prior to shooting. You NEED a production company anyway, thanks to insurance laws and liability. It's cheaper to just hire one, then it is to make your own. A lot of times, if you do this right, the production company will be the distributor of sorts.

 

Viewership... is the question of WHO will watch your movie, rather then HOW they'll see it. If you want to make money, you have to write to an audience. This means you need to first understand your audience. You can start by watching other movies in a similar vain and try to figure out what made them successful. Then you can taylor your script and visuals to match the audience. This is truly where the art of script writing comes into play. It's a fine balance between what YOU want and what the "industry" will accept. Eventually when you write enough, you will figure out the formula and you'll be off to the races.

 

Finally... Don't try to break into the industry being some "artist" making art films because nobody is going to see them. You can be an artist and make big movies, AFTER you become successful. Most young filmmakers kill themselves trying to bring their passion project to the screen and they generally fail. Save that passion project, save that big budget movie for later in life. Understand this is a long-term venture and you can't make a multi-million dollar movie on your first go. You've gotta make something simple, easy and most importantly, something that people will WANT to see!

 

Them's my tips! I'm here to answer questions and I'd be more then happy to guide you. Richard is also a phenomenal resource and we should all be blessed he's on here giving advice because he GETS IT DONE! :)

Tye, Rishi here, could you email me that presentation too, I'd be grateful.

[Tyler Purcell]

Tye, Rishi here, could you email me that presentation too, I'd be grateful.

Just sent... remember it's all about making a "successful" movie and the processes involved.

 

Please PM me if you wish to talk more about it.

[Stuart Brereton]

As a teacher of filmmaking, I have a phenomenal powerpoint presentation that I just delivered to my students. It breaks down the whole process of taking your script idea, how to build momentum for fundraising and how to get eyes on the finished product. I acquired the information by working on the distribution side of filmmaking and actually paying for seat time with top distributors.

Perhaps you could post the presentation, or a link to it, so that it is available for all forum members to see.

[Tyler Purcell]

Perhaps you could post the presentation, or a link to it, so that it is available for all forum members to see.

And get bombarded with haters? Safe to say, posting it would be a huge negative for me. Also, I threw it together very fast based on notes I took over the years. So I would like the opportunity to go through it and smooth things out, maybe update it a bit to 2017 data as the DVD/BluRay market tanked in 2016, something not referenced in the document.

 

Maybe I'll make a youtube video and do it as a dialog and text based presentation.

[Guest]

maybe update it a bit to 2017 data as the DVD/BluRay market tanked in 2016,

 

 

I wouldn't buy into this Tyler, this is an argument used by distributors to try and lower advances paid to producers. "Oh the DVD market has crashed, we can't pay what we used to….." They have been saying this every year since 1999. Wow, how many times is the DVD market going to crash?

 

Utter nonsense, the data shows millions of DVDs being sold for the top theatrical releases, no change there really. And plenty of direct to DVD product still has a large consumer base, especially in the family and kids section.

 

There is still a huge sector of the market that wants, "physical product" for their money.

 

R,

[Tyler Purcell]

I wouldn't buy into this Tyler, this is an argument used by distributors to try and lower advances paid to producers.

Actually I got the data from outside of the production/distribution part of the industry. I got the data from the people who SELL DVD/Bluray.

 

Obviously the TOP movies always sell, but the DVD/BluRay market use to be a great place for INDY's, which is what we're talking about here.

[Guest]

People thought when Blockbuster bought the farm that there would be no place for direct to video indies to go. Well the market soldiered on. The issue Tyler isn't the market for DVDs, it's the CONTENT the vast majority of indie filmmakers want to put on the DVDs. Meaning, it's poorly made and non commercial, so yeah, it's not going to sell.

 

R,

[Tyler Purcell]

The issue Tyler isn't the market for DVDs, it's the CONTENT the vast majority of indie filmmakers want to put on the DVDs. Meaning, it's poorly made and non commercial, so yeah, it's not going to sell.

I personally don't see the Indy content being any worse then it was in previous years. I just see MORE Indy content being made, making it harder for the good one's to stick out.

 

I would love to share with you the industry data I have, but I can't seem to find a site with it all laid out in a way that isn't so easy to punch holes through. Currently the data is supposition, rather then facts with graphics and charts. As 2017 moves along, the industry will release it's data for sure, it just takes time to organize everything.

 

I've traveled the country in the last two years for projects and I've seen the devastation in the physical asset home video market. The only thing keeping it alive are the more rural areas where people don't use internet, satellite or telco for their movies.