|
Voodoofly posted:The films that aren't made are the ones that are hurt. Perfect way to wrap it up. End of discussion.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
G.Rainmaker posted:A musician can DIY his own album, book tours and sell merch. A filmmaker is not that lucky. Once, Paranormal Activity, The Blair Witch Project, My Big Fat Greek Wedding (sort of)...the list goes on... The Lucas posted:I thought he mentioned Scott Pilgrim? This has what to do with piracy? Advertising + release date + overdose of Michael Cera was a recipe that doomed Scott Pilgrim. I don't think you can just categorically say that movies are being adversely effected by piracy when movies are making more money than they've ever made (even adjusting for inflation). 2009 was a huge year (crossed the $10 billion mark), and 2010 will be even bigger. And we're in a recession...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 03:12
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Once, Paranormal Activity, The Blair Witch Project, My Big Fat Greek Wedding (sort of)...the list goes on... Two of these are self-funded and are filmed on camcorders, which obviously suits a found footage film but is less useful if you don't want a fiolm that looks like a home movie. The other two are made with external funding (completely contrary to whatever point you were trying to make) which it is being pointed out is much less forthcoming with every passing year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 03:38
|
|
|
Arkane posted:
its you; you're the self righteous prick. You haven't read the thread, you ignore the fact that most all movies that make money have to be sequels or adapted IP, and you are bad at posting. Arkane posted:Once, Paranormal Activity, The Blair Witch Project, My Big Fat Greek Wedding (sort of)...the list goes on... Edit: the list doesn't go on, that's the list, that is. Congrats, you have no idea what you are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 03:49
|
|
|
Once was cheap for a movie, but I don't have $150,000 lying around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 03:56
|
|
|
Noxville posted:Two of these are self-funded and are filmed on camcorders, which obviously suits a found footage film but is less useful if you don't want a film that looks like a home movie. The other two are made with external funding (completely contrary to whatever point you were trying to make) which it is being pointed out is much less forthcoming with every passing year. Once received a bare minimum of funding and MBFGW was a one-act stage play that Hanks + wife loved and turned into a movie. There are plenty of OTHER examples of self-funded movies that have led to success...many directors have their careers launched by them. Bottle Rocket, Pi, Following, Reservoir Dogs (again, 'sort of')...the list still goes on. It's ridiculous to say that a DIY/self-financed movie cannot be made or find success.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 04:11
|
|
|
Mozzie posted:its you; you're the self righteous prick. You haven't read the thread, you ignore the fact that most all movies that make money have to be sequels or adapted IP, and you are bad at posting. Sequels and adaptations are made because it's bankable, but don't disregard the possibility of finding success with an original work. Let's look at last year's Oscar race: The Hurt Locker versus Avatar versus Inglourious Basterds. None of those were adapted. How about Slumdog Millionaire? No Country for Old Men? Both based upon books, but neither had huge fanbases rearing to get up and see a movie, yet both were incredibly (1) profitable and (2) lauded movies that demonstrated that great filmmaking trumps everything. I will cede the point that it is harder to find niche success nowadays because the market is overwhelmed by a barrage of new releases, but I fail to see how any of this had to do with piracy. Piracy is not some evil specter that hangs over the industry and scares movie executives. The effects on the industry are negligible at best. How many people in the US saw Avatar in theaters? 70 million? How many watched it for the first time via an illegal download? I'll be REALLY generous: 100,000? Laughable ratio.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 04:22
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Once received a bare minimum of funding and MBFGW was a one-act stage play that Hanks + wife loved and turned into a movie. There are plenty of OTHER examples of self-funded movies that have led to success...many directors have their careers launched by them. Bottle Rocket, Pi, Following, Reservoir Dogs (again, 'sort of')...the list still goes on. It's ridiculous to say that a DIY/self-financed movie cannot be made or find success. Bottle Rocket Budget: 7 million Gross: 1 million Pi Budget: 60 000 Gross: 3 million Following Budget: 6000 Gross: 48 000 Reservoir Dogs Budget: 1.2 Million Gross: 2.8 Million All those movies have grossed 6 908 000 for the industry Inception Budget: 160 Million Gross: 823 Million 7 million compared to almost a billion. So basically in the scheme of things, those movies mean absolutely nothing about sustaining the industry, just like how you opinion means absolutely nothing to this discussion. edit: seriously, just stop posting, your so wrong about what you are talking about I'd have to assume you are just trolling and steering this thread off track.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 04:27
|
|
|
Mozzie posted:Bottle Rocket I'm talking about the original Bottle Rocket obviously. And the argument was that a DIY movie isn't possible. It is. And they've launched careers. And lost in that simple posting of Reservoir Dogs budget is that it was originally going to be shot for a few thousand until Keitel signed on. Those movies mean a GREAT DEAL to the industry. There is no Inception without Following. There is no Royal Tenenbaums without Bottle Rocket. There is no Pulp Fiction without Reservoir Dogs. Behind every movie is the talent, and the talent virtually always has humble beginnings in the industry. quote:edit: seriously, just stop posting, your so wrong about what you are talking about I'd have to assume you are just trolling and steering this thread off track. I'm clearing up two things from my knowledge and experience...(1) the movie industry is doing extremely well and (2) piracy doesn't have much of an effect on anything. I've done lots of consulting as far as both box office (i.e. tracking) and awards are concerned. Starting in a couple of weeks, my work life will be turned over almost entirely to the Oscars and similar awards ceremonies. If you want to know anything about that, which I am guessing from your tone that you do not, feel free to ask away. Arkane fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Dec 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 04:33
|
|
|
People need to stop furthering the piracy debate. The op has already asked you guys to stop. Anyway a question for those that work in the business. Do you often work with expert consultants? I'm not even sure I'm using the right term for it. Basically if you have a cop movie, do you have cops behind the scenes demonstrating correcting procedures and terminology that the actors would use? If so, where and how do you find them? Do you pay them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 04:50
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:What do you mean "work back that way"? One of the big problems is that it's impossible to know what something would've done had x, y, and z factor not been involved. You can always argue "Oh, but the trailer to Scott Pilgrim wasn't that good" or "It had the wrong release date" or whatever. I don't really see this conversation going anywhere but a squabble fest. Oh, I'm well aware of all these facts. But the fact is, YOU as an industry have to deliver what the customer wants. If 70% wants dubs and 30% wants the original with subs...is it better to only give the 70% what they want or give everyone what they want (and if it is only by putting the normal american version on some VOD service)? NeuroticErotica posted:But can I point out that you're not just entitled to see whatever movie you want in whatever format/dubbing/etc. that you want in whatever theater you want at a price you pick. There are forces greater than you in the equation. It's a big complicated set of decisions, research and other factors that make things the way they are. Yes, if we do things your way, we'll get your ten dollars, but we may sacrifice a thousand to get it. It doesn't make fiscal sense. At the end of the day, movies are a product and they have to turn a profit at some point or they simply stop getting made. Err...you are wrong here. Entitelment has fuckall to do with this. I AM able to see it, and that is what counts. That's what I meant in my first post with the "bahbah you are a big meanie by stealing my movie". Offer us something we think is fair or deal with he consequences. To put this into perspective: My father earns a lot of money with newspapers and magazines. But this is geeting less and less...rapidly. Because he works in the chemical industry that produces stuff that is needed to print newspapers/magazines/ads etc. The market is srhinking faster than you could imagine. If you movie people cling to your business models THE SAME THING will happen to you. Addapt or die. Don't just hate the piracy...try to see it as a pointer to where you might find new customers with new business model. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) Popelmon fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Dec 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 05:09
|
|
|
Well this thread went down the shitter fast. This is more business-end and less production, so sorry if no one really knows the answer: I remember when 3D was first being hyped up, theaters were hesitant about buying in because of the initial cost of projectors, glasses, screens, etc. How much money are we talking here? Have the ticket surcharges and increased business come close to paying this off?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 05:13
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I remember when 3D was first being hyped up, theaters were hesitant about buying in because of the initial cost of projectors, glasses, screens, etc. How much money are we talking here? Have the ticket surcharges and increased business come close to paying this off? This article addresses it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041604208.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica, I'd lock the thread, the entitled assholes are all over it now and It's likely never going to get back on track. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 05:32
|
|
|
Mozzie posted:NeuroticErotica, I'd lock the thread, the entitled assholes are all over it now and It's likely never going to get back on track. Since you seem to think that way I will never ever touch that subject again and you can keep your pretty awesome topic. If that helps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 05:46
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Once, Paranormal Activity, The Blair Witch Project, My Big Fat Greek Wedding (sort of)...the list goes on... Fox/Searchlight, Paramount, Artisan, HBO/IFC - none of these projects were DIY when it came to distribution. Arkane posted:This has what to do with piracy? Advertising + release date + overdose of Michael Cera was a recipe that doomed Scott Pilgrim. Like I said earlier - we can't pick a film and then say piracy is doomed this, etc because there's always reasons you can claim people did or did not see a movie. It's a debate that goes nowhere. Arkane posted:Once received a bare minimum of funding and MBFGW was a one-act stage play that Hanks + wife loved and turned into a movie. There are plenty of OTHER examples of self-funded movies that have led to success...many directors have their careers launched by them. Bottle Rocket, Pi, Following, Reservoir Dogs (again, 'sort of')...the list still goes on. It's ridiculous to say that a DIY/self-financed movie cannot be made or find success. We can name successful independently financed movies for hours. We can name the unsuccessful ones for days - and that's just the ones that most people have heard of. Popelmon posted:Oh, I'm well aware of all these facts. But the fact is, YOU as an industry have to deliver what the customer wants. If 70% wants dubs and 30% wants the original with subs...is it better to only give the 70% what they want or give everyone what they want (and if it is only by putting the normal american version on some VOD service)? That's a complex question - Once again - it's up to a distributor who handles the territory. It goes into a lot of risk management - putting out two versions costs twice the amount of money, twice the amount of advertising, etc. If the distributor feels that putting out a second version will make more money than it costs, most will gladly do so. But if they feel that it won't, then it's smarter to go with the majority. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made so that the companies that do these things stay afloat. lostleaf posted:Anyway a question for those that work in the business. Do you often work with expert consultants? I'm not even sure I'm using the right term for it. Basically if you have a cop movie, do you have cops behind the scenes demonstrating correcting procedures and terminology that the actors would use? If so, where and how do you find them? Do you pay them? It depends on the people doing the project. Where I work, we research, research and then research some more. Some people don't think it matters - and in some cases they're right. On CSI research doesn't matter. On The Wire, research is king. So it depends on what you're making, etc. When we research, it's usually somebody knows a somebody they went to high school, etc. We also like to get out of LA and CA to do it - for a couple of reasons. One, it's just nice to get away for a bit and this is a nice excuse to do so. Two, in LA if you're connected to a movie in any way people want money. Outside of CA, people just think it's cool to hang out with movie people and are excited by the possibility of getting on IMDB or something. If you pay then it's nowhere near as much as it would be to be LAPD or something. There are some people - retired cops, retired Army, etc. who make a whole career of showing actors how to hold their weapons and kick down doors and such. I imagine it's not a bad career. morestuff posted:This is more business-end and less production, so sorry if no one really knows the answer: I have no idea and I'd love to hear about this. I imagine at the bigger theaters that they almost have to be getting close by now. I heard that a 3D projector can cost upwards of over half a million dollars, but I have no idea if that's true or just a list price that nobody pays or whatever. That's a really interesting question. Mozzie posted:NeuroticErotica, I'd lock the thread, the entitled assholes are all over it now and It's likely never going to get back on track. Piracy is boring guys, let's talk about titties.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 06:23
|
|
|
quote:Piracy is boring guys, let's talk about titties.  About 3D: One of the big costs of conversion is the screen itself, which is coated in silver to keep the polarization. In Canada many theaters are already digital and were 3D upgradable so in Toronto there are a lot of 3D screens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 06:30
|
|
|
Cross-posting from the "Post pictures of your workspace" thread in GBS. I really do want to get in on this thread, as I feel I have a lot to contribute. I just don't have much time at all. Anyway, if you're ready for some glamour and glitz from inside a double-wide trailer on a major studio lot in Hollywood, check out the images below: How it usually looks:  Click here for the full 1024x768 image. How it looks with the lights on, eek!  Click here for the full 1024x768 image. What a mess. I should really turn the lights off again.  Click here for the full 1024x768 image. I hate this loving mixing board. Really really loving hate it.  Click here for the full 1024x768 image. This is where I spend consecutive 110 hour work weeks... Goddamn.  Click here for the full 1024x768 image. Exciting, isn't it? Yes, this is where all my wildest dreams of working "in the business" are being fulfilled! Erm... well... maybe not. However, it is where I got my first ever 5 figure paycheck, so there is that. You might think that qualifies for the last remaining "G" of the thread title (Greed) but I'd really much rather have a day off than keep going the way I have been. Boohoo, right? Don't feel bad for me - the truth is that I do love my career, I feel incredibly blessed, and I sometimes have to pinch myself. As stressful as this field is, it's also fun and rewarding and I was thrilled even to be an unpaid intern when I started out. The people who tell you that being a "lowly" PA is boring, humiliating, or terrible in any way, do not belong in this industry. So whenever someone like the OP reiterates the whole "Are you willing to work 18 hour days for weeks on end in a thankless role, and then be jobless for weeks on end in fear of never working again" rap... remember to add "and be grateful" to the end of the question. If being a "lowly" PA on a motherfucking movie isn't fun and rewarding to you, then you'll burn out. Filmmaking is such an enormous enterprise that even the directors could claim they are in a thankless position. We all kvetch and gripe, but this is the best goddamned business to be in and that's a loving fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 06:31
|
|
|
Mozzie posted:
Not all 3D cinemas use silver screens. It depends on the type of projection and glasses. Some systems require it, some don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 06:34
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:I heard that a 3D projector can cost upwards of over half a million dollars, but I have no idea if that's true or just a list price that nobody pays or whatever. That's a really interesting question. It does cost an awful lot, and since so many theaters have recently installed new, state of the art digital projection systems capable of 3D, they aren't going to want to upgrade again any time soon. Which is one reason why anybody claiming that the next big innovation right around the corner is going to be 48 (or even 60) fps should really pull their heads out of their rear end. There are plenty of other reasons, but doubling the bandwidth and light output of your projector is prohibitive enough. Just one man's opinion, of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 06:39
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Exciting, isn't it? Yes, this is where all my wildest dreams of working "in the business" are being fulfilled! Erm... well... maybe not. However, it is where I got my first ever 5 figure paycheck, so there is that. You might think that qualifies for the last remaining "G" of the thread title (Greed) but I'd really much rather have a day off than keep going the way I have been. Boohoo, right? Don't feel bad for me - the truth is that I do love my career, I feel incredibly blessed, and I sometimes have to pinch myself. As stressful as this field is, it's also fun and rewarding and I was thrilled even to be an unpaid intern when I started out. The people who tell you that being a "lowly" PA is boring, humiliating, or terrible in any way, do not belong in this industry. So whenever someone like the OP reiterates the whole "Are you willing to work 18 hour days for weeks on end in a thankless role, and then be jobless for weeks on end in fear of never working again" rap... remember to add "and be grateful" to the end of the question. If being a "lowly" PA on a motherfucking movie isn't fun and rewarding to you, then you'll burn out. Filmmaking is such an enormous enterprise that even the directors could claim they are in a thankless position. We all kvetch and gripe, but this is the best goddamned business to be in and that's a loving fact. I remember when I was working on some student productions (being stuck with very little money outside of Toronto sucks). Working with some people that were too serious for a project where over half the people had never been on set before, where a lot of personalities clashed, especially while working as a grip under someone who I wouldn't trust to turn my computer on made me almost say "gently caress it" more than a few times. But I stuck with it. There are days when you say, "Wait, why am I even here?" But after you've had a chance to cool down, and you see the finished product (even if it's not very good, and trust me, some of them weren't), and you just say to yourself, "Oh, that's why." Edit: I should also say that working at that stage makes you realize quickly the type of personalities that are trying to make it, including which ones you want to learn from and which ones to avoid. mojo1701a fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Dec 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 06:49
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Fox/Searchlight, Paramount, Artisan, HBO/IFC - none of these projects were DIY when it came to distribution. The MPAA is kind of obsessed with protecting their monopoly...that's more of a structural problem than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 08:08
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The MPAA is kind of obsessed with protecting their monopoly...that's more of a structural problem than anything else. I've just used the "ignore user" function for the first time. Go figure, I'm in London! Must have rubbed off on me... therattle fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Dec 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 11:50
|
|
|
therattle posted:I've just used the "ignore user" function for the first time. That's so LA...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 12:14
|
|
|
To get this back on topic a few questions: 1) What do people really think about 3D? Like, I saw Avatar and wasn't really impressed with the floaty nature of the picture, but recently I was in Best Buy looking at a 3D TV and it was the flattest thing I've ever seen. Yeah, my brain could make out layers of depth, but it was all flat in between, so it looked more like paper put in front of each other. It was the first time in a while where I said to myself while watching something "Hey, I am looking at a TV!" So, are there a lot of people inside Hollywood who view it as a novelty, or are there really a lot of people outside of the business end who think it is the savior of Hollywood? 2) Has anyone worked on a film where controlled was basically wrestled away from the director or the producer, and what is that like? 3) When there's a nude scene, is there basically a naked person in a room filled with people? 4) Has anyone ever worked on a commentary track or preparing DVD extras? What goes into that? 5) What's the most inept film you've ever seen (even if it was on some super-indie circuit)? I'm not talking YouTube video, I mean, something serious by an intended professional. Hell, even if you just want to tell me the most inept major motion picture you've seen, that's cool. And what are the things that you see in pictures that bug you that don't bug us normal people?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 14:24
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:To get this back on topic a few questions: 1) I suppose this is a general question, but it doesn't blow me away. I remember reading it described as not real 3-d, but two separated flat planes, which struck me as right. 2) Yes, and either way it's ugly. if the director goes rogue and just does what they want and the producer is weak, you get a flabby, self-indulgent film. When the director is ousted or marginalised it gets very ugly and unpleasant. 3) Yes, although they have what is called a closed set, with no visitors, press, etc, and an absolute minimal crew for that particular scene; so once the lighting is set up, for instance, lighting crew leave the area, and all hat's left is camera, sound, and director. 4) Not really sure how to answer that, but yes. For instance, my boss gave an interview for a Criterion release of a film he produced, which involved them setting up a camera in his office and interviewing him. Commentary tracks have involved him or the director, or both, sitting in a recording studio talking about the film as it plays silently. That is then licensed to distributors to add to their DVDs if they want it. If a distributor paid for the creation of it, then other distributors might have to pay an access fee, but often you can get them for free. 5) Hard question, as I tend to avoid inept films. I saw a stinker a few years ago called Confidence; The Majestic was offensively bad... ummm...Woody Allen's Scoop was truly appalling. I absolutely HATED Atonement, but it wasn't inept. I'm not on the production side so I don't look for tiny things that others might notice, but I do note expensive scenes; like period scenes where they've closed off and dressed a street, or have a large ball full of costumed extras, or with period cars driving by in the background - that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 15:55
|
|
|
What percentage of movie tickets go back to the production company? What about dvds/blurays? On a big budget film, how many editors are there? I would think there are a few that do rough cuts to give to the main editor or is there just one guy that does it all? Are the bigger actors/actresses arrogant? How would you describe them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 16:37
|
|
|
In need of tissue posted:What percentage of movie tickets go back to the production company? What about dvds/blurays? 1) Impossible to determine, but in independent world, almost none to zero. Here's the chain. Cinema retains a fixed % of BO, then sends a slice (a range, 70-40%) back to the distributor. The distributor has often put up an advance which is paid to the international distributor/sales agent against future revenues. First the distributor takes its fee (15-30%) of revenues, then the balance goes towards repaying its release costs, then anything left over goes towards recouping the advance it paid the sales agent (which is generally used to finance the film). After that there is very rarely anything left over to go back to the sales agent. If there is (called overages), the sales agent takes its commission, and the balance goes into the pot, most likely to pay off the financiers who funded the film. DVD/VOD and TV revenues are treated in the same way. Some actors are arrogant, some are awesome. Viggo Mortensen habitually quietly goes to the bathroom near the end of a restaurant meal, and when he comes back lo and behold, he's paid the bill. Other actors won't pay for a drat thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 17:04
|
|
|
therattle posted:Cinema retains a fixed % of BO, I though I read somewhere (even on these very fora) that the percentage changes depending on the amount of weeks a movie has been in theatres.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:I though I read somewhere (even on these very fora) that the percentage changes depending on the amount of weeks a movie has been in theatres. Correction (my mistake, well spotted): cinema retains an agreed fixed AMOUNT and then the % split changes, depending, as you say, on desirability of the film, number of weeks in theatre, relative negotiating strength of cinema vs distributor, and a host of other factors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:I though I read somewhere (even on these very fora) that the percentage changes depending on the amount of weeks a movie has been in theatres. This is correct. In the first week of release, the theaters typically only keep about 10% of the gate. Then it increases to 20%, and so on. It's why opening weekends matter so much to the studios. It's also why theaters charge so much for concessions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 17:51
|
|
|
therattle posted:Some actors are arrogant, some are awesome. Viggo Mortensen habitually quietly goes to the bathroom near the end of a restaurant meal, and when he comes back lo and behold, he's paid the bill. Other actors won't pay for a drat thing. This is awesome. Everything I hear about Viggo is awesome. But like therattle said, everyone is different. I've interacted with some pretty rear end in a top hat actors (and not actors) in the industry, but it is the nice ones that are always great. Plus, some of them go out of their way to make people happy. If people really want specific stories I can share a few I have seen firsthand, but I'd rather this stay more on topic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 18:45
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:Plus, some of them go out of their way to make people happy. If people really want specific stories I can share a few I have seen firsthand, but I'd rather this stay more on topic. Please share. It is very much on topic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
Hugh Jackman is EXTREMELY personable and nice; even going out of his way to hang with/eat with the crew/extras/etc. and hang out with those that know the area afterwards. Actually, most actors I meet are pretty cool, at least on a film level; it's film actresses that tend to cause the most problems on a personal level in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 19:32
|
|
|
Darko posted:
Best are the older ones that talk right to the gaffer to make sure they get fill for their wrinkles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
Darko posted:Actually, most actors I meet are pretty cool, at least on a film level; it's film actresses that tend to cause the most problems on a personal level in my experience. I worked with Evan Rachel Wood a few years ago and she was very down to earth. She was dressed down for the part and I didn't even know it was her, thought it was a PA. We talked for a while while I smoked a cig outside holding. Who knows what she's like now though. Brad Pitt is also mega-cool and charming. He was exec-producing a film I worked on two years ago. He came to set for just one day and talked with all the crew. When I got the chance to talk with him, I just told him that I loved him in Cutting Class which was his first film and is a terrible early 90's slasher flick. He stopped talking for a second and told me "That's the best thing I've done" and chuckled. Clooney is also someone that the crew loves. But yeah, it does seem that there is a discrepancy between actors and actresses in terms of being douches. Especially true with extras, most male extras are cool with chilling and getting free food while a bunch of female extras will think they are hot poo poo when they are really slightly higher then a chair on set. I will say that 85% of all extras/background are completely horrible people. I hate having to deal with them and then cleaning up after they leave the holding like a loving pigsty. I do yell at them when I see them leave their trash and poo poo like that
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 21:14
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:To get this back on topic a few questions: 1. 3D is one D too many. 2. I've not personally, but I remember reading a thread where a dude was working on NAILED - the David O. Russell picture. Wonder who that guy was, I bet that's interesting to say the least. 3. Covered all ready. 4. A commentary track is basically people watching a TV in a studio. When I worked on one we just ran it and let the guys talk. There wasn't much to it. 5. After Last Season - and I've seen it seven times. What bugs me? Sound mixes bug the poo poo out of me. I'm really particular about them having done a few. What bothers me most is just sheer unoriginality. Can't stand the mix on a horror film, it's all the same. Sounds backwards, loud crashes, it's all just boring. In need of tissue posted:On a big budget film, how many editors are there? I would think there are a few that do rough cuts to give to the main editor or is there just one guy that does it all? There's a few. It's a department like any other - there's the head guy and then there's people below him and people below them. Assistant Editors are cutting and making scenes, etc. It's a collaboration. In need of tissue posted:Are the bigger actors/actresses arrogant? How would you describe them? They're human like you and me. Problem is they're under the microscope so when they gently caress up it's blown way out of proportion and there becomes this weird distorted fun house mirror version of them that becomes the norm. Like if you see your co-worker drunk once or twice, you think "ah they were just having some fun" - you see pictures of an actor out wasted once and you think "What an out of control lush". They're like anybody else. Some are cool, some aren't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:
I agree with the sentiment, but there's a little more to it than that. Certain personality types get into theatre/acting more than others, and you get a lot of the more "eccentric" types, as in the case of artists. So, there is a certain amount of borderline crazy you do run into with performers, and a certain TYPE you don't see as much on average.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 21:37
|
|
|
G.Rainmaker posted:But yeah, it does seem that there is a discrepancy between actors and actresses in terms of being douches. Especially true with extras, most male extras are cool with chilling and getting free food while a bunch of female extras will think they are hot poo poo when they are really slightly higher then a chair on set. I will say that 85% of all extras/background are completely horrible people. I hate having to deal with them and then cleaning up after they leave the holding like a loving pigsty. I do yell at them when I see them leave their trash and poo poo like that That's funny you mentioned extras being shitheads. I was reading through Steadiman's threads that were posted earlier and he mentioned the exact same thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
How do American studios look at foreign market? I know you've spoken about this earlier but does any studio work with the sort of mentality "oh well make it back on overseas". That always get thrown around in threads once in a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 22:42
|
|