|
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? Most movies, regardless of budget, have one Editor and anywhere from 1-3 Assistant Editors, depending on complexity. Most Assistant Editors do not get to cut scenes. Larger scale undertakings can have multiple editors and can end up with many, many assistants. Often when you see two editors sharing a head credit card (during the main title sequence,) that means the one with his name above the other was brought in after the first one was fired. e.g FILM EDITING BY JACQUES STRAPPE, A.C.E PHILLIP MCCAVITY means that Phil got fired midway through post and was replaced by Jacques. Same thing holds true with DP credits.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
Trump posted:Kinda a bad example since there wasn't a pirated version out for over a month. Pirated versions of films in theaters, camrips, just straight up infuriate me. It's hypocritical, but for whatever reason, people choosing to watch a shaky, lesser-quality version of a movie just because they don't have to pay for it pisses me off Not that this is any more or less wrong than pirating DVDs they are both wrong BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Dec 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 23:08
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted: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. These days the studios make more than 50% of a movie's theatrical gross in foreign markets. Up until years ago that was not the case and not by quite a bit. It used to be an afterthought, but now the foreign markets are in their mind more. Especially with casting. If an actor has appeal overseas then you can hang a film on them more. So that's why there's been a bit of a decline in black leads recently (You'd think that black and other minority leads would appeal to people all over the world, but it's quite the opposite actually). Same with women, there's only a handful of women that foreign markets really care about. edit: Five Cent Deposit posted:Often when you see two editors sharing a head credit card (during the main title sequence,) that means the one with his name above the other was brought in after the first one was fired. e.g I wouldn't use this as a rule, really. There's all sorts of scenarios that could lead to the credits, so I wouldn't say definitively what happened based on credits. This is Hollywood, there's always all sorts of drama going on behind the scenes and the credit is always kind of hosed with so you never really know what happened based on credits. NeuroticErotica fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Dec 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 23:17
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:These days the studios make more than 50% of a movie's theatrical gross in foreign markets. Up until years ago that was not the case and not by quite a bit. It used to be an afterthought, but now the foreign markets are in their mind more. Especially with casting. If an actor has appeal overseas then you can hang a film on them more. So that's why there's been a bit of a decline in black leads recently (You'd think that black and other minority leads would appeal to people all over the world, but it's quite the opposite actually). Same with women, there's only a handful of women that foreign markets really care about. I don't know if it is true, but I've heard Will Smith was bluntly honest about Hitch and casting Eva Mendes. In the US, audiences didn't want to see a black man with a white woman. In Europe, audiences didn't want to see a black man with a black woman. So they cast Eva Mendes as a compromise. Like I said, no idea if Will Smith openly discussing this is true, but the theory is definitely true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 23:29
|
|
|
OP: I don't mean for my comments about head credits to be taken as a "rule" but to someone outside the industry wanting a peek inside, I thought it was a fair statement given that I qualified it with "Often." Of course, I am speaking again from my own experience and from the gossip that runs rampant among my circle of colleagues. That said, I do think most people will appreciate your clarification that (often, heh) there are all kinds of other political factors behind credits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 00:56
|
|
|
How many people who try to get into the business have no business being there because of lack of talent & ability? Sometimes I read stories about struggling actors and how hard it is and you look at their picture and they look like someone who would only be cast as "awkward geek #3". I've read with the book industry, if you write a great book you will get it published, it's just that 99% of the books submitted to publishing houses are awful. Is it in any way similar with acting or writing or any other movie job?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
Well it's not always that easy, which is why people say that you need talent and luck. Look at a book like Tinkers by Paul Harding, which I heard was rejected by dozens of publishing houses, to then be picked up by a small indie house that made a few hundred copies, then gained traction in reviews and got a wider distrubtion, then eventually won the pulitzer and the hype snowballed even further. If he had given up on his work after dozens of rejections none of it would have happened, so I think a lot of struggling artists have the same mentality, even though not all of them are the diamond in the rough. I can see your point though and I feel like I'm almost agreeing with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 03:17
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:How many people who try to get into the business have no business being there because of lack of talent & ability? Sometimes I read stories about struggling actors and how hard it is and you look at their picture and they look like someone who would only be cast as "awkward geek #3". I've read with the book industry, if you write a great book you will get it published, it's just that 99% of the books submitted to publishing houses are awful. Is it in any way similar with acting or writing or any other movie job? The rule of any kind of art is that, while talent and effort improves your chances, it's still chance and luck in the end. For every Beatles, there were 50 Beatles that were just as good or better that never made it due to circumstance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 05:31
|
|
|
Mozzie posted:Best are the older ones that talk right to the gaffer to make sure they get fill for their wrinkles. Given the almost total lack of decent parts written for women between the ages of 30 and 60,I'm not sure I can blame them for a little vanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2010 17:11
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:I don't know if it is true, but I've heard Will Smith was bluntly honest about Hitch and casting Eva Mendes. I've read a lot about focus groups being leaned on quite a bit to make production decisions in a lot of todays feature films. It seems Will Smith utilizes this method quite a bit in his most recent movies. How much are test groups really used these days? What are some of the biggest examples? What are some of the worst examples? Teepkick Shakur fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Dec 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2010 08:24
|
|
|
Holy poo poo what a weekend this was. Back to the thread, now.Schweinhund posted:How many people who try to get into the business have no business being there because of lack of talent & ability? Sometimes I read stories about struggling actors and how hard it is and you look at their picture and they look like someone who would only be cast as "awkward geek #3". I've read with the book industry, if you write a great book you will get it published, it's just that 99% of the books submitted to publishing houses are awful. Is it in any way similar with acting or writing or any other movie job? As somebody who reads spec scripts and screens for festival I have to say there's a poo poo-ton. Nowadays you can get a copy of Save the Cat and a word macro that does the formatting of a script for you (Oddly enough - one of the bigger things that scares people off. Formatting.) and you can be trying your hand at a broad comedy that you think will make roughly a "Ba-jillion" dollars. People see the stories of people coming out of nowhere and getting scripts made and think they can do that, too. Yes, Diablo Cody didn't have a screenwriting background and she got discovered - Juno wasn't her first screenplay and she was a professional writer before that! People eliminate parts of the story and just go for what they want. The digital revolution has made it so that anybody can make a film and sadly, they are. People think they don't need film school and, well, actually, they do. There's few naturals at this. What people forget to mention with film school is that it's a place where you can experiment and fail. Without this, people experiment and then send it to a film festival and I end up watching it and laughing at what a retard you are. There's no guarantee that if you're brilliant that you'll make it, but if you're brilliant, work hard and are persistent, your odds are pretty drat good. It may just take years. Most overnight successes are 14 years in the making. Teepkick Shakur posted:I've read a lot about this sort of thing in a lot of current feature films. Particularly in Will Smith movies, actually. How prevalent is this method producing a feature - making films by committee? Making a movie based on what the audience thinks they want to see. And what are your thoughts on it, NeuroticErotica? "X by committee" is usually a derogatory term, and I don't think it fits here. Filmmaking is a collaboration. Very seldomly do you see a film that's a singular vision, and usually it's pretty loving insane. There's a lot of moving parts and different factors and you need a lot of input to prepare for them all. If you're producing a feature that doesn't have a shot at making money, then you have a problem. So things have to be adjusted so they'll have a chance. A lot of auteur theorists and the like always want to say that "Oh the evil PRODUCER altered the ARTISTIC VISION and CHANGED it to a CORPORATE dream" or some garbage. A lot of the times these changes make things better! A lot of the time the trivia is out there as a "holy god, what were we thinking!" sort of way. I think working with a story and finding something that works for both the story and the money side is just fine. Eva Mendes does what she needed to in Hitch in both categories. I really don't see how one could complain. However, there's the opposite - when the whole thing as a story is designed to cash in on ideas that they think will make money. Film audiences are smart. When something is contrived or pandering, they pick up on it pretty fast and reject it. Besides, trying to catch a trend is really difficult given the long development cycle of a film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2010 11:24
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:
These here are words of wisdom. Nothing to add other than my agreement; in my experience this is very much the case (and rather well put too).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2010 12:49
|
|
|
The more I learn about film directing, the less I subscribe to auteur theory. Even on projects where I've had absolute creative control (because at my level, who even gives a gently caress) I constantly absorbed ideas from people I collaborated with. Somebody said earlier, "the director doesn't make the film, the crew makes the film," which is true. The producers, too, and the writers, and... it's a group effort. I think a lot of people are attracted to directing because they want to be in charge, but that's not really what the job is about...
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2010 15:20
|
|
|
Teepkick Shakur posted:I've read a lot about focus groups being leaned on quite a bit to make production decisions in a lot of todays feature films. It seems Will Smith utilizes this method quite a bit in his most recent movies. How much are test groups really used these days? What are some of the biggest examples? What are some of the worst examples? When you say "focus groups" I'm not sure what you're talking about. That phrase has one meaning to me - we do a test screening, hundreds of recruited strangers come see the picture, and they fill out cards afterwards. Then the NRG people (Nielsen Research Group, the company that designs and administers these things) hand pick 2 or 3 dozen audience members and have them hang out for a period to discuss more in depth what they did and didn't like about the picture. If this is what you're envisiioning, then I can answer. The majority of studio films do multiple previews of this type. A test audience can have an enormous effect on whether or not reshoots will be done, or none at all. Here's an anecdote for you: a project I worked on recently went to preview #1 and got a ridiculously high score (85.) This is very high for what would be described by many as a "genre" picture. Normally the studio would be happy with that, but there were executives who really wanted to reshoot anyway - and they combed through the responses to find ammunition for that argument. We ultimately did reshoot about 22 pages (a lot,) and most of that material made it into the cut, which we then took to preview #2. That preview scored an 83. The reshot scenes stayed in the picture, and it was released to mediocre reception among critics and at the box office. [EDITED THE SCORES ABOVE after confirming with a friend/colleague who remembers better than I, and added the clarification that these scores exceeded normal expectations for a project of this kind] Smaller, independent films do more informal screenings, with cards & discussion. These are usually extended "friends & family" screenings. It's the same story. Sometimes it works to the benefit of the film, sometimes not. Another project I worked on a few years ago, which I've written about before, suffered from testing. It was written as an R, with scary and messed up stuff happening. Lots of violence, sexual predation, terror. An incredibly bleak, gut stabbing ending. The thing had 15 or so million invested in it. But when we tested it, the producers saw a lot of responses on the card about how the ending was a big downer and they freaked out. Other factors contributed (it's a longer and more involved story that I want to share in this thread later) but ultimately, the film had portions reshot, it was heavily trimmed in order to receive a PG-13, and it was shelved for 3 years, then dumped unceremoniously into like 50 or 100 theaters. It's a decent movie, but the original cut was a good (not great) movie. The final cut feels soft. I know it was neutered, but it's one of those movies where the average viewer who doesn't know what was left on the cutting room floor won't necessarily be able to put their finger on why it doesn't ever hit any great heights and just feels tepid or half baked. In my observation, these things are primarily used to settle disputes between the directors, producers, et al. You really can't rely on them to project how real audiences and critics will respond. My wife just recently spent a year of her life working on a mid-sized (30 mill) movie from a smaller studio. In other words, a huge project for the studio involved, not least because it had a couple of A-list, Oscar winning contributors above the line. The film had a longer than usual director's cut period (say 16 weeks or so vs. 10 weeks or so,) far away from the prying eyes of the executives. During this time they had a couple of informal (friends and family plus guests) screenings. Most of the attendees gushed with praise. I was one of the few (perhaps only) people who insisted that it needed to lose 20 minutes of running time. The director and editor insisted that there were no trims or lifts that would work (despite some scenes that many felt were flabby, unnecessary, or confusing.) They knew there were "pacing issues" but didn't think the running time was a problem, or that the two were intrinsically linked. Anyway, it continued to be polished but never really got any shorter. It spent months of additional post production near the studio - which stepped in and ran two formal test screenings. The studio felt the film moved too slowly. The director and editor remained steadfast. The screenings settled the argument - scores were through the roof (like 91 and 93 or something insane.) What ultimately happened upon release? Critics thought it was too slow and it flopped at the box office. "Nobody knows anything." William Goldman Nerd Of Prey posted:The more I learn about film directing, the less I subscribe to auteur theory. Even on projects where I've had absolute creative control (because at my level, who even gives a gently caress) I constantly absorbed ideas from people I collaborated with. Somebody said earlier, "the director doesn't make the film, the crew makes the film," which is true. The producers, too, and the writers, and... it's a group effort. Being open to collaboration (which one must be in order to succeed in filmmaking as an endeavor and as a business) does not preclude one from putting a visionary, unique, or otherwise personal stamp on the project. And I am going to disagree and say that good directors are always in charge. When they aren't, you get movies that could have been made by anyone, i.e. the well-oiled Hollywood machine. Of course, many perfectly enjoyable, middle of the road films do get made this way. Five Cent Deposit fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Dec 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2010 19:47
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:My wife just recently spent a year of her life working on a mid-sized (30 mill) movie from a smaller studio. In other words, a huge project for the studio involved, not least because it had a couple of A-list, Oscar winning contributors above the line. The film had a longer than usual director's cut period (say 16 weeks or so vs. 10 weeks or so,) far away from the prying eyes of the executives. During this time they had a couple of informal (friends and family plus guests) screenings. Most of the attendees gushed with praise. I was one of the few (perhaps only) people who insisted that it needed to lose 20 minutes of running time. The director and editor insisted that there were no trims or lifts that would work (despite some scenes that many felt were flabby, unnecessary, or confusing.) They knew there were "pacing issues" but didn't think the running time was a problem, or that the two were intrinsically linked. Anyway, it continued to be polished but never really got any shorter. It spent months of additional post production near the studio - which stepped in and ran two formal test screenings. The studio felt the film moved too slowly. The director and editor remained steadfast. The screenings settled the argument - scores were through the roof (like 91 and 93 or something insane.) What ultimately happened upon release? Critics thought it was too slow and it flopped at the box office. God that's a familiar story. We work a lot with established "auteur" final cut directors, and even when they don't have final cut the producer I work for is very director-friendly, so never exercises his final cut rights. We've made too many films that needed 10-20 minutes cut from them but where the director didn't see it, despite repeated prompting and pleading from the producer. Because of this, I am no longer sure I believe in directors getting final cut, except in certain exceptional cases (e.g., Cronenberg, Bertolucci). Most are too deep in the film, and too self-indulgent and egotistical to believe that their meisterwerk could do with changes. Small addition: sometimes test scores are used to determine whether someone (like a director) keeps their final cut or not. Five Cent Deposit posted:Being open to collaboration (which one must be in order to succeed in filmmaking as an endeavor and as a business) does not preclude one from putting a visionary, unique, or otherwise personal stamp on the project. And I am going to disagree and say that good directors are always in charge. When they aren't, you get movies that could have been made by anyone, i.e. the well-oiled Hollywood machine. Of course, many perfectly enjoyable, middle of the road films do get made this way. The way I see it is, the heads of department and to a degree the actors get direction of where to go and what to do from the director, and then they do their thing - and they do what the director cannot, because they are specialists and it is what they do (the director probably cannot design better costumes than the costume designer, etc). They then create, and bring their work to the director, who either accepts or requests/demands alterations until it matches what he/she wants - which is highly collaborative. So, you have a lot of creative people doing their thing, but in service of the director's overarching vision: the director is the one who ultimately makes the decision as to whether other people's creative output is right or not. Which is another way of saying that I agree with you! therattle fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Dec 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
How much involvement does the director or producer have in choosing their actors? I'm assuming for the main characters, you get to choose who you want. Do the executives ever force certain actors on you? Because of contracts or whatever? What about secondary characters that might only have a scene or two? Do you just leave it up to the casting director?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2010 20:53
|
|
|
Lostleaf- it is entirely dependent on the director's established reputation and skill. Young, unproven directors are usually forced to work with actors they did not choose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2010 21:12
|
|
|
lostleaf posted:How much involvement does the director or producer have in choosing their actors? I'm assuming for the main characters, you get to choose who you want. Do the executives ever force certain actors on you? Because of contracts or whatever? What about secondary characters that might only have a scene or two? Do you just leave it up to the casting director? I've heard from a lot of directors (through various means) that they are forced to put in a proven Hollywood "star" as their main actor/actress. One of my favorite examples is The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. The director wanted an all Asian cast since, you know, it takes place in Japan. But the studio wanted Whitey to be all up in that bitch. So Justin Lin casted a very bland "American" actor in a very bland staring role and made the much more interesting/intriguing role the side character, Han (played by Sung Kang). Sung Kang was in Justin Lin's first movie Better Luck Tomorrow, which is an awesome movie that more people need to see. Kang's character in that movie was also named Han. I love this story since its kind of like a middle-finger to the studios for forced casting and race-bending. And for note Tokyo Drift is a decent car-exploitation flick, nothing more and nothing less. Better Luck Tomorrow is an amazing indie-film that deals with coming-of-age in a suburban high school with an all Asian starring cast that defies stereotypes and has style to spare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 01:08
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Being open to collaboration (which one must be in order to succeed in filmmaking as an endeavor and as a business) does not preclude one from putting a visionary, unique, or otherwise personal stamp on the project. And I am going to disagree and say that good directors are always in charge. When they aren't, you get movies that could have been made by anyone, i.e. the well-oiled Hollywood machine. Of course, many perfectly enjoyable, middle of the road films do get made this way. I realized it kinda came out wrong, I meant more that "being in charge" is an extremely simplistic way of describing it and doesn't account for the collaborative aspect. There's a big difference between having a clear idea of what you want and lording over everybody and treating them like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
G.Rainmaker posted:Sung Kang was in Justin Lin's first movie Better Luck Tomorrow, which is an awesome movie that more people need to see. Kang's character in that movie was also named Han. Not to be a sperg, but BLT was not Justin Lin's first movie. A little film called "Shopping for Fangs" was, and it's pretty terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 05:29
|
|
|
There are few better feelings than coming home from 3 straight days of intense gripping/gaffing and plopping down on the couch. My body is not happy with me. Also standing out in 20 degree weather for almost an hour holding a silk and an HMI(really bright light) because the wind is so intense and the schedule is really tight and telling the director and AD "dont worry about me, Im cool" gets you pampering. Working on small shoots is so nice. I feel like if you are in a situation that would otherwise be miserable in every possible way but because you are doing it for a movie makes it worth it means you should give production a shot. Oh and knowing how to pack a van neatly and organized will make the DP and AD love you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 05:48
|
|
|
lostleaf posted:How much involvement does the director or producer have in choosing their actors? I'm assuming for the main characters, you get to choose who you want. Do the executives ever force certain actors on you? Because of contracts or whatever? What about secondary characters that might only have a scene or two? Do you just leave it up to the casting director? Casting is a simple process that's made entirely way too complicated for anybody's good. You have agents, scheduling, money and a bazillion other factors that come into play and what seems like it should be easy - like dating a girl, becomes incredibly difficult - like dating a girl with issues. Five Cent Deposit posted:Lostleaf- it is entirely dependent on the director's established reputation and skill. Young, unproven directors are usually forced to work with actors they did not choose. That's not exactly true - like anything it's a collaboration and part of it is who is willing to collaborate with you. Rian Johnson was young and completely unproven, but he still managed to get Joe Levitt for his film. G.Rainmaker posted:I've heard from a lot of directors (through various means) that they are forced to put in a proven Hollywood "star" as their main actor/actress. One of my favorite examples is The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. The director wanted an all Asian cast since, you know, it takes place in Japan. But the studio wanted Whitey to be all up in that bitch. So Justin Lin casted a very bland "American" actor in a very bland staring role and made the much more interesting/intriguing role the side character, Han (played by Sung Kang). The big difference is that for Tokyo Drift - Lin was on the hook for something like 135 Million Dollars, for BLT he's on the hook for a substantially less amount of money. When less is on the line you can take more risks. I'm not sure how legit the story is, it's kinda one of those weird stories where a director is both omnipotent and anemic at the same time. That said, I can't blame the studio if that story is true - American audiences don't go to movies that are lead by Asian-Americans, neither do foreign audiences. With that much money, it'd be ridiculous to not go with a whitey. BESIDES THAT, starting with a white lead in the US connects it to the rest of the franchise besides the cameo at the end, AND, the first scene where they race through the construction site is hands down the best thing that Justin Lin has ever done. It's incredible. The rest of the film is pretty boring, but that scene, oh my god. Incredible. VoodooXT posted:Not to be a sperg, but BLT was not Justin Lin's first movie. A little film called "Shopping for Fangs" was, and it's pretty terrible. Ugh. Next thing you'll be telling us that precious wasn't Lee Daniels' first film. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 09:46
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Ugh. Next thing you'll be telling us that precious wasn't Lee Daniels' first film. Well, I'm sorry. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 11:17
|
|
|
lostleaf posted:How much involvement does the director or producer have in choosing their actors? I'm assuming for the main characters, you get to choose who you want. Do the executives ever force certain actors on you? Because of contracts or whatever? What about secondary characters that might only have a scene or two? Do you just leave it up to the casting director? It's give and take. In my experience directors (even top-end, A-list final-cut directors) usually have a wish list, and the producer works with them to identify which one of those actors works from a marketing/financing perspective (which directors usually heed, because, hey, they want their film to get made), budget, and scheduling. Directors usually select supporting cast with the casting director; casting makes suggestions, director ultimately approves. Lead cast is usually jointly decided by director and producer. In the indie world cast is very rarely imposed on a director; but a director who doesn't listen to what the market is saying is a fool, because their film won't get made, or won't get seen. Making a film for "the art" sounds all well and good, but it's masturbatory, self-indulgent, and if no-one goes to see it because it's only got no-name actors, ultimately pointless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 11:53
|
|
|
Regarding casting, when I worked on a film mag I heard a great story about some freelancer who asked Ridley Scott (I think at a Black Hawk Down junket) in all seriousness how much, as a director, he was involved in the casting process. Scott's incredibly sarcastic reply was words to the effect of "Do you know a single thing about what a director does?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 13:26
|
|
|
therattle posted:Making a film for "the art" sounds all well and good, but it's masturbatory, self-indulgent, and if no-one goes to see it because it's only got no-name actors, ultimately pointless. I wish I could burn this into every film students brain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 19:14
|
|
|
I've got a question, probably for therattle or NE: How common is it for filmmakers (screenwriters, directors, outside producers, etc.) to include financial/budget/marketing research data on their initial pitch, be that a sit down meeting, a submitted script, or a, for lack of a better term, prospectus? At any stage of the production (when it is simply a script and a sell, or even when it is a full filmmaking unit looking for additional financing). Also, how detailed or specific is that information. Most importantly, how much does it help, and what sort of information would you, or people you know, want to have included when first encountering a project?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:
Small, 100% independent movie. The budget was like a half million dollars. Throw the rules out the window. Here's a quote from wikipedia: quote:"Johnson wrote the first draft of Brick in 1997 after graduating from USC School of Cinematic Arts a year earlier. He spent the next seven years pitching his script but none of the Hollywood studios or production companies were interested because the material was too unusual to make with a first-time director. Johnson estimated the minimal amount of money for which he could make the film, and asked friends and family for backing. His family were in the construction industry, and came into a significant amount of money which they devoted to the project, thereby encouraging others to contribute funds. After Johnson had acquired about $450,000 for the film's budget] Brick finally began production in 2003." Because he had no established cred, and the script was weird, he couldn't even get the film made. There were no producers or executives to force certain casting choices on him. If a studio had agreed to finance the picture, and by some miracle had allowed him to direct, they would have budgeted it at something more like 10 million, perhaps double that, and I can guarantee you they would have made the casting choices for him. Because for an offbeat project like that they'd have to have certain stars who were already championing the material, pleading to do it, and they'd have to believe that they'd be able to market the film based on those known entities. A film like Brick stands no chance at the box office unless you have name recognition. Even with rave reviews it still only did about 2 million dollars worth of business. I've never been able to finish Brick - I didn't really like it. But I understand that the consensus is that Gordon-Levitt did a good job. Still, getting him to do the role can't possibly be seen as any kind of coup, based on his own level of established stardom (virtually nil.) What I mean is, if Rian Johnson had cast someone equally great, or even better for the role, but that person was an unknown prior to Brick... it would have been just as successful a choice! Waving around JGL like a victory flag is silly. Nobody is claiming that "getting" John Hawkes for Winter's Bone is any kind of special accomplishment, because to 50% of America he's a new face, to 35% he's "Oh, hey it's that guy, what do I know him from?" and to the remaining 15% he's "Oh, hey it's that guy who was on that western show on HBO, yeah, I saw that a couple of times, it was pretty okay. Don't remember if he was one of the good guys or not." Joseph Gordon-Levitt was recognized as "that kid from that sitcom" if he was recognized at all. Brick was as almost much a breakout for him as it was for Rian Johnson. He happens to be very talented, and making great career choices, which is why he's stuck around past the normal sell-by date for child actors. But he didn't do anything between 3rd Rock and Brick that anyone gave a poo poo about - Mysterious Skin doesn't count because nobody saw it except for nerds on the internet - and presumably lots of them saw it after they'd seen Brick. Things are different when you have friends and family putting up half a million bucks for your film. There are student films at USC that cost that much. On that scale there are basically no strings attached.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Things are different when you have friends and family putting up half a million bucks for your film. There are student films at USC that cost that much. On that scale there are basically no strings attached. ??? Do you mean there are films made by students at USC, but not made within the program, that cost that much (perhaps even used to get credit in the grad programs)? Because unless it has changed dramatically, there sure as hell were not $500k student films at USC when I was there. You would have to be stupid to put that sort of money up on a student film because USC owns all the rights to student films (unlike, for instance, Chapman and some other schools). I suppose it might happen every once in a while if you had a truly wealthy student who didn't care and put up all the money, but nobody is going to invest in a film that it is almost impossible to see returns from, even just break even returns. Like I said, maybe USC has recently relaxed the rules, but there is a huge difference between someone in the Stark production program working on a $500k film while in school versus making a student film for $500k.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 21:00
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Small, 100% independent movie. The budget was like a half million dollars. Throw the rules out the window. Again - you're working on the false paradigm - Supposing Brick was set up at Warner Brothers, his casting decisions wouldn't be made "for" him. It's a collaborative process and it takes a lot of skill to navigate the process. At the time Levitt was an up and coming guy who was on a ton of indie short lists, especially after Mysterious Skin. Johnson managed to get through the agent, the manager, and Levitt's reservations about working with a guy with little-to-no experience. That's what I meant. The actor has to sign on, too. And at half a million, the paycheck is not that much. He could've gone elsewhere (though it was smart not to). And even on a small independent film the goal is essentially the same - make the best movie you can, and to try to make some sort of profit. On a $1M budget you have to cast somebody who's going to theoretically bring in $1M or close to it of business. Like it was said above making art is pointless if nobody will be exposed to it. Johnson wanted Levitt from the get-go and at that budget Levitt is a great choice because he can justify the returns. Producers aren't evil people who are looking to destroy a director's vision. Often they will have objections about actors and let them slide to support their directors. But they do have to protect the investors - you can't have a $250M film with William Fichtner as your lead - he just doesn't bring in the business to justify the decision. But at $5M, you certainly can. This protects the director as well - if a director makes a movie that loses money they are held accountable... usually. Wayne Kramer made the brilliant Running Scared in 2006. It didn't make money. He didn't get to make another movie for three years because of this, and when he did it was smaller.  has gotten to where he is because with the exception of Insomnia, which he took a time out for, his movies have made money.Voodoofly posted:I've got a question, probably for therattle or NE: It happens. It depends on how business savvy the person is or how delusional. Sadly most of the time the delusional are better about preparing a completely unrealistic business prospectus that uses the grosses of Paranormal Activity and Juno to prove that their romantic thriller that has no clear main character will make roughly $800M - Just in the US! This is a can't miss! What helps is when writers/directors come in with reasonable expectations - IE this is a teens-in-the-woods movie if we release it in October we can reasonably make $20M or something (made up figures don't write your prospectus based on that!). Something like that. A writer/director is not required to be able to make big risk management projections into the future - but it helps when they have an understanding of what kinds of movies are selling, what the recent BO figures are like, what distros are picking up films for these days and write to it - IE a film that you could make for as little as $5M instead of a movie that takes places on 4 continents. When Producers are involved, then it's much more business oriented. The biggest thing to remember is that investors are not you and me. They're not people who just love movies and can't get enough of them (well, some are). They're people who want exactly what their name says they do - an investment. Now, they think it's going to be really fun to see a real set and maybe meet Ryan Gosling or something and that part is fun. But, how much is that worth? You can come to Hollywood, take a tourist tour and if you go to the right bar you can bump into God-knows-who. So you have to be able to give them a good idea that someway, somehow, they're going to get their money back at the very least. They want information and a lot of it. edit: Voodoofly posted:??? He's not far off- I've seen NYU and AFI films that seemed like they were in that range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 21:31
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:??? I'm talking about students with wealthy parents. It's just poo poo I've heard from friends - "Oh, this guy I went to school with, he was a clueless hack. His student films were terrible but his parents were insanely rich and just floated him outrageous amounts of cash to make them." Forgive me for perpetuating gossip. I obviously have no idea if it's really ever happened (to the tune of $500,000) but I hear about it from time to time, always from different people and about different people. So there has to be a kernel of truth in it. The point I was trying to make is that many independent films may as well be student films for exactly the reason you stated- the money isn't "put up as an investment" because there is absolutely no hope of ever seeing a return. Perhaps it's because I am from New York - things may be different elsewhere - but the majority of independent films strike me as vanity projects, or, more hopefully, calling cards for the talent involved. 95% will never make any money back, yet people still fund them. Those people know that they won't see a return. Which is, to belabor the point, the crux of the argument I was making - namely, that as soon as any serious investment is made by people who do expect to see a return, you absolutely have to answer to them and they absolutely will flex every ounce of muscle they have in order to protect the investment. It is damned near impossible to secure a million dollars or more from investor-producers without concessions to their demands. It really is that simple - you don't get to make the movie unless they sign off on your "choices," which may really be their "suggestions." You may not even get a meeting with an investor-producer unless you've already schmoozed the poo poo out of someone like James Franco and begged him to consider doing your movie for a pittance and he has "expressed interest." And you may be schmoozing the poo poo out of James Franco NOT because he's your perfect choice for the role - but because you met him at a party through a mutual acquaintance and he is literally the only person with any "name recognition" whom you've ever had a chance to do more than gawk at. (Yes, I know a married couple who have been making independent films for years and are trying to get a handshake from James Franco so that some loving sleazebag investor will put up 5 million to "Executive Produce" their film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
NE: thanks. I come from the investment side on these deals, usually from large studios or serious institutional investors, so I get a jaded view. But I have a couple friends pitching a project right now to some small distributors and I'm trying to help them come up with the best approach and convince them what sort of financials, if at all, they should include, and whether to put it up front or to start with the project itself then get to the financials after. Five cent: I'm not trying to disagree with you, and there are rich bastards who just float their money to finish a project (I saw it WAY more often in the music production side). But at the same time most of the students, once they are in the grad level programs, are learning how to make movies, and not just how to make art in movie form. Their student films are often budgeted and must be based on realistic investment (the Stark program at USC, for example, works closely with the Marshall Business School). Furthermore, the projects they work for that are not student films are very much financed. Sure, it might be financing from alumni or friends or other people who might not "realistically" expect to see a profit, but they view them as realistic investments where at least the ability to break even is a very significant concern. Even if you are pitching your rich uncle, most decent filmmakers will pitch them on why the investment will hopefully get their money back, if for nothing else than they can invest in the next project right after! The smaller film investors I've met and worked with are not stupid, and treat it sort of like any other venture capital or angel investment: you hope to break even, you know that more will fail than succeed, but the success usually pays back tenfold and makes up for the difference. They often also have a passion/belief in the project and get satisfaction when they are able to get something created they believe in. They understand risk, but they aren't simply altruistic art lovers - if they don't make money on the investment portfolio, they won't be able to continue funding films and growing the artfotm. There are also the idiots who just want to party and bang actresses and consider it the price to play, but those people are their own story and I've tried to avoid them as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 21:50
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Again - you're working on the false paradigm - Supposing Brick was set up at Warner Brothers, his casting decisions wouldn't be made "for" him. It's a collaborative process and it takes a lot of skill to navigate the process. At the time Levitt was an up and coming guy who was on a ton of indie short lists, especially after Mysterious Skin. Johnson managed to get through the agent, the manager, and Levitt's reservations about working with a guy with little-to-no experience. That's what I meant. The actor has to sign on, too. And at half a million, the paycheck is not that much. He could've gone elsewhere (though it was smart not to). I completely agree with you, and I don't know what false paradigm I'm working on. Had Brick been made at Warners, it would have been made for a LOT more than 500k. It would have been made for millions, and I don't know that they would have allowed JGL to play the lead. They would probably have offered Rian a ton more choices - because they'd open the doors for him to talk to lots of actors that would otherwise be unreachable to him. Yes, the decision making process would be collaborative, but I'm drawing on every experience I can think of, for both myself and my colleagues, when I say that I believe unequivocally that some of those choices, while not made "for" the director, would be made under the threat of sinking the ship. If JGL was truly Rian Johnson's first choice to play the lead, and the studio execs stepped in and said "We will absolutely not let you make the movie with JGL in the lead" (not a stretch by any means) then they aren't letting him have the kind of autonomous control that he'd have otherwise. Anyway, I don't think we're in disagreement at all - no the contrary I am glad we're having this discussion because I am sure it's illuminating for the person who originally asked the question!  I agree that many (most? dunno, haha) producers aren't evil. Within the studio system they are largely cool people who want to make cool movies and just want to help. And it's all about getting the movies to an audience, as you have rightly pointed out! The worst I can accuse most studio types of is that they all want to have contributed "the note that saved the movie." I think many are frustrated artists, haha, and just want to be seen as having made some creative contribution. Everything is collaborative in filmmaking, yes, and that means you've got egos to massage to ensure that everyone can see their own fingerprints on the final product. Outside the studio system, the majority of producers are colossal fuckheads. (Again, may be my NYC bias?!) It's funny, one of my earlier anecdotes is somewhat relevant. I mentioned a film I worked on that was shelved for years. One of the main reasons is that during post production, in 2007, (after casting choices had been made, duh) one of our leads was announced as the choice to play the lead role in a HUGE A-list summer blockbuster. He was a relative unknown. So naturally, our stock shot way, waaaayyy up. Our lead guy has just been given the role of a lifetime in what is guaranteed to be a huge hit, spawning sequels for years to come! How can this not benefit our little movie? I'll tell you how. The project he was announced to star in wouldn't come out until 2009 - and Middle America doesn't read the trades so they still didn't know who he was. His big star-making turn wouldn't make him a household face until 2009. So our movie was shelved with the idea being that it could come out after the blockbuster and ride the coattails of its success. Ultimately, the plan backfired for lots of reasons. The film was recut into something thoroughly mediocre and dumped. Nobody saw it. Anyone can see how this would be tremendously damaging to the young filmmakers' careers. Instead of launching them, it probably killed their hopes of ever having another shot in Hollywood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2010 21:59
|
|
|
You were the guy who worked on Carriers, right? That was a shame. Sounded like it could have been much better with the original ending.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 01:04
|
|
|
I actually really enjoyed Carriers and thought it was a pretty good movie for what it's worth. Another question, what's the compensation from netflix for DVD or bluray? I don't mean on demand stuff. Do you get royalty with each dvd rental or is it a one time payment from netflix or does it just get counted as dvd sales?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 09:05
|
|
|
lostleaf posted:I actually really enjoyed Carriers and thought it was a pretty good movie for what it's worth. Rental houses used to buy copies at insane prices for the right to rent out at will. I was told they just buy at wholesale now and you get a revenue split proportional to your share of rentals business. But the deals are always evolving and largely case by case for each distributor. Not sure about streaming at all, but would guess it is royalty based.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 09:23
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:NE: thanks. I come from the investment side on these deals, usually from large studios or serious institutional investors, so I get a jaded view. Hey, Voodoo. I know that when we receive packages for international distribution, they sometimes include comparable films, with their BO, performance, etc - which we ignore. It's our job to review the known elements: screenplay, director, cast, budget - and based on those, WE have to make the determination as to the international value. Example: X film comes in. We like the elements but the budget is $12m. There is nothing in the budget that necessitates that budget level - it could be made for $6-8m (it helps that we have a sister company which does production, and people, like me, spanning both, who have a basic idea of production and financing too). Furthermore, given the elements, it is unlikely that a French distributor would pay more than, say $4-500k - and that when the various territories are aggregated, that we'd be able to sell the film for more than, say, $6m worldwide. A producer's comparison to a hit film which made $100m at US box office is meaningless. Chances are, your film won't be a hit like that - those hits are freaks. Suggesting that your film will be that hit is wishful thinking, and makes you look naive, IMO. If you are dealing with sophisticated people, and you should be, then they'll be able to assess value themselves. The only prediction of any worth are sales estimates from a reputable sales agent; and even those often bear little resemblance to reality. The only reason I would include things is if I was pitching to unsophisticated investors and you were trying to let them know what type of film this was: is it like Splice, or is it like Away From Her?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 12:03
|
|
|
Here's a kinda off-topic question: Is being part of the crew of a television show much different from being part of the crew of a film? Do things work differently? I'm currently a film student learning the tricks of the trade, and I was recently approached about joining a tv show crew (some sitcom) as a camera operator. It seems pretty congruous to operating a camera for a movie, and sounds like a great opportunity for experience I can show down the road, but maybe it's not?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 00:41
|
|
|
MadDuck posted:Here's a kinda off-topic question: Depends on the program. If it's a three-camera studio sitcom, or Larry King or whatever then it's not really the same thing. But if it's a single-cam show that shoots on a EX-3 or whatever, then it's pretty close.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
MadDuck posted:Here's a kinda off-topic question: TV generally has a far tighter deadline, especially if it's a sitcom. Most sitcoms generally have their camera moves set down to a formula with very little variation in order to maximise the speed of shooting. In some cases if it's a multicam shoot you will be under direction over the comms working to blocked out positions and camera angles. That being said this is a different beast than working on a film set where there's the luxury of time to plan for shots in pre and then refine them through takes. You will be shooting fast and dirty and knowing how to operate a camera with speed and efficiency is the key as you'll be adjusting for the next take as soon as you get the call that camera two is live. There's almost no room for discussion or even attempts for fancy shots as either that crimps the show's style or requires fancy setups that time or money doesn't allow. It is a pressure cooker environment so be prepared to be suddenly shouted at to get into position. Though if you're into intense shouting matches work for sports television in an OB van.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 01:00
|
|
