How much to do these two scenes?

Aspiring Mogul said:
What's wrong with doing it this cheapo way?
Click to expand...
Nothing. That's the way you should do it.

One crew. Two actors. One bedsheet. A couple of lights.
Less than an hour of work. Less than $50.

I see I wasted your time. trueindie had your answer a month
ago. That's what you want to do and it looks terrific. I apologize.
 
Now who's getting defensive???

I'm asking to learn, because I've never done this. So, in terms of quality, what's the difference???? I can't see it.


And the other scene, the eating one, is also important. There are several such scenes, and they will reveal certain things. The eating scenes were discussed in this previous thread, which I've read many times over. It will have four actors.
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
Now who's getting defensive???
Click to expand...
Not me. I see where you're going with this now but I went
in a different direction. My method of recreating that ST:TNG
scene with all the coverage and camera moves is not what
you want to do. I apologized. I did not get defensive.

Aspiring Mogul said:
I'm asking to learn, because I've never done this. So, in terms of quality, what's the difference???? I can't see it.
Click to expand...
In terms of quality there is almost no difference. The cheepo
method is what's best for you. My method is overkill. trueindie
got exactly the look you want for $50. That's the way to go.

I apologize for sounding defensive. That was not my intent.
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
If there's no difference, then why not go the cheapo way? Isn't that the obvious answer?
Click to expand...

It would be the obvious answer, if of course there is in reality no difference. The question this raises is; are you really saying that you can't tell any difference? Did you not notice the dramatic impact of ST:TNG? The timing/pacing, editing, reactions, etc. Did you not notice how the bespoke music emphasised the drama or how the dialogue sounded/felt both intimate and as if it were in some huge non-space?

I'm not knocking what trueindie has created. It's fine for an internet vlog type production, in fact it's better than "fine" for the budget. However, as I understand it you are not aiming to create good vlog type productions for $50, you are aiming to create narrative dramas which are so engrossing/absorbing that they attract very large audiences, make a great deal of money and help you to become a "Mogul"? You're going to have to start looking in more detail at the art of filmmaking and not only noticing/recognising the differences mentioned above but learn how to create and employ them (and other filmmaking techniques) to make engrossing/absorbing content and of course achieving all this within an appropriately identified budget.

As a practise exercise, by all means start off with the "cheapo way", you will learn something from the experience. You're rapidly going to have to progress to the next step though and that will entail something much more along the lines of what Directorik was describing.

G
 
Do it the cheapest way possible.
See how it looks and sounds.
If you're happy with it, great.
If not, take it up a notch the next time, and see how you like that.
One step at a time.
 
@Aspiring Mogul.

My sympathies are with you. As this is my approach also. As long as my "friends and family members" cannot tell the difference visually, I don't want to spend any more "time" or "money" making anything look prettier, at this stage of my film life.

So in terms of a total experience, the ST scene is obviously better than mine, as there is movement for dramatic moments and lots of different angles and everything. Even visually, there is actually a difference. (And let's just not even talk about sound). But my test is, if you take a frame from mine and from ST, and show both to "my friends and family," I doubt very much any one of them will be able to tell which one is worth what. So, like I said, my sympathies are with you.

Now. Here's another important point I want to make to you. While I think this is a great attitude, and while I believe that it is utter foolishness to spend a fortune on a visual scene in a movie about a story that may not even be that great, (and this is what every dp will try to force you to do, spend more "time" and "money"), don't go overboard all the way to the other side either. Like mlesemann said, just do your scenes, and slowly raise your standards, one short at a time, until your "friends and family" can't tell the difference visually. Most people are not filmmakers. They don't want to analyze our films. They want to be entertained. They don't have time to think about the shadow play next to the nose of somebody. They're thinking about where they're gong to take their 5 year old to the piano class this coming weekend or some other thing.

At this stage of my career, I'm not trying to win any medals, nor do I think I deserve any. I'm just trying to make my audience think they're watching a $2mm movie, not $500mm Superman or Spiderman.


But yes. Your attitude is perfect, in my opinion. The moment you stop trying to impress other filmmakers, half the battle is won.

Cheers
 
For a 30 second scene involving two actors against a white backdrop
the cheap way is the best way. You won't learn much about the process
of shooting a web series but you will get a completed scene. Not from
a "Mogul's" point of view.

trueindie has pointed out the flaws in his piece - no camera movement,
poor audio, inconsistent lighting. But it looks good. (seriously, indie, it
does)No need for you to attempt more than that. Although you could
with a budget of $500 as I pointed out.

What I don't quite understand is why you are waiting a year to shoot
something this simple. You could shoot it after work in your living room
next week. Put up a white sheet against the wall, set up three lights,
point the camera and shoot. Less than one hour, $50 and you have your
scene. You could have this done before the end of November. I understand
holding off if you are attempting something more elaborate or if you are
going for top quality but you want "cheapo".

Are you coming out here for AFM this year? We can shoot this in my
living room in one hour when you're here. Buy me dinner as payment.
Might cost you more than $50....
 
mlesemann said:
Do it the cheapest way possible.
See how it looks and sounds.
If you're happy with it, great.
If not, take it up a notch the next time, and see how you like that.
One step at a time.
Click to expand...

I think I'll do it that way, Mieseman. Start simple and work my way up.

Thanks again, Trueindie, for your help. :)
 
You can get very good results in this style without a lot of work if you keep it simple and you've got someone who knows what they're doing. This is an example from a series of testimonials I did for a client a few years back - I did them solo without any additional crew, setup in much the way I described in my previous post. Typically I'd spend 30-45 minutes setting up the backdrop, camera, and lighting, and I used a lav since I didn't have a dedicated audio person. The backdrop was a 12'x12' sheet of muslin which I hung on the wall, so we had plenty of room if they had wanted wider/standing shots. I just shot these in one of the boardrooms at their office - it wasn't as quiet as a dedicated studio, but with the lav so close to the speaker's mouth background noise was rarely an issue.

Once you have the setup you can generate a lot of material quickly - I typically did 8-10 interviews over about a 3-4 hour period each time I did one of these shoots, and would end up with a solid 5+ minutes of good soundbites.

[QT]http://smldg.com/samples/Mike_Macintosh.mov[/QT]

Very similar setup can be used with a black backdrop as well for a different feel:

[QT]http://smldg.com/samples/Jerry_McClain.mov[/QT]
 
Last edited:
Aspiring Mogul said:
APE, I meant in terms of the quality of the white screen, not the dialogue.
Click to expand...

Except for this one sentence; "Did you not notice how the bespoke music emphasised the drama or how the dialogue sounded/felt both intimate and as if it were in some huge non-space?", I wasn't talking in terms of the dialogue or the sound either!

Maybe you'll get a little more out of my post if you read it again in terms of filmmaking, not in terms of sound/dialogue.

G
 
@APE

I don't think you're being fair APE. You want Aspiring Mogul to use bespoke music in his 30 second short, or are you just asking him to notice the difference?

If every filmmaker is going to compare everything we do to what is done by Roger Deakins or Spielberg, then we might as well sit at home and not do anything. It's one thing to analyze the difference, it's quite another to achieve the greatness. Aspiring Mogul will learn, just like I did. He will then come to terms with what is "acceptable," maybe not to professionals, but to the audience.

You may think that the audience will not care for this approach, but they do every day. They spend money watching independent films, that don't employ a composer, or a 10 man lighting team. The budget for my film is $25K. 96 pages. We shot 30 pages in two days. The shooting schedule is 11 days. It's impossible to be Deakins or Spielberg on these budgets.

I'm not trying to be contentious for no reason, but the standards you guys set, without displaying your own personal flairs to produce such standards at the budgets most of us are engaged in, is not helpful to the filmmaker, in my opinion.
 
trueindie said:
I don't think you're being fair APE. You want Aspiring Mogul to use bespoke music in his 30 second short, or are you just asking him to notice the difference?
Click to expand...

Ultimately he will need to use bespoke music, as a first step though, he just needs to notice the difference. I was not specifically talking just about bespoke music though, I was talking in terms of the planning, shooting and picture editing, which provided timing and opportunity for music to join in the story telling and that the entire combination greatly aided the dramatic impact.

trueindie said:
Aspiring Mogul will learn, just like I did. He will then come to terms with what is "acceptable," maybe not to professionals, but to the audience.
Click to expand...

You maybe need to look at what "professionals" are and why they exist. Ultimately, professionals exist because they produce work to a standard which audiences demand. Producing less than professional standards does not mean that there will be no audience, just that most (but not all) audiences would find it unacceptable.

trueindie said:
You may think that the audience will not care for this approach, but they do every day. They spend money watching independent films, that don't employ a composer, or a 10 man lighting team.
Click to expand...

As above; yes, there is an audience for lo/no budget films but it's a small audience relative to "professional" standard films and that audience is far less willing to pay very much to watch them.

trueindie said:
I'm not trying to be contentious for no reason, but the standards you guys set, without displaying your own personal flairs to produce such standards at the budgets most of us are engaged in, is not helpful to the filmmaker, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I haven't set the standards, the OP has. The OP chose the username "Aspiring Mogul" not "Amateur Filmmaker" or "Aspiring to Recoup My Budget" and has made clear in the past that he is serious about professional/commercial filmmaking. Baring this in mind, I don't think it's helpful to this filmmaker to advocate or advise aiming for un-professional standards, except possibly as a sort of first step exercise and providing he is aware that what he learns of this "cheapo route" will to a significant extent be wasted as far as his ultimate stated goal is concerned.

G
 
AudioPostExpert said:
Ultimately he will need to use bespoke music
Click to expand...
Not on his 30 second short though.

You maybe need to look at what "professionals" are and why they exist. Ultimately, professionals exist because they produce work to a standard which audiences demand. Producing less than professional standards does not mean that there will be no audience, just that most (but not all) audiences would find it unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Well that's exactly the point isn't it? You make a $500 million movie, you should go looking for a $500 million audience. If I make a $25,000 movie, what do I care about an audience beyond $25,000? The studios can keep the $500 million audience. And filmmakers are more than welcome to keep talking about them. I just want a $25,000 audience. Anything more is a bonus.


I haven't set the standards, the OP has. The OP chose the username "Aspiring Mogul" not "Amateur Filmmaker" or "Aspiring to Recoup My Budget" and has made clear in the past that he is serious about professional/commercial filmmaking. Baring this in mind, I don't think it's helpful to this filmmaker to advocate or advise aiming for un-professional standards, except possibly as a sort of first step exercise and providing he is aware that what he learns of this "cheapo route" will to a significant extent be wasted as far as his ultimate stated goal is concerned.

G
Click to expand...

Now you're just straying from the point, for god knows what reason. My handle might as well be "SpielbergWannabe" or "OliverStoneWannabe" because that's what I am in my head. So what does that mean? I have to start at Spielberg level? I can't start at the bottom? He wants to be a film Mogul, and everybody is taking potshots at his handle. What on earth does his handle have to do with the substance of filmmaking? Who the hell doesn't want to be a filmmaking Mogul?

Cheers
 
directorik said:
For a 30 second scene involving two actors against a white backdrop
the cheap way is the best way. You won't learn much about the process
of shooting a web series but you will get a completed scene. Not from
a "Mogul's" point of view.
Click to expand...

If cheap is the best way, then how can you say I won't get much from a mogul's point of view?

Not coming down till next year.
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
If cheap is the best way, then how can you say I won't get much from a mogul's point of view?
Click to expand...
Cheap ISN'T the best way. From a mogul's point of view - a mogul who
has never been on a set before - you will get less perspective and
understanding of how a scene like the one you posted is put together.
One person (your aspiring DP) setting up a white bedsheet, a couple
of lights and a camera and pressing record is cheap, but that's not the
way it will always be. It may be great experience for your aspiring DP
to learn a little about lighting but you are not doing this scene to help
an aspiring DP learn about lighting. What is best for you is to get a feel
of how a scene is put together. And as I pointed out doing it with a
small, experienced crew in a studio will only cost $460. Not considered
high budget by most people. But extreme;u valuable for an aspiring mogul.

Talking with a skilled DP about your questions regarding getting that
white background and watching him work would be valuable. Talking
with an experienced director about coverage and set ups and watching
him work would be valuable to an aspiring mogul. Watching a small but
experienced crew set lights and move them from set up to set and get
just the right amount of haze in the room would be valuable to an aspiring
mogul. None of that is going to happen with the method you are currently
considering.

You can shoot that 30 second scene on the cheap in your living room any
day after work - it will take 30 minutes tops. Excellent experience for a
total newbee DP or director - not so helpful for an aspiring mogul. At this
stage it isn't about the end product; it's about learning what it takes to
put together a cast and crew and a shoot day. You will learn none of that
with your current method. But you will end up with an end product that
looks okay.

Am I misunderstanding what you need to experience at this stage? Is it
all about getting the scene as cheap as you can get it? Or do you need
the experience of putting together a small shoot like the job of a mogul?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top