Budget Vs. Quality of Help

[GuerrillaAngel]

I had an interesting discussion with some studio actors about why Indie films are so bad.

Budget!

Ding! Wrong.

The reason indie films are bad is that the script didn't match the budget.

If you have little money, your script should reflect that.

In other words, don't write anything in your script that you don't have the money for.

Some people will say, well, that's the kind of movie I don't want to make. Well, guess what, you're broke, and if you try to make your dream film anyway and cut corners, well, it'll look like crap. Write a script that doesn't have corners.

Good luck.

 

[Alcove Audio]

As for rehearsal, some actors hold that it actually hurts a performance in film. And not every movie spends that much time on rehearsals. Not particularly sure if its true or not, because that just sounds ridiculous.

But here, again, Time is Money. Rehearsals come under the heading of preproduction - time (money that is not there) spent in preparation that cannot be wasted on set where many others are offering their time without compensation. On set there is no time to be wasted for the very reason that budgets are so extremely limited. The indie crew is working for free; wasting their time leads to disaffections; if their time is not of value, why should they place any value on the production? The "Hollywood" crew is being paid by the hour, with time and a half (or more) for overtime; their time is not wasted, their time goes into their bank account. You get a very limited amount of time with your locations, and often the gear is rented ("we can afford four weeks rental but not six") or borrowed ("I need it back by the 17th"). You only get a limited amount of time with your cast and crew; as much as they want to be full-time professionals at this point in their careers they still have to work real jobs to support themselves, and they still have a real life.

Rehearsals are more about character development than they are about getting the lines right, and getting the director and the cast - and the crew - on the same page. Table reads with the department heads also develops the look of the characters - hair & make-up, wardrobe and even lighting. Also consider that the best of the "Hollywood" actors expend large amounts of time prior to the shoot researching and developing the characters they portray, another luxury that indie productions do not have.

Go back to the Quality Triangle; on-set time has to be good and fast, so you expend the time prior to the shoot to avoid miscommunications. Low/no/mini/micro budget filmmaking has to be treated more like a live stage production; rehearsals and technical prep before the performance (the actual shoot).

Preproduction, preproduction, preproduction, preproduction, preproduction!!!!!!! That's what makes for a successful low/no/mini/micro budget production.

 

[2001 Productions]

Studios pay actors millions because they want the best in the business.

Uh, no. They pay actors millions of dollars because their names put asses in seats.

Billy Wilder was once asked why he kept hiring Marilyn Monroe when she was so notoriously difficult to work with. He replied that his Aunt Minnie would be more punctual and prepared, but who'd pay to see her?

 

[mus]

which is problematic in representing the filmmaking industry. Many people say "We should go see this actor's movie, since his last movie was so good!"

??? Where is the logic in that? He didn't have any involvement in the creative process as far as you know. I understand if it's a comedian, who would get plenty of creative control, or a big star that owns a production company, but just an actor? Come on, now..

 

[Alcove Audio]

??? Where is the logic in that?

Logic? What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with "logic," Hollywood is all about making money.

 

[mus]

did you read the sentence before that? this question pertains to dumb people who go see movies just cuz of the actor

 

[Phil_UK]

I have yet to have crew or cast abandon a project of mine in the midst of production. It's not about the money you pay them. If someone is really passionate about a project, it's not the money aspect that will keep them interested and involved. Yes, it does help sometimes, but what I am trying to say is, that I see more people who work on corporates with a shitty attitude even tho they are paid a ton of money, than unpaid crew and cast who work on a really promising film with all they have got.

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

Well, I will continue to agree with the people I had the discussion with because they have more insight of the people I had to work with.

I will also continue to look for a business partner to help with the planning and budgeting.

 

[directorik]

did you read the sentence before that? this question pertains to dumb people who go see movies just cuz of the actor

Perhaps, just perhaps, people who go see a movie just cuz of the actor are not
dumb. I go see any movie with Viggo Mortensen. Dumb to do that? Fine, I'm
dumb. I go see any movie with Nick Nolte. Dumb to do that? Fine, I'm dumb.
I go see any movie with Judi Dench. Dumb to do that? Fine, I'm dumb. I go
see any movie with Ellen Page. Dumb to do that? Fine, I'm dumb. I don't
make my decision based on logic or on the creative control they have over their
movies or their production company. Just maybe I'm not dumb for doing that.
Maybe.

2001's point was that people do it. Your point that there is no logic in that choice
is meaningless. It is a fact that studios pay actors millions because they draw an
audience not because they want the best in the business. Robert Pattinson was
the number ten highest paid actor in 2012. That was because he is one of the
best in the business? I really like Dwayne Johnson (he was number 4) but is he
really the best in the business? Cruse was number 1 - so according to MDM he
must be the best actor in the business.

Studios pay those actors the millions they pay them because people pay to see
their movies.

 

[directorik]

Well, I will continue to agree with the people I had the discussion with because they have more insight of the people I had to work with.

I've said it before and it falls on deaf ears. I agree with Nick and Phil. You have
so many problems with the people you work with, Nick, Phil, me and others
have never had the problems you have had. I’ve been making indie film for
years. Never once have I had a problem with flakes. I have never had a
problem getting actors to rehearse. I have never had a problem with a DP
being a know it all who knows nothing. And I'm talking about project were
people were paid nothing or very, very little.

From all the problems I read that you face, Mike, I come to the same conclusion
that Nick does; the issue is you. You come off here on the boards as a generally
negative person who just knows that everyone you come into contact with
harbors you ill will. I suspect you come across that way in person, too. You listen
to people who agree with you and dismiss anyone who doesn't. I suspect that
also comes into play. Sometimes looking inward is a huge help while looking to
blame others doesn't solve problems.

 

[Jeff Troiano]

From all the problems I read that you face, Mike, I come to the same conclusion
that Nick does; the issue is you. You come off here on the boards as a generally
negative person who just knows that everyone you come into contact with
harbors you ill will. I suspect you come across that way in person, too. You listen
to people who agree with you and dismiss anyone who doesn't. I suspect that
also comes into play. Sometimes looking inward is a huge help while looking to
blame others doesn't solve problems.

I've worked in bars and night clubs for 20 years. I worked with a guy who couldn't go anyplace without getting into some sort of confrontation. Whether it was a fight, shoving match, or just plain shouting match. It was never his fault, to this day I've never been able to convince him otherwise.

One day he's telling a story about the night before, and he got into something at some place. I stopped him, looked him dead in the face, and said "you do realize that you're the cause of this, and every situation you've been in". He proceeded to tell me how it wasn't his fault. I stopped him again and repeated,what I said. Only this time I added, people go out every day and night, and they don't get into confrontation, yet you are constantly having these issues. What's the one constant in the equation? You!

I can't specificity comment on your issues with the people you work with, but if you continue having the issues you are having, at some point you have to take a look at yourself.

 

[mus]

Perhaps, just perhaps, people who go see a movie just cuz of the actor are not
dumb. I go see any movie with Viggo Mortensen. Dumb to do that? Fine, I'm
dumb. I go see any movie with Nick Nolte. Dumb to do that? Fine, I'm dumb.
I go see any movie with Judi Dench. Dumb to do that? Fine, I'm dumb. I go
see any movie with Ellen Page. Dumb to do that? Fine, I'm dumb. I don't
make my decision based on logic or on the creative control they have over their
movies or their production company. Just maybe I'm not dumb for doing that.
Maybe.

2001's point was that people do it. Your point that there is no logic in that choice
is meaningless. It is a fact that studios pay actors millions because they draw an
audience not because they want the best in the business. Robert Pattinson was
the number ten highest paid actor in 2012. That was because he is one of the
best in the business? I really like Dwayne Johnson (he was number 4) but is he
really the best in the business? Cruse was number 1 - so according to MDM he
must be the best actor in the business.

Studios pay those actors the millions they pay them because people pay to see
their movies.

If that's the ONLY reason you think their new movies would be good, then yeah, that's a dumb action. It doesn't mean you're dumb, but it isn't based on logic


I am aware of WHY these actors are paid ridiculous checks, I don't know where you got the idea that I didn't know that. My statement was around people who go see, say a Nicholas Cage movie because they liked his last one (the reverse of this is also true.)

If it were a sequel to a popular movie, then that is different, but a different plot, writer, director, production company?

If you like a certain writer/actor's movie, then it's fair to go see their next one based off of that..

Which of these sentences better suits a logical decision: "I loved South Park! I'm gonna pay to go see Team America!"

or

"I loved Terminator! I'm gonna go see End of Days!"

Need I explain what I was saying more?

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I had an interesting discussion with some studio actors about why Indie films are so bad... Budget!
There is a higher caliber of camera operators, DPs, and production designers in studio productions. Why? They are paid more...So, as hard as we try and think we can fix things in another production, the low caliber of help will keep us from shooting something like what is on the big screen ot even the small screen.

I take these statements to be so patently obvious that it's hardly worth discussing!

Due to the incredible amount of competition, by and large the film crafts are meritocracies. The best (most talented and experienced) personnel get to charge the most. As with pretty much every other area of human endeavour, although there might be some deals and variations, you essentially get what you pay for and as the saying goes, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. The only real exception to this is the acting profession where generally actors get paid for their ability to attract an audience more than for their acting skills.

Of course a big budget doesn't always result in a good film. Having no budget means you are going to have to severely compromise on the quality of personnel. For example, you may be lucky enough to find an extremely talented young DOP who doesn't yet have enough of a reputation to charge a professional rate. While this DOP may have talent, by definition they are inexperienced. Furthermore, while you might find the occasional really talented or experienced film craftsperson, the chances of filling every craft position with personnel both talented and experienced with little or no budget is next to zero. Every craft which is filled by someone less talented AND experienced is going to compromise the film to some extent. It's not impossible to make a very good film with little or no budget, just incredibly unlikely.

I object to the implication that I am dumb or illogical because I'll sometimes go to see a film based almost exclusively on the fact that it features say Gary Oldman. Not only can I be assured of some excellent acting and high production values but I also respect his choice of films in which to appear, even though they may be of different genres. While I don't feel Tom Cruise is a great actor, I can be usually be assured of an excellently crafted film and some high octane, exciting, light entertainment which sometimes is exactly what I'm after. while there is no guarantee that I'll enjoy a film, if an actor is charging millions, the film obviously has a budget of millions and one can therefore be reasonably confident of at least good production values, which in turn reduces the risk of wasting time and money going to the cinema and seeing a bad film.

Again, I am getting sick and tired of a few indietalkers employing bullying tactics by implying or calling me and others dumb, when in fact they are the dumb ones!!! I want to see the mods doing something to stop this behaviour before it ruins indietalk!

G