Discouraging web essay ("Don't make a film...")

[Joe999]

I came across this website today when googling for "what does a producer do"; anyhow, it is sure is discouraging -- spells it out that competition is so fierce for filmmaking that one's chances of making an indie film that gets seen let alone makes money is all but zero. I would be interested in thoughts or feedback on this article, how realistic or unrealistic are the essay author's thoughts, etc.
http://www.stillbreathing.com/onlocation/tenthings01.html

 

[Joe999]

I have great respect for filmmakers here--even if you make cheap horror films (just don't put them out for rental at blockbuster unless they at least have a story line, that is my gripe). I have only been critical of the two films (not filmmakers) I mentioned, that I gave links to at Blockbuster online; those two films got horrible, yes trashy, reviews by Blockbuster members, they got crappy star ratings. I have not taken any shots at any specific filmmaker members here at all. If someone reading my posts is a producer of those horror flicks I gave links to then I am sorry but your film sucked--get over it and make a better next film-- but I have no idea who made those two films and I am assuming it was nobody here. My point continues to be that if ultra low budget horrible quality horror flicks can make it to DVD rental then there is obviously a market for it.

As for why anybody should "bother to help me" here I guess that decision is up to each of you. I will discuss filmmaking here with anybody willing. Thus far I have not taken any cheap shots at anybody specifically that I am aware of, I have not trashed the hard work of any specific member of this forum. If you are taking it personally that is your problem. Maybe you made those films that got horrible reviews on blockbuster.com, I do not know, but geez don't have a cow over the bad reviews and take it out on me, I am just using those horrible films as examples of poor quality film that somehow made it to DVD rental, which continues to amaze me.

ps: I want the two hours of my life back I spent watching those two movies

You've been consistently and blatantly TRASHING the hard work of other filmmakers, filmmakers who've thus far accomplished considerably more than you have, and now you're offended by a so-called cheap shot? Why, at this point, should anyone bother to help you (especially answering such an elitist and condescending question), given how little respect you're willing to show your potentially fellow filmmakers?

 

[Joe999]

Exactly. And for what it is worth, those two crap arse horror film titles I gave links to are 2 out of 1000 good movies; I have seen many ultra low budget films that I liked, it is rare to see such bad material as the two titles I mentioned (but my point is how do such bad titles like those, rare as they are, make it to DVD rental).

Guys, which of us, hand on heart, can say we've never rented or bought a DVD and wondered "how the hell did this piece of s*&* ever get distribution"

Most certainly. I have much to learn. Right now I know that I do not know. I will post links to my material down the pike for an arse whooping of criticism from anybody here--break out the cat 'o nine tails (I will be filming a short in January).

Of course, until Joe makes a movie, he is bound to have no idea just how difficult it is to make any film, even a very, very bad one...

 

[Unknown Screenwriter]

No offense but...

I have great respect for filmmakers here--even if you make cheap horror films (just don't put them out for rental at blockbuster unless they at least have a story line, that is my gripe). I have only been critical of the two films (not filmmakers) I mentioned, that I gave links to at Blockbuster online; those two films got horrible, yes trashy, reviews by Blockbuster members, they got crappy star ratings. I have not taken any shots at any specific filmmaker members here at all. If someone reading my posts is a producer of those horror flicks I gave links to then I am sorry but your film sucked--get over it and make a better next film-- but I have no idea who made those two films and I am assuming it was nobody here. My point continues to be that if ultra low budget horrible quality horror flicks can make it to DVD rental then there is obviously a market for it.

As for why anybody should "bother to help me" here I guess that decision is up to each of you. I will discuss filmmaking here with anybody willing. Thus far I have not taken any cheap shots at anybody specifically that I am aware of, I have not trashed the hard work of any specific member of this forum. If you are taking it personally that is your problem. Maybe you made those films that got horrible reviews on blockbuster.com, I do not know, but geez don't have a cow over the bad reviews and take it out on me, I am just using those horrible films as examples of poor quality film that somehow made it to DVD rental, which continues to amaze me.

ps: I want the two hours of my life back I spent watching those two movies

The answer is right here in this thread... Except for a very small handful of filmmakers that I won't mention but reside in and around Los Angeles, just about every filmmaker I know always starts making their film with the intention of creating a quality product.

On the other hand... There are those filmmakers that I just mentioned that simply slap a crappy storyline together along with the tits and ass and proceed to exploit whatever genre market their current masterpiece happens to fall into.

Let's not talk about those filmmakers... They simply exist and probably always will.

Let's talk about the filmmakers who are constantly striving for improvement with their product... They're learning ON THE JOB so to speak and hell, if they can make break even or even go into the black, who are we to criticize? More power to them!

I think we all know that on the shelves of Blockbuster exist direct to video fare... Yes, as mentioned in a previous thread, there is a market for this product. And no... Many times the distributor has their own agenda when it comes to releasing one of these movies...

One of the biggest AGENDAS out there that I am aware of is riding on the coattails of an A-List film that's also coming out on DVD. Distributors always try to find films that they can "package" as "similar fare" so that when that A-List film you went to Blockbuster for is all rented out, you might go ahead and pick something similar. Something with a similar sounding title... Something with a similar DVD cover... You know the drill.

This is done literally EVERY MONTH! Distributors are always on the lookout for direct to video fare that they can exploit with a real blockbuster release in an effort to ride on somebody else's coattails. *NOTE: The distributor is responsible for this and not the filmmaker...

But getting back to direct to video filmmakers... There's quite a few out there that consider themselves masters of their genre... And that means the writing, the directing, editing, etc... Do these films hold up when compared to A-List product at the theaters?

Of course not... Yet sometimes these direct to video fare were made with the best intentions... It's just that the filmmaker had no idea where he or she stands when it comes to making these kinds of films or any film for that matter...

As a matter of fact... It's often just a matter of experience... i.e., 3, 5, 7, 10 films down the line, a much better product comes off the line.

To ask how these movies get picked up for distribution on the shelves of Blockbuster isn't too hard of a question... There's a market for these films. These filmmakers are in fact producing films to fill this market and yes, you never know when one of these films is going to go through the roof... What we can do however, is make this LESS of a lottery situation by tending to the script, casting, direction, etc... The more attention paid to these areas and the higher our chances go for coming out with a decent film.

And remember... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... Your garbage film is another person's CITIZEN KANE...

Seriously.

Just use all these films and information to create your very own baseline to start from when it comes to making YOUR FILM...

filmy

 

[knightly]

First of all, considering you may very well be one of these titles that someone bags on so dismissively, you may want to cool it a bit. There are undoubtedly going to be detractors of your work, even if it's good.

The Picture I linked to is infinately better than the feature I shot...it's finished. Seeing that annoyed me at first until I realized what was involved in making a feature and bringing it to market. It takes so much work that even movies that don't float your boat can be appreciated for the effort they took to produce.

 

[Beeblebrox]

Guys, which of us, hand on heart, can say we've never rented or bought a DVD and wondered "how the hell did this piece of s*&* ever get distribution"

I haven't, not since I've been making movies and have gained an appreciation and understanding of what it takes just to get a movie in the can, let alone on a store shelf. I'm not saying you have to like everything. Far from it. But I do think a modicum of respect for someone's achievement is in order, particularly from a wannabe in a forum of filmmakers.

 

[clive]

I haven't, not since I've been making movies and have gained an appreciation and understanding of what it takes just to get a movie in the can, let alone on a store shelf. I'm not saying you have to like everything. Far from it. But I do think a modicum of respect for someone's achievement is in order, particularly from a wannabe in a forum of filmmakers.

I know I'd be a better person if I felt like that... but in all honesty I don't. For me a bad film is just a bad film...

 

[Joe999]

I am sorry but I just can not respect a film for rental/sale that does not even earn 1 star out of a possible 5, as judged by the end viewers; I would not call that film an achievement--perhaps in the busine$$ sense but not in the artistic sense. Just because someone can make a movie does not mean it belongs on the sale/rental shelf to dupe people into shelling out hard earned cash. A filmmaker should have the decency to screen a film in front of objective viewers beforehand to know it at least passes as acceptable, even below average quality at least, before putting it out for sales/rental/distribution. I respect filmmakers for learning the craft, for making films for youtube, atomfilms, etc, but if a feature film for rental/sale it had best have some artistic value (not just shot on miniDV or 8mm then packaged with nice DVD box art, starring a few bimbo students, no plot, no talent, no hook, no drama).

...I do think a modicum of respect for someone's achievement is in order, particularly from a wannabe in a forum of filmmakers.

 

[clive]

Just because someone can make a movie does not mean it belongs on the sale/rental shelf to dupe people into shelling out hard earned cash. A filmmaker should have the decency to screen a film in front of objective viewers beforehand to know it at least passes as acceptable, even below average quality at least, before putting it out for sales/rental/distribution.

Now, this is where I disagree with you...

This is how it is... a film maker sets out to make a film and somewhere along the line it turns into a lemon. It happens. Even if the film maker set off with the best of intentions.

During the process the film maker had to rely on investors to get the film made; sometimes that's people who put money in; sometimes it's out of her own pocket; and, more often that not, it's the cast and crew who have put their time in for free. Usually it's a mixture of all of the above.

As a producer you owe a debt to these investors... especially if they are cast and crew, to at least get the film out there so they can get some exposure, an IMDB credit and hopefully a little money.

Now, if you fail to deliver on that investment, then your reputation as a producer takes a severe thrashing. Believe me, cast and crew who were totally behind you when you were in production, will turn on you like rats if they think you're not pushing the film... which is fair, because it means you're not taking their investment seriously.

What this means is eventually you'll reach the point where you can't get projects into production with professional crews, because too many people feel like you've ripped them off.

Plus, from a career point of view it's better to have a bad film in distribution, that turns a profit, than it is to make a better film that makes a loss.

Producers who make profits get the opportunity to make more films... producers who don't, struggle.

The other thing that I don't agree with is this...

Just because someone can make a movie does not mean it belongs on the sale/rental shelf to dupe people into shelling out hard earned cash.

The public aren't babies... they don't need protecting from bad films. Every visit to the cinema or DVD rental is a lottery... sometimes you get a real treat and sometimes the product doesn't light your candle. Every now and again the film is so bad you feel cheated ... (I know I felt like that about "Gangs of New York")

And as Filmy said... one man's bad film is another man's Citizen Kane... I'd hate to live in a world where everyone could only rent the kind of film's I approve of...

 

[knightly]

I loved "gangs of new york"...point proven? I also went to the theater in a blizzard to see "lawn mower man 2" and didn't enjoy it, but it was a theatrical release. Besides, without bad movies, what would these guys do? http://cinematictitanic.com/ (these are the geniuses -minnesotans, btw- behind mst3k).

 

[Joe999]

As Dalton [Patrick Swayze, Roadhouse]said, "Opinions vary" so that is cool. I think it comes down to a business versus an artistic perspective. As a business, yeah I guess you gotta distribute even lemons, make and sell some lemonade, pay off the lemonade stand investors, make back some money to make a better film another day. As an artist, I would have a hard time doing that. Business versus art.

Now, this is where I disagree with you... This is how it is... a film maker sets out to make a film and somewhere along the line it turns into a lemon. It happens. Even if the film maker set off with the best of intentions. During the process the film maker had to rely on investors to get the film made; sometimes that's people who put money in; sometimes it's out of her own pocket; and, more often that not, it's the cast and crew who have put their time in for free. Usually it's a mixture of all of the above. As a producer you owe a debt to these investors... especially if they are cast and crew, to at least get the film out there so they can get some exposure, an IMDB credit and hopefully a little money. Now, if you fail to deliver on that investment, then your reputation as a producer takes a severe thrashing. Believe me, cast and crew who were totally behind you when you were in production, will turn on you like rats if they think you're not pushing the film... which is fair, because it means you're not taking their investment seriously....

Agreed. Part of my attitude is likely anger at my self for not having the sense to first check reviews of such films prior to renting them. I am a sucker for good cover art and a good tag line.

The other thing that I don't agree with is this...The public aren't babies... they don't need protecting from bad films. Every visit to the cinema or DVD rental is a lottery... sometimes you get a real treat and sometimes the product doesn't light your candle. Every now and again the film is so bad you feel cheated ... (I know I felt like that about "Gangs of New York")

 

[Beeblebrox]

And as Filmy said... one man's bad film is another man's Citizen Kane... I'd hate to live in a world where everyone could only rent the kind of film's I approve of...

I totally agree. What Joe's asking for, it seems, is some sort of guarantee that every movie he spends his "hard earned cash" on is a movie he's going to like. Well welcome to the real world, dude. It just doesn't happen. I spend a LOT of money renting movies or going to the cinema and I truly like about 30% of the movies I see. I love far fewer of them. That's just the way artistic ventures work. It's highly subjective. And every movie sitting on a shelf is a movie that someone liked enough to put it there. And I do respect them for the accomplishment. I know how few even reach that point.

 

[clive]

And every movie sitting on a shelf is a movie that someone liked enough to put it there.

Well, actually they're all films that people felt they could turn a buck on. Whether they actually like them or not is another matter.

As you know my last movie "No Place" has yet to achieve distribution... and yet every single sales agent and distributor who saw it, commented on how much they enjoyed the movie... that wasn't the issue. They just couldn't see how to turn a buck from it.

That's the other side of this discussion... what's skewed about the industry is that there isn't a direct link between the quality of the product and the profitability. It's possible to make a really bad film, in the right genre, for the right budget and make a profit... by the same token it's possible to make a good film and loose your shirt.

And I do respect them for the accomplishment. I know how few even reach that point

I'm really not sure what I'd rather have: a dreadful film that turns a profit or a good film that fails to get distribution.

I guess from my point of view, both of those two options suck.

I think if I believed the only way to make a living in this business was to make trash... then I'd quit and go back into advertising.

 

[directorik]

I'm really not sure what I'd rather have: a dreadful film that turns a profit or a good film that fails to get distribution.

I have both. I have several dreadful movies that have turned a profit and
I have two that are good and can't find a distributor. I get offers to direct
more of the kind that made a profit and no one is giving me money to
make another really good movie that can't find distribution.

So I choose to earn a living and keep directing. One of these days both will
happen. But I deeply believe I am learning on each movie I make - even
if it's dreadful and people like joe think it's a ruse and shouldn't be available
- and learning is (to me) very important. I'd rather spend 6 days directing
a $20,000 crappy horror movie than those same 6 days at my day job
wishing I could be on set directing a masterpiece.

 

[Joe999]

Perhaps it is a matter of what is "good", viz what the public perceives or wants and what "they" (the mass populace) think is "good" and what artists/filmmakers think is "good".

The other night I wanted to watch Numb3rs (my favorite TV show) but of course a hockey tournament preempted that show and others; well, I hate watching hockey, or basketball for that matter (I'll go outside and play those sports, but I have no interest in watching them). Well, I suppose the mass populace would rather see hockey on TV than Numb3rs, or PBS, so I am sh*t out of luck, in a minority. I am also a painter and love to paint classical realism, like the masters (Vermeer et al) of centuries past-- well one need only look to most art schools today and in museums to see that "good" paintings today perhaps could be created by a monkey on crack cocaine throwing paint at a canvas, so what is "good" seems to be what the populace wants I guess; thus I paint for my own enjoyment, not what the mass populace wants. Perhaps to turn a profit and be a successful (whatever that means) filmmaker I suppose there needs to be a compromise between art and what the mass populace wants.

I have both. I have several dreadful movies that have turned a profit and I have two that are good and can't find a distributor. I get offers to direct more of the kind that made a profit and no one is giving me money to make another really good movie that can't find distribution....

 

[Unknown Screenwriter]

Joe999,

You're learnin'...

filmy

 

[Joe999]

I am a bit slow in the head, it takes me longer than others

Joe999,
You're learnin'...
filmy

 

[knightly]

The artist and the audience are always at odds. Hollywood tries to bridge that gap for financial reasons, which is why as artists, we are annoyed by some of the fluff that comes out. Personally, I love fluff, Pure entertainment and escapism is what drew me to filmmaking in the first place. I don't need "good" or "pure" cinema to sit down with friends in front of a screen and laugh, whether with or at a production.

I hang out with a bunch of improv comedians, so for us, sitting in front of a movie screen is an interactive event. A couple of the can't wipe of the smile, sides hurt nights were "Ramar of the Jungle" and "Double Team". Both horrible pieces, but they were the funniest things I'd ever watched. I also buy bad movies for these events, so I'm perpetuating the issue.

 

[Beeblebrox]

I'm really not sure what I'd rather have: a dreadful film that turns a profit or a good film that fails to get distribution.

This reminds me of the Extras: Finale.

I think it's a false choice, though. No one sets out to make a bad movie. Even the marketable films that don't turn out so well were not trying to choosing dreadful-but-profitable over something else. They were trying to make a good AND profitable film. Of course, "good" is subjective and maybe talent doesn't always meet our expectations, but luckily I don't think we have to make this choice.

 

[Unknown Screenwriter]

No offense...

This reminds me of the Extras: Finale.

I think it's a false choice, though. No one sets out to make a bad movie. Even the marketable films that don't turn out so well were not trying to choosing dreadful-but-profitable over something else. They were trying to make a good AND profitable film. Of course, "good" is subjective and maybe talent doesn't always meet our expectations, but luckily I don't think we have to make this choice.

I used to think that too until during this last year I met several producers of direct to video fare... They flat out do not give a damn if the movies they make are any good. They are all formula films -- meaning that they have devised their very own formula to make these films.

Most are the coattail riders... i.e., they simply copy the larger movies and instead of a good or even decent storyline, they substitute sex, nudity, etc. They've already got their filmmaking machine in place. They have their market(s), they have their distributors, they already know how much money they're going to make.

They will flat out tell you they are strictly in this for the money. They crank 3 or 4 of these out a year and they all pretty much resemble previous movies.

Of course every once in a while, a new screenwriter, director, or actor comes along and brings another level of quality to the project but all in all, these producers are simply banging out direct to video money makers. They know up front that the movie sucks. They know up front that the movie is never going to win an award. It simply fills a niche...

Kind of like knock-offs... LOL.

filmy

 

[Loud Orange Cat]

OMG, this thread will go on forever with everyone whining about production, style, blah blah blah.

There is no "tried and true formula" to guarantee success of a film. If there was, there'd be no bad films. Really. Think about it.

Everyone here has an original idea that they want to put to film/video. Great. Start there. Write it up and don't listen to the douchebag who doesn't care for your vision. Screw 'em.

I write and shoot WHAT I WANT because I have a vision. Sure, my movies suck but I enjoy what I do. I like being creative.

However, if you want to be on the business end of it, learn to market yourself and never let up. Ever. There's no reason to fail once and give up. Don't end up being a Fark.com cliche.

As I said in an earlier post, I do it all for fun. Why? I love film. It's my passion. It's my life. I'll never stop shooting. But always keep in mind the words of Kevin Smith: "I love making movies so much, I'd do it for free. Just don't tell the Studio that."

There, I said my peace. Now get out there, and shoot your film. ^_^