Do you really need a lot of people to make a marketable film?

I will explain quick, so please read

Here are some of the common positions I truly do not understand about making a film and it's also an excuse to pay more people money in my opinion.


1. Camera operator- Can't the director operate the camera himself while dealing with the cast? While the cast practices their lines, he could just be setting up the camera, waiting to take the shot. And if height is an issue (Let's say the actor is a foot taller than him) then he could get a stool and stand on top of it to get his shot. I mean there's nothing impossible in this position if the director operated the camera.

(I know this isn't a crew position but really?) 2. Food Catering- Wow oh wow. Aren't most food catering services like 2500 bucks? Can't you buy a weeks worth of groceries for 3 people for 50 bucks at a grocery store? You could just by the crew cans of Vienna sausages and an entire loaf of bread and a big bag of potato chips for around 7 bucks.... Also I've heard that spending too much on the leisure-like atmosphere for your crew can make them lazier and less willing to leave their comfort zone for a scene and I do support that.

3. Director of photography/Cinematographer- Really? If the Director wrote and produced his movie certainly he is the only that has the vision that no one sees. So why can't he setup his/her shot like he/she sees in their head instead of having to explain countless times to a cinematographer that he didn't setup the right shot for his film.

4. Video editing- The director can also direct his movie and in my opinion, editing is one of the most fun things about the project. So why does the editing process have to be given to someone else?


I mean are all these positions needed for other people because crews are in such a rush to make a movie? I call the method most film crews go by the "Shoot and run" method since so many people making movies now seem in such a rush but what is the rush? If your cast needs to take a break for another project, let them. I don't think a movie should ever be rushed because you always want perfection. But with more people in your crew, the more possibilities there are of someone leaving which is why I think it is very important for the film director to know everything there is to know technically about making a film.


FYI this is also one reason why famous directors like Orson Welles and Stanley Kubrick left Hollywood. They couldn't stand the constraints and the deadlines producers would hold on their films and I don't blame them. So the rest of their films made outside of Hollywood were produced and directed by themselves. Film making should never be timed


Now here are a lot of complaints film professors have seemed to tell students regarding how someone would make a film by themselves or just with a very limited crew.

1. If you're the only one making your movie then while you're slowly setting up your shots for your film, your actors/actresses will get bored = No they'll be paid so they can text, make a phone call, eat something or relax while I setup the equipment. If the actors/actresses are getting good pay, why would they get mad or bored?

2. How will you setup the lights, camera, boom pic, boom pole all by yourself? Who will do the makeup on your actors/actresses while you're setting up your shots? Oh I suppose (Very sarcastic) you'll do that as well? = Your mom? If you have a mom or know are girl then she obviously knows how makeup works. Get her to put the makeup on your cast members for free and vualla, you've got a makeup designer for no money out of your pocket at all. And yes, I will setup all that equipment and it make take around 30 minutes. Now if I have a cast that immediately gets impatient and wants to be cared for I will fire them and show them just how easy I can find replacements for them. There are thousands of starving actors in every state waiting for some project that may just pay like 20 bucks for a full day of shoot.



So please, I want your opinions on all of this. I'm not this rebellious person wanting to do everything my own greedy way I just simply think that there isn't a huge need for excessive crew members on set. I also feel more at ease when it's just me with a few cast members. The set is quiet and feels more desolate and it gives me more time to inspire my actors/actresses

What are your opinions?


**EDIT**

Thanks guys for your great feedback! I will see if I can find some more crew members then! :)
 
Last edited:
There is no need. But it's better if you have dedicated people so you can concentrate on other stuff. Directing actors is hardly something you can do while operating the camera and pulling focus. All the brain time you give to the technical stuff is brain time you're not giving to the performance.

But, at no-budget filmmaking, you don't need that much people.
 
Hello new dude :cool:

I will explain quick, so please read

Here are some of the common positions I truly do not understand about making a film and it's also an excuse to pay more people money in my opinion.

Not necessarily. A DP studies cameras and lighting professionally. A director does not have the experience of a DP, and cannot get as great of visuals as an experienced DP could.


1. Camera operator- Can't the director operate the camera himself while dealing with the cast? While the cast practices their lines, he could just be setting up the camera, waiting to take the shot. And if height is an issue (Let's say the actor is a foot taller than him) then he could get a stool and stand on top of it to get his shot. I mean there's nothing impossible in this position if the director operated the camera.

A director should not be dealing with the camera/lighting department while directing actors. Actors are going to get bored and tired waiting for you to set up shots. And camera operators know more about operating a camera, and if experienced - the camera operator can get much better results.

(I know this isn't a crew position but really?) 2. Food Catering- Wow oh wow. Aren't most food catering services like 2500 bucks? Can't you buy a weeks worth of groceries for 3 people for 50 bucks at a grocery store? You could just by the crew cans of Vienna sausages and an entire loaf of bread and a big bag of potato chips for around 7 bucks.... Also I've heard that spending too much on the leisure-like atmosphere for your crew can make them lazier and less willing to leave their comfort zone for a scene and I do support that.

You don't want to be feeding your crew crap. Potato chips and canned foods are not a wise way to go. You should have actual meals, and healthy foods. Bad foods (potato chips, donuts, etc.) are bad for the crew. After a while, they'll either have a sugar crash, or feel sick from eating canned foods and potato chips. A cheap alternative to getting a catering service, is having family and friends contribute to the film by making dishes. The cast and crew will appreciate good meals, especially if you are not paying them.

3. Director of photography/Cinematographer- Really? If the Director wrote and produced his movie certainly he is the only that has the vision that no one sees. So why can't he setup his/her shot like he/she sees in their head instead of having to explain countless times to a cinematographer that he didn't setup the right shot for his film.

DP's study and practice working with cameras and lighting. They can get much better results quicker and easier. In addition, they are better with working with gear. And if you get a good DP, and do lighting/camera test before hand, you don't have to worry about them not "getting" what you're going for as a director.

4. Video editing- The director can also direct his movie and in my opinion, editing is one of the most fun things about the project. So why does the editing process have to be given to someone else?

Editors can get much much better results in a short amount of time. What would take a director months would take an editor weeks.

I mean are all these positions needed for other people because crews are in such a rush to make a movie? I call the method most film crews go by the "Shoot and run" method since so many people making movies now seem in such a rush but what is the rush? If your cast needs to take a break for another project, let them. I don't think a movie should ever be rushed because you always want perfection. But with more people in your crew, the more possibilities there are of someone leaving which is why I think it is very important for the film director to know everything there is to know technically about making a film.

Sure, you don't need them, but you will get better results using other people. It is more professional and efficient to have a solid crew. As a director, you don't want to spread yourself too thin. A director should focus on his job, directing. Directors direct cast and crew to get the best possible results they can.

Movies shouldn't be rushed, but they should be shot quickly. Actors and crew will slowly drop off and forget about the project.

FYI this is also one reason why famous directors like Orson Welles and Stanley Kubrick left Hollywood. They couldn't stand the constraints and the deadlines producers would hold on their films and I don't blame them. So the rest of their films made outside of Hollywood were produced and directed by themselves. Film making should never be timed.

Sure, but keep in mind - even after they left Hollywood, they had huge crews. Read the credits of films they made "outside of Hollywood".

Now here are a lot of complaints film professors have seemed to tell students regarding how someone would make a film by themselves or just with a very limited crew.

Not complaints, points and questions.

1. If you're the only one making your movie then while you're slowly setting up your shots for your film, your actors/actresses will get bored = No they'll be paid so they can text, make a phone call, eat something or relax while I setup the equipment. If the actors/actresses are getting good pay, why would they get mad or bored?

Actors and actresses will get bored. You should never have cell phones on set. Imagine getting that perfect shot, and suddenly someone's phone goes off. Tarantino never let's his cast or crew have phones on set. Also, if you are doing run and gun shooting, they shouldn't be relaxing while you set up shots. You should hire a DP and talk to your actors about the scene while the camera/lighting/audio department sets up. Also, many of us indie directors don't have much money to pay actors, or give them money at all

2. How will you setup the lights, camera, boom pic, boom pole all by yourself? Who will do the makeup on your actors/actresses while you're setting up your shots? Oh I suppose (Very sarcastic) you'll do that as well? = Your mom? If you have a mom or know are girl then she obviously knows how makeup works. Get her to put the makeup on your cast members for free and vualla, you've got a makeup designer for no money out of your pocket at all. And yes, I will setup all that equipment and it make take around 30 minutes. Now if I have a cast that immediately gets impatient and wants to be cared for I will fire them and show them just how easy I can find replacements for them. There are thousands of starving actors in every state waiting for some project that may just pay like 20 bucks for a full day of shoot.

Your mom should not be helping with your film. You should hire someone or get a friend who is knowledgeable about make-up. Also, film make-up is different from regular makeup. Lighting and camerawork can affect the way makeup looks, so you have to get someone who has experience on a set.

If your actors get impatient, that's your fault. You should hire people to set everything up while you talk to the actors about the scene.

Also, never underestimate audio. It is half the experience.

So please, I want your opinions on all of this. I'm not this rebellious person wanting to do everything my own greedy way I just simply think that there isn't a huge need for excessive crew members on set. I also feel more at ease when it's just me with a few cast members. The set is quiet and feels more desolate and it gives me more time to inspire my actors/actresses

What are your opinions?

To make a good low budget film, you need a crew. You need camera/lighting/audio people. You can't do it on your own.

Also, could you name some good indie films with tiny crews? Because watching many films you think were made for nothing had a much larger crew and budget than you think, just read the credits.

BTW, El Mariachi is not a film that you can use as an example. It was shot over twenty years ago in Mexico, with cops that were willing to lend them 20+ machine guns and a jail for a credit in the film.

:)
 
Last edited:
I agree with everyting that has been replied. However
Also, could you name some good indie films with tiny crews? Because watching many films you think were made for nothing had a much larger crew and budget than you think, just read the credits.
Check out Shane Carruth's films "Primer" and "Upstream Color".

He made the former doing almost everything himself (writing, directing, acting, editing, being the DP, operating cameras for some shots, sound design composing, etc) and on a budget of $7000/$8000 (apparently he managed to negotiate cheaper camera rentals by explaining that El Mariachi had the same budget, and therefore, it was impossible for cameras to be this expensive). It is not an amazing film (it is very good), but for the way he made it, it's incredible.

Upstream Color had a more significant crew, but he still took on a huge number of roles, and it is an incredible film (he also had a real budget for it).
 
It really depends, though I think your question should be, "Maybe I can do everything, but really should I?". It's more important to have the roles covered by someone, rather than an individual person doing each individual role.

There are roles that are important that need to be covered that are a distraction to other roles or polar opposites (Eg. PM - Organizational and Director - Creative).

It also depends on your budget.

It also depends on what you call marketable.

It depends on the skill set of your crew/yourself.

Each project is different and has different requirement. A project that has 40+ locations, 300+ extras, a cast of 50, stunts, visual effects and so on has a huge difference in requirements for crew than a film shot in 1 location, no extras, minimal props and so on.

When you have no budget, you'll have no real use for a Production Manager, so long as you have someone handling locations and have an AD handling Scheduling. If you have everyone on set every day from start to end, then you don't really have much of a need for an AD.

Another issue to consider. While you can do it solo from a crew perspective, how fast do you want to run through things? Lets say you're the caterer, gaffer, grip, director, AD, 2nd AD, camera operator, clapper/2ac, Set decorator, location manager/scout, MUA, PSM and Boom Operator, it means that your time will be split amongst those roles instead of letting everyone else concentrate on their job. You'll be waking up at 3am to start cooking and finishing your day at 2am from cleaning the pots and pans. Add to that the cooking that you'll need to do throughout the day, if you only have a few people on set, you're probably going to be better off ordering in from a local restaurant instead of spreading your attention and time that thin.

Are your actors going to walk from your project because it's taking you ten times as long to do each setup as it does as a fully manned crew? Are they going to be happy when you turn a standard day from 12hrs into 20hrs? How long can you last without sleep?

On top of that, the less crew you have, the smaller the pool of experience you can pull from is problems arise. You'll also have a smaller pool of time to dedicate to problems. Lets say wigit x breaks. A replacement is 45 minutes drive away. You don't have a runner to send, so you have to shut down the set for 1.5 hours while you cover that task. There are plenty of other issues that come up that require a dedicated person. Can you be in two places at the same time? What about 3, 4 or 5?

Expect APE to chime in and say "How are you going to record sound. Remember sound is 50% of the experience."

So yes, you can if you have the right experience, the real question is, should you?

Film making should never be timed

In my opinion, that attitude is very disrespectful of the others who are involved with the project. I was asked to join a local project as an AD that is rather disorganized. I had to pass for multiple reasons, but the main reason was their insistence on spending months doing something that could quite easily be shot in weeks. It's their project and they have the right to have it work their way. For me, it just isn't acceptable to unnecessarily waste my time and the time of everyone else on the project.

So please, I want your opinions on all of this. I'm not this rebellious person wanting to do everything my own greedy way I just simply think that there isn't a huge need for excessive crew members on set. I also feel more at ease when it's just me with a few cast members. The set is quiet and feels more desolate and it gives me more time to inspire my actors/actresses

There is nothing wrong with it, just realize that each projection and each set has it's own set of requirements, crew needs and challenges. It's smart to avoid having people you don't need. I'm looking at a project that in my opinion needs very few cast and crew.

While your style may preclude you from doing complicated scenes that require extras, crowd control, sweeping camera moves, stunts or visual effects, I'm sure you'll find a way to tell your certain stories that are within your comfort zone and your capabilities. Whether that's marketable, I suppose, that's up to the general public to decide.
 
There are many ways to make a film, and each director must find his/her own way.

Just for fun, I'll play devils advocate.

The biggest issues facing indie filmmakers is budget. So a lot of directors do act as their own DoP. You posited that:

While the cast practices their lines, he could just be setting up the camera

The cast is most probably only minimally experienced - in 90% of these situations they are not being paid, or, at best, getting a small transportation stipend. Would not the directors time be best spent working with these actors?

Second, operating a camera is a technical as well as artistic practice. Are you maintaining that all directors need to know every last technical detail about how to operate a camera and lighting a set?


As far as your food comments...

If that's the way you treat your cast and crew I would never work with you. People are not machines that need to be fueled; they are human beings that need to be nurtured. How much you attend to their well-being - in other words, making them comfortable by feeding them well, providing a comfortable "dressing room" and rest area, etc. - is directly proportional to how hard they will work for you. You treat your cast and crew like crap, you'll get crap work from your crew and crappier performances from your cast. If you treat them really well, if you put forth the effort to truly care about them, they will work hard for you.

Director of photography/Cinematographer- Really? If the Director wrote and produced his movie certainly he is the only that has the vision that no one sees.

It's mostly low/no/mini/micro budget projects where the director also wrote the project as well as being his/her own producer. Why not ask Hitchcock or Kubrick or Scorsese or Spielberg or Tarantino or Coppola or Welles or Ford or Eastwood or Lean or Lynch or Huston or Hawks or Jackson or Lang or Wyler or Burton or Cameron or Altman why the use a DoP/Cinematographer? Because they would rather direct than deal with technical issues. Because they tell the DoP "This is what I want," then the DoP and 1st AD make it happen and allow the director to be an artist, not a technician.

As I maintain frequently, the job of a director is to communicate. If s/he can't communicate what s/he wants to his/her cast and crew how can s/he communicate with an audience?

The director can also direct his movie and in my opinion, editing is one of the most fun things about the project. So why does the editing process have to be given to someone else?

a) Just because you think it's fun doesn't mean everyone else does.
b) Another set of eyes can be VERY useful at this point.
c) Someone may be better at it than you are, even if you do enjoy editing.


...are all these positions needed for other people because crews are in such a rush to make a movie?

On budgeted projects it's not because they are "in a rush" but use a large crew because crew members are much better at their job than the director possibly could be.

I think it is very important for the film director to know everything there is to know technically about making a film.

Completely impossible. Do you really believe that a twenty-something, or even a thirty something, can learn every single craft needed to make a film? I've been doing audio post and nothing but audio post for almost a dozen years now, and it's only been the last five years or so that I truly feel that I've gotten a firm grasp of the basic concepts and technical skills of doing audio post. And I had a five years head start as a music recording engineer, and a long career as a performing musician and session player prior to that.



If you're the only one making your movie then while you're slowly setting up your shots for your film, your actors/actresses will get bored = No they'll be paid so they can text, make a phone call, eat something or relax while I setup the equipment. If the actors/actresses are getting good pay, why would they get mad or bored?

Define "good pay." Is it $100/day? $500/day? $1,000/day?

When you're doing low/no/mini/micro budget indie films most of these folks have regular jobs, they are doing auditions for paid acting gigs, taking acting classes and trying to squeeze a personal life in there somewhere. The same applies to your crew. They don't have the time to commit to a project for a long period of time, so you had better work smart and efficiently or you will lose them.


Your make-up comments are ludicrous. There is a huge difference between putting on make-up to go out for the night and creating make-up that will look well on camera.

Oh, and let's see you swing a boom (do you know the proper techniques?), monitor the audio recorder, pull focus and direct all at the same time. Have someone else film you while you do it, I would love to see it!:lol:

if I have a cast that immediately gets impatient and wants to be cared for I will fire them and show them just how easy I can find replacements for them.

You've just lost a day of shooting and lost your location. Now you need to find a replacement (or a whole bunch of replacements) - a week? Two or three weeks? You also need a new location. You need to rehearse the new cast. And if you are treating your cast like that I'm pretty sure your crew will desert you too. Oh, yeah, that's right, I forgot; you're the entire crew.

There are thousands of starving actors in every state waiting for some project that may just pay like 20 bucks for a full day of shoot.

But are you going to get quality? $20 won't even cover transportation these days.


The set is quiet and feels more desolate and it gives me more time to inspire my actors/actresses

Good; get a DoP, grip, PSM, boom-op, H/MU, wardrobe, etc, and spend your time working with the acting talent. Professional crew members know how to stay out of the way; their job is to facilitate the creative process.


I don't know your motive for posting all of this, but I've worked all kinds of sets. I would never work on the set you propose, and would advise everyone I know to avoid your set like the plague.


That's not to say that you need a huge crew. I have long maintained that the next generation of filmmakers will be a lot like indie bands. There will be a small, hard core of director, DoP, PSM/boom-op and possibly H/MU/wardrobe. There may also be "regulars" who do post work - editing, sound design, scoring, CGI - if the core group members do not do some or all of it themselves. Learning a craft takes A LOT of very hard work and discipline. You'll learn a lot more doing one short every month than one short in twelve months.
 
I agree with everyting that has been replied. However
Check out Shane Carruth's films "Primer" and "Upstream Color".

I love the film Upstream Color, but I did not like Primer. It felt very amateurish and poorly made. I have to tip my hat to Shane Carruth for making a film with such a low budget, but I was BORED!

He made the former doing almost everything himself (writing, directing, acting, editing, being the DP, operating cameras for some shots, sound design composing, etc) and on a budget of $7000/$8000 (apparently he managed to negotiate cheaper camera rentals by explaining that El Mariachi had the same budget, and therefore, it was impossible for cameras to be this expensive). It is not an amazing film (it is very good), but for the way he made it, it's incredible.

Upstream Color had a more significant crew, but he still took on a huge number of roles, and it is an incredible film (he also had a real budget for it).

He did take on a good amount of crew roles for Upstream Color, but there were many people helping him in the camera, lighting, and audio department.
 
Sure, you can totally be this guy, if that's what you prefer. He's one of the best in the world, at what he does. He brings smiles to people's faces, and they love him for it.

I'd much rather be one of these people. That dude playing percussion is one of the best in the world, at percussion, and he has the honor of playing with one of the best drummers in the world, and one of the best bass players in the world, and one of the best horn sections in the world, etc.

In order to prepare for this AMAZING performance, they spent A LOT of time with each other, bounced a lot of ideas off each other, shared their vast collective creativity, and low-and-behold, the collaborative effort ends up being so much greater than the solo effort.

As a tiny-budget filmmaker, you often have to wear lots of hats. Yeah, I get that. We do our best to get by, and sometimes we make awesome movies. But that shouldn't stop you from wanting to take off some of your hats, delegating work to people who specialize in THAT SPECIFIC THING.

Besides, you mention time as if it grows on trees. We've only got so much of it, and most of us have bills to pay.
 
Try it and see if it works for you.

If it don't, you will need a crew for future productions.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Wen I first started, I was like, I can do this, this, this, this, this and this...

Now 9 months in, I'm like, I need someone to do this, this, this, this, this and this and maybe I could help with this if something goes wrong.

Never do it yourself if you seek high results just ain't gonna work.
 
I love the film Upstream Color, but I did not like Primer. It felt very amateurish and poorly made. I have to tip my hat to Shane Carruth for making a film with such a low budget, but I was BORED!



He did take on a good amount of crew roles for Upstream Color, but there were many people helping him in the camera, lighting, and audio department.
Fair enough. I really enjoyed it, especially it's treatment of science fiction - though i don't think it's a great film. But the fact that it won the Grand Jury at Sundance, and has been so well regarded since is amazing given the way it was made.

Yeah, that is true, but it was still fairly small crew (i worked on a no budget short film to be shown in schools - which was utter crap in all honesty - with twice as much crew as Upstream Color).
 
Fair enough. I really enjoyed it, especially it's treatment of science fiction - though i don't think it's a great film. But the fact that it won the Grand Jury at Sundance, and has been so well regarded since is amazing given the way it was made.

Yeah, that is true, but it was still fairly small crew (i worked on a no budget short film to be shown in schools - which was utter crap in all honesty - with twice as much crew as Upstream Color).

It's a love it or hate it film.

The budget is impressive, but the overall quality of the film probably would have been better if he had a DP, good sound recordist, etc.

On the other hand, I think Upstream Color is an amazing film. I watched the whole thing in one sitting, not staring away from the screen for one moment. It had an impact on me.

I felt like him having a crew upped the overall quality and made it easier for him to focus on what he loves most - writing and directing.

Watching the two films, you definitely see a significant change in quality.

One thing for the OP to remember is that if you have a crew, you have to direct your crew well. Shane Carruth and other indie filmmakers who have been somewhat successful, had the patience and knowledge to direct crew well.
 
Most people have covered what I would've said (mostly what Alcove has said).

I'll add this:

Here's a little rundown of my day on set (today).

We had two locations (a location move after lunch). The morning scene was a bedroom scene, lit by a 1.2k HMI fresnel outside the window, with a 1/4 CTO gel on it. There was a 4ft 2-bank Kino Flo with Full Diff on it inside the bedroom, and a 375w Tungsten fresnel bouncing off a sheet of gold. There were a few static shots and then a dolly track past the door.

The next scene was lit with a 575w HMI par inside a lounge room. It had a wild purple party gel on it. There was also a few practicals and a china ball in play.

After the location move, we moved to a studio, where we lit another (different) bedroom scene, with a 2.5k HMI with 1/4 CTO through a frame of 1/4 diff, Kino Flos filling from the other side and some blacks and flags around. It was a jib shot - a long pull out from a face in the bed.

After that was a scene where Art Dept covered the floor in dirt, and we had a 360 degree dolly around the centre action.

Lastly, there was a VFX shot for the green screen, lit by cyc lights and some HMI pars bouncing off reflector boards for fill.

We covered 5 scenes in the day (the last three scenes were one shot each, the first two 3-5 shots).

We had two grips, two electrics, 2 ACs (including myself - I was Focus Pulling), the DP (who also operated), 2 sound guys, Director, AD, three in Art Dept, 2 in HMU. We had more crew, but those were the main I can think of off the top of my head. That's still a relatively small crew.

Had the Director done everything, it could have easily taken a whole week to do everything we got today in one day. In fact, some shots would be completely impossible, as there would have been no-one to dolly grip (push the dolly), for example. Having enough crew meant that we could set up and pack down quickly, easily, and still get some incredible looking stuff. Not only that, but it meant we could execute the shots safely - having experts in each dept. meant that we knew everything would be safe and wouldn't need to worry about cameras or lights falling, or even fuses blowing.

I know if I had to light a scene, lay dolly track, build a camera and then dolly grip myself, that could easily eat up 2 hours. As it was, we were able to complete all we needed to in 11 hours (including a 45 minute lunch break and 45 minute location move.)
 
If you can do it yourself, do it. But usually a Film is something that is been made by more then one artist, and that's what makes it so great. Eventually the job of the director is to make sure that each artist working on the film will unified with one vision, so the creation will be coherent.

From experience I can tell you that you need as many good and experienced craftsmen on your set.
 
A low to no budget filmmaker doesn't need these extra positions. They are luxuries to a director who raises some extra money.

I know if I personally raised extra money and was able to pay the actors or crew, the first "luxury" I would want is a talented DP with a better mind for creating a beautiful image in-camera than I. The second is an audio expert, with a better mind for capturing clean sound. The third would be an impressive editor who could cut together video quicker and better than I ever could (with me overseeing it, of course) The fourth might be a camera operator, just so I could have more time in coordinating this talented crew and (hopefully) cast I've assembled that already bring more to the film than I could by myself. The fifth would be for delicious food to keep everyone energized, happy to be there, and to possibly compensate for a shooting schedule that will likely be very rushed... ya see, you wanna get your film 'in the can' as soon as you can. I've learned from shooting my webseries that delaying a project can cause you to lose interest. Also, continuity errors can become a huge problem (facial hair, hairstyle changes, actors may get a tan, lose a tan, gain weight, lose weight, become horribly scarred in hand-to-hand combat with a cheetah, etc.)

Now if I have a cast that immediately gets impatient and wants to be cared for I will fire them and show them just how easy I can find replacements for them.


What if you've shot half the movie and one of the actors you have a problem with is your main character?
 
Top