Yep I will. With all the new special effect software, such as videocopilot and Action Essentials, I am still learning what I can do and can't do though. I will have to have most of my action/suspense scenes indoors probably.
How many of you self-fund your first feature?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
Means, it has to be SPECIAL! It has to be - ART!
Which brings out to following:
WRONG!
First because Medicine is the necessity and mandatory part of "healthy" human existance, while making movies is luxury or if you want -hobby!
(at least in the eyes of majority; my personal take?!: Art is the ultimate medecine
you are mxing Apples and Oranges....
Second, prepare to learn the biggest secret among secrets of creation:
In CREATION and ART nothing depends on your-will!
The real thing happends without your knowlegde, sometimes even without the efforts.
I know that this is heartbreaking for many but ART is not driven by rules meritocracy because art is not democratic!
Sometimes it's to the one who deserves it the least!
Why?
Because that's one of the ways that the act of creation can not be bribed!
That's a little revenge of the "finger from the cloud" in order to balance the unbanlanced world.
My frined is a musician who acctualy practices 3 hours every day, rehearses, and performs for last 15 years with uncountable fund invested in quipment and still- nothing!
Simple anwser: He is not given the magic.
Complicated answer: He was never open enough to receive it! Not enough faight in himself and others. Always playing it safe, counting of rewards for his "efforts", whats' fair and moraly right etc....
Than you should do something else for a living and not making movies!
(nothing personnal but honest friendly advice)
Go make commercials, do secret filming for security services, shoot wedding...THOSE are the "movie making" fileds that you can make a money and make a living.
The only reason why somebody wants to finance MOVIES (that get's you paid), is becuse somebody whant to - watch movies!
They/We want to watch movies because we need to get moved emotionaly and mentaly, be esteticly enjoyed, entertained, spiritualy inspired, talk to, reexamine ourselves who are we, meaning we want to watch the movies because we like to watch art!
We don't watck movies because you want to make a living!
That's a spiral spell that a lot of filmakers get themselves into (their ego and missinformations gets them there) and then realize the true when its offten too late!
It's not me who says that but Hollywood themselves: 5 out of 6 movies made is - losing money!
This is not MONEY MAKING world!
Now, do you know any Lawyer that loses money practicing law?!
Or a dentist?
Or a biz people?
99% of those -don't loose money by doing what they do!
It happens here and there, that people get payed money for their movie (A LOOOOT of money) but when you see the ratio of money makers and money loosers in filmmaking, you reliaze that this is not a "make a living" venture!
But thank you for your input because your attitude reflects one of the bigest stteping stones of indie filmmaking that I agonize about, because the majoraty of "bellow the line" crew (nothing personal guys;myself I am a partitme GE dude) has the very same missperception of things that makes my and my fellow indie-movie makers's lives a real mess:
I dont make movies because Best Boy wanna charge 500 dollars a day plus double for overtimes for moving C-stands and rigging HMIs on cherypickers,
but rather that
Best boy and moving C-stands and rigging HMIs on the cherry pickers, exist because I MAKE A MOVIE!
You're assuming that I have no understanding of my audience other than a selfish need to get paid to run a camera... not the case. I make films I want to watch... historically not well.. but I know tons of Artists who couldn't make a straight line if they were pressed -- entirely emotional endeavor for them, and their efforts SUCK because they can't take the time to learn the craft of painting or whatever else they're using as a medium.
If you read back through my many posts here and elsewhere, you'll see my passion for filmmaking (paid or not -- I've self funded up to this point). I also owned and operated one of the first web design films in MN in the early 90's... I know what it takes to appeal to an audience and how to ask for money and how to market... I just have to apply it to filmmaking (currently the part I'm learning).
I'm not in NY or LA, so finding a community to enter to learn this craft either takes me abandoning my family, or some creative self motivated efforts. I chose the second option. I built my own environment to learn my craft and helped our Film Studies department at our college push forward their production curriculum... so that I could put it on my transcript We ended up with a couple of really great adjunct professors there. I helped "Produce" that - we went from handy cams form a different department to a bevy of Hi-Def cameras, Dollys, cranes, nice lights, c-stands, scrims and flags and an editing lab with a dedicated sound booth within 3 years.
I'm not a "filmmaker" (producer, writer, director, camera man, boom operator, editor, sound designer, etc, etc... -- although I have filled all of those roles, early on - even on the same productions). I'm a Cinematographer. My strength is in creating and capturing images. I have years of management experience. Being an artist to create a film is well and good, but doesn't make money. Being a camera operator is a craft that can be taught, and is a job that pays money eventually - that's what I'm going for. There's no film industry in MN anymore, it was killed off over the years by our rebate incentive plan diminishing and failing to compete with other states (and countries)... So I'm building my own as I go. Laugh if you will at my hubris, but when I started my web firm, I had to convince my customers that the internet would be accessible from enough peoples homes to make their investment payoff. In dong this, I was building the local resource which in turn, built the demand for it. I'm not a stranger to business or the vagaries of creating an industry locally from a nascent bubble of possibility.
If you don't believe that you can make a living doing what we do and why we're here, then you won't - ever... and that's just fine. I believe I can make money at it, from the standpoint of a reality, not a pipedream... I'm not shooting for JJAbrams, Stephen Spielberg or George Lucas money, I'm shooting for Scoopicman or DirectorRik money... and that's achievable, here and now.
Everything is shades of gray, not black and white. Filmmakers of all people should understand that!
If you read back through my many posts here and elsewhere, you'll see my passion for filmmaking (paid or not -- I've self funded up to this point). I also owned and operated one of the first web design films in MN in the early 90's... I know what it takes to appeal to an audience and how to ask for money and how to market... I just have to apply it to filmmaking (currently the part I'm learning).
I'm not in NY or LA, so finding a community to enter to learn this craft either takes me abandoning my family, or some creative self motivated efforts. I chose the second option. I built my own environment to learn my craft and helped our Film Studies department at our college push forward their production curriculum... so that I could put it on my transcript
We ended up with a couple of really great adjunct professors there. I helped "Produce" that - we went from handy cams form a different department to a bevy of Hi-Def cameras, Dollys, cranes, nice lights, c-stands, scrims and flags and an editing lab with a dedicated sound booth within 3 years.I'm not a "filmmaker" (producer, writer, director, camera man, boom operator, editor, sound designer, etc, etc... -- although I have filled all of those roles, early on - even on the same productions). I'm a Cinematographer. My strength is in creating and capturing images. I have years of management experience. Being an artist to create a film is well and good, but doesn't make money. Being a camera operator is a craft that can be taught, and is a job that pays money eventually - that's what I'm going for. There's no film industry in MN anymore, it was killed off over the years by our rebate incentive plan diminishing and failing to compete with other states (and countries)... So I'm building my own as I go. Laugh if you will at my hubris, but when I started my web firm, I had to convince my customers that the internet would be accessible from enough peoples homes to make their investment payoff. In dong this, I was building the local resource which in turn, built the demand for it. I'm not a stranger to business or the vagaries of creating an industry locally from a nascent bubble of possibility.
If you don't believe that you can make a living doing what we do and why we're here, then you won't - ever... and that's just fine. I believe I can make money at it, from the standpoint of a reality, not a pipedream... I'm not shooting for JJAbrams, Stephen Spielberg or George Lucas money, I'm shooting for Scoopicman or DirectorRik money... and that's achievable, here and now.
Everything is shades of gray, not black and white. Filmmakers of all people should understand that!
What about slashers being style over substance though? I am not that good at style, so I figure I would get away more with doing a script that relied a lot more on substance. It seems it would take more experienced people to do a style over substance film.
You're assuming that I have no understanding of my audience other than a selfish need to get paid to run a camera... not the case. I make films I want to watch... historically not well.. but I know tons of Artists who couldn't make a straight line if they were pressed -- entirely emotional endeavor for them, and their efforts SUCK because they can't take the time to learn the craft of painting or whatever else they're using as a medium.
If you read back through my many posts here and elsewhere, you'll see my passion for filmmaking (paid or not -- I've self funded up to this point). I also owned and operated one of the first web design films in MN in the early 90's... I know what it takes to appeal to an audience and how to ask for money and how to market... I just have to apply it to filmmaking (currently the part I'm learning).
I'm not in NY or LA, so finding a community to enter to learn this craft either takes me abandoning my family, or some creative self motivated efforts. I chose the second option. I built my own environment to learn my craft and helped our Film Studies department at our college push forward their production curriculum... so that I could put it on my transcript
I'm not a "filmmaker" (producer, writer, director, camera man, boom operator, editor, sound designer, etc, etc... -- although I have filled all of those roles, early on - even on the same productions). I'm a Cinematographer. My strength is in creating and capturing images. I have years of management experience. Being an artist to create a film is well and good, but doesn't make money. Being a camera operator is a craft that can be taught, and is a job that pays money eventually - that's what I'm going for. There's no film industry in MN anymore, it was killed off over the years by our rebate incentive plan diminishing and failing to compete with other states (and countries)... So I'm building my own as I go. Laugh if you will at my hubris, but when I started my web firm, I had to convince my customers that the internet would be accessible from enough peoples homes to make their investment payoff. In dong this, I was building the local resource which in turn, built the demand for it. I'm not a stranger to business or the vagaries of creating an industry locally from a nascent bubble of possibility.
If you don't believe that you can make a living doing what we do and why we're here, then you won't - ever... and that's just fine. I believe I can make money at it, from the standpoint of a reality, not a pipedream... I'm not shooting for JJAbrams, Stephen Spielberg or George Lucas money, I'm shooting for Scoopicman or DirectorRik money... and that's achievable, here and now.
Everything is shades of gray, not black and white. Filmmakers of all people should understand that!
You and I are in different "biz" my friend!
And I am affraid that's the reason of our missunderstanding. We're talking about different things...
I respect everybody's work! But what you do (or want to do t make a living) is different tham my line of work!
You're talking about craft and artisanship (can be taught in schools or outside of it) as a predominant factor of livingmaking.
I am talking about ART as key point of livingmaking (among other thing, can not be taught by anybody; its closest to magic- think Merlin, Gandalf etc....)
I am not trying to create flame about what's more important and the relationship between the two (so far under mybelt I have more experience in your line of work than in mine) but I belive we can both agree that nobody pays admission for theater nor DVD price tag nor netflix rental fee with a goal to see "all those beautifull panings and hanheld camera movements, perfect balancing of steadicam work or application of kicker and fill light on 3-pont set up".
Agree?
Now....Let's focus on the topic title:
Feature films funding!
That's a whole different line of work than:
-weddings videography
-commercials and advertising videography
-industrial/corporate/educational videography etc...
These are video/filmmaking fields where acctualy profit is the goal and where the pay is mandatory upon the delivery of the procutc!
In feature film making, profit is occasional lucky bingo jackpot, but not the initial drive for it (or at least it shouldn't be) because the idea of making money (make a living) is a ideaof making money in art in general. not the default value.
They all use same tools (cameras, computers, lights...) but they are different "industries"!
Something like carpenter/automechanic/jewelry maker differences, where all of them use hammer to one extent or the other, but for completely different goals and products in different lines of work.
Goal such as : Wanting to make a living as a feature filmmaker is wrong concept!
Goal such as : Wanting to make a living as a camera op in videobiz like industrial or wedding videos or a TV cameraman in CNN,ABC,CBS is absolutely OK and legitimate. But that's the subject of some other topic, not this one, because you never see somebody asking " how do I fund the shooting of wedding cideo" because the way industry is set up is that who ever hires you to shoot the wedding is paying for it
You work for their idea!
Feature film is : somebody else is paying for YUOR idea!
Do you see the difference?
Now let's talk about your statment that I put in bold. Why is it the way you described it?
And no worries about me thinking big:
I am planing to do movies that are going to be shown in film forums and movie theaters well into the future, this ancd centuries to come!
My goals are mine, for you they may be wrong, but I turned a company in an industry that didn't exist into a million dollar enterprise (that later died a horrible bank breaking death for other reasons - not business acumen on my part). Creating an industry is easy, you just have to convince people that it exists, then get them interested in being part of it... like magic (Gandalf etc.).
For me, I don't want someone to pay for my idea, I want them to make a high-risk business investment with me. To provide them ROI, I won't be making film as art, I'll be making film as craft (which is often dismissed as selling out, but if you have mouths to feed and a mortgage, you'll understand the impetus to work this way)... along the way, if I happen to get all of the pieces "Right", I'll have made art while still providing for my family. I normally don't ever produce anything I've written myself (never have, not that kind of "one man" show here). We've thus far treated what we're doing as a community theater model. We're just looking to move beyond that now that we've built our crew and skillsets past that point. There are many examples of this model succeeding, "Not Ready For Primetime", "Groundlings", "Second City TV" - granted, all comedy troupes, but similar groundwork laid.
I could follow the normal path of dropping everything and moving to a coast to work in the existing industry and compete against all of the others who have done that, or I could start my own business with my own model. Finding backers for a business is different from finding backers for a film. This is why Studios make all the bank and indie filmmakers complain about the studios making the bank... Studios treat it like a business first, making a product that the customer wants. Here in MN, where there is no existing industry, I'm in prime real estate for creating an industry with little to no direct competition. There are many talented film crew folks who live here but commute to LA, NY and Canada to work and make a living. Providing local benefit to employees, businesses and investors is an easy sell. I'm not looking at filmmaking from the auteur's standpoint, I'm looking at it from the standpoint of a business entrepreneur. If you haven't done it, it's a strange mentality to put yourself into...
Then again, I started from "I want to make a movie" to spending 8 years working on my craft and developing myself to the point that the groups I've worked with now have specifically stated "I'm never doing another production without you." (Ego +++). I'm willing to work for the bigger picture. I'm not content to resign myself to "what is."
MN hasn't remained competitive with their "Snowbate" (I didn't name it, don't laugh at me) film rebate program amongst the states. There have been many films shot here over the years, it's just not as fiscally attractive here as it once was. Our old Gov' didn't seem to see the value in bringing "Gig" jobs into the state (with the associated income to local business it provided - food, shelter, office space, location rental, etc...).
The programs work thusly:
1) make a film
2) spend money wherever you make it
3) whatever money you spend on local resources (people, lodging, food, equipment, etc) you can get an xx% refund after you're done because it brings money directly into the local economy.
MN's xx% is lower (lower ROI for the production) than other states that have similar looks to them, so even films set in MN are shot elsewhere now. Almost every state has these programs.
As I'm looking at this endeavor as a business rather than a one off film, the state refund program becomes a side note that helps with my ROI as I can then claim the full budget of each production and the refund (if granted by the state board) gets us closer to our return/profit case faster. Since all of our work will be in state, we have a much higher amount of our budget that will qualify for the refunds (the funds are limited though due to the cutbacks over the past dozen years).
If I were a typical producer and looking at all of the possibilities for locations in the world, I'd want to go specifically where the rebate benefitted me the most and the initial prices were the lowest (lowering my upfront costs and increasing my return on that investment)... so many productions are done in Canada and a few of the other midwest states to our East. Over time, fewer and fewer productions have come here and many of the local resources had to shut their doors - lowering my business competition here.
Filmmaking costs money. If you don't look at it as a business, you'll never succeed at it unless you get struck by magic (Gandalf, etc.) As a business, you just need to make decisions about your product that benefit your customers in a way that make them want to pay you to do what you're doing (look at all the Hollywood Tent Pole Pictures) over and over again. A few initial profitable productions will enable us to get momentum and cash reserves to fund the next film, lather, rinse, repeat.
Or, I can put the same 6 rivets into refrigerators for the rest of my life. I don't currently do this, but have in the past - some of the folks I worked with were content that this was the reality of their life until the day they died. I'm going for the bigger of the two visions of my personal future. I've done it before, it just takes some time.
Damn, Indigo, why you gotta be Debbie Downer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ_R-G_i4Xk
Believe it or not, people actually do make money off of feature films. Nobody is pretending it's as easy as getting a paper route. I don't even have a parade for you to rain on, but I'm sure as hell not going to let you block the light at the end of the tunnel.
Some of us still have this thing called a dream. I'm sorry you lost that. I don't look down on wedding videographers, but it's not for me (I make more money, serving drinks to those attending the wedding).
The majority of big-name directors today did not attend film school, and got their career started with pet-projects. I truly believe that the key to breaking through that barrier is simply making a movie that YOU think is awesome.
I don't need the odds explained to me. I don't need Negative-Nancy telling me it will never happen. I'm pragmatic, and I understand the harsh realities of the world. I'm also a dreamer, and I refuse to allow you to change that.
And with that, I wish the best of luck to all those dreamers out there. Set your lofty goals, put the wheels in motion, and make your dreams happen!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ_R-G_i4Xk
Believe it or not, people actually do make money off of feature films. Nobody is pretending it's as easy as getting a paper route. I don't even have a parade for you to rain on, but I'm sure as hell not going to let you block the light at the end of the tunnel.
Some of us still have this thing called a dream. I'm sorry you lost that. I don't look down on wedding videographers, but it's not for me (I make more money, serving drinks to those attending the wedding).
The majority of big-name directors today did not attend film school, and got their career started with pet-projects. I truly believe that the key to breaking through that barrier is simply making a movie that YOU think is awesome.
I don't need the odds explained to me. I don't need Negative-Nancy telling me it will never happen. I'm pragmatic, and I understand the harsh realities of the world. I'm also a dreamer, and I refuse to allow you to change that.
And with that, I wish the best of luck to all those dreamers out there. Set your lofty goals, put the wheels in motion, and make your dreams happen!
A lot of indie films though have sold their audience on substance over style though. Good Will Hunting, Memento, Mean Streets, for example, did not have flashy visuals, and actually kind of empty and plain in terms of style.
Last edited:
You do realize every one of those examples had named or swiftly rising talent in the cast don't you? And EACH director had GREAT connections to this industry.
I would say the connections were more important, as at some point, the director/writers didn't have the names attached to the script. Good Will Hunting was made by the two lead in it and only got Robin Williams because he was presented the finished script (Matt Damon and Ben Affleck worked on it for years as unknowns) and chose to do it. With the named actor attached, they were able to get more production funding -- because the name guaranteed a return on that investment in the first weekend with a traditional marketing campaign.
The traditional goal is to get names attached to a project to get funding to do the marketing to sell the product at the end. This is a real and working model no matter how one feels about it. The trick is to figure out the equation that works at lower budgets, without studio backing and without as much access to the big name talent that Hollywood has.
The traditional goal is to get names attached to a project to get funding to do the marketing to sell the product at the end. This is a real and working model no matter how one feels about it. The trick is to figure out the equation that works at lower budgets, without studio backing and without as much access to the big name talent that Hollywood has.
My goals are mine, for you they may be wrong, but I turned a company in an industry that didn't exist into a million dollar enterprise (that later died a horrible bank breaking death for other reasons - not business acumen on my part). Creating an industry is easy, you just have to convince people that it exists, then get them interested in being part of it... like magic (Gandalf etc.).
For me, I don't want someone to pay for my idea, I want them to make a high-risk business investment with me. To provide them ROI, I won't be making film as art, I'll be making film as craft (which is often dismissed as selling out, but if you have mouths to feed and a mortgage, you'll understand the impetus to work this way)... along the way, if I happen to get all of the pieces "Right", I'll have made art while still providing for my family. I normally don't ever produce anything I've written myself (never have, not that kind of "one man" show here). We've thus far treated what we're doing as a community theater model. We're just looking to move beyond that now that we've built our crew and skillsets past that point. There are many examples of this model succeeding, "Not Ready For Primetime", "Groundlings", "Second City TV" - granted, all comedy troupes, but similar groundwork laid.
I could follow the normal path of dropping everything and moving to a coast to work in the existing industry and compete against all of the others who have done that, or I could start my own business with my own model. Finding backers for a business is different from finding backers for a film. This is why Studios make all the bank and indie filmmakers complain about the studios making the bank... Studios treat it like a business first, making a product that the customer wants. Here in MN, where there is no existing industry, I'm in prime real estate for creating an industry with little to no direct competition. There are many talented film crew folks who live here but commute to LA, NY and Canada to work and make a living. Providing local benefit to employees, businesses and investors is an easy sell. I'm not looking at filmmaking from the auteur's standpoint, I'm looking at it from the standpoint of a business entrepreneur. If you haven't done it, it's a strange mentality to put yourself into...
Then again, I started from "I want to make a movie" to spending 8 years working on my craft and developing myself to the point that the groups I've worked with now have specifically stated "I'm never doing another production without you." (Ego +++). I'm willing to work for the bigger picture. I'm not content to resign myself to "what is."
MN hasn't remained competitive with their "Snowbate" (I didn't name it, don't laugh at me) film rebate program amongst the states. There have been many films shot here over the years, it's just not as fiscally attractive here as it once was. Our old Gov' didn't seem to see the value in bringing "Gig" jobs into the state (with the associated income to local business it provided - food, shelter, office space, location rental, etc...).
The programs work thusly:
1) make a film
2) spend money wherever you make it
3) whatever money you spend on local resources (people, lodging, food, equipment, etc) you can get an xx% refund after you're done because it brings money directly into the local economy.
MN's xx% is lower (lower ROI for the production) than other states that have similar looks to them, so even films set in MN are shot elsewhere now. Almost every state has these programs.
As I'm looking at this endeavor as a business rather than a one off film, the state refund program becomes a side note that helps with my ROI as I can then claim the full budget of each production and the refund (if granted by the state board) gets us closer to our return/profit case faster. Since all of our work will be in state, we have a much higher amount of our budget that will qualify for the refunds (the funds are limited though due to the cutbacks over the past dozen years).
If I were a typical producer and looking at all of the possibilities for locations in the world, I'd want to go specifically where the rebate benefitted me the most and the initial prices were the lowest (lowering my upfront costs and increasing my return on that investment)... so many productions are done in Canada and a few of the other midwest states to our East. Over time, fewer and fewer productions have come here and many of the local resources had to shut their doors - lowering my business competition here.
Filmmaking costs money. If you don't look at it as a business, you'll never succeed at it unless you get struck by magic (Gandalf, etc.) As a business, you just need to make decisions about your product that benefit your customers in a way that make them want to pay you to do what you're doing (look at all the Hollywood Tent Pole Pictures) over and over again. A few initial profitable productions will enable us to get momentum and cash reserves to fund the next film, lather, rinse, repeat.
Or, I can put the same 6 rivets into refrigerators for the rest of my life. I don't currently do this, but have in the past - some of the folks I worked with were content that this was the reality of their life until the day they died. I'm going for the bigger of the two visions of my personal future. I've done it before, it just takes some time.
I am affraid that there are so many misconcepts in your post that I don't know where to start...but I will try to respond in a timely manner. Now , I ma at work so long reply are not doable.
OMG...
Where dod you red all the "proofs" for your "accusations"? When and How did I became anybody's dreambreaker?
How did we got there?
Are yo to bored to read long post, so didn't red mine in full and carefuly, or is it something else?
Before I continue (or rather start from the beginning) let me try to establish some sort of mutual understanding facts in order to determine should I take a part in this discussion or is it just a waste of my time:
This is a topic about funding one's first independent FEATURE MOVIE(S)!? Yes or No?
(Am I missing something?)
Now, can we agree that discussing financing worlds of TV shows, music videos, industrial movies, webinars even the HOLLYWOOD FEATURE MOVIES and other forms of film/video storytelling, is not the main subject of this topic (of course that comparisons and informations about those are welcome but please let's not get lost in the loops of discussing Apples and Oranges)?
Now…… please answer for yourself the following questions:
-What are the points that are mutual (I found at least 3 points) for the following movies: "Citizen Caine", "Brazil", "Blade Runner" ?
-Did Steven Spielberg got rich by making movies?
-Did F.F. Coppla got rich by making movies?
This is a topic about funding one's first independent FEATURE MOVIE(S)!? Yes or No?
(Am I missing something?)
Now, can we agree that discussing financing worlds of TV shows, music videos, industrial movies, webinars even the HOLLYWOOD FEATURE MOVIES and other forms of film/video storytelling, is not the main subject of this topic (of course that comparisons and informations about those are welcome but please let's not get lost in the loops of discussing Apples and Oranges)?
Now…… please answer for yourself the following questions:
-What are the points that are mutual (I found at least 3 points) for the following movies: "Citizen Caine", "Brazil", "Blade Runner" ?
-Did Steven Spielberg got rich by making movies?
-Did F.F. Coppla got rich by making movies?
1) none of them were indie films
2) the creators of all three were well known and established before attempting said pictures
3) none of them made a ton of box office money
So, as you say, funding a first time feature film. None of these are relevant to the discussion. I daresay Spielberg and Coppola are doing okay, financially, but again, that's not really our world either.
If you want to make Brazil, that's great (one of my all-time favorites). If you're doing it out of your own pocket as your first feature out of the gate, well that might be a little more difficult, and twice as hard getting it seen. All of the films you mentioned (and again, none of them indies) were done by creators who had BIG hits before (Welles in radio; Kane was his first feature film but he was already famous and well connected).
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to make artistic films. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to make money at filmmaking. They're two different perspectives, but the world has room for ALL SORTS of different perspectives!
1-true but there is more that what you noticed.
2-partialy true. Welles was well conected but this is de facto his First movie (What would be you predictions of success and financing of movie if Jon Bon Jovi or somebody with similar sucess in other industry decides to became a film director in Hollywood now?). Ridlley Scott was pretty much nobody from Hoollywood's point of view before Bladerunner (so was HArrison Ford). I will get back to this later....
3-EXACTLY!!!
All of this is very relevant to THIS topic and disscusion. So as all other things and informations that me or anyboy else says about movies, books, sex, psycology of stamp collectors...
What is not relevant to this topic, is directly derived deductive conclusions when one compares all thise aspects and aplies them to indie feature firstimmer such as:
- YOU CAN MAKE A LIVING by making your first feature movie because you can MAKE A LIVING been a director/dp/producer/writer/actor of primetime advertizing commercials -
WRONG...
So many differences between the two that direct comparisson is just not possible and applicable! But yes, one can learn and improve from the experience of the other in many ways...
And yes, while there is nothing moraly wrong wanting to make a living by making indie features, but there is a clear proof of disfunctionality of one's ratio, if one thinks that that's "how the things are" in filmmaking.
Not to meniton that there is a BIG TIME WRONGDOING if telling your potential investor:
Give me your money because I am gonna make you profit big time, by making my indie movie, because indie movie industry is money making industry!
That's simply a -LIE!
indie movie making indusrty is - MONEY SPENDING Industry!
Not MONEY MAKING indusrty!
Can you comprehend the difference?
Let's continue the quiz:
4-If Speiblerg is doing OK financialy, than why he (anf other 2) sold whole Dreamworks company and archive fpr peanuts and some short chage to Disney?
5-How did Sielberg decided to protect his moneymaking profits?
6-Who put the money for Sofia Coppola's first feature?
7-Why no major successes in indie movies doesn't come from the major hollywood creative big wigs as a main backers and financiers of indie filmmakers?
8-Why is it easier for a newcomer filmmaker to meet 10 dentists to ask them to give you 25k each for your first movie, instead of meeeting Speilberg once and ask him to give you 250K for the same thing?
Last edited:
Some clarifications here:
Do you realize what radio was in the 30s? Do you realize that Welles was a household name? A better comparison than Bon Jovi (who is not in a narrative art form, whereas Welles WAS) would be someone who is big in television....which oddly enough is where a lot of directors DO come from.
This is just flat out wrong. Blade Runner was in 82. Alien was in 79 and made 80 million. The Duelists was in 77; Box Office Mojo doesn't list it, but it did star Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel. It was his debut, but had far more high profile actors than a debut by you or I would. Why? Because he had been directing television since 1965. Ridley Scott was not a nobody. He had been working for nearly 20 years and had one BIG hit. Incidentally, Alien was made for 11 million. You don't give 11 million to a nobody, not today, and certainly not in 1979.
All of this is you doing exactly what you said you didn't want to do...you're comparing apples to oranges here. Now, I'm not saying one is LIKELY to make money on an indie picture...or a hollywood film or what have you.
The difference is this: if you're making the movie that you want to make, your odds are much slimmer than if you actually study the market you are aiming for and make something that THEY want to see, and market it to them. No one is saying that everyone always makes money on movies. No one is even saying it is LIKELY to make money doing movies. What people are saying is that it CAN and HAS been done. Like anything else, there are ways to do it and be smart about it, increasing the odds that you can walk home with lunch money. And there are ways to do things wrong, which dramatically lower your odds.
Which is fine if at the end of the day you just want the movie that you want to watch. But if your goal is to make money (again, a GOAL, not a guarantee or even very likely), there are things you can do to work towards that goal.
It all depends on what your goals are. They're different for everyone.
Do you realize what radio was in the 30s? Do you realize that Welles was a household name? A better comparison than Bon Jovi (who is not in a narrative art form, whereas Welles WAS) would be someone who is big in television....which oddly enough is where a lot of directors DO come from.
This is just flat out wrong. Blade Runner was in 82. Alien was in 79 and made 80 million. The Duelists was in 77; Box Office Mojo doesn't list it, but it did star Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel. It was his debut, but had far more high profile actors than a debut by you or I would. Why? Because he had been directing television since 1965. Ridley Scott was not a nobody. He had been working for nearly 20 years and had one BIG hit. Incidentally, Alien was made for 11 million. You don't give 11 million to a nobody, not today, and certainly not in 1979.
All of this is you doing exactly what you said you didn't want to do...you're comparing apples to oranges here. Now, I'm not saying one is LIKELY to make money on an indie picture...or a hollywood film or what have you.
The difference is this: if you're making the movie that you want to make, your odds are much slimmer than if you actually study the market you are aiming for and make something that THEY want to see, and market it to them. No one is saying that everyone always makes money on movies. No one is even saying it is LIKELY to make money doing movies. What people are saying is that it CAN and HAS been done. Like anything else, there are ways to do it and be smart about it, increasing the odds that you can walk home with lunch money. And there are ways to do things wrong, which dramatically lower your odds.
Which is fine if at the end of the day you just want the movie that you want to watch. But if your goal is to make money (again, a GOAL, not a guarantee or even very likely), there are things you can do to work towards that goal.
It all depends on what your goals are. They're different for everyone.
OMG...
Where dod you red all the "proofs" for your "accusations"? When and How did I became anybody's dreambreaker?
How did we got there?
Are yo to bored to read long post, so didn't red mine in full and carefuly, or is it something else?
I read your posts, in full, and found them to be rather negative. Not sure how you think they are anything otherwise. I'm not trying to get into a flame-war with you. I just wanted to temper your negativity with a little hopefullness. You did, after all, write this:
I didn't read anything wrong, or take it out of context. You stated, quite clearly, that you think I'm doing it wrong. I'm telling you that what you think is "right" doesn't work for me, on many levels. I'm not interested in doing what you think is "right", I'm perfectly capable of choosing the path that is best for me, and I'm not embarrassed to admit that it is the path of a dreamer.