And amen again. It's about caring. As Alcove says, making it the equal of visuals and story. A critical part of the end product that gets it's share of attention.
Is it me or do a lot of indie films in festivals feel kind of empty?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
I read this column this morning - it is specifically/mostly addressing script submissions to production companies, but I think it's on point regarding why some indie movies are boring:
http://networkedblogs.com/xwvsY
http://networkedblogs.com/xwvsY
Good enough works for me, too.
I can't remember what the exact figures are but something like only one or two indi films out of 10 ever makes a profit. This means that at least 8 out of 10 indi film makers' concept of "good enough" is in fact NOT good enough!
Well, actually I can spitball some real numbers.
"There are an estimated 4,000 - 5,000 independent films made every single year. Here's the unfortunate truth: Less than 5% of all these movies end up with distribution."
http://www.distribution.la/
Probably not the most reliable source of intel, but it doesn't sound like complete BS.
Maybe this'll be better...
"Only about 40 of the 3,812 finished films that were submitted to Sundance this year will get any kind of distribution at all. That’s slightly over one percent. The other 98% you will never get to see – not even on Netflix."
http://www.culturalweekly.com/indie-films-state-of-the-union.html
Looks somewhat more credible.
And considering that not every indie film gets submitted to Sundance (on a lark) their 3,812 number suggests the previous distribution.la numbers were low balling the total number.
I bet it's closer to 8,000, give or take a thousand. Or two.
Independent Film Profit Probability
http://abovethelineproducer.blogspot.com/2010/06/independent-film-profit-probability.html
(Formatting changes for clarity by myself)
"According to the Sundance Institute, the total number of U.S. feature films submitted to the festival was:
1,920 for the 2010 festival,
1,905 for the 2009 festival, and
2,021 for 2008.
Taking an average of these three years we arrive at
1,949.
At any one time, there are about 1,949 U.S. films waiting to be picked up for distribution. This assumes, that all applicants to Sundance have no distribution already in place.
Films with no theatrical distribution in place prior to financing (i.e., most of the films applying to Sundance) end up opening at 1,000 domestic theaters or less, if they open theatrically at all.
The 2011 average was 135 theaters at widest (not total), F 76: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdGlCeDRmWTFCYXJRWjJ3SUphZDNzMGc#gid=0
"Hence, a good a place to turn for some rate of success analysis is this pool of limited opening films (specialty films).
The definition a specialty film is any film that opened theatrically at 1,000 domestic venues or fewer, “domestic” meaning the U.S. and Canada.
There were 286 English-language specialty films released into theaters in 2009 (and about 11% had studio financing). Using this 286 number as an approximation of U.S. specialty films, we can examine how they did and come up with a rough probability for turning a profit.
Of the 286 specialty films released in 2009, 52 English-language specialty films appear to be headed for a profit, with the rest not likely to make back their investment.
Films produced 2009 (1949)
Films distributed in 2009 (286)
Films returning a profit in 2009 (52)
Profit probability (2.7%)"
Odds are, good enough on audio or any technical filmmaking aspect was indeed "good enough."
I suspect the overwhelming majority of issues was story related, or lack thereof.
Great audio isn't going to save most films from the FAIL stamp.
SUCKER PUNCH looked and sounded great.
Hell, check out most of the indie films on my 2010 & 2011 Indie Films analysis spreadsheets.
2010: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Hh6cHJBMW5aQkZSMzZYR2V3VUxQVUE&hl=en_US#gid=0
2011: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdGlCeDRmWTFCYXJRWjJ3SUphZDNzMGc
Audio was fine on all of those I have been able to see - except ONDINE. Audio did suck on that.
But too many were commercial failures.
Why?
The stories sucked, mostly, is why.
There's a pretty good reason why Hollywood studios took a pass on all of these: The stories sucked.
Profitability is rarely a production issue.
Hallmark, Lifetime, and SyFy TV broadcast "Movie of the Week" films have very passable audio... but good Lord the stories suck to the n-th degree.
Production standards ain it.
Budget ain't it.
Actors ain't it.
Directors ain't it.
Story IS it.
Last edited:
Is it me, or has this thread strayed off topic?
The OP's point was not that the movies were poor quality, per se, nor was it a question of their financial success. It was that many of the movies accepted by festivals seem tedious to him.
To claim that despite their technical shortcomings these films are nevertheless the best the indie world has to offer is incredibly insulting to those of us who spend YEARS (literally) honing our scripts and developing our soundscapes to create something that holds the audience's attention, only to be rejected from festival after festival because the film isn't [fill-in-the-blank] enough.
A few of the contributors to this thread have seen my film. Maybe I'm full of it and the script and sound sucks and they're just too polite to say so, but it was made to entertain the average viewer, not to please those looking for something "edgy".
The OP's point was not that the movies were poor quality, per se, nor was it a question of their financial success. It was that many of the movies accepted by festivals seem tedious to him.
To claim that despite their technical shortcomings these films are nevertheless the best the indie world has to offer is incredibly insulting to those of us who spend YEARS (literally) honing our scripts and developing our soundscapes to create something that holds the audience's attention, only to be rejected from festival after festival because the film isn't [fill-in-the-blank] enough.
A few of the contributors to this thread have seen my film. Maybe I'm full of it and the script and sound sucks and they're just too polite to say so, but it was made to entertain the average viewer, not to please those looking for something "edgy".
But do you want your project to be the "great" film that never gets seen because the audio or other technical aspect sucks? That's the risk. Festivals throw films into the reject pile for poor audio more than any other technical reason. You never even get a complete viewing because the vetting committee doesn't want to sit through the pain of crappy audio.
Actually, I just watched it last night. Man, you foley-ed the shit out of that movie! And the score is brilliant!
I should see it.
One of the movies at the festival, which I also thought was slow on plot, had a subplot with two not so main characters. The subplot was basically a somewhat long scene of how they are into kinky sex and show some sexual content. I ask other people at the festival if that scene and subplot, contributed any depth to the characters and helped develop them more. They didn't think it did and thought it had no reason to be in there. So maybe the writers, could cut back on scenes like those, or carry them on further to perhaps more of a pay off?
One of the movies at the festival, which I also thought was slow on plot, had a subplot with two not so main characters. The subplot was basically a somewhat long scene of how they are into kinky sex and show some sexual content. I ask other people at the festival if that scene and subplot, contributed any depth to the characters and helped develop them more. They didn't think it did and thought it had no reason to be in there. So maybe the writers, could cut back on scenes like those, or carry them on further to perhaps more of a pay off?
Heavens, no.
Sincerely, I believe collecting a GOOD, clean audio is about as no-sh!t-Sherlock fundamental as paying attention to the camera being left-to-right level or if the framing has cut off the top half of the actors' faces.
WTH, people?!
- Can't level the blinkin' camera?
- Can't frame it properly?
- Can't collect non-FUBAR audio, either?
Pfft.
No, my respect for audio has grown leaps and bounds since I began reading and listeng to you and others here.
In the few projects I've done I'm shocked and amazed that I spend an equal amount of time fiddlin' around with audio as I do to video.
I'll be d@mned if I'm gonna get booted from any contest or commercial consideration over something as seemingly formulaic as collecting "good" audio under variable conditions.
- If there's too much light stop down the aperture or speed up the shutter speed or add ND filters or just block the light.
- If there's too little light open up that aperture or slow down the shutter speed or add light.
- I don't even WANT to even try to collect audio on my Poopy-cam 3000 anymore.
- I wan't a guy with pole that knows how the next bit of dialog will go so that he can point the mic in the right direction. And I want him wearing headphones listening to WTH is supposed to be recorded. And knows how to fiddle with the levels to give us as much latitude in post to tinker with the raw audio.
Mostly I wish my own hearing wasn't so sub-par, otherwise I'd be collecting audio gear and hiring myself out to all the ten-thousand wannabe directors.
Everyone wants to be the director.
No one wants to be the boom pole monkey.
If I could hear worth beans I'd do it.
Crappy audio should be a self-fail.
I don't want to hear anyone's amature-our echo off all six major surfaces of their apartment bedroom, or hall, or kitchen, or living room.
WTH are people thinkin'?
That sounds like sh!t, people. Are they stupid or something?
Why put that out in public?
They should be embarassed.
That established, I still believe in good enough most anything.
I admit to being something of a "pig" in many things.
I don't care about fashion. T-shirts and jeans are fine.
I don't care about food. If it takes me longer to prepare it than it does to eat it that's a waste of my time.
I don't care about getting "just the mostest perfect shot." Audience isn't going to know what anything could have been.
I don't care about getting "just the mostest perfect audio." Audience isn't going to know that it could have been 3% better.
I want to get 90% of the work done in the first 10% of time spent.
I don't care if I leave 10% of much of anything on the table.
There should be a formulaic math to these things.
I'll do what I can to learn it and teach it.
Production standards ain it.
Budget ain't it.
Actors ain't it.
Directors ain't it.
Story IS it.
That's the essence of the problem. But why do a lot of indie movie makers not see it?
Sorry but I completely disagree. There are plenty of good and even great films which do not have a great story. It's not the story but how you tell it! You must know this just from listening to your friends telling a story or a joke. For example, good comedians need good material but ultimately they are successful or great because of their delivery.Production standards ain it.
Budget ain't it.
Actors ain't it.
Directors ain't it.
Story IS it.
If you accept that it's the telling of the story rather than the story itself, then production standards, acting, directors, budget, etc., are at least as important as the story. IMHO, if you're only really interested in the story maybe you should consider writing a book, rather than making a film.
Yes, technical problems with sound can sink your film but in my previous posts I was not really referring to the basic competency of technically acceptable sound. I was referring to the use of sound to take your film many levels beyond just technical competency. This is the problem mentioned by Alcove and what I've been trying to explain. Most film makers have their films rejected for the lack of technical competency with sound and seem to be completely unaware of how much higher they should be aiming than just basic competency. Would you put out a film where you could barely see the image and where the images consistently have incorrect framing, poor focus and very little or no design or artist merit? If the answer is no, then why do so many film makers do the equivalent of this with sound?
G
Last edited:
Someone needs to frame this. It's the second time you've said it in the thread and I hope it sticks this time.
Maybe it's getting buried beneath the audio conversation (which is important, yes), but totally agree. One hundred damned percent.
This is a very subjective statement. "Great story" by whose definition? "Good and...great films" by whose definition?
I'm not disagreeing at all that execution is important -- that's why my 2 most recent features took about 5 years each to complete -- but I would be interested in examples of great films with weak stories. If you'd used the term "successful" rather than "great" I can think of many. But I'm hard-pressed to come up with a title that I consider both a great movie and weak-storied.
Last edited:
I agree entirely, it's extremely subjective, as is all art. So really I'm talking about a sort of general consensus mixed in with my personal subjectivity. Taking this into account, the other problem is that it's hard to tell if a film has a weak story if it's a great film, because the telling of the story trumps the story itself, so as an audience member you just don't notice. For me an example of a great film with a weak story would be "Brief Encounter" (1945). Depending on your subjectivity it's possible you might put films like "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" or maybe "Raging Bull" or many others into this category. In other words, films so strong in the telling that the story is virtually irrelevant. Obviously, just my personal opinion though.
G
Great story as in enough story to justify it's run time and how it is edited.
IMO, part of the "problem" would be filmmakers lumping things together as if they all carry the same definition.
Story
Script
Movie/Motion Picture
--- Three completely different things. Learning the differences can help a ton.
Interesting that you chose that particular example. First time I saw Inception I thought the same thing -- weak story, not up to Chris Nolan's usual standards.
Something bothered me about it, though. Everything else he's done has been so intricate and sophisticated that I thought maybe I'd missed something. So I gave it a second shot.
Whole different movie the second time. Way more to it than I'd picked up on the first viewing. Maybe you've watched it twice and still weren't impressed, but it won me over. FWIW.
My thought is that great screen writing can overcome mediocre production easier than great production can overcome mediocre screen writing. Of course in a perfect world you'd like both and "great" films usually have both.