Making my own version of a Hollywood film

Hey Guys,

I wanted to know if anybody knows if I can take a movie that has already been made and recreate it but changing the story a little bit?
 
Hey Guys,

I wanted to know if anybody knows if I can take a movie that has already been made and recreate it but changing the story a little bit?


Repeat after me... there are NO NEW STORIES, there are only new or different ways of telling the same old story. Assuming that you're not talking about a Clooney/Sinatra Oceans Eleven remake and are looking more at a Romeo & Juliet v West Side Story , you're pretty much free to go for it. And if you're cherry, trying to remake scene-for-scene an existing film is (IMO) a great exercise. Not everything you shoot HAS to be "Pantages" quality.

And for those screaming "GIVE IT A BREAK, IT'S BEEN ASKED BEFORE"... not everyone is as seasoned and knowledgeable as you, FJ, and unless I'm mistaken, this forum is STILL a place for people to ASK QUESTIONS and share ideas.
 
Repeat after me... there are NO NEW STORIES, there are only new or different ways of telling the same old story. Assuming that you're not talking about a Clooney/Sinatra Oceans Eleven remake and are looking more at a Romeo & Juliet v West Side Story , you're pretty much free to go for it. And if you're cherry, trying to remake scene-for-scene an existing film is (IMO) a great exercise. Not everything you shoot HAS to be "Pantages" quality.

And for those screaming "GIVE IT A BREAK, IT'S BEEN ASKED BEFORE"... not everyone is as seasoned and knowledgeable as you, FJ, and unless I'm mistaken, this forum is STILL a place for people to ASK QUESTIONS and share ideas.

I never meant to say people can't ask questions. I just have a particular pet-peeve with that specific question. And it's mainly for two reasons. One, it's partially untrue, and Two, things seem to actually getting better in that regard. I'm not seeing less "original content" as the years go on, I'm seeing more. And I'd find it hard to believe I'm the only one who's noticed.

But it is fair to say that not everyone is aware of the state of things. I just wish people didn't get so heated about the issue all the time when there's so much great content to enjoy out there, even if big-budget Hollywood isn't offering up the best material for now.
 
Well that's what it's done for me anyway.

How do you know? There are numerous filmmaking subtleties which could extremely easily be missed in the exercise of copying a great scene/shot, because it's pretty much impossible to copy a great scene precisely (especially with limited resources) and those subtleties are often what makes the scene great or at least contribute to it's "greatness". How do you know you're not missing some or all of those subtleties and only copying the obvious? In fact, your post to which I was replying, strongly indicates that you have not gained a full or true understanding of why great scenes work! How would you know what you are missing, if you are missing it and unaware of it?

Repeat after me... there are NO NEW STORIES, there are only new or different ways of telling the same old story.

Why do you say "only"? Filmmaking is all about the story telling (rather than the story itself), so whether there are or there aren't any new stories is not really relevant, at least as far as filmmaking is concerned. Copying scenes can be a great exercise but it can only ever be an exercise and, it's only one type of exercise because it does not "exercise" all the required filmmaking skills.

... there's so much great content to enjoy out there, even if big-budget Hollywood isn't offering up the best material for now.

Careful there, "originality" is a relative term, especially in filmmaking and, Hollywood IS offering up the best material right now. Hollywood has existed for so long and continues to exist because it consistently offers the best material. While we've all got our own personal opinions on what constitutes the "best" material, there is danger (as filmmakers) in not understanding or fully appreciating "best" in terms of the clear market leaders.

G
 
How do you know? There are numerous filmmaking subtleties which could extremely easily be missed in the exercise of copying a great scene/shot, because it's pretty much impossible to copy a great scene precisely (especially with limited resources) and those subtleties are often what makes the scene great or at least contribute to it's "greatness". How do you know you're not missing some or all of those subtleties and only copying the obvious? In fact, your post to which I was replying, strongly indicates that you have not gained a full or true understanding of why great scenes work! How would you know what you are missing, if you are missing it and unaware of it?

I didn't say that I've figured everything out. I'm not saying I know everything. I don't. You've read too much into what I meant by saying "Well that's what it's done for me anyway."

I didn't mean that I achieved ultimate wisdom by studying great shots. I meant that... compared to what I knew and understood about filmmaking and shot design 5-10 years ago, I have learned so so much from being taught by excellent professors at my college, by watching dozens of documentaries, and carefully breaking down many different shots into their individual elements. And I now can feel a noticeable change in how I recognize the effect of a great shot compared to the effect of a terrible one. I'm making connections. I even wrote a whole article on why numerous shots in one particular bad film were terribly composed and failed in their execution. I'm not saying I was perfectly right on all of my points in this article, but I do feel that I was on the right track, based upon what I learned about visual design in school.

Also, I pretty much agree with everything you explain here. I am actively and constantly looking for the "subtleties." Why does this work here, but not here? What is it about this shot or this scene that makes it convey what it is intended to? And in turn, what could make my scene or shot best convey what it is intended to?

Filmmaking is not an exact science. A lot of it is subjective, but a lot of it is also universal, because many great shots wouldn't subconsciously convey the emotion, the spacial relationships, and the character mindset on screen if it wasn't. However, most people will not know why. And that's what I strive to understand.

I'm really not trying to say that my own work reflects what I believe I have learned yet. But I still stand by the idea that studying and mapping out different shots in other films, and their relationship to other shots placed around them in the edit, is a great way to try to learn and understand what makes them each effective in their message to the audience. If one could not do this, then Film Studies wouldn't be as fascinating of a scholastic study as it is.
 
Last edited:
I now can feel a noticeable change in how I recognize the effect of a great shot compared to the effect of a terrible one. ... I'm not saying I was perfectly right on all of my points in this article, but I do feel that I was on the right track, based upon what I learned about visual design in school. ... I am actively and constantly looking for the "subtleties." Why does this work here, but not here? What is it about this shot or this scene that makes it convey what it is intended to? And in turn, what could make my scene or shot best convey what it is intended to?

Maybe I'm over interpreting what you're saying but the impression I get is that you're not "on the right track" or at least not completely on the right track to "truly understanding".

Just taking the visual side of filmmaking, the "greatness" of shots/scenes (how well they work) is at least partly defined by what precedes and follows them, in other words, the juxtaposition of edits. This juxtaposition or context of the "great" scenes is both crucial and obviously something which is completely missed when just copying an individual scene. The other side to filmmaking is the aural side and here we also run into the issue of juxtaposition but we have the additional issue that much of what is crafted aurally is specifically designed to create emotions/responses subliminally. The fact that it's subliminal is what makes it such a powerful filmmaking tool but at the same time is the very reason why most amateur filmmakers, film critics and even film professors/courses so frequently miss/ignore it (often entirely) and concentrate on the more obvious, visual side of filmmaking. A classic example of this is the numerous analyses of the cinematography of Citizen Kane in isolation and the almost total lack of analysis of it's sound design which, it can be argued, is more important than the visual aspects! Not really surprising when one considers where Welles had come from and had excelled at.

G
 
Maybe I'm over interpreting what you're saying but the impression I get is that you're not "on the right track" or at least not completely on the right track to "truly understanding".

Just taking the visual side of filmmaking, the "greatness" of shots/scenes (how well they work) is at least partly defined by what precedes and follows them, in other words, the juxtaposition of edits. This juxtaposition or context of the "great" scenes is both crucial and obviously something which is completely missed when just copying an individual scene. The other side to filmmaking is the aural side and here we also run into the issue of juxtaposition but we have the additional issue that much of what is crafted aurally is specifically designed to create emotions/responses subliminally. The fact that it's subliminal is what makes it such a powerful filmmaking tool but at the same time is the very reason why most amateur filmmakers, film critics and even film professors/courses so frequently miss/ignore it (often entirely) and concentrate on the more obvious, visual side of filmmaking. A classic example of this is the numerous analyses of the cinematography of Citizen Kane in isolation and the almost total lack of analysis of it's sound design which, it can be argued, is more important than the visual aspects! Not really surprising when one considers where Welles had come from and had excelled at.

G

You're acting as if I didn't already specify some of these things in the very reply you quoted from.

I previously said...
A lot of it is subjective, but a lot of it is also universal, because many great shots wouldn't subconsciously convey the emotion, the spacial relationships, and the character mindset on screen if it wasn't.

I also specified that...
I still stand by the idea that studying and mapping out different shots in other films, and their relationship to other shots placed around them in the edit, is a great way to try to learn and understand what makes them each effective in their message to the audience.

I may have expressed these thoughts briefly, but they are there.

I try to consider the arguments you and others will bring up and make sure I express other details and points of view so that I can show that I'm not one-track-minded, or appear as if I'm only focusing on one aspect. And yet it feels as if you ignored or glossed over these things when writing your response about me not considering them.

I'm with you that there is a great lack of study into sound design and its history, which I find rather strange. But I certainly don't ignore it when studying why a shot works or doesn't work. Rather sound design would be something that is best explored within a scene as a whole, because sound is often meant to hide cuts and blend between shots. So if I were to do a scene breakdown of something, I would first look at the script and the dialogue present if there is any. Then explore the shots themselves and how they relate to the script. I would consider the meaning of the scene itself, and the underlying motivations or thoughts of the characters which may explain the use of certain shots and compositions. And then it would move onto the scene as a whole, and how the sound fx and/or music add to the effect of the scene based on the other elements at play.

Sound design, as you've said in the past, should start early in the pre-production process, especially if sound can be used as a way to allude to thoughts or ideas about character and location within the story: and therefore it is pivotal that these sounds be worked out before filming and set building begins. But then sound also culminates most after the film is shot and is getting edited, so it's usage when studying a scene (I think) is best approached after the visual elements, unless one wishes to start studying a scene by listening to it blindfolded. This is not a bad approach either.
 
You're acting as if I didn't already specify some of these things in the very reply you quoted from.

Yes, I realise you specified some of those things in your previous post but mapping out different scenes/shots in a film and their relationship to surrounding scenes/shots is not at all the same as just taking an individual scene/shot and copying it. I was pointing out that while copying an individual scene is a good filmmaking exercise, it is also a limited exercise. Your more holistic approach, which includes the context of the scene as well as the scene itself, is exactly the sort of exercise which IMHO is an essential compliment to just copying individual scene/s.

sound design would be something that is best explored within a scene as a whole, because sound is often meant to hide cuts and blend between shots.

That is just one potential purpose of sound, often it is used for the opposite effect, to accentuate visual cuts and these are just two of the many and usually concurrent things which sound is used for, affecting the audiences' perception of the tempo or pace of the scene is another. It's not at all uncommon for the final mix phase of filmmaking to start not at the beginning of the film but with the big climax, as once this is defined all the other scenes can be mixed relative to it. So again, a more holistic approach to studying a scene is essential.

Sound design, as you've said in the past, should start early in the pre-production process, especially if sound can be used as a way to allude to thoughts or ideas about character and location within the story: and therefore it is pivotal that these sounds be worked out before filming and set building begins.

While it can be useful to work out some individual sounds during the pre-prod stage, it's not "pivotal" or the main reason why sound design is started in pre-prod. It's started in pre-prod not because of the sound but because of the visuals! So the end result is a film which is designed for sound as much as the other way around. The idea behind this is to ensure sound is used to it's maximum storytelling potential rather than just being used as a crutch to support the visuals. The sound designer's primary role during pre-prod is therefore discussing/informing/advising the director, cinematographer and other department heads about how the scenes can be shot to maximise their potential for sound. The sound designer will therefore usually discuss aspects of; lighting, production design, blocking/movement/choreography, camera angles/movement/framing and of course the script; how and when lines can be delivered and indeed what lines are delivered. This is in sharp contrast to how amateur and low budget indie filmmakers usually understand the role of sound designer, who is usually seen as just the person in charge of adding sound once the film has already been shot and edited. My point here is that when analysing modern "great" films one often can't get a full or true understanding of even just the visuals without considering the role of the sound designer who frequently has significant influence over how the scenes were shot and composed.

G
 
While it can be useful to work out some individual sounds during the pre-prod stage, it's not "pivotal" or the main reason why sound design is started in pre-prod. It's started in pre-prod not because of the sound but because of the visuals! So the end result is a film which is designed for sound as much as the other way around. The idea behind this is to ensure sound is used to it's maximum storytelling potential rather than just being used as a crutch to support the visuals. The sound designer's primary role during pre-prod is therefore discussing/informing/advising the director, cinematographer and other department heads about how the scenes can be shot to maximise their potential for sound. The sound designer will therefore usually discuss aspects of; lighting, production design, blocking/movement/choreography, camera angles/movement/framing and of course the script; how and when lines can be delivered and indeed what lines are delivered. This is in sharp contrast to how amateur and low budget indie filmmakers usually understand the role of sound designer, who is usually seen as just the person in charge of adding sound once the film has already been shot and edited. My point here is that when analysing modern "great" films one often can't get a full or true understanding of even just the visuals without considering the role of the sound designer who frequently has significant influence over how the scenes were shot and composed.
G

I have definitely never thought about the sound designer as someone (or a group of people) who should be made part of the pre-production process to such an extent as you describe. But like I've tried to express before, my recognition and understanding of filmmaking concepts and methodologies has expanded greatly, and continues to expand each day as new information comes to me about different aspects. So I can definitely appreciate the integral value of doing what you describe above, despite never much thinking about it before I attended college, and how the final product is that much stronger for it. Because sounds are some of the most lasting impressions that I have with many films. And even if the visuals somehow fade away in my memory, the sound effects likely won't. I know you're referring to many different kinds of sounds, including subtle and not-so-noticeable ones, but even so.

I am unsure if my next film (whenever that may be) will be started at a time and place where I am able to bring in a sound designer early on: one who has the schedule to be dedicated to a project for a long period. (Although, my current sound designer for "Bill & Maggie" has been one of the nicest and most generous people I've met). But the soonest I can make that happen for a future project, I think it is a brilliant approach that I had never considered before. So I will make efforts towards that workflow.

Thank you, ~AudioPostExpert. And I apologize if I tend to get too defensive with my replies.
 
I have definitely never thought about the sound designer as someone (or a group of people) who should be made part of the pre-production process to such an extent as you describe.

That's not at all surprising. Even most well respected film courses/institutions tend to ignore or be ignorant of this fact. As far as most film courses are concerned, they seem stuck at the late 1930's approach to filmmaking. Although they virtually always cover the progressive 1940's filmmakers such as Alfred Hitchcock and the aforementioned Orson Welles, they largely ignore the step forward in their use of sound and just concentrate on their progressive use of cinematography, editing and other aspects of the visuals. Having not even reached the 1940's approach to sound design, they obviously don't cover (in any detail or at all) the major step forward in the latter half of the 1970's, which defined the holistic approach to sound of modern filmmaking.

... sounds are some of the most lasting impressions that I have with many films. And even if the visuals somehow fade away in my memory, the sound effects likely won't. I know you're referring to many different kinds of sounds, including subtle and not-so-noticeable ones, but even so.

Although you say "different kinds of sounds", your response indicate a thought process based on sounds and the design of sounds. The design of sounds is called "sound effects design" and is only one of a number constituent ingredients which makes up the much broader "sound design". The difference between "sounds" and "sound" is very significant in film; "sounds" implies two or more individual sounds whereas "sound" implies not only all the sounds individually and in combination BUT ALSO anything which affects the sound or anything the sound affects, which in film is pretty much everything! Like you appear to be doing, sound effects designers think in terms of how sounds (obvious or subliminal) will be perceived and affect the audience, the sound designer thinks far more broadly, about the story and storytelling as a whole. The sound designer is therefore thinking in terms of how the film should be designed/made rather than about how sounds should be designed/made, about how all the different film crafts combine (and don't combine) to tell the story! The sound designer will be looking at POV, blocking, framing, lighting, how lines of dialogue are delivered and numerous other aspects of filmmaking and, unlike the sound effects designer, will spend almost as much time thinking about the use of no sound.

I am unsure if my next film (whenever that may be) will be started at a time and place where I am able to bring in a sound designer early on: one who has the schedule to be dedicated to a project for a long period.

This is a severe difficultly for the amateur/low budget filmmaker. The vast majority of low budget filmmakers don't understand or appreciate what modern filmmaking is and what role the sound designer plays in it but even if they do, they are still faced with a serious dilemma: The role of the sound designer is one of the most demanding of all film roles as far as knowledge and experience is concerned. In addition to an in-depth knowledge of the technicalities and aesthetic possibilities of all the individual sound departments, the sound designer also needs a good understanding of the aesthetic possibilities of cinematography, picture editing, lighting, acting, production design, etc. It takes years, usually a decade or more as an film audio professional to gain that level of knowledge/experience/understanding. The obvious difficulty is low budget filmmakers generally can't afford to hire that level of expertise for even just the post-prod phase, let alone from the earliest stages of pre-prod.

I don't know what the best solution is for amateur and very low budget filmmakers but what I do know for certain is that ignoring, denying or remaining ignorant of modern filmmaking aims and methods is the worst solution!

I apologize if I tend to get too defensive with my replies.

No problem, mis-communications is part and parcel of internet forum discussions. I tend to come across as much more formal, brutal or condescending than I am in person.

G
 
Although you say "different kinds of sounds", your response indicate a thought process based on sounds and the design of sounds. The design of sounds is called "sound effects design" and is only one of a number constituent ingredients which makes up the much broader "sound design". The difference between "sounds" and "sound" is very significant in film; "sounds" implies two or more individual sounds whereas "sound" implies not only all the sounds individually and in combination BUT ALSO anything which affects the sound or anything the sound affects, which in film is pretty much everything! Like you appear to be doing, sound effects designers think in terms of how sounds (obvious or subliminal) will be perceived and affect the audience, the sound designer thinks far more broadly, about the story and storytelling as a whole. The sound designer is therefore thinking in terms of how the film should be designed/made rather than about how sounds should be designed/made, about how all the different film crafts combine (and don't combine) to tell the story! The sound designer will be looking at POV, blocking, framing, lighting, how lines of dialogue are delivered and numerous other aspects of filmmaking and, unlike the sound effects designer, will spend almost as much time thinking about the use of no sound.

I don't know what the best solution is for amateur and very low budget filmmakers but what I do know for certain is that ignoring, denying or remaining ignorant of modern filmmaking aims and methods is the worst solution!
G

It is honestly very difficult to wrap my head around precisely what you are saying here. I think I get what you mean, but it's clearly a complex situation, since it takes you a whole paragraph just to elaborate on it in what I assume is a concise way. So I imagine I won't be learning as much about sound design (in terms of a personal skill set) as a dedicated sound designer would. I'm always trying to broaden my skill set by expanding into as many different disciplines and creative areas as possible (including music composition someday), but sound design itself may not be one of them.

I think I'm capable of recognizing a good sound mix when I hear it, and a bad one when I hear it. And if I listen intently enough, I can probably nail down some things that can be improved in a particular project. But beyond that, I probably wouldn't have the know-how and the technical education to do a proper mix justice anytime soon.

I certainly will try to educate myself further in terms of a working understanding, so that I can intelligently communicate with the sound people I work with. But that may be about it. You seem to be very particular about how others word and view the sound design industry, and I'm sure rightly so. So I definitely wouldn't plan to claim myself as a sound designer for hire unless I had gone through an actual degree program first that specialized in that. So far, I've only taken the intro class. It's really all fascinating to me more than anything.

P.S.
Could I ask what films, TV shows, or other projects you've been involved in? And if I might know any of them? Just out of curiosity.
 
Last edited:
I'm always trying to broaden my skill set by expanding into as many different disciplines and creative areas as possible (including music composition someday), but sound design itself may not be one of them.

Unless you actually want to be a sound designer one day, it's unrealistic to think you could develop proficiency in sound design as one of a number of different skill sets. I know of no professional directors who can do this. Even those directors who have specialist audio skills (James Cameron being a good example), still bring in a professional sound designer very early in the pre-prod phase.

In the 1940's and later, there were no sound designers per se. Hitchcock, Welles and others were certainly designing their films (adapting the scripts, shots, etc.) with the use of sound in mind but at that time audio technology only allowed them a very limited set of options/choices. By the late 1970's mainstream cinema sound started switching over from (1 channel) mono sound to (4 channel) surround sound and together with the start of digital audio technology this caused an explosion in the number of potential options and opportunities available for commercial filmmakers to create a cinematic experience and involve their audiences. It's at this point when commercial directors realised they needed specialist help/advice in the initial design phase of their films and this is when we start to see the first specific "Sound Designer" credits.

I think I'm capable of recognizing a good sound mix when I hear it, and a bad one when I hear it. And if I listen intently enough, I can probably nail down some things that can be improved in a particular project. But beyond that, I probably wouldn't have the know-how and the technical education to do a proper mix justice anytime soon.

Again, no, that would be unrealistic. Even moderately budgeted indie films are usually mixed in dubbing theatres which cost 7 or 8 figures to acoustically construct and equip. Mixing (Re-recording) with such complex and expensive equipment is a highly specialised role which takes years to learn. I don't know any commercial film directors who would even consider trying to mix their own film.

I certainly will try to educate myself further in terms of a working understanding, so that I can intelligently communicate with the sound people I work with.

Even just learning all the technical audio terminology takes years and is not worth it unless you're actually aiming to be a film audio professional. Audio is definitely an area where a little knowledge can be dangerous! The sound designer's job is to understand the story of the film, to help the director form a vision of how to tell that story and then to create the audio side of that vision during post. A large part of the job is learning to interpret what a director wants/needs, listening to how the director describes; the characters, the actions, the motivations, the emotions, how the story unfolds, etc., and presenting the director with options for how sound can be used to most effectively communicate these things and make the audience feel involved in the telling of that story. The reason why the sound designer needs an understanding of cinematography, etc., and to collaborate at such an early stage is because many/most of the audio audience manipulation tricks and techniques used require some sort of visual reference or support in order to work.

What's important therefore, is for the director to have an in-depth understanding of the story as a whole, of each scene, of each character and be able to clearly explain that understanding. The danger of a director using specific audio terminology is that it eliminates interpretation and forces us to take what the director says literally, which is fine if the director has a complete understanding of the implications of that terminology and a complete understanding of how applicable it is to that specific situation ... but, they very rarely do! Using specific audio terminology is a common cause of cock-ups and misunderstandings! One of the most valuable pieces of advice I learned from an old pro when I was starting out was: "Give the director what he wants ... NOT what he asks for!"

You seem to be very particular about how others word and view the sound design industry, and I'm sure rightly so.

Sound design is effectively a "black art" and almost certainly the most misunderstood of the film crafts. It's a "black art" for no other reason than because: 1. It's extremely rarely ever mentioned or discussed publicly: It's generally only ever discussed either in secretive early pre-prod meetings or in sound edit or mixing suites, to which even cast and crew members aren't usually allowed. On the rare occasions that sound is mentioned at all (say on DVD extras) it's virtually always in terms of individual sound effect design, rather than sound design, and 2. As so much of sound design is about subliminal audience manipulation, the overwhelming majority of inexperienced and amateur filmmakers, formally educated or not, simply don't recognise it and are largely or completely ignorant of even what sound design is and why it's so vital, let alone how to employ it effectively. That's why I feel it's so necessary to be particular here, where there are many looking to progress and/or monetise their narrative filmmaking, which is incredibly unlikely if their films are almost entirely missing one of the fundamental necessities of modern commercial filmmaking.

So I definitely wouldn't plan to claim myself as a sound designer for hire unless I had gone through an actual degree program first that specialized in that.

There are no sound design degree programs I'm aware of and, I don't see how there could be any! Most degree programs are aimed towards music recording/production. Those few that specialise in film sound have to cover audio theory/engineering, which is a huge field in itself, and then cover; dialogue editing, Foley, ADR, sound effects design and mixing/re-recording. Very few education establishments have the facilities to go beyond the very basics and even if they do, a 3 year degree program is not enough time to cover all these areas in any great detail anyway. Having a detailed understanding of all these areas is just the minimum starting point for an aspiring sound designer, so any half decent sound designer program would really have to be a post-degree course, a masters or doctorate level program. I personally don't know of any such programs but even if there are one or two, practical real world commercial experience is still far more preferable.

However, as I mentioned, the sound designer credit is often used by those trying to break into film audio post on their own and by amateur filmmakers to mean the person who edits and mixes the sound in post. In this usage, you could claim you're a sound designer for hire pretty much whenever you want. IME, many of those who claim this don't even know what sound design is, but fortunately (for them), they don't generally need to, as all they need to accomplish is something which doesn't sound bad on YouTube. Ultimately though, sound design is not about whether a mix sounds good or bad but about how well it draws the audience into the story!

Could I ask what films, TV shows, or other projects you've been involved in? And if I might know any of them? Just out of curiosity.

I quite like the level of anonymity I have here. It allows me to freely say things which I otherwise wouldn't if they were directly linked to my name. I can tell you that: I've been in the Film/TV industry for over 20 years, I've been "involved" in films/shows you've definitely either seen or heard of and worked in a credited position on a number of films/shows you might of heard of/seen, plus a significant number of indie films you probably haven't heard of. For example, I'm just finishing a $300k indie feature and just starting a $2.8m one, but you probably won't hear of either. Certain aspects of my job often require me to work with those who work extensively on the biggest, Hollywood style films, which gives me a useful insight into how the really big boys play. For example, the piece of advice I quoted earlier was from a wise old (Oscar and Bafta winning) pro who had re-recorded and/or sound supervised films with Polanski, Burton, Kubrik, Scott and many other legendary directors.

G
 
Last edited:
Back
Top