Though I hate the word "hobbyist", your comments do ring true.
I only used "hobbyist" because I couldn't think of a better word. I didn't use it in the sense of someone who just "messes around with a hobby" on occasion, I've met quite a few people in the past (in the music business) who called themselves a "hobbyist" but were virtually indistinguishable from high quality professionals; in terms of skill, attitude, dedication and quality of performance. The only real difference was professional experience due to the fact they didn't want the pressure, risk, semi-nomadic life style, etc.
Think about yourself. You're an expert at one thing -- audio post. Imagine if you had tried to also become an expert in cinematography. Could you have done it? Could you have mastered both crafts at the same time? Of course not, and I know that you wouldn't claim that you could.
I absolutely agree, no way could I have done that. But in a sense, that is what I was alluding to with this sentence:
"therefore "MOST important aspect of filmmaking" is finding out what the commercial demands/expectations are and identifying the resources which will realistically enable those expectations and demands to be met."
I chose the word "resources" very carefully because it not only covers funding/budget, it also covers the filmmaker's own talent, skills, equipment, time and effort and those of the filmmaker's colleagues. I also chose the word "realistically" carefully because it implies the ability to be objective about one's own talent, skills, equipment, time and effort. I see a lot of indie filmmakers who seem to me to approach filmmaking backwards: They don't have much money, so they start making their film with a budget they can't go over and take each filmmaking step trying to do it as cheaply as possible. Then they get to post-production and start thinking about what festivals they can get into, how they can market and get some money back from their film. I know this is a gross over simplification but you get my point. I'm saying the whole process should be the other way around: What do I need to achieve to make money back on my film and/or what festivals do I want to enter? Then; what tech requirements and artistic expectations need to be met (or exceeded) for those festivals and/or distribution outlet/s I'm targeting? Then; how much is this going to cost in terms of resources (skills, time, equipment, effort and money) to realistically meet these requirements/expectations? If this cost is more than you've got, you'll either need additional funding or to re-think your project or your strategy (which festivals, distribution channel/s, etc) but you should know this before you start. By doing it the other way around, you have no idea if you stand a chance of getting any money back and no idea of what festivals you stand a chance of getting into until you've already finished or nearly finished your film and by then there's no resources left to do much about it to change the outcome! It's like building your own car; before you start you need to know what your personal requirements from a car are and from that, what specifications the car will need, baring in mind you'll have to meet any safety and emission regulations. If you start building your car without finding any of this out, the chances are you'll end up with half a car because you'll give up when you realise you're not going to end up with a car which you or anyone else will ever actually want to drive or, you'll end up with a working car which you can only ever drive around your garden because it's not road legal!
Most of us indie filmmakers are essentially beginners. If one aspect of our production is better than others, it doesn't mean that we think the other aspects don't matter, it's just that we're still developing our skills and haven't gotten to those other areas yet.
You'll never get to those other areas, you've only got one lifetime!
A film with surprisingly good cinematography considering the available resources but with terrible sound is still a bad film! A film with surprisingly good music and sound considering the resources and terrible cinematography is still a bad film! A film with surprisingly good cinematography, music and sound but with terrible acting is still a bad film! Nobody cares (except maybe other filmmakers) what resources you had available, they just want a decent film and that's difficult with any amount of money because as the budget goes up so do the requirements and expectations of those you need to target to make a profit. In other words, it's damned difficult at every budget level and can only be achieved by very carefully identifying what resources are needed and then realistically prioritising where you need to spend whatever money you've got to obtain the resources to achieve the required end result. It takes a lot of learning, time and effort to develop the skills to be able to identify, source and manage all the required resources but it is realistically achievable within one lifetime and it provides by far the greatest likelihood of avoiding a bad film.
...the typical hobbyist filmmaker probably, more often than not, does have to do it all themselves, or at least much of it, depending.
If a filmmaker does not have all the resources themselves to make a film which fulfils their requirements, say entry to a certain level of film festival or a certain level of financial or other type of return, then they need to identify this fact before they begin and avoid it.
So it does seem worthwhile to recognize that divide between what hobbyists are up against, and what professionals whose concerns or duties are probably more specialized are up against.
At a fundamental level, I think all filmmakers are "up against" the same thing, be they no budget amateurs or big budget professionals. It might seem like you could do anything in the world with $100m, if you've managed to make a film for <$2k, but you'd be wrong! Virtually without exception, all filmmakers have to identify "resources", prioritise and compromise. While the details maybe different, it's pretty much a given at any budget level that you've never got as much resources as you really need.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I read that "So it's settled..." part to mean, "as if it were settled." Notice how he follows that (ironic?) statement with, "Well, no!"
Nope, you're not mistaken!
G
no?