What Creates Production Value?

cameronchapman

cameronchapman

I have a vague idea of what goes into production value (talent, cinematography, editing, SOUND, etc.), but not really any concrete ideas as to how to improve production value, short of spending millions of dollars (which I would gladly spend if someone wants to give them to me).

I'm planning to film a drama feature next fall (and will hopefully be shooting a handful of shorts and possibly a web series between now and then), and want to maximize production value to increase my chances of getting distribution/getting into festivals/not embarrassing myself :cool:.

So, going on the basis that this is a drama film without any complex sets, no special effects, etc., what would you do to increase the production value? What gives you the most bang for your buck? What's the least effective thing to spend your limited funds on?

Let's also assume that the budget for this is likely going to be under $50,000, though possibly could go as high as $100,000. And let's also assume that I'm not opposed to begging if that will get things done/get me things for free. :yes:
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Kholi said:
Its always the directors vision if the director had a vision. The task ofevery single cut is always to support, not to deconstruct and transform into something that was not meant to be. However, even that can turn something great.

I don't feel I need to cite the most infamous cases in our short industry's history.




There are only a number of ways to cover traditional narrative. Story boarding and shot lists are for more important scenes and setups, and will generally help decrease the time needed to shoot out a scene.

It also increases the time alotted to net the best performance on all fronts, behind and in front of the camera. I've grow as a shooter and now, after this feature, I do not want to shoot anymore. I only wan to direct performance.

If there is any way to make your Vision stick it's there. But again, whichever way that works for an individual is that.



All the time. Many many people question it. The answer is the same most of the time.



It will always be personal choice to a degree, or until someone drops money on you and demands you get an editor.

I think these sort of factors are what separate Robert Rodriguez from Quentin Tarantino. One cuts his own stuff and it's gotten stale. One doesn't and he's won prestigiuous awards.
Click to expand...

I think you've created a very false logic, by saying that the difference between Tarantino and Rodriguez is merely that one of them edits their own work. There are many differences between the two of them, and it's rather convenient for you to imply that their choice of editing is what separates their levels of success.

Heck, for all we know, the fact that Rodriguez edits his own work might be the very reason he even stays afloat in this industry. For all we know, a different editor might have turned "Planet Terror" into a straight B-movie, not a loving and hilarious tribute to one. He may not be Tarantino, but he continues to get very high-profile work, so he's doing something right! My point is that we don't know!

Plus, I also think it's flawed logic for you to say that a particular way is better because that's how (almost) all of Hollywood does it. Let's keep in mind the fact that these are the same people who brought us "The Smurfs", and "Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides". Yes, I want to work in Hollywood, but that doesn't mean I want to do everything the way they do it.

Think about "Blade Runner". Would any filmmaker, in their right mind, try to argue that the movie is better with narration? Ridley Scott didn't have complete control over his film, and somebody else made it less good. That's just one example, and the problem inherent in our discussion is that we don't have more examples to cite. It's an unknown, is what I'm saying. With my own work, would a separate editor create a better final product? Don't know, cuz I won't let anybody. In Hollywood, would most movies be better, if more directors were allowed to edit their own work? Don't know, cuz nobody will let them. This discussion, on both our ends, is merely speculation, and that is why I say it should be a personal decision, always.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
I think you've created a very false logic, by saying that the difference between Tarantino and Rodriguez is merely that one of them edits their own work. There are many differences between the two of them, and it's rather convenient for you to imply that their choice of editing is what separates their levels of success.
Click to expand...

Well, it may be false to you, on the other hand it's fairly sane to me having been here, in commercial and narrative, and working with people that have been there and done that. It's a realty for ms, your mileage may vary.
Plus, I also think it's flawed logic for you to say that a particular way is better because that's how (almost) all of Hollywood does it. Let's keep in mind the fact that these are the same people who brought us "The Smurfs", and "Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides". Yes, I want to work in Hollywood, but that doesn't mean I want to do everything the way they do it.
Click to expand...

Same system that also brought you the Rest of the Pirates series, The Hangover, etc.

Either way, unless you're actually gOod or you're rich, you can pretty much count on doing what you're told or not getting there.

That isn't false logic, that is the reality of being just another director. Which most of us probably won't even get to that level, anyway.
Think about "Blade Runner". Would any filmmaker, in their right mind, try to argue that the movie is better with narration? Ridley Scott didn't have complete control over his film, and somebody else made it less good. That's just one example, and the problem inherent in our discussion is that we don't have more examples to cite. It's an unknown, is what I'm saying. With my own work, would a separate editor create a better final product? Don't know, cuz I won't let anybody. In Hollywood, would most movies be better, if more directors were allowed to edit their own work? Don't know, cuz nobody will let them. This discussion, on both our ends, is merely speculation, and that is why I say it should be a personal decision, always.
Click to expand...

But it's not speculation if you actually work in it. Most movies ARE broken, and it takes a good editor to fix them.

Television may be slightly exempt, it's even more paint by numbers than narrative feature filmmaking.

However, I'm not trying to convince you to work any other way than what's comfortable for you. If you feel it makes your material better then that's what you have to do. From my working experience in various fields of story telling, from doc to broadcast narrative and commercial, my advice to those interested at all is to align yourself with a great editor.

And, if you want your low budget material to evoke a better experience than the budget you have... Or you want it to seem like there's more production value than you had, deliver a solid cut of what you can afford to shoot.

As always, with a grain of salt.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
Would any filmmaker, in their right mind, try to argue that the movie is better with narration?
Click to expand...

What do filmmakers have against narration? Goodfellas wouldn't be Goodfellas without Henry Hill telling the story. The Thin Red Line wouldn't be what it is without the voiceovers of all the different soldiers (some people found it dizzying. I loved it).

So I don't think narration is bad or good. if it suits my story, I don't see why I can't use it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
trueindie said:
What do filmmakers have against narration? Goodfellas wouldn't be Goodfellas without Henry Hill telling the story. The Thin Red Line wouldn't be what it is without the voiceovers of all the different soldiers (some people found it dizzying. I loved it).

So I don't think narration is bad or good. if it suits my story, I don't see why I can't use it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But Blade Runner definitely isn't better with the narration. The studio demanded it, and it basically just dumbed the movie down. I think that's what CF was getting at.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
When narration is intrinsic to the script/film from its very inception it's a wonderful thing. What happens all too often, however, is that narration is crammed into a film to correct plot gaps and other problems, or is forced upon the film by marketing types. That's the difference; "Goodfellas" was shot with the narration as a part of the script, the narration was superimposed upon "Blade Runner" after the fact.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
Well, it may be false to you, on the other hand it's fairly sane to me having been here, in commercial and narrative, and working with people that have been there and done that. It's a realty for ms, your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...

No, I just meant false logic, in the sense of straight, pure logic, not life experience. As in -- just because there is a correlation, that doesn't mean there is a cause/effect relationship. In the case of Rodriguez, we have no clue whether or not his editing is helping or hurting him. It's merely speculation, is all I'm saying.

Sure is nice when talent show up, on time, no? Punctuality is a big one, for me. I hope your wait doesn't last too much longer. Cheers! :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Alcove Audio said:
When narration is intrinsic to the script/film from its very inception it's a wonderful thing. What happens all too often, however, is that narration is crammed into a film to correct plot gaps and other problems, or is forced upon the film by marketing types. That's the difference; "Goodfellas" was shot with the narration as a part of the script, the narration was superimposed upon "Blade Runner" after the fact.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and exactly that. Now, the IDEA of narration in Blade Runner isn't necessarily a bad one. Pushes it more in the noir direction. Whoever had the idea to put narration in was thinking creatively...just too late in the process. Get everyone on the same page with it EARLY, and like Alcove said, it'd be part of the script not just paint on top of it. Narration can be great.

I'm really feeling the need to watch Beast of Yucca Flats now!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This is a fun thread.

On the topic of directors editing their own work, I don't think one can say that either situation is the right or wrong way. It completely depends on the director/editor.

My favorite examples are The Coen Bros. and Martin Scorsese.

The former edit all their own movies (though they credit a fictional name). It's pretty clear that those guys have a vision of the final film that is so unique that a cutter employing conventional editorial techniques would just frustrate them.

On the other hand, Scorsese's films are all edited by Thelma Schoonmaker. If you're a Scorsese fan at all, it's abundantly clear that a significant part of the look of his pictures is due to her editing. He knows and loves her work and trusts her implicitly, with good reason.

As with most aspects of film making, how hands-on they are depends on the strengths and style of the individual directors.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
trueindie said:
Wow. I don't believe I've ever heard another person make filmmaking sound so easy. Do you have any examples of a short or a clip of how you did all this by yourself?
Click to expand...

As I mentioned elsewhere I will post links to my work after my 500th post. Its a feature so its not online.

I spent the good part of 2 years in post "creating art". There's no CGI in the film.

And for the record, low budget filmmaking isn't easy, you have to be creative and think outside the box.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
GuerrillaAngel said:
As I mentioned elsewhere I will post links to my work after my 500th post. Its a feature so its not online.

I spent the good part of 2 years in post "creating art". There's no CGI in the film.

And for the record, low budget filmmaking isn't easy, you have to be creative and think outside the box.
Click to expand...


500 posts? xD That's interesting. It'd be nice to see how your methods and ideas translate to footage. Guess it'll be a few months before we get to see what you're trying to explain to us :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top