where/how to get money and professional support?

[airchristopher]

Hi all, I guess this question is as noob as it can get.
Anyway, I will be making my second short film soon. Story line is pretty much done and will be working on script very soon. I think this will turn out to be great, if I can get some professional and financial support. My first movie was ruined by my amatureness in shooting and production.
Or....is there a way to sell a script/story to a movie company or something? I thought about making it a novel or a book, but I am not that good at writing...


Thanks guys

 

[airchristopher]

Thanks SkyCopeland, how didn't I find those channels! With my some photography knowledge, those videos make a lot of sense to me.

Thanks JoeJohn, rayw, Sweetie and Alcove, Yes, I will just forget about selling it or anything like that. There is a lot more than money between me and a good movie, of course.
I guess networking is important too, since you can't make movies completely solo. I will check out my local movie community(Winnipeg Film Group? Anyone heard about this?).
I will be working with my photographer buddy and I guess I could put his equipment into a good use. His DSLRs or mine will be what we shoot with. I am think about buying a stablizer, anyway, this is a different topic. I will probably open another thread when I need further help.

Thanks Rik and APE, your posts are very constructive to me.
Apparently, I am not at the stage of putting out meaningful replies to your post. But it reminds me of the rough Dad and the understanding Mom in a family. They are both very much needed and work much better with each other, usually lol.
Yes, I am expecting difficulty and obstacles in filmmaking, and I can see myself not impressed by my second movie either. But I will still do it. If there is not second movie, there won't a third one.

Big Thanks to you all.

 

[directorik]

IMO, in the vast majority of cases I wouldn't call them "producer" AND they wouldn't be a producer.
<snip>
Does avoiding the responsibilities of a producer still make our beginner a producer? Does a quick phone call to a couple of mates asking for half an hour's help suddenly make our beginner a producer?

Yes it does. You make the assumption that because a beginning
filmmaker who makes a quick phone call to a couple of friends for
a shoot is not the producer. The world of beginners is vastly different
from the professional path. It seems a world you have no experience
with.

I have a question for you.

The story:

When I was 16 I had been making short films for about two years
and I decided I was going to make a more professional one – much
like Christopher here. I knew I needed more money and some
professional support. So I asked people I knew – this was before the
internet. I asked where can I find financing and more professional
people to help me. No one told me that's the producers job. They
pointed me in the right direction.

So I broke down the script I had written, I found a location, I found all
the props, I figured how much film I needed, how many people I needed
and I set a shooting schedule. I went to the local community theater
and asked them to help me find a cast. There was a large photography
school in my city with a small film department. I'm a 16 year old high
school freshmen and I went there with my script and my budget. I found
a DP. She introduced me to an audio guy and a key grip. I had to change
the budget. I hadn't thought about audio or grip equipment or food for
the cast and crew. I made arrangements to rental equipment with the
help of the college students - “professionals” in my 16 year old mind. Then
I looked for and found the money I needed. Family and friends donated.
I worked out a deal with the college for equipment. I got the audio guys
wife to make food for everyone.

I never once thought of the viability of the project or of making any
money from it.

My question for you APE: I didn't follow the path you mention from intern
to UPM, to AD to co-producer and up but I did all the “producing” work
that short film needed.

In your opinion what was I in regard to that film?

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Yes it does.

Mmm OK, I find that a little bizarre. If I make a film with no VFX, can I call myself the VFX Supervisor because I've avoided any VFX? What about if I edit in a single stock VFX, am I then the VFX Supervisor? What if I'm the pic editor and my film only contains the production sound, can I call myself the Sound Designer and Rerecording Mixer, even though there is no sound design and nothing to mix? What about if I add a single door close sound from a library, am I now a sound designer and Re-recording Mixer? Personally, I would say "no" but it looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

A producer's function, as the name implies, is to create a viable product. Anything else a producer may do (logistics, budgeting, etc.) is secondary, just the means to the end of achieving the producer's function. In most commercial situations, many of these secondary responsibilities are delegated (to the Line Producer and others), to give the producer the time to fulfil their actual function.

In your opinion what was I in regard to that film?

From your story it appears that you were interested only in improving your filmmaking, not in creating a viable product. If this is the case, then IMO your film, by definition, did not actually have a producer. In my opinion you were an amateur filmmaker, one who was fulfilling the role of director and some/many of the ancillary/secondary roles of producer (Line Producer, et al) but not the actual function of producer.

G

 

[directorik]

So you give no recognition to the amateur. The filmmakers just starting
out – like Christopher here. If you are not making a “viable” product
then you are not a producer. The ONLY person who can use that term is
someone who has completed the the professional path you have pointed
out.

If I make a film with no VFX, can I call myself the VFX Supervisor because I've avoided any VFX? What about if I edit in a single stock VFX, am I then the VFX Supervisor? What if I'm the pic editor and my film only contains the production sound, can I call myself the Sound Designer and Rerecording Mixer, even though there is no sound design and nothing to mix? What about if I add a single door close sound from a library, am I now a sound designer and Re-recording Mixer?

I knew I was going to regret saying anything. This is a foolish analogy.
No, an audio mixer who doesn't mix any audio is not an audio mixer.
One is not an FX supervisor on a movie that has no FX. Yes, the beginner
who finds a single door close sound from a library is the sound designer
of their movie. The person who finds the financing (even from friends
and family), negotiates the use of locations, initiates the casting, finds
the key crew members and overseas the budget is the producer. Even
on an amateur movie with no thought of turning a profit.

Your experience is too limited. You look at filmmaking from only one
perspective. A beginner making their second movie and asking how to
find more money and more “professional” people to help is not helped by
your glib, “That's the Producer's job.” A beginner looking to improve and
expand is not going to find a producer by your definition. And you know
that but you still feel the need to put beginners in their place.

That is my argument with you. You have no experience as a beginning
amateur so your advice to the beginning amateur is from your professional
experience.

I don't dispute your professionalism or your experience. Not every filmmaker
coming here to ask for advice is heading in that direction. There is an
entire world of no budget, amateur beginning filmmakers out there. We do
everything as we learn. We sound mix (one sound), we find and work with
one FX (FX supervisor), we put a mic on the end of a broom stick (boom op),
we set up two lights (gaffer), we push a guy in a wheelchair (dolly grip), we
and we produce. We are not professionals following the professional path,
but we do all the jobs needed to make a movie. You try as hard as you can
to take that away. That is my argument with you.

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

 

[AudioPostExpert]

If you are not making a “viable” product then you are not a producer.

Correct, by definition.

The ONLY person who can use that term is someone who has completed the the professional path you have pointed out.

No, I never said that. I said the only person who can call themselves a producer is an actual producer, someone whose primary function is to create a product. I stated IMO that the role of producer is one of the most difficult to learn solely through the self-taught amateur route. That doesn't mean it's impossible, just that the professional route is by far the more likely to succeed.

This is a foolish analogy. No, an audio mixer who doesn't mix any audio is not an audio mixer. Yes, the beginner who finds a single door close sound from a library is the sound designer of their movie.

I don't see how someone who has no sound design in their film can call themselves a sound designer. Cutting in a single SFX is just that and nothing more, at best they might call themselves an SFX editor but I would dispute even the use of that title. In the case of a film with only production sound, there is nothing much to mix. However, it is likely that the filmmaker will perform one or more of the functions of an audio mixer, say applying some processing such as EQ or balancing the levels somewhere. What you seem to be saying is that if a filmmaker changes the gain just once somewhere in their film, they have fulfilled one of the functions of an audio mixer and therefore are the audio mixer, even though there is little/no actual mixing as such. I agree that it was indeed a foolish analogy but it was also a very apt one, according to what you seem to be saying. As I said, looks like we're going to have to disagree on this one.

A beginner making their second movie and asking how to find more money and more “professional” people to help is not helped by your glib, “That's the Producer's job.”

Agreed, that would have been glib and unhelpful if that's all I wrote. But that's not all I wrote is it?

A beginner looking to improve and expand is not going to find a producer by your definition.

I'm not saying it's impossible or that it can never happen but yes, the chances are extremely remote.

And you know that but you still feel the need to put beginners in their place. That is my argument with you.

I spent considerable time explaining why I was posting and what I was trying to achieve, which was the exact opposite of just trying to put a beginner in their place! What have I got to gain from just putting a beginner in their place? And if I were only trying to put a beginner in their place why would I have written this: "I'm not trying to put you off filmmaking, quite the contrary, I'm trying to give you realistic expectations of what is achievable, without which you are very likely to become despondent and give up, even though in reality you might have the potential to be a good filmmaker."? Either you didn't read what I wrote, didn't understand it or you are wanting an argument for some other reason?

You have no experience as a beginning amateur ...

How do you think I started? You think maybe I decided to do the job one day and the next I was a professional? No, I started as a beginning amateur.

Not every filmmaker coming here to ask for advice is heading in that direction. There is an entire world of no budget, amateur beginning filmmakers out there.

Agreed but then there are quite a lot of members here, maybe even the majority, who are looking to either commercialise their filmmaking or at least make films which appear more "professional". Furthermore, the OP specifically asked about funding and professional support, not no budget, amateur filmmaking.

We are not professionals following the professional path, but we do all the jobs needed to make a movie. You try as hard as you can to take that away.

I take offence at that!! That is a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written in this thread and in general on this forum. Making a film is always a very difficult undertaking, regardless of budget. With a good budget and professional cast/crew it's difficult because one has to make a product to match or exceed a high level of expectation and although the expectation is lower for an amateur filmmaker and they are looking to make a film rather than a product, all of this is balanced by a lack of resources. So both are very difficult to achieve and the fact that amateur films do not have or need a producer takes nothing whatsoever away from all the other filmmaking responsibilities, roles and crafts the amateur filmmaker somehow has to fulfil, just to complete a film.

That is my argument with you.

So, let me get this straight, your argument with me is not about what I've written or intended but about your misrepresentation of what I've written/intended. That obviously makes no logical sense, so what is your argument with me really about?

G

 

[WalterB]

Correct, by definition.

...

.... and they are looking to make a film rather than a product, all of this is balanced by a lack of resources....

Too much semantics and focus on 'titles'.

Especially film vs product.
While in essence both are moving pictures.
The use of the term product implies it is something to sell, while a lot of short, made by proffesionals will never be sold.
One could argue that they are made to be shown: so is OP's project. (At least I guess it won't be a snuff for his eyes only )
Or that they are made to grow: also true for both sides.

Although, yes, in the proffesional world it is often the producer's job, the OP was probably looking for a more hands on advice as well.
Otherwise we could end every topic with: hire a .....

And now shake hands and be friends