Which movie shall one make first?

[iellioz632]

A new independent filmmaker has written about 8 feature film scripts. As is the case most of the time, one out of the eight screenplays is the strongest or best script - maybe the 'Godfather' of the 8 scripts. The remaining seven scripts are regular films, but not as great or strong as the single one script.

Now for the independent filmmaker who wants to make his/her first movie, which would you think would be the best advice or best choice - - make the strongest movie or choose one from the remaining seven regular scripts and make that one?

There is a bit of a dilemma or confusion here because on one side of the fence, the mind is saying break into the film world with a great movie, and on the other side of the fence the mind is saying, use a normal film as your first film so you can learn the techniques and learn from mistakes etc. The part of the mind that is saying to make the strongest film first is kind of winning the race and really wants this but there seems to be a fear that this first film can be a failure or not so well received due to production technique etc. and that a regular normal first film should have been used instead.

Are there any resources or articles that you can point me to which surrounds this same topic? I am sure this question may have been asked before but google etc. did not help me to find any.

Your thoughts?

 

[iellioz632]

There are two basic ways to learn filmmaking:

1). Learning through your own experience and mistakes.
2). Learning through others experience and mistakes.

As you call them, "mistakes" there's lots of them and I suspect most of the mistakes you're thinking about are far from fatal. They're the technical mistakes and most of them can be fixed by professionals given sufficient resources.

The more fatal mistakes are the mistakes that are harder to quantify. They're often creative, business or leadership based. Wrong director, wrong producer, wrong DOP, wrong editor, wrong cast, and the plethora of other wrong people, wrong tempo, wrong pacing, wrong feeling, wrong music, not marketable, not high concept enough for the market, wrong story for target market, not understanding target market, wrong budget, production value too low for target market, too unoriginal, too different... and the list goes on and on and on.

If you're making a film and hope it will be successful, technical competence isn't a goal, it's expected. How else are you going to focus on the important creative and leadership decisions if all you're worrying about is the boneheaded technical stuff - which should already be second nature.

As a director you're going to make hundreds of decisions a day. The most important skill you can learn is to make good, quick decisions. To make good decisions, you need a strong foundation. You need experience.

Thanks for this! Sure is true!

What do you think of the below abstract art comp. I worked on? I call it "Stonehenge Baseball Field".

https://youtu.be/OqXdfhFVnyg

 

[Sweetie]

It looks like a single shot. I'm lacking context to make an opinion. What were you trying to achieve? Is there something specific you want me to look at or you're asking?

With my lack of experience in VFX, I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask.

My initial thoughts are along the lines of: Is there a reason that the blacks are blue? I assume it's a day for night attempt by using a tint with the ruins added? If so, the contrast still needs attention along with the color. Perhaps a sky replacement? Other than that, the shot looks interesting enough. The general audience will see something that looks off, and not understand why. I might not see what you were trying to achieve.

 

[iellioz632]

It looks like a single shot. I'm lacking context to make an opinion. What were you trying to achieve? Is there something specific you want me to look at or you're asking?

With my lack of experience in VFX, I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask.

My initial thoughts are along the lines of: Is there a reason that the blacks are blue? I assume it's a day for night attempt by using a tint with the ruins added? If so, the contrast still needs attention along with the color. Perhaps a sky replacement? Other than that, the shot looks interesting enough. The general audience will see something that looks off, and not understand why. I might not see what you were trying to achieve.

Spot on as you said. I was trying to achieve night from a day shot using my inexperienced/novice mind in color correction. But overall I treated it as abstract art with no real intent but only to make a shot that a viewer can find interesting enough as art, especially with the ruins, and glad you see it as a single shot as that was what I was aiming for (the ruins stuck pretty well to the live action footage). Thanks for viewing!

 

[Sweetie]

The problem with night for day is the shot has to be right to start with, otherwise you'll need to do a lot more work in post. In this case, you're probably using stock footage, so picking the right stock footage (or picking the right part of the footage to use) is where experience and decision making comes into play.

As for feedback, it didn't hold my attention. I didn't know what I should be looking at, so instead of enjoying the shot, I sat there with glazed eyes wondering what was the purpose of what I was watching.

 

[iellioz632]

Correct again. I could not find full HD night stock footage.

Per the second part, as it was abstract random art, it was meant for the user to make what he/she wanted to make of it, and not meant for the viewer's attention to be drawn to a particular area of the shot. Besides, a set of ruins in a baseball field is so random!

 

[Sweetie]

Fair enough. There's heaps of night time stock footage. You just have to dig a little deeper.

Guess I'm one of those stick in the muds who doesn't appreciate abstract.

I'm also one of those typical "Look squirrel" kind of audience member. It's quite simple to keep my attention - entertain me. At the same time, it's easy to lose my attention.

 

[iellioz632]

Regarding the night footage, I will look further.

Lol, well we all have our traits and quirks! Your last line reminded me of your fellow countryman, Geoffrey Rush. I literally just finished watching Pirates of the Caribbean part 1. He is an awesome actor.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Per the second part, as it was abstract random art, it was meant for the user to make what he/she wanted to make of it, and not meant for the viewer's attention to be drawn to a particular area of the shot. Besides, a set of ruins in a baseball field is so random!

This highlights one of the difficulties of filmmaking and one of it's main attractions. In this case, [1] what are your intentions, [2] what are the actual implications which an audience will perceive and [3] how do we align the two?

1. Your intentions as described are to create random abstract art, which the viewer makes of it what they want.

2. Neither a baseball field nor a set of ruins, nor a realistic city scape are abstract or completely random. They are all actual real things which everyone would instantly recognise. The only strangeness about your sequence is the proximity of these three elements but a "strangeness" is not abstract art, at most it's just a bit surreal. An audience will therefore not realise this is supposed to be abstract art, they will try to make absolute sense of it and feel frustrated when they can't. This is quite different from actual abstract art, where the audience realises there maybe no "absolute sense" to be worked out, only what they want to make of it. There is an obvious disconnect between your intention and what the audience perceives.

3. This is where things get tricky. As WalterB basically stated, there are extremely few, if any, absolute right and wrongs in the art/s of filmmaking, just things which are right or wrong in a particular context. Your colour correction in this example is wrong in my opinion. Even if your night from day correction were absolutely perfect, how would that aid your intention rather than hinder it further? ... So what would aid your "abstract art" intentions? Maybe completely different grading for each of the three elements? If this is a viable approach, shouldn't each of these three concurrent different gradings be completely abstract rather than attempts at some form of realism? And, maybe some abstract music would help create more of an abstract feel or maybe an abstract sound-scape? Although, music or sound or both would almost certainly create other, additional implications/audience perceptions. There are numerous possibilities to align your intentions with audience perception and what might be incompetent and/or disastrous for a different sequence might be perfect for this one.

G

 

[WalterB]

............

Per the second part, as it was abstract random art, it was meant for the user to make what he/she wanted to make of it, and not meant for the viewer's attention to be drawn to a particular area of the shot. Besides, a set of ruins in a baseball field is so random!

I think one of the greatest misunderstandings of abstract art is that it can mean whatever the viewer sees in it.
Most of the great abstract art does have an intension: often an emotional one.
Franz Marc's 'Fighting Shapes' has the intension of creating turmoil.
Mark Rothko's paintings were removed from restaurants because the effect on the guests was so intense they didn't want to eat there anymore.

Randomness is not the same as abstract.
Just like not all experimental films are abstract.

Randomness with some effects without a goal is just playing around.
Playing around is a good thing, btw.
It is the path to experience and to inspiration.
A lot of (contemporary) art comes from playing around with techniques and ideas that evolved into something greater. But not every sketch needs to be exhibited

 

[sfoster]

Truly random art is cold and can be created by a computer.
Unless you want to really split philosophical hairs about what is random but please lets not go there.

 

[iellioz632]

Indeed WalterB and sfoster, I just felt to create something with that piece - be it abstract, playing around art or contemporary art. And if anyone sees something in it then fine; if they didn't then still fine. Everything created with images, still or moving, is considered art. Be it nice art, in-explainable art, good art, bad art or whatever. It cannot be considered non art because it is not possible. If there is a still image with objects in it or moving images with objects in them, then it is a form of art. Fools/people that don't know about art would go to length to argue this statement is not true.

 

[Sweetie]

It cannot be considered non art because it is not possible. If there is a still image with objects in it or moving images with objects in them, then it is a form of art. Fools/people that don't know about art would go to length to argue this statement is not true.

Interesting thinking there. From what I can tell, you manipulated images that already existed. If that's included in the definition of an artist, I suppose an argument could also be made that politicians are also artists. All they do is manipulate and twist what already exists. You could probably include the entire world population in that category if you tried hard enough.

Everyone seems to want to be called an artist for some reason. Why should you really care? I'd rather just be me. I don't give a rats ass what category/box people try to put me in.

 

[iellioz632]

Interesting thinking there. From what I can tell, you manipulated images that already existed. If that's included in the definition of an artist, I suppose an argument could also be made that politicians are also artists. All they do is manipulate and twist what already exists. You could probably include the entire world population in that category if you tried hard enough.

Everyone seems to want to be called an artist for some reason. Why should you really care? I'd rather just be me. I don't give a rats ass what category/box people try to put me in.

No name calling were implied or is implied to you or anyone, unless the hat fits anyone whoever the hat fits.

However, every single movie that is shot are merely manipulation of images and objects that already exist. For live action movies, natural scenery and props assembled in a studio are articles that already exist in human-kind. For 3D animated movies, pre-existing 2D textures are used in the pipeline in many ways.

Now, if a film studio were to go through the scientific way and create every drop of water (h2O) to create an ocean to make Titanic part 2, then I would say, that is art! However if James Cameron chooses to go out into the Atlantic on a boat and film Titanic 2 there, or stay in the sound stage and turn on a hose and fill a hole to get water to put a set piece boat there, then in both cases of the Atlantic and studio set, they are just an example of manipulation and twisting of objects and images that already exist to also create Titanic 2, which we will call art and thereafter Mr Cameron wil then go on to win another Oscar award for best movie, and break his own box office record.

Also, I never claimed to be the artistic creator of the elements that went into the composition. I merely used available free for personal use pre-existing elements and manipulated and twisted them in different angles/color correction to get a desired result. One can agree or disagee with the following statement but, and I quote:

"The core of movie making, that may become cinematic art or simply non-cinematic art, is a result of the manipulation and twisting of cameras, people and lights against a scenery background, a background which can be natural in the outdoors, human-assembled in the indoors or human created on a computer using new or pre-existing elements."

Again no name calling were implied or is implied to you or anyone, unless the hat fits anyone whoever the hat fits.

Happy Easter.

 

[Sweetie]

Again no name calling were implied

I didn't take it that way. I know it doesn't always seem like it, but it takes a lot to ruffle my feathers. You haven't come close.

My point was simply to say, I don't care about the label of "artist". I think the label of an artist is about as stupid as it gets these days. It seems to be trendy to be an artist these days. Who cares? Be who you are. Don't strive to fit into the label of artist. Don't bend the definition of an artist to fit you. Don't try to push others to believe you're an artist. If you're an artist, just be one. Don't try to convince us that you're an artist. Just be one. Do what you want to do. Be you.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Everything created with images, still or moving, is considered art. ... It cannot be considered non art because it is not possible. If there is a still image with objects in it or moving images with objects in them, then it is a form of art.

That is patently not true. Many images are "considered" to be records, schematics or other types of "non art". "Non art" because the question of art never arises, there is no artistic intention presented or perceived.

Fools/people that don't know about art would go to length to argue this statement is not true.

This also is not true. In fact, some C20th art was specifically designed to question the nature/philosophy of art itself. What is art and what is not, is entirely open to debate, to both arguments for and against your statements. Anything/Everything can be perceived as art but IMHO, it all depends on the context. Without context, the existence of the word "art" is pointless because it would have the same meaning as the word "everything". I personally would say that what differentiates art from non-art is the artistic intention/s of the creator. Furthermore, I would say that artistic intention which is not well communicated is indistinguishable from non-art.

Do these statements make me ignorant of art and a fool? I was formally educated in an art and know considerably more about it than most and, I don't generally consider myself a fool but then not many fools do!

I would also strongly disagree with your definition of movie making/cinematic art!

G

 

[iellioz632]

That is patently not true. Many images are "considered" to be records, schematics or other types of "non art". "Non art" because the question of art never arises, there is no artistic intention presented or perceived.



This also is not true. In fact, some C20th art was specifically designed to question the nature/philosophy of art itself. What is art and what is not, is entirely open to debate, to both arguments for and against your statements. Anything/Everything can be perceived as art but IMHO, it all depends on the context. Without context, the existence of the word "art" is pointless because it would have the same meaning as the word "everything". I personally would say that what differentiates art from non-art is the artistic intention/s of the creator. Furthermore, I would say that artistic intention which is not well communicated is indistinguishable from non-art.

Do these statements make me ignorant of art and a fool? I was formally educated in an art and know considerably more about it than most and, I don't generally consider myself a fool but then not many fools do!

I would also strongly disagree with your definition of movie making/cinematic art!

G

Your lengths taken to argue the statements made about art are not true are simply case in point. Every body wants to be seen and heard, and I agree with Sweetie - i.e. if one is an artist just be one.

The world does not care if one has art talent or not. The world does not care who had art training or not. Some people who had zero art training emerge to be way better talented as real artists than people who have been formally educated in art.

The core point of this thread which I am emphasizing is the fact that art is like religion. No one can truly describe, explain and talk about the real meaning of all the religions in the world, and in the same way, no one can truly describe, explain and talk about the real meaning of art. Art is present in everything in every way. Art is vague just as religion is vague. No one can tell the true history with accuracy of religion and its true meaning or origins and no one can tell the true history of art and its true meaning or origins.

Some are blind to see this this and cannot understand that art is truly not explainable fully, however this could be an area of growth for you going forward in your artistic training and development skills and talent.

I hope you had a holy and peaceful Easter.

Cheers.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

.. no one can truly describe, explain and talk about the real meaning of art. Art is present in everything in every way.
Some are blind to see this this and cannot understand that art is truly not explainable fully ...

Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant. As is your belief that art is present in every thing/way, that some are blind to it or that it is or is not explicable. What's relevant is what your audience thinks.

So yes, you are free to be who you are and see art in everything you do. Likewise, I am free to look at your short and determine for myself that it has little or no artistic merit.

G

 

[Sweetie]

I agree with Sweetie - if one is an artist just be one; the world does not care if one has art talent or not.

Whoa there cowboy. Hold your horses. I said nothing about the world caring if you have talent. The world does care. There is a reason that talented people earn a disproportionately high living compared to those who lack talent.

Paraphrased, I said the world doesn't care if you call yourself an artist.

 

[iellioz632]

Whoa there cowboy. Hold your horses. I said nothing about the world caring if you have talent. The world does care. There is a reason that talented people earn a disproportionately high living compared to those who lack talent.

Paraphrased, I said the world doesn't care if you call yourself an artist.

Correct; I have edited my previous post, where I agree with what you say - i.e. "if one is an artist just be one".

 

[iellioz632]

Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant. As is your belief that art is present in every thing/way, that some are blind to it or that it is or is not explicable. What's relevant is what your audience thinks.

So yes, you are free to be who you are and see art in everything you do. Likewise, I am free to look at your short and determine for myself that it has little or no artistic merit.

G

No one is questioning the agreement of irrelevance here.

The basis of your statements swim in the realm of an opinion - and they are just that - your opinion.

However, a living and breathing fact is that art cannot be truly defined by no being on earth, just as how religion cannot be truly defined by no being on earth. This is a fact.

Peace to you.