Why do people always take so long to make their first real film?

H

HunterF

Hi, I'm new to this board and I'm just looking to get some insight into the real world of filmmaking. I've noticed through doing research and talking to some people that a lot of aspiring directors' attitudes seem to be that you have to grind for years doing low level jobs just to get an opportunity to make a film, and even then a lot of directors seem to just want an opportunity to direct someone else's script rather than their own.

What I'm wondering is, considering how cheap and easy filmmaking can be these days, why don't more aspiring directors just write their own low budget script and make their debut feature? Then send it to festivals and out on the internet. It seems like this is essentially what the Coen Brothers did back in the 1980's, except back then there was no internet and filming was a lot more expensive, which makes it all the more impressive that they achieved that.

I guess an extension of my question would be, why aren't there more young directors? The youngest director to win Best Director was in his early 30's and that was back in the 1930's. Shouldn't it be easier than ever for young directors to actually be successful now?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Here goes Uncle Bob with another "back when" story...

During high school I was the accompanist for the chorus, played in the jazz band, two Baroque ensembles and the Baroque orchestra. I also played piano for a dance school three afternoons and Saturday morning every week. I was a church organist/choirmaster at 16. And there were, of course, a number of bands.

After high school I played mostly "cover" bands, then went on the road doing the hotel circuit for a couple of years (where I practiced every day while my band mates drank and smoked dope) playing four one-hour sets six nights a week, then moved on to a regional act that did three one-hour sets five/six nights a week.

I guess that took care of my 10,000 hours, because my next gig was with a major oldies act. One band rehearsal (Tuesday), one rehearsal with the singers (Wednesday), one warm-up gig (a PBA benefit show on Friday) and then the Beacon Theater in NYC on Saturday. Okay, it was exciting, but it wasn't intimidating. The two shows went off great; I guess that the band liked me, because I was their musical director for the next six years.

The point is that, no matter how talented you are, you need to acquire skills and a degree of proficiency that makes what you do as natural and easy as breathing.

Your example of director Norman Taurog garnering an Oscar at 32 is an example of a very talented person working his way through the studio system (let's also keep in mind that the Oscars are business/political). He had been an off-broadway director and made over 40 shorts and features in ten years. With that kind of experience, yeah, the studio will give you a shot. And you have to keep in mind the studio process back then; the major studios were cranking out five to fifteen features EVERY MONTH plus dozens of short projects. "Skippy" was not expected to be a huge hit, it was just another film among dozens. "Skippy" was made an Oscar contender by the talents and passion of Taurog, his cast and crew, and the vagaries of what captures the fancy of the general public. BTW, have you seen "Skippy"? I personally didn't think it was anything special.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
true, this is why I was thinking people should just hire themselves to make their own good film and then use that as their entry-point, but I guess it's easier said then done
Click to expand...

Secondly, the cost of making a film hasn't really fallen. The cost of the technology has fallen slightly, but that's only one part. Good film is about good actors, good crew, good equipment. Now good actors, crew, equipment cost money.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't the production costs. While these have dropped faster than a hookers pants (well wages have gone up), marketing costs to make something a commercial success (well at least in the blockbuster range) has gone up. This is why we're seeing more and more super expensive budgets come out of Hollywood.

It's a tough sell to ask a company to spend $30mil on your movie you made for 11k. While it does happen if you've managed to gain a significant buzz about your movie (more a reflection about your marketing) and they may just buy the movie outright (like Paranormal Activity for $375k is I remember right).

You could go independent in your distribution right? The question is how are you going to do that? You may be good enough to be able to convince investors to pump millions of dollars into your movie. If so, you've got it made.

I heard in some video... how do you get the studios to give you money to make a $2mil movie? Show them a movie where you've made $2mil. $20mil movie, show a $20mil profit. A $100mil movie... guess...

Making independent movies is hard, hard, hard. Though, you're right. Make a gem of a movie and maybe a distributor will pick it up. If not, make it good enough that you can sell the DVD, show millions of dollars in sales and go from there.

It's hard to do without a budget, but with a reasonable budget, you can do it. It's just unlikely to be your first movie you make. Who knows, you might beat the odds. Do it and remember us little folk when you make it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The first 'real film' I did (Feature length, I assume is what you mean) took me and my buddies 4 days back in high school. Needless to say, it was a piece of shit.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A lot of amateurs like to point to Robert Rodriguez as an example of an indie filmmaker striking it big at a young age. For one, Rodriguez is the exception rather than the rule. But reading Rebel Without A Crew should be mandatory for all aspiring filmmakers and actors in every end of the business.

Rodriguez may have been barely out of college when he became a major Hollywood player, but he had been making movies literally since childhood; he got a video camera and learned how to use VCRs to edit his films and even add soundtracks. Before he was in high school, Rodriguez was learning how to shoot and edit films. He was also encouraged to learn every technical aspect of filmmaking because he was naturally creative, and learning the technical work that goes into films will always augment whatever you do. You can learn to be technical, but you can't learn creativity and imagination.

He was also a horribly lucky person in that his movie actually attracted attention of distributors. His initial plan was to make the El Mariachi trilogy as his "failures nobody will see", sending them to the Spanish direct-to-video market and using them as a learning experience. Literally nobody expected his movie to be anything more than another cheap piece of crap in a video store and he very likely could have ended up with his movies doing nothing but languishing on the Spanish language video market.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chitoryu12 said:
A lot of amateurs like to point to Robert Rodriguez as an example of an indie filmmaker striking it big at a young age. For one, Rodriguez is the exception rather than the rule. But reading Rebel Without A Crew should be mandatory for all aspiring filmmakers and actors in every end of the business.
Click to expand...

You are so right! To make "El Mariachi" fit for the market, the distributors pumped A LOT of money into it. But that doesn't change the fact that he made a sellable product for less than 10.000 dollars. Most of them spent on film costs. It's much cheaper today to achieve similar quality (or even better) with all these cheap toys and free software out there.

Every indie movie maker that throws thousands of dollars out of the window for 5 minute shorts, is out of his mind, in my opinion. Some see movie making as a hobby, and it's totally okay to "waste" your money on a hobby! There are lots of sillier hobbies out there.

But people can't complain, that they aren't able to break into the business because of other reasons than their own lack of creativity and/or technical skill. If you want to make money out of movie making, you have to work on it. Like Rodriguez did. Most of the money came from medical tests he participated. THAT'S COMMITMENT!

It's not always the big bad mainstream Hollywood business that blocks indie movie makers. Sometimes the problem is within yourself. :rolleyes: (eff me, I sounded like a character out of a bad Uwe Boll script)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Leister said:
Sometimes the problem is within yourself. :rolleyes: (eff me, I sounded like a character out of a bad Uwe Boll script)
Click to expand...
Uwe wishes he could write something that insightful. ;)



No offence to RR, and credit is given where due, but the freshman class of filmmakers needs to get the H over whatever happened in the biz two decades ago.
That was then.
This is now.
Who are the contemporary rags-to-riches odds beaters?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Leister said:
I tell you: Because most indie directors are uncreative people with too much money under their asses.

I'm bored to death by boring dramas about dysfunctional mid-tweens that the indie scene likes to do.
Click to expand...

Very first time I've EVER heard it insinuated that indie directors have "too much money." That's a funny one.

And yeah those boring dramas get made, but Hollywood makes just as many, except theirs are about older folks
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mussonman said:
Very first time I've EVER heard it insinuated that indie directors have "too much money." That's a funny one.

And yeah those boring dramas get made, but Hollywood makes just as many, except theirs are about older folks
Click to expand...

I don't want to offend someone, but if someone can spend 20k on a short film made with friends that don't get paid, I'd say that this actually IS a lot of money for such a small project.

As I said, a lot of people are hobby movie makers and spend their money just for fun. I'm fine with that! But if you want to be a professional, you can't blame "lack of money"if you aren't successful.

The indie scene copies the worst habits of Hollywood and it shows in the results.

Or maybe the market is just saturated. Not everyone is a cinematic genius and most of us will never get near the success people like Tarantino had.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mussonman said:
Originally Posted by Leister

I tell you: Because most indie directors are uncreative people with too much money under their asses.

I'm bored to death by boring dramas about dysfunctional mid-tweens that the indie scene likes to do.
Click to expand...
Very first time I've EVER heard it insinuated that indie directors have "too much money." That's a funny one.

And yeah those boring dramas get made, but Hollywood makes just as many, except theirs are about older folks
Click to expand...
If I may, on Leister's behalf, I believe what he means is that if a "producer" spent a few hundred or a few thousand on a short or feature that ultimately has little to no redeeming value or appreciation, let alone having any marketability towards a business-like return on investment, the the sum is worth less than the parts.
AKA, the uncreative indie director had and spent too much money.
in other words, if you're going to make cr@p then spend cr@p.
Don't spend silver and gold to get cr@p in return.
That's just goofy.


Regarding dramas... no, there's a definite indie dysfunction-as-entertainment flavor Hollywood steers a wide berth around.

Try a few of these:
2010 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdHh6cHJBMW5aQkZSMzZYR2V3VUxQVUE#gid=0
2011 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdGlCeDRmWTFCYXJRWjJ3SUphZDNzMGc#gid=0

Some of the worst offenders:
  • Blue Valentine
  • City Island
  • Greenberg
  • Ondine
  • Tiny Furniture
  • Homework / The Art of Getting By
  • Like Crazy
  • Martha Marcy May Marlene
  • Meek's Cutoff
  • Our Idiot Brother
  • Take Shelter
  • The Ledge
  • The Music Never Stopped
  • Win Win
I would label all of these "textbook indie" films.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Leister said:
I don't want to offend someone, but if someone can spend 20k on a short film made with friends that don't get paid, I'd say that this actually IS a lot of money for such a small project.

As I said, a lot of people are hobby movie makers and spend their money just for fun. I'm fine with that! But if you want to be a professional, you can't blame "lack of money"if you aren't successful.

The indie scene copies the worst habits of Hollywood and it shows in the results.

Or maybe the market is just saturated. Not everyone is a cinematic genius and most of us will never get near the success people like Tarantino had.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think spending $50 or more is way too much for a short, unless you run a business that makes many many shorts, with regular employees, and you shoot like 10 or more in a day. Only then do you have the right to throw away money on shorts... when you expect to make it back.

But I think most true indie filmmakers understand their primary mission is to save money in every way possible. Send some actors home early and shoot with yourself as stand-ins, green screen that expensive location, use your home lamps instead of an expensive lighting kit, steal snacks from your neighbor, etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
if you save the money, chances are you will spend the money saved on more important things. But if you don't have the money to begin with, you find a more cost effective way to make the movie
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Again, we've come to the difference between indie and 'indie'; when in actuality they're the same.

Indie, or Independent, means independent from a major studio, and I can tell you I've seen and worked on 'indie' films where we've had the budget to pay everyone, had full lighting kits, used expensive cameras and made movies that rival that of Hollywood.

That doesn't mean we're less indie than anyone else.

For some reason, this idea of 'indie' around the internet has perpetuated that indie means spending no money, and cutting as many corners as possible to make a film that's ultimately completely watchable. That doesn't have to be the case at all.

This has been discussed recently on another thread, but spending money doesn't mean you're no longer indie. Spending money on things that will make your film better can be very beneficial to you and your team. Spending money on a proper audio mix so that the film actually meets standards to be released in theatres, for example, is very beneficial, even though it costs money.

A better description would be as Alcove says: 'turn out a great film on a minimal budget'.

Low budget can be classified as anything <$5mil. That can be a minimal budget. And that doesn't make anyone less indie than the guy down the road shooting on his T2i on weekends.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mussonman said:
if you save the money, chances are you will spend the money saved on more important things. But if you don't have the money to begin with, you find a more cost effective way to make the movie
Click to expand...

That cost effective way usually turns out to do it yourself, rather than hiring more experienced help.

All things considered with my $20,000 short, I am glad the cast and crew believe it turned out to be an entertaining film. It looks cheaply made, but they like the style and entertaining elements it has.

Was it worth the time, money, and effort?

I believe so based on feedback I am getting.

The turnout of the cast this year for the pickup footage showed they enjoyed making it.

More than one actor told me my production was the best one they were in over the last year.

Money isn't everything.

Remember, THE PASSION, is what gets it done with independent film.

Also, $20,000 can either buy a RED camera or film a movie.

Which would you do?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
Again, we've come to the difference between indie and 'indie'; when in actuality they're the same.

Indie, or Independent, means independent from a major studio, and I can tell you I've seen and worked on 'indie' films where we've had the budget to pay everyone, had full lighting kits, used expensive cameras and made movies that rival that of Hollywood.

That doesn't mean we're less indie than anyone else.

For some reason, this idea of 'indie' around the internet has perpetuated that indie means spending no money, and cutting as many corners as possible to make a film that's ultimately completely watchable. That doesn't have to be the case at all.

This has been discussed recently on another thread, but spending money doesn't mean you're no longer indie. Spending money on things that will make your film better can be very beneficial to you and your team. Spending money on a proper audio mix so that the film actually meets standards to be released in theatres, for example, is very beneficial, even though it costs money.

A better description would be as Alcove says: 'turn out a great film on a minimal budget'.

Low budget can be classified as anything <$5mil. That can be a minimal budget. And that doesn't make anyone less indie than the guy down the road shooting on his T2i on weekends.
Click to expand...


I didn't say anything about how much the budget was or the definition of indie film.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mussonman said:
I didn't say anything about how much the budget was or the definition of indie film.
Click to expand...

I guess it's clearer to say 'make the most out of the budget you have. Personally, I took a comment like this:

mussonman said:
But I think most true indie filmmakers understand their primary mission is to save money in every way possible. Send some actors home early and shoot with yourself as stand-ins, green screen that expensive location, use your home lamps instead of an expensive lighting kit, steal snacks from your neighbor, etc.
Click to expand...

To mean that if you are shooting with proper lighting kits, with a full crew, on real locations, and are able to pay your cast and crew some sort of rate, that somehow that excludes you from being 'truly' indie, even if you are still independent from a studio, and still don't have a huge budget; in fact you could do all these things and still be classified low budget and indie by anyone's terms.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Most of us here do indeed make "indie" films, but we are at the LOOOOOOOOOOOOOW end of the "indie" scale. We mostly make what are considered "no budget" or "micro budget" films. An "Indie" feature might have a 10 to 12 million dollar budget. A "micro budget" feature might have a 500K to 750K budget. A feature with a budget below 100K is basically "no budget".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top