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

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?
 
Technology is more affordable than ever which makes it accessible to "no budget" guys for sure, but proper technology is only a piece of the equation. You still need a good script, crew, locations, food, cast, marketing and especially talent to be successful. According to IMDB (source) there have been over 130,000 films so far in 2012 alone. People ARE making films, but how many are making good films? Maybe a better question is how many are effectively letting you and others know (marketing) that they have a good film you should pay to see.
 
Where to begin?

1) Film making - GOOD film making - is not "cheap and easy". Yes, it can be less expensive these days as far as equipment is concerned, but it isn't any easier. To get the same end-product, the same pre-production and the same energy must be put in (good script, good cast, good crew, good production design, good post). This is part of the problem: with inexpensive cameras that make remarkably good images for what they cost, everyone's a director now. The market is saturated with wannabes.

2) Easy access to better-quality equipment does not surpass talent and experience. Just because everyone's a director now, doesn't mean they're all good at it. Again, there's the saturated market. I see lots of folks trying to do exactly what you're asking about, and they're failing at it. Either they're relying on their own indie productions and film festivals, without networking on professional sets, or (as with one current case on this forum) they're expecting to get funding for a multi-million-dollar project with absolutely nothing to back them up beyond their own self-assessed capability (including any kind of reel or finished projects that demonstrate any talent or skill).

3) You have to be pretty damned good to just "write your own low-budget film" and suddenly have a career as a director right out of the chute. So good, in fact, that this rarely ever happens. And by rarely, I mean essentially never. It's really easy to see yourself as that talented, but it's not very helpful to your career to launch with that and expect it to be your ride straight to the top.

4) Working from the bottom up gives you experience in several facets, and gives you a MUCH more comprehensive and applicable, working knowledge of the various departments on and off set. Plus, it helps make connections in the industry. If you're remarkably talented at an entry-level position, and you do it with humility and dedication, you'll get noticed and quickly moved up to the next rung on the ladder. Rinse, repeat. When you get to the top, or as close to the top as you want, you'll be better off for it.

Think of it like climbing a mountain: if someone just plops you onto a mountain near the top, do you really have any perspective of how high you are? Do you know how to handle the altitude? Do you even have the strength to climb higher by yourself? Instead, if you take the time climbing the mountain from the bottom, not only do you realize and greatly appreciate where you are when you get there, your muscles have built strength in the climb with every step.

And often, people get knocked off the mountain. If you didn't climb it the first time, how likely is it that someone else will come by to lift you back to the top? Instead, if you did it yourself, not only do you know how to get back up there, you'll remember which steps were on shaky ground and which footholds to avoid.
 
Last edited:
Because like anything it's a combo of talent plus skill and experience. That guy who is 22 and looking at making his first film is going to need a LOT of talent to compensate for his lack of skill and experience which can only come with time and practice.

Go sit down and try to draw a comic book panel having never drawn very much. If you have a tremendous amount of talent it might not totally suck, might even be halfway decent. Take somebody with 1/4 that talent and let them draw comic panels every day for ten years, their will look better.
 
there's also this misconception that the camera is all that matters, when really it's what you do with it that matters. how you frame it, shoot it, cut it, and then enhance it in post. And don't even get anyone on here started on audio, cuz that'll turn into this massive repeated debate.

If first timers know this then they had BETTER take a long time to make their first feature, because it's a very tough job, and they need to make sure they're at the top of their game
 
Where to begin?

1) Film making - GOOD film making - is not "cheap and easy". Yes, it can be less expensive these days as far as equipment is concerned, but it isn't any easier. To get the same end-product, the same pre-production and the same energy must be put in (good script, good cast, good crew, good production design, good post). This is part of the problem: with inexpensive cameras that make remarkably good images for what they cost, everyone's a director now. The market is saturated with wannabes.

2) Easy access to better-quality equipment does not surpass talent and experience. Just because everyone's a director now, doesn't mean they're all good at it. Again, there's the saturated market. I see lots of folks trying to do exactly what you're asking about, and they're failing at it. Either they're relying on their own indie productions and film festivals, without networking on professional sets, or (as with one current case on this forum) they're expecting to get funding for a multi-million-dollar project with absolutely nothing to back them up beyond their own self-assessed capability (including any kind of reel or finished projects that demonstrate any talent or skill).

3) You have to be pretty damned good to just "write your own low-budget film" and suddenly have a career as a director right out of the chute. So good, in fact, that this rarely ever happens. And by rarely, I mean essentially never. It's really easy to see yourself as that talented, but it's not very helpful to your career to launch with that and expect it to be your ride straight to the top.

4) Working from the bottom up gives you experience in several facets, and gives you a MUCH more comprehensive and applicable, working knowledge of the various departments on and off set. Plus, it helps make connections in the industry. If you're remarkably talented at an entry-level position, and you do it with humility and dedication, you'll get noticed and quickly moved up to the next rung on the ladder. Rinse, repeat. When you get to the top, or as close to the top as you want, you'll be better off for it.

Think of it like climbing a mountain: if someone just plops you onto a mountain near the top, do you really have any perspective of how high you are? Do you know how to handle the altitude? Do you even have the strength to climb higher by yourself? Instead, if you take the time climbing the mountain from the bottom, not only do you realize and greatly appreciate where you are when you get there, your muscles have built strength in the climb with every step.

And often, people get knocked off the mountain. If you didn't climb it the first time, how likely is it that someone else will come by to lift you back to the top? Instead, if you did it yourself, not only do you know how to get back up there, you'll remember which steps were on shaky ground and which footholds to avoid.
Interesting. I definitely agree that most people don't have enough sheer talent to do it, I guess I've always been wondering if there was something else to it. Like, let's say theoretically someone who had never made a film before was so talented that they made an incredible film on their first try, at that point it would all just be about marketing and exposure, correct? And I'm definitely not trying to say that I'm that talented, I haven't even made a real film yet, I'm just trying to learn the basics lol

there's also this misconception that the camera is all that matters, when really it's what you do with it that matters. how you frame it, shoot it, cut it, and then enhance it in post. And don't even get anyone on here started on audio, cuz that'll turn into this massive repeated debate.

If first timers know this then they had BETTER take a long time to make their first feature, because it's a very tough job, and they need to make sure they're at the top of their game

I agree with this. I've made some movies on my iPhone and even though the iPhone camera is, technically, no where near as high quality as professional cameras, I've found there are things you can do with it, especially at night, that I haven't been able to reproduce with higher quality cameras (yet)
 
Because there is a lot more to filmmaking than writing a script. First, there is writing a GOOD script. And then...

Okay, why don't we reverse it. Why don't you tell us all of the things that go into commercially successful, film? I'm making the assumption that this is what you mean.
 
Why don't you tell us all of the things that go into commercially successful, film?

This is KEY!

Yes, making a feature film, while not easy, is possible. Making a good film is a lot harder. Making a film that gets distributed is harder yet. Making a commercially successful film is insanely difficult.

Try getting hired as a director if you've never made a commercially successful film. You'd better be one lucky SOB.
 
This is KEY!

Yes, making a feature film, while not easy, is possible. Making a good film is a lot harder. Making a film that gets distributed is harder yet. Making a commercially successful film is insanely difficult.

Try getting hired as a director if you've never made a commercially successful film. You'd better be one lucky SOB.

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
 
As for the directors wanting to film someone else's script, there's nothing wrong with specialization. There are plenty of directors who want to be directors, not writers (and vice versa). I think most people would agree that Scorsese is one of the best, but he rarely writes (and most of his writing credits on IMDB are from the 60s). You could try to do everything yourself (and some people do), or you could find people who are really good at what they do and start building a working relationship. And when it comes time to market and promote the film, you've got a team to work on that, rather than just one person.

But, on the other side of the coin, there are people who do well as writer/directors. It's a matter of figuring out what exactly you want your career to be. Lots of different ways you can go!
 
people should just hire themselves to make their own good film and then use that as their entry-point

You seem to have missed my point. A "good" film is not an entry point. The world is filled with good films few will ever see. A "commercially successful" film is an entry point -- it doesn't even have to be good.

Hollywood wants to work with people who make money. They don't give a shit if you have talent...or if you're an ex-KKK communist pedophile junkie who flunked 7th grade. If you make money, they'll treat you like royalty.
 
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

As newer generations are coming up, there's an ever-increasing desire for instant gratification. No longer do people want to put actual blood, sweat, and tears into achieving a goal. Instead, they're so used to finding anything they want on the Internet whenever they want it that they're conditioned to expect that in real life as well.

Do yourself a favor: start at or near the bottom and work your way up. And you know what? You can always make your own indie low/no-budget films on the side. That's a great way to hone your skills, and put into practice the things that you learn elsewhere. Eventually, you might even be able to make that one short film that gets you noticed, but you'll have the other experience (and connections you've made) to back you up.
 
"There are plenty of directors who want to be directors, not writers"

I would be one. I have written all my scripts to this point, but really want to start using writers. I have a guy working on Kohlman Files episodes. We'll see what he comes back to me with.
 
There's a few things to look at here:

Firstly, as 2001 mentions, all Hollywood cares about is you making money. To do so, you essentially need to prove your worth to them.

Think of all the major Directors both young and old who struggle to find funding, only to make a really successful film, and then a studio backs their next project.

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.

Thirdly, and most importantly:
Film is one of those art forms where you need experience in the industry and life experience to be able to make something really good. That's why most Directors are older, and most master DPs are in their 50s+. You need to put in your 10,000 hours. It takes a lot more than just a knowledge of the camera system to be able to make a film, let alone a really good film worthy of major distribution.

You also get an understanding of how other crew work and feel by being on set, so that when you do get to be in charge, you're not treating people like sh*t because you don't understand.
Also, it allows you an income working your way up to do what you want to. And because of its on and off natrue, you might find you have 3 weeks off where you can make the film you've been thinking about for the pastt year, and get all your crew friends to help you out.
 
The problem why indies have a problem to "get big" is NOT a technical one. It's a creative one. Especially when it comes to storytelling. You can shoot a nice looking and good sounding movie for a fraction of the money directors had to invest 20 years ago to achieve similar quality. So why is it so hard to "break through"?

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

Storytelling is more than just a "good plot".

I'm bored to death by boring dramas about dysfunctional mid-tweens that the indie scene likes to do.
 
Interesting. I definitely agree that most people don't have enough sheer talent to do it, I guess I've always been wondering if there was something else to it. Like, let's say theoretically someone who had never made a film before was so talented that they made an incredible film on their first try, at that point it would all just be about marketing and exposure, correct?

The problem is raw talent turns out to have little to do with it. You should read Malcom Gladwell's Outliers - it's a really interesting examination of the commonalities between highly successful people across a variety of unrelated fields. It turns out that time spent practicing is one of the biggest common factors - it's the 10,000 hours that jax_rox referred to.

10,000 hours takes a long time - that's 3 hours a day for 10 years. Now that filmmaking technology has progressed to the point where anyone with a smart phone can start making films I think there's a good chance we'll see some younger directors start getting successful - but I'll bet anything that the first highly successful 18 year old director turns out to have actually been "making films" since he was 8, even if the press calls them a 'first time' director because it's their first mainstream feature film.
 
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.
They do. Thousands of them every year do exactly 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.
There are more young directors today than ever in history. There may
not be many under 30 directors winning the one Oscar awarded each
year, but there are thousands of under 30 directors out their making
their films, entering festivals and posting their films on the internet.

Shouldn't it be easier than ever for young directors to actually be successful now?
No, it's harder than ever because there are just so many of them. When
the Coen's made "Blood Simple" they had much less competition than
young directors have today. If for no other reason than the equipment
available and the cost of film. That narrowed down the people who could
afford to make a feature. Today equipment is MUCH less expensive, there
are no film costs at all and post production can be done in the home. That
means thousands more young directors are writing their own low budget
script and make their debut feature. That make success (people paying
to watch) much more difficult.
 
No, it's harder than ever because there are just so many of them. When
the Coen's made "Blood Simple" they had much less competition than
young directors have today. If for no other reason than the equipment
available and the cost of film. That narrowed down the people who could
afford to make a feature. Today equipment is MUCH less expensive, there
are no film costs at all and post production can be done in the home. That
means thousands more young directors are writing their own low budget
script and make their debut feature. That make success (people paying
to watch) much more difficult.
AMEN!
1st.gif


It's all about the barriers to entry.
They're lower now, so the competition is greater.
http://courses.byui.edu/ECON_150/ECON_150_Old_Site/Lesson_09.htm

Monopolistic Competition in the Short Run

In the short run, firms in monopolistic competition may earn economic profits or losses. Firms still follow the decision rule to produce where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, provided the price is above average variable cost.

9-1_Monopolistic_Competition_08.jpg


Due to the low barriers to entry, if firms are making an economic profit, other firms will enter into the market driving the profits to zero. However, because the products are differentiated, the demand curve is not perfectly elastic and so the long-run price will not equal the minimum of average total costs (as was the case in pure competition). But as entry happens, the demand for an individual firm will shift left and become more elastic. This will continue until the average cost curve just touches the demand curve in one spot (i.e. it is tangent to it). This will happen exactly at a quantity where marginal revenue equals marginal cost (Pmc, Qmc). For example, if a hotel is making an economic profit since it offers a swimming pool, other hotels will start to offer swimming pools, thus in the long run economic profits will be zero. Firms that continue to innovate can maintain short run profits but there are always pressures in the market for those profits to dissipate in the long run, leaving the firm with a normal profit.
 
Back
Top