She works from home, and she has produced two movies and several shorts - that is, of course, very interesting to me, because she has actually produced, unlike a certain aspiring mogul. She also uses a software program called, "Movie Magic", which helps her budget for movies. Does anyone know anything about this?
An interesting profile of a one-woman film producer.
- Thread starter Aspiring Mogul
- Start date
The title promised more than it delivered.
From a 1984 perspective technology advanced quite a bit, but I read nothing that was groundbreaking new technology.
Nor is the concept of working from home. I'm doing that for years.
But I guess it's inspiring to read you can make features without an office
Movie Magic has been mentioned before on IT. Probably in the pre-production subforum.
From a 1984 perspective technology advanced quite a bit, but I read nothing that was groundbreaking new technology.
Nor is the concept of working from home. I'm doing that for years.
But I guess it's inspiring to read you can make features without an office
Movie Magic has been mentioned before on IT. Probably in the pre-production subforum.
Some people a so passionate about making movies they make movies.
she has done nothing "out-of-the-box" or unusual. I'm surprised "The
Globe and Mail" found her story interesting enough to publish an article.
But good for her.
I've used it since 1982 when it was "Scriptor". It's the software I have
used always used.
Interesting article. Yes, good for her. =)
A few things that seem to be worth noting include:
A few things that seem to be worth noting include:
- She's educated.
- Working for Toronto City Hall arranging logistics for film producers had to have given her some very helpful experience for later stepping into producer shoes herself.
- She regularly attends festivals and markets, including Cannes and Berlin, where she meets movers and shakers in the business and finds out what they're looking for. So it's not as if she does it all by only staying within the safety and comfort of her home office, though that would be nice if she/you could. Though maybe she could.
Good analysis.
Plus: she sold a chain of cafes.
That makes it easier to spend money to travel to Berlin and Cannes
Plus - she presumably started a cafe, and made it successful enough to open multiple locations, before selling it. Suggesting she probably has the skills and experience to run a successful business, regardless of the industry.
When I was in film school part of the program was a weekly forum where graduates and other people affiliated with the school (including Harold Ramis) would come back and discuss their careers. The thing I remember most is that 9 out of 10 of them started their talk in almost the same way - "I didn't really take the traditional route to a career in the film industry". Most had degrees, and had gained career experience, in unrelated fields; they'd found later that that experience applied to the film industry as well.
When I was in film school part of the program was a weekly forum where graduates and other people affiliated with the school (including Harold Ramis) would come back and discuss their careers. The thing I remember most is that 9 out of 10 of them started their talk in almost the same way - "I didn't really take the traditional route to a career in the film industry". Most had degrees, and had gained career experience, in unrelated fields; they'd found later that that experience applied to the film industry as well.
I find it interesting that she sold a chain of cafes - I presume she owned them, which means she could operate at least one successful type of business.
I also own my firm, and I'm trying to leverage my business experience into becoming a mogul. It's past midnight, but even reading that one line inspires me.
I also own my firm, and I'm trying to leverage my business experience into becoming a mogul. It's past midnight, but even reading that one line inspires me.
This statement stood out for me. Amateur filmmakers tend to write/acquire a script, fund, shoot and make their film and then try to find distribution. Almost invariable they don't find distribution and have to self distribute or accept cents on the dollar for a cheap VOD deal and then the goal becomes just trying to earn the initial funding back. Ms. Vetere is approaching the whole thing completely the other way around and with a far more professional approach to the industry: FIRST find out EXACTLY what the market wants to buy/fund and then work backwards (script, budget, etc.), compared to amateur filmmakers, to EXACTLY fulfil that market demand!
G
Good point. Thing is, demand changes over the years. If the distributors told her horror sold, and, after she makes one over a couple of years, the horror bubble bursts, she would be in trouble. That said, market research is always imortant, so I would like her approach.
That's part of business in general though - you have to be able to see trends and gauge when a market is on the upswing, already reaching it's saturation point, or on the edge of a bubble ready to burst. Some of that is going to be current market research, some historical knowledge, some instinct, but there's always going to be an element of gambling to it as well. Like any professional gambler though, you do whatever you can to edge the odds in your favor before you place your bet.
It sure is a risk, isn't it?
A "mogul" can research and research and watch the trends
and never be able to EXACTLY fulfil that market demand.
Producing movies is not a sure thing no matter what you do.
A "mogul" can research and research and watch the trends
and never be able to EXACTLY fulfil that market demand.
Producing movies is not a sure thing no matter what you do.
It is definitely a risk. I just came back from LA, as you know, and I spoke to several people who said it's a lottery, so I have to play it like a lottery. In fact, they confirmed what William Goldman said, that no one knows anything, but it's a fun business to be in, if you can survive it.
Some of them were also lawyers, and they confirmed the business as being filled with sharks, as well as all sorts of people who go around suing others, hoping to get something. And that's why legal safeguards are so important.
Again, it's the other way around!
If you "play" the film industry as if it were a lottery then your chances of success are minuscule and the film industry would certainly appear very much like a lottery. This is how the amateur or aspiring mogul would approach the film industry but by definition it is not how an actual mogul approaches the industry! If the industry really were a lottery there would be no major studios or moguls, there would just be a string of "one hit wonders" and possibly a couple of "two hit wonders".
That is an incomplete quote and no one with any experience in the industry would agree with it! Although, they would generally agree with the complete quote: "Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what's going to work."
In other words, there are no absolute guarantees of success. Making films for money is always a risk and particularly in the indie world, the odds are always stacked against you. So, you can approach filmmaking as most amateurs do, just make the film you feel like making and trust to the odds of the few indie successes out of the 40,000 or so indie films made each year in the US (IE. The lottery approach) or, you can do your market research, make some EDUCATED guesses on future market demands/requirements, make films which fulfil those requirements and drastically improve those odds. What separates the mogul from the aspiring mogul is the accuracy of those educated guesses and the commitment and ability to back those guesses up with the timely completion of appropriate products.
G