The real problem is who controls the money sets the politics. The dreamers with the empty pockets get drowned out.
can we all agree the problem with indie films is lack ofstory andwriting?
- Thread starter davidevans10
- Start date
Even someone as talentless as Paris Hilton gets into decent productions and can make great music videos because her family has money. C.R.E.A.M. (Cash Rules Everything Around Me)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd7ohsU79Cc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd7ohsU79Cc
Right. Nowadays. 20 years ago talent got funded. There's also less now
After the "beginning" is over, you now have to make sure it leaves your computer and goes on to the real world. And then without a marketing budget, since all the money has been spent on production, you have to figure out how to get more than 5 people interested in your film, not because your film is a spectacle, not because you have a great story (how great can your story really be?
I guess you haven't dealt with many people at the top of their industry before. It's not always as simple as that. Some of these talented people aren't motivated by the money. They're already rich. Some are looking for a combination of "other factors". There are a bunch of people you can (usually) buy with money. Those who need it to put food on the table.
What would be your limit of how much money are you willing to throw at a solution before it becomes completely financially unviable? 100mil? 500mil? 800mil? even then you won't be guaranteed a hit.
2 words: Expendables 3. Money was not the issue. Money cannot ensure you end up with a quality film. It's the exact same reasons that some studio films flop. Some expensive ones too. John Carter anyone?
You need money, yes. Just because you have an unlimited fund doesn't mean your film will suck any less. Just because you have the budget to hire anyone doesn't mean they'll agree to work on your project. Just because you have the unlimited budget doesn't mean you'll make the right decisions.
Money is only part of the formula. Talent, expertise and the ability of the team to work coherently together to form a film that is larger than the sum of its parts. There's a lot of intangible parts that need to be considered.
It has always been about C.R.E.A.M. since the human civilization began. "Money talks and B.S. walks" is another less specific way of putting it.
An interesting research project will be to find out why the Supergirl pilot got a series approval, plus a second check cut just for special effects when the Wonder Woman pilot from about 2011 fell flat on its' face.
Indie films never get enough funds to look like studio films and they attract unskilled actors, crew people, and post people because pros have their fees they will not work below.
If all you have, for instance, is $100 a day for a sound person to work on set with you, you will get a student sound person with some schooling and very little experience. If you have $375 a day, you can get a 20 year veteran who lots of experience of tricks of the trade and your results will be a good ten fold better.
A good script writer cost money too. In this forum most filmmakers write their own scripts because they can't afford a writer with a proven track record of selling scripts to studios and who studios ask for by name for projects in development. Thus, the ideas may be original and the story has its moments of greatness, but it is not up to studio standards.
People with money hire successful screen writers to take their ideas and characters and turn them into screenplays that attract A-List talent, thus interesting studios. How do you get a script into the hands of Tom Cruz as well as something he likes to sign onto? C.R.E.A.M. That's how you get his agent to read the script and turn it over to Tom Cruz to read. A letter of intent from him will guarantee a funded film.
C.R.E.A.M. -- Remember the name.
An interesting research project will be to find out why the Supergirl pilot got a series approval, plus a second check cut just for special effects when the Wonder Woman pilot from about 2011 fell flat on its' face.
Indie films never get enough funds to look like studio films and they attract unskilled actors, crew people, and post people because pros have their fees they will not work below.
If all you have, for instance, is $100 a day for a sound person to work on set with you, you will get a student sound person with some schooling and very little experience. If you have $375 a day, you can get a 20 year veteran who lots of experience of tricks of the trade and your results will be a good ten fold better.
A good script writer cost money too. In this forum most filmmakers write their own scripts because they can't afford a writer with a proven track record of selling scripts to studios and who studios ask for by name for projects in development. Thus, the ideas may be original and the story has its moments of greatness, but it is not up to studio standards.
People with money hire successful screen writers to take their ideas and characters and turn them into screenplays that attract A-List talent, thus interesting studios. How do you get a script into the hands of Tom Cruz as well as something he likes to sign onto? C.R.E.A.M. That's how you get his agent to read the script and turn it over to Tom Cruz to read. A letter of intent from him will guarantee a funded film.
C.R.E.A.M. -- Remember the name.
Last edited:
There is always bad money management and studio politics.
However, compare the success rate to a no budget film to a 10 mil to 100 mil film and you will see how much big money helps just like having a big name actor attached to a film. It does not guarantee results, but it greatly increases it.
Not only that, the better production values of a 100 mil film makes it much more watchable than a no budget film with bad locations, bad editing, bad sound, bad acting, bad music even with a decent script to the public who is spoiled by studio standards.
Last edited:
double post
Last edited:
It only has to be good enough, so people who watch the movie will tell other people to watch the movie. If you notice, many filmmakers (myself included) come onto a forum like this one to push their feature. It's not often that people, aside from the filmmaker will think the movie is that good. Maybe it is interesting, but not exciting enough to recommend to all your friends.
As someone else posted, the story had better be interesting, but it can only be good, or great, if the acting, sound, camera work, pace of editing, music, etc. support that good story. If the actors are friends, but amateurs, it's not going to be very good. Conversely, I've seen good actors bring wooden dialogue to life and adding intensity to the scene.
I also think that "high concept" is as important (or more so) to getting distributors or the masses interested in your movie. A great story for a low budget, competently acted indie drama is probably not going to sell, unless it hangs on something that touches a niche or mass audience. One recent example of this was in this ARTICLE about Sean Baker, who made a $117,000 I Phone movie about transgendered prostitutes (there's the concept). He has actually had budgets up toa quarter million dollars, but he wanted to shoot without permits, in actual locations, with phones and an experienced D.P. Basically, he's trading high end gear for something that allows for a more gritty reality.
I've been on a lot of threads like this one. It has been pointed out to me that the 100 million dollar movie, THE AVIATOR, is considered an indie film. I argued that a core Hollywood guy - Scorcese, funded it, used top crew and starred A List actors. What would make it independent is not the budget, but whether or not it was made without studio distribution in place.
I am trying to be kind, but I think some of us can remember the scorching post shared here from the LinkedIN's Film and TV Professionals board defining Indie films and armature films and that would put quite a few people here in the amateur category. The biggest barrier of why amateur films look so bad is lack of funds to pay for professional help to make them look respectable. One man crews are insane. Too many people do too much learn as you go and it shows in poor results.
An indie studio can pay for the professionals to do the job right. Individuals don't have the money to afford the same help. Thus, C.R.E.A.M. rules.
An indie studio can pay for the professionals to do the job right. Individuals don't have the money to afford the same help. Thus, C.R.E.A.M. rules.
Last edited:
Let me be clear about what I was saying. It was your wording of "Money can buy the best..."
Don't get me wrong, money can get you good, and often great people. I agree with you on this. Professionals expect to be paid.... but can money alone buy you the BEST? (This was the point I was trying to make in the previous post) It doesn't always happen that way. When people are rich (which often happens with the best of the best), a big bag of cash doesn't always motivate them.
Take Spielberg for example. He's a billionaire. Do you think your 50 million dollar offer is going to get him to spend the next 2 years of his life to direct a film he doesn't like? Hell no.
This is a very deadly generalization. Throwing money at the problem won't always solve it. Amateurs make amateur films because they're amateurs. Some are better than others, but amateurs are amateurs. It's in their name.
This will bring it back to the amateur part. A professional is expected to bring a professional result. To bring back my above point. Lets say SuperSoundie is the best soundie in the world. Do you think $375 a day will secure that person for your film? APE, Alcove, what do you think?
The world of independent film making is much larger than the sum of this forum.
So you agree it's not just the money? There IS a something else factor?
Of course money is a factor. It's not the only factor. Just because you've got a big purse to spend, won't necessarily mean you will get your number #1 picks. I'm saying, not everyone can be bought.
I hope you don't mind the nitpick. It's not the distribution, it's the financing of the production that determines whether it's a studio flick. If they finance the film, they often take control/micromanage the production. Most big independent films still get distributed by the majors or at least the mini-majors.
Do you think a filmmaker like this would benefit from a larger budget? Give that person $20mil, what do you think the chances would be they could produce a professional result? Would you give them a greater than 25% chance?
This is why filmmakers raise funds from investors. Part of that process helps to weed out productions that just aren't right.
I've seen fresh meat fall flat on their face trying to raise $15mil for a film where the cast and crew consists of fresh out of film school, inexperienced, unproven, unknowns. They simply don't know how ludicrous they sound with their proposal. Almost everyone can see they've got a 99% chance to turn that $15mil into two hundred bucks. Money won't stop them making the right decisions. Sometimes all it will do is facilitate them digging a bigger hole.
I've even seen multiple producers throw away good money. One of which went spending more than was smart, trying to get people to do the work for her. The issue? She had no clue who/what was good. Virtually everyone she picked was somewhere between horrible and bad. $40k later she was the proud owner of a 3 minute unpolished, steaming turd of a calling card in a big, deep hole.
To quote myself from above, I pointed out money does not guarantee result every time. But, it substantially improves the chances of success.
I look at the law of averages with variations from circumstance to circumstance.
You use Expendables as an example. That is a typical studio and independent action film where script is sacrificed for stunts and action scenes with popular action stars.
I don't have all day to sit in front of a computer like some. I can get pulled away at any second while I am at work. So, I talk about the average situation rather than the exception to the rule.
And, yes, on an average people who have made a few films can make better films with bigger and better trained crews with more money. Most pros who ask for the $375 a day will want to ensure the film comes out good because their name is in the credits over a newbies who really can't decide if they want a career in film and just looking to take the money and run.
I have mentioned in the past too that cast and crew should not get paid ahead of time because some will take the money and run. A first time filmmaker stands a better chance of making a disaster of a film and waste money than someone who has made a few to see who they are working with.
Last edited:
By the way, when you are dealing with investors, executives, and managers, never nit-pick. That's the quickest way out their office or getting terminated. Be short, accurate, and generalize data. I lost a few job interviews for management positions for dwelling too much on details the way you do. And, I have worked around producers and executives enough to know they want the short and sweet version.
The biggest barrier of why many amateur films look so bad is often because the filmmaker is concentrating all their efforts on making their film look good! Of course, there are many other potential reasons too. Additionally, many budgeted unsuccessful amateur films really don't look that bad.
I think we need to be careful with statements like this, particularly on a forum like this. Sure, he used an iPhone rather than say an industry standard Alexa but on the production sound side he used just about the highest end gear that money can buy. I'm not saying this should necessarily always be the case, I'm saying that the filmmaker/s prioritised where to spend their budget based on the final result they were after, which in turn was based on their experience/knowledge of the requirements and expectations of their target market.
No, the top prod sound mixers would probably want 4 times that amount per day but that would likely include the equipment. A top Re-recording mixer, including re-recording equipment, would likely cost somewhere around $800. Unfortunately though that's per hour!
MDM: Your premise, that money solves all problems, is largely true but unfortunately not quite in the way you are implying. Sure, hiring top cast/crew will dramatically improve the quality of work of all the individual film crafts. However, the two members of the crew who most influence how all those crafts integrate, to result in a good /successful film, are the producer and director. So, most importantly you need a top producer and a top director and even substantial amounts of money probably won't be enough to attract these personnel without also having a great script, which generally means hiring a great scriptwriter/s. The only "fly in the ointment" of this scenario is that there's no longer a significant role for our original amateur filmmaker!
G
obviously not very, which is why your making an indie movie and trying to get it made and its not being bought off you.
You'd have to be insane or very talented to have a great story and make it yourself
Nope! I'm sure. The interviewer was honest enough to tell me. They don't want people who dwell on small details. They want quick decisive people who can sum up a situation and make a good judgment call.
APE, I agree. Money is not the only ingredient, I did bring up the need for top talent with the money too. And, the top talent does include a top director and producer as well. Money, however, is the major ingredient that makes it all possible. And, newbies don't have money. Crowd funding won't get them the money either. They don't have track records to attract investors or fans.
There are a lot of really good indie films out there though, just like how there are a lot of really bad films coming out of Hollywood. I think the reason why a lot of indie films are not successful is that Hollywood movies already have a signed released date before the movie is complete. This way, no matter how much the movie sucks, it's going to get a theatrical release and make money anyway.
For example, a lot of movie have said that The Last Airbender and Batman & Robin are two of the worst movies ever made. But the studio still had to release them to theaters to make money. It's not like they could just tell fans who have been waiting for the movie, "Oh sorry, the movie did not turn out well at all, and we will not be releasing it". The released dates are already signed no matter what.
Where as most indie movies do not have a signed release date before they are completed. I think this is one of the reasons why indie films are often less successful, but perhaps not the biggest reason.
For example, a lot of movie have said that The Last Airbender and Batman & Robin are two of the worst movies ever made. But the studio still had to release them to theaters to make money. It's not like they could just tell fans who have been waiting for the movie, "Oh sorry, the movie did not turn out well at all, and we will not be releasing it". The released dates are already signed no matter what.
Where as most indie movies do not have a signed release date before they are completed. I think this is one of the reasons why indie films are often less successful, but perhaps not the biggest reason.
