Hypothetical question here
- Thread starter rishi851
- Start date
Too late for that after finishing dozens of shorts and even more videos of different breed (corporate, interviews, moodfilms, etc). I can't anwser it.
Are they 3 bad or good shorts.
Can you or anyone judge his(or her) own merit correctly after 2 of 3 attempts?
Some would take the offer.
Others would be hesitant, while a part of the hesitating people often seem more suited for the job than the ones taking it
Are they 3 bad or good shorts.
Can you or anyone judge his(or her) own merit correctly after 2 of 3 attempts?
Some would take the offer.
Others would be hesitant, while a part of the hesitating people often seem more suited for the job than the ones taking it
Perhaps I'm missing the point of this question, but if you tell me to make a film and you're paying for it, why wouldn't I?
The only reason I can think of is that one may not think the budget is enough to make an adequate film. But you make no mention of what level of quality you'd expect or how/where this film would be broadcast and distributed. I assume you wouldn't be adverse to me making a found footage film with your cash?
Some great films have been made for less than $60K, so I'd expect most would jump at the opportunity.
The only reason I can think of is that one may not think the budget is enough to make an adequate film. But you make no mention of what level of quality you'd expect or how/where this film would be broadcast and distributed. I assume you wouldn't be adverse to me making a found footage film with your cash?
Some great films have been made for less than $60K, so I'd expect most would jump at the opportunity.
For industrial standards $250,000 or less is considered a budget for a short film. If you have only made short films and got the opportunity to make a feature, get some directions. Go to a producer and find the ins and outs, what to do; what not to do, how to distribute the monies etc. so you would be on the right track. But most of all, take it. Go hard or go home.
Yes I would.
That is what happened to me when I got the money to make my first feature;
I had made three award winning shorts and a producer liked one of them and
felt it would make a fun feature. He gave me $65,000 and I made the feature.
not without a script i wouldn't
Merit or not if I were hypothetically given $60,000 and told to go and
make a feature film (haunted house horror) after making just 2-3 short
films I would go ahead and make the movie. And I'd write the script.
make a feature film (haunted house horror) after making just 2-3 short
films I would go ahead and make the movie. And I'd write the script.
Yeah, many would. It's not something I'm comfortable with. I haven't even written a feature script yet.
Absolutely, provided of course the location was easily accessible by me (as in, minimum United States, preferably South/South East)
There is no location. There's no script as far as we know, so you can choose whatever location you like. So why not go for somewhere exotic? Maybe you could fly a few people to Jamaica and shoot yourself a 'Paranormal Activity' there? I'm sure that would be achievable on $60K!
Hmmm.. I read it as having a location, cast and crew you just step in. I would never do a paranormal activity (I assume you mean like the blair witch project) I'd rather be homless than connected to something like that. Main reason for staying local to me is once you start hitting exotic locations your budget gets busted. Rather stay local nd use the money to make a better movie.
I read it a little differently; to me his hypothetical was he gives you $60,000
for production. The only criteria he mentions is feature and haunted house horror
and having made just 2-3 short films. I took his parenthetical as explaining what
"production" meant - cast crew and locations.
I hope he returns to explain this hypothetical question.
I think I know what you're getting at - you want to know if you'd be confident enough in your abilities to pull off a $60k film with only 2-3 shorts completed?
I think only you can answer that. Some people would be happy to after one short. Others would prefer to do a no-budget feature first.
My thoughts: if it's truly a donation, then why not? If it's a loan or investment, and there's an expectation that the money will be at the very least paid back, then that's a slightly different situation.
I think only you can answer that. Some people would be happy to after one short. Others would prefer to do a no-budget feature first.
My thoughts: if it's truly a donation, then why not? If it's a loan or investment, and there's an expectation that the money will be at the very least paid back, then that's a slightly different situation.
Last edited:
If you have no say in the cast, location, crew or production design are you even a director anymore?
Who is going to put in all the hard work, all the paperwork, assemble everyone and everything necessary to make a film and then what... pay for everything too and just let you step in do the fun parts and take the credit.
That's an actors job not the director. This question went from hypothetical to absurd if that's what he is really asking.
The director needs to pick the cast cryogenic. Some people say that it's HALF of directing to cast.
In television the director never casts the show. When they are hired
to direct an episode they have no say in the location, the crew or the
production design. They don't do paperwork, they don't assemble
everyone and everything. I would say they still are the director.
It happens less in films and far less (if ever) in low budget independent
films – but it happens. Directors have left (or been fired from) shows
just weeks before production and been replaced by another director. I
would say that person is still the director.
On a personal note I did this once; got hired to direct by a writer/producer/actor
who cast all the main characters, selected the locations and had hired all
the main crew before he contacted me. In a way it was quite nice. I stepped
in two weeks before production, met everyone, did a couple of table reads,
walked the locations and then made the movie. It was simple a “work-for-hire”
very much like TV directors - I was there to realize the vision of the
writer/producer. I was given some creative control and there was enough
professional respect (both ways) that it was a good experience. Sure, there
were some choices I was unhappy with, but then I don't see myself as the
“auteur” type. I was happy to get the work and accepted the challenge.
Not every film is the vision of the director. Many are the vision of the writer
with the director a "hired hand". Many are the vision of the producer who
hires a director to achieve their vision. Even in those cases I personally believe
you are still a director.