"Flight" with talk back

I got to see the movie "Flight" last night, followed by a q&a w/director Robert Zemeckis and screenwriter John Gatins (this was re-scheduled from the night in late October when Hurricane Sandy hit NYC).

I wanted to share a few impressions - more from the talk back than the movie itself.

John Gatins had been working on the script for about 10 years and had wanted to direct it himself (he does have other produced screenplays but this is the one that really seems to be from the heart). He eventually realized that that just was not going to happen, and had to let go and let someone else do it. However, Zemeckis involved him in the production to an unusual extent - he was on set every day and had input on changes that needed to be made on the spot.

The budget was $31 million (approximately), and Zemeckis said that the studio would not given them any more than that: either he could make it for that, or he didn't make it. And the 45 day shooting schedule had no flex beyond that.

When asked what he might have done differently on a bigger budget, Zemeckis laughed & said he and Denzel Washington both would have gotten paid (they both deferred their salary), and (most interesting to me) he would have had smaller lenses for the digital cameras that they used for the crash scenes. He said that they could only afford the bigger lenses, so he had to forego some shots that he would have liked. He also would have liked to have 50 or 52 days perhaps, so that they could have worked some of the scenes more.

I thought it was a great, specific example of how, even at a budget level that most of us can only dream of (for now!), compromise is always necessary.

I don't want to hijack your thread but I would like to take this opportunity to point out how your post supports the advice that I seem to be giving more than I should:

Don't you find it interesting that Zemeckis has sacrificed shooting days, camera equipment and even his up front salary but hasn't compromised in the slightest on the audio post? In fact, he's done exactly the opposite, he hired Randy Thom, arguably the best (or close to it) sound designer in the world today and probably the most (or again, close to it) expensive audio post facility on the planet. In other words, Zemeckis believes that audio post is not only as important as the visuals but that spending money on the audio post is more important than getting all the shots he wanted or even all the shooting days. Zemeckis' views on the importance of audio post is entirely standard in the world of commercial filmmakers but I wonder how many indietalk filmmakers would have balanced their priorities like this? ... In my experience here, the answer would be none at all! If Zemeckis were an indietalk filmmaker I guarantee audio post would have been on the list of compromises and that he'd have a substantially larger collection of camera lenses!

G

No problem re hijacking!

And the audio WAS damn amazing. I noticed it not just in the big crash scene but in small things: the ringing of a phone from off screen left, the conversation in the stairwell of the hospital.

mlesemann said:

And the audio WAS damn amazing. I noticed it not just in the big crash scene but in small things: the ringing of a phone from off screen left, the conversation in the stairwell of the hospital.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen Flight yet but I wouldn't expect anything less from Randy. To be honest, I would be most interested in all the audio you didn't notice! Look Randy Thom up on IMDB, it's quite a read. His first sound job in film was on Apocalypse Now! Which, as far as sound design is concerned, is probably in the top 5 most important/influential films of all time... Not a bad place to start then!

G

AudioPostExpert said:

In my experience here, the answer would be none at all!

Click to expand...

For real?

The budget was $31 million (approximately), and Zemeckis said that the studio would not given them any more than that: either he could make it for that, or he didn't make it.

Click to expand...

They sure got an awful lot of value, for their money! I'd have expected a 10-minute plane crash sequence to easily fill the majority of that 31 mill by itself. Heck, the sound alone was prolly a few grand, I bet

Comedy flicks like Bridesmaids and Horrible Bosses each cost more, and don't have the elaborate special fx to build & deal with. I doubt anyone was deferring, though. How much would Denzel & Zemeckis have added to the budget, with upfront pay? Good on 'em for risking a bit to make sure the film got made, and I hope they make out like bandits on the backend.

I've seen Washington's per movie pay quoted at $20 million...don't know if that's correct or not, though.

Zensteve said:

For real?

Click to expand...

To be perfectly honest yes, for real! Although I did qualify it by saying "In my experience here". Crudely judging the shorts I've seen posted here from 1-10 for visuals and sound, where 1 is a disaster (every possible mistake and no redeeming features) and 10 is fully professional, commercial quality. Most of the shorts would rank 2-9 for the visuals with an average of around 5-6. On the sound side the vast majority would rank 1-6 with an average of around 3. What's more surprising is when reviewing the short quite a few don't even realise it only rates a 1 for sound and I've often seen comments which suggest a 5 or 6 when a 1 or 2 would be appropriate. The obvious conclusion is that filmmakers here tend to value more highly and put far more effort into the visuals than they do the sound.

I have seen people say that they believe sound to be important but I've yet to see anyone here (Alcove excepted of course) demonstrate an understanding of what sound design even is, let alone attempting to employ it in anything other than a token manner in audio post.

So I've got to say yes, what I said in my first post really is my opinion based on my experience here.

Zensteve said:

Heck, the sound alone was prolly a few grand, I bet

Click to expand...

I can say with absolute certainty; it wasn't less than $5k

G

Charlie Rose: Director Robert Zemeckis & actor Denzel Washington on their film Flight




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC3GbNZMyt4

And anyway, Denzel is one of Dave's most darling guests.

APE, have you considered the possibility that maybe you're not capable of recognizing the flaws in visuals, the same way that you are in audio? What you deem to be a 5-6 in video might actually get a 1-2 from someone else. While you chew on that, maybe you could consider lowering the condescension level just a tad.

Perspective -- the entire budget for my debut feature:

$3,000 - cast
$1,000 - lone crew member, boom operator
$1,000 - random production expenses (transportation, props, craft services)
$3,000 - music

That was all the money I had. I sent my bank account hundreds of dollars overdraft, in order to make the movie. And this is for a film that I had absolutely no expectations of turning a profit on.

So please, tell me again how little I care about audio.

As for the actual discussion at hand, I wasn't crazy about the movie, but Denzel's performance was on-point!

Regardless, I agree with your main point, Mara -- I can't imagine any production in which I won't be forced to make compromises. It's kinda just the nature of the biz, no matter how big or small the budget. Producing ain't easy!

Cracker, I can't work out if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing. In your budget list you don't even mention sound design or audio post. According to your list, you spent more on the catering than you did on the sound design, are you therefore agreeing with me?

G

AudioPostExpert said:

Cracker, I can't work out if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing. In your budget list you don't even mention sound design or audio post. According to your list, you spent more on the catering than you did on the sound design, are you therefore agreeing with me?

G

Click to expand...

I spent about $100 on "catering", aka PB&J sandwiches and bananas. So, yes, I spent $100 more on "catering" than I did on audio post. At my budget level, it's not a question of which things must be compromised, but which things absolutely cannot be compromised. I need my cast and crew to not be starving to death, so yeah, PB&J is more important that audio post. Sorry, that's just reality.

Did you notice how much I spent on cinematography? How much I spent on a colorist? That'd be zero for both. I was working with a dirt-cheap camera, and a single lens. What does this do to your theory, that we all put way more effort into video than we do audio? It kills your theory, which is easy to do because it's so far off base.

You seem to have missed the point -- 50% of my budget went to audio. 12.5% of my budget went to my lone crew member, and he was in the audio department. 37.5% of my budget went to music. Music is part of audio. It's not really part of sound design (at least not in my movie), but it's still audio.

I was forced to do the sound design by myself, just like I was forced to do the cinematography (and damn near everything else) by myself.

And this is just me, working with a miniscule budget, on a movie that I knew would have all-around low production values. You haven't seen the movies being put out by other members of this forum, not the ones that require a more concerted effort than a short film that ends up in the screening room.

Have you ever tried to budget an $8,000 feature? Major departments are just going to be left out. It's unavoidable. I decided that acting and music were most important to me for this project, so I chose those areas to spend pretty much all of the budget. It's a tough decision to make, maybe you should try it some time.

Maybe you didn't understand my first post? I pointed out that Zemeckis compromised several significant areas of filmmaking but did the opposite with the sound design and audio post and prioritised them. I went on to say that I didn't believe any indietalk filmmakers would prioritise their budget this way.

You are arguing with me on the basis that you prioritised your budget on the acting and music and compromised the sound design and audio post! I'm therefore confused, because what you are saying couldn't support my argument more!

G

I think I understood this just fine:

AudioPostExpert said:

I wonder how many indietalk filmmakers would have balanced their priorities like this? ... In my experience here, the answer would be none at all! If Zemeckis were an indietalk filmmaker I guarantee audio post would have been on the list of compromises and that he'd have a substantially larger collection of camera lenses!

Click to expand...

Keep wondering. Because when it comes to making the decisions of a producer, that's all you do is observe and wonder. You've never done it. And for you to compare my $8,000 production to a $31mil. production is asinine, to put it mildly. The decisions I am faced with are not even slightly similar to those faced by Zemeckis.

Here's an actual decision I was faced with -- should I pay rent and the power bill this month? Or should I hire a boom operator?

I chose boom operator, and that was the only crew member I could afford to hire. So forgive me if I'm just a tad offended by your suggestion that I don't care about audio. You have no clue what you're talking about, because you've never done anything even slightly similar to what I or any of my compatriots on IT have done.

Before criticizing someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. Because, at least then you'll be a mile away from them, and you'll have their shoes.

Yes, I compromised audio post. Sorry to offend you, but when you're producing a feature for $8,000, A LOT of stuff gets compromised. You keep ignoring the fact that I also chose not to spend any money on post for video.

I spent $400 on airfare to fly to Chicago, so that I could spend a few hours recording ADR, with the help of one very awesome IT member. That's 5% of the entire movie's budget. And that's 100% more than I spent on video, because I spent NOTHING on video, not a single red cent.

You have no idea how much time I spent editing the audio, especially in comparison to the video. I can honestly say that I spent 20-times more time and energy on the audio than I did on coloring, or anything like that.

I'm really biting my tongue here. I'd like to share some colorful language with you. You are being very dismissive of the efforts of countless filmmakers who have endured hardships that you simply can't fathom, because you've never even dreamed of walking the same path that we do. It's a struggle, dude. We're doing our best, and yes, we care very much about audio.

In short, you should quiet this nonsense about IT members not caring about audio.

Cracker Funk said:

Here's an actual decision I was faced with -- should I pay rent and the power bill this month? Or should I hire a boom operator?

Click to expand...

This was obviously not your only choice, you could have budgeted $2k for the music instead of $3k and then you would have had your budget for your boom operator and for your rent! You need to smell the roses, whether you've got $8k, $8m or $31m you are still faced with choices, priorities and compromises. As the budget increases the choices you face don't get easier because you've got more money, the choices get more complicated because along with the rising budget comes a rise in expectation. And, if you had any experience of the professional film/TV world, you would know that expectation pretty much always exceeds the budget. This is as true of the overall film budget as it is with departmental budgets, of which I have a great deal of experience!

Cracker Funk said:

Yes, I compromised audio post. Sorry to offend you ....

Click to expand...

By compromising the sound design and audio post you compromised your film but it was your money and your film and you have the right to prioritise and compromise wherever you choose. You made your decisions and you have to live with them but don't come on here bleating because you realise the choices you made were the opposite of what a top class professional would make!

Learn and move on or ignore the practises of those better than you and move on, your choice but either way, move on!

G

[EDIT] As cracker edited out the swearing at me from his post, I felt it appropriate to edit out the more condescending remarks from my post.

AudioPostExpert said:

This was obviously not your only choice, you could have budgeted $2k for the music instead of $3k and then you would have had your budget for your boom operator and for your rent! You need to smell the roses, whether you've got $8k, $8m or $31m you are still faced with choices, priorities and compromises. As the budget increases the choices you face don't get easier because you've got more money, the choices get more complicated because along with the rising budget comes a rise in expectation. And, if you had any experience of the professional film/TV world, you would know that expectation pretty much always exceeds the budget. This is as true of the overall film budget as it is with departmental budgets, of which I have a great deal of experience!

Click to expand...

No, that actually is a decision I was faced with. The money for production and the money for post-production were spread apart by four months. I didn't start with the entire budget in hand. I funded production, shot it, then saved up for post. Yes, I actually chose to not pay rent, or any bill, during the month of production. By the time production was wrapped, I was a month past-due on all of my bills, my bank account was hundreds of dollars overdraft, and I hadn't worked in a month. And this is what allowed me to shoot when I did, with a boom operator.

And yes, I know that compromises will always have to be made -- that's what this entire thread is about. What you're not getting is that at my budget level, pretty much everything is compromised.

AudioPostExpert said:

By compromising the sound design and audio post you compromised your film but it was your money and your film and you have the right to prioritise and compromise wherever you choose. You made your decisions and you have to live with them but don't come on here bleating because you realise the choices you made were the opposite of what a top class professional would make!

Click to expand...

What in the world makes you think I'm upset about the fact that the decisions I make are different from those who have more money? We're facing completely different situations, and so making different decisions is appropriate. In a different thread, you cited some examples of a few ultra-low-budget filmmakers who have had their tiny-budget films picked up and distributed by large studios. You made a specific point of highlighting the fact that the studios then dumped a whole bunch of money into audio post. Hello, McFly! Have you considered the possibility that this is the exact situation I was hoping for? If I'm hoping to get picked up by a studio, who would then hire their own audio post guys, wouldn't it be a foolish investment for me to hire my own? I was hoping to follow in the footsteps of someone like Jay Duplass (more or less). That dude (and his bro) made a feature film with nothing more than a freaking camcorder, and it got theatrical distribution (after the studio hired audio post). In this scenario, it's not the ultra-low-budget filmmaker who spends money on post, but the studio. Get it?

In truth, at my budget-level, from a business perspective, it's foolish to spend any money at all. Going into production, I knew that the odds of my film being picked up, and/or turning a profit, were extremely slim. With this fact in mind, at this ultra-low-budget level, it's much more smart to keep spending to a bare minimum. Meaning, if turning profit were my top priority, I shouldn't have even hired actors, composers, or a boom-op! If money were my biggest concern, I should've shot the movie over the course of many months, a day or two at a time, instead of shooting continuously, over the course of a few weeks.

The reason I chose to spend money at all was because this movie was more about personal growth, and was intended mostly to be a personal statement -- sort of like a way of saying to the world, "hey, look what I can do". My personal style, as a director, is to put music at the forefront. I wasn't willing to sacrifice music, and never will be. That was a creative decision, not a business decision. Sacrificing audio post? That was a business decision (and a smart one, at that).

AudioPostExpert said:

Learn and move on or ignore the practises of those better than you and move on, your choice but either way, move on!

Click to expand...

That's good advice -- that you should follow. You apparently think that because you're professional and I'm amateur, well that must make you an authority on these matters. The problem with your logic is that our conversation involves things with which you have zero experience. You're not a producer, and you are foreign to the world of ultra-low-budget filmmaking.

Case in point -- you hadn't even considered the fact that my only hope of getting this movie distributed was to become an indie darling. And to become an indie darling, it has been proven that you don't need top-notch production values. In fact, you can have really shitty production values.

There are plenty of people on here who are better producers than you, by default. I will learn from you when I want to improve my skills in audio (which I do, and I'm honestly grateful for your excellent audio advice). But I have nothing to learn from you in the realm of producing. And yes, it's insulting when you dismiss everybody on this website, claiming that none of us care about audio. That is what upset me, this much should be plain as day.

Oh, and I believe it's coffee that you wanted me to smell, not roses.