Being a film student.

[MacV]

Film school has been a rabbit hole of sorts.

For the last year and a half, my perspective of films have morphed. All my classes (the ones I go to anyways) are film classes. I've thought about film constantly. All my friends are film majors. I've talked about film constantly. I have completed four five-minute shorts and a variety of other small projects. I've been actively submersed in the various stages of film constantly. I've learned more than I ever thought there was to learn about the process of filmmaking.

Hell, I'm even here posting overly long musings about the process. It's disgusting.

I don't watch movies anymore. Seriously, I don't. I can't watch a movie and not see the light set up right outside of the frame. I can't enjoy a sequence without noticing how it's cut and to what affect. I can't help but notice how the story is structured; a bad habit of mine is to yell out what's gonna happen next. I find that my standards have reached hights I only thought pompous dicks held themselves too. But I can't enjoy Final Destination 3. I just can't. My neighbor can. He came over the other day, smoked a doobie, and enjoyed himself some Final Destination 3. I want that.

Maybe I am a pompous dick. I probably am. It's a shame. Film school has forced me to dislike 90 percent of films I see. But there is no going back. And the good thing is, when a film is good, when a film can immerse me, I really really appreciate it.

 

[WeightOnWheels]

At least we still have that 10%.

There is nothing better than to enjoy a well made, beautifully shot film.

 

[spinner]

I quit television news 2 summers ago to pursue filmmaking. I can't watch local news without wanting to pull my hair out and run screaming from the room

I see all the mistakes, the bad hair days, hear good and bad voices and other audio issues, I see all the bad weatherman keys, the bad shots, the no look space, no head room...its excrutiating! Late music, early music, crashing studio cameras, someone falling over, reporters who can't ad lib....auugghhh!!

You're not pompous, you just know what you are looking at now

-- spinner

 

[MelonDome]

lol, don't watch movies like final destination 3.

What you have is very common among the good majority of film-makers/buffs. That is great, nothing wrong. I am exactly the same way, but I love it, and it inspires me to continue making things. And drives me to love film that much more.

 

[Bpeas]

MacV from hearing about your dislike for 90% of films. Where do you believe you will find yourself on your own poll? Will you be satisfied working with the craft that you love, even if it is on the set of Final Destination 4?

 

[MacV]

Well, I think the first statement in the poll is true. Before film school, I could recognize a good film, but I wouldn't know exactly why. I couldn't really put it into words because I didn't have the film vocabulary I have now. So now, I know exactly why a film is good, and I can learn from it. I still appreciate it, but never in the way I enjoyed it before. I approach each film as a learning experience; it's a reflex to study how they structure scenes, shots, editing.

I would definitely be frustrated on the set of final destination 4. Maybe I would be happy if my input made it a better movie.... no because the script would still be shit. Here's the thing: unless I have a script that sparks my imagination and gives me something to feel passionate about, I hate filmmaking. The process is long and hard, and sapped of everything that makes it fun, I wouldn't want to do it. It would be a waste of my time.

 

[VPTurner]

I am the same way. Ever since I was 14 (I'm 40 now), I started learning how to pick films apart beginning with special effects. I was constantly studying tricks and techniques, wondering, "How did they do that?" After awhile, I could see exactly how. And it took me out of the story. For the last 20 years, I've been studying story. And now it's even worse. Not only can I pick it apart technically, now I can pick the story apart, too. Does that stop me from seeing and loving films? Not in the least! I do, however, need to see them more than once now because the first time I'm often distracted by the technical aspects and then I go back and watch it again with those technical details less of a distraction so I can appreciate the story.

An example, I've been in the computer industry most of my adult life, and I picked up The Last Starfighter on HD-DVD over the weekend. This was the first time I'd seen it in all its glory (film grain and all) since seeing it as a teenager in the theaters. And I am amazed how far we've come in digital moviemaking and 3D animation. I wrote term papers on the digital industry in my college days. When I saw this movie originally, I didn't have the knowledge of texture mapping, 3D modeling, keyframing, particle systems, physics simulation, etc., so it wasn't a distraction. I see it now, and I can practically count the polygons on the ships in real-time. Now that's distracting. My home computer system today is more powerful than that Cray they were using on this film. And now, aside from the technical aspects, I can recognize the classic Hero's Journey in its structure and execution.

Studying film just makes me appreciate more and more the amount of work that goes into making them.

 

[spinner]

I would definitely be frustrated on the set of final destination 4.

...well, here's the thing about that...

You can still get something from Final Destination 4. Remember, this is a film that got made. Okay, so the story isn't all that great. What you do is take other things from it. Camera shots, editing, how did audio sound and could you re-create it?

Remember, there was somebody who looked at that film and greenlighted it Maybe you can still get something out of the technical end of the film because there's no accounting for taste

BTW, I never found myself drawn to ever see any of the Final Destination films, are they all bad?

-- spinner

 

[NexRL]

If you like people dying then yeah there not that bad. But MacV, what spinner said is very true, and I'm surprised you wouldn't see that. Its like Plato's allegory of the cave in a way. Well if you stretch it at a few points.

 

[Bpeas]

From reading another post of yours, MacV, you said you enjoy sometimes watching the shitty films. What makes these more enjoyable than the mediocre films that are constantly being pumped out? Is it the disbelief that these shitty films can be made?
Are they so funny to watch because of the mistakes?
Is it because, somewhere in the production, they realized their film was shit so one could say its almost purposely bad?

I strongly believe that a filmmaker can learn a whole lot more from a shitty film than a masterpiece. Personally, when something is done right it usually goes unnoticed, however if it goes astray, it is much easier to pick up on. Ggreat filmmakers have stated that you could spend all four years of film school just studying "ChinaTown". I say, why not go off of what Spinner is saying, and learn the most you can from these shitty films. If you can recognize what is wrong with a production, you will most likely not make the same mistakes during your own.

Hell, Final Destination 4 might be the best opportunity to prove you are knowledgeable filmmaker. It's easier for a diamond to stand out amongst shit, than amongst other diamonds. (<<<- Does that make sense?)

Another conclusion I think I'm trying to make: is it worth sacrificing experience, and money in the craft that you love, over working exclusively with the best and brightest all the time?

Are you setting your goals to high?

Do you believe you can be the first person to ever ONLY work on quality film sets?

 

[MacV]

I agree that you can learn a lot from shitty films. Hone your bullshit radar, know when bad decisions are made. However, the challenge would be applying that judgment to yourself. I love critiquing film because I can't really ever be wrong. If I felt like the pace drags, the pacing was off. If I don't connect with the characters or I buy the premise, it's the filmmakers fault. However, when judging our own work, it's harder. An incredible amount of time is spent developing a film that by the time you come to the editing room, you've spent way too much time with the project to give a fair judgment. And then you edit for however many hours until you can't even tell what someone's first impression of your footage would be.

Good films provide a different kind of learning experience. You won't notice everything that a film does right, but you will notice what they do differently. Sometimes it doesn't work for you, other times it can inspire you. While shitty films shows you what not to do, you never will be inspired. I have probably taken more inspiration from Danny Boyle's films than the sum of shitty films I've watched and laughed at. We stand on the shoulder's of giants. Our own films are an external representation of our own taste; our style is a cumulation of all our favorite films, consciously or unconsciously. And maybe from that melting pot of influence, we can create something new. So while bad films let you discern good from bad easier, good films can help you come up with the good stuff in the first place.

In the film world, reputation is key. In the old days, studios were a brand name. Nowadays, the director is a brand name. Appatow is a brand name that is tarnished everytime he comes out with a less than hot film. When you go see a Quentin Tarantino movie, you know what you are in for. So if I want to be a director, it makes sense to only attach myself to quality projects. Even now, in film school, I try to be attached to only projects that inspires me, so I can produce quality work so that, hopefully, the best people want to work with me.

In a studio film, creativity is squashed. Decisions are made by executives who don't rely on creativity or film instinct to make a successful film, he decides on what is proven to sell. That's how you get final destination 4. So while I may be learning, the experience would always pale in comparison to a quality project. Without material that can involve me creatively or the freedom to innovate, it would be a go-through-the-motions experience. Who learns from that?

The good news is that studio films are failing. We are fortunate to be on the scene of the beginning of the largest media revolution in the last century. All the rules are changing, and it is easier and easier to be independent. Films are being produced independently, financed privately, and distributed directly to the audience. Studios are officially out of the equation, and they don't yet know how to handle it. Box office revenue has been faltering for years, and still the obsession with big opening weekends continue. Finally, the weak economy is also ripe in opportunity; in short, this is a perfect time to be an indie filmmaker.

My goal is to make the best film I can make, every time. A better reputation I have, the bigger the chance that I could land financing. This should be every filmmaker's goal. The only way to make a good film is to pick a script that triggers your imagination, to engage your creativity. How else could you innovate? I don't believe in making a film purposely bad because you have no faith in it. I don't believe in letting your team be mediocre. Why not try to get the best scripts and the best people? Why not try to inspire the best in people? I should hope that you try to get the best that you can every time.

This is not to say that I will wait forever for that perfect script, only one that turns me on. When I say, "Get the best," I mean the best people around you, and the best fit for the team. If you can't, you obviously have to make do. Every part of filmmaking so far as been about mastering the art of making do, squeezing the most out of everything you have.

All this seems obvious to me, and I'm sure you aren't debating this. I think the assumption is I'm missing valuable job opportunities being on crap film sets or valuable learning experience to see how the big boys do it. If I was working on a project that had none of what I described in the paragraphs above, I know I would be miserable. I hate working on films that I know are gonna be crap. I feel better about cooking professionally than working a crap job on a shit film. I have ample enthusiasm for film, there is no need to dampen it. I can make money doing something better. I can be involved in films I actually want to be associated with and still advance my career. Maybe even faster than ingratiating myself with a dying system.

And what do you really learn on the set of a bad film? You can't learn good shots, you can decipher that by watching the film. You can't learn great directing... because it's a bad film. If there are anybody guilty of shit directing, its a vast majority of studio directors. These directors often come from technical backgrounds, and make rookie mistakes all the time. The amount of flat lines and cliched uninspired scenes are overwhelming, especially in shit studio films, especially with bad scripts. You wouldn't learn anything about pre-production or post-production, so what's left is you learn how the crew is structured, and how all the equipment works. Out of all the jobs that are required in film, managing a crew will never be one of them. I would rather cook. Seeing the different equipment would be nice, but then I again, I like cooking better than setting up lights where people tell me. Cooking is a lot of fun.

http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/000876.html

Hugh Macleod - "The most important thing a creative person can learn professionally is where to draw the red line that separates what you are willing to do, and what you are not.

Art suffers the moment other people start paying for it. The more you need the money, the more people will tell you what to do. The less control you will have. The more bullshit you will have to swallow. The less joy it will bring. Know this and plan accordingly."

 

[VPTurner]

Filmmaking is a business. If you want to sit on the side of the road and make "art", more power to you. Art is subjective. If your art doesn't find an audience, you've lost time and money. Me, I want to feed my family while doing something I love doing. Final Destination 4 exists because there's an audience for it. "Shit" (in your opinion) is irrelevent. Perhaps spend less time on breaking a film down into shit and spend more time understanding why it works, why it makes money, and why there are so many sequels and spin-offs. It's a pre-sold franchise. How many Friday the 13th movies got made? All of them except the first, IMO, were bad. But that didn't stop them from making a dozen plus films. Batman? Superman? Lord of the Rings? Star Wars? Indiana Jones? Harry Potter? Pre-sold franchises. Just like Final Destination.

 

[EvsFX08]

I don't know what all the fuss about Final Destination 3 is about. You want a bad film? Try watching "Kill Switch" with Steven Segal. VPT Turner is right, it's about the pre-sold franchise, and I'm a Segal fan and I'm not ashamed to admit it because he can kick your ass, he just has to set his walker down , take a nap and then take his Geritol first these days. But look, I used to love watching Steven Segal kick ass and say stupid one liners while doing it. But anymore, I watch his films just to see how bad they can really get. It's not his fault, he's not the Producer, he just needs the money. As a video editor, I wanted to pull my eyes out watching this film, it was absolutely awful and I think I could have done a better job in my home office studio, but it was in fact entertaining, and that's really what it's all about because Segal movies will always make a little money due to the genre of film, and I'll always be contributing to that profit margin. Sure, Quality is great and will win you awards, but really, how many major films that make money are actually of good quality? I think the only franchise movies that are of excellent quality are Star Wars and James Bond movies. And exactly who defines "good quality"? Now, if you ask me, the new movie, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas looks like a film of exceptional quality, it appears to have a great plot, great footage, dialogue, musical score, Special effects, etc. Hell, it may win a few awards, but I don't think it will break any ticket selling records because it doesn't have the gratuitous death, nudity, violence, language, gore, etc that really sells like the franchise movies you consider "shitty". The Pajama movie doesn't even have Zombies, Superheros, a vampire that saves his mortal girlfriend, or even a love story on a sinking ship. The point is you have to find what entertains people and are willing to pay you for, otherwise, you may never justify your Film School expenses and will end up with a trunk full of your version of "quality" Straight to DVD films you made (not that there's anything wrong with Straight to DVD film, but kind of a waste for a film school student). But, hey, I've never been to film school and have only produced documentaries, so I don't know much about film making, so do what you gotta do, if it works for ya, keep doing it. If not, maybe it's time to adjust your standards and critiques, who knows? I think it's awesome though that you have the technical knowledge to pick apart movies, just don't let it prevent you from enjoying films. My story is practically identical to VP Turners, I've always been interested more in figuring out how they made Special Effects in movies, and today, I can sit there and say, "ah, ok that was probably done with Trapcode Shine, Shatter effect added to the Mask with the "Subtract" setting, and a Curve adjustment after using the Tint effect on an Adjustment layer with a 3d Camera Layer...blah, blah blah", but it doesn't take away from me enjoying the film. On the contrary, knowing the technical aspects makes me appreciate movies even more now, yes, even the cheaper and cheesy effects like in Kill Switch, because you know what? Some poor shmuck spent hours behind a computer (or a camera for film makers), much like I do, putting their craft to work creating his portion of the film creating what he considers art, and although I may not think the quality is as good as I can do (because I'm a Legend in my own mind), I still respect the people making the film, because, well, it does take work, and frankly, they bring in more cash than I do so they must be doing something right. Like the kids say these days, "Chill Bro, don't be a Hater "! I appreciate your concern for Quality, but I don't think you make high pay-off "quality" films right out of Film School, you probably have to pay your dues a little and gain experience through less than perfect productions. I seriously doubt most producers have a BlockBuster with their very first film.
In a perfect world, I can see where you are coming from, I like to try and choose the projects I work on because I don't want my company's name and quality to be associated with something I consider poor quality, so I can understand your viewpoint somewhat, but the bold truth is, that this is a business, I have bills and a family to take care of, so there are projects that I work on because, well, it pays. But, the funny part is, as good as I think I am, regardless of the content or quality of film I work on, I ALWAYS learn how to do something new with every project I do, because I test out new ideas or effects. One of the producers I worked with a year ago was smalltime and his first projects were very cheap, I helped him make it a little more professional of course, but he only got better with the more productions he did. Turns out, he became so good that he landed a major contract to produce documentaries, and because I was willing to work with him in the beginning of his business when the quality was poor, guess who his first choice was when he wanted a full time editor? Me. And from there, I made contacts that generated even more business for me. I now have a steady gig editing films and documentaries, along with doing side jobs for other customers. My reputation for afforable high qualty work and the willingess to work with customers has 90% of my advertising through word of mouth- which is free. By not being judgmental, condescending, or arrogant, but willing to offer advice and suggestions to customers on how to improve the quality of their productions from my own knowledge and experience has paid off. So, be humble, don't be an ass like Shannon Dougherty where no one likes working with you because your always being critical and a tyrant. You never know when that producer who makes a shitty film today will be the next George Lucas, or what opportunites through networking on "shitty" productions will take you. I don't think you're pompous, but I do think that you are highly motivated, full of piss and vinegar, and just a little arrogant due to your newly learned knowledge and skills- it's a natural thing to want to change the world after obtaining enlightenment, arrogance is not always a bad bad thing, it's a sign of confidence, but hopefully you have the experience to back up the arrogance.

 

[VPTurner]

Yeah, even George Lucas has a Howard the Duck on his filmography.

Everyone lays an egg at some point. If you want to be successful, you'll have to break a few eggs along the way. That's how you learn and grow.

The best part of the Final Destination franchise? Everyone got their paycheck.

 

[Bpeas]

*Accidentally signed in on a different username. This is what happens when I edit on my friend's mac, check the forums, get fired up, and post without making sure I was signed in.

 

[MacV]

I said nothing about art. This is a business and I approach it like one. And in every business, you must be able to innovate. Do you really think that quality independent pictures are not making money? Michael Clayton was independently directed and produced by the screenwriter, and independently financed. It won an Oscar nod, and went to make some serious bucks. Do you think 28 Days Later would have made so much money if it hadn't reinvented the zombie genre? If 28 days was a studio film, you be sure as shit that 28 days would be a throwaway b horror that nobody would remember in a year.

Filmmaking is a business. Like every other business, we have a product that is in competition with other products. Like every other business, you not only make sure your product stands out, but you MUST be inventive with your business model. The classic business model is changing, and now the time is ripe to develop new ways to reach our customers and to make money off of our films.

When I talk about quality, I'm not talking about Art. Quality films are often the films that take a fresh approach to a genre or subject matter. Quality films are what starts these franchises. Even Saw was doing something different than the competition, and that film created an audience, and a franchise, out of thin air. Now it's a franchise going on its 5th film and it feels absolutely stale. These filmmakers only consider, "what works, what sells" instead of keeping the franchise fresh. There has been a rapid decline in box office revenue from these films. The audience is actually shrinking, not growing. Do you consider this a success?

Here's an analogy for this argument. You wanna open up a burger joint because everyone loves your burgers, so you figure it's a good opportunity to make something of yourself. You even have a new and healthy recipe that you hope everyone will love, and was a blast to make. You feel like this is what you are meant to do, and this is your life's passion.

There's a McDonald's in town. There is no way you can make as much as McDonald's and you don't have their marketability or their brand name. Does this mean that you shouldn't open up your own burger joint? Does this mean that you will be happy working at McDonald's even though their burgers are shit?

BTW, experience isn't always a good thing. The experienced professionals in Hollywood are so caught up in tradition that when there is a media revolution, they can't understand it. They still can't understand that A-list actors don't sell films. They still can't understand that big-budget cgi doesn't sell like it used to. And they sure as hell don't understand how indie filmmakers can beat them at the box office.

 

[VPTurner]

Even Saw is nothing more than your typical "Monster in the House" movie. Don't kid yourself.

And if you open up a restaurant next to a McDonald's and your burgers end up being shit, too, then guess what? The power and money behind advertising will sink your burger joint. If you have great burgers, good for you! Now guess how long it would take you to raise the kind of money needed to compete with the big players. The best you could hope for would be to franchise your burgers and build yourself a pre-sold consumer base just like those who came before you. Do you think McDonald's started out with thousands of stores? Burger King? Wendy's? Nope. They started out as independents and built from there. Nice analogy, BTW.

And it's not just your movies. It's your name. If you build a name for yourself with good movies, you will build a strong following. If Spielberg made a movie about the sex life of the sand flea, you bet your butt I'll pay to see it. But even Spielberg can trip over his own shoe laces on occasion. And it took a long series of commercially successful movies to build up that following where he could go off and make Schindler's List. Lucas had to make American Graffiti before he could make Star Wars because THX 1138 was a commercial disaster (the biggest commercial failure of his career).

You really must first tread where others have gone before. Then you can branch and take a different path. To break the rules, you must first become intimately familiar with them. Otherwise, how do you know your approach is original or "fresh"?

EDIT: A side note, I am playing Devil's Advocate here, so don't think I'm trying to tear you down. Nothing personal. Just looking at things from a different angle.

 

[MacV]

In regards to your side note, I completely respect that, and I'm glad you are. This is a wholly worthy debate, already this thread has got me thinking. Anyways...

I have to disagree about Saw. When Saw came out, I remember it was talk of the town just because of it's unique premise. When's the last time you've seen a film where the protagonist must hurt themselves in elaborate ways to escape, all for a moral lesson? The execution was hardly perfect; I chose Saw as an example because it is about as far away from that Art label as you can get. However, in a genre that was dominated by asian horror remakes, Saw was a million dollar budget no name indie that managed to be a fresh enough horror entry that it generated many times what it cost to make.

There are many roads into the industry, there always have been. However, I believe in this moment in cinema, there has never been more possibilities. Kids are taking cameras and making no-budget films that continue to generate hundreds of thousands of hits. These same kids are turning around and selling t-shirts and generating sustainable income. You may not be able to compete with the big boys right off the bat, but that doesn't mean you have to play by their rules either.

It is about doing what is best for you. I know I would be unhappy on some godawful studio set making a film I didn't care about. I'm not an artist; if I am miserable, I lose that edge that allows me to be the best I can be. In my mind, I would be shortchanging myself. In the end, I believe I would happier trying to forge my own way into the industry, allowing me to produce the best possible work that is in me.

 

[VPTurner]

Saw is one of the movies Blake Snyder breaks down in his book "Save the Cat! Goes to the Movies." He categorizes it in his "Monster in the House" genre under "Nihilist Monster". Other movies in its category are Peeping Tom, American Psycho, Cabin Fever, Audition, The Others, Lost Highway, The Village, The Grudge, Identity, and The Host. And it purportedly had a $500,000 budget. Saw, in the immortal words of Blake, is "the same thing, only different".

And everyone's goal should be to produce the best work they possibly can. Problem is, you'll never produce your best work until you've had the experience of producing bad work and learning from it. Ever heard the cliche', "The overnight success took 20 years to achieve"? You must allow yourself room to fail or you will drive yourself crazy. Believe me, I know. I'm a perfectionist, and it has greatly hindered my forward progress. And I suppose that's a good reason for film school; you can fail in front of others who have the power to fix it. And that's why I love the people in this forum. I can fail in front of them, and they'll slap it on the wall, hit it with a high-powered light, and illustrate where I went wrong.

You'd be surprised at how many YouTube videos get high praise, and the creator thinks it's a masterpiece. From word of mouth, I rush to go view it. And nine times out of ten, it's a piece, alright. It is true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Just ask the chubby chasers. FACT: No matter how good you think something is, someone will always come along and crap all over it (and some will love that crap, play with it, rub it all over themselves...). A critic who's always right? No such thing. When it comes to any art form, there is no right or wrong. There is only opinion.

EDIT: Just remembered a good example of allowing yourself to fail. I was watching the HD-DVD version of John Carpenter's The Thing the other day, and there's a nice hour and a half or so documentary there. Rob Bottin was talking about one scene where he used so much of a toxic chemical mixture that the fumes built up and then exploded in everyone's faces after Carpenter decided that they needed to add fire to the shot. That oversight wasted an entire day of preparation. And that taught Rob to realize that if it smells highly toxic, it's probably highly flammable, too.

 

[NexRL]

Your very wise EvsFX08