Evening all.
Thought I would just pose this question. Say you're trying to put together a short that is watchable by, say, people that are objective. As in, something you would put on the internet or something you would submit to a local film festival. If you wanted to go beyond the novelty of being able to show your friends some movies that you've put together...
What level of experience and skill should you demand? You always needs to have standards... Personally I'm sure all of us would like nothing but the very best for our movies. Then again we all have to come to terms with our budgets (or budgetless movies). We can't expect the same passion for filmmaking from everyone we work with. So anyway, getting to my point:
You've got some people who are willing to act in the roles but probably pretty badly and you've got some people (the same people as the actors) willing to hold a mic or carry some lights or something, even though they don't really want to invest the time of reading all the books about it. Is it worth bulldozing ahead and just getting it done? Or should you take a step back and try to find the "right people" for the job. The aspiring cinematographer... the hopeful young actor in your community theater? Even if these "gems in the rough" are more than difficult to find (to work for free/a piece of the "profits" that is). Of course I realize you have to be thankful for what you can get, and thankful for people who are willing to give up their time to help you out on anything at all....
I guess a second part of my question is: is it unreasonable to try to do everything in a movie yourself, from screen writting to lighting to mixing to directing to editing to... well... whatever I decide to do with it afterwards? Is that just too much to do well for a single person? Has it been done before with some sucess? I know that you can probably point to Clerks or something where they just did it all themselves, but I heard that movie, and others like it that "transcended" from indie to fantastically widely known where doctored by all sorts of professionals with lots of money to look and sound a lot better than they originally did. But all the same, I'm just putting that out there to see what everyone thinks. I've read books on all the different movie making areas, and feel as though i have a good base knowledge on things... But I can't exactly have a gazzilion eyes in my head.
Movies are very personal things, but it's pretty apparent that they're a group effort to get made. The entire "auteur" concept of a one man artistic machine seems less and less likely to me right now.
Alright, thanks for reading, and thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Doug
staticnothing@hotmail.com
aol: staticfour
YahooIM: staticnothing
Thought I would just pose this question. Say you're trying to put together a short that is watchable by, say, people that are objective. As in, something you would put on the internet or something you would submit to a local film festival. If you wanted to go beyond the novelty of being able to show your friends some movies that you've put together...
What level of experience and skill should you demand? You always needs to have standards... Personally I'm sure all of us would like nothing but the very best for our movies. Then again we all have to come to terms with our budgets (or budgetless movies). We can't expect the same passion for filmmaking from everyone we work with. So anyway, getting to my point:
You've got some people who are willing to act in the roles but probably pretty badly and you've got some people (the same people as the actors) willing to hold a mic or carry some lights or something, even though they don't really want to invest the time of reading all the books about it. Is it worth bulldozing ahead and just getting it done? Or should you take a step back and try to find the "right people" for the job. The aspiring cinematographer... the hopeful young actor in your community theater? Even if these "gems in the rough" are more than difficult to find (to work for free/a piece of the "profits" that is). Of course I realize you have to be thankful for what you can get, and thankful for people who are willing to give up their time to help you out on anything at all....
I guess a second part of my question is: is it unreasonable to try to do everything in a movie yourself, from screen writting to lighting to mixing to directing to editing to... well... whatever I decide to do with it afterwards? Is that just too much to do well for a single person? Has it been done before with some sucess? I know that you can probably point to Clerks or something where they just did it all themselves, but I heard that movie, and others like it that "transcended" from indie to fantastically widely known where doctored by all sorts of professionals with lots of money to look and sound a lot better than they originally did. But all the same, I'm just putting that out there to see what everyone thinks. I've read books on all the different movie making areas, and feel as though i have a good base knowledge on things... But I can't exactly have a gazzilion eyes in my head.
Movies are very personal things, but it's pretty apparent that they're a group effort to get made. The entire "auteur" concept of a one man artistic machine seems less and less likely to me right now.
Alright, thanks for reading, and thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Doug
staticnothing@hotmail.com
aol: staticfour
YahooIM: staticnothing