I feel that this topic may have wandered slightly so perhaps a change of topic is required.

Since George Lucas has been referenced perhaps it could be...

"Modern Filmmakers : A New Hope" ??

I was surprised to see a 5 minute review of Shane Carruth's Upstream Color on the CBC National news network. It's not even film festival season. Not bad coverage for a one man band with two hacked GH2's!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/the-buzz/2013/04/film-review-upstream-color.html

BTW this is Hollywood, not the cruise ship!

Guys, this topic is starting to get funny, not due to the pictures, photos or metaphors, but due to everybody to much worried about the subject...

Just relax and do your films... filmmaking is much more a fun activity instead of a thing to worry about. If you are good you will be acknowledged, so simple. But to be recognized is not the main thing, main thing is to get satisfaction from accomplish a film, get it done, overcome difficulties and get pleasure in doing, no matter who will like it or not.

Of course make money is important for a living, but making films cannot be the main indie activity for a living, unless you are a super pro mainstream director or producer... Lots of actors, directors, producers, writers have a job and do films as a second task. Or maybe you can get enough sponsors in your way if you search for, or maybe vimeo on demand will make money for you if you are really good. After the first films, when you perceive you are really good you can show your job to get into the industry. If you are "so-so", keep doing, no matter what...

In Super8 movie from Abrams/Spielberg there is a short super 8 movie in the end which shows exactly the philosophy of their generation, to do a film just for fun. (The Super8 movie itself is nothing more than an improvement of the short super8 showed in the end, looks like exactly what that guys used to do when they was teenagers). This is the way that directors got into the industry, because their ideas was really good. I believe they was not worried, they just started doing... Of course lots of people did what they did, but life is like this, many people try, some people succeed.

Do not stop if you do not succeed, do not think you are too old, your camera is your toy, what matters is your satisfaction in keep doing. Consider your GH2, BMPCC and other cameras as a better super 8 camera of these days... stop worry and do something.

With all due respect, I'm not sure some of the people posting have ever worked on the set of a hollywood feature, network TV series, or national commercial. While I don't think unions are perfect, I also don't think many "indies" have great business models either. I love the art and collaboration of filmmaking and it was my love of movies that got me into this, but I've learned over the years that in order to sustain that love and passion for doing this, I need to earn money to put food on the table, pay a mortgage, invest in tools used in filmmaking, etc. I've been fortunate to have the opportunity to earn money in the industry to do all that. But, I have noticed over the past few years a trend that has been called by many "The Race to the Bottom". Everyone wants free (or close to free) gear and they work for little, sometimes no money at all (which isn't always a negative thing). That is not sustainable in my opinion. I am not a supporter of price gouging, or unions being completely unreasonable or out of touch. However, I am into common decency. People who are good at what they do deserve to make a good wage. They can be equally passionate about what they do and still earn money doing it. Those things don't have to be exclusive.

Now, when people first start out, it makes a lot of sense to find others who are also starting out and everyone puts blood, sweat, and tears into the work in lieu of money for the purpose of learning and getting better. Eventually as you build a portfolio of work, you then start to get better opportunities, and that can lead to making a career of it, one in which you get paid an amount of money that is fair for what you bring to the table.

In addition to the people side of this equation, I also wonder about the sustainability of the companies that provide the tools necessary for all of us creative people to use. I came up in the business starting in the mid 90's, when NLEs were still in their infancy and prohibitively expensive for someone just starting to purchase. I believe an Avid offline system was $40,000. Now, a fully capable Media Composer system has just dropped in price to $999 due to a change in the market that was brought on by a company (Apple) who's bread and butter isn't really professional editing. But Avid has to adjust or they will find it difficult to stay competitive. So, is this good or is this bad? I can certainly say it's good for the enduser. I much rather pay $999 than $2600. Is it good for a company like Avid? Probably not, although time will tell. They have had other issues in their past that have contributed to where they are now. But they are not the only example. Other companies throughout the industry have had to adjust to new business models and pricing structures. Again, time will tell if these companies survive. One thing has been clear to me. Younger generations that have been brought up on free internet, open source software, and torrents have at times displayed an attitude of entitlement on some of the forums I read. Many of these people have never run a business of their own or know what it takes to run one and survive in this economy or any economy.

So, while I will always be supportive of young up and coming filmmakers, I do advise some discretion on dismissing those who earn decent wages in this industry. Although there are talented people who can fill many roles on a production (director, writer, editor, VFX) such as Robert Rodriguez there is still a need for specialists. Someone cited a person wrangling cables making $2000/day (not true but I know it was an intentional exaggeration) as not needed but I can tell you that on a major show or movie these people are critical because time is money and not everyone is great at wrangling cables, in fact many are bad at it, especially under pressure. So, while you may think it's unnecessary while shooting your own film, under certain circumstances it is actually well worth the money paid. I just worked on a national tv spot where the VTR person didn't have a digital utility and based on the pace of shooting and poor weather conditions it became a real challenge for him to keep up and he's really good at what he does.

What people fail to realize is that I worked in obscurity on films that never found distribution as a DP for 6 years before I swallowed my pride and started doing shorts and got my first imdb credit, and I spent another 5 years before that as a photographer. So 11 years spent on my craft before I even "showed up on the radar" [even though I got my first 2nd Unit Directing credit in 2002.]

And that used to be the norm. You had to prove yourself on crappy equipment before anyone would let you anywhere near an Arriflex 435. They had to know you, know your work, and know your character before "letting you in the door"

So with the democratization of filmmaking gear, anyone can have access to quality gear. Which is awesome, but it has flooded the "market" per se, with inferior, unseasoned, "auteurs" who would have never lasted a month slumming it in the trenches as a grip, much less actually ever been afforded the opportunity to DP a film. Which is both a good and bad thing.

Because conversely, you don't really have to worry about "gatekeepers" preventing you from making the film you want to make. But just because one can do a thing, doesn't necessarily mean one MUST do a thing.

The ugly truth is that the market is now oversaturated, and I guess we just have to take the good with the bad. The good being that you don't need a Brinks truck to make a film. The bad is: You don't need a Brinks truck to make a film. The ugly is: it's only gonna get worse/better as technology improves.

On a side note - even on non-union shoots when Keys try to tell me I can't touch a cable, or stand, or adjust a light - I broil internally. I don't have time to wait for you to find your gloves and make the adjustment. I can do it in half the time it'll take you to get someone who's job it is to do so. I support the unions, but their purpose is to serve their members by protecting them from expoliotation, not get in the way of the process.

Debating gets in the way. Just do it - nothing else matters

“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” - African proverb

@mintcheerios bad $500,000-1,000,000 films are broadcast on SyFy every day of the week. On a related note, a friend brought over The Dark Feed last night, written and directed by the brothers who penned John Carpenter's The Ward. It might as well have been made with the creative duo's friends and family the acting was that bad. I kept waiting for something, anything to justify this dog getting its day. Somehow it's being distributed by Lions Gate which distributes as much or more absolute garbage as they do good films.

There's a subtext in the very informational and interesting words from that distributor linked a few posts up there. You might not pick up on it, and I'm sure a lot of them wouldn't admit it if you confronted them about it anyway. All that talk of "cream rising to the top" etc. really means that the likelihood of you getting your film looked at by distribution and sales agents is proportional to your ability to make them work less.

Absolutely, a film with a name, with "a following", with a festival presence they will look at, and compete for, because it means they don't have to do as much. "Cream" and "good" has nothing to do with anything but is the film easy for them to sell.

The worst thing any filmmaker can do is take a "build it and they will come" approach. As an unknown, that's certain death, no matter how good your film is. My brother and I are 2:2 now getting our independent features picked up. We haven't made any money yet, not really, but we've been learning that we have to get over our dislike of hype. Hype is what gets a film into the festivals (which is a racket every bit as big as anything else in film exhibition and distribution). Hype is what gets a film noticed. Hype is what gets a film distributed by the majors. With enough hype it doesn't matter whether a film is good or not (and that's the dirty little secret that distributor may not admit) they'll climb over the tops of their colleagues and murder their own mothers to sell and distribute a film with hype they didn't have to actually build or create themselves.

@BurnetRhoades - There's a little known old Billy Joel song called "Summer Highland Falls" I like with the lyric, "For all our mutual experience, our separate conclusions are the same." ...Which is also my response to your/the film rep's post.

I would add one thing to the conversation, and that is that there are many ways to define "good" and "the cream." While many filmmakers would define it in terms of textured performances, imagery, storytelling, narrative truth, and the like, on the business side, it is usually defined more in terms of ready marketing hooks, a great trailer, built in audiences and controversy, and general marketability. If you apply this definition to these statements, suddenly it gets a lot easier to understand why some films get play, distribution, excitement from the industry despite not seeming to be "good" based on the filmmakers' definition.

The worst thing any filmmaker can do is take a "build it and they will come" approach.

Nobody is going to dispute the value of marketing and hype for selling to a mass-market, but as you yourself note, you've gotten distribution of some kind on two features, but still haven't made any money.

Filmmakers need to ask themselves whether their "product" is readily distinguishable from other "products", by virtue of its extraordinary commercial appeal or it excellence. If the answer is "no", then, obviously, the only thing you can do is try to hype it. But, if that's where we've arrived, who cares? It's hardly a tragedy when movies indistinguishable from hundreds or thousands of other movies don't get distribution.

If, however, you've made something extraordinary, you may not get rich, but you're highly likely to attract enough attention to get future projects made, despite the indie film mafia and the festival racket.

Or if you make mediocre material which serves a particular market and are extremely lucky -- Lena Dunham comes to mind-- you can be shockingly successful.

But, in either case, the filmmaker's own marketing efforts only go so far.

@bwhitz

You just fail to understan my point. And point being that reducing specialist on set means doing more for someone else and do it equally good. Technology allows to save time, especially on repetitive things, but it is still can't replace people.

Idea to prise films made on small budgets with extreme low salaries on set, saving on everything is beyond me. Some people could use it as promotion, their way to hights. But for most, it is road to nowhere.

One man is just an extreme case, with 99% of them being very bad, and 1% finding niche where lack of many required skills is not so noticeable.

Nobody is going to dispute the value of marketing and hype for selling to a mass-market, but as you yourself note, you've gotten distribution of some kind on two features, but still haven't made any money.

Yes. Worldwide home video, some TV, etc. to some major retailers. Here's some clarity though, since you seem to be trying to use my words...I'm not going to say for an agenda, just in a way I don't approve.

The first one we sold off controlling interest in order to fully fund it and finish it. We need to audit the other producers as well as whatever sales agency currently reps it. We don't control that film anymore and were taken out of the loop as soon as deliverables were completed. You can say "mistake" but as first-time filmmakers go that's hardly the worst one. We've heard that comment from people who haven't made a film or who are part of the perpetual mass of those waiting for the most perfectly contrived situation to present itself so that they can make their first film on their own terms from top to bottom. That's noise that we ignore.

The second one has only been on the market long enough for one market to give us accounting so far. You don't get up-to-the-minute, trickle-in accounting. These things take time, even when you do have controlling interest in the project. This one is going to show a profit, however, it's just not immediate. Pre-sales are virtually non-existent now and without hype of any kind preceding a project you're not going to get up-front cash either. We've just sold all English speaking regions plus Germany where France and Asia are still in the works.

It's all well and good to take the artistic high road and consider yourself above hype but there is no psychic power in a film that alerts an audience to its very existence. Marketing is the only way they will ever know and the rest is chance, based mostly on your cover. Festivals, as they exist now, are tools of marketing. We were still operating under the notion that they were a private club where you needed the secret handshake to enter, which is true, but we were thinking of it mostly as a snobbish, almost academic sort of elitism.

It's really just all about money, like everything else. Knowing this, and going into #3 with our sales agent as a partner from the beginning, the game will be a little different.

@gh2hacked this new NAB equipment is neat and it tickles the geeky parts of our brains that pour over the spec sheets, but you're right, none of it will make a better film than what we have right now. Look no further than Upstream Color. I doubt anyone (with half a brain) is looking at that film and thinking it would have been so much better if only he'd used a Black Magic instead of the hacked GH2 it was shot on. And I still go back to occasionally watch 28 Days Later, which wasn't even shot on a particularly sharp model of DV camera. Doesn't matter. Just make films.