In journalistic radio or TV journalism, I never, ever submitted anything unsolicited.

Like everybody else, I first organised with the executive producer what they wanted to do. If I'd been away from things for a while I've often had to prove myself all over again. I'd say I had an idea and what did they think - and the invariable reply would be:

I suppose you're offering this for free?

we don't pay for stories

we've spent our budget for this year but good idea anyway

we did a story like that earlier this year

(at this point I mumble something I've submitted before, mention a name, plead perhaps)...

Oh well there is a producer working on stuff for next year which is nothing like what you're proposing but sort of reminds me of what you're proposing ...

Later, I schmoozle, compliment and wrangle with the new producer, establish stuff like exact durations of each item in the series, intros, outros, what sort of common spin each episode will have ... bugger it, I'm prepared to change as much of my idea as the producer wants for the audience -

• then...

Blow me down if the producer doesn't end up seeing things my way after all! - he or she maybe shares my idea or thinks it's his/her own. Somehow he now suddenly thinks a longer duration would be better after all. All his constraints are out the window! I'm home & hosed!

A week later, he's moved on a whole quantum-leap. He's glad he's got that particular episode under way and he's "under a bit of pressure right now, can he hand over the whole pre-prod to me?"

That was before. Now there's an empty office and just a counter. The receptionist shows me to a pubescent somebody called a Purchasing Officer, who listens to me, then raises his eyebrows and says stuff to me while those eyebrows are saying, "Wha-a?"

Even as he's headed back to his office he's muttering to himself, once again,

"Wha-aaa-aaa?"

Trouble? The trouble with most films is the lack of continuity of vision from the writer to the producer to the director, which gives me a distinct advantage.

+1

I have the same theory. Again, everything here is just going to be my observations and thoughts, so take it how you will... but to have multiple talents, in different areas, working together requires MORE effort and MORE delegation, IMO. This costs time and money. Having a director that can act as his own DP and Editor saves a ton of time... and it ensures things "work" together. The producer (or director) won't have to worry about styles between all the roles matching. Same with composing like you said above. I also like to compose my own music. Is it the best music? Who knows? BUT... it always works and fits the tone... because it's the coming from the same brain. I just work out the original music I heard in my when writing the scene, or when shooting. Again, is it as good as spending $10,000 on a real composer? Probably not. But, in my mind (and wallet), that's not even an option. The only option is to get better at composing myself. It doesn't cost anything, it's fun, and it allows me to work with other musicians with greater "precision" when the time comes. And like I said before, even if it's not "the best" score in the world... it's still the original music and cues I heard in my head when envisioning the scene the first time. So that part works at least...

And since everyone is talking about "experience"... I have two interesting stories:

The first one was me as a PA on a car commercial. It had this awesome German director worked as his own DP. Basically, it was probably the easiest/quickest production I have ever been around to date. He would just set up the shot and bam, it was done. No explaining crap. No delegating. He knew what he wanted and just shot it. This was one of the first projects that really got me question the "professional" process. So fast and easy. Why weren't all directors shooting their own stuff when it came to mostly visual pieces like commercials?

The second was me working as an assistant editor on a pilot for Comedy Central. I was also working a "DIT-ish" job on set and would constantly hear the "director" arrogantly proclaim such non-sense as "oh, I don't touch cameras... I'm a director", or "I don't know how it's going to work, that's for the editors". To make a long story short, in editing, the project was a mess. They had to hire on another assistant editor, as well as another main editor. Took an extra week. Went over budget. Why was this guy a "director" in the first place? Who knows. And even worse, how did the producers and executives not realize this guy had no idea what he was doing? I have multiple theories again, but as just a quick observation... "Hollywood" and the execs. really buy into the whole "I'm too creative to be technical" game. It's like an epidemic. The production meetings must have gone something like this...

Executive: "Wow, so you're terrible at visuals and editing?... you must be a GREAT director!!!"

It's really bizarre. How can you direct anything without AT LEAST being a great editor first?

I guess the disagreement on this thread comes from two different school of thought on film-making. One is the "exclusive" model. Where people believe the "secret" to great films is having as many specialized positions as possible. It's the belief that everything on a film is a separate discipline and should always be treated as such. Technology will always have a minimal effect here. As combining jobs would actually hurt the production.

The second, is the "inclusive" or holistic approach. These people believe that there is basically only one-talent involved in the process... "Film-making". There are no real separate talents in this model, just delegating. The director is the director, because if the technology existed... you could record the images from his/her brain.. and the movie would pop-out on the other end. Technology has a HUGE effect here. As it allows the fewer positions on set to get closer to the "original vision".

Neither is right or wrong I guess. Just observations on two schools of thought that people seem to have. And most things probably fall between the two.

Sorry, for the long post again. I always go off on tangents when I drink my first coffee of the day... :)

Is there not a radical disparity, quickly being normalised by D-Cine, between the creation of films, their projected quality ( something that is unbelievably under looked, perhaps I'm a traditionalist seeing movies as something we watch in the cinema) and their distribution? Films, out with the 'Hollywood' system, though arguably this applies to established European studio production, union jobs in other words, has always been made. It seems like a ridiculous point to canonise (pun) the 'democratisation' as changing this. (Please bear in mind this a small comment on a forum, the democratisation is an interesting topic with amazing changes and as many caveats, for another time)

Looking at VK's graph, how many here think they could handle/direct/DOP/ a Hollywood size project?

Where & when does confidence / expertise kick in to bring you through into a big project?

Ask yourself, can you handle it?

Keep learning as much as you can, but in the end good delegation and team spirit are one of the most important aspects and certainly help as the economies of scale begin to increase. I believe no one can do it all.

Trouble? The trouble with most films is the lack of continuity of vision from the writer to the producer to the director, which gives me a distinct advantage. I'm also a DP and editor, and I might end up writing the score too. Sure there's not many people who can do all these jobs well, but the ones who can do very well.

Making a film that isn't completely stupid doesn't have to cost any more than a stupid film. If you're a writer/producer/director you can start thinking about the budget as soon as you start writing. You don't buy dramatic illusion, you create it, sure it usually has a cost but that cost is determined by your creativity. The scene I linked to earlier in the thread didn't cost a cent to make and there's plenty of dramatic illusion going on there.

Same goes for promotion.

Like it or not hype is everything in this business just like it is in the music business. I spent 4 years recording, independently releasing, and marketing an album and it was the buzz that we slowly created that got the attention of the majors who came to us. I did the deal knowing I was gonna get screwed but after 4 years with no return on my investment it made sense to take the money and run.

Hype is what makes garbage like Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch huge and a good film like Rampart flop. Who would have ever heard of Andy Warhol if it wasn't for hype?

One thing I learned in my dealings with the majors is they don't know much about music, they just sign a bunch of artists and wait for something to "pop". So like the sales agent said they mitigate risk by looking for films/albums that already have a buzz.

I produced the album with the audience very much in mind just like I have with my screenplays. I don't see much point writing something that is destined to be one of the 97% of independent films (In the US) that never gets theatrical distribution. How do you know you've got something that will get hyped? I dunno, instinct?

Filmmaking is my business and chosen career so I have to make a living out of it but it 's years before you can expect a return and only if you have the guts, determination, patience, skills, and talent to engage an audience. It took Kubrick years to make a living out of his filmmaking and I don't think it's gotten any easier or harder for us, just different.

@DouglasHorn

I would add one side of narrative gear which major producers are using as just one trick to get ahead of the pack: massive, robotised, pre-programmed grip gear, (combined dolly, crane and steadycam) seen more and more often now,

I remember when both A and B-movies would still use the same cameras and film stock, but what gave away the low-budget genre used to be more its tripod-mounted shot-list compared to the dolly shots of the high-budget movie. In the late 60s -early 70's they even tried to compensate using zooms,

These days, narrative movies require a quality stabilizer as a bare minimum - by which I mean the combination of gear and a trained professional. Robotized grips are like a Formula-1 step ahead of that, arguably needing less human muscle and fatigue.

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.

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.