Ryan - did you ever see the Star Trek Next Generation episode where the aliens spoke in metaphors? We use an analogy or a real event to try to explain, but you take it literally. We are NOT setting rules. You cannot do this because we say so - you must balance the decision against what YOU want.

I'm talking about BIG blocking errors. Do you walk your actors through the scene? Then they know where each other is in 'real life', then when you reset for reverse angles, you have to rotate everything, so their right hand, if it pointed towards the other actor is STILL pointing at where that person is, even if the camera is now there! If you are shooting me, looking at the camera, and I look away to my left, then reset the camera as if you were in a studio with tow cameras, you have to shoot me turning the same way to the new camera position to make the edit work. In yours, it went in reverse which really makes you sit up and ask what happened. You don't need to see all of a room, but you MUST give the audience clues.

In the silence of the lambs clip look very carefully at Hannibal - he is looking upwards to her - his eyes eating into her soul. She in return is looking at him. It works beautifully - the odd framing is a rule breaker normally, but here it's incredibly powerful because they got the angle absolutely spot on. it works. This is the mark of a great director. It wasn't luck ands was planned in advance. The director would have explained the intention, got everyone to understand - cast and crew, and then checked in the viewfinder, or watched the remote intently.

EVERY decision you make matters. you do NOT make them because we suggested it - it might be totally a bad fit. Breaking the fourth wall is not just looking into the lens, it is looking past the lens, into the viewers space, rather than the playing space on set. It can be eyes, but also a change in the actor's demeanour/appearance. I was doing a stage play with Sir Laurence Olivier. At an intense moment, he suddenly straightened up, turn around and hurried down the stairs and asked the audience to forgive him, but a really important plot point had failed to happen, and it would spoil their enjoyment, so he asked permission to do it again - the audience murmured agreement - he went back to the bottom of the stairs and suddenly morphed back into his character - everyone saw him transform. That's an actor for you. If you need the actor to look into the lens you can do it. As long as it works.

In your time travel movie - I still have a question. There was a laptop, and then a hole in the ground. Is the laptop the time machine or is that in the hole and we didn't see it?

A while back you said your money was short, so you didn't want to do more shorts, but go straight for the full length movie. If money is tight - spending it before you have successfully directed, written and produced a short is very risky. Do a skills audit on all the things you personally are in charge of. Are you ready? Have you conquered all the problems? Have you earned the respect of the credit and cast, have you sorted the locations, and have you got a contingency fund - because you'll need it.

What I'm suggesting is that I don't think you are ready yet. We can help you waste your money, but we don't want you to go both feet in yet.

Okay thanks.

But I feel there must be some guidelines to follow because when I have someone leave the room, without showing them and I only show the other actor in close up as they turn to react to it, I've seen this done before in many movies, and the shot is the same. OTS shot, of person leaving the room, then the actor who's camera is over the shoulder of, turns to react, so I just want to know what I was doing differently so it won't happen again.

As for the time machine, when the woman watches the man from the trees, you see the man put he wine bottle in a case, and then put the case in the hole. That's the time machine. The laptop is controls the time machine remotely, so the guy will not have to get into the hole with it, and can distant himself from the time traveling.

There are no close ups showing this since it's from her point of view. But how do movies like Rear Window for example, show the events from Jimmy Stewart's point of view, without doing any close ups, and the audience still understands what is going on? Or what did I need to do differently to portray the time travel from her point of view, since I want her to figure it out, from her point of view, along with the audience?

As for doing the movie, I just have other filmmakers and crew I have worked with before, very interested in doing it now, and I think since they are all interested, now is a good time, compared to waiting. I already waited over five years to make it, cause I felt I wasn't ready years ago, and people who were interested in it before are either gone or too old now for the roles, acting wise, so I feel that if I don't do it now, I will again loose interest and not be taken seriously if I am not willing to take the plunge on it.

But I want to get more experienced DP as and sound and actors, and the crew that are interested can do their roles, such as a good AD I know, from working under before, etc.

When it comes to establishing geography of a scene though, I watched this video, and this guy has the 3 + 3 rule, which he talks about at 4:30 into the clip:

Perfect your Film with Cinematic Motion - YouTube

However, he says to get a wide shot, or mastershot to establish geography, and then get a reverse of it. If I have a mastershot, of two actors, and then reverse it and put the camera on the other side though, wouldn't that be breaking the 180 degree rule, since the characters are both now on opposite sides of the camera?

Set ups are the key to all these things. We know that James Steward's character can't move out of his room and his view (so our view) is restricted to what he can see from his room either with his eyes or using the telephoto lens on the camera. It's his limitations with the voyeur aspects and his need to find out what's going on (as displayed by his job as a photographer) that create the world of the character. His need to see more is matched by the audiences, but both are restricted yet are driven by curiosity.

I would read more of the scriptwriting books, because you don't seem to have understood them.

Oh okay, but doesn't the audience understand that the woman has to wide in the trees, so the men she are watching will not see them? Isn't that a set up though?

What do the screenwriting books do, when it comes to using camera angles to set up geography though?

The set up is in the first act, after that Hitchcock gets the audience to have empathy with characters. You see the action from the window and the danger has been put in the argument about going into the other apartment. Hitchcock likes the tension of the wider views, showing both characters, so he can tease the audience about the possibility of discovery by the suspect.

You seem to be so obsessed by the shots that you're forgetting that they serve the story. A well written screenplay will suggest the shots as you read it, good writers will almost have them there without calling them shots, just by how they describe the action.

Oh I want the shots to serve the story, it's just that I am told that some of my shot choices don't establish enough, so I want to learn the best shots to serve the story for sure.

You're running into the problem because you're separating the shots from the characters. You have to sense how the characters and their struggles within are revealed and served by the shots and how they join together. That's something you have to learn yourself, there are loads of resources out there to assist you in finding how to use them. It's self discovery, with mistakes along the way.

However, you won't find a solution in the short answers in a forum, you have to dig deeper than that if you want to progress. All this reminds me of someone I know who kept asking questions, after a while it dawned on me that he didn't know what a story was. The fundamentals were missing, strangely he could do short video documentaries, but they didn't have a story, they were descriptive, without any conflict.

5 years is nothing in the time scale of making a feature film, some take 20 years or more before they get made.

Oh okay, I will try to do that. I have a money for the feature now, but not sure if I would have it in five years, plus I have people interested. I just feel I should do it now. Plus every filmmaker I worked for didn't have to take 20 years to do it though.

But I will try to imagine the shots differently then.

Step back and realize that out of the contributors in this thread, 3 including myself have said you are clearly not ready. That number will probably grow to be everyone who's answered here. Again, you can spend the money and proceed anyway if you want to, but you should mentally prepare yourself to think of it as throwing that money away, as in, you probably won't have a saleable product. If you wanna do it just to do it and say you did it, that's on you, but going into it thinking you'll be able to win at fests or make money is another story.

Yeah but people always tell others they are not ready. Even if I waited another few years I still think people will say same thing and that is just something people say.

I even asked the filmmakers I worked under and they said everyone told them they weren't ready and kept telling, them and that's normal.

Some of the successful directors even say that people told that to them all the time, but they still made the movies. So isn't it normal for others to say that, cause they worry about someone not making it?

Plus the last short film I did, I got about 80-90% positive feedback on so I feel like I am coming along and learning.

I was told to just spend the money to get better actors and a better DP and crew. So what if I just started getting the crew and casting and see who I get first, then if the people are really talented, and I get others input who think so, maybe I can decide if the produce is likely going to be good or not and then know whether or not to proceed?

There' s a lot to unpack and there and I'm not quite sure where to start.

How do you know the filmmakers you've worked with are ANY GOOD? Do you have links or titles to their work? ANYONE can make a film. I was talking yesterday to a sound guy who's worked on features and says many of the cheap indies are self-financed/vanity projects from rich people who "always wanted to make a movie."

Here's a film we talked about that is just such one. You'll notice a well-known actor in it. Realize this does not mean anything. Does the trailer not make this film look terrible? What if people told this guy (lead actor by the way is the director) "you're not ready"? THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT. Seriously. Look at this thing. Rogue Strike - OFFICIAL TRAILER - HD (Starring Eric Roberts) - YouTube . Budget for this was stated to be around $50,000.

So the first question is "how do you know anyone you've worked with knows what they're talking about?" This entire industry, really, most art/art-adjacent fields are full of people who are full of crap. It's like they all went to the same school where they were told to make it sound like everything they've done/were currently working on is amazing, huge, destined for greatness. Honestly, unless it's someone already known, or I've seen the work myself, I now ASSUME by default that what they do is terrible. Jaded, cynical, not particularly nice, perhaps, but also true most of the time.

Your last short film...where was the feedback coming from? Strangers? Friends? Family? A mix? People are notoriously bad at being blunt/honest with folks they know and love. If I've grown any it's from the people who criticized or crapped on my stuff. Do you have this most recent film to post to get opinions here? Is it the Timewine movie? If it isn't, maybe the latest short shows significant improvement and you've been getting flak for an older film.

As for the last part, the problem with the final product won't be talent, crew, etc.,--if money is spent--it'll be the script and direction which will be coming from YOU. No amount of money can fix that unless you commission a writer and someone else directs, and you simply act as producer, which is not (I don't think) what you want. People here are saying that you lack some of the fundamentals involved in writing and directing; THAT is why we don't think you're ready, and again, money can't fix that.

Okay thanks, I see what you mean by the trailer not looking very good. Hopefully I can make something better.

When you say comission someone else to write the script, do you mean touch up points here and there, for rewrite the entire story?

The other filmmakers I worked for, non of their features found distribution yet, accept for one. However, I feel I have to, like them, at least try.

The last short film I was going by the opinions of strangers, not friends and family.

I feel I will always be told I am not ready though, but when it comes to selecting others, and being able to tell that they know what they are doing, can't I just ask other people's opinions on actors and a DP to judge their quality?

Or how about this? What if I took the advice given, and storyboarded the whole script, and judging from the storyboards, maybe other filmmakers can tell me if they make sense or not to make the movie with?

Simply:

If this all goes south, can you stand to lose that money?

Being a director is really all about making decisions, including all the things you just asked about. That is why one directs, because one has concrete ideas about all those things.

Okay thanks, but can't a director ask other departments for their input though? Like when I asked about aspect ratio, one person said to discuss it with the DP, once I bring them on board. Is that bad, to ask about things, and I am to have all the answers myself, without any input from other departments?

As for losing the money, I was told I should make the movie for just 20K, cause then I wouldn't be loosing near as huge of an amount. But I worry that 20K might be too low and show on the screen, but I was also told I just got to make it look good for what it is, if that's true.

Of course a director can and should ask for input from others but the way its come across here is that you want them to entirely make decisions, like all of them, for you. I would say you should have a fairly concrete idea of what should happen regarding all aspects of the movie (visuals, acting style etc.) and be open to input on some of the more specific things that pop up throughout the process, Youre like the “president” of the movie...you know what you want to do generally/big picture but you have advisors (other depts.) to offer input on how better to fulfill the vision you already have and warn you away from bad choices. But they dont create the vision FOR you. You should already know what you want to do.

As for the money I dont have much input on that. All I was getting at is however much you spend, understand that statistically theres like a 90% or better chance you will not make it back. Its basically like gambling.

Yeah I know the money is gambling but it seems that so many other filmmakers have had to do it for their firsts, that it's just an unfortunate but normal risk.

I don't them to make all the decisions, I have all the shots and blocking almost all storyboarded out now. I just want to be able to say to the cast and DP will this work, to make sure it all works. But all the shot and blocking ideas are still mine, right?

But perhaps the script and storyboards will determine whether or not the talent will think it will work or not and if they wanna line up or not. So perhaps I will know if the production will turn out good likely, depending on what actors and crew think of it, when I pitch it to them?

If you really want to, no one can stop you from making a feature film. The budget you have is low, but it depends on the nature of the film and the people you've got involved how good it will be and if you've got sufficient funding .

For a low budget film you should spend a LOT of time developing the script, writing as many drafts as it needs.

Sending it off to get feedback from a good script editor is money well spent, allow at least a year for the script development.Time is one of the best script editors. One first time writer/director applied this ruthlessly and their film got into Sundance.

During that time go on an acting course, because nothing lets a film down more than wooden acting. Life drawing is also worth doing, it means you can draw the storyboard directly without using a program. It also teaches you to look and see things.

Don't try rule breaking if you don't understand it. Get the emotions from the actors, not by breaking the 180 rule to "reveal something", the actors can do that better than you can. It doesn't matter if some feature film has done it, the important thing is what is right for your film.

In the end, bear in mind that you will probably lose the money, so the most you will get out of it is experience and some hard lessons. Making a feature film will be more time consuming than you think, especially if you want to have a reasonable quality product and it will push you to your limits.

Professional directors work for years before they make their first feature and they've worked on bigger productions than your shorts. It depends on the stage that you're at when going for your first feature, at the moment in your case. it feels like a vanity project (doing a feature film), rather than a subject you feel passionate about. Producers also need to feel passionate about projects because they know they'll spend years trying to get the film funded, made and marketed. plus all the legal paper work involved. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" took over 10 years to get made.

Oh okay, I would say I'm very passionate about it, otherwise I wouldn't risk the money.

I've tried getting on other shoots, but have only been on the ones I've been on over the years.

I want to make it as good as possible for sure. I thought about co-directing so another director can direct the actors, where as I would make all the more technical decisions, such as the cinematography and shots. However, it seems that some say that co-directing is usually a bad, if that's true?

You need to to be very careful on this one Ryan. You cannot ask "will it work"? What if they say no? It's fine to ask for suggestions, it's good to consider them. It's very good for the cast an crew to feel valued, but the question is also linked to another. How much do you trust them.

Have a think about this one of mine from Friday. A stage crew had not had time after a busy day to put away the risers they had been using for a show the night before. There was a drum riser, and another a little lower, used by the brass section. They are heavy, and when collapsed very awkward to move, and frequently trap fingers. The incoming show had drums and a percussion section. They asked if they needed risers, as they had not been requested. The incoming show said "we don't normally, but do you think they'd look good?" To a man, the crew said they'd look really good. The person in charge looked happy - they used them.

It looked awful, because with this shows layout, there was no need for them, and worse, one of their people wasn't too good on his legs, and getting up there wasn't easy.

The lighting people were very happy, because the lighting installed the day before was now exactly in the right place and that was even less work.

At the end of the show, I made the crew put every single bit away, and reset the lighting. They pleaded that the next show in might want them - but I wasn't having it. I didn't overuse them in front of the clients, but their comments were not what was best, but what was best for them.

It's your money Ryan, but let's face it. Some of the advice you have had from these people has been terrible, clearly wrong, and you must ask yourself how much you trust their opinions - my reading is that they are taking advantage. This is important to you. To them, is it just a bit of work, and the end result unimportant.

A good little tip. Have any of the crew asked about their billing in the credits? Maybe wanting to have a better credit than really fair? Somebody wanting 'supervisor' or 'Manager' in their credit, when they were really supervising themselves? a team of one. Have any of them looked a bit shocked at the pay, but then wanted to do it anyway? Will any of them turn up early, or at exactly the call time? Are any of them doing your production because they've nothing better paying in the diary? Do not expect artistic comment from them - they will want the easiest life they can get. All their judgement calls are based on impact to them. If you ask if we should shoot just one more, will bring back the group decision - NO, it was fine.

You have endless enthusiasm, but no awareness of people management, and I am not sure about your attention to detail. Some of the stuff you ask, you must already be aware of, and just want our nodding heads to reinforce your own judgement. This isn't the way to spend money.

Oh okay, well is there anyone a director can consult if all the shots and blocking and acting will work then?

As for what if they say no, then that's good, and we can come up with a new shot, or new blocking that works then instead, no?

Do you really want to be a director if you're leaving dealing with the actors to someone else while you select the shots?

There are lots of cases of theatre directors who successfully make a first feature film because they know how to direct actors, while the shots are mostly worked out by the DP. It doesn't usually work the other way round and if could be the cause of conflict and given your questions, I suspect may risk being pushed off directing your own film and effectively becoming the writer/producer.

Oh okay, I just felt it could be worked out the way around, since theater directors do it that way sometimes.

I feel that since I want to get into directing though, that I might as well direct it though. I feel that my ideas to make things easier are always thought of as bad ideas though. Like I suggest co-directing, so someone else can take a load off, and others say it's not a good idea. But what I am suppose to do then, if the best option is to be full on director deciding everything without any input from anyone?

You don't seem to understand the director's role, they will be getting "suggestions" and "advice" from various people. It's their job to select, steal, adapt, ignore or otherwise the crew and cast inputs. as required. to create their vision of the story.

A director has to make decisions.

Okay but I made decisions on my previous shorts, so I am capable of doing that, aren't I?

You should've finished with a full stop before "aren't I?"

Only you know Ryan, but your responses in every thread are the same - you have a problem, and use the phrase, "I've been told" and often they told you complete rubbish. You then try to second guess everything. You say, "so what you're saying is..." and we say no, we're not saying that. we point things out and instead of discussing them you say, thank you - then move on and we're always concerned you misunderstood, or didn't get it. We try to help, and spend considerable time doing this - but when we point out something wrong, you frequently say the actor wouldn't;t do it, or yes, it's bad, but you had to rewrite in a hurry, and you make excuses to justify the errors. This is really bad for a film maker with keenness but no understanding of people, or proper planning. You see a problem and capitulate. Months ago, we tried to help with your mic booming. Be honest, how many times have you gone out with a recorder and boom and your headphones and practiced improving your skills? Your aspect ratio question, millions of pages back - have you actually been out to some of your locations and shot the same scene in the ones you are considering? Have you viewed them and decided which is a possible and which is out? On the location front - is you feature location ready? You chose the most bizarre second best location for the one we watched, could anywhere have been worse? Surely there was a plan, with a plan B location, or even a plan C?

You don't seem to learn - which is such a shame as you are so keen. You don't check. You don't review, you are reactive, not proactive. Why did your location fail on shooting day? We have zillions of questions, but you rarely have answers. I know it must feel like we're negative, but proper planning of the smallest details is what makes a good movie - the tiny details.

Please tell us you have decent actors. They're the key to success. If you had to give them an A to E grade, using a professional movie actor as the best with the A, where do they come. Let's use the Hanibal Lecter character as the A. Forget Anthony Hopkins - the Lecter character. Real acting, Hopkins IS Lecter. The girl ij your example. Her acting is dire. She has no characterisation at all. We see the actress playing herself. Anthony Hopkins is acting, She's reciting lines and standing unnaturally, and while she could be worse, on my scale A-E, she's probably a D. How many D people are on your call sheet?

We started with aspect ratio - and the answer from the hundreds of posts is simple - the filmmaker picks the most appropriate aspect ratio. We then opened up to all sorts, and in a way, what we're doing is talking about movie 'quality', and amateur film making, where the end product is the Holy Grail, but the slope up to it steep, and full of pot holes.

Do you see this?

Please do not reply starting "Oh OK" because this tells us you dismissed it all again, and didn't learn anything

Low budget does not mean low production standards. You have lofty goals, but a team who have none of your enthusiasm, or interest. Dealing with actors isn't hard. They're babies, and have needs. The need to be appreciated. The need to be mollycoddled. The need to feel good, and the need to feel superior because their personalities are fragile. The actor manager needs to understand all this, and mop the brows, make the tea, make subtle suggestions and be very, very clever to get your own way - making them feel they did it, when it was you.

They are often children. I've had to have a conversation with a distressed female about what to do with a suppository - doctor gave it to them, but they didn't know it wasn't to be swallowed. I've had one walk into the rehearsal, sit on the chair, miss it and dislocate their shoulder, and deal with that. I've had fits (medical ones and temper ones), I've had domestics to sort, I've been up till 2am reading in so they could learn lines, I've had to advise on skirt lengths and point out things they cannot do.

You are too young I think to know how to deal with all this rubbish - but you need to start learning.

Only you know Ryan, but your responses in every thread are the same - you have a problem, and use the phrase, "I've been told" and often they told you complete rubbish. You then try to second guess everything. You say, "so what you're saying is..." and we say no, we're not saying that. we point things out and instead of discussing them you say, thank you - then move on and we're always concerned you misunderstood, or didn't get it. We try to help, and spend considerable time doing this - but when we point out something wrong, you frequently say the actor wouldn't;t do it, or yes, it's bad, but you had to rewrite in a hurry, and you make excuses to justify the errors. This is really bad for a film maker with keenness but no understanding of people, or proper planning. You see a problem and capitulate. Months ago, we tried to help with your mic booming. Be honest, how many times have you gone out with a recorder and boom and your headphones and practiced improving your skills? Your aspect ratio question, millions of pages back - have you actually been out to some of your locations and shot the same scene in the ones you are considering? Have you viewed them and decided which is a possible and which is out? On the location front - is you feature location ready? You chose the most bizarre second best location for the one we watched, could anywhere have been worse? Surely there was a plan, with a plan B location, or even a plan C?

You don't seem to learn - which is such a shame as you are so keen. You don't check. You don't review, you are reactive, not proactive. Why did your location fail on shooting day? We have zillions of questions, but you rarely have answers. I know it must feel like we're negative, but proper planning of the smallest details is what makes a good movie - the tiny details.

Please tell us you have decent actors. They're the key to success. If you had to give them an A to E grade, using a professional movie actor as the best with the A, where do they come. Let's use the Hanibal Lecter character as the A. Forget Anthony Hopkins - the Lecter character. Real acting, Hopkins IS Lecter. The girl ij your example. Her acting is dire. She has no characterisation at all. We see the actress playing herself. Anthony Hopkins is acting, She's reciting lines and standing unnaturally, and while she could be worse, on my scale A-E, she's probably a D. How many D people are on your call sheet?

We started with aspect ratio - and the answer from the hundreds of posts is simple - the filmmaker picks the most appropriate aspect ratio. We then opened up to all sorts, and in a way, what we're doing is talking about movie 'quality', and amateur film making, where the end product is the Holy Grail, but the slope up to it steep, and full of pot holes.

Do you see this?

Please do not reply starting "Oh OK" because this tells us you dismissed it all again, and didn't learn anything

Low budget does not mean low production standards. You have lofty goals, but a team who have none of your enthusiasm, or interest. Dealing with actors isn't hard. They're babies, and have needs. The need to be appreciated. The need to be mollycoddled. The need to feel good, and the need to feel superior because their personalities are fragile. The actor manager needs to understand all this, and mop the brows, make the tea, make subtle suggestions and be very, very clever to get your own way - making them feel they did it, when it was you.

They are often children. I've had to have a conversation with a distressed female about what to do with a suppository - doctor gave it to them, but they didn't know it wasn't to be swallowed. I've had one walk into the rehearsal, sit on the chair, miss it and dislocate their shoulder, and deal with that. I've had fits (medical ones and temper ones), I've had domestics to sort, I've been up till 2am reading in so they could learn lines, I've had to advise on skirt lengths and point out things they cannot do.

You are too young I think to know how to deal with all this rubbish - but you need to start learning.

Okay well what if I decided to make a movie using none of the advice other filmmakers told me and not using any inspirations from other movies, and just try to do something completely original in terms of how it's shot, lit, etc, and I would be doing it to try to serve the story best, rather than going by any previous examples or filmmaking formulas that may have worked for other movies, but not mine.

Would that be better?

As for locations I was not able to find a B or C. I only had two weeks for to make that film for pre-production and production, since it was a film school assignment that was do in two weeks, and no other locations were available in that time, when the first one got scrapped. But for the feature I will have a lot more pre-production time, if that helps. I will also have a lot more time to look for better actors if that helps to.

I also don't meant to imply that I say thanks and move onto something else, without discussing it further, it's just that I've been told on here that I discuss things too much, and repeat myself, so I was trying to not to do that, if that's the case...

It's better that you make it according to your personal vision, because it's your film and you're paying for it.

I would read more on producing a feature film, because most film schools are poor in that regard, there's a mass of paperwork that's required if you plan to sell it.

It's not a matter of if it helps, it's more about what needs to be done.

Okay then, thanks, I wanted to hire a co-producer, or a executive producer to help with that, if that's the best thing to do as well.

But I think if I can get a really good DP, sound and crew, and really good actors involved that will help determine if it's worth making as well.

Oh and as for if I have tested out some of the things I talk about, I do do a lot of sound recording in the field on other people's projects, and have one coming up.

I also tried playing with aspect ratios in similar locations, but I feel I need to do actual scenes with actors and blocking, in order to really know, rather than just doing it on my own, it seems.

I've been looking for a location for a project for nearly a year. I've been to dozens. I've spent hours on google earth and so far, nothing is working. I thought I'd found the ideal spot over the weekend, but the visit proved it useless - even in a light breeze, too much noise to get clean audio.

Forgive me but and no other locations were available in that time is a cop out. Your solution was not serving the product well at all. I really cannot believe there was nothing better.

Totally mystified by the notion you need actors to assess aspect ratio. Actors are predictable shapes - if you really cannot imagine a scene with them in it, to make these decisions, maybe this is not the industry for you to work in. It's a feeble excuse Ryan. You've got a topic with hundreds of posts, yet you can't imagine people in a video frame?

I have no idea what you think a co-producer is, or an executive producer - because in my head, one finds you money and the other is in overall charge, which means you are not!

Can you afford the kinds of day rate really good DP and crew will cost, or will you end up with volunteers/

Yeah I wanted to pay them acceptable rates for sure.

What if an actor is only available for a certain time period though, before they had to do other parts that would require them to change their appearance though? How long are actors expected to wait for a location to be found though?

For example one actor I worked with had to be in a different city in a few weeks, for another gig, so I had to get everything shot by then, so isn't it normal to send an end date goal for everyone?

I would buy a book on production management and do a lot of reading about producing a film, because it sounds like you haven't got a clue. A forum isn't the place for learning this type of stuff and people can't spend time going into details because you can't be bothered to research what you're doing.

I can do that but why can't I also hire producers and production managers to assist with that though?

The actors employed by us have appearance as part of their contract. If they have a beard at audition, then if offered the contract, they need permission to shave it off. If the contract is longer, then they may need to remain clean shaven. If you want Johnny Depp, you might need to shoot around his schedule. If you advertise for jobbing actors who get paid, they work around you.

Ryan - you're revealing more and more that you're not ready for this. Please - as it's your hard earned money funding this, make some decisions.

Produce a proper budget proposal detailing everything. prepare contracts, audition people and tell them if they cannot commit to these dates, then thanks for coming and goodbye.

If you book amateur actors and promise them money - then they need to do the job, but equally you need to then honour your side.

I do production management and I would NOT work for you because I would need you to understand my job role and all it entails and you have no clue - none at all! Directors rarely hire producers, producers hire directors.

What do you think these people will be doing? I'm serious - what would the producer actually do?

Oh well in the past I found it was better to get things done by a certain end date, rather than have it ongoing because one time I couldn't even finish a short because the location kept changing so much. So I thought it would better to finish things in a not so long amount of time, before someone becomes unavailable or a location becomes unavailable. That is how I make decisions unless that's the wrong way of going about it.

I can do that but why can't I also hire producers and production managers to assist with that though?

You need to know their roles, especially in the very low budget production you're doing. You don't have the budget to hire people, so you'll have to either do the job yourself or oversee inexperienced people attempting to do the job.

It's pretty obvious that you'll be heading towards failure unless you change your approach, because at the moment you appear dangerously naive, assuming you're seriously proposing to direct a feature film.

I feel that way too sometimes...

I am doing some jobs myself to save money such as being my own editor and recording all the post production audio, so far.

I feel like you want to make a film so badly that youre not truly thinking of the almost infinite ways it could go wrong. Perhaps telling yourself “somehow itll work out.” I would say a better thought process is quite the opposite. You should be scared, terrified of all the problems you could run into (actor issues, location issues, script problems, etc.), and thinking “how could this possibly go right?”. Think of it like a leaky boat; every potential failure point is a hole with water pouring in. Start listing and finding solid solutions to all of those holes. When youve got a plan (a good one) for every one of those issues, and probably a backup plan, and perhaps a secondary backup plan, then, maybe youre ready.

The others are right about reading up and taking classes etc. Look at it this way...youve been asking questions for 6-9 months now. Surely in that time you could have read several low budget filmmaking books (sorry I dont have specific recommendations) that cost probably less than $40 each. A class in acting maybe costs a few hundred? So for, say, $80- $400 you could potentially save yourself from blowing $20000. Wouldnt that be worth it?

I am terrified but I don't know what else to do cause I do not have any more money to make more short films and even if I did, people would still tell me later not to make it.

I took a film school course, and acting classes, and read some books so far, but don't know what else I can do at this point but just go out and make it.

Brian and I are trying to get you to focus on the important things, but I fear we're not getting through.

Ryan -
why do you want to make a movie?
What will the benefit to you actually be?
What will the people in it see for their work?
Do you have the skills?

To be honest, the last one is a concern. From what you have told us, you are inexperienced at everything.

If you filled in a form, and it asked what you are most experienced and competent at - what would it be. Sound, Directing, Managing, Editing - you don't seem to understand the basics at all. I know you are really keen, but you've not shown so far any areas where you could excel?

You've made some really odd decisions and you've not been able to analyse and draw conclusions. It's always other people's faults.

Have you made a short you are proud of? One that has a story, got completed properly and people really like? or are you going to spend your money on the hope that the much more complex product will buck the trend and be amazing.

What have you decided to answer this topic. What aspect ratio is the project going to be in? By now, that's fixed I would assume.

I want to make a movie because it's the career I want to get into, and I feel it's time I took the plunge and accomplished the career goal I set for myself finally. Hopefully it will be a success. If not distribution perhaps people will like it enough to hire me for other jobs.

As for what the people in it will see for their work, well the actors will have had a payed job, that they can show off after hopefully, as well as the crew.

I think I have skills, as I have worked under other filmmakers mostly doing editing and sound, with the occasional acting part, but they keep asking me so I thought I must have something. I feel I have skills as a director, and want to improve on them.

Do I say it's always other people's faults though? I asked what I could do before to help direct the actors better. I blamed a location for not being available at the last minute, but do I say it's other people's faults?

The last short film I made I am proud of and it has most people liking it so far who see it. I wasn't overall proud of the others though.

If you wish to improve your skills as a director, you don't need to make a feature film, making say a half hour drama would do that. it's still a short but you can sell it as a one of TV drama. It has the advantage that many of the longer form aspects come into play, plus your budget isn't so strained that you can't afford good actors.

Locations not being available at the last minute is an issue that directors can face, the real world intervenes all the time on film productions and you have to think on your feet. You can't use it as an excuse because the audience won't know this, they only see what's on the screen, so you adapt to the new location and make full use of it. If you've got a good script it will hold up, the shots may change, but that doesn't matter as long as you've got the performance from the actors and the new location doesn't run totally against the world in the story.

Well the reason why I feel I would do a lot better on the feature is because I have a lot more money to spend on it. I was told by others that I need to get better actors and better crew, and then the quality would go way up. And the money would more likely acquire those assets and the money would more likely have location owners more interested I think.

There is a group of filmmakers I helped on a feature and it was much better than their last feature. But they also had almost 100K more to make with it, so they could afford a lot better talent compared to the last one, which was made for extremely dirty cheap.

So I feel that having the talent would make for a better product. Isn't there truth to that at all?

20k isn't a lot of money for a feature film, it'll just about cover the food, transport, the insurance, hiring some equipment, cheap locations and paying some actors at minimum rates for a couple of weeks at the most. The crew will be working for free, so this is a dirt cheap feature film. It's not a quality going way up budget, if it was a short film it would be, but not a feature film.

I know a first time director who made a horror film for roughly that type of budget about 15 years ago (But I suspect it was higher by the time it was all finished), but he had experienced production people as his friends working for free and a free crew who did it as a what the hell, this is crazy enough to do during a dead part of the year. He also had name actors, who were working on another film for the producer (he was making a funded feature film, but not a big budget production, back to back) and had a lot of down time, so their fees were covered by the other film. The schedule was based on their availability and this changed by the hour, fortunately it was mostly shot on one location.

All this required the director to get things done through the force of his will and personality, something you don't seem to be demonstrating. He was also very, very lucky and grabbed an opportunity when it came his way and the experienced production people kept him from crashing. Which would've been very likely if left to his own thoughts on doing things.

Has he made more feature films? No, but be still does fine art video installations and paintings (he's an artist), which what he did before..

It's worth noting that these productions tend to run out of steam after a week to ten days of continuous filming, the logistics and availability tends to run out at that point.

Okay thanks, but I was told to use 20k in case it didn't turn out well, that way, I won't be spending a much bigger amount.

But the features I have worked under for other people, a couple of them were shot for even less than that. The producer was of those features, was interested in my script, and so I thought if I could get him on board, maybe he would know how to help coordinate the money wisely, since he has done it on his own projects for less.

You can do a film for less, but you're got little control over events and don't expect a large leap from what you're doing, unless you know some good actors willing to work for free.

Sounds like that producer is more a production manager, since a producers main job is to get the all the required funding in place and if it's less than 20k, they haven't really done that.On a feature film with a producer that feels more like the development budget.

Oh okay, he's his own producer, director, production manager, and wore all those hats on his features, so he would be coming on board with mine as a PA more so, since he's interested he said.

Sounds like he'll be more than a PA, a production manager sounds closer to the job description.

Oh yes sorry I meant production manager.