As a director, having a monitor of a reasonable size on the set helps, the screens on the back of DSLRs are pretty useless other than for framing.

However, the camera crew should know if the shot went well or, if they've got doubts, they should call it out if they want another take, 1st ACs usually know when they've nailed the focus, as should the camera operator. A good viewfinder assists in this.

Given time, getting a saver or second good take was not unusual when shooting film, although sometimes, that was used to let the actors relax knowing they've now got a good take in the can .

Second the monitor. I cant tell you the world of difference between what you can really see on a 7” vs a 17”.

Pardon moi … been checking in every once in a while and decided to comment on an earlier post (#280 by Paul R Johnson). Namely, the part about the people involved in this movie production.
I think Josh has hit something here - we're all giving opinions on this based on the experiences we have and we're not considering that your production will have amateur actors. They may be being paid Screen Guild bottom rates but they don't seem to have experience. The Director also seems lacking so all this talk about the actors needs to be based on their lack of formal training, their lack of professionalism and their lack of plain simple experience. Ryan seems to want to mimic the directorial processes of the greats but without their skills?

I wonder if we've got into the habit of treating master shots as the final rehearsal, but with results that can be used if needed?

What is clear is that Ryan's problems are made worse by the planning bearing little resemblance to the finished products. Too many part-trained people in every role, but horrifically high intentions.
An experience I had a few years ago may similar to what Ryan and company are doing. A group wanted to make a Halloween movie. This was about ten years ago when I was just getting back into video from a long hiatus (dating back to Standard 8 and Super 8 days). I did say long. Picked up a JVC HD7 HiDef cam and was rarin’ to go. Turned out they bought a Canon cam to use as the prime camera and my job would have been to shoot preparation and behind the scenes shots. And this is the important part: The location was in Kitsap County with a population today of 260,000. The city where Ryan is has a population of ~ 270,000. One difference with Kitsap County is that it is reasonably isolated from the Seattle-Tacoma Metro area so doesn’t have all the expertise that a metro area has. There is a Junior College and a local “arts college there but no Uni like Saskatoon has so that is a big difference.

My guess, and Ryan can tell me if I’m wrong, is the makeup of the group I was affiliated with was really what you guys would call “rank amateurs”. But, there were quite a few and with lots of interest. We’re talking script writers, makeup people, actors, audio guys, camera crew, etc. Really quite a few people but nobody paid. I attended a few meetings in the beginning while the discussions were about scoping out how to do it and never got a chance to shoot anything and then other more pressing things popped up in my life that required attention. “At the end of the day”, they did get a movie made and previewed, then shown on the local TV channel.

While Saskatoon has a Uni and a “hinterland population” and would [definitely] have a higher level of expertise available, it is by no means like LA with a lot of Hollywood capability. Paid actors and crew? Don’t know if that was discussed but, if so, and Ryan can comment on this, it’s probably minimal, perhaps a cut above volunteer. Maybe some of the crew will get college credit? Volunteers who want to get their foot in the door?

I apologize for coming in late on this part of the conversation but had to say it and get it out of my system.
-= John =-

Oh, are you asking if the movie shoots I helped others on were payed or not? They were all free volunteering for me so far. I have had some payed gigs when it comes to doing post work for people, but all my on set experience, was no pay volunteering so far.

Not just that but also the caliber/quality/experience level of people you're working with

I'd prefer to work with gifted amateurs rather than graduates who just got through and have no real world experience anytime. In fact, even though I spent a long time out doing education, since returning to real work I've used far more unqualified but really good people. Took me a long time to realise that natural talent cannot be taught in college, but putting a sticker on already good people is often all a college course actually does.

I've got a local lady here who is now over 80 and has two new hips and knees. She doesn't do the Internet, but she's probably got one of the biggest IMDb entries if she bothered to itemise them. She plays character parts either non speaking or the Two/three word response type parts. Her skill, which gets her part after part as background characters is she looks dead right and doesn't draw focus. I bet she could do stunningly useful masterclasses in movie technique simply because she's got experience of being directed by so many famous and also rubbish directors. I watched the awful musical Les mis the other day and spotted her as three different people. Same face, perfectly placed, blending in.

Well so far, out of the directors I worked under, one of them I guess you could say is a gifted amateur, in the sense that his movies have an appeal that they are so bad they are good, at least that is what others think when they watch his movies that I talked to personally.

I'm not really wanting to make a movie that is so bad, it's good myself, but he keeps making those types, and I think he is aware of it, and is doing it intentionally for entertainment. His movies so far, have not cost more than over $500 dollars each, not counting marketing afterwards.

Another person I worked for, shot their feature for &60,000, and the production values in it are much higher. Better actors, and better much cinematography. I was told if you can't make a good no budget movie, you can't make a better movie with a bigger budget, but I think budget certainly helps though, which is why I am spending more on this one.

"Gifted amateur, in the sense that his movies have an appeal that they are so bad they are good" don't confuse the word "amateur" with low quality. A gifted amateur can produce powerfully original work, which is more noticeable in photography, although today, with the lower costs in video production it's now more possible in film.

Most indie films are probably what in the past would be amateur productions because people are making them because of the love of it, not for financial gain. Although, many do have hopes that will get distribution (other than YouTube), but the odds are so low, that the love of it is a bigger factor in the end.

There are professional films that aren't even so bad that they're good, they're just bad. There are ungifted professional out there.

Every great professional was an amateur until they started getting paid! The word that describes the poor quality work is amateurish, which does have the negative connotation. Interesting that the people who constantly feed ryan total disinformation clearly aren't into publishing it on forums like this one where we could find out where they get their daft ideas?

Oh okay, I misunderstood gifted amateur then. Well as far as storyboarding goes, I just feel it's safe to get everything from at least two angles, just in case one doesn't work out later it turned out. I can try to keep an eye out in the monitor, I just thought it was better safe than sorry.

But I could try to aim for a one shot and have it be good, if that is how I plan to have the scene in the edit.

How do you storyboard for different angles, just in case. If you do one shot until you are satisfied, then why would you shoot again from another angle? Have a plan, and follow it. You cannot shoot everything twice, just in case - this is just strange stuff, Ryan. Were you told to do this by one of the 'experts'?

Ryan, bottom line...shoot according to how you plan to edit.

If you plan to do long wide takes with lots of moving around and few cuts, shoot that way. Don't shoot coverage you only plan to use in an emergency. Only shoot coverage if you're pretty sure you're going to use it.

If you're worried about missing something on set... WATCH THE TAKE AGAIN! When you think you've got it, watch it again. Watch it three times. Hell, crowd everybody around the monitor if there's room and ask everyone to look for problems.

Just a warning about too many people around the monitor, you can get feedback about things that are important to their role, but in the greater scheme of things don't matter,

That's true. But someone might see a boom shadow, errant glance right into the lens, leg of a light stand sticking into frame, that sort of thing. Ryan will have to learn to filter and know what the dealbreakers are.

I would keep it to the director and DP, then bring in other people if required to overcome an issue. On commercials the agency people usually watch it but having more people probably doesn't add anything to reviewing a take. The DP can usually spot boom shadows, glances into lenses and light stand legs, although they may have already seen them when operating the camera..

I remember standing around the monitor for an 'industrial' shoot I did - ultra, ultra boring. The Managing Director stood stony faced while we went through everything we'd shot during the day, and he started to shake his head at various takes, which were from different setups during the day - which he'd already given the nod to, before we struck the sets, and moved the kit. The shakes were getting worse and worse, and in the end, he was looking really worried. I took him to one side and asked what the problem was? In my head, I knew ....... the script was woolly in parts, one of the locations had a calendar on the wall which would date it, some of the locations had occasional mechanical noises from the shop floor. I didn't think anyone would have noticed these, bar me, so I'd been happy to move on and stop doing retakes caused by the talent's lack of it!

"He looks like a toad". I was dumbfounded. The person cast as the presenter wasn't my suggestion. I'm afraid that I wanted the usual standard looking female presenter who was attractive and knew how to present. Probably too 'sit' to put in print in this sensitive world nowadays, but that was why I wanted her over the others in the frame. The MD vetoed her because she knew nothing about chemical processes and people would not take her seriously. We went with a 55 year old, grey haired chemical engineer. He was short, a little overweight, had heavy jowls and read the autocue like robocop. The actress I wanted would have been better in every sense.

Looking at the monitor, he did in fact look rather like a toad now it was pointed out.

Maybe I took Ryan's approach for the problem? I had headroom, so I stretched him vertically, and then gave his pasty, palid skin colour a sunny holiday in post. The client was happy (er).

After delivery, we had a meet up to discuss potential follow ups - he asked if using the non-technical girl would have been better? I told him that in my view it would, pointing out that we got to take 14 at one point, and a trained actress would probably have needed one take, maybe two if she stumbled over a chemical name? We would have saved crew costs by probably a day, for 4 people, and reduced edit time too. As he was paying for all this, including overnight stays and food for everyone, his budget took a fairly big hit by not using the right presenter. One person caused quite a big overrun. He told me that this man was an expert at chemical engineering, and we wanted him to present. Trouble was, he wasn't an expert at reading autocue, or acting, or looking at cameras, or even remembering where to stand. Spike marks on the floor failed too, because he kept looking down at them.

I think that in any video product, the key feature that the audience relate to is not the shallow depth of field, the stability of the image, the colourist's work, maybe even the set - but the actors. It's the actors who carry their roles, or don't. The technology is almost irrelevant. This is why people can make successful movies on tiny budgets with crazily basic and cheap kit. The eye, the ear and the mind hook into the characters.

Remember Ryan's time machine movie we looked at ages ago. We picked holes in it based on the technical things, but would we have noticed these if the actors had been good? I guess the script perhaps didn't help, but decent actors can often make the words less important by understanding them, and delivering them in the best way.

This topic started looking at storyboarding. This tells the story as the person in charge intended. We then go off and make it happen. If it's not in the storyboard - it won't be on the shooting schedule. At what point do you suddenly decide to shoot extra material, and why?

How do you storyboard for different angles, just in case. If you do one shot until you are satisfied, then why would you shoot again from another angle? Have a plan, and follow it. You cannot shoot everything twice, just in case - this is just strange stuff, Ryan. Were you told to do this by one of the 'experts'?

Oh I just learned this from my own experience, is that sometimes you think a shot will look good in camera, but then other people will tell you that there is something wrong with it later. Like on here for example, with the time travel one, people told me that they it didn't make sense to them when the woman left the room, because they couldn't see it. I thought if I just edited the villains reaction to it, the audience would still be able to follow that she left the room, since she walks away. I didn't think we actually needed to see her go out the exit door.

However, because people were not able to process that she actually left the room and went out the door, I still have shots of her going out the door in case I needed them, which I could put in to fix the mistake.

So my own experience it's good to get everything from different shots, just in case the audience cannot follow something later. But that's just one example, there were others where that happened as well.

This topic started looking at storyboarding. This tells the story as the person in charge intended. We then go off and make it happen. If it's not in the storyboard - it won't be on the shooting schedule. At what point do you suddenly decide to shoot extra material, and why?

Oh I would put the extra shots on the storyboards. I wouldn't decide on them while shooting.

That was a poor editing decision by you, unless the audience can see what's happening they can't guess what's going on in your head. You can lead them to believe she's left if you cut to the reaction shot just before she walks out through the door, the audience will then assume the people watching are reacting to her leaving the room.

However, if something happens that is out of the norm, eg the person walks into a time warp in the doorway, you'll have to show that happening and then cut to the reaction. The audience can't guess that based on their experience of the world.

For a different approach to film making see "Monsters", There were no storyboards or script just a treatment, but Gareth Edwards had practical experience as a visual effects artist, It was shot with a Sony PMW-EX3, Nikon Nikkor Lenses (with Letus Ultimate adapter)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsters_(2010_film)

Monsters (2010) Official Trailer #1 - Sci-fi Movie HD - YouTube

That was a poor editing decision by you, unless the audience can see what's happening they can't guess what's going on in your head. You can lead them to believe she's left if you cut to the reaction shot just before she walks out through the door, the audience will then assume the people watching are reacting to her leaving the room.

However, if something happens that is out of the norm, eg the person walks into a time warp in the doorway, you'll have to show that happening and then cut to the reaction. The audience can't guess that based on their experience of the world.

Oh okay, but you see movies where a person will leave the room and they do not show them actually leave and just hold on the reaction shots of people watching them leave. So I cannot tell the difference between movies that do that, compared to mine.

As for the movie monsters, I should check it out. However, I do not want scripts and storyboards cause I think they will help. I mean I imagine it would be very difficult to pitch a movie to people to make, without a script, and just a treatment of course.

If something unexpected happens that the audience don't see, they'll just assume that the normal physical world exists and the people in the reaction shot are reacting to that world. If what you're doing differs from that the audience will be confused. You can't copy and paste from other films, you're telling your story and the audience can't tell what's happening unless you've already set it up by them seeing it and establishing the rules of your world earlier in the film

Usually you don't pitch with the script, you have it for the next stage when the funders have seen the pitch documents with a very short synopsis and heard your pitch, then they'll read the script if they're interested (in some cases the final decision maker may have never read the script) In this case. Gareth Edwards knew the production company and improvising with non actors on location was part of the proposal that he pitched to them, so, in this case, the treatment makes sense. The company knew what he could do from his TV work.

Yet another method: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/movies/oscars/no-script-no-synopsis-the-mike-leigh-way.html

That last sentence is possibly the most important.

If something unexpected happens that the audience don't see, they'll just assume that the normal physical world exists and the people in the reaction shot are reacting to that world. If what you're doing differs from that the audience will be confused. You can't copy and paste from other films, you're telling your story and the audience can't tell what's happening unless you've already set it up by them seeing it and establishing the rules of your world earlier in the film

Usually you don't pitch with the script, you have it for the next stage when the funders have seen the pitch documents with a very short synopsis and heard your pitch, then they'll read the script if they're interested (in some cases the final decision maker may have never read the script) In this case. Gareth Edwards knew the production company and improvising with non actors on location was part of the proposal that he pitched to them, so, in this case, the treatment makes sense. The company knew what he could do from his TV work.

Yet another method: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/movies/oscars/no-script-no-synopsis-the-mike-leigh-way.html

Oh okay, that's an interesting article. When it comes to storyboarding and shooting for the edit, do you think instead of being inspired by shots and editing decisions in other movies, that I should try to storyboard the shots in a totally original style of my own, as well as the editing without thinking of other movies' styles? It's just if I do that, I fear that maybe it might be too different for people to accept, and don't want to break any filmmaking rules or preferences of course.

"You can't copy and paste from other films"

I feel like this has been said by multiple people in various forms. I understand your desire to emulate professional movies but you'll end up being dependent on copying other peoples work instead of thinking for yourself . The most important skill you should be working on is to visually story tell by yourself. I can say from personal experience it doesn't come naturally. Maybe you should film scenes by yourself or a friend with a dslr and put a rough edit together to tell a short story until it becomes second nature. Watching movies and filming movies are two different experiences.

Imagine if you were an aspiring author trying to write a book and for every chapter you would try to emulate a different famous author. You'd end up with a terrible mess of a story. In the end all that matters is that it makes sense and entertains the audience. If you for whatever reason have difficulty or can't make that judgement then you're not going to be able to make progress as a film maker.

Well I've made a few shorts so far as worked on other peoples. I don't have enough money to keep making them and wanted to make a feature with the money I have. But I also want to be able to get a lot of second opinions while making it as well though, to know I am on the right track.

It's a tough business to learn or make money at. I frankly don't know how you've been able to keep at it this long. The point being thinking for yourself is valuable and transferable skill, emulating others movies not so much.

Okay thanks, it's just I feel if I try to come up with an original shot and editing style, that maybe it won't be accepted, if that makes sense?

Out of curiosity, is it strange that I kept at it this long?

If you had your own technique and shooting style that would be good, but you don't! You are trying to emulate little bits of everyone else's and that's why you have problems. You are learning wrong. You don't have the courage to stick to your instincts. I think you could learn to be a good member of the crew in some role, but you consistently show us that your are ill suited to be at the top of the pyramid, as you demonstrate constantly every decision you make you are uncertain of, or need to consult others. You are the boss of a cooperative which is always a paperwork position, not a creative one. You will spend your money and if he process you feel is worth that money, it's ok. I doubt it will ever e a career. Sorry, but it's painting by numbers, not real art!

If you wish to direct you should see the film through your own eyes, don't even think what other directors have done. You may be subconsciously influenced by them and become aware of it at a later stage, which is fine, but if you are aware at the time, do the complete opposite. Strangely, if you do the complete opposite to the cliche in films it tends to work.

You should know what the film you're making is about and by that I don't mean the plot. It's not original shots and editing that's important, it's telling the story in an original way that matters.

Oh okay. Well I guess the reason why I am uncertain of my own decisions is because other people tell me that they are wrong, but should I own those decisions and believe they are right, regardless of what other people tell me then?

When you make a decision, it may well be wrong - but it is YOUR decision, so yes, take ownership, accept responsibility and make your own mind up. Only ask other people when you have to. Can you not see these people consistently give you bad advice? Grow a set, man up, and stand tall - and if you are in charge, act like it?

Yeah I guess I am just afraid I will get carried away with my own confidence and make a movie people don't want to see, if I decide what is right, and everyone else is wrong, if that makes sense.

It's understandable - but that's what every movie and tv producer faces. I mentioned Thunderbirds and they gave the movie to Jonathan Frakes to Direct - and he made an appalling job of it, completely missed the huge fan base, he didn't listen to Gerry Anderson and they had no working relationship and the movie was simply awful. He bounced back.

Yeah I guess I am just afraid I will get carried away with my own confidence and make a movie people don't want to see, if I decide what is right, and everyone else is wrong, if that makes sense.

You have to know why you're making the movie. There are successful films which people in the industry didn't get, but there was an audience for. There was also some very talented people working on it,

Easy Rider | Original Trailer [HD] | Coolidge Corner Theatre - YouTube

Yeah I guess I am just afraid I will get carried away with my own confidence and make a movie people don't want to see, if I decide what is right, and everyone else is wrong, if that makes sense.
The problem you’re facing is mainly due to lack of experience and some level of aptitude. When I do a type of work I know inside and out, I have the confidence and knowledge to evaluate suggestions. When I’m out of my comfort zone I don’t know if I should listen to suggestions. If something unexpected happens or there is an issue then it’s likely I won’t respond correctly. On a professional set you could differ to someone on your team because they’re competent. On a low budget production you can expect uneducated suggestions and dealing with impossible situations with bad to worse options.

Understanding what makes sense to the viewer is second nature. One of the primary aspects of a director’s job is making judgment calls. If you’re not good at that... Again goes back to what others have said about honesty assessing what you’re good at. The general impression from most of us is either you’re not ready to be a director or you don’t have the aptitude for it.. You don’t seem to fully appreciate the difficulty and stress of being a director.

Oh okay. Well I could make all the decisions myself, and decide on what the rules are, it's just without relying so much on advice from experienced people who have been at it a lot longer, I am afraid that I will do it wrong and fail.

However, all you experienced people had to be beginners sometime, and still make your first feature sometime?

Not necessarily. Many people on here are not filmmakers, per se. At least not directors and/or writers. Many of us work in other crew positions on others’ films or not on films at all.

That's true. I was also told if I want to have to break in with a movie and hopefully find a market for it, that I should maybe just produce it and leave it up to another director.

But another filmmaker told me it was a bad idea, cause if you are producing it, you don't want another director to take control of it then and possibly cause problems, and that it's best to direct it yourself, so you have the most control.

What do you think?

Yeah I guess I am just afraid I will get carried away with my own confidence and make a movie people don't want to see, if I decide what is right, and everyone else is wrong, if that makes sense.
I do legal, live events, and all sorts of small projects. I once fancied making a movie, but I divested myself after helping a colleague film part of a movie. While I enjoyed the experience I had my fill. We started at 3pm and wrapped near midnight filming two short scenes that would run only few minutes. Reading Ryan’s further reinforced my decision. I wouldn’t want to give up a year of my free time to film a mediocre to bad movie no one will watch. I’d have more interest contributing to Youtube channel, doing tech reviews, something short and fun. While I have a lot of knowledge and experience I have no desire to pursue a career as a filmmaker.

I have my son's Netflix account on my TV. bored the other day I thought I'd watch a movie. None appealed to me at all, bar the ones I already watched years ago. There will be a few like me worldwide - so trying to make a movie to appeal to everyone is futile. You will have a target audience for your product - you make it for them!

Oh okay. Well I could make all the decisions myself, and decide on what the rules are, it's just without relying so much on advice from experienced people who have been at it a lot longer, I am afraid that I will do it wrong and fail.

However, all you experienced people had to be beginners sometime, and still make your first feature sometime?

When directing a commercial feature film for the first time, you will have an experienced crew with you; this will be insisted upon by the funders. Usually, the first timers will have had more experience in either theatre or the film or TV industry than you currently have, they may have worked as either a director or head of department. They usually have an editor, someone who has a separate set of eyes, who can "rescue" the film, regardless of how crazy the director is.

The problem seems to be that you seem to be unsure of the basic mechanics and are obsessing on them.
Perhaps you should be more obsessed by the story, the characters and their world, these usually provide all the answers as to where you place the camera etc, not copying other films.

In theatre, Directors can come from so many origins that second guessing them is often impossible - one said to me "well - what else is there that you don't know?" when I didn't turn up at a meeting I'd not been asked to and used as the excuse "I didn't know you called a meeting".

I find the most interesting times are when the Director is from an acting background, has no clue how easy or simple technical things are and say things like "At this point there's a big explosion, the wonderful sound designer will make everyone jump off their seats, the lighting will sort of go 'wow' and everyone gets blinded, and the music hits a huge crescendo while tons of glitter descends from the ceiling while the cottage collapses. The Heads of Lighting, Sound, Stage and the MD all look at each other - all having read the same script and seemingly all missed this very critical element. None want to be the one to break the news that this is going to be somewhat tricky - and then they all turn to me with an expectant look of 'you tell him'. The best solution is when the Director is also an executive producer with a large bag of gold. Seeing grown adults realising that this is the cue to realise the Directors vision, amazing things happen.

Worst is when the Director is an arse, who has no real power, certainly no money, and all these people simply say NO!

I've just seen the completed project I was involved with at one of the big UK movie studios. My entire scene, that I worked so hard on, that took me two days work - has been cut. Who knows if it was time, the edit decisions, or importance to the completed thing? I don't even get told. I got paid. That's probably all that really matters. I have no compelling need to see things to their conclusion. That need kind of left me. I was working on one when the Director got a recall to the states. There had been bad weather and shooting was cancelled. He was working on a new production when they recalled him, with a first class air ticket and he went, because the recall clause was in the contract that earned him mega bucks. The project he abandonned paid less, so he got on a plane. Needless to say, he won't get any more Directing roles from this production company - but again, it's a job and you do what you have to do. Ryan's need to make movies is a 'passion' not a job. Maybe that's what we can't quite fathom out what he's up to?

I understand him, to some degree, having been him (maybe will again).

Having made passion films, i.e, ones that have no commercial plans or value, their making usually comes down to bloody mindedness and being willing to take risks. When I made an 8mm feature length Bond type movie when I was 16/17 I don't recall being aware of the 180 rule, but somehow I never broke it during the filming. It still has the biggest scene in any film I've worked on - an air attack on a secret mountain base in the Swiss alps.

I was amused to see "The Right Stuff" using similar techniques to those I used with my Airfix models.

In theatre, Directors can come from so many origins that second guessing them is often impossible - one said to me "well - what else is there that you don't know?" when I didn't turn up at a meeting I'd not been asked to and used as the excuse "I didn't know you called a meeting".


I find the most interesting times are when the Director is from an acting background, has no clue how easy or simple technical things are and say things like "At this point there's a big explosion, the wonderful sound designer will make everyone jump off their seats, the lighting will sort of go 'wow' and everyone gets blinded, and the music hits a huge crescendo while tons of glitter descends from the ceiling while the cottage collapses. The Heads of Lighting, Sound, Stage and the MD all look at each other - all having read the same script and seemingly all missed this very critical element. None want to be the one to break the news that this is going to be somewhat tricky - and then they all turn to me with an expectant look of 'you tell him'. The best solution is when the Director is also an executive producer with a large bag of gold. Seeing grown adults realising that this is the cue to realise the Directors vision, amazing things happen.

Worst is when the Director is an arse, who has no real power, certainly no money, and all these people simply say NO!

I've just seen the completed project I was involved with at one of the big UK movie studios. My entire scene, that I worked so hard on, that took me two days work - has been cut. Who knows if it was time, the edit decisions, or importance to the completed thing? I don't even get told. I got paid. That's probably all that really matters. I have no compelling need to see things to their conclusion. That need kind of left me. I was working on one when the Director got a recall to the states. There had been bad weather and shooting was cancelled. He was working on a new production when they recalled him, with a first class air ticket and he went, because the recall clause was in the contract that earned him mega bucks. The project he abandonned paid less, so he got on a plane. Needless to say, he won't get any more Directing roles from this production company - but again, it's a job and you do what you have to do. Ryan's need to make movies is a 'passion' not a job. Maybe that's what we can't quite fathom out what he's up to?

Oh that's interesting, why would they all look at each other, if it was difficult to pull off in that case? The explosion and glitter were not in the budget? Or is the music and sound a problem too in that case?

When directing a commercial feature film for the first time, you will have an experienced crew with you; this will be insisted upon by the funders. Usually, the first timers will have had more experience in either theatre or the film or TV industry than you currently have, they may have worked as either a director or head of department. They usually have an editor, someone who has a separate set of eyes, who can "rescue" the film, regardless of how crazy the director is.

The problem seems to be that you seem to be unsure of the basic mechanics and are obsessing on them.
Perhaps you should be more obsessed by the story, the characters and their world, these usually provide all the answers as to where you place the camera etc, not copying other films.

Yeah I feel I am obsessed with the story and their characters, it's just I was asking more technical questions on here, cause this site seems to be more directed at that, and most of the critiques I got, were on the technical side, more than the story side, I thought.

I suspect Ryan, that understanding this (or not) could be one of the reasons you have trouble with people? The look I described was understood by every single person there - who were all thinking exactly the same thing. I'm not sure I can explain this one if you don't get it?

I suspect Ryan, that understanding this (or not) could be one of the reasons you have trouble with people? The look I described was understood by every single person there - who were all thinking exactly the same thing. I'm not sure I can explain this one if you don't get it?
This in a nutshell is why he shouldn’t be a director. Probably for the same reason there’s nothing we could say to deter him. I guess he can keep making passion films for as long as he wants. Hopefully it will lead to something, however career wise I’m not sure what.

"it's just I was asking more technical questions on here, cause this site seems to be more directed at that, and most of the critiques I got, were on the technical side"

The questions seemed to be getting more on the aesthetic side - deep focus, blocking out scenes, the meaning of green cars etc, rather than technical.

Yeah that makes sense. The aesthetic side is what I feel I should learn more about.

Well if I shouldn't be directing, what if I produced it, do editing and other post work, but gave someone else the job as director?

Ryan - tell us what you are good at. What elements of movie making do you really enjoy and do really well? I'm not really sure you actually understand the roles you talk about. What elements of being producer do you excel at? What contribution to the 'whole' do you see yourself doing? I thought you didn't get on with editing? Me - editing is my weakest area. I'm good with the technology, but I struggle with that 'feeling' of THERE - when you know that's where the cut will work best. I seem to get it close then have to constantly go back and forth. Good editors just hit the button.

I'm struggling with finding your strengths.