Oh really? What are some movies that have been classified as film noir because of production mistakes?

By film noir, I just mean the type of lighting style might suit it. I'm not trying to define film noir of course, I just meant use the lighting style. But I could use other movies lighting styles as examples for a DP if that's best.

I think what they're saying is any type of lighting beyond diffuse lighting you will struggle with. It is difficult to shape light and then repeat it consistently. So you can expect more of what happened in that Timewine movie. I can tell you've already made up your mind and there is nothing anyone could say to dissuade you...

Oh I didn't say I made up my mind, I was just saying that I thought film noir style lighting would be best.

Diffused lighting? It's just that when I did diffused lighting before, it always looked flat to me, but is that better? However, maybe the reason why it looked flat is because I lit too much of the room and needed to create dark areas in the frame, to make things more interesting?

But I also thought that I was going to get a good DP, so wouldn't a good DP know how to shape light though?

Diffused lighting doesn't have to be flat, you can actually go further with it than hard lighting because of the wrap around you get on faces from the soft light.

What you're talking about is low key or Chiaroscuro lighting, since film noir is more about the content than the lighting. Chinatown isn't partially low key in its lighting, yet it fits in with film noir.

Defining Film Noir - YouTube

Low key lighting was often used in many of the lower budget 1940s private eye films because it was cheaper. Caravaggio is well known for the use of Chiaroscuro in his paintings. The lack of shadow detail is something that's either appropriate for the film or it isn't, although you usually can get a small amount by adding a suitable of amount fill, although you may not want it going everywhere..

If your story is set inside a modern police station, it's unlikely to have dark shadows.

https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-chiaroscuro-definition-examples/

Oh okay thanks, yes Chiaroscuro lighting. I called it German expressionist lighting sometimes, but wasn't sure if that was the correct term. If a lot of mine is set in a modern police station, does that really matter, though since in old movies that use that lighting, they still had scenes in police stations, that looked somewhat shadowy? I was watching The Big Heat (1953), and the daytime office scenes, still had shadow along the sides of the faces, even though it was daytime.

Like everything you get all your ideas from watching and emulating those movies. Here's the problem, you weren't not on set to see what equipment they used, how much it cost and how it was used? You don't even understand the fundamentals of lighting. I can anticipate your answer to all this... You'll just hire a dp who will wave a magic wand and make it so. Up until now you probably just used what lights you had and pointed them without much thought. Lighting is hard and expensive. This can't be told to especially you in a way you'll understand, without finding it out for yourself.

Well the thing is, is that if I get a DP, isn't it best to give him samples from other movies, rather than me trying to come up with an original style of my own, and try to explain to him/her, that they have never seen before in other movies? Or is it not a good to show a DP examples from other movies, and have no references, other than what I explain to them?

Simple, explain what mood you want and work with your dp to achieve it. That's why film noir or like this film is the wrong approach. You're taking something out of context. Do you or your DP have any creativity?

Oh okay, why would that type of lighting be the wrong approach, since it's a dark crime thriller and all?

I guess I find it difficult to come up with a completely original look. Even Ridley Scott, copied the film noir looking light style for Blade Runner, so even he was inspired by a previous style. Is that bad?

Let me use your dumb logic: I like the movie Maltese Falcon I will copy it. The movie needs to be in black and white, everyone should wear suits and fedoras, I need to find an actor who talks like Humphrey Bogart.

Is it wrong to film a movie in black and white, wear suits and fedoras or talk like Bogart? I don't understand this movie is well liked why can't I copy it?

Well all I said was I wanted similar lighting to some other movies I've seen before. Is that copying too much?

When it comes to the character's clothes though, I came up with my own wardrobe for the characters, without copying any other movies.

For this type of lighting you will probably require lighting kit that your DPs may not personally have and if they do, more than they own.

For this type of lighting you will probably require lighting kit that your DPs may not personally have and if they do, more than they own.

The use of this lighting will depend on the world of your story. Is it more like Blue Velvet than a 1940s thriller?

Blue Velvet official rerelease trailer - YouTube

Oh thanks. I've seen Blue Velvet, the lighting is okay in that. I was thinking something more along the lines of The Crow maybe, cause it looks like that old style, but in color:

The Crow - Shooting Scene (Original) HD - YouTube

However, since a lot of the script takes place during the day, I guess it would be like The Crow, but with a daytime spin on it, if that's possible.

Also, Dr. No, comes to mind for more of a police station office setting:

Major Boothroyd and the new gun [James Bond Semi Essentials] - YouTube

But it was said that maybe I should come up with a lighting style completely original from my imagination, rather than use inspiration from other movies?

So I guess if I had it my way, it would be similar to that kind lighting style, but with a backlight, outlining the actors more.

Ryan - get a grip. I know you take things literally, but you're making huge leaps with what we're saying.

Your entire film making philosphy is to watch as many movies as you can and then pull out strands for your rule book. Can you not see this is NOT, in any shape of form a route to success? It's failure positive. Things happen because they work within the movie's context. They do not translate well.

Copying? For you it's disaster. You would be copying an end product without any data whatsoever on 'why' it was done. This is sheer folly! It doesn't work in movies and it doesn't work in music, or performing arts. Actually, this area where I have plenty of experience is a good example. Comedy. Comedians steal jokes from each other. I've heard the exact same joke delivered by perhaps 10 people in a 6 month period. Some modify the joke to their own personality and it works, sometimes better than the original. Other deliver it exactly as the original and it's not so funny, and some just deliver it badly. The exact same joke. Exactly the same happens with magic. Penn and Teller do the same routine as hundreds of magicians. Do they all get the same response? Hopefully, this sideways jump might make you realise that the product at the end is everything.

Pete says you have already decided. Please prove him wrong, because I too figured the same thing. You have made a decision - something you always need support for - and this time, none of us think it's a good move. I get the feeling you think that it will allow worse technique to be acceptable because of the genre - and that's the trouble with Film Noir - it does not really have a specific genre. It's undefinable - like RnB in music. The old Rhythm and Blues origin completely distorted. Nobody knows what RnB actually is any more, and this has happened to film noir. I always privately thought about the noir as meaning dark in content - NOT dark in lighting, but this is what happens in terrible film noir. The watch five minutes and switch off type.

You ask for examples and I can never give them, because I am not a film buff. I watch movies as a consumer for entertainment. I remember the good ones and forget the bad. I don't remember actors or director's names of anything other than ones I like. I can't imagine trying to develop a new product my using movies as metaphors, which is kind of what you do.

You have no confidence in your own ability to create a product, so you use others as your ingredients and it never, ever works. Each scene, tagged with 'inspired by One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest', or 'Pretty woman' or 'Mad Max' or Lawrence of Arabia' is doomed to failure.

For once Ryan, abandon this idea - you just don't know how to do it.

It works better at night because there's a logic to it, otherwise you need to be in buildings with no or very small windows during the day.

You may not have the lighting rig needed for this or the time to rig the lights for scenes like the crow or even Ms office, which was shot in a studio. You have to be practical about this.

Ryan - get a grip. I know you take things literally, but you're making huge leaps with what we're saying.

Your entire film making philosphy is to watch as many movies as you can and then pull out strands for your rule book. Can you not see this is NOT, in any shape of form a route to success? It's failure positive. Things happen because they work within the movie's context. They do not translate well.

Copying? For you it's disaster. You would be copying an end product without any data whatsoever on 'why' it was done. This is sheer folly! It doesn't work in movies and it doesn't work in music, or performing arts. Actually, this area where I have plenty of experience is a good example. Comedy. Comedians steal jokes from each other. I've heard the exact same joke delivered by perhaps 10 people in a 6 month period. Some modify the joke to their own personality and it works, sometimes better than the original. Other deliver it exactly as the original and it's not so funny, and some just deliver it badly. The exact same joke. Exactly the same happens with magic. Penn and Teller do the same routine as hundreds of magicians. Do they all get the same response? Hopefully, this sideways jump might make you realise that the product at the end is everything.

Pete says you have already decided. Please prove him wrong, because I too figured the same thing. You have made a decision - something you always need support for - and this time, none of us think it's a good move. I get the feeling you think that it will allow worse technique to be acceptable because of the genre - and that's the trouble with Film Noir - it does not really have a specific genre. It's undefinable - like RnB in music. The old Rhythm and Blues origin completely distorted. Nobody knows what RnB actually is any more, and this has happened to film noir. I always privately thought about the noir as meaning dark in content - NOT dark in lighting, but this is what happens in terrible film noir. The watch five minutes and switch off type.

You ask for examples and I can never give them, because I am not a film buff. I watch movies as a consumer for entertainment. I remember the good ones and forget the bad. I don't remember actors or director's names of anything other than ones I like. I can't imagine trying to develop a new product my using movies as metaphors, which is kind of what you do.

You have no confidence in your own ability to create a product, so you use others as your ingredients and it never, ever works. Each scene, tagged with 'inspired by One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest', or 'Pretty woman' or 'Mad Max' or Lawrence of Arabia' is doomed to failure.

For once Ryan, abandon this idea - you just don't know how to do it.


Alright, what if I did this... What if I came up with a completely original lighting style that I have never seen before in another movie, as well as come up with original shots, that I have never seen in any movie before? Would that be best?

I could just come up with my own rules and be my own boss and it's my way or the highway, but I feel that if I do that, I will come up with a style that might not be accepted cause it's too strange maybe.

It works better at night because there's a logic to it, otherwise you need to be in buildings with no or very small windows during the day.

You may not have the lighting rig needed for this or the time to rig the lights for scenes like the crow or even Ms office, which was shot in a studio. You have to be practical about this.

Oh okay, can I use the same lights that I would in a studio compared to a location, or no? I don't have to have it exactly like the M scene, I am just trying to use it as an inspirational starting point, unless I shouldn't.

Yes, you can use the same lights, but since you don't seem to have seen a film set, they often don't have a ceiling. This allows you to quickly rig lights from the top, something that's time consuming and requires specialised grip equipment when on location. in a real room.

Okay thanks. Well I am currently trying to think of a way to light a scene completely originally, that I haven't seen before, if that's better than using inspiration from other movies.

For the police station office scene, the Inspector's office to start, I could have keylights pointing towards the actors from the sides, so the background is not lit too bright, and then have back lights on the actors as well.

And a light that is dimmer for lighting the background, but dimmer than the foreground. The keylights will not be diffused, but the lights, lighting the background will be. Not sure about the backlights yet. This is what I have so far, going by my own thoughts, and not thinking of other movies.

I suspect that has been done before.

You should be discussing all this with your DP, who may bring their own ideas to the table, not in a forum.

For sure, it was just said before that I should come up with my own lighting ideas, rather than being inspired by other movies though. But I will keep trying to look for a DP and PD, and tell them what I want and try to make it as original as I can, without any previous movies I have seen, if that's best.

I guess I am just worried if I am too original people may think it's too avant garde for their tastes, but maybe that's a good thing, and I should learn to embrace, it even if people say it's the way the things are suppose to be done?

I haven't seen anything avant garde about your stuff to date.

Your lighting for the office is pretty utilitarian, not unlike what news crews used when they had a lighting kit (unlike today) and an electrician.

Show some visual references to the DP, (paintings photographs etc) don't give them a lighting plot, because, if they're any good, they won't want to work with you.

At the moment you're sounding more like Ed Wood.

The snag is that many viewers have never been near a film school, and will possibly view your movie using their common sense, and see your carefully crafted well researched brand new style as something truly horrible. Why reinvent the wheel? If I see a movie with a Police station room filled with officers being briefed, then in real life it will have institutional colours, lit from lots of fluorescent tubes. Hardly any shadows, very bright, probably allowing the usual grubbiness of the space, and the feel, to come through - the wanted pictures on the walls tell you it isn't a prison, even without uniforms. The same room with bars on the windows is a prison. The same room with work benches and safety posters becomes a factory. Shooting it with Key light and fill, and perhaps some nice areas in shadow will just distort reality in a way that confuses.

REAL PEOPLE DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT AVANTE GARDE EVEN MEANS!

You're not in film school - this is the real world and people like the signposts you place in the scenes to guide them towards your goal. If you confuse them, you've lost them. We've now had every conceivable way of shooting your police scene, bar the obvious ones you reject, because it's too hard, too expensive or (and I think its the real one) or just what you've already decided and you just bang away hoping one of us will say your idea is good, when we think pretty much it's bad. We've gone through changing the colours in post way back, but we've still arrived back at the police station scene. Look through your collection of movies. Police stations feature in lots. How many look like they are shot in a wrong room, badly dressed to make it try to be a convincing one?

Many years ago I realised that making anything about organisations who wear uniforms is out - the cost of uniforms is crazy. I hired once three military dress uniforms. It worked fine once I made sure I booked actors who had been in the military. Very few actors can convincingly play military - police is much better they can be quite normal. They still need to act well though because if they are wearing plain clothes, for movie purposes they still have to behave/move/react like Police. Worth thinking about if you want to engage the audience.

Ryan what everyone is trying to say is you should be working with the DP to light your movie that best tells your story and makes sense and works with your scene locations. So you film a police station which the viewer will expect soft fluorescent light but instead of using lighting that’s makes sense you decide to impose hard lighting from a movie you’ve seen.

No one is asking you to invent a new style of lighting we’re saying you shouldn’t be trying to reverse engineering another movie lighting. Most if not all of your questions and topics revolve around how do recreate the final product of big commercial movie you watch without out having budget, knowledge of how it was done, expertise, or equipment. Then you come up with a detailed plan and show up to a location to find out it won’t work. No good dp wants to be handed a blue print of a lighting setup from some inexperienced crack pot director.

The snag is that many viewers have never been near a film school, and will possibly view your movie using their common sense, and see your carefully crafted well researched brand new style as something truly horrible. Why reinvent the wheel? If I see a movie with a Police station room filled with officers being briefed, then in real life it will have institutional colours, lit from lots of fluorescent tubes. Hardly any shadows, very bright, probably allowing the usual grubbiness of the space, and the feel, to come through - the wanted pictures on the walls tell you it isn't a prison, even without uniforms. The same room with bars on the windows is a prison. The same room with work benches and safety posters becomes a factory. Shooting it with Key light and fill, and perhaps some nice areas in shadow will just distort reality in a way that confuses.

REAL PEOPLE DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT AVANTE GARDE EVEN MEANS!

You're not in film school - this is the real world and people like the signposts you place in the scenes to guide them towards your goal. If you confuse them, you've lost them. We've now had every conceivable way of shooting your police scene, bar the obvious ones you reject, because it's too hard, too expensive or (and I think its the real one) or just what you've already decided and you just bang away hoping one of us will say your idea is good, when we think pretty much it's bad. We've gone through changing the colours in post way back, but we've still arrived back at the police station scene. Look through your collection of movies. Police stations feature in lots. How many look like they are shot in a wrong room, badly dressed to make it try to be a convincing one?

Many years ago I realized that making anything about organisations who wear uniforms is out - the cost of uniforms is crazy. I hired once three military dress uniforms. It worked fine once I made sure I booked actors who had been in the military. Very few actors can convincingly play military - police is much better they can be quite normal. They still need to act well though because if they are wearing plain clothes, for movie purposes they still have to behave/move/react like Police. Worth thinking about if you want to engage the audience.

Oh okay, well it's not that I want to re-invent the wheel, it's just I was told to go with my own look rather than using looks of other movies.

The thing about soft fluorescent tubes, is that it doesn't look cinematic, and will look like a made for TV episode of The Office, it sounds like. Shouldn't I go for a more cinematic look? This is an example of what I mean though. I am told to make up the look and have the guts to do it my way, rather than copy other material, but then when I try to come up with my own, I'm told it's wrong and it will confuse people. So should I come up with my own, or follow a standard so that people are not confused?

The thing about using fluorescent tubes as lights, I have used those before, but they posed problems for me in the past. One thing is, is that they are not near as bright as halogens so I have a problem, using the light to separate the foreground from the background, when they are not near as bright. So I didn't think that fluorescents were very good to use therefore. They are also much larger than halogen lights, which makes them trickier to fit into locations since they take up more space. Wouldn't this be a problem for fluorescents compared to halogens? Oh course I can talk to a DP about this too, I just thought that a DP would prefer the halogen lights, since they are brighter.

If we are to use flourescents though, what if I we did a similar lighting set up, where the fluorescent lights are the keylight and they are hitting the actor from the side more so, to separate the backround? And another flourescent as a back light on the actors. Would that be better?

Given the ISO ratings of modern digital cameras, florescent lights shouldn't be an issue There are film lights that use colour accurate florescent tubes, so the light levels are sufficient for this type of work. The DP may decide to use additional lights, but .as the director, you should communicate the overall look you're going for and let the DP work out the mechanics from there. The top lights usually separates the actors background.

DPs work with florescents all the time, including on feature films. It's how they lit the Washington Post newsroom in "All the Presidents Men".

You do seem to stuck in making a pastiche of 1960s films.

Oh okay, well a lot of movies I like are from the 60s, and I like some of the looks of them. All The President's Men looked a little documentary-ish style for my taste. But I can watch it again. But if we are allowed to use other movies for inspiration, what about this kind of police station setting scene, lighting wise?

Favorite R. Lee Ermey Moment from Seven (1995) - YouTube

They don't have back lights for the actors to separate them more from the background, which I like, but if I were to use backlights in an office setting, would that look too weird?

You can use back light, but it needs to be subtle, many of the DPs in the 1960s came from shooting black and white, where you needed the back light for separation. You don't need that in colour.

There's not much back light in Seven

This is EXACTLY what I tried to explain. Where on earth do you get these rules - you bang o0n about separating the actors from the background as if this = cinematic, or not doing it =TV or documentary. It's all context driven. That picture could be a police station, or a newspaper office, or the call centre for a big insurance firm.

Nobody suggested bringing in loads of fluorescents - we thought that you'd use a space that already has them. You don't have the budget to rent a four waller, build a set and light it do you?

Why do you believe that cinematic doesn't mean natural light, or real artificial light. There must be hundreds of examples where lighting augments what's already there.

In an office, strong key would possibly look like sunlight, but what if there are no windows? Strong key in a room that doesn't need it looks really odd. Backlight would need to come from somewhere. Do you have backlight in a real room. We're not making a sit com, or a morning TV show.

This is EXACTLY what I tried to explain. Where on earth do you get these rules - you bang o0n about separating the actors from the background as if this = cinematic, or not doing it =TV or documentary. It's all context driven. That picture could be a police station, or a newspaper office, or the call centre for a big insurance firm.

Nobody suggested bringing in loads of fluorescents - we thought that you'd use a space that already has them. You don't have the budget to rent a four waller, build a set and light it do you?

Why do you believe that cinematic doesn't mean natural light, or real artificial light. There must be hundreds of examples where lighting augments what's already there.

In an office, strong key would possibly look like sunlight, but what if there are no windows? Strong key in a room that doesn't need it looks really odd. Backlight would need to come from somewhere. Do you have backlight in a real room. We're not making a sit com, or a morning TV show.

Oh, well I didn't say that using a back light for separation was a rule. It's just a preference of mine. Isn't it okay for me to have preferences, as to what I like, looks wise?

As for using a space that already has fluorescents, I can't rely on lights on the ceiling, in tests I have done before, that causes the actors to have shadows around the eye bags, making the eye bags look worse. I need light pointed in from the sides and in front more, to get rid of that eye bag shadow. Or at least fluorescent lights on the ceiling only are not going to do it.

As for the motivation for the back light, I thought it would be the sun as motivation.

You can use back light, but it needs to be subtle, many of the DPs in the 1960s came from shooting black and white, where you needed the back light for separation. You don't need that in colour.

There's not much back light in Seven

Oh okay, I just like the look of the back light separation. Even though it's in color, I still prefer the look as a personal preference. I actually like this type of lighting better:

lighting example - YouTube

Could I do something like that for a police station setting, but with more back light separation?

It's up to you. but it looks like something a film student would do.

You can use back light, but it needs to be subtle, many of the DPs in the 1960s came from shooting black and white, where you needed the back light for separation. You don't need that in colour.

There's not much back light in Seven

Oh okay. You are saying the back light specifically is something a film student would do?

No, he's saying that it's the kind of technique a film student would do rather than the most appropriate one.

I'm really confused by the bags under the eyes comment? Flu tubes are just soft light - and lots of flu tubes creates pretty much no shadows, so if you got them, they were in the wrong place, or the actors were in the wrong place, or the camera was in the wrong place.

I find it so difficult that you cannot understand the basic concepts of movie making. You do something, it doesn't work - so the technique is immediately abandoned. Sometimes it's just a good technique used poorly.

Why are you obsessed on creating backlight when it's unreal for some situations. You are perfectly entitled to have whatever opinion you like - the question is that other people may not think the same.

He's talking about overhead flo lights already built into the locations creating the eye shadows

As in one overhead, and the actor underneath? Lost the will to live now.

I assume any office-y type location... with built in flos directly overhead everywhere.

It was said before that I don't need to bring my own fluorescents when the location already has them. What I was saying is, is that I don't want to use the location ones, because if they are over top of the actors, the eye bags look bad in my experience.

The way I solve that problem is to shine the light in front of the faces, rather than over their heads. But if I shine the light in front, than I have to bring my own, as oppose to using the ones already there, is what I was saying.

No, he's saying that it's the kind of technique a film student would do rather than the most appropriate one.

I'm really confused by the bags under the eyes comment? Flu tubes are just soft light - and lots of flu tubes creates pretty much no shadows, so if you got them, they were in the wrong place, or the actors were in the wrong place, or the camera was in the wrong place.

I find it so difficult that you cannot understand the basic concepts of movie making. You do something, it doesn't work - so the technique is immediately abandoned. Sometimes it's just a good technique used poorly.

Why are you obsessed on creating backlight when it's unreal for some situations. You are perfectly entitled to have whatever opinion you like - the question is that other people may not think the same.

When you say the actors are in the wrong place, the actors cannot be still though. They have to be able to move around. So I need to have the lighting to look good for all the places they move around to in the blocking of course.

I can’t even keep up with the contradictions and misunderstandings. Ryan you can have whatever opinions you want but they aren’t opinions that take into consideration your lack of budget. I think what they mean by student is that you’re heavy handed, overly concerned with stylistic looks instead of using common sense dictated by the purpose of the scene and the limitations of the locations. Since the drama and action will not be taking place at the police station and what’s most important is establishing that this is a police station and the lighting should support that. If the location is dark or you want to supplement the existing lighting so be it. You seem to make everything more difficult than it needs to be.

No, he's saying that it's the kind of technique a film student would do rather than the most appropriate one.

I'm really confused by the bags under the eyes comment? Flu tubes are just soft light - and lots of flu tubes creates pretty much no shadows, so if you got them, they were in the wrong place, or the actors were in the wrong place, or the camera was in the wrong place.

I find it so difficult that you cannot understand the basic concepts of movie making. You do something, it doesn't work - so the technique is immediately abandoned. Sometimes it's just a good technique used poorly.

Why are you obsessed on creating backlight when it's unreal for some situations. You are perfectly entitled to have whatever opinion you like - the question is that other people may not think the same.

Oh okay, I don't mean to be contradictory, I am just trying to come up with a look. What is it about the locations that would be so limiting though? You can just bring in lights and put them on stands, can't we? Why are locations limiting to not using lighting kits, or what is it that would be so limiting?

You completely misunderstand lighting Ryan. If you have a low ceilinged room and put lights on stands, it looks awful, and everybody casts shadows that land on other people, or the walls. Remember that 45 degrees is a great down angles for natural lighting - but how do you do that indoors in a real location? That's NOT a question, I know the answer - just in case you misunderstood that too.

This magic look you are trying to achieve needs to be balanced against practicality. You always miss this. You choose a location, and then you work with it. Sometimes the location is king, so your lighting and sound has to suffer if it really is that important. Other times when you need certain looks you need to change the location and techniques to make it happen. You want to have it all, and you can't.

Please don't start "Oh, OK..." because when you say that you never mean it - you just skip it.

Can you actually afford all this stuff? Based on the people you keep talking about - Proper actors, director, DP, sparks, and the audio folk your budget is going to be substantial.

He's said he has $50k right now to spend and thinks he can raise more.

If 50K is enough... When you say low ceilings will cause the lighting to look awful, you are saying the lights cannot go high enough is that right? So wouldn't we just have to make adjustments then? Sometimes I would be okay with the shadows cause I thought that the shadowy look was good. Other times I or the DP, would fill out the shadows with other lights. Is that bad? I could just get a DP to figure out how to light with the low ceiling problem, if that's best.

I'm just saying that the lighting in the interview is something a film student would do, if you want the same effect effect there are methods that don't look as crude.

He's said he has $50k right now to spend and thinks he can raise more.
You believe that. Did you believe he was going to get a BMPCC camera a few months ago?

Well he's been saying the "I have the money right now" and that that's why he wants to do this now, since if he waits a few years, he may not be able to self fund it, ever since these threads started last year, so yeah.

The 50k is BS

Maybe? It's conceivable that someone could have saved money.