Like often the case you misunderstand . By track record it’s plain and simple have you directed/produced a successful commercial feature film that made a profit? People in the real world want tangible results. Not I worked as a boom operator or I did some small side gig. No one is giving a job or funding without a track record. Proof positive of tangible results no one serious cares to listen to bs.

Oh okay. So when people say tell me to get external funding, than that's not really an option without spending my own money on a feature film first then?

Oh okay. So when people say tell me to get external funding, than that's not really an option without spending my own money on a feature film first then?
It boggles my mind you haven't even thought that deeply about what it would take to get external funding.

If you had worked as a director/producer on someone else's feature film that made money. That would be another way to show proof. Even winning an award from a legit film festival.

This is common sense stuff. Would you give me 10k to film a feature just on my say so? Just imagine what you as a prudent investor would want before handing over a large sum of money.

You have this one track naive way of looking at things from only your perspective. You want to make a movie, you need money, people should give you money, because you think you can make a movie...

Is any of this sinking in how unrealistic your ideas about external funding would go?

Well it's not that I was planning on external funding, it's just that people tell me to use that instead of my own, and they say I need to be more open minded to getting external funding and that I need to try harder. So I am trying to take other people's advice who want to help as well.

But I didn't think I could get external funding likely.

As for directing or producing someone else's movie, would someone else allow me to produce or direct their movie without having done a feature myself, yet?

Ryan, you know the answers. One point. How many times do you misunderstand what we all say? Lots and lots. Have you not come to realise your interpretation all skills at dreadful. Not your fault, but after misunderstanding so many times, can you trust yourself when it comes to advice people give. It strikes me that people are actually saying they will not give you money for pie in the sky projects and suggest you just get money elsewhere, as in they are saying you are uninvestable in. They know you in the flesh, fa better than us, and they won't invest. Surely you realise this? You are in the classic catch 22 situation. A good movie to study.

Until you have made a good product that has recouped investment, people see it as very risky. Once you have made money, you make more with the next.

Frankly, we have already worked you out from your posts. I doubt none of us would ever invest in one of your crazy pie in the sky projects. This is why locally you cannot get investors. They see no return, or even guarantee you'd even shoot anything! You talk and think, but that's it!

Let's talk facts. How much have you got in the bank committed to your next project? A grand? 10 grand? An investor wants you to risk your own money too.

Why would they give youninvestmentbat all? Track record is terrible. Success rate is terrible. Communications simply dreadful. Talent? No idea because you don't seem to have any area where you excel? Please tell us we're wrong. Is there some talent we don't know about? Do you have dragons den on Canadian TV? If so how would you do?

I know someone who got directing a feature film after writing and directing a single short film (this had a budget a lot larger than your new 10k feature budget, but it was shot on film and people got paid, although not their normal rates ). They wrote the feature's screenplay based on a play, however, he also had a producer on board who had the right connections to get a budget big enough to shoot 35mm on Panavision, with a full feature film crew.

This director had also worked as an art director on a small number of films and I believe the theatre.

The most important part of a producer's job is getting the funding in place, if they're not involved in that they're basically a production manager.

You don't need a track record to be a producer, but you need business, sales, legal skills and be good at handling people, so that you can put together deals in a tough industry.

If looking for external funding, you'll probably need first money, which may prove difficult without your personal seed money. However, you do need to convince them that this is a viable project with a market, which will be the hard part.. .

Oh okay, makes sense. I was thinking of hiring a producer to help, if that would be a good idea.

You don't have the funds to hire a producer, you can get someone to help, but being a producer is a speculative occupation, so they don't get paid until they get the funding in place.

Don't confuse being a production manager with being a producer, they're different jobs.

Again, all this sounds like a social chat on a forum, rather than you actually doing anything to progress your film in the real world. The "if that would be a good idea" line (repeated again) just gives the impression that you haven't much of a clue and it's more about the forum time, going around in endless circles.

I think that's just how he talks. He ends almost every sentence he writes with "if that's best," "if that's a good idea," "I thought", etc. Don't know if it's just a personal quirk or if he really means each and every one of those qualifiers, i.e. uncertainty in almost everything.

Oh well I just want to do what's best. I could not end the sentence that way, but then it just sounds like I am making decisions for myself rather than trying to seek the best ideas and advice.

And yes I know a producer and a PM are two different jobs, but that is why I said maybe I should hire a producer, because the producer is the one who does the budget, don't they? Or I read the line producer does if that's true.

It sounds like you want a production manager or a line producer (they're basically the same) if you just want a budget. A producer does more than just the budget, it's not their main role, they may do it or get a production manager to do one, depending on how big their company is and how they personally work.

In the end, you will need to make decisions for yourself. Appearing indecisive is fatal.

Oh okay thanks. Well yes I would want that then.

I want to make decisions for myself, it's just I want I appreciate the advice on here, as well, and do not want to ignore it and do my own thing. But I do need to make some decisions for myself, yes.

One thing in the budget I have been considering in the shooting plan is perhaps it would cost less money to buy three cameras, and shoot with them all simultaneously, hoping to get shoots done faster, rather than pay everyone to work a longer shoot with one camera?

Shooting multi camera will cut down on the shooting time. However, you still don't seem to have taken on board that, with a 10k budget, you won't have enough money to pay people on a feature film, You might on a short, but a feature film will take longer and, with 3 cameras, you've increased your camera crew,

There are other costs like insurance, location rental, costumes, art direction, food, etc, which will quickly eat into your budget, unless you're extremely good at getting some of these items for free. I'm not saying you cant do that, but it's time consuming and you may get a day, but getting longer gets more difficult.

I would be highly skeptical of anything he says. He’ll hire a producer, buy three cameras, etc and yet he has a 10k budget. I find it unbelievable that someone who hasn’t held a steady job could fund any amount out of their savings. Of all the time he has been here he hasn’t made one major purchase. It’s all just talk. I honestly would be more surprised if this movie ever got made.

Yes, buying 3 cameras (I assume BM pocket cinema 4K) and their lenses and tripods etc would quickly eat up his limited budget. The whole enterprise certainly has the feeling of fantasy filmmaking or, at the very least, someone who throws out stuff without really thinking things out.

Regarding the spending, I suspect people around Ryan want to protect him from himself.

I agree more money isn't the answer especially in his case and people close to him are doing the right thing to protect him from himself. With a poor script, acting, and direction more money would simply yield a more polished bad movie.

Understanding how he thinks it's not hard figure out his plan with the three cameras. He's already alluded to it about shooting faster. I'm sure his idea behind the 3 cameras is to shoot 3x as fast, cutting his shoot time and his labor cost by a third. That's the plan right?

The smarter plan would be to get a reduced rental rate on the bare minimum equipment for 3 weeks and work as efficiently as possible in the time period.

My experience of multi camera is that it often makes things more expensive and longwinded. He has trouble finding one decent cameraman, and now he needs three. Planning multicamera positions is tough, and the director also needs to direct the talent to the right camera, which when it goes wrong, makes the editor pull their hair out. If the idea is one main camera and a couple locked off and wider for cutting to when the main camera shot doesn't work, then a couple of cheap Chinese Gopro type cameras would do that!

3 streams to edit with instead of one is a totally different task.

Ryan - where exactly will you find this elusive producer, capable of generating income streams and yet working for very little? Have you actually made any progress? You had a poor script, poor actors, no equipment, no locations, and poor technical people, and some of these might turn up for the shoot, if they have nothing better to do. What has changed?

Oh well I wanted a producer who knows more about the budgeting side to help with budgeting. I haven't found a producer yet but I did attract the interest of other filmmakers I worked with before, who would be working behind the camera, so to speak, such as someone I know who can pull focus and another person I know who has done production audio for me before. I haven't looked for new actors yet because I wanted to get other things done such as script changes first. I made some improvements to the story, as well as trying to keep the budget less in the script. Then I will hand the script to a script consultant to make further changes for improving.

As for multiple cameras, I was going by the experience I had on a multi-cam shoot. So far other people's projects I have helped work on, where a single camera set up, accept for one that was multi-cam, and I noticed the shoots got finished quite a bit faster, so I thought that might help and maybe a better investment, then spending the money on paying people for more shoot days with a single camera set up. I thought maybe 3 camera people were worth it, compared to more shoot days with one person.

But I was going by the experience I had before where things went faster. But mostly right now, I am delayed on actual shooting because of covid so far, so I wanted to take the time to do script improvements I figured.

Two cameras would create less issues than 3 with lighting etc, it's not usual to have A and B cameras on a feature film. Also, when you get into more cameras the film tends to look like television, which is a serious risk on what sounds like a dialogue heavy film.

You also don't have the experienced multi camera operators and camera pedestals that the 1960s TV dramas used to create surprisingly daring camera moves and shots in their thrillers. Using more cameras, without the resources, risks everything becoming like a cheap daytime soap.

Oh okay thanks. Sure I can just do two if that is better. I feel some of the scenes will only be able to use 2 because in some of the storyboards, you would see a 3rd one in one of the shots.

When it was said before that 3 streams in the editing would be a different beast, do I have to use 3 streams or 2 if I use 2 cameras, or couldn't I just edit the way I always have been still?

Editing depends on the scene, it also depends on how you wish to cut the action.

With the risk of a camera appearing in shot, I don't know why you suggested 3 cameras, it sounds like you haven't thought anything out, It's the job of a director to think these things out in advance.

I mean I can use 3 cameras in some of the shots set ups, not all. It depends on the storyboards. For some we can use 3, some not I would say.

Sounds idiotic you have a barebones budget but all you can think about how you need three cameras. In addition to needing three competent operators.

But if it saves on shoot time, such as it did in past experience on someone else's movie, it means less days and therefore less money. If I only have one camera operator, that equals more shoot days and more money, doesn't it? It just seems of every idea I think of to get the shoot done faster, for less shoot days, is not good. Does this mean I shouldn't try to come up with any ideas on how to get the shooting schedule down and just live with it being a longer shoot?

Just cut down on the number of shots if you don't have enough time, You suddenly seem to have jumped from early 1960s, with the scene captured in scope, with all the actors interacting, to shooting TV type drama. Having 3 cameras is going to restrict shooting that way unless you've got fairly large rooms.

Just cut down on the number of shots if you don't have enough time, You suddenly seem to have jumped from early 1960s, with the scene captured in scope, with all the actors interacting, to shooting TV type drama. Having 3 cameras is going to restrict shooting that way unless you've got fairly large rooms.

Oh well I thought one of the cameras would still be for the master shot, with all the actors interacting, wouldn't it?

But yes if 3 cameras is too much, then I can just stick with one. But I'm not shooting in scope though. I have decided go with 1.85:1 because I thought it would give me more vertical height for some shots I wanted, plus it would make it so I don't need to have as many extras in some shots, or as much set decoration, if the aspect ratio is not so wide.

For every reason you can give for multi camera I can give against so at best it's a net zero.

Cons:
1. Expense: You need multi operators, the cost of the equipment will triple, not only will you need 3 cameras, you will need 3 lenses, monitors, memory cards, batteries, tripods, cages, operators, etc. You could easily spend you're entire budget just on the cameras and accessories.

2. Complexity: You will have triple the footage to review and grade. They all need to match in exposure and color. All of the takes and cameras will need to be labeled managed and synced. You'll need to store and backup triple the footage (if its raw that's no joke).

3. Time: you will need to transport, setup and break down triple the cameras for every shoot. Actors need know which is the main camera and you'll need to keep the cameras out of each other shot, you'll also need keep track of 3 cameras for the 180 rule.

So how is three cameras saving you time and money?

For every reason you can give for multi camera I can give against so at best it's a net zero.

Cons:
1. Expense: You need multi operators, the cost of the equipment will triple, not only will you need 3 cameras, you will need 3 lenses, monitors, memory cards, batteries, tripods, cages, operators, etc. You could easily spend you're entire budget just on the cameras and accessories.

2. Complexity: You will have triple the footage to review and grade. They all need to match in exposure and color. All of the takes and cameras will need to be labeled managed and synced. You'll need to store and backup triple the footage (if its raw that's no joke).

3. Time: you will need to transport, setup and break down triple the cameras for every shoot. Actors need know which is the main camera and you'll need to keep the cameras out of each other shot, you'll also need keep track of 3 cameras for the 180 rule.

So how is three cameras saving you time and money?

Oh okay, well I was trying to save time and money cause it means less shoot days and less days to pay people for the extra shoot days. So I still thought I might save more if there is less days.

But I didn't think it would create more footage to go through in the editing though. Because if I used a single camera, I would still be getting all those same shots, but I would just be doing them one at time with a single camera. So I thought the amount of footage would be the same, because you are still moving a single camera around, getting all those same shots. So I don't see how the footage would add up to more. I also didn't think the 180 degree rule would be that hard with more than one camera, as long as you establish the line during the camera placement.

But if multiple cameras does not save you time and money on extra shootdays, then why do productions that use them spend the extra money, when they can save on money then? Why don't those movies that use a 3 camera set up, just one one then to save money? What's the purpose?

Most of your points make sense about how it would be more money, but if it's more money, than why do other productions do it then and not try to save on money?

The first and most important question I will not research for you is the cost of the equipment. If three outfitted cameras consumes most of your budget then what would be the point of debating the other points? Also include the extra labor of manning them. Get back to us with the cost.

Oh okay, thanks, good point.

Well how do other filmmakers keep the cost of their first features down so low? If you are forced to, what the ways to do it then? I was watching Film Riot, and Ryan Connolly goes through all his projects and talks about the way he got them all shot on microbudgets is he had everyone work for free, but I really do not see that as a good thing though, and want to pay, if possible.

On your proposed budget you can't afford to pay people for the amount of time it takes to shoot a feature, even with 3 cameras. Especially if a good percentage of your budget is being spent on buying kit. I'm working on the assumption that each person will get paid the rate everyone used to get paid on shorts in the Irish Republic - 50 Euros a day. BTW that wouldn't be legal in the UK these days because of the minimum wage.

Good professional actors may want the union minimum, which is higher.

People working for free is the only way you can shoot on micro budget films.

Ryan, dude, there are literally books with titles like "how to make a film for no money". Why not buy one and read it? Hell of a lot cheaper than just about any mistake you might make that'll cost you big. Also Robert Rodriguez has a VERY well-known book, "Rebel Without a Crew", that in excruciating detail talks about the making of El Mariachi and exactly how he did it for very little (post stuff aside). Why not read that?

Oh okay. How do other filmmakers get by with spending so much less money, like in Film Riot for example, or how do they convince people to work for less?

They manage because the film maker can sell themselves and their project - the cast and crew are investors in the film by working for free. In doing so, People think that it's worthwhile as a credit, experience or this person is on the way up and they may get work on one of their films with a proper budget. The latter tends not to happen because the producers hire experienced people.

I wasn't going to get involved in this, but, just watch "Bowfinger".

Oh okay well I can try to sell it better to people then and hopefully that will work. I was told before that I need to get better actors and a better DP, so hopefully I can try to do so, but still stick to a lower budget, just by selling it more.

"Following" also shows you how to do this for very little money - shooting at weekends with friends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Following

You seem to perpetually be on the cusp of filming this movie. When are you going to start filming? Back in February you were talking of buying a Black Magic Pocket camera...

It’s not a bad idea to research and read books that describe methods used to save money on small independent films. Obviously just because someone did something, doesn’t mean you will be able. You have to have a desirable project and be a charismatic person to attract people to work for free or share in the future potential profits. But you don’t have these qualities...

You say you’ll hire and buy everything you need then you say you don’t have the money then you’ll get external funding but then you can’t then you find yourself back at square one, film with your friends on an old dslr. You’ve been going around in circles for years chasing your tail. Do you enjoy getting yourself into these intractable problems?

From my observation you seem to enjoy most planning and talking about what you might do instead of actually doing it. The years are flying by. Are you going to be happy looking back when you’re old at all the years spent talking?

Oh okay yes I do want to make it. I wanted to start this year earlier, but then covid got in the way. It's been hard to make it because of that so far, so I thought I would use the time to cut down the budget if possible, as well as script changes to improve.

But I do want to do it, just not sure how with this covid problem lately.

As for shooting with friends on weekends, my friends don't know how to do the filmmaking jobs though, so shouldn't I get people who have experience filling the roles though? I've been told before don't use friends, and past experience suggests to use people with more experience, if that's true...

Multicamera is good when you are shooting things that cannot be re-done. Set that gets damaged, explosions, riot scenes, boxing match scenes (as in Rocky type movies) Anything that involves lots and lots of people and things. It saves no time at all on a normal scene because the Director cannot direct Multicam without becoming a TV director - skilled at looking at multiple streams, and then you need a floor manager to get the talent acting to the right camera, otherwise, you end up with three times the material shot, but no guarantee ANY of them captured exactly what you wanted. You then have to plan every shot to cover the movement and requirement of each camera, and then at the end of the shot you need to assess if it worked. If I was a director with no track record, finding it hard, and not having trained actors, then is inc reading workload x 3 a sensible idea? No - not ever!

Oh okay thanks, I can just use a single camera then. But I was told I need trained actors before for the product to be good, so I would still try to attract them.

But it seems that everytime I try to come up with new ways to get things done faster, such as multicam, or other things I have come up with, it seems that everything I come up with to try to solve problems, causes other problems. So maybe I should stop trying to think outside the box, and just keep doing what I have been doing before then?

I suspect Christopher Nolan's friends were more talented than your friends are, that's something you to need to work out. I assume that the people you make the films with aren't friends. To do this, all you need are a group of people with common interests, how you collect them is up to you, it's part of making these small budget films. No one is going to give you the answers, you know your area.

Unfortunately, I suspect you don't have Nolan's skill set, in that he had the photographic knowledge to DP and direct a film on B&W 16mm shooting on an Arri 16BL.

Attracting trained actors or people who can give something to a part is part of what you do as a director. Casting the right people is one of the first steps. so you need to do the donkey work and not waste time procrastinating on forums.

Oh okay sure. There is one director I worked with before, and the AD from his movie, who said they were both interested in my script, and helping out, but of course I would still need a DP and PSM, or people more familiar in those areas. But I could still use the talents of those two to help out though.

Stop this crazy fixation with trying to crew your project like a major movie - it simply isn't. You are maddening in the need to give people professional titles and professional roles when what you really need is a reduced headcount made up of just a few people who know what they're doing. Giving people titles they don't deserve is amateurish in the extreme. What do you need? A director who knows how to direct and manage people. Somebody who understands cameras and somebody to capture your sound. Decent camera people will have an understanding of lighting, and the sound person will be competent at booming, recording and fitting personal mics and handling radio. Other roles can be done by wives, girlfriends, husbands and relatives with proper instruction. Your cameraman is probably NOT a Director of Photography - they operate the camera and do what the director asks for. You don't need supervisors, or producers, or any of the other silly terms you use. You MUST accept that it's an amateur project. Even a professional with an empty diary is going to be working in an amateur status if they're not being paid. They may act professionally, but have to deal with keen amateurs.

If you audition amateur actors - what are you looking for? Somebody who has stacks of pro acting experience, or somebody who has dates free and can hopefully learn their lines.

Stop pretending to be running a proper production company, because you are a keen film-maker frustrated by working with people as green as you are.

Oh okay, well I thought for a crew I would need a few people. Someone who knows the cinematography, lighting and camera, someone to do the audio, an assistant director to me, if I can and someone who can do the make up. I can try to do the wardrobe and production design myself, with the cinematographer if I have to, but I could use make up as well, I figure.

But as for actors, are you saying I should work with less experienced ones?

The problem with accepting that it's an amateur project, is that I was told before that my projects look too amateur. So therefore, wouldn't it be reasonable to want to not make it amateur therefore, and try to get away from that? It's just if I keep doing the same thing over and over, it will always turn out bad I feel, so should I not try a different approach, and not try to make it amateur?

You work with what you've got, find people who have the right skills or who are willing to learn them. I used a civil engineering student on one of my early films and he was a Swiss army knife of skills.

Cast the right people for the parts, use non actors if they're right for the role. That's all part of casting these things. Just make sure they're reliable.

Oh okay sure. I was going to ask a certain DP that I worked with before on someone else's feature, but he is more use to shooting documentary style cinematography, and not sure if that would be right for mine, but maybe he could still be good for my style of script maybe...

You won't know unless you ask them. You're not going to get a DP with vast feature experience and coming from a documentary background isn't unusual for those working on major feature films.

You don't need to ask on forums for an opinion about people we nothing about, these are decisions that you should be making on your own.

Oh okay for sure. I don't know if I need vast experience as long as they can do feature film genre cinematography as opposed to documentary style cinematography of course.

This is the problem.
I don't know if I need vast experience as long as they can do feature film genre cinematography as opposed to documentary style cinematography of course.
To get feature film genre cinematography requires quite a large amount of experience. It requires equipment that is used in a quite unique way. Do you actually have these people available? In my own area, for example, I can think of nobody who is likely to want to work on small projects with arms tied firmly behind their back.

Have you had many people promise to do your projects who walk away, or backtrack on what was promised.

I really cannot imagine how you will schedule your movie with so many people saying they will contribute, on vastly reduced professional rates, with no contracts, and actually turn up when normal fees for other projects appear?

How on earth can you secure quality people without paying them properly??