Oh okay, well why do other directors bother to get so many more shots for a simple dialogue scene, if all you need is 1 or 2? Is it worth spending the extra money and time then, or why do producers let them get so many extra shots throughout a movie, if it's not necessary?

The number of shots depend on the style and nature of the film, together with dramatic content of the scene. Some will work as a single sweeping shot, while other are more about jagged exchanges.

Producers like more shots because it gives them more control during the edit. Remember, very few directors will get the final cut. That's why some extremely well known directors working in the Hollywood studio system shot only what they needed. It meant the studio couldn't interfere by changing things in the editing room.

Hitchcock did it by holding a script up in front of the lens, when he wanted to cut.. .

Oh okay, I just thought producers would want less shots than directors normally, since they are the ones with the money on the line, and trying to save on budget when they can.

Are your producers experienced in the movie field? You seem to assume that at your level you have to constantly work as if you are a major production company. A small enterprise simply doesn't work like this. In your movies you say it's a ryan wray production. It's your baby. At this level you don't have to work in this rigid way that is necessary when your production team is dozens of people and loads of actors. Do your producers even know what an edit suit even is? You have this thing about scripts and pages per day. Are you not really thinking in scenes rather than pages? You are going to say a library to film a scene that has two actors and will last three minutes on screen. So you look at the script and think we can do that in a morning, and hour for set up, a couple of hours for shooting then 45 mins to get packed away? Maybe you've done a read through with the cast locally? You know which sections are likely to cause trouble, so they've already rehearsed that bit till its sorted. The location is therefore all about technicalities.

Oh okay, I just thought producers would want less shots than directors normally, since they are the ones with the money on the line, and trying to save on budget when they can.

On funded productions, the producers rarely have their personal money on the line, it's the studios, the commissioner or other funders who have the money on the line. Producers are more concerned about staying on schedule, during the pre production the director will have informed the 1st assistant director and production manager how many shots they plan to shoot during the schedule planning.. It's during development when producers will invest their company's money in getting funding, buying options etc. Funding a film can get pretty complex, usually the number producers and executive producers reveals how complex.

The director will usually try to keep on schedule, although events may cause delays. It's line producers who try to save on budget, sometimes they may receive a percentage of the budget savings they make. However, it's not their job to decide on the number of shots.

It's when the production is behind schedule that the pressure comes to drop scenes, not just reduce the number of shots.

In TV drama, the power is often with the producers, the director is the hired help, who may not be that involved in the editing, since they're out shooting another episode.

..... and in Ryan's productions he is actually wearing so many hats it really shouldn't matter as he only has himself to deal with in the planning and production phases. Decisions are practical ones - you promised the location owner that you'd cause no disruption and be out and gone by 12.00, but at 14.00 you are still shooting scene 1, over and over again because the actors can't manage the dialogue, or the wall colour is blue not green, or the owner wants to unplug the light and make a cup of coffee from his only power outlet, or the costumes don't fit or, .................

Well one of the actors I've worked with, says that I would do a much better job, if I didn't try to fill so many hats, and I need more crew who can do more jobs, and I need a line producer as well, he said, so I can just concentrate on directing, and stop trying to be a jack of all trades, so I can master the one.

Unless you've got the experience it's difficult to do all the jobs. Many of them you shouldn't be doing on the same day as the filming, however, on very low budget productions you may have to do a number of the jobs at some point.

On the filming day, your main focus should be on directing, although, other decisions have to be made. If you're not the most flexible person when going with the flow, you need to do more planning in advance. Ensuring that you have a good relationship with the people lending you locations would be part of this advance work.

Being a director involves making full use of your people skills, especially if you've got a low budget.

Ryan this actor is spot on and it's what we've been saying for ages. One of the hardest skills to manage is delegation - finding the right people who will take on the individual skill areas and letting you direct like the Captain of the ship.

Oh okay, it's just I was advised on here before to make zero budget projects, and I find it difficult to get a lot of experienced people involved, who can handle different departments, on a zero budget production.

Ryan you've been advised on hundreds of subjects, yet you are surprised? Your real problem is scale. You want to make productions that need people to do these tasks but you don't have them, or cannot have them, but persist in the need to make them. You end up diluting it to the point it breaks. One moment you say you cannot afford it, but you've also told us that money is not the issue? Film making is always juggling compromises. If you have to be a one man band, that's not a killer. It just means you must temper scale and dump many ideas that are people heavy in favour of ones that are doable by you on your own.

Oh okay, well I can spend big enough money to bring people in once, but cannot do it again I don't think. So I can try it once and hope it turns out well. The actor says to just concentrate on one area, so I can spend the money once on it, if it's worth it.

Even on no/low budget films you can use other people as crew. The difference is they don't get paid to be the assistant director or art director or line producer/production manager or make up artist.

Be aware that actors often have a tenuous link with reality, so their priority will very different from say, the technical folk - equally, if you deal with musicians, they are of course the centre of the universe.

It's just one of the things to remember.