Do I tend to overthink things in filmmaking?

[Josh Bass]

If Ryan isn't already a part of that, I'm going to facepalm so hard I shatter my hand.

[Rainer Listing]

I shouldn't comment because this has become really silly, but just in case it's not a comedy, If I needed a court building, for example, all low-no budget:
i) least preferred option: greenscreen the set, which of course I wouldn't, tacky
ii) It's drama, a court is just a building with pillars and an After Effects sign on the pediment and brass sign near the entrance saying "Court". The School of Arts building in my town looks more like a cliché court than the actual court anyway.
iii) I could use an actual court building in a country town where the one-time court has been converted into a local art gallery. Might have to buy a painting.
iv) preferred option, I could film the local court from the outside, but not from the steps without permission, which I'm pretty sure the court clerk would give if I explained what I wanted and was only going to be filming at weekends.
(Then there's stock footage *** idea***might get and post some. ***Idea*** Write a script: "a dysfunctional filmmaker explores options for a courtroom drama". Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.)

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Rainer those are all good suggestions. Some thing Ryan should have come up with on his own. Ask for permission. If it’s something as simple as the main character entering the court house then film him with dslr, wide shot of facade, climbing the stairs, reach to open the door, then cut to another building interior... Any official government building with columns would do if you weren’t allowed to film outside. Honestly it be easier if we flew out there and filmed and directed his movie for him.

[Greg Miller]

Perhaps Ryan is hoping to publish a book "Film Making For Dummies" and has figured out how to get us to write it for him.

As I implied earlier, when I gave him a multiple choice question, I think he is more interested in talking about making a film, than he is in making a film.

Possible future questions:

What to do if the cast starts cursing at me and all walk off the set?

What to do if my alarm clock doesn't ring, and I sleep through the shoot?

What to do if it rains?

What to do if a terrorist throttles me and smashes my camera with a baseball bat?

What to do if there's an earthquake in California?

What to do if a large fly lands on one of the cast's head while he's delivering his lines (oh, wait, that happened this past Wednesday night) ....

[Josh Bass]

While it is always fun (and very human) to gently mock others I am pretty sure all of this stems from him being on the spectrum, being a person who practically needs hard and rules in everything he does, and trying to do something (filmmaking) where a) there are no real rules, only guidelines and b) the unexpected pops up all the time and has to be dealt with quickly and often creatively.

[Ryan Elder]

Well the only reason I feel there are rules, is because everyone else acts like their are rules. If someone says I did something incorrect in filmmaking, than that implies to me that there must be rules. Because if there are no rules, then there would be no incorrectness. Unless I am wrong?

[Rainer Listing]

The only rule in filmmaking is that there are no rules.

[Greg Miller]

Ryan, it seems to me that's a rather binary view: right or wrong. There is a range of possibilities that are less than perfect. In fact there may be no "perfect" that works in every case. People are simply suggesting things that have worked for them in various circumstances. If you find that a lot of the suggestions are similar, they probably indicate good advice to try. I don't know whether that's the same as "rules"; I guess that's a matter of definition. You might not get arrested if you don't follow the suggestions. But if you do follow them, you might have less frustration and more success than you seem to have had in the past.

As I've suggested before, it's a shame you can't find someone in your area who has been somewhat successful, and in some way work on their crew, or apprentice with them, for a year. Perhaps you'd see a lot of this practical way of dealing with common situations, and it would become more intuitive to you.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay. Well I have helped people out on there productions, but I feel I cannot do things the way they do them. For example, one filmmaker I helped out on two features so far, he shoots all his scenes multicamera, and gets things done a lot faster that way.

But I don't feel I could shoot that way for example. There is also another filmmaker I helped out but her way of working is very different than what I think would work for me. So I feel I may have to come up with my own way of working, compared to others, unless I should try things like the multicam style for example...

He also shot a whole scene guerilla style in a public place without permission but he used telephoto lenses, so people wouldn't know he was shooting a scene because the scene was much further away. But he used lav mics, which would cost more than my boom mic I already have, which I was hoping to work with instead, since I payed for it...

[Ryan Elder]

Actually one filmmaker I am helping with on his first feature film was funded by investors, and given over 2 million dollars so far to make it. And that got me thinking maybe I should apply for funding as well, because I didn't think someone who has only made a couple of short of films could get 2 million. He has to co-direct as a result of the funding, but trying to see funding from investors a good idea, even if it means you have to co-direct?

[Josh Bass]

I think you're failing to understand WHY he got funding. It was probably because his body of work prior to that film showed that he knew what he was doing to the extent that others were willing to invest in him, betting on making more money out of it. He may also have shown them a "prospectus" (look it up).

Unfortunately, all of your work so far has demonstrated exactly the opposite and I highly doubt you would be able to get funding in any amount that way.

[Ryan Elder]

I only saw one of his short films before, I didn't think the acting in it was any better than mine, same with the camera and lighting work, which is why I was surprised. However, I only saw that one short of his so far. But maybe they were willing to fund him in spite of just the one short because they liked the script enough. And maybe they thought that the director would do a much better job, if the funding gives him and us more actors to choose from a more DPs to choose from, on a bigger budget.

But I was also wondering, is it worth it to get funding, if it means you are co-directing with someone else, they give you?

[Brian Drysdale]

Part of getting funding is selling yourself and the script, also having the right contacts within your network. They will also like the script and believe that there's a market for a film from that script.

They will ignore the acting in a short and the technical aspects to a certain extent if they like they way the director told the stroy. The technical aspects will be overcome because there will be a professional crew working on the film and the funders will have their executive producer(s) having oversight.

You may find the the people who worked on their shorts won't get the same jobs on the feature film. That's often the case when a proper funding falls into place. From the sounds of it they didn't believe he had enough experience, so they got a co director.

I know someone who got to write and direct a feature film (through Working Title) after one short and they didn't have to co-direct, However, they had the support of a producer who os now an A list executive producer in LA.

If you want to have a career as a film director you may have to play the politics and have a co-director for a first feature.

All you've shown in your above messages are your limitations. I don't understand why you can't shoot multi camera, since that makes a lot of sense if you've got a limited schedule, It's not more complicated than shooting single camera and isn't unusual on major feature films.

[Paul R Johnson]

People get funding when they complete a package of documents that convince a panel it's a worthy project. The ingredients of a project are not considered because the budget buys these in. The idea, the purposes and the individual at looked at very very closely.

Why would a successful application need you? If he has the budget, he gets the best people, the best technical package and the best support to make it. What would you bring to the table? That skills audit you refuse to do comes up again.

You sadly have raised your expectations so high your abilities cannot keep up. You refuse to even consider anything negative. We constantly try to reign back your crazy ideas and ground you into getting the basic right, but you sweep these suggestions away and move on to the next idea, well outside your competence. Have you got any film making roles left to misunderstand?

You see another film maker getting funding but cannot understand why? We can! Until you can see it yourself, we really cannot help. I thought you realised your limitations and merely didn't wish to talk about them. Now I realise that sadly, you have still not realised that your quest to be a film-maker is limited by your ability and most importantly, your understanding of the entire business.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

People get funding when they complete a package of documents that convince a panel it's a worthy project. The ingredients of a project are not considered because the budget buys these in. The idea, the purposes and the individual at looked at very very closely.

Why would a successful application need you? If he has the budget, he gets the best people, the best technical package and the best support to make it. What would you bring to the table? That skills audit you refuse to do comes up again.

You sadly have raised your expectations so high your abilities cannot keep up. You refuse to even consider anything negative. We constantly try to reign back your crazy ideas and ground you into getting the basic right, but you sweep these suggestions away and move on to the next idea, well outside your competence. Have you got any film making roles left to misunderstand?

You see another film maker getting funding but cannot understand why? We can! Until you can see it yourself, we really cannot help. I thought you realised your limitations and merely didn't wish to talk about them. Now I realise that sadly, you have still not realised that your quest to be a film-maker is limited by your ability and most importantly, your understanding of the entire business.

Oh okay, I thought investors would most likely go by past work, rather than how you fill out the documents, so to speak. I am guessing he wants to still work with me because of our prior working relationship perhaps.

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

Part of getting funding is selling yourself and the script, also having the right contacts within your network. They will also like the script and believe that there's a market for a film from that script.

They will ignore the acting in a short and the technical aspects to a certain extent if they like they way the director told the stroy. The technical aspects will be overcome because there will be a professional crew working on the film and the funders will have their executive producer(s) having oversight.

You may find the the people who worked on their shorts won't get the same jobs on the feature film. That's often the case when a proper funding falls into place. From the sounds of it they didn't believe he had enough experience, so they got a co director.

I know someone who got to write and direct a feature film (through Working Title) after one short and they didn't have to co-direct, However, they had the support of a producer who os now an A list executive producer in LA.

If you want to have a career as a film director you may have to play the politics and have a co-director for a first feature.

All you've shown in your above messages are your limitations. I don't understand why you can't shoot multi camera, since that makes a lot of sense if you've got a limited schedule, It's not more complicated than shooting single camera and isn't unusual on major feature films.

I have no problem working with a co-director if I was asking for funding, it's just I was told on here before, working with a co-director is a bad idea. I also thought I could not shoot multi-camera, because it would cost more money for more camera operators, and I was told on here before that it would cost more money, unless it would not?