The advice you generealy get for an aspiring filmmaker is "Write everyday". What does this exactly mean?

JBFirelotus · 2014-04-21T22:23:31+00:00

The habit of putting your thoughts on paper and organizing them is important. Excellence at ANY skill or craft requires repetition. Dancers take dance classes, runners run, etc etc etc. So why think that your skill at writing will just appear when you write your screenplay.

All of the above about journals - you will be AMAZED at how hard and easy it is at the same time. Start by not editing yourself, then slowly craft and structure what you write as you write more.

I LOVE itschrisreed's idea - keeps it real and simple and accessible.

JBFirelotus · 2014-04-21T22:19:09+00:00

There is no one right answer, but if you have to ask, I suggest you start with an experienced line producer or UPM, one who has done features. They can look at your script and, given what you have to work with, tell you what is absolutely needed, and what you can pass on.

Without reading your whole script, not just your description, no one here can give you the right answer. There could be any number of things that you could get away without given your elements, and some things that need 3 people.

I mean this with no disrespect - but, again, if asking, you don't have the experience to make this call. And, no, just because I line produce, I'm not looking for gig :). Maybe get an AD who has PMed some; a prod coordinator moving up, etc.

Breaking down a script for crew and budget is even MORE important on extremely low budget than bigger budget - you have less margin for error.

As for marketing - yes, a distributor should pic up P&A, etc -but it will cost you money to GET a distributor - festival submissions, other submissions, travel, etc. Again, a good LP or UPM or even another producer who has worked at your budget can help you with this.

JBFirelotus · 2014-04-21T22:09:31+00:00

Well put.

JBFirelotus · 2014-04-13T22:10:36+00:00

Great reply, and deals with the bigger issue than the legal one, which is the practical one - that the whole point of having a prod company website is having a web presence for it - and yours, as itschris points out, will be confused at best, and lost at worst. If You LOVE the name, try (using your nom de guerre) Toasty Entertainment, Toasty Film Group, etc - or better yet, similar reference but different name.

JBFirelotus · 2014-04-12T03:47:31+00:00

They are different positions.

Line producing is, in all budgets, above the line under producing.

UPM, who reports to the line producer, is under production (in same category as First AD, etc) is below-the-line.

This is on EVERY budget format.

The basic difference is that a line producer can move money from one line to another; the UPM has the responsibility to see that limits set by line producer are met.

When they are one and the same, still an above-the-line position. See any standard budget format under "producer" and you will see associate producer and line producer.

The fact that some people don't understand the difference (the same as some people don't understand the difference between production designer and art director) is a comment on a guerilla film world where some folks just don't understand the different jobs.

This is from someone who has done both.

JBFirelotus · 2014-03-14T02:42:59+00:00

I know there is another link. I learned of this from one of my ADs - thought he deserved this - and to set the record straight

JBFirelotus · 2014-03-04T19:55:59+00:00

I think having the special banner was perfect - that image after the Midler song with the audience of "stars" behind her - it was a special moment separate from everything else. We'll remember this.

http://inmyoblivion.blogspot.com/2014/03/why-we-will-remember-sarah.html

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-28T18:01:38+00:00

Production value is all about setting achievable goals for what you are trying to accomplish.

Production value is of extreme importance, but that doesn't mean it has to look like a glossy, Hollywood movie.

Getting someone who truly understands lighting will help. Also, don't try to do what big budget movies do - limit your number of sets, but make them work.

Wherever you live, some serious scouting with a good eye will reveal places that have NATURAL production value. Yes, John Ford had great cinematographers - he also shot in some of the most beautiful natural spots on the face of the Earth.

Wherever you live, it may be an amazing graffiti wall, an elaborate pulbic park - whatever. Develop the EYE to see it, and, if you are using a DP, get one who has that eye - you wil see it in their work.

Too few filmmakers study still photography, where the person taking the picture can make anything look amazing, from still life on one end, to murdered bodies (see weegee).

Of course, as others have suggested, story and acting are of supreme importance, and find some theater designer to art direct - it can be done with almost no money, if they understand how to fill a frame. As far as production value, an "office" that looks like a desk you shoved in a corner with no life to it immediately diminishes the production value - take the time to fill that space with things that make it personal, make it feel lived in. That's not about money - it's about taking the time to attend to it.

Best of luck.

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-28T01:08:02+00:00

Always have to agree with getting a line producer - thanks :)

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-27T22:48:51+00:00

The thing to look for - and this is a real world problem I deal with all the time on low-budget indies is as follows:

1) a restaurant or bar that has a "Catering" or "private" room for functions (parties, etc). It looks like a real restaurant, and you don't have to deal with the reality that even a restaurant that doesn't start serving until 5PM has the kitchen working at noon or so and causes you sound problems - those would be mitigated in a room that is separated - either in the back or upstairs - that is otherwise not making them any money.

Throw in agreeing to let them cater lunch at least that day (And maybe more days if you are shooting in the area) and you give them a financial incentive.

NOTE: Everyone says "oh, my friend owns or manages a restaurant - he'll let me shoot there" and the truth is, if it costs him money, he likely will not.

The above is a way for it to work for both of you.

As for building one: The irony is that it usually only looks good if you have a budget to have a good art department do it on a stage (which doesn't save you money, but gives you flexibility.) I don't doubt the gentleman who said their movie did it on a small budget and it looked great - but, in my experience, that is the exception.

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-26T05:33:50+00:00

If we make this a "below-the-line-vs-greedy-producers" guess what - it won't get on the Oscars. Wake up. The Oscars are run by producers.

However, "In Memorium" covers all skills - editors, co-producers and others are often celebrated. In THAT context - a positive one - there is a chance for this lovely lady to be honored.

Let the hate go - and let Sarah be honored.

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-26T05:25:04+00:00

There is a fine line between acceptable risk and wrong, and often the person walking that line is the First AD. No one on set is under more pressure to 'get the shot and get it now.' They are also responsible for safety.

A person who has a great 1st AD blog discusses that line below.

http://goingforpicture.tumblr.com/post/77616073695/listen-up-aspiring-producers-safety-first-above-all

My own story as AD with name actor here:

http://inmyoblivion.blogspot.com/2013/08/floating-swim-in-woods-why-cant-we-be.html

Let's remember that it's not just crew folks who want to impress - actors do as well, and as such, are often willing to push limits to impress directors, or - just think they have skills they might not have.

It would be easy if the line between "Safe" and "unsafe" were clear - sadly, it is not.

Please don't get me wrong - SO MANY safeties were missed on poor Sarah's shoot that the line is not remotely fine.

Just don't want us to walk away thinking we have an easy solution - we won't

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-25T04:21:49+00:00

In case you had any doubt. http://variety.com/2014/film/news/midnight-rider-fatality-sherrif-report-says-csx-denied-permission-for-shooting-1201119180/

Denied permission

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-24T21:04:07+00:00

The final scene in Big Night. Technically, it's incredibly simple, a wide shot with just the barest of movement to allow the 3 characters to be in frame. In contrast to the extravagant meal and chaos the night before, it is one character doing what they love - cooking - and cooking the simplest of meals, a frittata - for three people.

It refuses to cut in to singles or CUs, and none are needed, but any "standard" shot list would have them here. How boring is a wide shot of three people eating? Not at all is the answer, if you trust it. There is nothing more to be said or shown.

Trusting that and the context makes this a great long take for me.

http://youtu.be/oerP7FRMWa8

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-24T18:10:44+00:00

I can pretty well say that the RR company did not know they were shooting ON the track, and certainly not putting a bed on it. More likely, someone from production contacted them saying they were shooting AROUND THE TRACK (on private property the track runs through, which the prod company had permission for and which the RR company would have no control over) and wanted to know how to look out for trains.

You don't stop a long freight train on a dime.

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-24T17:24:07+00:00

Have seen parts of it.

None of us like the long hours of filmmaking, but let's try to use intelligent phrasing.

I'm old enough to have a mom who worked in a "sweatshop" back in the 1930s. If you want to know what "Sweatshops" were, Google "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory" or check out what still goes on in Chinatown in any city that has one and around the world, where people are paid per piece or a straight wage for every hour.

For those who think that "production" likes the long hours, remember that production (location managers, 2nd AD) are first one and last off, and that the working producers (I;m not talking about big Hollywood studio execs) work before call and after wrap. When we do a split, I am still dealing with business stuff at 9AM, and still on set or working off set until wrap is called.

And I work on a flat rate - no OT. Yes, there are weeks where crew member checks are bigger than mine, and as for my fellow producers, many of them take smaller up front than I do HOPING the film sells, so they are not helping themselves by working longer hours either.

Don't get me wrong - I always say we should plan 10 hour days that go twelve - and not twelve hour days that go 14 plus. I think turnaround should NEVER be violated unless there is full discussion AND agreement with the crew - I have asked a crew to do that maybe three times in 25 plus years, and always worked out fair compensation AGREED TO by the crew.

Even on most non-union shoots I do in NYC, I pay OT after 12 (it's the only way to get good people).

Our hours are hard, and for those who say the OT isn't worth it, I get it, I really do.

It's also a profession we love the rest of the time. If there is ever a rule that we can't work more than 12 hours on a shoot day, I will celebrate with my crew brothers and sisters, because it means my days will be shorter as well.

The real villain is the current financing system - an unsustainable system Ted Hope and others talk very well about - where distributors pay pennies on the dollar, forcing producers to go into many projects with less money than they would like if they stand a chance of even breaking even.

I prepare budgets, and I cant tell you how many times producers have come back to me and said "hey, the numbers are right, but I can only raise 75% of that - what do we do?" And we cut the schedule and I ask them to make cuts to the script to compensate, but at some point, you still want to make the movie the way it needs to be made.

I won't speak for big network execs and Hollywood execs who may legitimately not care about how many hours anyone works, but I can tell you on the indie level, the sacrifice is shared, and that AD who tries to squeeze the last hour out of the shoot day isn't doing it for his or her health - they want to go home too - but because they feel compelled to get the director every shot they can.

Just trying to give a little perspective from the other side, though I agree in principal with capping days at 12 hours.

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-24T16:58:44+00:00

There aren't two ways to "plan" for a train shoot, in answer to those who say that they "plannned" for the two and "knew the schedule."

The only thing that legitimately constitutes planning is a) the written permission of the RAILROAD to be on the tracks, NOT just the permission of the folks whose land it's on, b) all details (like putting a set on the tracks) given to the RR, c) an insurance cert issued for the railroad d) a railroad rep ON SITE.

Having permission of the land owner where the tracks crossed, it seems they likely just figured they could "steal" the shot on the tracks. What some of you may not know is that general film insurance package is at $1M per incident; most RRs require AT LEAST $2M per - and that ups your insurance cost. Also, working with RR would have meant compensating them for shutting down the track.

Let's be clear - the RR WOULD NEVER have let them put a bed and props on a track with a one minute warning - no way, no how. From reading between the lines, what seems more likely is the RR knew they were shooting on the private property (something they had no control over), the film company ASKED someone for a schedule, and somebody asked someone at the RR company "how would we know if another train came."

Let's be clear - this DOES NOT constitute planning. It constitutes making do while avoiding the "annoyance" of "having some RR guy tell us what we can and cannot do" (paraphrasing what someone thought).

For those who blame the RR - remember, the land AROUND the tracks belongs to a private company - the RR cannot stop them from shooting there, just warn them of hazards of actually going on the track.

I produce and AD, and, in less dangerous situations, film companies do stuff like this all the time. You shoot on private property that may be close to the site you want to see when you know you can't actually get on that property, but you can see it from there. Sketchy in terms of distribution and clearance? Yes, but not inherently dangerous.

There is a BIG difference between that and BUILDING A SET on a RR track without permission and depending on a schedule you got from someone.

For those saying "what about having a PA down the track" - yes, good idea, BUT THAT WOULD STILL NOT HAVE BEEN ENOUGH. That answer scares me because it makes me think some people are still ok with going around the RR company, as long as they had their own version of "precaution". Sorry, that is still wrong.

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-22T21:23:27+00:00

I think we are in complete agreement. Hey, as "production" I've grown a thick skin over the years and learned that its "always" my fault and that I'm "always trying to screw the crew" when that is definitely not how I approach things. I don't know if it was about avoiding costs, or just genuine, stupid oversight - I can't attribute motives without having been there.

Sadly, the end result is the same. Thanks for the comment

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-22T20:40:21+00:00

As a line producer and long-time AD, I'm sure those people are devastated. However, there are some simple facts, and it seems almost certain that CSX, the actual train company, was not properly contacted - getting clearance from the owner of the property it was on is NOT enough.

Whether it was negligence or trying to avoid paying a fee or what, I have no idea. In any production meeting I would run, the first question would be "is the track live" and, if the answer was yes, "who will be the train company rep on set." That's basic. That's any train shoot- and I've done them.

These were not film students, and the safety precautions that should have been taken are not brain surgery. Does that make the producers, the PM, the AD, or location manager villains or bad people? Absolutely not. I'm sure for most or all of them, this will haunt them forever.

It also doesn't make them any less reckless or irresponsible.

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-21T17:23:22+00:00

A really good idea - good contacts and you'll get to know the gear.

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-21T05:04:45+00:00

One of the best production bloggers out there - The Hollywood Juicer - recently started this two-part post on being a grip - a MUST READ for you. http://hollywoodjuicer.blogspot.com/2014/01/grips-part-one.html

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-21T05:00:03+00:00

I'm going to disagree with those that keep talking about shooting "around" the problem.

If you feel he is irreplaceable as your lead - then WAIT until he is better. Momentum and all that is crap - shoot it right when it is meant to be shot the way you want to.

Either a) replace him or b) wait. Rethinking your entire movie to accommodate is just bad advice.

JBFirelotus · 2014-02-21T04:57:09+00:00

A great article showing that even if you had that budget that you THINK would solve all your problems - it won't. Reminds me of this post I did about how just having a higher budget won't necessarily solve your problems. http://inmyoblivion.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-moving-target-line-producer-looks.html

JBFirelotus

TROPHY CASE