Why Aren't More of Us Producing Our Own Work?

I'm not because I don't have:

A. Funding

B. Equipment

C. Resources (actors, contacts, so forth...)

D. Time - I have three small children.

E. The know how on how to make a film look and sound good.

Those are my reasons, though I am a working script writer, albeit not a very highly paid one, but a paid one nonetheless and my stuff is getting produced so I guess you could say I'm trying to work my way up.

Someday when the kids are older and if I can actually get some decent funding then I'll probably give it a try, but for now, I'm just a writer.

simple answer - this is a writers' site not a filmmakers' site

Because Sundance gets 3-4,000 completed feature films per year from people who thought it was a good idea. Because there are so many unwanted, unwatched feature films out there already. Because, just as with screenplays, the supply swamps demand. Because if you want to raise money from other people you have to deal with the SEC. Because when your screenplay fails, you are out time and effort, but when your feature film flops you are out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and may have trashed your credit rating, career, marriage, etc.

See the threads concerning self-publishing. Same idea.

kullervo said:

Because Sundance gets 3-4,000 completed feature films per year from people who thought it was a good idea. Because there are so many unwanted, unwatched feature films out there already. Because, just as with screenplays, the supply swamps demand. Because if you want to raise money from other people you have to deal with the SEC. Because when your screenplay fails, you are out time and effort, but when your feature film flops you are out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and may have trashed your credit rating, career, marriage, etc.

See the threads concerning self-publishing. Same idea.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

That's why we need a serial killer who only preys on aspiring screenwriters and filmmakers.

Cull the herd, that's what I say. Cull the herd.

odocoileus said:

Exactly.

That's why we need a serial killer who only preys on aspiring screenwriters and filmmakers.

Cull the herd, that's what I say. Cull the herd.

Click to expand...

You are an original thinker.

Cull the herd? I thought that was what producers were suppose to do? Are all of these films that no one wants to see the fault of all of the writers or is the problem that most producers would recognize a great script or great idea if it fell on them? Don't believe me? Think about how long it took to get anyone to back films like Forest Gump (15 years), One Flew Over The Coo-Coo's Nest (so long that Kirk Douglas, who owned the rights to the book, became too old to do the part). So who's going to do the choosing when it comes time to do the culling? For every great script out there that can't get produced, why is there a swamp of terrible films out there?

Short answer is that it's very hard to make a good film

It's hard to make any kind of film. Almost no one sets out to make a bad one - keeping in mind the constraints of genre, budget, and intended audience.

For example, a lot of people think Tyler Perry's films suck. But his target audience loves them. They do billion dollar business. Yes, that's billion, with a "b".

Would I greenlight one of Tyler Perry's scripts? Without proof of the huge black audience he'd built up putting on his own plays in Atlanta and other Southern towns?

No way in the world would I greenlight one of Tyler Perry's scripts, based on the script alone.

Shows how much I know.


Which brings me to another reason why I'm not making my own movies. I don't look as good in drag as Tyler Perry does.

Well, I guess we come back to that conflict of good or great verses popular.

It is one of the problems of movie making. What do we mean by good? What do we mean by successful? Is a simple movie that finds and audience and makes money good or successful? Is a complex movie that loses millions at the box office but wins awards good or successful?

As for all the "bad" movies out there, well, what is that definition? And as we condemn that "bad" movie and question how it got made, do we stop to wonder what the original screenplay was like? Terrible things happen to scripts on the way to production.

Stacey Snider (Universal CEO) came to talk to one of my production classes once while I was at UCLA. I asked her if they ever go back to the original material before they greenlight a picture, just to make sure they didn't leave anything behind. Did they re-read the original script or book or whatever.

Answer: "No, we are confident in out development process."

Ow.

Well, there you go. Producers always accuse writers of being "too close to their own material", but when they've finished with development hell, are they sure they aren't just a little too close to their material? No, they're confident in their development process. If I gave that answer as a writer I'd be considered arrogant. As you say, terrible things happen to scripts on their way to production. Yet, they are confident in their development process. Pretty hard to fix what's wrong with that attitude.

After the class one of the professors (Peter Guber) told me it was a good question. I think Stacey Snider's answer surprised everybody.

check out the price of film stock. that's enough to quash most would-be movie-makers' dreams right there.

don't like film? well, let's rule out video ~ that looks cheap. that's probably why its... cheap. digital? okay. it can be done.

i'd self-pubbed a book once. not PA or some vanity press, but actually had my own company for a minute. there's a lot you have to do, but, honestly, most of it can be done at home on the computer and on the phone. like dealing with the SEC, it's probably just more time-consuming than anything else (much like, i'd guessing, getting my ISBN numbers).

actors? how many people do you know that could probably pass an audition? there's got to be a few. if there's a community college or local theatre i'd bet you could find people to work for cheap if not practically for free.

as far as equipment goes, that stuff is rentable. you might even luck out and find someone who knows, say, lighting who'd like to be involved for a pittance. after all, people love seeing their names on things: make's 'em feel important, like they've accomplished something in life.

there're books on every single aspect of movie-making. probably a good idea to read a few if that's your plan.

and, as mentioned, hope against hope the movie doesn't suck. back when i had cable, i'd sometimes catch a bit of something some guy did on video and put up on local cable access. man, what i could stand of it was invariably just awful. i remember watching one guy walk down the side of railroad track for like five minutes before it occurred to me that i had been watching some guy walk down the side of railroad tracks for five minutes *and not so much had the camera been moved*, he just got smaller with distance. i imagine the rest of the 'production' contained similar time-killing indulgences that's supposed to suffice for... something.

Well I've already answered in depth as to why. Is there a specific answer you're looking for?

shutterspeed said:

And even if your film turned out so terrible, would it be worse than your baby never seeing the light of day?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Have you ever seen American Movie?

IceCreamEmpress said:

Have you ever seen American Movie?

Click to expand...

Perfect example.

I graduated for film school as well. I actually have a B.A. (a 4 year program) in film production. Writing a screenplay, budgeting a film, directing actors, planning shots and thinking about how it is all going to cut together in the editing room and actually editing are all different abilities and talents. I don't know about where you live, but where I live there actually are government-sponsored artist-run co-ops where you can rent film and video equipement real cheap, and even then it require more change than I've ever had just sitting in my bank account.

I met a guy once who was asking me for advice. He had written a screenplay and he was going to pay to produce it himself. When I asked him what his intended film ratio (film ratio is the amount of film you actually shoot through the camera in relation to how many feet of film actually lands up in front of you on the screen) he replied that he was going to shoot at a 1:1 ratio. I told him that was a bad plan. In fact, that was NO plan at all. To shoot in an 8:1 ratio was to be incredibly efficient and that he should plan for at least that. After all, in a simple scene where two guys are talking across a table and nothing moves, you shoot a wide shot (1), a TWO SHOT (2), over-the-shoulder shots or tight shots on both actors actors (3 & 4). That's a 4:1 ratio and that's if nobody blows a line, a take, their performance, a loud motorcyle or a jet doesn't go by and ruin the sound on a take, or some bird doesn't decide to perch itself right outside your window in front of the mic.

Two takes on each shot listed? You're now at an 8:1 ratio.

"Well," he said, "Only if any of those things really happen." Well, you can and better count on it. He went on his merry way.

My point is, taking a script and breaking it down into shots, collecting your material and editing that material into a coherent film that works and moves is a different process all together. Don't believe that for one second because you can do one you can do the other.

Bill Martell on why a lot of movies suck:


(Because movies are made by people, and most people are idiots)


http://sex-in-a-sub.blogspot.com/2006/09/trilogy-of-terror-part-1-acting-dead.html


http://sex-in-a-sub.blogspot.com/2006/09/trilogy-of-terror-part-2-i-was.html


http://sex-in-a-sub.blogspot.com/2006/09/trilogy-of-terror-part-3-was-che.html

So you make your movie. Now you have to figure out how to get someone to discover the magic of your movie. How do you propose to do that?

shutterspeed said:

Well, I'm not here to debate the finer points of filmmaking--though I absolutely disagree with much of the technical information offered in this thread.

I think why I'm so interested in discussing the question (which, interestingly, seems to have inexplicably touched a nerve with several users) is because it's something I've been grappling with the past year. I've spent the past 6 years, post-college, honing my writing skills and after four completed screenplays (and countless revisions), I've finally arrived at a finished script I feel is worth showing.

After spending most of a year on this particular script, I find it hard to swallow the thought of giving my power away as a creator by waiting for someone else to "discover" the "magic" of my writing. What I have found, though, through a limited attempt at producing my own work is that many people seem more inclined to jump on the bus when it's moving, rather than when it's idle with no one aboard.

But like many others here, I have a family to support and am not inclined to be foolish by completely tossing reality to the wind. I'm not even certain it's something I would enjoy doing. I'm just curious as to why more screenwriters do not attempt to produce their own work, and if there is some sort of facade created by the film industry that makes them think they aren't capable.

(If you have no interest in ever making a film then, clearly, this thread is not directed at you.)

Click to expand...

Okay, first you have to answer another question.

What do you mean by a "writer?"

After a good many years, I can actually say without even wincing, that I am, in fact a writer. In fact, I'm a screenwriter.

I can say this without wincing because when I fill out my taxes and I have to write down my profession on that line on my tax form -- that's what I write.

Screenwriter. That's how I earn my living.

Now, there are lots of people who sit at word processors or scribble on yellow pads -- and maybe even what they write might be quite good -- but in what sense, other than that they physically write things down -- are they "writers?"

I guess the question I'm trying to make you think about is this:

If I, personally, had written twenty novels, and never sold one, would I be justified in referring to myself as a novelist?

And if I'd written twenty screenplays and never sold one, would I likewise be justified in calling myself a screenwriter -- as opposed to someone who works at a bookstore (or wherever I happen to work) who just happens to write screenplays in my spare time?

That moves us to the next question.

Are you asking why professional screenwriters don't more often become producers who produce their own work -- or why *unproduced* screenwriters opt to produce their own work because they can't sell it?

In the former case, especially in TV, crossing over from writer to producer is the natural professional progression. It doesn't happen to everyone, certainly, but most showrunners and producers working in television started out as writers. In motion pictures, it's less common, but still happens. More frequently, screenwriters tend to aspire to jockey what leverage that have toward a directing shot rather than toward producing.

Why don't they want to produce? Because if you have any significant experience in the business, you know what's involved in producing -- and it is an extremely challenging job, and a very specialized one. I am a very good friend with a producer and I couldn't begin to do the things that he does when he goes through the process of producing a multi-million dollar motion picture. Budgeting, breakdowns, tax incentives -- not as abstract things, but actually knowing the specific people to call, the places to call -- who to call in New Mexico, or in North Carolina, or in New Zealand, or in Australia, to find out where it's cheapest and who's offering the best tax incentives and give backs and what the crew situation is like and what the location situation is like and will you be able to get the studio space -- and the rest.

If I had to produce a movie tomorrow, would I be able to do that? No way in the world. But he's spent over a decade in the business working as an assistant for Scott Rudin, among others, learning how to do it.

More to the point, he wants to do it. This is the work he likes to do. He wants to be a producer.

And that's great. If I'm going to make a movie -- I want him producing it. Not me. Because he'll do a much better job. On the other hand, he has no particular desire to write screenplays. And that's okay by me too.

But, stepping back -- if you're talking about producing a movie yourself -- not because you want to be a producer, but because --

a) you couldn't get anyone else to buy it or --
b) you don't want hollywood "screwing up" your screenplay --

Both of these are bad reasons to produce your own movie.

First, if you couldn't get anyone to buy your screenplay, there's a very high degree of likelihood that, having either spent your own money or managed to raise the money somehow and produced it yourself -- you're going to end up going back to the same people who, a few years earlier, didn't want to buy the same project when it was a screenplay.

Now, unless, between then and now, you managed to convince Brad Pitt to be in your movie for free, it's unlikely that they will have changed their minds. Those that didn't want it then probably still won't want it.

The difference is -- you will have spent a few years of your life and a lot of either your or someone else's money.

Second -- if you're afraid of other people screwing up your movie, rest assured, if you set out to produce (never mind direct, if you intend to do that as well), without having any real idea of how to go about doing it, the damage that you will cause your project, even intending to be as faithful to it as possible, will dwarf the damage that even the most crass producer will cause to your gentle love story by turning into a tale of Big Breasted Wrestling Amazons in Outer Space.

Just as a person who doesn't know how to write will not be able to sit down and write a screenplay or professional quality, so a person who does not know how to produce will not be able to produce a motion picture of professional quality.

Why would anyone believe otherwise?

NMS

I'd certainly make my own movie from my own script. I'm one of the few people I know that, if you put a camera in my hand and gave me an editing room, I can actually do the thing from start to finish. I write scripts. I worked as a film editor. Damn, I've saved some really terrible, unwatchable shorts that were only so because of how poorly they were edited. I studied acting for 4 years. But here's always the thing.

Money, money, money, money, money.

And it's like playing a sport. You can't do it by yourself. You need lots of other people working with you.

Let me put on my now-infrequently-used reader hat for a minute. When I pick up a screenplay to do notes on it for somebody, I give it the benefit of the doubt. I want to love it. I can remember the handful of great screenplays I've read over the years. The feeling of reading the first page and knowing I was in the hands of a skilled writer. Hoping the ride will never end. Seeing the movie. Yes, when the script is good, we can see the movie. It is our business.

The good scripts haven't all been the same. There have been dramas, a horror movie, a comedy, a historical drama. I still remember one historical drama I read on Zoetrope just because the log line looked good. What a great script! I wasn't reading for anyone-- just for myself. The writer was a playwright. It was his first script.

What is the point of this? I believe that if you have a great script and get it read by enough people, someone will find it. No, that does not mean it will be optioned, sold, or made. But someone will notice. I wrote to that first-time screenwriter and congratulated him on his wonderful script and gave him what advice I could.

Readers are not morons. Neither is there a conspiracy to keep a good script down. Yes, readers are told to look for certain things. My new screenwriter friend's fantastic drama would be rejected by a reader looking for family comedies. A studio prodco would reject it because the budget would be too small to justify a studio-level marketing campaign. And in reality, I told the writer that what he had was a terrific writing sample, not something he should expect to see sold and produced.

Hollywood almost never buys screenplays and produces them for wide-release. Do a bit of investigation into the origins of your favorite movies. Most are adaptations or work-for-hire in-house development projects. The exceptions, such as Juno, stand out for their rarity.

Yes, there are cases in which a filmmaker makes their own film and succeeds; of course there are. But those that don't succeed are like the bulk of an iceberg. Most of the successful filmmakers will tell you about the producers who were eager to option or buy their script, but they held on to it. They are not the folks who were rejected in town and thought "I'll show them!" or those who had so little respect for the system that they felt their talent would be forever unrecognized.

Get your script read. Enter contests. If you can't beat the amateurs, you'll never beat the pros.