Locations

Room, kitchen and cellar can be on the same location, but I would consider street a new location. Just my humble opinion.

And try to avoid too many unneccesary locations in a script. If the scene can happen in an already needed location you're saving time and money.

I'd say just write the script you want to write at this stage. Worrying about whether or not it can be filmed is a bit premature. Agents/producers are looking for a good story first and foremost.

In terms of locations, again, things depend on the production.

Think of Buffalo Bill's house in Silence of the Lambs. We have scenes both upstairs in the "normal" part of his house and scenes downstairs in his basement. And while it's likely the upstairs scenes were filmed in a real house, I'd say the basement/cellar scenes were almost certainly a constructed set in a studio hundreds of miles away.

In terms of the script, they are simply upstairs and downstairs and at this stage, making that clear is all you really need to worry about. It might serve you better to think in terms of scenes rather than locations.

You should pick up a movie call Wristcutters: A Love Story. Its a journey type movie, where they found all the locations on the spot. They were driving around and said, hey, this would be good for this scene.

Monaco said:

What is a reasonable number of locations for feature script? Are such places as "room," "kitchen," "cellar," "street," etc considered different locations? Or is it when you go, say, from a town to the woods, or to another country that is considered a change of location?

Click to expand...

Honestly, at this stage of the game, it's not something that you should worry about.

As a rule, you want to keep things simple, so if, looking at the script, you have a sense that there are unnecessary locations, it makes sense to consolidate or elliminate them -- but that's just as true in the case of unnecessary characters, which should probably also be elliminated or consolidated.

But that has to do with making your script tight and lean -- it's not a production issue, which you really shouldn't be worrying about so much at this stage.

Often movies that seem to take place in twenty different locations all across the globe are actually shot within ten miles -- because they've found a place that has all the different looks that they need within ten miles.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail had around five different castles -- only they actually had only one castle interior -- so every castle interior you see (and almost every castle exterior) is actually the same castle, just redressed or shot from a different angle.

As this point, just write what works.

NMS

Really. Just. Write. The. Story.

If the scene requires it to be in "PARIS" then fine, place it there. There is no reason to believe the scene will actually be SHOT IN PARIS. Depending on the scenes, any vaguely European city will do. Are they at the top of the Eiffel Tower? Well, that's going to require some tricky location management or some nice green-screen work - either way, the proco will deal with it.

It's a production concern. Just write the story. Then do as NMS suggests, go back and if you can consolidate locations, characters and such - then do so.

Paris, France. That's a bit too vague. Be more specific. Is it Ext. Shabby banlieu house - Night or rather Ext. Arc de Triomphe - Day ?

Every city has so many different faces that it's hard to know what atmosphere you want to evoke in your scene if you only mention the name of the city.

Daydreamer said:

Paris, France. That's a bit too vague. Be more specific. Is it Ext. Shabby banlieu house - Night or rather Ext. Arc de Triomphe - Day ?

Every city has so many different faces that it's hard to know what atmosphere you want to evoke in your scene if you only mention the name of the city.

Click to expand...

Pretty much wherever it is, there's going to an exterior shot of the Eiffel Tower and then there's going to be a shot of wherever you want, shot where ever the production can afford to stage it.

NMS

nmstevens said:

Pretty much wherever it is, there's going to an exterior shot of the Eiffel Tower and then there's going to be a shot of wherever you want, shot where ever the production can afford to stage it.

NMS

Click to expand...

Yup, thank God for 'stock footage'! See, the Eiffel Tower! Now we know the restaraunt is in Paris! And look, the Empire State building, so this must be CENTRAL PARK they are walking through. And there's good old "Big Ben" so this bookstore is on the Strand, right?

As the others said, I wouldn't take locations into account unless you intend to market it as an independent movie script (some people know their movie will only be made low budget, because of the subject matter, so they intentionally write for a low budget).

But as a spec script for agents and producers, yeah, you don't need to worry.

The only time I ever thought about location was in the last script I was writing I realized that one of my biggest, most elaborate locations was only used once and it seemed to stick out as a big expense. So I actually wrote another scene taking place in that location and it was interesting creatively and the scenes really ended up mirroring each other. If it didn't work in the story I wouldn't have done it, but it just seemed odd to only use it once after it would have to be built and dressed.

But yeah, 'Paris, France' and 'Berlin, Germany' are really easy, they've been making those up for years. And episode of Alias often took place in a number of countries, all shot in Los Angeles.

My day job is as a location manager or scout on sets and producers get turned off so much by the number of locations or the amount of money it takes to secure it. When I first come on a job I go over the script with the producer and director and break down what they want to see out of each location. I then go on a scouts, find multiple sites of each location, find out costs of permits, costs to rent the space, find out where the crew is going to park, and where there crew is able to set up base camp. IDEALLY I want to keep all the locations in the same area because the production has to pay milage to the crew for long distance driving. I worked on this really bad horror movie once where it all look place on an island in New England. Some of the scenes were in a boat on the ocean, a cabin, and a wrecked ship on the shore. I live in Hollywood so you can imaging how easy those were to find. Once I came back with the costs the producer wanted to shred the script but ended up just building every thing on a sound stage. I really doubt the movie made its money back.
Now when I write I take locations into much more consideration. Its even part of my pitch. The last script I wrote took place, for the most part, in a cabin in the woods. Big bear is not that far away and it would be easy to find a location that fits the script. In the pitch I always explain that the script could be made for a minimal amount of money and still deliver.
If you are pitching your script in California you need to take locations into consideration. If you are asking for scenes that would not be able to be filmed in California this would take a huge chunk out of the budget and could very well be the reason a producer would pass on your script. Also, If you want to film in a speciality location, like a jail, school, or nightclub owners of these places know that they can overcharge you because it if cheaper for the production to overpay in LA than to move the crew out of the city.
Just some things to keep in mind. Feel free to ask if you have any questions about locations.

jessegrillofilm said:

My day job is as a location manager or scout on sets and producers get turned off so much by the number of locations or the amount of money it takes to secure it. When I first come on a job I go over the script with the producer and director and break down what they want to see out of each location. I then go on a scouts, find multiple sites of each location, find out costs of permits, costs to rent the space, find out where the crew is going to park, and where there crew is able to set up base camp. IDEALLY I want to keep all the locations in the same area because the production has to pay milage to the crew for long distance driving. I worked on this really bad horror movie once where it all look place on an island in New England. Some of the scenes were in a boat on the ocean, a cabin, and a wrecked ship on the shore. I live in Hollywood so you can imaging how easy those were to find. Once I came back with the costs the producer wanted to shred the script but ended up just building every thing on a sound stage. I really doubt the movie made its money back.
Now when I write I take locations into much more consideration. Its even part of my pitch. The last script I wrote took place, for the most part, in a cabin in the woods. Big bear is not that far away and it would be easy to find a location that fits the script. In the pitch I always explain that the script could be made for a minimal amount of money and still deliver.
If you are pitching your script in California you need to take locations into consideration. If you are asking for scenes that would not be able to be filmed in California this would take a huge chunk out of the budget and could very well be the reason a producer would pass on your script. Also, If you want to film in a speciality location, like a jail, school, or nightclub owners of these places know that they can overcharge you because it if cheaper for the production to overpay in LA than to move the crew out of the city.
Just some things to keep in mind. Feel free to ask if you have any questions about locations.

Click to expand...

Well, I think a point has to be made here.

Simply because the buyers of movies tend to be located in California doesn't require that movies be shot in California.

The fact that the guy that you're quoting chose New England as the location of his movie wasn't a mistake. An Ocean, a cabin, and a wrecked ship on a shore might all very well have been found within a very short distance of one another in any number of different places -- if you'd chosen to shoot on location.

And depending on where you're shooting, shooting on location might be cheaper or it might be more expensive. This isn't 1950, where going on location is some big thing. More movies -- and that includes big Hollywood movies, shoot outside of California than in it -- so suggesting that everybody should write a movie expecting that it's going to be shot within spitting distance of L.A. just doesn't seem like it makes all that much sense.

All sorts of states, From New Mexico to Florida to North Carolina are bending over backward, giving major tax breaks and financing packages and what have you to attract movie production -- and movies are shooting in these states (especially with the weak dollar making shooting in Canada and overseas much less attractive than it has been).

Most producers these days have a much wider field of view. Locations can be found everywhere. Crews and production facilities can be found everywhere. The world doesn't begin and end in L.A. any more.

NMS

Regarding specs, what are Orphaned Slugs? I hear that term and wonder if it has something to do with transitive slugs in a action sequence or phone call. E.G.

HIS LOCATION - CONTINUOUS
HER LOCATION - CONTINUOUS
(going back and forth in a phone call)

Another example from my spec: Is this acceptable?

I have seen ads for scripts in Inktip and other markets where the producers state they want as few locations as possible. I get the money saving thing, but the point of film is to take the audience somewhere exciting.
Polanski was able to film a great thriller entirely on a sailboat. Making that happen is special.
Also, England can always be played by Westchester, New York.

I guess it would also depend on the size of the project you are pitching and what production company you are pitching too. The tax breaks are great but its still major bucks to film in other states, even if you are hiring locally and only flying out key set personal. Also if this is your first script and unless a major production house picks it up it will most probably be a non-union shot. I am just saying if its your first script and you are trying to get it sold it would be much more appealing to a producer to keep the locations few and close together. If its a script that takes place in New Mexico that's great if you are able to keep the locations close, able to hire locally, and keep other costs low. If there are scenes that take place in Florida, Washington, or other states its going to scare off the money man rather quickly.

Its true that you can do set decorating to avoid going to other locations but you have to remember that costs tons of money as well. I believe a union set decorator makes about 38 dollars an hour plus materials. If you had the choice to set the story in a cheaper location and it does not effect the story DO IT. Does there really need to be a scene on top of the Eifel tower or can it just be on top of a building? Does the car chase scene need to happen in downtown LA or can we do it in Ventura? Choices like these can save hundreds of thousands of dollars in a production and can help that producer say yes to producing your work.

jessegrillofilm said:

I guess it would also depend on the size of the project you are pitching and what production company you are pitching too. The tax breaks are great but its still major bucks to film in other states, even if you are hiring locally and only flying out key set personal. Also if this is your first script and unless a major production house picks it up it will most probably be a non-union shot. I am just saying if its your first script and you are trying to get it sold it would be much more appealing to a producer to keep the locations few and close together. If its a script that takes place in New Mexico that's great if you are able to keep the locations close, able to hire locally, and keep other costs low. If there are scenes that take place in Florida, Washington, or other states its going to scare off the money man rather quickly.

Click to expand...

I think that we're in agreement - but what people probably need to understand is the difference between "locations" per se -- and locales.

That is, a street, an office, another street, a different street, a house, a differerent street, a skyscraper, a diner. All different locations, but the fact is, almost any place you shoot, all of these 'Locations" could easily be organized within ten minutes of one another.

If, on the other hand, you're talking, a major urban center, the top of a mountain, a desert, a scene on a tanker in the middle of the Atlantic -- these are all not merely different locations, but distinctly different locales. Where ever you start out, you have to pack up everybody and travel to get to the others -- or else build them on a soundstage.

And some things just don't work on a soundstage.

But if you're shooting in L.A. and have a scene in Mexico -- or even in New York, it really isn't going to pose much of a problem to any production to shoot those scenes in L.A.

Or for that matter, in Montreal.

Hell, if Hong Kong could pass for the Bronx (complete with mountains in the distance) in Rumble in the Bronx, you know that people are pretty much going to accept anything.

NMS

I think it was noted above that you want to take locations into account if it is a low budget script. But for a spec script, it's really less of a problem. If you are not specifically writing a low budget independent film then you really just want to showcase your best work.

And again, when you look at shows like Alias and X-Files, you can see how well different locations from all over the country and the world can be recreated on a reasonable budget (1-5 million for 44 mins).

Also, writing for a couple locations can screw you in the end if you're not careful. Like you noted, that New England setting may have only had a couple locations but they're hard to find and possibly expensive. If your whole movie takes place on a luxury yacht, that can be a pretty bad per day cost. You can cheapen it up but throwing in some scenes in cheaper locations. So sometimes having a few locations, that might cost a lot, is more expensive than have a handful of locations with a range of costs.

But you also have to think about what you are writing this script for. Big budget films that'll never get made do pretty well in contests. Also, if your script is more a writing sample, to get you an agent, you will be stuck with their first impression. So unless you want to write low budget forever, it's good to showcase the kind of film you want to be writing.

But as we all agree, if you are writing for low budget, then locations certainly matter.

It matters for low or high budget films. I worked on National Treasure 2 and we changed lots of locations around in that script to make it more cost effective. We dressed up half of downtown LA to look like Washington DC. That script got changed around a bunch and about 7 people worked on it. Be it big or small production houses they all like to save money. A question that gets asked a lot is “Why does this need to happen at this location.” Something you need to ask yourself while writing.
If you have never written a script before and you go in a pitch something that is going to take the production all across the country and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in just locations and they buy it; well then you must be one hell of a writer. For the most part the first script you sell is going to be a low budget. Of course there are exceptions to this rule but as a generality this is the case. Making it as cost effective as it can be makes it more appealing to the money man and increases your chances.

jessegrillofilm said:

It matters for low or high budget films. I worked on National Treasure 2 and we changed lots of locations around in that script to make it more cost effective. We dressed up half of downtown LA to look like Washington DC. That script got changed around a bunch and about 7 people worked on it. Be it big or small production houses they all like to save money. A question that gets asked a lot is “Why does this need to happen at this location.” Something you need to ask yourself while writing.
If you have never written a script before and you go in a pitch something that is going to take the production all across the country and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in just locations and they buy it; well then you must be one hell of a writer. For the most part the first script you sell is going to be a low budget. Of course there are exceptions to this rule but as a generality this is the case. Making it as cost effective as it can be makes it more appealing to the money man and increases your chances.

Click to expand...

I think that you have to be very careful about this. Nobody ever walked succeeded in a room by pitching a budget.

In fact, I know a lot of people who *have* succeeded by going into a room and pitching in terms that are totally beyond what the budget limits of a project could bear -- talking in terms of talent that they couldn't possibly afford, in terms of action and effects that they couldn't possibly afford -- and they got excited and worked up and enthusiastic --

-- and they bought it.

And of course, in the end, none of the talent that was mentioned ended up in the movie. And all the big set pieces got scaled back to reality.

But who cares? They bought the movie.

The reality is, if the guy had gone in and said, "Well, on your budget, maybe we could afford this guy from TV, or that girl who just got kicked off a series, and maybe we could have an action scene with three or four cars -- and maybe spice it up with five or six CGI shots.

Yeah, he'd be talking realistically -- but nobody would get excited. And if they're not excited, they won't buy it.

And ultimately, that is what pitching is about. You have to get people excited. Afterward, they may come back and say -- how are going to manage all of this on X dollars.

Then you do what you have to do. You just bullshit your way through it. Because in the end, nobody is going to hold you to anything. Nothing is on paper. It's all just smoke and glitter at that point.

The critical point is that nobody agrees to make the movie because the numbers work. Nobody agrees to make the movie because they can afford it. It's because it's gotten them excited.

Later on, the excitement is going to run up against the budget and things are going to get cut. That's as true for most expensive movie as it is for the cheapest.

Locations will get cut or consolidated. Scenes will get cut. Characters will be consolidated.

But unless you start off with something that gets everybody jazzed -- even if it starts off with impracticalities built in -- it's never going to reach that point.

NMS

Regardless of how you feel about the movie Sin City, Robert Rodriguez paved the way in virtual sets. I just love the look of that movie, although the technology is, ironically, applied to create a very retro look. (Like his Planet Terror, which evoked a 70s/80s look.) This movie is 100 percent green screen, and in fact no actors were filmed together. It's a neat experiment and reveals a new window of opportunity for no-budget DV filmmakers.

mario_c said:

Regardless of how you feel about the movie Sin City, Robert Rodriguez paved the way in virtual sets.

Click to expand...

Casshern? Immortel? Sky Captain? Possibly even The Lady and the Duke?