Posts by quietdriver3

northerncrane4 said:I guess it would be pretty sweet if a person actually had enough time to shoot every single shot they wanted... you know? Just capture everything that feels right, and then later on during editing, you could just sit there in peace and piece it all together exactly how you like it. Maybe.

I guess that’s why we’re so incredibly lucky to be living in this digital age. It’s only after getting some actual practice under my belt that I’m starting to realize why George Lucas is so obsessed with pushing for full digitalization. You just shoot whatever you need, and then later, sitting in an editing suite, you can piece everything together—and I mean absolutely everything. You basically direct the entire movie from one single room. There aren't any of those unexpected little disasters that can just come along and wreck your vision. What ends up on the screen is exactly what you imagined. I don't think anything could be more faithful to the original idea... unless, maybe, they invent a machine one day that can just film scenes directly from your brain. 😁 )
I guess I just hope that, eventually, all of this actually starts to rub off on the quality of our movies here in America. Maybe one day.

northerncrane4 said:Budgets rarely suffer for it, even in actual big-budget Hollywood productions, but here? Never. You just get a set number of days to shoot the whole thing, which really just depends on how much cash you have—basically, how long you can afford to keep the crew on the payroll. So, you’re forced to basically edit the movie in your head before you even start filming, just praying you only shoot exactly what you need. And all that just to make sure you don't run out of time. It's tough because you don't have actors exclusively tied to your project; they're usually juggling two or three other gigs and starring in four different Broadway shows at once, with a premiere coming up next week. So, yeah... you should probably expect them to be pretty focused on repeating everything ten different ways just to make sure you get the shot you want.
Amateur productions... they give you all the time in the world, I guess. You can take your time, linger on things. But the real professionals? The people who actually make this their life? They don't have that luxury. They can't exactly afford to be tied up to some project for two years if they aren't even able to pay their own rent or credit cards. So, maybe just a heads-up—if you're planning on eventually making that jump from amateur stuff to the big leagues, watch out. You don't want that transition to hit you like a total shock when you suddenly realize how much everything actually constrains you.

Yeah, reading this really makes me realize just how much I don't know... I guess I still have this pretty idealistic picture in my head about what actually goes into making a movie. It’s funny, you can be sitting there burning with this intense drive to create something truly exceptional, while everyone else around you just sees it as... well, just a "job." I suppose if I ever actually make that transition, there’s going to be a lot of culture shock. I just really hope I don't end up losing my passion for film because of it. I think I could handle the grind, maybe, but I'd hate to lose that spark. 😳

northerncrane4 said:Not at all. Honestly, that’s not even their goal. What they actually want is to pull some funding from the Department of State or ABC, skim a little off the top for themselves right away, and then use whatever is left to churn out some kind of movie. They only make them because they signed a contract and need to show it at the San Francisco Film Festival to stay compliant, then they'll run it in an AMC Theatres for a week and just... forget about it. It could be any movie. Any director, really. Well, maybe not *any* director. Probably someone who can fly under the radar and won't cause a massive public outcry. I guess you don't want to piss anyone off—especially not the people handing you the cash you're going to spend without having to answer to anyone about how the final product actually turned out.

It’s a disaster. I mean, isn't it just because nobody in the American film industry actually makes money the way they should? From the audience. If we actually introduced some real, cutthroat capitalism—because honestly, this sector needs it—I think everything you wrote above would just disappear. And under those conditions, there might actually be enough resources for “cultural” or “art” films. It’s simple math, really. You take one massive hit, and that funds two more movies, and maybe every other film can just be for the Film Archive. Then everyone wins. And it’s clearly doable if you look at what South Korea has managed to pull off.

northerncrane4 said:As for the producers, I told you already. It’s not that they’re afraid; they just don't really care. And yeah, directors are cowards—they are. But they have a right to be. No matter how much a movie succeeds, it doesn't guarantee them their next one. So, they suck up to people.

I know, it’s easy for me to sit here and talk trash since I’m not out there trying to earn a living from this, so I can complain about how things should be however I want. But still. Even if the system here is totally messed up, I guess I’d still do whatever it takes to sneak something through. I always find myself thinking back to that Martin Scorsese documentary about film history, where he talks about those “smuggler directors” during the height of censorship—guys who somehow managed to bypass all the censors and studio interference to slip something real into their work. It’s a shame we don't have that kind of thing here. We probably need an equivalent to the Film Academy, or some American version of Dogme 95, something that pushes back against everything we currently have. 😬

northerncrane4 said:It depends on what kind of film you want to make. That style rarely fits any given project. And getting out of that indie bubble costs money.

I hope what I have in my head works out. 😬

northerncrane4 said:Just doing my duty!

🙂

northerncrane4 said:I think you really need to shape the story during the writing and framing stages. Trying to "find" the movie in the editing room without having built it beforehand might work out okay, but only if you get incredibly lucky. Going into an edit with the plan to just figure it out there feels kind of irresponsible to me.

Yeah, you're totally right. My experience with film and production mostly comes from those amateur projects I did for RAF and similar small festivals—at least in practice (I guess I might know the theory a bit better 😁 ). I'm pretty sure that when you approach a film seriously, you have to be serious about the fundamentals from the start. But when I was talking about editing, I was mainly thinking about how it's such an incredibly powerful and effective process. There isn't any other art form that works quite like this; like, with writing, you aren't even fully aware of how everything fits together into a whole because the whole assembly happens so, so slowly, and by the time it's done, you barely realize it happened (that's why writing is such a slow, lonely process). But editing is a completely different story. That sense of power you get from manipulating and suggesting things while you're piecing clips together into something meaningful is just... it's amazing. Honestly, before I saw editing in action, I had no clue how vital it was or how much of a movie can actually be directed through the edit. As George Lucas once said, "Give me 30 feet of any celluloid and I'll make a movie." 😬

But then again, since film is such a jazzy medium (meaning there's a lot of improvisation), isn't luck also a huge part of the whole thing? 😕

northerncrane4 said:Producers all over the world are largely made up of clueless people who don't really have a clue about anything, let alone what a movie should actually look like. But they know how to raise money and move it around, and since it's in their interest to make a good or profitable film, they hire people who have proven they can do it. In America, producers—not actors, writers, or directors—are the biggest reason for the lame state of the industry (with honorable exceptions like Boris T. Matić, Ankica Tilić, or Stanka Babić).

I guess I've never really looked at the problems with American cinema through the lens of production. And honestly, I don't really know how "powerful" producers are here—how much they can actually influence or change a film.
To me, the biggest issue with our movies seems to be this chronic lack of passion. The stories feel so damn grounded and uninventive (just speaking generally). I've always wondered why people who are lucky enough to work on a professional film settle for such ordinary ideas and ordinary executions, especially when they know they'll be spending at least the next year of their lives working on that "ordinariness." I wonder if producers are really just that afraid of big ideas?

northerncrane4 said:The way Rodriguez shot Sin City—you know, just working out of his own garage with his crew and whatever limited budget he could scrape together—it must have been such a dream to work on. But honestly, that kind of setup? It’s probably just a pipe dream for most people.

So, look, I have to ask you... why do you think it’s like that? For me, watching *Sin City* (and *Sky Captain*) really just opened up my appetite for the whole thing. It gave me these ideas, you know, regarding how to actually collaborate with my own crew. What do you actually need to get started? I guess maybe just a room painted blue, a few actors, some Adobe After Effects, a decent three-chip digital camera, and an imagination fueled by infinite combinations. Maybe. 🙂

Larry Martin11 said:I just can't shake this feeling that even his scripts feel more like pseudo-science than actual childhood play, I guess. People don't really talk about it much, but even in those moments where the characters seem to be having fun—like when they’re playing these little "games" with people who can't defend themselves just because they have the power to—it doesn't sit right with me. It’s almost like the director's idea of entertainment is just a condensed version of all that senseless TV violence and the culture of aggression we deal with every single day. You can't really "have fun" with stuff like that; it feels heavy, or maybe just uncomfortable. Or maybe it's just me, I don't know.

I have to admit, that whole "soul searching" thing—you know, where you’re digging deep and wrestling with your own demons or just everything going on in the world—can actually be a weirdly fun way to spend time. I mean, maybe there's something wrong with me? I guess. 😕 But you know, when you actually sit down to read or watch those things you've pulled out of your own exorcism... as an author, I guess you find this sense of peace. Maybe it’s because my life hasn't really mirrored those states enough, but it's hard to describe—it's like the only way to compare it would be calling it some kind of "entertainment." Or maybe that's just me. 😕

Does this make sense, or am I just being way too nitpicky? 😕 🙂

Larry Martin11 said:I guess I’m just incredibly happy that northerncrane4 decided to step up today and be a decent conversationalist instead of me, I suppose.

I guess we really should push northerncrane4 to talk about movies more often. He’s honestly one of those rare people you can actually talk to who makes you rethink your own ideas in such an effective way. Maybe it would be good for everyone. 👍

northerncrane4 said:Unless you've got someone like Jozo Patljak producing it.

😁 😁

Anyway, northerncrane4, you're a filmmaker yourself, right? What do you think about all this complaining we're doing? I guess, maybe, because of everything—the obligations, the stress, the deadlines, and all the money moving around during the whole process—it just isn't easy to keep things fun. But I don't know, doesn't it all feel worth it when you finally get into the editing suite and start shaping that reality you have sliced up right in front of you?🙂

Amanda Lopez50 said:...honestly, I’d sign off on that right now 😍 but there's this one thing that kind of messes up my whole logic 🙂...
...I mean, think about Michael Haneke... he's one of my absolute favorite directors, but you never get the sense that he's actually having fun while making his movies... ever! 🙂 And I don't think it's about the subject matter either—plenty of other directors make "serious" films and still have a blast—I bet Alfred Hitchcock had a total ball making his movies 😉 and you can really see that in a lot of them. It's more about how he works—everything is so perfectly calculated, incredibly smart, and always packed with heavy messages (whether they're moral, social, political, or even ideological...), but I just never feel that spark of joy; there's no trace of that pure creative flow

Maybe I’d agree if it weren't for that "but." See, Haneke is a complete auteur. What you wrote probably applies to someone who treats directing like a craft job, sort of like hired eyes and ears just calling the shots. But most great auteurs are... well, complete auteurs. Like our guy Haneke, he writes most of his own scripts, and I guess writing is one of the most fun things out there (if we aren't counting sex). Isn't screenwriting basically just transcribing someone playing around and being playful? I mean, remember back when you were a kid and used to play those roles, all those Barbies and little dolls? (I did that too, though I was more into The Masters and action figures 😁). So, I'm pretty sure even Haneke (man, I feel like typing Heineken every single time) goes through that phase of transforming and getting into character before he starts framing his fantasies. Same goes for Ingmar Bergman. Or Kubicka, who probably wasn't having much fun after the 183rd take of some meaningless three-second shot—certainly not for himself. Though, he probably was giggling like a kid when he wrote that “Here's Johnny!” scene. 😁
So, I guess I'd end up sticking to the definition, just slightly tweaked—all these auteurs are basically just big kids. They have to be, I suppose; takes one to know one. 😁
Because making a movie is the most fun thing in the world (maybe even better than sex, maybe). 😁

Amanda Lopez50 said:...did I wander way too far off-topic?

Nah, doesn't matter. We're all just playing around in this virtual sandbox anyway. 👍 😘

coppergardener said:So, we aren't talking about 9/11, but rather that classic from 1966. I wonder if any video rental places in Indianapolis or maybe Chicago actually carry it? I guess I checked out the two biggest spots in Indy—and yeah, call it blasphemy—but they didn't have it!

I think you mentioned being in Canada a while back. And honestly, I have to say, that movie left me feeling pretty disappointed after seeing it a second time.

wearygardener13 said:I don't know, man. I remember watching *Young Ones*—that series—and honestly, I didn't find it funny at all. Maybe it’s just because I was still a kid back then, I guess. 🤔

This is way better, honestly. *Bottom Live* just doesn't work on a regular TV screen the way it should. It’s still a loud, shallow, and pretty raw kind of show, I guess, but man... when you catch them just tearing into each other mid-performance or how they mess with the audience? That part is just genius. 😬

wearygardener13 said:Well look, quietdriver3, personally I think the trashy stuff is just garbage.

You should probably just grab a copy of Bottom Live from '93 off some torrent. Seriously. You won't regret it—it’s a totally different vibe when you watch it in its original flow, without all those TV censors cutting things up.

Or maybe just download Young Ones. It’s not always hilarious, I guess, but it’s definitely quite the viewing experience.

wearygardener13 said:Milligan and his crew, quietdriver3, Milligan!

Yeah, but everyone knows about that first guy. 😬

northerncrane4 said:I'm with you there. Same goes for Ricky Gervais and the Pythons. But *You Rang, M'Lord*? No way. Not even close. And if we're being honest, *Red Dwarf* isn't really my thing either.

Yeah, I totally agree with you on that. Honestly, stuff like *Dr. Beeching* and that whole vibe is just... well, it's garbage. Luckily, it's mostly just the leftover scraps of that old-school Cockney humor—which, I should mention, *Blackadder Goes Forth* parodies brilliantly in one episode—that Peter Sellers and his crew basically finished off once and for all.

Now, *Red Dwarf* is kind of a different story. It’s not even on my favorites list because of the comedy or the acting, per se, but more because of the actual stories. I feel like I saw more original sci-fi concepts in that show than in all of *Star Trek* combined, or even that old *Twilight Zone*. It has these absolute gems of ideas. It’s just a shame they wrapped them up in such a silly concept.

And what about *Bottom*? Have you seen the live tour? The one they recorded live? Man, that was brilliant. Just the sheer energy and acting. The fact that both of them memorized mountains of dialogue for such a ridiculous, shallow show... and then those incredible improvisations when they lose their place in all those lines, along with those, well, brilliant little hints. To me, Rik Mayall is the Laurence Olivier of comedy. 😁

northerncrane4 said:Man, honestly... I think you're being way too kind to those British comedy shows. If actors in our local productions acted half as well as they do over there, I'd probably be throwing rocks at them just to get them to move better.

northerncrane4, have you checked out season three of The League of Gentlemen yet? Seriously, what those three pull off is something nobody else on the planet can touch. The acting, the characters... man. I feel like if I forced all our local amateurs from the acting academy to watch it for eight hours every single day, they’d actually learn more about the craft than they ever would from some official curriculum.

rowdybadger41 said:trailer

not great, kind of looks like a TV movie

wearygardener13 said:man🙏

seriously, just look at their kids in movies... they can play those cold-blooded killers with that icy stare from such a young age. It's wild.🙏

I guess the Pythons are a perfect example of that for me. I mean, if I recall correctly, none of them actually had formal acting training, yet look at them—they absolutely kill it. They have such an incredible range when it comes to how they play their characters.

I was just thinking about The Man in the Iron Mask from 1998. It’s got a great cast, but honestly, the movie kind of sucks.

Actually, any bad British film is probably a perfect example for this topic. Since the Brits seem to have this weird, invisible connection to acting—I don't know why, maybe getting whipped by William Shakespeare somehow boosts the quality—they just seem to have the best actors in the world. Because of that, even their absolute worst movies usually end up being above average when it comes to casting. 😁

Eragon comes to mind, though I haven't actually sat through it, but I'm pretty sure it's total garbage. On the other hand, I remember stopping by one of those cardboard standees for an ad and noticing Malkovich, Irons, and Robert Carlyle were on it... kind of a shame they wasted faces like that on such mediocre film. 😢

"Garcia" by Sorak.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I think that was one of the worst movies ever made.

Regarding the quality factor... is there anyone else here who grew up back in the 80s and 90s? I mean, do you remember those bootleg VHS tapes? All that color bleeding, the tracking issues, those weird ghost images left over after the movie ended... does that ring a bell? Because if so, I don't get how people can talk down on DivX. To me, this stuff is a total eye candy. Even the absolute worst DivX file I ever found was way more watchable than that VHS garbage... okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but you know what I mean.

As for counting DivX files as part of my actual collection, I'm afraid I don't really count them. They just don't have much staying power, I guess. Once I download a DivX, burn it, and watch it, about 80% of the time I'll just toss the disc or forget about it entirely—I probably haven't even marked it with a Sharpie. I’ve got hundreds of those little orphans just lying around, or they just vanish, but honestly, it doesn't really bother me because having high-speed internet feels like having a sort of... I don't know, a backup system. But when it comes to actual original DVDs, man, when I drop like $50 on an Indiana Jones trilogy, I’m definitely dusting the box every single week to keep it pristine. So, yeah, I guess the price tag is what forces me to give official "citizen" status to my original DVDs. Everything else is basically an illegal immigrant and isn't on my official census.

That scene with the Deer in Circle 2 was just sooo funny, I mean, we were all cracking up during the screening at a buddy's place for the rest of the movie. Honestly, some animals just can't be scary, no matter how hard they try. Like, Deer, owls, penguins... especially those penguins. Just a total joke from the animal kingdom, I guess.

Amanda Lopez50 said:...of course, I'm oversimplifying things here, but I think you get my point, even if you don't necessarily agree...

I guess I see what you mean, but honestly, if the same people can teach poetry, they could probably handle film too. I'm mostly just looking at it from a budget standpoint, I suppose. And yeah, like blueranger12 mentioned, technology is always moving forward, so maybe some workshops could work, but then there's the whole issue of scheduling conflicts and the risk of just raising a generation that ends up hating movies altogether...

In a perfect world, sure, that would work, but I don't know, it doesn't feel all that realistic to me. 🙂

wearygardener13 said:Wait, where on earth did you go to school? I don't remember anything like that back in my day, though I guess I heard people from other parts of the country mention they actually had film culture classes. 😕

I actually had stuff like that back in middle school. In high school, we didn't really dive into movies much at all—which is kind of ridiculous if you think about it—but during our required reading, we’d get through scripts and analyses of certain documentaries and things like that. So, yeah, it was part of the curriculum. I was born in '80, so... maybe that was like fifteen or twenty years ago? Something like that.

Maybe in high school, I don't know, somehow. But man, I feel like the costs would be, well, huge!! Plus, I doubt students would actually be stoked about it. They already have such a heavy workload as it is. And honestly, if we're going down that road, why not just make comic books their own separate subject instead of tying it to film? 🙂 Personally, I think it’d be better if it just stayed within the American literature curriculum, maybe just making it a bit more prominent. Like, maybe coveringสัก 20% of the material.

I mean, we were basically singing our hearts out until the very end, right up until the moment the Titanic actually went down.