Can you make it without film academy?

Quote : Golden Flower

Mark Johnson5 said:I should also add that Ada isn't the only film academy in the world. 🙄
There are plenty of them all over Europe. 🙂

I'm in complete agreement with that sentiment.

One of the most well-known and influential institutions to us is definitely FAMU, that legendary film academy.

The campus is fully integrated into the program, and you’ll find that lectures are even conducted in English.
It’s a far cry from how things used to be in previous years, when knowing the language was actually a mandatory requirement.

It’s not free, obviously, but there are specific enrollment quotas set aside for international students, which includes the possibility of securing a scholarship.
When you consider the former students from the Academy who hail from the old America region, there’s definitely a certain bias toward them when looking at potential candidates.
You might just find yourself getting stuck listening to one of Lordan Zafranović's lectures.

Honestly, the easiest way to handle any situation is to simply never try at all—and then spend the rest of your time coming up with convenient excuses to justify that cowardice.

Take a chance:
I’ve been looking into this site, http://www.amu.cz/?r_id=610, and honestly, it warrants some serious scrutiny. If you're trying to make sense of what's actually being presented here, don't just take it at face value—you need to dig deeper into the underlying structure. It’s easy to get lost in the surface-level presentation, but if you approach it with a bit of skepticism, you'll start to see the patterns that aren't immediately obvious. I've spent quite a bit of time parsing through these types of setups before, and my gut tells me to proceed with caution. It's not necessarily a red flag, but it certainly isn't a "set it and forget it" situation either. You have to be methodical about how you evaluate the credibility behind the link.

Unlike at the Academy, where they seem to focus on all sorts of bureaucratic hoops, the primary metric for getting into FAMU is pure, unadulterated talent.

Edward Harris11 said:The real question is, how do you define "making it"...
For me, I'm not even looking at the Academy. No shot I'm getting in, and even if I could, I don't have the cash...
But right now, I'm working on a script, I've got actors, a camera crew, and I'm directing. Once the film is done, it goes to festivals—both here in the States and abroad. I couldn't care less about the academy; the film's gonna be good... maybe not perfect, since we're tight on budget...
And yeah...
If you're looking to rake in massive money like someone out of Hollywood, forget about it. Directors around here make about what a Tim Burton gets from a studio just to cover coffee and donuts during a shoot...

In about a year, there's that third trash film festival in Cleveland, so just keep going. There are plenty of people just like you... =)

At the end of the day, it's all just trash, just like Mr. Lauer says.

Olivia Martin6 said:In about a year, there's that third trash film festival in Cleveland, so just keep going. There are plenty of people just like you... =)

At the end of the day, it's all just trash, just like Mr. Lauer says.

I know all about the trash movies over there and I'm planning on it...
I actually took part in the first one with this film:
CLONE BROTHER WARS
Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW0T5pA1_0A

Eric Jackson68 said:Unrecognized auteurs? Give me a break. Maybe Kubrick was flying under the radar during his early stuff, but Hitchcock wasn't even in the same ballpark. He was widely celebrated, period.

And what about the Academy Awards, man? None of them actually walked away with the gold trophy...

Here we go again, talking about American cinema. Honestly, let me tell you why most of the stuff coming out of the States lately just misses the mark... First off, the vast majority of these movies are clearly being made for the older crowd—people staring down retirement or already sitting in rocking chairs. Second, it feels like everyone is obsessed with rehashing war stories; you know the drill, it’s always either the son of some fallen soldier or they just throw in random military gear in the background to give it that "gritty" feel. Third, everything is made by following a stale formula; all these films are just cookie-cutter clones of one another. Fourth, some filmmakers are just chasing a paycheck, so they cram in gay characters and other trendy elements that traditional Americans tend to push back against. For those of us who actually bother watching the real masterpieces, it’s obvious that this fourth point is nothing more than a blatant cash grab.

Sure, these movies are produced by Academy graduates, but think about it this way: if you follow a recipe perfectly every single time, you might be a decent cook, but you’re never going to blow people's minds. You really wow an audience when you take that recipe and actually innovate to make it better...

So, my vote? Down with the Academy!!!

rapidbear20 said:And what about the Academy Awards, man? None of them actually walked away with the gold trophy...

If we’re really going to split hairs, Alfred Hitchcock’s film Rebecca actually did take home an Academy Award for Best Picture. Sure, he didn't snag it as the director, but it's still a massive nod from the industry. And if you need proof that the Oscars represent some level of prestige, just look at how Scorsese and Altman were recognized even when they didn't win. I mean, look at Scorsese now—he’s obviously legendary, but he isn't suddenly any more "recognized" today than he was before he finally grabbed his hardware.

rapidbear20 said:Here we go again, talking about American cinema. Honestly, let me tell you why most of the stuff coming out of the States lately just misses the mark... First off, the vast majority of these movies are clearly being made for the older crowd—people staring down retirement or already sitting in rocking chairs. Second, it feels like everyone is obsessed with rehashing war stories; you know the drill, it’s always either the son of some fallen soldier or they just throw in random military gear in the background to give it that "gritty" feel. Third, everything is made by following a stale formula; all these films are just cookie-cutter clones of one another. Fourth, some filmmakers are just chasing a paycheck, so they cram in gay characters and other trendy elements that traditional Americans tend to push back against. For those of us who actually bother watching the real masterpieces, it’s obvious that this fourth point is nothing more than a blatant cash grab.

Sure, these movies are produced by Academy graduates, but think about it this way: if you follow a recipe perfectly every single time, you might be a decent cook, but you’re never going to blow people's minds. You really wow an audience when you take that recipe and actually innovate to make it better...

So, my vote? Down with the Academy!!!

Well, it looks like my response to this is going to be just as ridiculous as this conclusion, which probably would have flown seven years ago. "Did they not accept you into school?"

Look, an Academy should be a great thing—a place where you actually gain some real knowledge and all that. But here’s the deal: in the last ten years of American cinema, I haven't seen one decent performance, script, direction, or lighting setup. Every single one looks like total trash, yet the media promotes them like they're Hollywood blockbusters winning Academy Awards and whatnot. It's a joke. If money is the issue, then I don't get how other countries are putting out better films than us. In our movies, everyone just leans on that one specific archetype—actors who sound like they're stuck in a theater production, acting all "cultured" and polished. Something is rotten. And if the only directors getting work are the ones from the Academy, then the rot starts there. By the way, everyone knows how many directors get into the Academy through connections. Even the talented ones who don't have those ties can't land a project once they graduate unless they have someone pulling strings. That's just how it is.

vividpilot47 said:Look, an Academy should be a great thing—a place where you actually gain some real knowledge and all that. But here’s the deal: in the last ten years of American cinema, I haven't seen one decent performance, script, direction, or lighting setup. Every single one looks like total trash, yet the media promotes them like they're Hollywood blockbusters winning Academy Awards and whatnot. It's a joke. If money is the issue, then I don't get how other countries are putting out better films than us. In our movies, everyone just leans on that one specific archetype—actors who sound like they're stuck in a theater production, acting all "cultured" and polished. Something is rotten. And if the only directors getting work are the ones from the Academy, then the rot starts there. By the way, everyone knows how many directors get into the Academy through connections. Even the talented ones who don't have those ties can't land a project once they graduate unless they have someone pulling strings. That's just how it is.

Let’s try this instead. What was the last American film you actually sat down and watched?

Edward Harris11 said:I know all about the trash movies over there and I'm planning on it...
I actually took part in the first one with this film:
CLONE BROTHER WARS
Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW0T5pA1_0A

It’s not like you have much to brag about here. This isn't even trash. It’s just a bad attempt at filmmaking.

Eric Jackson68 said:Well, it looks like my response to this is going to be just as ridiculous as this conclusion, which probably would have flown seven years ago. "Did they not accept you into school?"

Look, I haven't even bothered trying to get into the Academy. To me, an Academy should be a place that pushes people toward raw creativity, not one that forces them into a cookie-cutter mold.
As for the Academy Awards, Eric Jackson68, look at movie covers or posters—they slap those little gold statues on there as if they're the ultimate yardstick for quality. I hate to break it to you, but that’s just how the world decided to grade things, and I didn't make the rules. Personally, I think it's a pretty mindless way to judge art; just because a director or an actor hasn't snagged an Academy Award doesn't mean they aren't incredible...

It’s hard to top someone like Stanley Kubrick, and Alfred Hitchcock made a mountain of movies... you know? They're probably legends to most viewers, but when you look at film juries, Oscar winners, or people who don't really know their stuff, I'm not so sure how much weight they actually carry in those circles...

Some people see an Academy Award as a massive personal achievement, while others see it as nothing more than a huge marketing win...

And speaking of American cinema, come on—give me a list of a few American films that you think can actually stand toe-to-toe with the real heavyweights...

Those little statues aren't some universal yardstick for quality; they’re just a marketing gimmick... pure advertising, nothing more.
There’s never been an official rule saying that's how you measure art, nor is that how anyone actually does it.
It's the classic line from your typical surface-level movie buff. "Look, Mom, it won an Academy Award, so it must be a masterpiece!" or "Look, Mom, there's no gold statue on the poster, so it must be garbage..."
What does that even have to do with anything?

Federico Fellini never actually won an Academy Award—his movies did, sure, but not him personally—and that doesn't make him a bad director. Look at Ingmar Bergman, or Michelangelo Antonioni (and don't even get me started on honorary ones, those don't count)... or Leone... honestly, I can't even be bothered to list them all right now.
If you win an Academy Award, it mostly just means you were in the running and had a great PR team lobbying for you... or maybe they screwed you over years ago and now they're making it up to you. That's the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

these attempts at playing SWAT member are just bad
I don't have anything on YouTube to drop here, but I actually had an ad running on the SW forum this year for the 100 Seconds of Glory event... and man, my lightsabers look way, way better. They're filmed much more professionally (even though it only took me about two hours to shoot everything).
If you ever want someone to show you how to make lightsabers that actually look decent, hit me up...
If you happen to be in Washington, D.C., maybe we can cook something up together.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:🙄

no

🤣Man, you're stealing the words right out from under my keyboard!

Jeremy Flores4 said:Those little statues aren't some universal yardstick for quality; they’re just a marketing gimmick... pure advertising, nothing more.
There’s never been an official rule saying that's how you measure art, nor is that how anyone actually does it.
It's the classic line from your typical surface-level movie buff. "Look, Mom, it won an Academy Award, so it must be a masterpiece!" or "Look, Mom, there's no gold statue on the poster, so it must be garbage..."
What does that even have to do with anything?

Federico Fellini never actually won an Academy Award—his movies did, sure, but not him personally—and that doesn't make him a bad director. Look at Ingmar Bergman, or Michelangelo Antonioni (and don't even get me started on honorary ones, those don't count)... or Leone... honestly, I can't even be bothered to list them all right now.
If you win an Academy Award, it mostly just means you were in the running and had a great PR team lobbying for you... or maybe they screwed you over years ago and now they're making it up to you. That's the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Well put.

rapidbear20 said:Look, I haven't even bothered trying to get into the Academy. To me, an Academy should be a place that pushes people toward raw creativity, not one that forces them into a cookie-cutter mold.
As for the Academy Awards, Eric Jackson68, look at movie covers or posters—they slap those little gold statues on there as if they're the ultimate yardstick for quality. I hate to break it to you, but that’s just how the world decided to grade things, and I didn't make the rules. Personally, I think it's a pretty mindless way to judge art; just because a director or an actor hasn't snagged an Academy Award doesn't mean they aren't incredible...

It’s hard to top someone like Stanley Kubrick, and Alfred Hitchcock made a mountain of movies... you know? They're probably legends to most viewers, but when you look at film juries, Oscar winners, or people who don't really know their stuff, I'm not so sure how much weight they actually carry in those circles...

Some people see an Academy Award as a massive personal achievement, while others see it as nothing more than a huge marketing win...

And speaking of American cinema, come on—give me a list of a few American films that you think can actually stand toe-to-toe with the real heavyweights...

It’s truly fascinating how you were so hesitant to point out anything bad (why is 😕 ), yet suddenly I'm expected to provide the list of good ones. I can rattle off quality films quite easily, though I have a nagging suspicion you’ll never actually admit to the absolute garbage you've been watching over the last seven years. But fine, if we're playing this game: Witness, Live and Dead, What Iva Recorded on October 21st, 2003, Under the line, Trešeta, Karaula, Armin, and that lovely night in Split (go ahead, try to trash those—once you've exhausted your list of "bad" movies, I'll happily continue with the masterpieces).

Eric Jackson68 said:It’s truly fascinating how you were so hesitant to point out anything bad (why is 😕 ), yet suddenly I'm expected to provide the list of good ones. I can rattle off quality films quite easily, though I have a nagging suspicion you’ll never actually admit to the absolute garbage you've been watching over the last seven years. But fine, if we're playing this game: Witness, Live and Dead, What Iva Recorded on October 21st, 2003, Under the line, Trešeta, Karaula, Armin, and that lovely night in Split (go ahead, try to trash those—once you've exhausted your list of "bad" movies, I'll happily continue with the masterpieces).

The movie that actually left an impression on me was Matanić's "I Love You."
With Witness, the whole war theme is front and center, and honestly, I think American audiences have seen way too much of that lately... we've got a massive amount of partisan films, and local war movies have just become tedious. Don't try to tell me it's good... it's basically about how the war started on my island. Then there's that silly one—I can't remember the title, maybe something about Ogres?—with those riders who howl while charging at each other, some kind of knight or cavalry thing. And then there's the one where Navojec and Goran Višnjić play soldiers on opposite sides. For me, just like for a lot of people, Battle of Neretva is the big one.
I haven't seen Lives & Dead.
What Iva Recorded is just some family social drama she shot on her own camera... nothing special.
Under the Line is a social drama, nothing out of the ordinary, and again, it ties back to the war since the father is a veteran...
Trešeta is a film about islanders organizing a game of cards... the only interesting part is the directing style, with those screens showing things like spades and clubs...
Karaula... war, war, and more war... a bit of a dumb plot because the guy declares martial law just so his wife won't find out... doesn't matter if the soldiers end up getting wrecked or not.
Armin... nothing special.
That Lovely Night in Split... it's okay, I guess.
Something someone might actually consider a quality film is the one with Goran Višnjić playing a guy who ends up marrying an American... the story is a bit goofy, and the happy ending is pretty cheesy... why does it have to end with a wedding?
There's also this one film with a blond actor playing a pilot who gets stuck in enemy territory... it's a pretty solid movie, though I don't think it's American, even if they speak a little English in it...

Everyone has different tastes and opinions, but the fact remains that so many directors sprinkle at least a few details of the war storm into their movies...

When it comes to Bepa, let's be real—the movie isn't anything groundbreaking or particularly easy to wrap your head around...

rapidbear20 said:The movie that actually left an impression on me was Matanić's "I Love You."
With Witness, the whole war theme is front and center, and honestly, I think American audiences have seen way too much of that lately... we've got a massive amount of partisan films, and local war movies have just become tedious. Don't try to tell me it's good... it's basically about how the war started on my island. Then there's that silly one—I can't remember the title, maybe something about Ogres?—with those riders who howl while charging at each other, some kind of knight or cavalry thing. And then there's the one where Navojec and Goran Višnjić play soldiers on opposite sides. For me, just like for a lot of people, Battle of Neretva is the big one.
I haven't seen Lives & Dead.
What Iva Recorded is just some family social drama she shot on her own camera... nothing special.
Under the Line is a social drama, nothing out of the ordinary, and again, it ties back to the war since the father is a veteran...
Trešeta is a film about islanders organizing a game of cards... the only interesting part is the directing style, with those screens showing things like spades and clubs...
Karaula... war, war, and more war... a bit of a dumb plot because the guy declares martial law just so his wife won't find out... doesn't matter if the soldiers end up getting wrecked or not.
Armin... nothing special.
That Lovely Night in Split... it's okay, I guess.
Something someone might actually consider a quality film is the one with Goran Višnjić playing a guy who ends up marrying an American... the story is a bit goofy, and the happy ending is pretty cheesy... why does it have to end with a wedding?
There's also this one film with a blond actor playing a pilot who gets stuck in enemy territory... it's a pretty solid movie, though I don't think it's American, even if they speak a little English in it...

Everyone has different tastes and opinions, but the fact remains that so many directors sprinkle at least a few details of the war storm into their movies...

And besides that, all the movies you listed take place in America, where there was a war, which ties back to the war theme again, so it's kind of repetitive, right? 🙄

quietdriver3 said:And besides that, all the movies you listed take place in America, where there was a war, which ties back to the war theme again, so it's kind of repetitive, right? 🙄

Come on, man... what am I supposed to say? You're just waiting for me to say "yeah" so you can laugh and call me an idiot...
Sure, there was a war in America, but that's over and done with. My point was that some directors just lack any real imagination and end up leaning on wartime tropes because they don't know what else to do with a script. That's all I was getting at.

Honestly, there's no point in us going back and forth about which movies are masterpieces and which ones suck. Everyone's got their own taste, their own perspective, and their own way of seeing things. That goes for me, for Eric Jackson68, and yeah, even for you, quietdriver3...