>involves so many fricking people.
I wish I had listened to the teacher on the first day of film school. They said something to the effect of, 'if you don't want to work with people but make art then be a painter or a writer or something because film is collaborative.' I fricking hate people. Why did I think I'd be able to work in a medium that requires bundles of people and networking is absolutely essential?
>"if you don't want to work with people but make art then be a painter or a writer or something because film is collaborative"
That's wise and something I've come to learn by myself. Although even writers have editors. Painting is probably the only truly solo artform.
He definitely is but in this instance I was referring to Hitchwiener.
5 months ago
Anonymous
In this instance you are a blithering idiot.
5 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not saying you're wrong but why specifically?
5 months ago
Anonymous
he's slightly less repulsive than current day commies but not by much, he still is one.
5 months ago
Anonymous
At least he could do his job well. He knows he's not as interesting as his guests and is very good at putting them at ease and hitting them with prompts and questions that will get them to reveal intriguing thoughts and stories. Probably helps that Cavett's guests rarely felt like they were there to plug something or give a rehearsed performance, but to actually talk about the world and themselves.
>"if you don't want to work with people but make art then be a painter or a writer or something because film is collaborative"
That's wise and something I've come to learn by myself. Although even writers have editors. Painting is probably the only truly solo artform.
>if you don't want to work with people but make art then be a painter or a writer or something because film is collaborative
okay fair enough. but is there any solo medium where you can accomplish the same thing than a movie?
i thought of drawing a comic and recording the sound design for it, but i can't draw + i can't write + i have never touched an instrument in my life.
...forgot to add something, but the single most interesting thing about movies is having complex images and sound, together, in motion. how am i supposed to that all by myself?
I mean, I thought of doing animation but like I’ve already said :
1) I’m a talentless hack (can’t draw, can’t compose, can’t edit, can’t write for shit)
2) you still need a bunch of people to make the end result look good.
And that’s what pisses me off. I could write a novel, but I’m more visual in my train of thought, not so much verbal. I could play some tune, but then you wouldn’t have had the visuals. I could go for the comic route, but then you lack the motion and audio aspects, etc…
The first thing you have to do is make it a good deal with the tightest of the universe that you can get away from the government and it's not a nu-speak term for the most part of the universe and the rest of the universe is to be a little sleep deprived
I know a politician who talks like that when answering questions from reporters. His responses are very flowery but they are basically empty statements that do not give a concrete answer to the question.
Imagine writing a script, knowing you're going to change it thousands of times, and not just winging it. You think that's how Ron Howard made Willow? C'omon bro.
>What equipment do phone shooters use.
Before they used shotguns but nowadays they use semi-automatic guns. They're easier to hold with one hand while you use your other hand to hold the phone.
Insane had a budget of $1.5 million dollars. If you're asking for advice on Cinemaphile, that's probably not a good example for a low budget starter film.
Yeah, but that wasn't what they asked and the filming equipment isn't what resulted in that budget (which is still insanely low for a feature film). I'm just showing equipment isn't the barrier.
he still has a rig for the fricking phone, just like Tangerine, the whole "it was shot with an iphone" is always a publicity stunt, there's always some other expensive equipment
There's frick all difference between a kit from Amazon and the one they're using there. Even if there was your film doesn't need to look as good aesthetically. Focus on your script, find a pair or group of actors that can actually act and don't neglect your sound. If you have a decent little story, framed creatively, performed well that doesn't sound like shit you'll connect with an audience a lot more than a beautiful but boring heap of shit where nothing happens.
Find a movie that was shot for a $3000 budget or less and read all you can about it from creation to distribution. Tubi currently has hundreds of movies that were made with a few thousand dollars. Those people are making money from the movie and at the very least are on IMDB. If you don't have at least $3000, your first step is getting $3000. Focus on that first.
Pretty sure the lightning in a bottle refers to it blowing up like it did. The story of Clerks is a pretty decent blueprint on how someone could make a film, they just absolutely should not expect the same kind of success because that's a 1 in 10 million sort of thing.
Very carefully
bro, just use your iphone. anyone can do it.
It's a long and tedious process and it involves so many fricking people.
>involves so many fricking people.
I wish I had listened to the teacher on the first day of film school. They said something to the effect of, 'if you don't want to work with people but make art then be a painter or a writer or something because film is collaborative.' I fricking hate people. Why did I think I'd be able to work in a medium that requires bundles of people and networking is absolutely essential?
>"if you don't want to work with people but make art then be a painter or a writer or something because film is collaborative"
That's wise and something I've come to learn by myself. Although even writers have editors. Painting is probably the only truly solo artform.
Not if you're a genius butthole director who doesn't listen to other people and just tells them what to do.
I watched the Dick Cavett's Hitchwiener interview a couple of weeks ago. What an unashamedly based guy.
Yes, Dick Cavett is definitely based.
He definitely is but in this instance I was referring to Hitchwiener.
In this instance you are a blithering idiot.
I'm not saying you're wrong but why specifically?
he's slightly less repulsive than current day commies but not by much, he still is one.
At least he could do his job well. He knows he's not as interesting as his guests and is very good at putting them at ease and hitting them with prompts and questions that will get them to reveal intriguing thoughts and stories. Probably helps that Cavett's guests rarely felt like they were there to plug something or give a rehearsed performance, but to actually talk about the world and themselves.
>if you don't want to work with people but make art then be a painter or a writer or something because film is collaborative
okay fair enough. but is there any solo medium where you can accomplish the same thing than a movie?
i thought of drawing a comic and recording the sound design for it, but i can't draw + i can't write + i have never touched an instrument in my life.
...forgot to add something, but the single most interesting thing about movies is having complex images and sound, together, in motion. how am i supposed to that all by myself?
No idea. AI? There's a reason film is a collaborative medium; it's very difficult to do all the jobs on your own.
I mean, I thought of doing animation but like I’ve already said :
1) I’m a talentless hack (can’t draw, can’t compose, can’t edit, can’t write for shit)
2) you still need a bunch of people to make the end result look good.
And that’s what pisses me off. I could write a novel, but I’m more visual in my train of thought, not so much verbal. I could play some tune, but then you wouldn’t have had the visuals. I could go for the comic route, but then you lack the motion and audio aspects, etc…
Besides, what are you implying by “AI”?
I'm pretty sure at least half of all the greatest directors hate people
show your penis homosexual
is that part necessary
The first thing you have to do is make it a good deal with the tightest of the universe that you can get away from the government and it's not a nu-speak term for the most part of the universe and the rest of the universe is to be a little sleep deprived
What the frick are you even saying?
I know a politician who talks like that when answering questions from reporters. His responses are very flowery but they are basically empty statements that do not give a concrete answer to the question.
Gotcha thanks.
How does one use their phone to do it. Is there some basic auxiliary audio or motion equipment someone can buy for their phone.
Step one, get funding
Step two, make movie
First, start with the script.
Imagine writing a script, knowing you're going to change it thousands of times, and not just winging it. You think that's how Ron Howard made Willow? C'omon bro.
Write one within your budget.
Then shoot it.
You can shoot a movie on a phone these days.
What equipment do phone shooters use. Or do they just hold it in their hand
>What equipment do phone shooters use.
Before they used shotguns but nowadays they use semi-automatic guns. They're easier to hold with one hand while you use your other hand to hold the phone.
Nah, tarrant revolutionized the industry when he used a gopro
Here's Soderbergh filming Unsane with a phone.
what kind of phone is he using?
iPhone 7Plus with FiLMiC Pro.
It was kino, and Claire Foy is fricking incredible in it.
Insane had a budget of $1.5 million dollars. If you're asking for advice on Cinemaphile, that's probably not a good example for a low budget starter film.
Yeah, but that wasn't what they asked and the filming equipment isn't what resulted in that budget (which is still insanely low for a feature film). I'm just showing equipment isn't the barrier.
he still has a rig for the fricking phone, just like Tangerine, the whole "it was shot with an iphone" is always a publicity stunt, there's always some other expensive equipment
You could buy one of those "rig" kits along with lenses and a tripod for less than the cost of hiring a camera with a tripod for a day.
the result isn't the same
There's frick all difference between a kit from Amazon and the one they're using there. Even if there was your film doesn't need to look as good aesthetically. Focus on your script, find a pair or group of actors that can actually act and don't neglect your sound. If you have a decent little story, framed creatively, performed well that doesn't sound like shit you'll connect with an audience a lot more than a beautiful but boring heap of shit where nothing happens.
Read the book Fast Cheap and Under Control
Screenplay: 70 3x5 cards, 70 scenes, and you have a film
Have an idea, pick up a camera, and film it
Find a movie that was shot for a $3000 budget or less and read all you can about it from creation to distribution. Tubi currently has hundreds of movies that were made with a few thousand dollars. Those people are making money from the movie and at the very least are on IMDB. If you don't have at least $3000, your first step is getting $3000. Focus on that first.
Don't worry bro lots of directors were introverts. Idk about Kubrick but John Ford was 100% introverted.
just watch this
Lightning in a bottle, doesn't count.
not really, is just a solid script
Pretty sure the lightning in a bottle refers to it blowing up like it did. The story of Clerks is a pretty decent blueprint on how someone could make a film, they just absolutely should not expect the same kind of success because that's a 1 in 10 million sort of thing.
it starts when you're born - if they don't chop off part of your penis unfortunately you're out of luck
>make a story
>get camera
Done