It's something that magicians do, you have to learn how much you need to show and much you can mislead the audience into thinking they've seen it. You need experience to learn how to do that.

No they got confused because there was a hole. We explained that you don't always need to show things, you can hear them happen or you can hear the cast talk about it - the classic telephone call and the one ended reaction shots. You don't need to see a head get chopped off on a guillotine to know it happened. For years Directors, had restrictions and just had to work around them.

Oh ok. Like for one short film for example I wanted a character to get handcuffed but didn't have the cuffs. So I thought well I will just imply it and add in a handcuff sound effect later. But the audience couldn't tell the character was being cuffed without seeing the cuffs though.

Well I talked to my film school professor and he says as far as confidence goes, I should just make my own feature like I wanted to before and every filmmaker has to eventually put their mouth where there money is so to speak, if he has a point?

With no handcuffs you shoot the character from the front with his arms clearly awkwardly 'cuffed' being him, and he ACTS like he his cuffed. The audience do not need to see the cuffs, they know he is cuffed because of the acting. You probably don't need the overt sound effect, to be honest, it's classic magicianship, we know he's cuffed because we saw it. We just didn't, that's all.

With the handcuffs, you didn't show the handcuffs..You were missing the set up of seeing the cuffs. the sound effect would then work if the actors only mimed putting on the cuffs without actually seeing them in shot. They would know what the sound effect is, without seeing the cuffs before they can't make the connection.

You could've made a prop that vaguely looks like cuffs, to set up the scene. It doesn't have to work. Although, good acting would probably allow you to get away without seeing them, there are a few scenes in films where you don't see the cuffs. They could've mined taking them out of their pocket or from their belt (the set up) and slipped them on the restrained suspect, their bodies hiding the nonexistent cuffs. A line like "turn around" or "don't struggle" or "I have to do this" would cover it.

With the guillotine, seeing that is the set up, so you cut to a cutaway giving the reaction, without seeing the head being chopped off. You only have the sound effect.

That's what magicians do, they set things up, However, there may be a deliberate misdirection in there, so that they do a slip of the hand for the trick to work..

There is a point where a filmmaker has to put his money where is mouth is. However, you have to decide if you've got the available resources to make a particular film and if you've got the skills (or members of your crew have) to make it. That's why some filmmakers don''t proceed with a project, but make another one instead.

If you've got a broad range of skills and are good a persuading people to lend or offer facilities/locutions/props for a very short period, you can do a lot more than if you don't.

On one of my short films we manged to get a joint police and army patrol driving in their armoured Land Rovers for half an hour. On the same film we got to use the local international airport's arrivals area as a location for a morning. You'd probably have a harder time getting that today with all the post 9/11 security rules.

Once again, sounds like it could have been done, but you did it poorly and left a gap without the proper cues needed for the audience to understand what happened. The larger point is as a film maker you should be good at visual story telling and making the right decisions. Instead, other people have to tell you something is wrong because you don't recognize it, and how to fix it. In essence, we are having to do your job for you. This doesn't bode well not for only for this specific example but in general going forward as a film maker, who can't recognize these issues or know how to fix them.

I was watching a Columbo episode last night. He pulls out the cuffs, cuts to cu of suspect expression as you hear the sound of the cuffs going, then wide shot of her being led away. The reason here to not show the cuffing is an artistic one. The point of the scene is the interaction between the suspect and Columbo so the filming of the actual cuffing is unnecessary. This is an example of showing only what’s important not hiding the fact you didn’t take the time to get an important prop.

The other reason to not show something and is what other posters here are talking about is that you don’t have the budget for stunt or action like a car crash, suspect jumping off building and hitting the ground. Rather than show something poorly, you would show the reaction and the sound. But in the example you gave, the cuffs seem to be an essential prop for a cop movie. Sounds like you’re lazy or cheap not to get the prop whether they were real or not.

Oh ok, but if you say the audience doesn't need to see everything though, and I can just imply, then why is there an exception when it comes to needing a shot of the. cuffs? Why is it an essential prop when everyone knows what it is without needing to see it?

Saying that I need a shot of cuffs seems to contradict that. So where does not needing to see something begin and where does it end?

You have to provide enough information so that the the audience, from their experience of the world, know that the person is being handcuffed. You don't need an insert shot of the handcuffs, unless you're making a film that has a bondage scene.

A wider shot with something (even if unseen) in the cop's hand that looks like cuffs and the suspect with their hands restrained behind their back with cops is all you need. The action will say it all, very few cop films have a close up of the cuffs, unless there's something psychological about them for the suspect. The closing of a Columbo, is a dramatic closure to the TV show, a bit of theatre - he's got his man again.

The body language will imply a lot.

You as the director have to decide when things need to be shown. If you set up scenes properly, the audience is subconsciouslt prepared for what is about to happen, however, you don't want to let them get ahead of you, so they guess it before it happens.

It's an exception if you, the creative person in charge , make it one. If the key feature is the character secretly putting a knife in his pocket we need to see it. Or maybe we see something put in the pocket but it's in shadow, so we know something went in, but not what, but not seeing anything wouldn't work. It's plot features. The script says "We see John surreptitiously hiding a knife in his pocket" So you shoot it. The Columbo one is a common trick - we want to see the face of the guilty, we want to see if Columbo is pleased the cuffs are on or if he's disappointed? This is just one example when your rules setting obsession is getting in the way and preventing you seeing the real goal - the story telling.

You've dropped straight back into the formula based approach, and you're handcuffing yourself!

Oh okay, but it seems to be the audience that cares about formula more than the storytelling, if these little things bother them, or no?

Don't fool yourself, it's about storytelling, even in the formula films.

Oh ok. Like for one short film for example I wanted a character to get handcuffed but didn't have the cuffs.

Who's in charge of your props department? You can get fake handcuffs for $10 or less.

If you have limited budget, crew, cast, and personal experience, why not tackle films that can be made with the resources you have? It's as if you're trying to shoot Star Wars with a Bell & Howell 8mm camera. Wouldn't it be better to shoot a modest script really well, rather than shoot an overly ambitious script badly?

It would but we've had this discussion with him like 1000 times over the last two years and he is absolutely stuck on trying to make this one project.

One of the first things I tell students in my workshops is that they shouldn't try to make their one big passion project of a lifetime as their first effort. Start with simpler and shorter pieces, maybe including one or two elements from their dream script to test out their ideas. Rinse and repeat until they're sure they know what they're doing before trying the film that's been trying to burst out from inside them for years.

In addition to this classic beginner's impatience, I think Ryan is so constrained by his limited resources that he's afraid he won't be able to afford the time, money and extra help he'll need to complete more than one big feature in his lifetime, so he wants to have every detail settled before ever rolling the camera. But then he spends so much time and energy planning that he never actually gets around to shooting anything. Many of his questions and lack of confidence can never be overcome by talking to others; he will have to get out there and shoot something to find out what works and what he is capable of.

On a lighter note, if I needed a pair of handcuffs for a prop, I can think of several ex-girlfriends I could call to lend me theirs. If we're on good terms, they would even include the keys.

- Greg

Badump Tsh!

Yes we've had that discussion with him too. Like they say in Battlestar Galactica, "all of this has happened before, all of this will happen again"

(cue "All Along the Watchtower")

To imagine someone fancying themselves a director/producer of a professional feature film with these type of questions and problems. Its so difficulty to not react to the absurdity, terrible decision making, and lack of understand. The best we could hope from this thread was a good laugh at a bad handcuff joke.

How many pages will it take to decide whether Ryan tends to overthink things? Clearly, five is not enough.

Someone could do analytics based on the past two years’ worth of threads but offhand I’d guess between 27 and 70.

We've reached a new nadir: now Ryan overthinks overthinking, and we respond. Do you ever wonder whether he's just spoofing us? In a way I hope he is; that would be less distressing than if he's serious.

That also comes up frequently. I think we've all decided he's legit. This (development of his movie idea) has been going on on multiple forums for 4-6 years, and is incredibly consistent.

Yeah I am legit in my intentions and I do want to make a good movie.

It's just that it's hard to believe I overthink things, when others say I missed all these things in past projects, so I always think that I underthink things as a result.

It sounds as if he needs a miracle.

Yeah I am legit in my intentions and I do want to make a good movie.

It's just that it's hard to believe I overthink things, when others say I missed all these things in past projects, so I always think that I underthink things as a result.

The problem as we all see it as that you don't know WHICH things to over/underthink--as Paul would say you give them all equal weight in terms of their importance. "can I fake compression" is not as important as, say, having a story/script worth faking compression FOR. And as everyone who's read or heard about the script (presumably this is the cop/revenge horror-thriller), has told you, that script/story is waaaaaay not ready for prime time. So why bother worrying about compression etc. until you get that ironed out?

Unfortunately, I'm not compelled by the story from what I've heard so far, For an limited budget it should be going for the psychological, which costs less that truck crash .To date, all I've heard so far are concerns about recreating big movie cliches.. Some Canadian noir would be more interesting.

The Bridge Seasons 1-4 UK Trailer (English Subtitles) - YouTube

How about two strangers trapped together in s house: Small cast, limited locations.

1964 Woman in the Dunes Official Trailer 1 Toho Film - YouTube

Writing a script that matches your budget! If only Ryan talked to you sooner (6 years ago). I’m afraid there’s no turning back from this awful crime thriller. Do you think I over think! good lord

I was just about to post then read Josh's comment on what I would say and it was exactly what I was going to say. Scary!

I think thought this weighting really is the weak area - in one post we accidentally shot one bit soft, and it generated a topic I've ignored. I've messed up loads of times in my focus prediction. With my kind of stuff I have to pick a focus position without any actors, and I usually use the floor and my eye to gauge distance I'm pretty good at it but sometimes I'll get it wrong, or worse, knock the focus ring. Every time I have had to fall back to my wide shot, I have never been happy. It's really not a solution for the rubbish shot, but we have to use it as such. Unless every shot has a proper purpose, trying to fill with the wrong shot is rarely successful. I am doing projects at the moment with locked of cameras and it's the same problem. Covid means I cannot have the people, so I am running around on multiple takes operating each camera in turn. It sort of gives me angles but I'm editing constantly annoyed by every shot - which would have been so much better with a cameraman on the end of!

For me, this concept of a wide angle safety means emergency compromise, and if you have to use them, it's bacause mistakes were made - either in planning or production. One I did last week had a faulty camera - well actually an ok camera just on the wrong setting - so with the HMI I was using as a distant key, it flickered. In the end, I just couldn't live with it, and as the setting was symmetrical, and the actor had a symmetrical hairstyle, I used the camera on the other side, cropped and panned a little and flipped the image and use this shot when I needed to, and I think I got away with it.

This use the safety conversation we've done before, more than once.

Ryan's problem isn't unique - but maybe he needs to try to formulate a flexible plan for dealing with mistakes. Proactive and reactive problem solving is an essential skill.

Oh okay. Well as far as scripts go I picked what I thought was the best one I had access to. There is a couple of other filmmakers were more enthusiastic about but that one involved a submarine setting and thought that would just be more challenging and cost more. So I thought I would go with a story which may have a darker and more dramatic impact, but could be done in realistic locations.

But should I look for a different script perhaps?

Yessssssssssssssssss

Oh okay, but what is the problem with the script I wanted to do, just so I know what avoid perhaps, when looking for other ones?

But it's not like I concentrate on just the physical part of filmmaking only. I went over the script with other writers and readers, and they helped improve it a lot. I just didn't talk about the script on here hardly, because I thought that the site was more about the physical filmmaking process, rather than the script writing. So I get that feedback and collaboration from other sources, but I can talk about the script on here, if that's good..

Writing a script is entirely different to turning it into a film. You can have a good script, but unless you've got resources and skills to turn it into good film, the results are going to be disappointing. Unless you're using this a learning exercise, you've got lots of areas that will probably fall short.

If you had the range of skills to overcome them it would less concerning, but, from your messages, you don't appear to have these for this particular project. You can do a lot if you that rework things to fit in with what you have available and can think on your feet. However, flexibility doesn't appear to be one of your strengths and it's a key one on extremely low budget films,.

I agree with Brian. You might have a great script, but if you don't have the budget to get the cast, crew, and equipment, the final result will be bad. Imagine if someone gave you the script for Star Wars and you tried to shoot it on a very limited budget (which seems to be your financial situation). The result would be sad, maybe even laughable; maybe you'd never even get to the end of the script.

I think you are trying to make a seven-course meal when all you have is a pound of ground beef, paper plates, and five dollars cash. You would be better off to buy some buns and do a really good job of making the best possible hamburgers. In other words, "realistic expectations" that are matched to your level of experience and budget.

You mentioned an example about not having handcuffs. If you couldn't afford a $10 set of handcuffs, what was your actual budget for that project? Did you, or did you not, have someone in charge of props for that project?

More specifically, what is your total budget for shooting this particular script that we're now discussing (ad nauseam)? You're asking some very experienced people for very specific advice. I think you would get better answers if we knew very specifically what your total project budget is. How many dollars, give or take 10%? An actual number?

I quite like the submarine idea, but the cost of the set would be huge - the guys building home aircraft cockpit simulators spend tends of thousands on just that small bit - building even the control room would require serious money to even consider.

The submarine is a perfect example of you coming up with ideas without thinking through how it would be produced, the costs, the sets, the cast, etc. I have a hunch sub movies aren't filmed on subs but are mostly filmed on Hollywood constructed sets.

A large part of your problems stem from not being able to execute the fundamentals used on a pro set. It's easy to write in your screen play, gun battle, car chase, or even something as simple as dolly in. But if you don't have the expertise the experience, resources, or staff to pull it off. What's the point of spending all this time refining a script for a movie you can't produce.

Oh yeah, I did the submarine idea as more of a mental exercise rather than something I wanted to make with my money now, but others told me that it was my best idea and to find a way to make it.

But I would really like to do the other script since it can be made in realistic locations theoretically. I was able to raise 30K, and can maybe add 20 of my own. One of the reasons I haven't made it yet, is I want to find more actors to choose from. But it is the lowest budget script I have access to that I think would be good, compared to some other ones that even though are low budget, don't think would be as good. So I am trying to find a balance.

But I do feel I could pull it off as long as I had the right cast, the right small crew, such as DP, make up, etc, and good enough locations around where I live.

Going with the best script/story is always best. Audiences aren't interested the fact you can find "realistic locations", they invest in the story, not the locations.

Well - I thought I'd see if I could find a real submarine where a movie could be made and I found one available as a location for a very modest sum, and while you'd need to do some of the common movie tricks with lighting, being a WW2 submarine, there are no computer screens, but lots of levers, wheels and meters. I've also found a location available that would probably go hand in hand - an ex-cold war nuclear bunker, filled with the kit - so again for a modest fee it would be a brilliant place for a typical movie thriller.

Building a set would be hugely more expensive, and rather pointless.

Ryan - you really need to invent a scoring system for your advice giving friends. Some seem to dish out sensible, grounded advice and others are bordering on being idiots.

Although, this depends on your skillset. If you're a director with the skills to design and build a set. plus access to suitable old scrapped industrial/marine/aerospace kit, you can do a surprising amount on limited funds.It costs mostly your time.

Some of the most iconic film props are just re-purposed old stuff bought on the cheap.

Oh okay, well as far as a WW2 sub goes, the story deals with sub being a nuclear one, so I don't think a WW2 looking one would pass therefore, but maybe I am wrong.

But even if I do not make the submarine one, don't I still have to make some sort of low budget feature film to try to break into the business? Every other filmmaker I have worked with has done, so isn't that what you have to do break in, or is that not the way to try to break in and I am going about it wrong?

It was also said before that when it comes to directing the other script I was interested in directing, that I should choose a script that is modest rather than something that is overly ambitious. How do you keep a script from being ambitious, or what is the key to keeping it modest? I thought all feature film scripts were ambitious to a degree, but is there something about it that is overly ambitious compared to other ones? I thought that if I chose a lower budget horror thriller script, that that genre would be better to do a on a microbudget, but perhaps that is not the right genre for micro, and I should have chosen something more low key, like a drama or comedy perhaps? But other filmmakers have said to avoid drama or comedy because they are tougher sells in the independent market compared to horror and thriller, unless that is wrong advice again?

With your experience and budget you should be doing something like this (I thought this movie was awesome by the way, even though it's not exactly your genre):

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2866360/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

It has no special FX to speak of, no stunts, gunplay, fighting (with the exception of a few very small scenes of violence), explosions, etc. It's all in houses and neighborhood streets. Just a cool plot/idea, and the whole thing relies on the strength of that.

What makes yours overly ambitious is...everything...every overturned car, gunfight, etc. You want to keep this SIMPLE. SIM. PLE. Something like "Tape" with Ethan Hawke. That may not sound "cool" or "exciting" but it's what you MIGHT be able to actually pull off. Big budget action stuff? Not so much.

Oh okay, but the problem is with the writing is that for example with guns, when criminals want to commit crimes, they are going to want to bring guns because it makes the crimes a lot more easier to commit and a lot more easier to get people to do what you say. Plus when the police go after such villains to try to catch them, they will logically bring guns to.

So how do you cut out the guns, without cutting out the logic of the story? I don't have to have the car flip, that was just more of a bonus if I could pull it off. But I think if I am to set the story in modern day America, the police are going to bring guns, which means the villain is going to want to bring a gun to a gun fight, wouldn't he?

I mean as far as not having guns go, perhaps I could set the movie in a country like the UK, but then I have to try to make it seem like the UK, and the actors would have to fake accents. Or is there a better way to write the guns out a horror thriller script?

Youre completely missing the point of what I was trying to say. Scrap or at least shelve the whole idea/movie, start over with a brand new simple idea/script that has nothing to do with the serial rapist/cop thriller.

Oh okay, but every time I try to write new scripts, the budget always goes up because when you try to develop a story, things have to happen, and it's hard not to let the characters do those things, without causing the story to become illogical. It happens every time I write, and characters do not know they are in a movie, so they cannot make decisions to stay within a budget, without it being illogical or noticeable.

Or there are times when the characters do not have to make decisions that will cost more money, but then I find it not as compelling, or interesting and figure if I don't find it dramatic or compelling, to save on money, than neither will the audience. But they say that horror movies are easier to do on a lower budget but how is that when stunts cost more money?

I dont know what to tell you on that one. It comes down to imagination.

The writer(s) of Tape and Coherence (movie I linked to above) and Primer managed to do it. Im sure there are countless other examples.

Oh okay, good point. I guess I am betting at writing physical thrillers where characters have to escape physical danger, more than psychological danger. Perhaps the physical danger stories are the strength of my imagination.

You don't need to set your story in the US. In your case, you may end up having Canadians trying to do American accents, which will depend on how good your actors are. There are a wide range of accents in the US.

If you're relying just on guns for the logic in your story, you're lost up a col de sac. Some of the most brutal scenes in films don't have any guns, they're the easy way out. Lots of crime doesn't involve the use of any guns.

Oh okay, well if I set it in Canada, a lot of people including the police have guns here too. But let's say I write so the villains commit their crimes without any guns. The police are still going to use their guns to go after the villains, and I want the villains to try to fight back and resist arrest and escape to make it more dramatic. But would the police not use guns in Canada, in such situations?

It's just that in the script, the protagonist as well as supporting characters are police officers, and if they do not use guns, especially the main character, well then the audience is going to think it doesn't make sense of for them not to, won't they, even in Canada?

Maybe I am missing something here. You say lots of crime does not involve guns, but how do you prevent the police from not having guns, if they are going into situations where they will be attacked by the villains? This is what I am having trouble understanding how to write.

One movie I can think of where the police do not use any guns when going after a serial killer is The Chaser (2008). But is there a reason why they were able to make it work in that movie, that I can implement perhaps? Or what if I wrote it so that the police do not have any guns, even when they go into dangerious situations, and like The Chaser, just don't bother to address why they don't bring guns?

The cops here carry guns, but they don't always use them.

It depends on how they're used dramatically, they can be an easy way out. Cops can also use them inappropriately, which can bring other ramifications for charterers. .

In "The Bridge" Saga, the Swedish female protagonist detective has what appears to be Aspergers and she has a gun, it gets fired occasionally, However, it's also used for dramatic effect, she doesn't allow her Danish partner on the case to use a gun in Sweden because he's not allowed to be aimed there. There's an instance later where she's forced to confront her keeping to rules when told to take a gun in Denmark while doing a raid without support,

There's a SWAT type team that gives them support on police raids, but guns are rarely fired by them.

Just firing guns isn't dramatic, there has to be more to it.

Serial killers are a mixed bunch and you don't always need a gun to arrest them.

Oh okay, well for example I wanted the villains to suffer a dramatic death, by the police at the end. Kind of like the death you see at the end of Bonnie and Clyde (1967) for example, or something of that sort.

But, would the police give the villaims a death like that, if it meant beating them to death, with their hands or batons, instead of using the guns? I guess I just that the guns would be more dramatic of a death.

But let's say you do not need guns to arrest a serial killer. In movies, they always use guns though. For example in the movies The Silence of the Lambs and Seven, when the SWAT teams go into, what they think are the killers homes, they are aiming guns as they go in. Why didn't the SWAT team just choose to come unarmed then, if they do not need them? If I write it so that a team of police goes in unarmed, when it be believable, compared to movies like The Silence of the Lambs or Seven, where they had guns?

SWAT squads go in armed, that's what they exist for.

The job of the police is to bring people to justice, not to kill them for revenge. Currently, the news has instances where suspects have met their deaths by other means. There's a story behind the real Bonny and Clyde, their characters and the world that they lived in. They are the protagonists, not the cops in the film.

There has to be another level to the deaths, since you don't have the budget to do a visceral scene like "Bonnie and Clyde" Unless the gunshots can be seen ripping something/people apart you won't match that scene, beating with blunt instruments comes closer, as demonstrated by Joe Pesci in a number of films. .

There are movies in which they don't use guns to arrest real life serial killers.

Oh okay, it's just in every movie I've seen besides The Chaser here they always use SWAT to go make the arrests.

Plus I didn't think I needed more Gore to try to to do a dramatic death scene like Bonnie and clyde. I thought I could still have the deaths but without more gore, unless I need the gore?