Maybe it's more interesting if the the key cop characters have to make the arrests. After all it's these people who the audience have invested in, not cops covered with body armour.

You shouldn't use examples which have lots of bullet hits on the characters and the vehicle they were sitting in, if you don't wish to use gore. After all the characters being ripped apart by bullets is central to how these people died both in the movie and even more so in real life.

Oh well I meant the example as in what happens, not how I intend to show it if that makes sense?

The thing about using the main cop characters, is that I didn't think it would be believable, if they went to make the arrest without back up. For example, in the movie Manhunter, the main character goes with back up. I just thought it would make the main cops look dumb, if they didn't bring any.

It's story telling, you put the main character(s) into a position where they;re forced to do it without back up. The SWAT team may runaround the place, but your main hero needs to do the final show down.

An example is in "The Bridge" final showdown, where Saga Norén, the female Swedish detective, goes alone to face down the villain who has her detective partner in the middle of the bridge between Sweden and Denmark. The bridge is sealed off at either end, but the SWAT teams are no where near,

This is what heroes tend to do, they may have had a commando squad , but it's James Bond who finally faces down the villain, although sometimes he gets saved by the bond girl, who has a reason for revenge, Dirty Harry did the job without a SWAT team.

Film making is a creative process that takes flexibility. At every turn in the process it reveals you handcuff yourself with rules and preconceptions. Your ideas are primarily derived from big budget movies.

There is too long of list of examples in this genre where there is no need for guns, gun fights or large supporting cast. To name a few: Sherlock both the British and American series, Wallander, Endeavor... The detective doesn’t need a gun and most of time is spent with a solitary lead character perusing inquires.

There are so many possibles to write it in a way that works for a low budget that still would be exciting but you seem incapable of seeing past your narrow vision. You’d be better off working at a government job that has specific rules and regulations to follow.

Mindless mainstream action movies which you seem to be modeling your movie after rely on all the things that low budget film isn’t good at. Mainly all that action (gun fights, car chases, fights and special effects). Not understanding your limitations and the realities of producing a movie is the consequence of living inside a personal passion project bubble.

Oh okay, I never thought of the script as an action movie script, but more of a suspense thriller, which happens to have physical confrontations in it, at certain points.

I could cut out the physical confrontations and cut them short, but then script will only be about 70 pages long, since the confrontations take up about 20 pages. So I woulld be 20 pages short of the what a screenplay is expected to be, since they say do not go under 90 pages, if that's true.

Many times in the past you’ve asked questions about this project. Which many have replied ‘What’s your budget?’ Which your answer changes every time from you don’t know, to not enough to buy $10 handcuffs to 50k. Beyond the money it seems your skills or your access to crew to deliver professional results makes determining what you could realistically do difficult to judge. If you and your crew abilities are so low no screen play no matter how basic will be a challenge. I know you have a higher opinion of your skills than your results seemed to indicate...

Oh well the handcuffs were for a short film I did before, that I was using as an example, not the current project I am budgeting. As for having a high opinion of my abilities, I thought it as the opposite and it was too low, since I feel I keep coming up short.

I suspect the reasoning is that action, like trucks overturning adds to your costs. That you seem to be unwilling to spend small amounts on props, doesn't indicate a willingness to spend the larger amounts that may be required to pull off stunts at a level acceptable to a mainstream audience.

Not having the inner confidence is the reason why you'll fall short, since directing involves displaying a self confidence, even if you've got lots of doubts. It's overcoming those doubts and making a decision, even if it's wrong.to some extent, because the worst thing is making no decision in war and making films.

Confidence allows you to risk failure or mistakes and you won't learn anything without doing that. As they said in the other forum, go out and make films, you'll learn more doing that than asking endless questions on forums.

There are lots of books, written by directors, that go though their thought processes and worries. Go and read those, you'll learn from their mistakes.

Oh okay, but I thought that having too much confidence is a bad thing, since it seems others may think I am too confident and in over my head. Unless there is no such thing as too much confidence for a filmmaker and we need that?

What about what was said before, about how I think too highly of my abilities?

Ryan, the problem is not just that you over-think things. Part of the problem is that you under-do things. You are expending a lot of time and energy (yours and everyone else's) just talking about stuff, rather than doing things and learning from your experience.

I think you would be better off to find a mentor locally, someone who has been successful at making films, and just be an apprentice for a year. (Or have you already driven all the local people bat-shit crazy with your repetitive, circular questions?) If you can't get a position as an apprentice, get a position as a janitor where films are being made, and just watch and learn for a year.

Here's a multiple-choice question for you. You have to answer either "A," "B," or "C."

Q: If you had to choose, which would you rather do (in other words, which would you rather have on your resume, and which would make you happier)?
A.) Writing a great script for a film
B.) Producing & directing a great film
C.) Talking to people in forums like this about writing and producing a film.

Just one simple answer for that one question: "A," "B," or "C"? No commentary, no explanation, no qualifying your answer. Just give us one letter. Give it some thought, then please give us your answer.

Oh okay. My answer is B.

I am trying to get the budget down first and just feel stuck in pre-production and getting everything arranged. I need to the pre-production ducks all in a row first, before production, or at least that is how it seems.

Well as far as mentors go, one filmmaker I helped on his projects before, made his first feature for only $480 USD. So I could try to learn from him perhaps, but he makes comedies, and thought not sure if he could help with a thriller script, that may be a totally different boat, budget wise, but maybe he could help with the budget.

My impression from reading a novel’s worth of his posts is that he USED TO have confidence and not question every single decision no matter how small, but the harsh criticism of the few projects he HAS completed and posted has brought him to this state of mind.

Well I wouldn't say I didn't question any of my decisions, but should I go back to that mindset and make a feature without questioning any of the budget decisions, and think of my judgment as good and correct? I guess I'm just afraid if I am not cautious, I will get in over my head with too much confidence.

Well in the past you were at least confident enough to finish something...the Timewine movie. Since I dont think we’ve seen anything else that was truly yours—-only other people’s project’s that youve directed with heavy input or collaboration from your clients.

We are begging you to do more short zero budget projects of YOUR OWN. you will learn so much about what does and doesnt work and what can and cant be done with x resources. Doing these projects will answer so many of the endless questions you have.

OK, Ryan, "B" it is. Implicit in my question was my feeling that you cannot meet all three criteria, certainly not simultaneously (unless perhaps you are Orson Welles). Here's my non-technical thoughts on this entire thread and on many of your threads. I'm not charging you for my thoughts, they cost nothing, and they are worth nothing. So here goes.

Based on the number of questions you're asking about your proposed project, I think you are tackling too much all at once. You're trying to write a thriller AND produce a film of it; your lack of practical experience (and your realization of that) are causing you to spend a lot of time in dialog in these forums. That's "A," "B" and "C." You need to focus on what is most important to you: "B." As Josh points out, you are getting more than a little criticism here. Many members are real professionals and have been doing this for years; they think in terms of "doing something better" which might sound like a bucket-load of criticism to you. (Also, I suspect some of the negativity is because they are frustrated by the endless, seemingly circular, discussions.)

When you ask a question, you end up getting (let's pick an arbitrary number here) five answers which are all slightly different, and some of which seem to contradict others. It's all good advice, just five different opinions from five different people. They may all be correct. But still it would make anybody's head spin. Since you didn't answer "C" (chat online about making a film) as your first choice, then it would be wonderful if you could get out of this rut and aim for "B."

You are emotionally too close to the thriller script. You have that story in your mind. You want to see it with that much realism, detail and quality on film. You don't have enough distance from the story to turn the script into something that you are capable of putting on film, given your budget, the level of your experience and that of your cast and crew. You are trying to satisfy "A" and "B" and you have to pick one. Well, you have picked one: you want to make "a great film." My question didn't specify any particular film ... just a great film.

I strongly urge you to pick a smaller and more realistic project, just for practice, and do a meticulous and really great job of it! If it's a 30-second PSA for the local [aquarium / SPCA / homeless shelter / food bank] then do that, and make it really good. Just the act of doing it will be a good learning experience. Then find a 3-minute project that is within your budget and your skill set, and do a really good job at that. Not the least benefit is that you will start to develop some self confidence. Pick one project that has some difficult lighting (everything else, hopefully, being easier). Pick another project that has some challenging sound situations. Learn as you go.

The Sistene Chapel was not Michelangelo's first painting. It took him four years after he had gained a lot of experience with smaller works. It took Brahms at least sixteen years (maybe more) to write his first symphony ... after he had gained a lot of experience with smaller works. Save the thriller, which is so important to you, until after you've gained some experience with smaller films. Be content to start small, and become a confident craftsman along the way. Then you'll be ready for your big story.

Oh okay, I thought that the Battle Damaged Souls film was mine in the sense that I directed it, and since I want to get into directing, is anything I directed, truely mine? Or do I have to write the script for others to consider the project something I did? I am just not the best writer I find I guess.

Well in the past you were at least confident enough to finish something...the Timewine movie. Since I dont think we’ve seen anything else that was truly yours—-only other people’s project’s that youve directed with heavy input or collaboration from your clients.

We are begging you to do more short zero budget projects of YOUR OWN. you will learn so much about what does and doesnt work and what can and cant be done with x resources. Doing these projects will answer so many of the endless questions you have.

Well I could do more zero budget ones, it's just that everytime I do, I am told the acting is really bad, and the cinematography is really bad. So therefore, is there a point to doing zero budget ones, if they just keep ending up in bad quality, since I didn't spend a lot on acting and cinematography?

If I keep making the zero budget ones, without spending money on acting and cinematography, I thought it would still be the same thing, and no improvements would come, since I constantly told to improve in those areas, unless I am wrong?

Also, it's difficult to get people interested in zero budget anymore. One actor told me that they feel I should move on from zero budget, onto bigger projects, if he has a point? I think some other filmmakers I worked with also feel the same way.

Oh also, as far as short films of mine I posted on here before, did I post this one on here before, or no?

I feel I must give a sexual violence warning though perhaps.

In the Mood For Wrath - YouTube

Uh. wow. No, have not seen that one before. Im sure the others here will have thoughts.

Oh okay. I mean the acting and cinematography are not good cause it's a no budget one of course...

No budget doesn't mean that the acting has to be bad, just that your pool will be more limited. If you have a good actor or actors, write your films around them, I used the same actor in a number of films, he was a professional actor, but I knew he had screen presence and came from a stage background, so could deliver lines. .

I got him to act with his eyes and not to project to the back row. Unfortunately, he had personal difficulties, which restricted his professional career, but he got work doing small parts. I recently saw an extract of a film I did with him in a retrospective of films made here and he shone in the scene.

We were shooting on film, one film was on 8mm the others were 16mm, so there were costs.

Some actors will do films for practice, especially if it it's a big part, however, that's easier on shorts.than a feature film.

The same applies to crew, it depends on the local pool.It helps if you've also got the skills to do a number of the jobs on your own film.. .

Oh okay. Where can I find a larger pool of actors as well as a larger pool of DP's to pick from if it's zero budget?

You personally have to put the time in. You need to use you imagination and personal skills in finding them, You could advertise, it's something that can take time, you have to be proactive and focused..

Oh okay, sure. I have put out casting calls the past two years, but feel that not enough were showing up in order to choose from to cast a project effectively. I can keep trying and looking around. But I feel that has been the biggest reason why I haven't made shorts much is because of looking for more actors and a more DPs to choose from.

It's not that I don't want to, I just feel I need more help to pull it off.

So, why do you think a feature film is going to be easier?

I wonder if one problem that Ryan has never considered is who his audience is? He is making his movies for himself. His own likes and dislikes, and perhaps even style, completely overpower the needs of the audience. In the other topic, he warns us of the content before we have seen it. This is a problem because it is a HUGE reduction in potential viewing figures. If you work on the premise that genre may be the biggest operator in the filters, it's a cut of a cut of a cut, and then with the sexual content, we go above the 18 limit that nowadays is pointless in itself. So you have an adult product, with graphic scenes of blood and murder, plus sexual content - so who is left watching it? Certainly not people who know good movies it could be argued? Nobody criticises production techniques in porn, few music fans look at the continuity and framing in a Queen biopic, so fans opinions are based on a very narrow spectrum of people. Go the other way, to Disney and because the audience is huge and diverse, every element has to be perfect.

I rather liked the pyscho shower scene, brought up recently - the level of actual visual violence is amazingly low - my memory remembers very different things. Did I imagine what my memory remembers? I suspect that it's the Hitchcock way of doing things - to make you think you saw what you didn't.

Maybe your style and content prevents people wanting to be involved? If you made something in a different genre, maybe your casting would be easier and you'd not have to say yes to weak people simply because you are casting by quantity not quality.

Ask yourself how many people auditioned for the parts who you turned down.

One thing I have realised. The fella who did your talking head in the battle damaged souls thing - I had assumed he was a veteran, and it was a documentary. I did not realise he was an actor. I thought that short was that guess own idea which you shot, not that it was a movie with script and actors. I'm not sure if that's an indication of success or failure? Success really I think as you fooled me.

There are a number of extremely good films that have an 18 certificate, however, the audience does become smaller. How it affects the sales and distribution will depend on the genre, for example it's unlikely to have much impact on a horror film.

You can get away with a fair amount of sex and violence with a 15 cert. I'm not sure what certificate "Naked Attraction" on the UK Channel 4 would get, but it does have close shots of male and female genitals. BTW It's a dating show for those who don't know it..

Ryan, I would be astounded if I hadn't read so many of your threads. You're complaining that you can't find enough actors to make a simple limited short. How are you going to find enough actors to make your huge masterpiece?

This is why people go to school. There is a pool of actors in the theatre department. There is a pool of musicians in the music department. There is a pool of crew in the technical theatre department. You meet smart, enthusiastic people and network with them, teams form, things get done. Meanwhile, in structured classes, you learn things from the ground up, in logical order, rather than trying to learn them at random by asking questions here.

Make a short PSA about the local SPCA. It can be serious, or maybe you can find some humorous point to it. Interview one person, who is on the staff there, and you won't need a casting call. The rest of your shots are animals, buildings, backgrounds. Meanwhile you will learn about camera angles, composition, lighting, sound, and editing.

Stop dealing with all these "disturbed mind" themes, crime, injuries, etc., which require good acting along with difficult and/or expensive effects. Make something short and positive. You will gain experience in the necessary skills, gain confidence, and build up a filmography, all at the same time. If you have a list of good films to your credit, people will be more inclined to work with you, even if it's for free.

By the way, what's the most important thing you learned from Jay Rose?

I have the distinct impression Ryan only wants to do what he wants. Someone said that they think that our criticism and advice has confused and made him unsure of his decisions. I don't think that's the case, in fact I think he ignores most everything we say and it has little to no impact on him. When he says "I've been told" it never refers to what we have told him, rather it's the group of people he collaborates with.

Case in point years ago people on a writing forum him told him he would have difficulty finding actors who would want to be involved in such content and audience who want to watch it. So he knows why he can't find actors and yet he brings it up on this forum like he has no idea what the trouble is.

His problems are due to his decisions and choices which he has no desire to change. He only wants the results to change.

Someone defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Ryan's never going to change and take our advice. Of course we keep responding to Ryan's posts, so maybe we're insane, too.

I honestly think Ryan's answer to my earlier question is "C." What he most wants to do is to talk about filmmaking.

Oh okay, I just gave the warning because I posted the short film on another side, and the other side said I should have given a warning so I thought I would do that here, if that was what I should do.

Ask for wanting to do the same things over again though, one of the things that was different is that I want to pay people cuz I thought I would get more actors and a more DPs to choose from. But other say I should still make zero budget shorts which haven't gotten me a lot of choices of people. So isn't that doing the same thing over again?.

If I'm doing too much of the same thing over again then I can try different things for casting, I'm just not sure what to do right now because of covid.

Someone defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. He's never going to change and take our advice. Of course we keep responding to Ryan's posts, so maybe we're insane, too.

I honestly think Ryan's answer to my earlier question is "C." What he most wants to do is to talk about filmmaking.
Actually I think he truly wants to make a movie, but only on his terms. This whole over planning, thinking, talking, is some sort of coping mechanism, to try to get around his inability to react and adapt to problems on set. I also believe because he has no budget he can talk and plan things to death without spending any money.

The pattern is for talking on forums, with the occasional film along the way.

Ryan is probably in the wrong location for casting and making a film as described. If you can't get the cast a film is dead in the water. The Coen brothers have had a number of films located in regions similar to where he lives. Some of them are pretty dark in places, but they don't have huge casts and many don't have big crashes. However, they are quirky and different, which is what you want for the festival circuit.

I can try to be more flexible on how I make the movie and not make it just how I want. It's just if I do that I fear I will make the same mistakes and it will just be a very flatly shot flatly acted movie. That was my fear of not having a lot of actors to choose from for example, if that's what you mean by being too unflexible.

well there is one script I wanted to do before a couple of years ago but I couldn't get enough actors to audition for it. I can try again..

But how can I attract more people without spending much money though since you said I should do zero budget scripts?

I just feel it will turn out to be bad again because I'm not hiring people and just going with whoever shows up because it's zero budget. so want to be making the same mistakes again if I do that?

Also, what do you think of the other short film I posted since I was told to post more shorts?

Since getting enough actors is an issue where you live, it's pointless writing scripts that require a large cast. It's possible to have a feature film with a small cast.

https://moviebabble.com/2019/09/03/top-10-movies-with-small-casts/

Oh okay, it's just that it is difficult to write a feature length plot with only a few characters, because I keep needing to come up with new characters to bridge plot points. But I can try. In the past, it was more difficult to get actors to commit to larger parts, so I thought that if I wrote a script with more actors, then the parts will not be so large, and avaibility would be more flexible. For example, actors 1 and 2 are not available these days, but actors 3 and 4 are so we can do those scenes, in the mean time... If that makes sense?

I was just going by past experience, and having different actors means you can get some on certain days, while waiting for others.

With a feature film shooting like that with other actors probably won't work, unless you've got one location, so that something is fixed. Even so you still need them to commit, either for one week blocks, or at least one day every weekend.

You can be very flexible if you're only got one actor and locations that you can access at anytime, However, once you get more complex you can't have people dropping out at short notice.

I worked on a very low budget feature which had professional actors with a lot of downtime on a feature film, so it was shot back to back, with scenes being shot as the actors become available. Iy was difficult to keep track of everything as two actors would go off, while another one arrived, possibly to do a different scene. However, it was all one block. I worked on it because I knew the guys making it and it sort of sounded fun.

There wasn't endless planning, an old script was adapted and the whole thing was got up and going in less than two weeks.

Oh okay, I see, what do you mean exactly by block in this context?

Also, as far as using one location goes, I have had bad experience with this in the past, because a lot of location owners will not let me use an entire location for a whole shoot. There is a script I tried doing two years ago, where it was all set in one location but I couldn't find a location owner who could say yes to that long amount of time.

So based on past experiences, I thought a script with a few locations is better because a location owner is more likely to say yes to their location being used for 8 hours for example, compared to 8 days. But are my experiences unusual that a location owner will say yes more likely, if the shoots are kept shorter?

I can't fathom why you want to make these indie films. They're expensive, complicated, with little chance of success. All we hear from you how you are mired in intractable problems with no resolution. You can't find a proper cast, crew or raise the needed money... Either you are resourceful and come up with creative solutions or you just don't make independent movies by yourself because you don't have what it takes.

A colleague recently told me of an indie movie success story of a Scandinavian guy. He started filming horror shorts gained notoriety on the internet and eventually caught the attention of Hollywood producers, they flew him to the states and now he makes feature films. He filmed shorts, no dialog, in his house, of his gf/wife. His shorts basically demonstrated his skill as a film maker with little to no money to have a unique vision and to execute it to achieve professional results. It is simple, focused and to the point.

Oh okay. Well I could attempt to just make it then and hope for the best, perhaps being okay, with not everything being planned in advanced, and just hope it turns out, even though not everything is planned if that's best. Should I stop trying to plan so much and try a more fly by the seat of my pants approach, hoping that it doesn't go wrong as a result of not planning more?

But I was wondering, it was said on here before, to post more shorts. I posted another one, but there haven't been much comments on it, unless maybe I shouldn't focus on that?

Yeah, you guys should take a look at that.

Link, please?

He must have taken it down. I'm glad because poorly acted and filmed disturbing content isn't my cup of tea. Some things can't be unseen.

No I didn't take it down.

Still there. Post #116 in this thread.

I guess I should have posted it in another thread if that's better.

I think we probably were very unsure how to comment on it.

Did you really think putting a colour grading credit on this was appropriate, when it was so inconsistent between shots? You seemed to have differences in overall brightness between shots wight from the start - that corridors shot looks like something from a home movie 30 yrs ago. The intro where the cameras lurches left then lurches up = how weird. As usual, the acting was very variable. The fella you picked to be the lead acted like he was a secret psychopath kind of those facial expressions are usually found on people quite ill. Was the music really appropriate? I didn't find it fitted very well. You also lost it on some very basic features - captions for one. It's normal for multi-line captions to be centred so the middle of one line is below or above the middle of the others - it got overlooked.

Seriously though, it did look like something shot in the 80s. The image quality, the sets, and the audio. Was that intentional?

Okay thanks. I tried the camera movement as best I could. As for the look of it, I tried to match the color correction as best I could but just need to get better at it.

I didn't mean for it to come off as '80s, what exactly was '80s about it more specifically if you can tell me? As for the music some of it I like but some of it I didn't. I showed the composer examples of the kind of music I wanted but the music just didn't come out sounding the way I wanted it to in the end, like the examples I gave him, which were different.

I was using a new pan and tilt tripod, but I find myself having difficulty panning and tilting, at the same time, and just need to get use to how it moves more.

Im pretty sure the lead IS Ryan. Mask aside he looks like the guy from the youtube pig sitcom, and is credited at the end of the cast credits.

This is exactly why I suggest you shoot some very short films, but get them technically perfect. You could spend a few hours just practicing tripod moves, until you can do that perfectly. It could be a silent film about bicycle riders ... go downtown and shoot everyone who goes past on a bike. Practice following the bike smoothly. Then zoom in a bit and practice following the riders' heads smoothly. Then practice zooming at the same time as the pan and tilt. You could spend a day practicing that until you are really good at it.

That's nothing that we can teach you by discussion on a forum. You need to actually practice, and develop a skill. If you don't possess these skills, then you're not qualified to be doing that job in the finished film.

(BTW, on my laptop screen, in a lighted room, it was a real strain to see what was going on in those dark scenes. Maybe the detail is actually in the file (I didn't re-watch it with the room darkened) but in my viewing situation that was the result.)

Why do you want to make a film? Do you want to convey some message to the audience, by telling a story? If so, you need to be a good storyteller. So you need to master all the skills and arts that you are going to use. Otherwise the audience will be distracted by the mediocre technique, and won't focus on the story. Do you understand the importance of this?

I want to tell good stories, and understand the importance of it.

However, as far as camera movement goes, I only did the opening shot which I ended up getting later on after, and the DP was not available then. Everything else was shot by the DP. Did the DP do a better job than me when it comes to the rest of the camera movement throughout?