Oh sorry for the confusion. Yes the owner did cancel in the sense that we could only use the location for a much shorter shoot time. But the power did go out at the time that he said it was going to, yes.

I guess that could be legit. It’d take a pretty dedicated jerk to flip the switch on his fuse box to fake a power outage. Still, “power outage due to eviction” is a new one for me.

Ryan, I'm curious. Was the power outage in someone's home, or in a place of business?

I wonder how he never tires of it. Whatever the reason, it sounds like a scrappy existence. Every thing, from borrowed equipment, volunteer cast/crew, free locations... He's like a factory churning out endless questions and problems in need of constant help and favors.

I agree but at the same time I'm kinda jealous. Wouldn't it be awesome to run into nothing but problems and criticisms, and never have your fire burn out? Most of us should be so lucky.

Are you saying that by not having my fire burn out after this many problems, that I have a lot of patients?

I can't help but laugh at the image of the lights going out in the middle of filming a scene.
*sound of circuit breaker being thrown.

I still go back to thinking the true gold is all the unintentional humor of amateur indie film makers ala This is Spinal Tap.

You should realize by now that nothing is ever simple with Ryan.

Wouldn't it be awesome to run into nothing but problems and criticisms, and never have your fire burn out?

And with so many people whizzing on his fire...

Are you saying that by not having my fire burn out after this many problems, that I have a lot of patients?

Only if you're a doctor.

Another thing is, when it comes to shooting scenes that take place outside, how do you get enough time, since the sun will change in an 8 hour shoot, if I am to go over 8 hours. For those scenes, do you just have no choice but to get it all done in a shorter amount of time then?

you plan your shots around the sun's position and what backgrounds you want...i.e. when sun is favorable for x shot, shoot that, when it's going to be favorable for y shot, you shoot that. You have to move fast enough to make that work. On closer shots on budgeted projects they can fake sun to a degree with powerful lights.

Oh okay, but if the sun changes position won't that change continuity in the lighting? Viewers have noticed lack of continuity in my lighting before, when shot changes, so wouldn't they therefore notice this as well?

Also, I did try this one and it didn't quite work, because the sun went behind the clouds as the shoot went on, and couldn't be used in a reverse type way for the later shots.

But even if it does work, the sun still changes color temperature throughout the day, so will that be a problem? Because even if you try to change with it in the camera, the are still differences in the color you can see.

I can't help but laugh at the image of the lights going out in the middle of filming a scene.
*sound of circuit breaker being thrown.

I still go back to thinking the true gold is all the unintentional humor of amateur indie film makers ala This is Spinal Tap.
Hey Pete, you laugh now but there could be money in that. I’m imaging a Comedy about how a group decides to make a movie. A conglomeration of various wannabes who set out with the glorious idea of making this film.

The flick would start out with a social group at a setting where, during a random discussion around a barroom corner table ( with typical jawboning) a few things are said where one thing leads to another and then there is this great idea that slowly comes together about making a movie. This is a group of “non professionals” but with various interests in acting, writing, and video abilities that begin to think “how hard can it be?” and they can pull it off. Ah, yes, it is low budget, after all, how can making a movie cost all that much money. Let’s do it.

Certainly, the scene at the house where, as was discussed in the posts above, would be a memorable part of the film.

I love it!

Throw in some cute chicks (actress wannabes) and some Epstein sex scenes (almost, but GP or Mature Audience rated) to make it more marketable (hey, sex sells).

Dang, this could be a good one.
On second thought, to hell with the house lights going out, lets just go with the Epstine thing!

As for the days getting shorter, that reminds me about one flick, I think it was “Dirty Dancing”, that took place at a New England or upstate New York summer resort but the actual filming, due to a late start, dragged on into the beginning of fall color so they had to spray paint the tree leaves to make them green.

With a Comedy one doesn’t need a “deep” plot so that would make it easier.

Oh okay, but if the sun changes position won't that change continuity in the lighting? Viewers have noticed lack of continuity in my lighting before, when shot changes, so wouldn't they therefore notice this as well?

Also, I did try this one and it didn't quite work, because the sun went behind the clouds as the shoot went on, and couldn't be used in a reverse type way for the later shots.

But even if it does work, the sun still changes color temperature throughout the day, so will that be a problem? Because even if you try to change with it in the camera, the are still differences in the color you can see.

These are issues that all dramas have faced over the years, This is the DPs job to plan out with you. There are various ways of overcoming it. In his commentary on "The Dualists" DVD, Ridley Scott gives very piratical advice on this subject.

Hey Pete, you laugh now but there could be money in that. I’m imaging a Comedy about how a group decides to make a movie. A conglomeration of various wannabes who set out with the glorious idea of making this film.

The flick would start out with a social group at a setting where, during a random discussion around a barroom corner table ( with typical jawboning) a few things are said where one thing leads to another and then there is this great idea that slowly comes together about making a movie. This is a group of “non professionals” but with various interests in acting, writing, and video abilities that begin to think “how hard can it be?” and they can pull it off. Ah, yes, it is low budget, after all, how can making a movie cost all that much money. Let’s do it.

Certainly, the scene at the house where, as was discussed in the posts above, would be a memorable part of the film.

I love it!

Throw in some cute chicks (actress wannabes) and some Epstein sex scenes (almost, but GP or Mature Audience rated) to make it more marketable (hey, sex sells).

Dang, this could be a good one.
On second thought, to hell with the house lights going out, lets just go with the Epstine thing!

As for the days getting shorter, that reminds me about one flick, I think it was “Dirty Dancing”, that took place at a New England or upstate New York summer resort but the actual filming, due to a late start, dragged on into the beginning of fall color so they had to spray paint the tree leaves to make them green.

With a Comedy one doesn’t need a “deep” plot so that would make it easier.


Allow me to hijack and say I have already made this movie. I got to go to Slamdance to support it. Highlight of my film "career".

https://youtu.be/QB_2oKLhSng

What a great movie. Thanks for sharing. I love how the date stamp remains on the same day. Funny thing, even though it's a spoof, I feel far more emotionally invested in the characters than someone else's movies. I assume you used the camcorder shown at the beginning to film it. So did you submit it to a film festival or did you not have the $25?

Thanks. I submitted it to MANY festivals, got into some, won a handful of awards. Slamdance was the only "big deal" fest I've ever been in and it was for this movie.

Date stamp was put in in post.

It was actually shot with the XL2 (same cam I filmed the "real life" scenes)...I just put it in 4:3 mode and dubbed it to VHS and back and forth several generations, desaturated in post to give it the genuine old school look. Maybe they have filters that can fake it well now but back in 2006 when I filmed this there weren't any (that I knew of).

Josh - Very fun flick. The characters in the cast really fit their parts and the chick was cute. The ending depicting the guys going through their drug experience was interesting how you put it together.

It was actually shot with the XL2 (same cam I filmed the "real life" scenes)...I just put it in 4:3 mode and dubbed it to VHS and back and forth several generations, desaturated in post to give it the genuine old school look. Maybe they have filters that can fake it well now but back in 2006 when I filmed this there weren't any (that I knew of).

Good idea dubbing back and forth to give it the “old school” look. So, instead of going with the best of everything cam at the time which, I would guess, most of us would probably do, you actually went the other direction … and got awards! Way to go!

Part of the comedy was the guy really turning the chick off and she kept trying to find a way forward. It's interesting how un-real that can be, and yet, it makes it funny.

Thanks for showing! Much appreciated.

Thanks. The XL2 was my only cam at the time so that's what I shot with.

I'd worked with the male actors before on other projects, still do with "Raptor". Woman is a professional actress who for whatever reason agreed to do this basically gratis.

End was supposed to be a very obvious homage to Requiem for a Dream (especially the eyeball shot). Probably more relevant at the time I made this 'cause Requiem was only a few years old then.

There is one script I wanted to direct, where the it's a kidnapping hostage type thriller, and the whole story is set in a hideout. However, since I haven't been able to find a location owner that is okay with shooting an entire script there, I was advised to just look for an abandoned building, that no one owns, and just shoot there.

But I haven't been able to find any. I was told I was not looking hard enough, but does anyone have any advice, on where to most likely find abandoned buildings, that would be free to shoot in possibly?

Estate agents have all kinds of property.

I don't think there's such a thing as an abandoned building that no one owns. There are usually buildings that are sale for redevelopment, again estate agents usually know.

The local film commission may have a list of properties that are available as locations.

I think Brian is correct. Even if a building appears to be "abandoned" (i.e. nobody presently living there or otherwise using it) it still belongs to someone. If the owner stops paying real estate tax, the municipality may take ownership (but it does not become ownerless). The municipality may then try to rehab it and resell it, or sell it really cheap (to a new owner who optimistically wants to rehab it), or they may just demolish it (to remove the eyesore) and turn that land parcel into a community park. But some person or legal entity will own it.

I can't help thinking about insurance and liability issues. If I abandon a house and board it up to keep squatters out, I might also stop paying insurance. If you are then using it for a shoot, and someone is hurt, will you sue me? If your lighting burns down the house, will I sue you? Therefore, would I let you use it for a shoot? Not likely. And BTW if a building is truly abandoned, most likely the utilities are turned off. No electricity, no plumbing (no restrooms), no heat, etc. But plenty of rodents.

Abandon buildings. What could go wrong? I'm sure we'll find out.

Yeah that's true, about using an empty building, good points.

Another thing I am thinking about is being told to hire much more experienced actors... There are directors who have directed non-actors successfully in movies before, such as in the movies El Mariachi, and The Battle of Algiers, where it seems that a lot of the actors are non-actors.

How did those directors do a good job of getting good performances out of them, if they had very little acting experience, if anyone knows more about that?

How did those directors do a good job of getting good performances out of them, if they had very little acting experience?

Perhaps they were good directors.

So when others tell me to hire good actors, maybe it's something I need to do compared to other directors who are able to turn non-actors into good actors?

Plus another thing is, when you listen to what Robert Rodriguez has to say, he didn't have the luxury, of having to shoot for 12 hour days to keep making the peformances better. He had to work on an extremely tight schedule, with very few takes, so I am wondering how do you do that and still get good performances, if he was in the same boat as me and could not shoot for long days like that?

If you read the whole book I swear he also says he made a movie a day, every day of his life, since he was about 12, learned to edit by dubbing between two vcrs. Have you made a movie every day of your life since you were 12?

No I haven't done that so I will have to learn to direct non-actors differently than him of course. However, I don't recall him ever talking about how he gets the performances out, as he always seemed to talk about all the technical side of things more so, rather than the drama.

I haven't seen El Mariachi in a long long time but I don't think it's known for particularly great acting. Maybe serviceable or barely serviceable at best.

My point was you were asking about tight schedules...he had like 10+ years of daily filmmaking to teach him about what shots he needs, what works, what doesn't, etc. which probably enabled him to shoot that fast.

Yeah actually my friend said he couldn't stand the acting in the movie and it ruined it for him and I myself never thought the acting was that great. However, the movie was a cult classic, so it must have had something in it, that caused the audience to overlook the acting?

But there is also The Battle of Algiers, where the acting I didn't think was that good, accept for the one actor who is a real actor... but that movie also became a huge hit, inspite of such mediocre or less acting.

I don't know about Algiers, haven't seen it, but again, in Rodriguez's book he talks about how despite his movie being a scrappy low budget affair, it blew anything Spanish language distributors had seen at that time out of the water especially given the budget, cause THOSE movies were even crappier. And then went on to festival success for whatever reason. But remember, that was also early or mid 90s. The standard's kinda higher now.

Oh okay. So I guess in this day and age, I really have to sell a movie I make on the acting and drama, because there isn't really much to sell it on otherwise?

The awards ceremonies when we had them always had categories for best new actor/actress, so you'd get somebody green but capable do a brilliant job. You can have terrible actors who have worked solidly for years out acted by younger people with no formal training. Some people can act in real life. The blaggers. Those people who go to an interview and act the part of the brilliant talented person with bags of skill and experience. They get the job because they have acting ability. The skilled, experienced and probably talented failed interviewee lost their job because they couldn't act! The story is everything. Was Arnold Schwarzenegger ever a brilliant actor? No. How about Anthony Hopkins? Some are obvious, some are not. Hugh Lawrie is one of the really good word who nobody notices. He played for us Brits, a comedy character in Black Adder, yet many Americans don't even know he's British. I just discovered Brigit Jones is not English. Clearly, she's a good actress!

Are you in a position to hire people? This involves money. You never seem to have any?

Months ago I suggested doing a skills audit. You avoided it. You still blast on with your projects with no thought as to what you do best, and you are always surprised when they go wrong.

At some point in your life you will look back and review your track record before you waste huge amounts of money, time and lost happiness.

He said months ago that he DID do the skills audit and it said he was good at planning.

As for Bridget Jones I’m gonna have to go against you there. From what I recall at the time many people hated Renee Zellweger in that movie/that casting decision. Maybe I’m wrong and it was just the loud, vocal, stupid minority.

If the English accept Renee Zellweger as Bridget Jones and they do a series of films with her in the part. I suspect it's a loud, vocal, stupid minority.

Oh Brian - my wife watches these movies almost on repeat. You've cut me to the quick! Next you'll be telling me that the bearer in it Ain't 'alf Hot Mum wasn't Indian and was really English?

LOL I wasn't referring to the English in this regard. I can accept Renee Zellweger in that part, just as her being Roxie Hart in Chicago, although I haven't watched all of Bridget Jones.

There is a debate on the whole issue of casting people who aren't the same as their actors, sometimes it's sensible and other respects not so sensible.

The awards ceremonies when we had them always had categories for best new actor/actress, so you'd get somebody green but capable do a brilliant job. You can have terrible actors who have worked solidly for years out acted by younger people with no formal training. Some people can act in real life. The blaggers. Those people who go to an interview and act the part of the brilliant talented person with bags of skill and experience. They get the job because they have acting ability. The skilled, experienced and probably talented failed interviewee lost their job because they couldn't act! The story is everything. Was Arnold Schwarzenegger ever a brilliant actor? No. How about Anthony Hopkins? Some are obvious, some are not. Hugh Lawrie is one of the really good word who nobody notices. He played for us Brits, a comedy character in Black Adder, yet many Americans don't even know he's British. I just discovered Brigit Jones is not English. Clearly, she's a good actress!

Are you in a position to hire people? This involves money. You never seem to have any?

Months ago I suggested doing a skills audit. You avoided it. You still blast on with your projects with no thought as to what you do best, and you are always surprised when they go wrong.

At some point in your life you will look back and review your track record before you waste huge amounts of money, time and lost happiness.

Oh okay. Well is there anything to sell a movie on, other than the acting, if it's microbudget?

If it's got an interesting story, that's well told in an interesting way or the subject matter has adherents to a genre, will sell a movie. However, most microbudget films will never get sold, the marketing will cost more than making the film

You can get porn for free on the internet, so is less likely these days for sales, unless you know the market

Ryan - you are not really getting this, are you?

The question was about overthinking - which clearly, as demonstrated, you do.

If you want to make people watch your shorts, then you need to go back to basics.
1. A good story - one that maximises the desire to watch it.
2. Realism - locations and acting really.
3. Technical competence - what does it look and sound like? How is the story enhanced by what people see and are able to hear.

You can have a few weak areas if they are not critical to enjoyment. People can click away, and do. I'll watch the first five minutes and if I'm not into it by then, I'll watch smething else. I HATE watching movies - I just find most modern ones less than gripping. I watched one because I was made to the other day. The story started to wash over me, I started to find faults, I noticed stuff should not have and I hated it. Yet I watched an old Tom Clancy movie and as I had read the book twenty years ago, I spotted plot errors, some truly dodgy acting alongside great acting and some poor SFX and yet I thorougly enjoyed the movie. The 'whole' worked. It kept me the critical first few minutes and it worked.

Did you notice you also did the typical Ryan thing of ignoring 99% of a post and responding as if the comments were simply not there. They said things you just do NOT wish to address, so you ignored them - and you said your usual "Oh OK" - which by now we all know means you just ignore the questions. You then generate a response that has no link at all?

Microbudget means compromise, it does not mean bad always - but if you write a movie with hard to find locations, acting difficulty that shows up errors, and a difficult content, are you surprised it goes wrong?

How about producing a script that is within your actor's skill level. Set in a location you have 100% control over and has a story the actors might actually enjoy?

Oh I apologize, I didn't mean to not adress all the questions.

So one thing I didn't answer before, was if I have money to hire actors. Well it depends. I have money which I was saving up for a much bigger project so I can hire actors and other crew for that one, just not other ones.

As for getting a location with 100 percent control, I do not own any of locations really, so I do not have 100 percent control, but hopefully, I can get more as much control as I can.

Why not just do it properly and document the various deals you do. It sounds like you say "can I shoot my movie at your stcap yard?" The response is "yes fine" . Three weeks later, unannounced you turn up with loads of people and stop their work dead. They get fed up after a few hours not realising you want exclusive and free use of their locations and they order you off the site.

I have never, ever lost a location like this. I have, however, stopped people who have taken liberties with me. Can we shoot an I view on stage tomorrow before the show? I say yes to the BBC and they turn up late when the audience is coming in and want things moved and even spoil the start of the show by just wandering around on the empty stage till I blow my top and throw them out.

Which scenario sounds familiar?

The first one sounds familiar because I have never shown up late to a shoot, and never interrupted a show or anything.

Mostly it was friends I asked. I did document the deal once with someone I didn't know but later, they didn't care about the fact that it was documented and steal needed me out of there much sooner for some reason. But I can still document them.

I'm not sure you understand. Even with freebies, people need to know what is needed and what they are saying yes to. Often it's awkward to have to say "thanks for letting me do this, but I must have access from 8am, and will need somebody there who knows where the switches are. I also need parking for two cars. Oh - will there be toilets available? We plan to use a little smoke - will this cause any problems with smoke alarms? It's very important we can work without any of your people accidentally walking through where we are shooting? is it OK to put a no entry sign on the door? Sorry to ask so many questions but it's cost us an awful lot to get everyone here for the shoot and we don't want to risk not getting done - it's so kind of you to let us use the building and we really appreciate it"

Two things happen - they say OK, or they warn you of the fire alarm practice at 10am, or that there is only space for one car, or that the sign is OK, but remember it is a fire exit so can't be locked. The smoke request might worry them, but best to know before the fire engines arrive.

This is what I mean by document

This is one step up from guerilla filming. These things are bound to happen with free locations. I've worked for small businesses and things come up all the time. If important client calls, I would have kicked you out.

You seem to be one of those types of people who are takers, who's always in need of help or wants something for free. In addition you don't appear to be aware of other peoples feelings and concerns. Someone allowing you to use their office is exposing themselves to lots of risk with no benefit. I would be nervous giving a bunch of strangers unsupervised access to my office. It could be that he got cold feet.

In regards to the specific situation we don't know the details of what transpired (you do). This is what you signed up for when you decided to pursue indie film making for free.

Oh okay, what can I do to be more considerate of their feelings then, or what can I do to make things work, so no clients will show up by surprise for example, like maybe I can help out with that in some way, that would serve both our needs, or what could I do?

Assuming that you've picked a day when they're not trading, all you can do is offer to stop filming when a surprise client is there. Usually business visits last less than an hour, so it shouldn't interfere too much with your filming.

If they still ask you to leave, you've either made a poor choice of location or you're doing something that the owner doesn't expect.

It's unusual for you to to be asked to leave, I can only think of one occasion on a drama when a production I was working on was asked to leave. That was probably due to poor communication with the shop owner as to what was involved by the people who organised the location.

Re locations, I note for example When Hitch couldn't get permission to film in the UN Headquarters for North by Northwest he just covertly filmed Cary Grant arriving. Ryan, just looking back at some of this, it seems to to me that none of the issues you have raised would stop anyone from making a movie if that was their objective. So it seems your main objective, whether conscious or not, is to not make a movie. If I'm wrong, just forget about the hypotheticals and do it.

Assuming that you've picked a day when they're not trading, all you can do is offer to stop filming when a surprise client is there. Usually business visits last less than an hour, so it shouldn't interfere too much with your filming.

If they still ask you to leave, you've either made a poor choice of location or you're doing something that the owner doesn't expect.

It's unusual for you to to be asked to leave, I can only think of one occasion on a drama when a production I was working on was asked to leave. That was probably due to poor communication with the shop owner as to what was involved by the people who organised the location.

Oh well the owner probably had another reason to cut us short, but was using other business associates coming in unexpectedly, as an excuse for us, rather than having to go into a longer reason, perhaps.

I don't think I would have done something that he didn't expect though. I was the first to show up and knock on the door, and he didn't see anyone else, and he told he this right away, that we only have a couple of hours now, so I think it was a third party problem, that was the reason, and nothing I did.

Re locations, I note for example When Hitch couldn't get permission to film in the UN Headquarters for North by Northwest he just covertly filmed Cary Grant arriving. Ryan, just looking back at some of this, it seems to to me that none of the issues you have raised would stop anyone from making a movie if that was their objective. So it seems your main objective, whether conscious or not, is to not make a movie. If I'm wrong, just forget about the hypotheticals and do it.

I could do that, it's just I worry about certain legalities, of using locations without permission.