I see what you mean. Is the director allowed to get other opinions from the crew though, on if something is good, or if they feel the take is good as well and if it's working, or is the director pretty much only allowed to hear their own opinion?

What you think?

The crew won't tell you directly that it's bad, but that will quietly make suggestions or how about.. The director will have the final say, but as one cameraman said to a director, "unless you're careful, I might do exactly as you say"

Oh okay. Well it was suggested before that I should produce and let someone else direct it, but then it was now said that if I do that it'll slip away from me in a bad way.

but should I take the prior advice on that and let someone else direct if that's better for now?

That decision is up to you,

Making decisions is part of a director's job. If you have difficulty with this, perhaps it's something you should factor into your decision.

I'm not sure if you can watch the BBC where you live Ryan, but maybe with a VPN you could watch a TV drama - Line of Duty. It's an exceptional drama and is on I think series 5. It's got all the things you need for your feature. It also has lots of YouTube videos covering how it expands episode by episode - and the fans pick up on really tiny details - things I totally miss, so it's a real drama that has loads of discussion on the script, the action, the acting and the linking. It's a police procedural so your snags about meeting rooms are dealt with almost every episode. I learn all sorts of little tricks on better ways to do things from it. I suggest if you can do the VPN to start with series one and watch each episode a couple of times at least. It uses feature film techniques and is compulsive how to do it well production. It's actually made in Belfast and the areas in Northern Ireland, but this is very cleverly hidden in the shooting and editing. Only the locals would spot it. I didn't, and I spend lots of time there.

I'd watch it as an example of production excellence. It's the sort of programme that shows every discipline how it should be done. I'm mega impressed with everything in it. Not a weak idea or poor performance from anyone. Especially the script - it is so clever and detailed. Almost every line the actors deliver has a real purpose. Every shot is the same. If there is a cutaway, it's for an important reason, and afterwards you realise you knew, but it didn't register.

He should hire someone who makes his decisions for him. Otherwise a coin might do.

Oh I didn't think that making decisions was my main problem. I have as much of the shoot planned out as could be right now, and I know a lot of what I want decision wise. My biggest worry was not being able to pull the performances from the actors and wanted someone to help with that, if possible. It wasn't a decision making problem I thought I had, it was just getting the best performances, or so I thought.

I can also live with the realistic locations even if they look bad or not very cinematic. I feel that perhaps if I can direct the performances right, then the lack of cinematography may not matter so much, hopefully.

Your problem with the actors is that they are all amateurs. All the ones we’ve ever seen range from poor to simply terrible. You have a pool of incompetents. On the location issue, it’s one area that would take the heat off the poor acting and terrible script?

If you want good performances casting is key, You need to invest a lot of time doing auditions to find the right actors, especially if you're using non actors.

If you're using non actors, allow more time for the filming. You seem to be shooting at a soap opera speed, which doesn't allow inexperienced actors a chance to give a performance. Soap operas are demanding on experienced professional actors and if you're working at speed you may not get the best from them,

You may have had a Marilyn Monroe in your cast, but you wouldn't have got much out of her at your shooting rate.

Well in the past only a few actors would show up so I would just cast the best of those to get the movie made. But how many actors should I expect to audition in order to go ahead with the rest of the movie? Do I have to have a good feeling about the actors? For example, there are stories from directors about how they were forced to work with an actor they didn't feel was right for the part at all, but still had to do it anway, and the actors still did a good job.

So could I pull a performance that is good out of an actor who you don't think is right for the role anyway, if that is what you end up having to do, if other directors have done it?

I can't believe these discussions are still going on.

I can't believe these discussions are still going on.
It's like the movie Groundhog Day except there's no happy ending it continues on forever [hits my alarm clock]

The number you audition will depend on how fortunate you are with the people who apply. On one very low budget film, which was a freebee job, I was extremely lucky with my small number of applicants. One was a former professional wrester and another was a professional actor who was recovering from mental issues. The latter's career went on an upward curve and he worked on major TV dramas.

With non actors you may have to keep going. We auditioned about 100 children for a part in one short film.

Even so, shooting scenes at the speed you're doing won't give these actors a chance to give a performance. With non actors there can be weeks of workshops,getting them prepared, especially with young people.

This is all old ground, you just can't keep asking the same questions over and over in the hope of hearing a different answer.

What intrigues me is the slow/no progress Ryan makes. Just when he gets to decision time, he has a think, and then revisits every step in his decision making/avoiding process.

I don't even remember the projects I did last year. My accountant often asks me what a charge was for and often I have no memory of it at all and have to go and search the records - I find it was a random parking charge to put the van in a place to shoot from. I have two projects put on hold when Covid started, and I don't waste brain power doing any planning for these until they appear again. Even projects in the dirty for July - are not worth planning properly for as they struggle for commissioning and contracts.In Ryan's world I wonder if the people who said they would take part over two years ago, even remember saying they'd do it?

Ryan also unexpectedly answered a few questions - that's a first - he realises he might not be the best person for some roles, and is considering giving the project to somebody who can get on with it. This is a seismic change. He's starting to consider best person for each role, even if it's not him, and perhaps feel comfier knowing he'll get a better end product?

Sorry I don't mean to come off as repetitive, it's just if I can't get a lot of actors to audition and I cannot get a lot of shoot time in because of location schedules, and actors work schedules in their day jobs, I am just trying to make the options I have work better, if there are not many new options. I figure maybe there is something I am missing.

I could do more rehearsals as suggested, and do them in other locations of course, before the shoot days. It's just on a microbudget, I do not have time to get a lot of takes during shooting, and wonder if I can get good performances faster. But I can try with rehearsals. I can also not direct and just produce and edit only, but some tell me that not directing could lead me not having enough control of the production if that's true.

A micrp budget doesn't imply that you've got extremely limited time. Not having enough money for enough takes was an issue when shooting on film, but that doesn't apply when shooting on a digital format.

I've worked on low budget dramas and, unless it's an extremely simple scene, they've all taken longer than you to shoot a scene.That also applies when you can only do a couple of takes because of the low shooting rato on film.

If you can't get the cast and crew for long enough, it's not going to be practical to shoot a feature film.

Oh it's not a digital vs. film issue, it's more of an issue of the locations not being open long enough, because not every location owner is able to give you a location for more than a day. Also for outdoor scenes, the whether and sun changes so time is limiting there, for those scenes. But it's not an issue of film cost of course. The cast and crew also have day jobs in the past that makes it tough, but it's hard to higher people who do not, cause it seems that everyone has a different job, and hard to find people where filmmaking and acting is their only job. But if I have more rehearsals before the shoot days, will that help then? But I meant microbudget as in having to hire people who have jobs I have to work around and location owners who's jobs I also have to work around.

Major feature film have to work with the same issues regarding exteriors and the moving sun, It's a matter of planning your shot order and ensuring that you have reflectors for your fill light.

On a feature film, unless every scene is in a different location, it's not unusual to have a main location that you work in for a number of days. On a low budget film there are real advantages in having this.

Oh okay. I could try to find a DP that would know more about making light match outdoors if that's do-able then. Some of the scenes take place in the same locations, some scenes have different ones.

Most location owners will not want me to shoot a whole movie there based on my experience, and a location owner for example is much more likely to say yes to a couple of days shoot compared a couple of weeks for example. But that's just my experience so far.

It really is Groundhog Day ryan. Nothing has changed since our last discussion on this. If you want something but have a choice of doing it badly, or not doing it at all, why do you keep looking for a third solution. When you want something you offer the other party something in compensation. You have rewritten Queens lyrics. I want it all, I want it now, and I want it free?

You usually need to pay a location fee if you wish to shoot for a more than a day, unless you've got a relative or friend who has a suitable building/location. You may be able negotiate a lower fee than a fully funded feature,however, you will also need production insurance to provide cover in case you burn the building down while filming.

Interior film locations can be to be unoccupied buildings or rental properties. People's homes do get used, but they tend to be be expensive if they're being used for longer periods. Your local film commission may have a list of locations. On funded productions, they'll pay a location fee for a day's filming.

This is what your budget is for.

Your experience seems to be you being thrown out of locations before you've even finished filming. This is unusual and may imply that the owner was unaware of what was involved and wanted to get rid of you.

This is how it was done on "Clerks": " He (Kevin Smith) was only allowed to film in the store at night while it was closed (from 10:30 pm to 5:30 am), hence the plot point of the shutters being closed due to a vandal having jammed gum in the padlocks. Because Smith was working at Quick Stop during the day and shooting the film at night, he frequently slept no more than an hour a day. By the end of the 21-day shoot, Smith was unable to stay awake while some of the most climactic scenes of the film were shot."

Oh okay, yes because of the budget I am using a lot to pay for other things, and would have limited time locations from people I know. I won't use the same locations I was thrown out of last time. I will try to be much more specific as to what is involved this time.

I haven't seen Clerks, but how was Smith able to pull good performances out of his actors on a limited shoot time, since it was said before that I need more shoot time in the locations. Did he do a lot more rehearsal therefore, or how did he do it? Or how was he able to get good lighting and cinematography and production design if he had to shoot fast, unless of course he just had a good crew, and therefore I should get one too...

He was also shooting on film: 200 ASA double X using an Arriflex 16SR2 http://www.doc-cba.be/cbadoc2/images/manuals/ARRI16SR2_manual.pdf

I would assume Smith either cast the right people or knew them and based the characters on the people he knew. A number of the cast went on to have a career in acting.

Smith knew the world of his story, which is different to your proposed film.

It was the DPs first feature film, he was 22 at the time and is now a member of the American Society of Cinematographers.

Clerks Official Trailer #1 - (1994) HD - YouTube

unless of course he just had a good crew, and therefore I should get one too...
The penny may finally have dropped.

Ryan - poor cast, crew and director virtually guarantee a real poor product. You really cannot make a movie without talent in EVERY area.

Wanting to pull good performances from amateur actors is usually futile - they just cannot do it. I did a short Voice Over for an advert two days ago. I convinced the business owner that the £100 for a real actor was good value, rather than taking one of his managers and working for a day with them, and still no guarantee they will sound 'professional'. I knew an actor covid resting - which is like normal acting resting but with extra time without pay - We agreed £80 for the session based on the small number of words I sent him in an email. Probably 30 seconds screen time. He breezed in, put his script on the stand, and did me two versions in different accents - RP and regional. Both were perfect first take. Want it again? He asked. We replayed them and both agreed there was no point. I did him the bank transfer while we chatted, with the promise of an invoice from him by email. He was in the building fifteen minutes. That is how professional actors work. If I'd worked with the manager, he could only do the local accent, and struggled with the words in the script. This was only audio - can you imagine if he had to do it to camera?

Best thing was that my actor was also well educated and knew how to pronounce some of the names - some were very strange names from mythology - as the business sells figurines - scary things with swords or Medusa heads - that kind of thing.

Oh okay. Well what I could do is maybe fly to another city and cast there, but then the shoot time is more limited if I do not live there of course. But maybe there will be more actors to choose from if I do.

What I could do is not go ahead with the production unless I feel really confident with the cast and crew. If I do not feel confident with the options from the casting and crew I find, then I can just not go ahead with until I do, if that's best?

You're the director, all that is your decision.

If you go to another city, you'll need to establish filmmaking contacts, because you won't be able to pay everyone on your budget. That's par for the course on micro budget films.

Oh are you saying that that's a disadvantage compared to working with the contacts I have already established?

Just that it will take time to establish a network in a new city.

It's less of an issue if you're hiring a professional crew, but you don't have the funds for that. Even with that it requires establishing a pee-production base do all the work before filming starts in a new city..

It's common to bring cast members to the filming location (e.,g. your current location), but you do need to add accommodation and travel expenses to any fees that need to be paid to the actors.

I thought of bringing them to me as well, but wouldn't it cost less money if I go there, since that is just one person traveling compared to bringing them all to me?

Also, it was said before that I need a more experienced crew, so wouldn't it be good then, or not necessarily, if it takes more time and costs more money? Or is it necessary since it was said the cinematography, production design, etc, was poor before?

It depends if you're planning to move completely to a new city for months if not years, because that's what doing this would probably involve. It takes time to establish a good network of suitable people who are willing to work for free on a feature film.

I see what you mean. Well it was said before that I need a better crew, so if that's true, is there a better idea? Or was the suggestion meant that I try to find a better one in the place I already live in?

You have local knowledge, we don't know who's available in your area or region.

That's true, and I could use local knowledge, it was just said before that I could use other people, who are more experienced. However, most of the people I worked with so far work behind the camera, and not in front of it so I would either have to go to another city with a crew from here perhaps, to work with actors, or bring them here perhaps if that's better.

That sounds right.

Ryan - the snag really seems to be that you consistently ask for advice from everyone, don't appear to be decisive at all in any area and you should have thought about this before you even wrote a script.

In any project in the professional world, it's always the producers who have the idea. "Lets do this" Everyone thinks its a good idea so they find a director. If they need specific roles, then they might know Fred, the Director knows Fred and says no - he's terrible at that, and he's doing X at the moment. The Director then suggests Jane. He knows her work and thinks she will fit. The Producers tell him how much is on offer and the Director thinks he might go for it but only if they offer more. They do or they don't. If they don't then he suggests Jim, who works for lower fees but is a bit er, less good. Eventually you have the best team money can buy. At the same time the identical process starts with the actors - but their availability is always a key feature - shifting the date can count them out. They also want guarantees if they keep the diary spot open. Others might be amateur who book annual holiday - they might work for peanuts but dates are just as critical. Somebody on the team starts scouting locations, and so it goes on.

You cannot be all these people - well, some Directors can wear multiple hats, but that isn't you. Your failures in the past are plainly down to bad planning - you ended up with rotten actors, a rotten script, poor technical, dodgy locations and a recipe for disaster. You seem good at thinking about planning - but it's always in pencil, so you keep rubbing out. At some point plans become ink - big, black, bold ink. You never get to this stage and spend all your time putting out fires. You agonise about how long it takes to shoot a page of script, because you keep thinking the location owner will boot you out. Plan properly and it doesn't happen.

They shot a part of a movie in my town - taking over a busy side street house - parking Panavision trucks in people's car spaces near a school, making people late, upsetting residents - BUT - they had done it properly. Permits to park generators, wayleaves to get cables over people's gardens - a generator cable crossing a residents grass garden earned them £50 for two days. The small builder let them park in his yard and they gave him £120 to cover parking and electricity overnight. They had two security people from a local firm - £240 a day per person - perhaps higher than some technical crew were paid. Proper planning. Unencumbered shooting for a couple of days - the immediate locals compensated for the inconvenience. Shot in an ordinary house, no idea why, but everyone happy - bat people like me who drive down the street and had to divert.

If you want to make low budget features, you have to consider all this and pay for it. There is no such thing as a no budget decent feature unless you do everything yourself.

It's possible to make a feature film without all the resources found on professional production. Depending on nature of the film, you could possibly do it with a crew of 5, which used to be the standard documentary crew sizw,

However, you do need a reliable, multi skilled crew. Although, from experience, unless you've got some production people working at a unit base organising things, logistics tend to limit you to about a week's filming. After which you need to prepare for the next block of filming.

Oh okay. Well I am willing to pay and do not want to make a no budget project again and have better results. So I am willing to spend money. And I don't have to wear a lot of hats and can give hats to other people if that's better. As for planning in ink, it's just when I did that before and things were written in ink, things went wrong, so I wanted to be very careful, and be open to change. I was told that I have a tendency to underthink and not plan enough, so I want to plan a not more, and not underthink this time, unless that's not the way to go? Plus I need to find enough good actors and crew to choose from before I move forward as well, and still looking and deciding what's the best place to cast it where I will find them, that I can afford.

It's possible to make a feature film without all the resources found on professional production. Depending on nature of the film, you could possibly do it with a crew of 5, which used to be the standard documentary crew sizw,

However, you do need a reliable, multi skilled crew. Although, from experience, unless you've got some production people working at a unit base organising things, logistics tend to limit you to about a week's filming. After which you need to prepare for the next block of filming.

Oh okay but when you say I am limiting to a week's worth of filming, and then after that I need to prepare for the next block of filming, are you saying I can only plan one week of filmming at a time?

No, just you need production people setting up the next week's filming while your are filming. You should read what I've written.

Currently, you don't have enough to pay for a crew and cast on a feature film. There are other costs, which you may just about be able to afford. In the world of micro budgets, it all deferred payments, that you don't get paid.

There may be payments stated in the contract, but in practice you don't get paid.

It's possible to make a feature film without all the resources found on professional production. Depending on nature of the film, you could possibly do it with a crew of 5, which used to be the standard documentary crew sizw,

However, you do need a reliable, multi skilled crew. Although, from experience, unless you've got some production people working at a unit base organising things, logistics tend to limit you to about a week's filming. After which you need to prepare for the next block of filming.

Oh okay I see. I can see that because it was difficult for me to plan the next shoots while I was currently shooting so it would be nice to have people that can help with that for sure, like you suggested :). What about other features films that are shot on a low budget? For example the most costly one I helped work on was 80,000 USD but would that be enough if you want it to be good? Is it possible to make a feature that can be good for half that amount if possible, to save on some costs?

How good it will be will depend on what you're trying to do with the budget.

It will depend on what resources you can access, how good and creative the cast and crew are and how good the script is.

You can spend $100 million and have a disastrous film that doesn't work on any level.

That's true, thanks. And this also why I wanted to hire someone who can budget the movie, with my budget better than I could if that's do-able.

You could try that, but given the small amount, your proposing to speed money on something that won't be seen on screen.

Film budgets are standard forms, so you should be able to do that yourself.

You don't have the option to spend money to solve the difficulties, Low budget film making is about coming up with creative solutions.

Oh okay. But if movies like Paranormal Activity, Primer, or El Mariachi can be shot on really low microbudgets, is it possible for me too then?

Yes, it's possible.

The people who made those films knew what they were doing and had a broad skills set, plus the confidence to pull it off, from all the questions you keep asking, you obviously currently don't. That's the difference

Also, the post production costs (to get them ready for distribution) on some of these films was way higher than the headline production cost.

Ryan, your knowledge of movies, producers, directors and low budget features is really deep and something you clearly like. I’ve never heard of most of the things you quote and have to go off and google. What I don’t quite get is your desire to make one yourself, when your finances, lifestyle and location mean it’s difficult. You talk about going to the big city like it’s a magical place where movies get made. Years ago now we asked what your existing skill level in the various disciplines was. I get the impression none have increased, apart from your reading and watching. Doing, you find hard, so ignore this area. Asking the same things continually is evidence you just don’t get it. We try to help but you don’t listen, ever. You rephrase the same questions in the vain hope we will say your idea will work, but we never do. You have problems you are simply refusing to even think about. Pick one. Your terrible actors. Given a choice of a terrible actor, or no actor, I’d go for no actor. It’s like one rotten piece of fruit that spreads to the healthy fruit. If you have two passable actors and an awful one, dump the awful one, and either replace them, or rewrite. Scripts are an issue, so rewrites you’ve shown are bad. It seems like over the years you are constantly trying to make movies without any positives and loads of negatives. You talk of going to the emerald city and finding cast and crew who will work for a stranger, for low rates and have to make a choice.take the money from a director/producer who is way, way out of his depth, or take on his roles to rescue the project. I suspect fee will do anything other than take the money.

Have you not noticed how your topics get answered by a very small group of people? We are on a quest to make you understand, and have endless patience, but the other excellent forum members avoid your topics as they always end the same. Their time invested is pointless. You carry on regardless, immune to suggestions and refusing to see sense. If you genuinely want our opinions and advice, maybe just sometimes it’s good to take it, not respond by your usual “yes, but I’ve been told before .......”

I would add that knowing about films and making films are two different things.

Notice that the director was also the DP on the three films you mentioned and they also edited the film as well. They used locations in their area that they could access, they had a story that grew from the film maker's background and had a unique take on it, so that it stood out.

In simple terns, these weren't copy and pasted from other films.

Some used techniques that you may be uncomfortable with, such as the actors improvising, so that the dialogue sounds natural.

Oh okay, thanks. Well I don't mean to come off like I am not taking advice, it's just a lot of the advice given to me had some problems that I wanted to work around so I just try to come up with my own ideas of how to work around them.

For example it's suggested that I need more money but if I cannot get it, I try to find ways around it. So it's not that I mean to not take advice, it's just that some of the advice presents more problems that I have to find another way around, that's all. I'm sorry if I didn't take the advice the right way. But a lot of the advice on here was good and I took some of the suggestions, such as some of the suggestions on music, or types of camera shots that were suggested to me before, that I incorporated into the storyboards. So I am grateful for all the advice and did take a lot of it I feel, but there was also a lot that I don't know how to take, because it presents it's own problems.

As for saying that I was told other things, before well I try to get advice from as many people in the business as possible and not just the filmmakers on here only, so I feel I have to weigh in all advice. I don't mean for it to be come as rejecting advice or that the people giving me advice are competing or anything, and I am sorry if I have given that impression.

But also, I feel that if I suggest my own ideas, that they are shut down in a very black and white way. I suggested what if I go to a different city where their are more options for example, and the response was is that I shouldn't think of it as a magical emerald city. Well I wasn't thinking of it that way, I was just suggesting an alternative to find more actors and crew. Why does an idea to solve a problem have to come across as magical or emerald? Isn't that a black and white way of looking at it?

As for the movies I suggested that were microbudget, I know that the director was their own DPs on those and their own editors. I can do the editing myself, but I will spend more money on getting a DP though.

And as for the the filmmaker interjecting their pasts into those stories, I can do that as well if that helps. But as for the dialogue sounding natural because it was improvised, in my experience, actors have asked to change lines and I let them, but then I am told the dialogue sounds unnatural. So is improvising bad therefore, at least based on my experience, from what I am told by others later?

I don't think you're really facing up to reality.

You can't make a feature film jest using the advice on a forum, the main issue is the probably the person you see every day in the mirror. You can do things you mentioned, but you don't seem to think things through, but if you've got the confidence to do them, you will still do them.;

That;'s the nature of trying to male any feature film However, with these micro budget films just hiring people may not be a possibility, they will most likely be already known to you and are willing to work for next to nothing. To be successful, it will be a personal relationship, rather than professional one..

At the moment this feature film sounds rather like a bucket list project,

Oh sorry I don't mean to make it sound like a bucket list project. I do really want to make it. I just didn't think it was possible to form personal relationships with everyone I work with and that a lot of them will have to be professional especially if something were to happen if I had to replace people with other people I may not know well, which has happened before.

I was told I don't think of everything before though, which is why I try to ask for a lot of advice, so I can try to think of every possible thing I can. I feel I have learned a lot from working under other directors though, and try to learn as much that was as I can, even if I do not have money to make a lot of my own projects if I want to save that money from the feature. I am just trying to learn the most I can with what I have, but is that bad?

As for making it sound like a bucket list project, am I giving the wrong impression and I should express how much I really want to make it passionately, rather than stick to the technical more so, when I ask for advice?

Some of the filmmakers I worked under though, where able to hire people they didn't know before and it was professional relationships and their movies were very microbudget too though, so is it possible therefore? Not every relationship has to be professional though, I worked with two filmmakers before who said they were interested in helping me make it as I was thinking of having them be an AD and CD perhaps.

But if I shoot it in another city I'm not sure if they would want to come for that though. So it's a trade off, then. I go with the personal relationships where I am or I go another city to find more pools of talent to choose from. I guess I have to pick which trade off, and can't have my cake and eat it too?

The odds are that the crews are making these micro budget films for experience, rather than the money. A professional DP could easily eat up a good percentage of your budget.

At the moment, given your skill levels and lack of confidence, making more shorts is the way to go. A short with good production values could easily cost as much as your feature film budget.

You rarely get your cake and eating it on films unless someone else is funding it.