Does this piss anyone else off?

[Fritz Pierre]

11 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I don't know if Robin Wright knows her stuff technically, but I won't assume she doesn't. And if she doesn't, I wouldn't assume she's a bad director for that reason alone. Being on set is the best form of film school. There are plenty of great actors turned directors.

+100...Elequently put!...Its impossible to evaluate how hard these people work on this kind of show, unless you worked on one...or a film...or a commercial with a budget for instance (I'm not meaning to be pedantic in stating this so please don't take it as such!)...a good analogy I can think of is how it is impossible for people to understand how much work parenthood is, until you have your first child!...you think you have an idea, and then the child comes and you realize your time is no longer your own...EVER...this is the same....whether it's frustrating or not, when you reach the holy grail in this art form be it a series or a feature, you either pull your weight, or your first shoot day will also be your last!...in this business, literally the only security you have is your talent, your work ethic and the ability to not make any mistakes of consequence, regardless of your role in the production...and the higher up the food chain you go, the tighter the noose becomes...not everyone wants to direct...just like not everyone wants to be president of a country...few are uniquely suited to handle the kind of stress directing anything comes with....and I'm not talking about non budget projects with friends here...the job comes with the final responsibility for every decision when something goes right or wrong, while a $150,000 + per day crew is looking at you to make your next decision!

[Liam]

Sorry, I really didn't mean to say she couldn't do it because she's an actor (or a woman for that matter ). She's just certainly being handed a lot.

[Bioskop.Inc]

32 minutes ago, Liam said:

Sorry, I really didn't mean to say she couldn't do it because she's an actor (or a woman for that matter ). She's just certainly being handed a lot.

I got you. She & others have money, so why not use that?

I read somewhere, that Kristen Stewart said she was amazed at how much money she was given to make a short film - she's a multi-millionaire FFS, why didn't she use her own money rather than taking the resources out of the hands of others that really need it?

[Jonesy Jones]

Liam, she has an advantage and is using it. Any good business plan or venture is going to recognize any advantages they may have over another and capitalize upon them. Everyone, including you and I, have an advantage. When we are clever enough to recognize them and utilize them we suddenly have a different frame of mind.

Additionally, it would be frustrating to me if I worked very very very hard to build an audience/platform as well as other personnel and connected resources, only to have people poo poo on me when I go to use them. Thoughts? 

[TwoScoops]

Nepotism is pretty much the way of the world.

[Liam]

1 hour ago, Jonesy Jones said:

Liam, she has an advantage and is using it. Any good business plan or venture is going to recognize any advantages they may have over another and capitalize upon them. Everyone, including you and I, have an advantage. When we are clever enough to recognize them and utilize them we suddenly have a different frame of mind.

Additionally, it would be frustrating to me if I worked very very very hard to build an audience/platform as well as other personnel and connected resources, only to have people poo poo on me when I go to use them. Thoughts? 

thought 1: those people just don't understand budgetting at all. it was minimal enough of a setup, that when factoring in the volunteers, they could have made a feature film on half of that. this part isn't evil probably, just weirdly ignorant

thought 2: it must not actually have been a passion project. which it seems like you agree with? again, not evil, other than it being a lie. "I even chipped in a couple thousand dollars of my own money," was not spoken.

 

their careers can survive my poo poo

but yeah, let's all use our resources. 

[HockeyFan12]

What was the budget again for how many days of shooting? I thought it was low, like $50k/day or something. $250k/day is the normal figure I hear for a high end day on set (low budget studio feature/national tv/national ad). If it's below that, they did pretty good. But if you can get the same result for less, get into line producing. You will find yourself flooded with work. If you can budget better than the big league, that's your advantage. I worked somewhere that did ultra low budget features and was asked by an A list producer (I think his biggest feature grossed over $500 million) how they did it. This guy is one of the most profitable producers in the industry and even he wanted to know. Budgeting high production value for cheap is an amazingly valuable skill.

Or... there are plenty of people here who can great production value on their lonesome for next to nothing, too. If you can do that... Then that's your advantage, using your talent rather than budgeting to maximize others, then great! Use it! 

(And there are people with none of those skills but with amazing stories to tell. That's the most enviable asset of all.)

I'm dead serious. I started my career by looking at what was on tv, thinking "I can do better for cheaper" even though what I was doing was just a hobby at that point and then.... doing better for cheaper. I'm still pretty early in it, but still working on a lot of the most-viewed shows on tv, national ads, wide release studio features, and usually in a senior role (yes, I did take some low pay work along the way and yes I sort of regret it, but life goes on, sue me).

If you think you can do it there's a really good chance you can! A friend of a friend started a vfx company out of a garage with a few iMacs and they focused on beauty work. It's now the boutique company working for A list directors, billing many millions a year, and it only took a couple years to get there. A family friend is now worth six million due to the success of his YouTube channel and crowd-funded content. It really can be that easy but you won't get there unless you go for it! (I should take my own advice lol.)

You have identified that you have the talent to make a Cannes-worthy short for a vanishingly low budget, or at least do some things better and cheaper than the studios. How is that a negative thing to realize? It's only negative if you don't act on it. Let it motivate you, not frustrate you. If you think you can do it chances are you can! If you want to, you should. Identify your advantage(s) and milk them for all they are worth. Which it sounds like is a lot!

[Trek of Joy]

Don't see why it would piss anyone off, regardless of the net worth of the person producing a project. If you can leverage your name/skill/fame into what Wright did, I say go or it. She's a big part of why HOC is so good. Like others say, let it motivate you. 

Cheers

[Axel]

12 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

I read somewhere, that Kristen Stewart said she was amazed at how much money she was given to make a short film - she's a multi-millionaire FFS, why didn't she use her own money rather than taking the resources out of the hands of others that really need it?

There are of course billions who have to penny-pinch to make their living. Everyone on EOSHD already lives in relative luxury, because one could as well get a basic equipment for free. I gave away an old HDV camera and an old computer to a young enthusiast, and I actually envied him, because he used both so creatively. I could as well have sold the items on Ebay (and buy a third set of headphones in return), but at that time it seemed the right thing to do. People actually are like that. They want to do the right thing. Poor people, you know how generous and unselfish many of them are. Rich people too. They usually have a very good instinct to sense if someone just tries to steal their money or help them spend it to passionately create something. 

Film always had these two aspects. It was costly, and production companies wanted it to be lucrative. On a big scale, cinema always was expensive in the making and cheap and silly in the outcome. Producers were cynics.

Short films, on the other hand, are difficult to sell but easier to finance. A lot of people will do the right thing and invest their precious time in them, with no realistic prospect of getting payed, they'll allow you to use their home as set, equipment rentals will make special prices and offer free assistance, local businesses will make reasonable contributions for being mentioned as sponsors and, if shown all the effort put into it, wealthy art lovers (so not DJT) will be happy to help with money. They know it'll be gone for good, literally.

9 hours ago, TwoScoops said:

Nepotism is pretty much the way of the world.

And corruption too. See The Godfather. The Corleones are more honest, faithful and often even more unselfish than the other characters. They want to do the right thing. It's a film about power, corruption and violence. And love and hate and passion. Not about money. Strange as this may sound, money is overrated.