"Second approach - Guy who invest time to make a team..."

Agree with the above EXCEPT you have to have the innate talent to direct and after all these years I really think you have to be born with it. Sure, you can progress technically. And I do think great directors become greater with each film they notch on their belt but a lot of folks keep making movies that are crap because they don't have the innate talent. Meaning, they can't judge a good line reading from a bad one. They don't have a feel for good lighting and wouldn't know it if they saw it. They can't write great dialogue or great screenplays. They can't pinpoint what's wrong with the rhythm of an edited sequence. Unfortunately, some of this can be learned but most of it can't.

That's why it's great to be able to mount a movie with very little money and show it to people. You can face your limitations and attempt to surmount them. But hard work alone won't make you a Spielberg, Nolan, Coppola, Hitchcock or Scorsese. All these guys had it right out of the box, when they were young, I'd dare say when they were born. They're all great businessmen (Coppola less than the others) but first and foremost -- they were great artists.

"I won't give two damneds either way if people like my first feature or not. I'm already on to a second one on an even LOWER budget. Once you get to the point where you're doing instead of talking all of the background voices become noise that you learn to tune out... and the only thing that matters is finishing what you started and starting something else that you can finish."

The above is perfectly valid if all you want to do is keep churning out film after film and have the deep pockets to finance them. Hell, Van Gough probably didn't give a shit if people liked his paintings either. But I think a lot of folks here want to work their way up to bigger films that can reach an audience and for that you need bigger budgets and INVESTORS. And investors DESERVE to get their money back and people that help you by working for free the first couple of times deserve to get PAID at some point so eventually you reach the crossroads where you have to ask "Is there an audience for my "films" or isn't there? " And at this point you damn well better care if people like your stuff or not. Because if they don't, maybe there is more you need to learn and you can only learn it by feedback - especially the negative feedback. If you keep hearing the same negative things over and over again from your audience, 9 times out of 10 they aren't the ones with their heads up their ass.

I learned this the hard way. Test screening audiences are precious to me now. I watch them like a hawk - and learn.

"I don't think NewDeal meant not caring about investors getting paid back, that's sort of obvious. But, what other people say and all the talk that goes on. It's just white noise."

Agreed.

@jrd

-- http://blogs.indiewire.com/tedhope/a_career_in_indie_film_better_have_that_second_job_lined_up

It occurs to me that only the rich kids, those who have ridiculous connections, and the warriors will survive. The world is becoming more stratified every day; why should film be any different? As the middle class disappears in the larger economy and society, so too shall it disappear from film. My partner and I struggle every day with the poverty that our decision to be active participants in our culture has brought us. But what should I do instead? Sacrifice my soul to go work at some awful job? -- From the comments.

This is a good read from a producer that's been neck-deep in Independent Cinema for most of his life, and the comments that follow are very thought-provoking. When they say that only the Rich and the Warriors will survive, that's the reality of this business.

True, expecting to succeed on persistence alone is definitely not the way to go, yet well-aimed persistence typically breeds the kinds of relationships and connections that you do need to survive and make a career out of this stuff.

I'd have to say that it's pretty fairly split (at first thought) between the rich and the warrior, and some of the rich are still warriors in their own right, battling over large denominators to finance their projects or aspirations.

I can't personally get behind the novelist comparison. But, let's not forget that there are warriors in that arena as well as silver-spooned authors. It isn't free to write a novel technically, you need to have time and time equals rent/mortgage, food, living.

So, all that said, yeah, I do think that there are Warriors and that there are Wealthy, having the instinct to make it happen if you are a Warrior is still very important, but knowing which one you are makes things a lot easier.

Guys, want to note that quote is made using ">" before paragraph, not each line, btw.

Like this:

So, all that said, yeah, I do think that there are Warriors and that there are Wealthy, having the instinct to make it happen if you are a Warrior is still very important, but knowing which one you are makes things a lot easier.

You can use page refresh in browser, as I also changed slightly it's style.

@jrd

The Warrior, TO ME, is someone who doesn't have much to start with but fights to do what they want to do. People who use whatever they have to make it happen, despite the flaws etc. Maybe there's a different meaning in it for you, which I can respect.

What Ted Hope talks about, sometimes, does seem to reflect on the fact that things are changing so they can stay the same, or that he has to take a lesser paycheck or be forced out of the only place he sort of "fits in" to the industry.

I do get behind this specific post of his, and again, it's just the reality of it. It may appear different for me because this is all I do with my life, I don't work a second job outside of the industry, and I am doing my own work while trying to float in Los Angeles. I'm far from rich, half the time I'm late paying rent (first world problems, I know.)

Suppose it just means something different to others, which is all good.

@jrd

"I would argue that none of it works. Not the rich kid thing, and not the warrior thing. Other countries have other approaches, but that requires a different approach to the arts."

Agree with you.

At the end i see all here talking about money revenues, no the art of making film with less than $7000. Yes film need money to get it done, but some others took this not the warrior way not the rich kid way, took it their own way.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev Maybe, im just really really really ignorant for some undeveloped country indie film maker like me. But you know, its fine here, im just sharing, im not important, i dont wanna be. I just see it like art. Yes artits need someone to back it up. Here im my own mesenas. Its my hobby as vitality pointet out.

Why do i have to make money with this? Really Why?

Is hobby aircrafting cheap??? no i dont thinks so, but its hobby. Does it make you ear money, YES if you take it to a competitive level, then you have risk, then is a business, need sponsors and you NEED TO WIN. But if you dont compete then you spend money you know it will never ever return, but the smile on your face playing with you plane i asume is priceless. Vitality even make money haking a camnera, no one paid him money to hack GH1, he enjoy it, it was a challenge ( i asume only ). Racing karts is hobby for alot of people, but is not cheap, the 99.9% of them will never get to formula 1, but every one knows that the best drivers from F1 racing come from a background of good Karting taken to a competitive level. It makes me feel that everyone here talks about F1 super champions, but no one about the road of the ones that dont compete, yes cos no one knows them lols!!!!

Does anyone take movies as a hobby here?????????????????? Hello???... i dont think so, doesnt seem to be the case arround this thread. Only money for more than $7000

Its allright, lots of people dont compete, personaly i just like the feeling of making it, and seeing the result, just like other ones like the smell of gasoline and hot engine gases. The end result is just the finish line of the next step for you hobby lol.

Yes, you can make a movie with less than $7000, but in 2012 its pretty clear you wont get any further than your local viewing. With the help of the internerd you may have some visits, buts it allright.

Its that wrong? For some people here it sound like it, and that is the only thing that disapoint me. But its ok, it wont stop others from making movies, crappy ones, tha nobody will ever see, THEY DO EXIST THOUGH, to teach what not to do. Sometimes like in my case as im seeing now, some others paid money to teach others what not to do. Its our money its ok, when is from others, then you have a big problem.

All you need is a damn good story and a damn good director you can get for free. If you have those two elements, the whole cast/crew will form itself around those two and every one will be motivated.

Also the people involved should all love film making as an art and as an activity for people to have fun.

It's all about motivation = story. And if you haven't got the story, you better have the money :p

Also don't expect to live off of it. If you're lucky you will but don't do it for that reason. There's already enough shit being made so please, if all you want is money. stop now :p

i bet there are a few thousand people out there who have a good enough vision that can really shine out. but only the PSYCHOLOGICALLY COMPETENT people who can actually COMPLETE their idea to a finished film will have that 1% chance. that's when most people continue with their day job and leave filmmaking as a hobby.

@rozroz

It may well be true that "psychological competence" is absolutely required for a successful filmmaking career (if you don't have a famous father in the business, anyway), but the "competence" the filmmaking profession requires typically involves business and organizational skills which are often, if not always, in direct opposition to the temperamental requirements associated with the practice of most art forms -- the ability to perform solitary work, obsessive focus, alienation from the larger community, disinclination to pursue material success, etc.

One result is that filmmaking form typically doesn't mature in the same way other art forms do. The road from Bach to Brahms, or from Shakespeare to Beckett, isn't necessarily a logical development, but does represent a cumulative maturity. Film, meanwhile, typically goes sideways, or gets dumber and dumber.

Different countries have different approaches -- some subsidize the entire film industry, or the art film sector, and this usually allows more neurotic or socially inept types to advance. In the U.S. however, we suffer from an excess of normality, because (I would argue) of the reliance on private and commercial finance. The folks likely to succeed under such a system generally will not be working at the levels of (for example) contemporary novelists, playwrights or composers, because they're competent in the wrong areas. In other words, we may need less business and social competence, in favor of the accomplishments demanded for the practice of most other art forms, but which individuals can lack completely in the movie business.