Why most filmmakers on matts suck! (compares members films)

nigel101 · Post by **nigel101** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:21 pm

so you think it sucks, well i agree. even including my work. it sucks!!!
i think there are reasons for the amount of suckness. couple of which our age, healthy bank account and brains.
the fact is all filmmakers first produce films that suck its a fact!! Sam Raimi, Peter Jackson, Robert, etc etc. trust me you may think that evil dead was there first bit of work but they have had loads of films, videos, projects that havent been finished, released etc.
(i will dispute this fact if challanged)!
Do you really think someone can pick a camcorda up and shot a top 100 film first time ever. Even Vincet Van gogh sucked when he started.
I think you know if you will make it in the film industry if on your 5th project you suck, then you really do suck. But then again theres people out there releasing pure suckness into blockbuster, video rentals etc and they make a living. i.e. Troma.
before i go *everybody loves a trier*

Lawriejaffa · Post by **Lawriejaffa** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:34 pm

Well the 'sucks' thing is just a title for a cross comparitive academic essay on the weaknesses of most films made in matts forums... people really need to reacte or debate the essay... rather than the title!

santi · Post by **santi** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:20 pm

I read this thread and Lawriejaffa is right that some films, well... let's say: are not quite good and using teens in roles typical for adults is rather funny but still... there's no better way to gain a mastery then practice. I agree that many thing could be improved.

You can't judge this film that they sucks. Right now it's not about realism or great acting. It's about the joy of creating. All of these guys could spend days on selling drugs or robbing drunkmen in park. But they do something creative. That's positive. I'm very nasty as a reviewer. I criticize as hell when I see a bad acting, bad camera work and stuff but if there's "something" in the film I can't say it suck. Ofcourse: if I see few silly billy' making stupid jokes, with no script, with no idea. Shot with camera built in telephone... then it really sucks.

Off topics (but small) kids in uniforms playing war is really funny

In Poland there's easier: in Warsaw Uprising (1944) many 12-16 y.o. had been fighting with weapon in hands. No uniforms, only helmets and other stuff they found on dead Germans. If some of you looking for an idea for war film with figting kids - here you are.

Meesa sorry for me english bad. Meesa need coffee....lotsa cofeeeeeeeeeeeeee....

Post by **Matt** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:04 pm

The one thing I would add is that amateur films are allowed to be self indulgent because they are a form of personal entertainment. Some people on here aspire to be professional film makers and get famous. That's fine. Some will make it, some won't. Some people make films just for the fun of it. It's true that other people might not think they are quite Hollywood but if they had fun then so be it.

It's a bit like playing football. Not many people get to play for a proffessional side but they can still enjoy kicking the ball around the park with their mates. If they don't want to play for a decent side they don't need to take it seriously.

Acting is always going to be the biggest problem on here. I like film making but I am far more interested in the technology than the acting bit. Me and my friends do the acting because we haven't got anyone else. We *could* find an amateur dramatics society or something but then we wouldn't have as much fun. Our film making is always mixed with watching DVDs, eating crisps, swearing and generally messing about. We just wouldn't get on with anyone who wanted to do serious acting.

I'm the first to admit that the films we made usually started out as a collection of 'cool' scenes that we wanted to film strapped together with something vaguely discribed as a plot

Hollowpoint started out as nothing more than my wish to film a car chase. I also fancied making a fake bomb and case of fake money. The rest was just filler!

I think it is fun to try and make your next film better than the last but ultimately the quality is always determined by how much time,money and effort you can put into it.

Acting talent, script, equipment and props are all equivalent to time, money and effort. So although some people perhaps should try a bit harder in some areas some films are what they are because they were never meant to be anything else.

It does take effort to make even a rubbish film so I still respect people for actually picking up a camera and trying. Trying to improve from film to film is all anyone can ask.

Despite the title being a bit provocative I'm glad to see some intelligent thought went into these posts. This is a good thread.

Lawriejaffa · Post by **Lawriejaffa** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:02 pm

Well Santi I think it is possible to give critiques on films, HOWEVER that doesn't mean those critiques are correct (including mine.)

Critical analysis is a vital part of the creative process imo, to understand the works of others, to appreciate those values and faults, and to apply those lessons to your own ideas is vital for both originality and innovation.

Matt tis an honour to have you say hi in this humble thread! I agree with you completley regarding your interpretation of 'self indulgence' and the motives for creating film, I believe it rings true for the filmmakers who don't have professional ambition within the industry.

When I criticise self indulgence in film-making I'm not criticising a directer deriving pleasure from his work, but instead what i mean is 'vanity' which inevitably makes the film more satisfactory for the filmmaker than the audience. A good example of 'self indulgence' could very well be the new Shamalyn Knight film (okay worst typo ever) Lady in the water (certainly if you check its reviews!)

Thanx again for participating in the discussion of the thread, it certainly is aimed at those filmmakers that are aspiring naturally.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:32 am

Just thought I better post these while I think of it to keep Lawriejaffa happy

Ornsack · Post by **Ornsack** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:31 am

Ha! Aw look at the face *grabs cheek*

Thanks for the kind words dotted around this thread btw! I'm sure I'll come up with a better reply later

Lawriejaffa · Post by **Lawriejaffa** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:43 pm

lol Grant from the look of those pics did u grow up to be John Kerry!?! hehe

Yep sure thing Ornsack

Kentertainment · Post by **Kentertainment** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:14 am

Lawriejaffa wrote:Guys like Kentertainment, Gyro and others are (i believe) pretty determined to be the next Orson Welles themselves!

I love assumptions! I'm going to just say that I have never seen an Orson Welles directed movie...I did the "The Muppet Movie" which he acted in.

You know I think a lot of the members on this forum would be off all right if they just developed the Paul Thomas Anderson method...something I realized I'd done not to long ago.

P.T. Anderson (directed Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk-Love) basically grew up a movie buff. He learned how to make films by just watching other movies and learning the methods...he studied them. People can greatly enhance the quality of their films (Visually, I'm not talking about acting and so on) if they would just absorb other films and their techniques.

Then again it just turns into some Tarrentino knock-off.

Lawriejaffa · Post by **Lawriejaffa** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:18 am

Yep definatley I think its important to watch films to understand them, but unless your learning the means of making films (and looking at those early films that were instrumental in changing and evolving the way the 'moving image' was used then instead, you are in the danger of watching films that will not be so constructive.

Orson Welles is considered by many a great director - actor - writer, check him on wikipedia, and check in particular his film 'Citizen Kane.' (at a film uni course they wouldnt even let you past the front door if u hadnt heard of him hehe.)

The thing about watching films is that you are engaged with the movie 'as an audience' which is completley different to being a filmmaker. Thats why there are loads of guys who have massive dvd collections (and of those who are film students) make stuff that often sucks. Why? Because it all depends on the films you watch!

Um anyone who hasn't got the patience to watch some older films that basically influenced the cinema, shouldnt bother even trying to make films professionally hehe.

Heres a list of some i'd recommend! (this is just my opinion btw, and is in now way exhaustive!!!)

Battle for Algiers
Citizen Kane
Battleship Potemkin
Gone with the Wind
Blair Witch
Evil Dead
El Mariachi
Seven Samurai
Ikiru
The Devils (dir. Ken Russel)

Plus pretty much anything by Jean Luc Goddard (the ultimate typo mispelling)

SgtPadrino · Post by **SgtPadrino** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 3:09 am

Like others, I both disagree and agree with the points you're making. Disagree - you don't have to understand, or even know of the history of cinema to be a great filmmaker - it just helps when you're starting out. The only real thing that will help you to improve is practice (particularly with cinematography) - just go out there and shoot footage. Film a sunset, film a city street, film your friends at a party. Edit it together in the style you'd like, and repeat. It helps you develop your own visual/editing style, free of the influence of the filmmakers you would otherwise be studying. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with studying the classics to improve, but with the increased availability of cameras and editing tools, it's no longer the best way to improve yourself. Hell, my hard drive is filled with these five minute 'practice shoots' - eventually, it's all just second nature (my Photoflood lighting kit is in the mail - soon I'll be able to practice lighting until you can actually see what's happening in our movies

) With improving your writing, it's pretty much a no-brainer - just write

Agree - lots of stuff here sucks, with not a lot of ambition for improvement. But y'know what, it's not that big of a deal. This is an amateur filmmaking forum, so of course you're going to find the kids that make a movie with their friends for kicks. Hell, the best filmmaking memories I have are of when we were just starting out, making horrible hour long movies, weighted down with Matrix music and horrendous amounts of slow motion. It's all a learning process, and even if it's not there's nothing wrong with the people that just want to have fun with a camera. Even if it makes everyone else bleed out their eyeballs

Thing is, you're looking at this as a problem, to be solved with film school methods - I say, if you want to improve, do it by practice and develop your own style - get better on your own terms, as there is no right and wrong when it comes to filmmaking - only what looks good and what doesn't. And if you don't want to improve, just have a good time

santi · Post by **santi** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:07 am

Lawriejaffa wrote: Battle for Algiers
Citizen Kane
Battleship Potemkin
Gone with the Wind
Blair Witch

OK,A-Must-See,OK,OK... Blair Witch Project?? What the... hell? This insulting fo the rest of the moviest on the list.

I would add to your list:
"Twelve Angry Men"
"American Beauty"
"Apocalypse now"
"Seven"
"Duel"
"Casablanca"
"Bullitt"

SgtPadrino wrote:'m not saying there's anything wrong with studying the classics to improve, but with the increased availability of cameras and editing tools, it's no longer the best way to improve yourself.

I disagree. Ignoring styles of classic (or even non classics - just every good movie) is like breaking through the opened doors. Immitating and analizing somebodys style is great exercice because its improving the visual thinking. Not the "put this here and this here and let's see what will happen" way but with more awareness. In filmschool that was the first thing they told me: "as long as you learn you can steal, copy with no regrets. The best way to learn this craft. One day you'll reach the level when your own style would be crystalized".
As Seneca said: If a man knows not what harbor he seeks, any wind is the right wind.

challengerbravo525 · Post by **challengerbravo525** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:04 pm

tis site s a palce for beginners, not big budget films! of course there not going to be up to standard like big name movies with big budgets

Post by **Matt** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:38 pm

Although Blair Witch gets critised now at the time it got bums on seats in cinemas. It depends how you measure a good film. Is there any point making your living from film making if you are making 'good' films but no one is paying to see them? The people who made Blair Witch are laughing all the way to the bank.

Blair Witch did show that a film can be successful without following the same format as the films that went before it. ie don't be scared to try something new. Sometimes a successful film has to capture the imagination of the public at the time. A good film can be overlooked if the public aren't ready for it. Donnie Darko for example. After Saving Private Ryan there was a mass of similar films but the public get bored with them after a while. It doesn't matter how good a film you make about WW2 it is unlikely to be as popular as SPR even if you actually make a better film.

It's a bit like saying "what is the better game, Chess or Twister?" Chess is more intelligent, more historical, more refined, has more depth etc etc. By all accounts it is a better game. But what is more popular at a party? We could look down on the creator of Twister for not making a better game ... but I doubt he cares.

Another example is Harry Potter. Lots of childrens authors looked down on JK Rowling because they thought HP was trash. They wrote numerous articles on why HP was rubbish litterature. Rowling becoming an instant millionaire sort of puts their critisism to bed.

santi · Post by **santi** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 3:43 pm

BWP was so "successful" because of a lot of bucks put into marketing and promotion and I'm pretty sure that that was steered by Hollywood from a scratch. No one before and no one after BWP put a lousy and bad made indie into major distribution. Wonder why? The only reason I can imagine is that someone wanted to check how "dangerous" could be indies or how much s*** the audience could buy. This film is to bad to be made by film school student and I'm sure that lots of it's flaws were made intentionaly. I don't say that BWP shouldn't be on this list beacuse it's a horror or belongs to other "non noble" genres. Not at all. I like every kind of films. But this is real trash and I don't think that it's good example for aspiring filmmakers how to make films.

Epsilon · Post by **Epsilon** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:01 pm

Every large Hollywood production spends a lot on marketing. That is how they get viewers. Even on this website, people post up their movies and talk about it. They are promoting as well. We can sit and criticize the quality of a film, but it all comes back to money and what people want to see. Basically, any good film today is a successful film. Granted it may never become a classic remember for all times, but you HAVE heard of and seen it, so they did something right.

I don't know about you, but I would rather play chess at a party!

Lawriejaffa · Post by **Lawriejaffa** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:27 pm

On the contrary Blair Witch was categorically not steered by Hollywood from the scratch. Trust me... if it had would the sequal been so bad hehe, and seriously if it had, it would not have been shot on a mini dv cam, and a half defunch 16mm portable.

Blair Witch I include in that list, as a good example for its success, its use of the 'method making film formula' and because it is a style of film very much within the realm of possibility for filmmakers here.

Sgt. Padrino, I think your plainly incorrect in supposing that practice is all you need to succeed. On the contrary - learning of technical skills (often requires reading or tuition AND practice) While no filmmaker can afford to miss the classics.

Lets be straight also on what we consider a 'classic'. Its not just an 'old' film, or perhaps even a classic or perhaps even a good film! Just a film that is radically influential on cinema.

Now say you never watched any films and all you did was practice, well eventually you would perhaps learn the 'montage' or 'classic narrative structures' = things done almost a century ago! Of course thats impossible, as we are raised with the moving image everywhere. If you don't learn those films that influenced cinema, instead you just learn from the movies that WERE influenced by those influential films. So its like getting your inspiration not from the source...

To innovate you have to see just how film has evolved, and recognise where the boundaries are so that if you want to stretch them, through visual storytelling or story setup, then and only then can you know what has or has not been done before.

To the defeatist gits that say 'hey man i don't mind sucking at moviemaking' then fine, that is your prerogorative, but lets presume those posting on this particular thread

are on a mission to become the ultimate filmmakers hehe

Let's add some more films to the sacred checkout list hehe, there not necessarily classics (some are tho!)

The Seventh Seal
Wild Strawberries
Don't Look Now
Apocalypse Now
Thin Red Line (remake)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (notorious downbeat version with Donald Sutherland)
Salo (the ultimate extreme of cinema.)
Alexander Nevsky

SgtPadrino · Post by **SgtPadrino** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:06 pm

Oh God, not The Thin Red Line again... Jesus that movie was garbage.

With the technical aspect of things, yeah reading is involved, never said you can't do your learning from reading up on the different aspects of filmmaking - but you aren't going to learn how to work a camera by watching Citizen Kane and studying how, why, and by who the montage was created. If you want to stretch the boundaries and do something new, yeah knowing where the boundaries are at would be useful, but really that kind of thinking almost only applies to arthouse movies. Like I said, it helps to study other peoples' movies. But it is not required if you want to become a filmmaker - just get the hell out there and make a f*** movie.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:24 pm

We will never agree fully on a list of good movies. It is such a personal affair. The Blair Witch Project was was successful mainly because at the time it was a fresh style and was marketed well also. Many successful films these days are so because of marketing. I watch many pre-1940s films, especially of the Lon Chaney era and the plots there are so deep and twisted putting modern Hollywood to shame. Many of these films are silent also and the acting superb. The remake of The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers in my view is inferior to the original in design and of course acting.

santi · Post by **santi** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:43 am

SgtPadrino wrote: just get the hell out there and make a f*** movie.

I am. And also trying to survive. My last movie was such a cr** that I dont wanna show it to anyone. I'm not created to do documents.

Anyway: You won't create anything new if you don't know classics. The rules haven't change so much. Shots are shorter, camera's moves are faster etc. thats all. Most of succking films on this (and any other) forum suck because their are full of mistakes in basic matters such as composition of frame, lighting, editing etc. Carefull watching some classics and analyzing shot by shot is very educating. We are talking about basis... not making any revolutions in filmmaking. Movies use a some code that was developed through the years. You can't learn it without watching films and learning from more experienced ones.

I still say that BWP is fake...

Lawriejaffa · Post by **Lawriejaffa** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:55 am

OBVIOUSLY we'll never agree on a list of good movies, makes for constructive discussion tho. The original Invasion of the Body snatchers was made in the late 50's by the uber cool Don Siegal (later he did Dirty Harry) (Which was good but compromised by the studios desire for a happy ending which the book it was adapted from did not have.)

In 1976 it was remade by director Philip Kaufman (who later did the oscar winning 'The Right Stuff' and was probably one of the few remakes to gain a critically favourable response! (Its a very serious sci-fi film, performed almost piously by Sutherland.) It is this version that is one of the best sci-fi chillers ever made, very mature, very creepy - even to this day

Incidentally Don Siegal preferred this version himself (approving of its re-instated original horrible ending) and even taking the role of a cameo taxi driver

You may be getting confused (or not Grant) with the numerous other remakes of the invasion franchise (made in the 80s and 90s) which are straight to video affairs. Incidentally if your going so far back as to appreciate Lon Chaney's contribution to horror Grant, then my comrade, i salute you

Um the 'The Thin Red Line' = 'garbage' lol, you have to remember Padrino that the reason that film was popular among many critics, was its metaphorical perspective of war, and the environment, and loads of other poetical elements. In that film, in a scene during a battle, a baby bird is knocked from its nest, many in the audience found that more disturbing than the men dying in battle. That kind of decision by a directer can be tantamount. I bet in 20 years time that film will probably be more remembered than Saving Private Ryan (as it becomes consumed by the numerable clones that copy its pop cultural style.)

Padrino I find your comment attacking the need for intellectual development as a filmmaker confusing. By suggesting the need for stretching boundaries applies only to 'arthouse' movies is not only incorrect, its grossly naive. EVERY single thing you see in mainstream culture now was at some point 'avant guarde'. By your argument, anything innovative would be dismissed as arthouse.

People are too quick on this forum to dismiss the arthouse, they forget it is that 'foundry' of creativity that keeps the mainstream films burning. If you don't watch films that are instrumental to cinema, then instead you will be (by definition) watching films that were not instrumental. (Films that are pop cultural and/or contrived.) If you only ever saw XXX State of the Union or Citizen Kane, which do you think would influence you more creatively hehe.

I know theres a big 'attitude' against the class idea of artyness and intellects, as if they are the enemy to creativity and the Rodriguez idea of just getting out there and making your movie etc. Truth is, if you don't figure out how films have got to where they are, and why some suck and others don't, (and combine that with technical learning) then you will find it almost impossible to become both professional proficient and succesful as a creative artist.

Cos lets not forget, that in a profession or industry, knowledge is the secret language between technicans, staff, editors, directors etc.
Theres too many reasons in fact to list here as to why one who wants to be a filmmaker needs to do their homework. lol save me telling u why padrino juuuust trust me

The most important thing is to 'figure out' films you think suck (but are for some reason considered instrumentally important or critically popular by other established filmmakers.)

In fact gentleman, by whatever means you should use, i suggest you try and see a short film called 'Meshes of the Afternoon' by Maya Deren. Tell me what you think

PS - Theres no reason Santi that you can't make the next revolitionary short film. In fact im trying to make a revolutionary method making feature film atm, theres a thread about it in the members films.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:17 am

I am commenting on Chaney's contribution to fim making as a whole (he actually did few horrors) and all silent film makers. I am jusr depressed at the lack of originality in fim these days in general. When I watched The 6th Sense for the first time I thought hmmmm this resembles Carnival of Souls somewhat lol, wonder what the twist in the end is

maj_barnes · Post by **maj_barnes** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:05 am

I have to agree on Padrino on TRL: it was. The reason why the baby bird was more shocking than seeing the men die is because it acted better than the soldiers. All the soldiers died like something from those old westerns where they grab their wounds. The bird seemed like it was actually dying: I only saw one man die in agony like the bird, the others were seemingly useless, just another person to be shot and fall into the grass: lost in obsurity. All the characters were forgettable: and I could really care less when they died. There was hardly any character development, all they did was constantly talk about... philosophy? Voice overs throughout: with hardly any dialogue? It's just a cheap way of throwing in some poetry to make the film seem meaningful. The whole point to it was war is hell. I don't need three hours to explain three words.

There's my penny.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:11 am

TRL for me and Saving Private Ryan complimented each other that year greatly. They were both on the opposite ends of the spectrum. I loved hearing all the inner voices in TRL, this was refreshing and added to the whole piece

Kentertainment · Post by **Kentertainment** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:27 am

I lied, I have seen Citizen Kane.

TRL was easily noticable as a Terrane Malick film....BOMBS BLOWING EVERYWHERE...then a tree. (because he likes nature)

But everyone is forgetting those cult films that everybody loves...or is getting annoyed by:
Napolean Dynamite
Office Space (yeaaahhh I sent you a memo about the TPS reports....yeaaaahhh)
Donnie Darko
How Santa Clause Conquered the Martians! (haven't seen it but sounds good by the name)