Movie Review: Thor Ragnarok

Paul G Newton's Review of Thor Ragnarok

I finally gave in and went to see the heralded Thor Ragnarok last night.  I did not want to see it, really, but many of the screen writing podcasts I have been listening to, like The Curious about Screenwriting Podcast, seem to love the story. While I felt it had some relative fun aspects to the movie, I did not feel that it left me wanting to see more or other films.

The story structure seems sound, its flow was not interrupted with randomness or unnecessary scenes that failed to complete the mission of furthering the story. It did have redeeming character traits that made the characters somewhat like-able and, on first watch, the story seemed succinct. That did not spur my imagination and left me with a feeling of emptiness when leaving the theater. It was not a bad movie and it did everything right in the way that movies are doing them today but it didn't do what I want a movie to do and create a lasting impression upon my psyche that I can carry with me on my travels through my own life.

I do have to applaud the movie for trying to stay true to its roots in the 1970's, 1980's motif that the first one had with its cheesy subtitles and crummy music but even that left me rolling my eyes because of the recent phenomena of the Netflix Stranger Things. It actually cheapened it for me because I hate pandering, especially in film where the movie has to hold its own for the sake of itself. Even though, I must admit that no movie seems to do that these days. A practice that I believe should still be first and foremost in the minds of the creators of any film yet has seemed to fall out of favor.

The film opens with Thor being trapped by a Devil looking creature that makes no honest sense to anyone like myself... but there is a reason for the creature as is blatantly and needed for the movie to have an ending. Unfortunately for this film I knew exactly what this characters purpose was at about three minutes in. Ultimately telling me the ending of the movie and leaving no suspense or tension to make me WANT to keep watching. Then it did it again and again... Every new character that was introduced strengthened my guess and eventually left me with two hours of my time taken from me while draining my pockets of the money it took to purchase the ticket. At the end of the film I found myself ultimately disappointed in the plot and story because at no point did anything task my senses or make me second guess the ending that was already completed in my mind. In fact, the only other movie that was more blatant about its ending at the very beginning was a terrible film that had so much potential but the worst story ever called "The Others" starring Nichole Kidman. This movie is about a mother and her children whom are haunted by ghosts but it turns out that they are actually the ghosts. Something that was very thinly veiled at the beginning leaving nothing to the imagination and thus ruining the story.

One thing that immediately set off my alarms is when Thor losses his hammer just shortly after his father dies.  The only recourse for the character is to take the throne from the bad bad lady in the Maleficent outfit and kill her with the thing holding Thor prisoner at the beginning of the movie. I mean they didn't even try. The fact that her horns and the horns of what could be mistaken as the devil from "Pick of Destiny" look exactly the same are just some of the dead give aways. Needless to say, any entertainment value from this movie could only come from the crude and silly jokes, insider trading of the Avengers prior films and fighting. None of which actually advance the story or make any sort of coherent point that might stimulate anyone other than fan boys who would watch any Marvel movie with exuberance just because it is a Marvel movie, regardless of its content or quality.

I tried to enjoy the movie, I truly did. The laments of Thor as he tries to be cool but just isn't are humorous and normally might make him more human but fail miserably and only serve to throw us out of the film and remind us that we are in a theater and not somewhere else. Then there is the CGI. It is supposed to be the state of the art but it looks horrendous. None of the places looked real to me at any point other than the short scene on earth where they are talking to their father. Everything else was half baked and cheap. I know what it takes to make stuff in computer land look real and have done it myself and I assure you, it could have been done much better for an extra couple of hours worth of work. Not only do the locations look very fake and seem to make us want to believe that outer space exists in the land of Roger Rabbit all of the animated characters look equally bad. At no point did I ever believe Hulk was in the same room as Thor and not just some cartoon skillfully drawn but poorly colored.

I would say this movie is worth a watch on Netflix or Amazon Prime but that is about as far as I would go. It isn't a terrible movie but it's not that great either. Movies should challenge us, make us want to be right next to the character on the screen and endear themselves into our psyche when we are done watching them. True cinematic gold must contain something of lasting value that stays with you. Thor, Ragnarok doesn't even come close to doing this on any level and it is a waste of time. If you want pure entertainment for the sake of entertainment, watch something else because this doesn't even accomplish that. Terminator 2 is better at just tantalizing your brain, probably because it's endearing and leaves you different than you were before you saw it the first time. Something this movie and most of its contemporaries fail to do.

Making Films on Zero Money. WE CAN DO IT!

We all have it in us, a story that needs to be told.  Some act upon it, some aren't aware of it and some, well... some are like me and consumed by it.  I have always been able to come up with a story just by looking at an object, observing people or just sitting on my couch doing nothing.  These stories have consumed me and have bored me.   Some have made me pace around the house looking for the right words to transpose upon paper or type into a document.  It is these stories that have driven me to make films.  I admit, I tried writing a book or two in my life, but the training that I needed to make them coherent I just didn't have.  On the other hand, making them into a visual story has always been something I inherently have a talent for.

I began making films a very long time ago. Ok, not that long ago, but far enough in the past that I did not have access to the tools to even attempt to do it right. Even 10 years ago the cost of making a film was too high for a first timer. Now the time is right. Filming has become accessible to the lowest on the totem pole for a small amount of money.

In 1991 Richard Linklater made a movie called "Slacker". It was arguably a film that made history. The film was done for around twenty five thousand dollars and was shot with actors that were less than trained, with a few that were. It was mostly incoherent prose and conspiracy theory mixed with nonsensical dialogue. With all of that, it still won film festivals and even played at Sundance, ushering an "independent film" sub genre.

After "Slacker" we saw another indie film that rose to stardom and launched many careers of Pop Culture Icons. Kevin Smith's cult classic "Clerks" makes many of the same arguments and has conspiracy theory throughout but in the form of Comic Book references and crassness (of which I love tremendously). It's success spun off many movies, TV show pilots and even a Saturday morning cartoon. This film is as eerily the same as slacker as it is different.

A phenomenal success and a very cheap film to make, "Clerks" was shot in black and white in a world of color only because they didn't have enough cash on hand to buy the color film stock.

Even though these films were made for "nothing" in comparison to even the cheapest of the movies in the 1990's, they still cost the equivalent of Fifty and Thirty thousand dollars in today's money, respectively.  For the average man or woman in even the middle class of American society, these amounts are pipe dreams. Who in their right mind would spend an entire years salary or max out a bunch of credit cards to make a movie that might possibly never be seen by anyone? I would, if I had it to spend, but that's just me and I don't.

Since it has been deemed financially unattainable to pay for a film out of my own pocket I work very hard at making them for FREE.  Yes, I said FREE. Well, they aren't technically free, I suppose.  I did buy the camera and the lenses as well as the computer and other nefarious items that I probably don't need to tell an effective story.  But lets not ponder on that too long, right now.

Everyone with a modern smart phone can make a film for free.  All you need is dedicated people to surround you. If you want to make a movie that doesn't look too bad and it sounds good you can definitely do it for a few thousand dollars in equipment and about a hundred hours of you tube learning about lighting and camera composition. Get a boom mic, a pole to put it on a DSLR and about three lights. You probably wont make the next Hollywood Blockbuster but you WILL make something special to you and the people that helped create it.

So now, It's up to you... and me, I guess.

Movie Review: The Gallows

So, I am a filmmaker, as most of you know.  Because I am a filmmaker, I ingest many films and TV.  Most of the time the films I watch are good and sometimes they are passable.  On occasion I will see a film because of Hype or fanfare.  I am usually not disappointed in those films but that does not mean I actually liked them or would have chosen to see the pop culture laden and obviously manufactured films on my own accord.  One of my most read reviews is of American Sniper, a movie I would never have chosen to see on my own (I also worked for the movie theater at the time so I didn't have to pay to see it, another bonus).  All this being said, I chose to watch "The Gallows".

"The Gallows" is a film about a jerk jock, Ryan (Ryan Shoos, he used his real name) and his friend Reese (Reese Mishler) who are forced to take Drama in high school.  The class has decided to remake the play "The Gallows" even tough the last time it was performed the lead actor was accidentally hanged.  The lead actress Pfeifer (Pfeifer Brown) is focused on the play and wants to perform it again for unknown reasons never revealed in the movie.  The film is recorded "first person " by Ryan with a digital camera and is constantly filming everything (why?  No Idea).  Reese is infatuated by Pfeifer  and always gets tongue tied when he is next to her.  To help his friend, Ryan enlists his girlfriend Cassidy (Cassidy Gifford) to take Reese to the school's theater and destroy the set so the play cannot go on, relieving them all from having to endure the play.  

I wanted to see it because of the trailer.  It seemed like it might be an interesting take on the "found footage" genre.

I made a special trip to watch this film.  Even though my admission price was only $4.35 I dare say it was a waste of money.  It is the traditional shakey camera and poor acting that we have come to expect from a film such as this.  As a filmmaker, I know they spent very little time filming it.  It is easy to see and hear.

"The Gallows" is the same old cruddy, cheaply made horror movie written without much thought to the script.  I wouldn't be surprised if this was only two versions away from he rough draft or even written/re-written the day of the shoot.  It wasn't scary (other than one time when I was falling asleep and a loud noise woke me up) and the scenes were predictable.

The ending, however, might have had a better story than the movie itself.  (Spoiler Alert)  In the end the lead actress is having her hair brushed by her mother in a shrine dedicated to the actor from the play put on so many years ago.  Irony ensues as we see that her mother was the lead actress, scarred for life from the death during the original play.  I would be more interested to see a movie about the conspiracy they perpetuated with the ghost in order to kill the "new" leads of the play than this predictable and poorly made film.

American Sniper Review: No Politics here!

I finally went to see American Sniper.  I would probably have seen it sooner or not at all if it were not for my one day a week (at least it was supposed to be one day a week) job at a local movie theater.  It really is a lack-luster job with terrible pay but the benefit of seeing movies for free is what attracted me.  I did the math a while back and I was spending over $60 a month on films when good ones actually came out.  So, I went and saw it.  It was pretty much exactly what I thought it would be.  I did have a pressing question in my mind though, how would they address Chris Kyle's tragic murder.  I  thought that the filmmakers (Clint Eastwood and company) might not even go there, but they did and it was very respectable.

As far as the movie is concerned, they did a good job.  It is a mix of war and the emotional toll that it takes upon anyone that is involved in the implementation of it.  War is terrible, we all must agree on that.  Anyone that believes otherwise has a screw loose.  The military aspect of it was mostly true to life and I must say, they put the most horrific things in the movie.  Since it s pretty hard to spoil the movie for anyone that has an internet connection and googles the life of Chris Kyle I will forgo the niceties and not worry about spoilers other than not revealing the plot itself.  That is about the only thing that may keep you subtly guessing about this movie.

Chris Kyle

For those of you who haven't heard the account, here is a little recap:  Chris Kyle was a rodeo man who decided to join the military after watching the news about terrorist attacks on US forces and innocent people overseas.  He was somewhat of a simple man, not to be confused with a simpleton, they are distinctly two different things.  Chris joined the U.S. Navy and graduated BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition / SEAL) training then went on to specialize as an elite sniper.  After September 11th 2001 he was deployed to Iraq and fought in the toughest campaigns, serving four tours.  Chris Kyle went on to become the U.S. Navy's deadliest sniper.  After his deployment ended, mostly by his own choice according to the movie, Chris Kyle learned to deal with his own demons by helping out his fellow soldiers fight theirs as well.  From all accounts it comforted him and allowed him to move on with his life.  Sadly, another Veteran was unable to deal with the emotions and tragedy of his own life and murdered Chris Kyle when Chris took him to a shooting range.  

Alright, now that everyone is up to speed on the story, here is my review of the movie itself.  This is not a commentary on Chris Kyle, the U.S. Military or anything political.  I am solely interested in the movie's technical aspects, actors and screenplay.  Just so you know.  No hard feelings to those who love the movie and definitely No politics here.

I would liked to have seen some more care taken with the artistic beauty of the film.  The effects were underwhelming at times.  The helicopters that flew through the air were right about 75% of the time but I did see some scenes where the effects were revealed.  Believe it or not, the process of creating realistic looking 3d models is not as refined as one might think.  In an action movie the film maker can cover up effects that aren't quite right with some trickery in post.  You can oversaturate, use a mask or manipulate the gamma settings to hide flaws in animated objects easily when the entire film is somewhat based off of fantasy.  The real trick is to do it when you are looking for reality.  The sun is a tricky thing and while we have figured out most of it, the fine details are still very difficult to master.  All in all I was't distracted by the effects and most moviegoers will not notice.  So, that's actually a win in my book.  Not a home run, but a win.

The acting is another story.  Bradley Cooper did an amazing job.  I mean really amazing.  Growing up in the south I have met and I am friends with rodeo men.  They have a demeanor about them, something that is found only in the culture.  Bradley nailed it.  For those of you that have seen the movie, I would not suggest just walking up to the cats, Chris Kyle is somewhat more friendly than most, you have been warned.  Bradley Cooper portrayed Chic Kyle in such a believable way, it makes me wonder if Bradley knows some of these men.  Well, I guess he did, he met Chis Kyle and spoke to the man himself.  If any of you wonder why a war movie about a sniper who has killed more enemy combatants than any one else in a war that has been so controversial over the years has spurred so many award nominations, I have two words for you; Bradley Cooper.  I never found myself seeing through this mans acting.  To be honest, its about 50/50 when it comes to my ability to see when an actor is "acting".  So many actors seem like the same character over and over again, Micheal Keaton for example, because it is the person behind the mask that we are interested in.  Bradley Cooper's performance in this film was not one of these performances.  He stepped outside himself and portrayed the man and at no time did I feel that Bradley Cooper came out in the performance, Only Chris Kyle.  In fact, this performance has driven me to proclaim that Bradley Cooper is one of the greatest major actors alive.   I would have no problem casting him in just about anything.

There is one thing that bothered me though is it's screenplay.  The screenplay lacks depth and substance for the supporting characters.  Chris's wife Taya Kyle (Sienna Miller) finds Kyle in a bar, becomes his wife and has children.  Thats about all I know about the character, there really wasn't anything other than that.  Ok, she tells him how she wants him to come home and that she "wants her husband back": as his personality has been muted by war in order to deal with the overwhelming grief that he feels (which is lightly portrayed in the film) for killing.  The other supporting characters that he served with felt like day players or even throw away characters.  I know this is not what the screen-writers intended but that's the way it is.  I believe we were supposed to feel the grief Chris experienced when he lost a man but I didn't.  Ok, I did because they represent actual men with families but if it were a fictional story, I would have felt very little for them.  In fact, the only feels I had when we lost a character Chris Kyle served with came from the knowledge that they are real people and they really died.  It wasn't the actors who portrayed his team members fault I felt this way, that weight strictly falls on the screen-writer's shoulders.  If more time was spent with Taya and the other soldiers in the film, it would have been a truly heart wrenching story.

One last thing that I want to address.  it is something that I let slide and I assume everyone else did too.  It is something that everyone must have noticed.  It would surprise me if no one did.  In one scene where Chris and Taya are talking in their homes nursery a doll is used.  It is obviously a doll.  I would put money that they had a real baby for the role and the child was either sick or would not stop crying, forcing Clint Eastwood to just deal with it and move on.  It could be for other reasons with are just as palatable but it disappoints me very much with how little care they used in this scene.  Watching it unfold with he glaring baby doll drew me out of the scene 100%.  I would suppose that some audience members chuckled when they handed the doll off.  I was embarrassed  to be honest.  Wrap the doll up in a blanket or something Clint.  I would even have done that.  

All-in-all The movie was decent.  I would stop short of saying it is, in comparison to other movies of the year, an award winner, but good.  I felt the portrayal of the man himself was honest and care was taken to not soil the memory of the man and what he did.  Clint Eastwood did a good job showing what war is like and the toll it can take on even the toughest of us.  It didn't come across as anti-war tripe or NRA propaganda.  It was about a man and who he was.  I would say, for a movie that is about real life, it holds its ground and tells a good story in the most respectful way possible.  

Sci Fi 4 Me "12 Monkeys" review and my new "freemium" gig.

So all of you know that I am an avid film buff.  Duh, right!  I have been toying with helping with some SciFi type stuff with Jason P. Hunt out of Kansas City who runs the site SciFi4Me with some movie and TV reviews.  I finally jumped into the fray and recorded my first review of SyFy Channel's TV show "12 Monkeys".  It is a take on the original movie directed by Terry Gilliam starring Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt.  I know that I have been posting a lot about Gilliam lately but this just landed in my lap.  I thought, why not!  So I decided to have a little fun with my review and went a little long. Oops!  Jason didn't mind that I went over the original 3 minute time limit so there is that.  I bet it's because I am making it for free, yeah, that might be it.  I do know, I am not a fan of the cover art he chose.  I guess I will do it myself next time, sorry Jason.

One of the interesting things about the show is that you kind-of have to see the original movie before you watch it if you want to get up to speed fast enough to keep up with it.  I would dare say that most will not have to go back to "the source material" but it might be a 50/50 split.  It moves so fast in the pilot that if I wanted to browse Facebook on my phone or text my filming buddies I had to pause and come back to it.  There is a lot of information you have to absorb in order for the sow to make sense.  For one, time travel seems to confuse most folks who aren't up to speed on the genre.  I write about time travel in my shorts and screenplays quite often so my mind has "worked out" the paradoxes, to a point.  I mean, it is time travel after all, it can be hard!  Thinking about the speed of the program's pilot I completely understand why they did it.  As a writer that can coherently take you through three acts in less than twenty minutes, I am not sinless.  A TV sow like this has three jobs: Selling Advertising, Keeping you interested and making you want to return and watch the next one.  Thats a tall order when you pack on the load of keeping it relevant to the story line set forth in the movie and actually telling a story that makes sense involving time travel.

The lead character is a man named "Cole" (Aaron Stanford).  He is a vagrant from the future that has been incarcerated for some offense.  He lives in a world where the population has been struck by a virus that is believed to be man made in 2015 by Leland Goins (Zeljko Ivanek), the owner of a large company that develops pharmaceuticals as well as many other things.  Cole must travel back in time to find Leland and stop him from creating the virus that destroys humanity, but has no way of tracking him in the past.  In his attempt to find Goines, Cole returns a little too early (same as in the movie, btw) in an attempt for find Dr. Cassandra Railly (Amanda Schull), kidnap and interrogate her, as she is the only person the scientists of the future believe can be sure to know where Goins might be.  Any of  you that have seen the movie will know that because Cole has arrived years before she would be introduced to Goins, Cassandra doesn't know who he even is.  There is a confrontation with police, Cole is shot and then disappears only to show up two years later for Cassandra with the same gunshot wound he sustained during her kidnapping.  She nurses him back to health and the game is on.  What, really?  Yes, really.

This is where I got a little pushed out of the story.  For me, the prospect of a kidnapped woman helping her kidnapper two years after her abduction stay alive puts me a little sideways.  I was even more put out when I watched some behind the scenes stuff on the SyFy Channels website.  If you watch long enough the show is cast as an "epic love story".  Ok... She falls in love with her kidnapper.  That's a tough pill to swallow.  If you watch Cassandra's reaction to Cole, you will see she is already falling for him.  I guess Munchausen syndrome is a thing in this show.

As far as the technical stuff; I wasn't overly impressed with it.  There is a scene where Cole scratches a watch from his past which, in turn, creates a scratch on the watch from his future and proves to Cassandra that his time traveling is real and not a delusion on his part.  The effect of the scratch appearing was cool but the shaking of the camera is somewhat cheeky.  The level of expertise to do this shake is not too hard, I even did it in my review.  There is some lens flares and an addition of light using an after market program.  It is ok, but to me it felt a little cheap.  I suppose it is the pilot and the money may have not been there just yet due to the fact that pilots are usually shot before major funding has been secured.  You can tell that they tried to color it "film Style" but the video look is still underneath it all as it is with most SyFy Shows.  In fact, I might have done a better job at getting the film look on my review.  I said Might,

All in all, I find the show somewhat entertaining.  It is dialogue heavy with not much Terry Gilliam camera work and shot set up going on.  It really is just another TV show as far as "prettiness" is concerned.   I plan on reviewing the as they come out, or until it is cancelled.  As of this moment I was unable to see the total viewership for the show and it might be next week before we know if anyone at all is watching and eventually, returning.

Where is the Move Scene these days? Where is the best place to work in film

The other day a friend of mine told me that I make better films on zero budget than Peter Jackson made before he found fame.  "Thanks! I needed that" was my reply.  He told me the cinematography, coloring and most everything else was just better.  As I let my ego absorb the comment I began to think about what he said and why, if this is true (which it is), am I not making something else besides commercials?  

There was only one distinct answer to this question.  I am living in the wrong place.  You see, I live in North West Arkansas.  Until about five years ago there was no movie scene.  Yes, there were films being made here by a handful of people but there was no "scene".  The advent of affordable DSLR cameras, and the like, have given birth to the area's film scene, for what there is of it. To say that it is burgeoning or becoming something to admire would be an overstatement.  There are still only a few of us around here that actually work at making films of any kind.  What's worse is the fact that many of us don't know each other nor do we talk very often.  Why this is, I really do not know.  We have a local Film Festival and some 48 hour film stuff going on, which is neat.  We do have a couple of film schools as well.  The Springdale High School has a film program that is rather large as well as two Colleges that offer programs, John Brown University and North West Arkansas Community College.  John Brown has a full on film studies where the students are required to make films of their own while NWACC is just getting off the ground.  Even if we did have a larger group of filmmakers, we would have no place to show the films.  There are no art houses or small boutique theaters to place a film.  You either have to have a party at your house or rely on the internets.  

So, since I am living in the wrong place I decided to narrow down places to move too.  This is where it starts to scare me a little.  You see, film has been struggling the past few years resulting in lower pay and fewer jobs.  In fact, Paramount just laid off 5% of their staff and that makes anyone wonder about moving to L.A. for a film job.  Even more scary is the fact that many Hollywood big budget movies insist on the VFX (Visual Effects) companies they work with do the job at prices that leave the VFX guys in a negative balance at the end, even if the movie makes money.  Top that off with the plan to move more and more VFX work to China and you have a recipe for disaster.

Of my choices I have narrowed it down to five; L.A., N.Y., Georgia, Vancouver and Texas.  The obvious reasons for going to L.A. we already know, Sun, Sand and Movies.  However, there have been less and less films made in L.A. every year.  Add to that the fact that I know virtually no one in L.A. that deals in the film business.  This makes moving to L.A. something of a pipe dream.  In fact these reasons could apply to N.Y. as well.  The subtle difference for me that keeps me thinking about moving to L.A. or N.Y. is the talent pool.  No where else are you going to find people that want to be in the film business more than life itself than in these two towns.  I have heard rumors of people quitting their jobs to work on a film that has zero pay.  Hell yeah, where can I find that sort of dedication here?!  The other choices are far more nuanced than the arguments for or against L.A. or N.Y.  With the exception of Vancouver, I can bet that I would be able to find work making commercials, just as I am here, in Georgia and Texas.  The reason I leave Vancouver out is because it is another country and I have never left the continental US, so I really don't know the process or the area.  Texas has a thriving film and art community in Cities like Austin and Ft. Worth.  The amount of people living in those areas dictates that you can find talent and like minded folks.  Georgia is where the hot action is.  Or at least where it is rumored to be.  The state gives tax credits to folks that make films in the state and the state actually pays the money.  Louisiana tried that but somehow they forgot that eventually you will need to write a check to keep the films coming.  Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that Georgia will not do the exact same thing next month forcing all the jobs back to L.A.

So you see, I do not want to put my cart before my horse and move to a place where I will end up being right back in the same situation I am in now.  I want to make the best decision I can with as much info as possible.  The last thing I want to do is fall for Hollywood-itis and move out there with no job, no prospects for a job and low cash reserves.  

To Find More of My Stuff
or to Contact Me, Paul G Newton,
Visit My Website

www.FigMeisterStudios.com

iPhone 6 the last camera you will ever buy? Not Hardly

I have been an iPhone owner since the first one hit the market.  No, I am not a tech nerd or a Hipster, I just want a good product that works.  I know, I know... I can already hear the iPhone haters and the Droid fan-boys mantra coming across the interwebs on why the iPhone is crap and Droid is best.  Just stop now and keep reading.  This isn't about the phone, its about the incessant blog posts on why the iPhone camera is the last camera anyone will need to buy.  It is, unfortunately, quickly becoming the latest urban myth.  If you ever wanted to take photographs like a pro, well, the iPhone will not get you anywhere near shooting like one.  There is so much more to taking a photograph than the camera.  Yes, you can take great photos with the new iPhone 6 but just because you have a great camera does not mean that you will automatically take great pics.

ADRIENNE PITTS, London, United Kingdom

Here is a great example of great photos taken with the last iteration of the Apple magic wand.  Is it the photo, the resolution or the eye of the photographer?  You already know what I am going to tell you, its the photographer.  Lets say this photo was taken with the old silverback iPhone 3G, would that have made it any better?  Probably not, in fact there is no way it could be better but it would still be a great photograph.  Even if this photo was poor resolution and the colors were slightly off it would not have made a difference.

The iPhone 6 is an impressive camera as well as a video camera.  It is not, however, a professional camera.  It has flaws, I could go into those flaws but why waste your time?  After reading this post you would undoubtedly say "well, it is a phone after all".

To say that this is the camera to end all cameras, that is tantamount to saying the new Fords will be the last car you would ever have to buy.  Please don't send me emails hating on Fords, it's sarcasm, get over it.  Anywhoo..  Yes, soccer moms and ego driven selfie takers are going to go gaga for the new found prowess of the camera mixed with great software emulation of actual photographic techniques.  They will post millions of these photos promptly after activating their new toys.  People will comment on the photos, like them and some may think that they can go into business as Pro-Photogs because they take such great selfies.  I am looking forward to laughing at the photos actually.  For that is what I do, I laugh at narcissism put on display.  (ok, this blog is getting really mean)

This is actually a more common problem in the photography world than you would expect.  Many amateur photographers who do really nice work are of the mind set that the camera is the most important thing.  They buy a great full frame camera for about 5k and a wonderful lens for another 4k and the pictures still look just like the ones they were taking with that Cannon T2i they bought at Sam's Club.  These cats show off their pictures to the rest of the world and proclaim them to be some of the best ever, they submit to the photo contests and tell all their friends how they must give up a full time job to pursue a career in photography because they are so great.  Many a camera company has gotten rich from the promise of better photos if you buy their newest model.  It never works.

Cameras will always be evolving.  The tech will get better and better with easier interfaces and new ways to focus like the Lytro camera.  It is a really cool concept that I would not mind using for web site design.  It allows the viewer to click on the area they want to see and the photo then focuses on the pixel area that was clicked on leaving the formerly in focus area with a nice Bokeh.  It really almost gives you a Harry Potter Wizard Picture feel.  Over the next ten years you will see even greater advances.  Eventually we will be able to pick our brains for the photograph we would like to take without even picking up a camera.  Ok, maybe that one might be in 2215, but you get my point. This alone is why the iPhone 6 will not be the last camera you need to buy.

In closing this amazing, colossal and spirited blog that tends to rant on and on about seemingly nothing, I want to share with you a photograph you have seen before.  It was taken at my Uncle's lake house this past July (2014).  I used NO photoshop (other than to convert it to a jpeg) or digital effects.  No color was added or altered in a computer.  I did not even set the white balance to some crazy setting in my camera.  What I did do was use old school photography skills to make a great photo.  This is something that you cannot re-create on an iPhone.

Paul G Newton

To Find More of My Stuff
or to Contact Me, Paul G Newton,
Visit My Website

www.FigMeisterStudios.com

What lens should I use? 35mm vs 70mm

What lens you use for shooting your film really depends on what you are shooting.  Is it an interview, action or something else.  For the most part I like to stick to my 35mm 1.5 and my 55mm 1.5 lenses. I like to shoot with these lenses because they are very versatile.  No matter the light, I can usually get the shot I am looking for.The background becomes soft while keeping the subject fairly crisp.  However, when shooting with such a large aperture light tends to leak and can cause more fuzziness than is intended.  Some highly expensive lenses can correct for this but in most cases it always happens.  If you are shooting, say, an interview and you want the subject to be as crisp as possible a smaller aperture might be what is needed.  What if you do not have enough lights?  Well, then it becomes a little tricky, but you can overcome any obstacle if you have the right knowledge.

Left is Sony 16-50    /    Right is Tamron 70-200

Here is a side by side comparison of two of my variable zoom lenses.  The shot on the left is a Sony 16-50 2.3 constant aperture and the left is the Tamron 70-200 4.0 constant aperture.  Arguably, the Sony is the better lens due to it being made in the same way the Zeiss version of this lens.  The workmanship and the tolerances are the only difference.  The Sony 16-50 is a great versatile, heavy lens that, at one time, was considered the best kit lens Sony had.  The Tamron, on the other hand, is a good lens but it does tend to get a little fuzzy when out to 200mm.  The color profiles are slightly dissimilar and the lighting is quite different.  The left is lit with room lights and a soft-box, the right is lit with a soft-box and one 60 watt fill.  As you can see, if you look closely, the subject on the left is fuzzy and is not as clear as the subject on the right.  My focus was perfect, according to the Sony peaking meter anyway, so they should have been just as crisp, they obviously aren't.  The reason for this disparity in focus is due to the aperture of the lens, or how much light it is letting in.  The Tamron cannot go below an f4 but the Sony is at 2.3.  

Sony 16-50

Needless to say, I will be using the Tamron for interviews from now on.  That is, if I can get far enough away from the subject.  You see, the drawback of using the 70mm is that I had to be more than 8 or 10 feet away from my subject.  Something very hard to do in a 10 x 14 foot room.  If that room I used the 70mm in was any smaller, I would have had no choice but to use the 35mm or the 16-50.  

Tamron 70-200

The other upside to using the 70mm is the fact that it has less inherent lens distortion than the 16-50 lens has.  Because it has such a wide angle at 16mm, the lens tends to bend the shapes coming in the sensor.  Good lenses will get most of it out but even then you have to zoom to about 25 or 35mm to get that distortion out of the picture.  You could do it in post, but it is better to do it in camera, trust me on that one.  A good 35mm or 55mm prime lens will have little to no distortion and you can trust that those lenses will perform just as good as the 70-200.  

An example of Bokeh

So far you have heard me tout the goodness of the Tamron lens.  It is a decent lens, for $400 you get every pennies worth.  However, there is something this lens just isn't as good at as the 35mm and the 16-50.  This is something called Bokeh.  This is when the background has become blurred out of focus to the point that the only thing that is left is a round blur or shape.  It is a highly sought out effect that makes beautiful shots that much more beautiful.  It is possible to get some bokeh out of the Tamron but nothing like the lower aperture lenses.  It is a must if you want to utilize an artistic focus pull on some close in objects.  This would not be highly recommended to use on a dialogue heavy scene between two characters, best use the 70 for that.  But, you know, it's your movie, If that's what you want to do.  Go ahead!  

So, which lens is right for your shot, well...  Landscapes you need to use an aperture of about f 14 during the day and maybe a little lower at night.  Interviews you want to get that aperture number as low as you can and still keep the subject sharp (move them further away from the wall would help loads btw)  For action scenes during the day, you should use a smaller aperture (a higher number) to make sure the subject is clear, at night use the largest aperture (a smaller number) as you can without increasing that ISO too much.  Dramatic scenes are great for using a softer focus so it might call for an f 1.5 aperture number (Larger aperture) instead of making it so clear you can see the pours on the actors faces.  I mean, its supposed to be slightly dreamy this thing called love..  Isn't it?  

www.FigMeisterStudios.com

The fuss over Mac and PC

In the world of graphic arts and Film-making there is a general rule that you just have to have a Mac.  I, of course, am always bucking trends and have a PC, and I really had no choice.  For some reason the world of artists believe that the magical Mac will automatically make you more creative and make the world a better place.  Um, no.  If only, I'll take three.  The difference is that there is a between a Mac and PC and sometimes it is quite noticeable.  I'll admit that I really enjoy the luxury of the Mac operating system with all of its beautiful integration and quirks, but being pretty doesn't always get the job done.

PC Vs. Mac Ad

Recently, I had to purchase another box (computer) and because I am part geek, part artist and part logical thinker, I tried all of them.  I bought the super high end MacBook Pro with all the whistles.  I took it home and put the Adobe CC applications on it that I needed and went to work.  I made a 3d Ray Traced graphic and went to town.  I thought the MacBook Pro would chew it up and spit it out, or at least take less time than the current PC I was using from 2010 that took 72 hours.  The MacBook Pro did a good job at making the required render but it was still a whopping 7.5 hours to create.  To me, that is still way too long.  Now, granted, what I was trying to do was so complicated and hard that no one in their right mind would have made it the way I was doing it.  I was creating it in Adobe After Effects without any third party plug-ins.  There is almost nothing more difficult for the software and hardware to create than what I was attempting, but that is exactly why I was doing it.

The next step for me was to look at PC offerings.  The box I really needed to get the job done would have been a six core beast that cost north of Six Grand.  Needless to say, that was outside my comfort zone.  The MacBook Pro was actually outside my price range as well at about $3,000.  So I settled on trying an Alienware with two GTX 770's bridged together.  Yes, I know, it is geek speak and nothing I just said makes any sense.  Anyway...  I got the Alienware to the house and put it to the test.  Same render, same programs and the dang thing did it in Thirty Minutes.  Holy Cow!  

Some will say that I am comparing a desktop to a laptop, that is true.  However, if you look at the specs of the MacBook Pro, it has the same graphics card that the iMac does, the same i7 processor and so on and so forth.  What more would I be getting from the iMac than I get from the MacBook Pro?  As far as tech specs on paper, not much.  I also considered the MacPro but that thing is too pricey and I couldn't afford it.  

Yeah, This is a Hipster.

So, I kept the Alienware computer and use it daily, but I do miss the Apple interface and all its fun stuff that I absolutely do not need to get my job done. I will miss looking cool at the coffee shop and bookstores.  My hipster friends seem to be a little bit more withdrawn ever since as well.  But I'll never regret purchasing my Alienware, and I damn sure will enjoy the extra $700.00 I got to keep in my wallet for going PC over Mac.

www.figmeisterstudios.com

The first thing to know about filming a movie: Move The Camera!

One of the first things that I learned about making films was that most Indie productions looked the same.  I tried to figure this out for a long time until I came across the fact that they are all using static camera angle.  In the film lingo world a tripod shot is sometimes called a "pedestal" shot.  That's where the camera is put on a tripod or something similar and it stays there.  Yes, we have the ability to pan left and right, up and down but that is still very... well, uninteresting.  There are times that it is necessary to make sure the camera is not moving but, in my opinion, that isn't something to be done all the time.  In fact, there is even a feature in the editing software that adds camera shake.  That right there should tell all of us that movement of the camera is essential.  What other reason could there be to add a preset to a program that makes perfect footage shake?

There are several ways to make a camera angle live.  No, that's not the correct term for it but maybe it should be.  One way (and one of my favorites) is to shoot with a Jib.  A jib brings heavy motion into the frame and when used correctly, can make ordinary footage look like a Hollywood production.  A jib usually is used to move the camera vertically from a high angle to a medium or low angle.  If you have ever watched an episode of "The X Files" you have seen the product of using a jib.  I think they did it in every episode at least once if not every other angle.  To use it correctly you generally need something in the foreground to show the motion of the subject that is further away.  The faster motion of the foreground piece generally gives the viewer a sense of depth.  The cost of a Jib can be a couple hundred dollars to thousands to purchase outright.  

Kessler Crane Phillip Bloom Slider

Another great way to keep the camera moving is the use of a slider.  This allows for the camera to move left to right (or right to left) with precision and without any shake.  You basically take the same thought process that you use for the Jib and turn it around making the subject the foreground object.  You will get a nice little motion going on in the background that keeps the eye happy while adding an artistic look to your shot when using a shallow focus (this means the background is out of focus).  Most medium priced TV commercials utilize this to make the production feel even that much more expensive.    

Zacuto Shoulder rig

One of my go to camera angles is accomplished using a shoulder rig.  Swaying side to side and keeping your subject in a certain portion of the frame is a great way to emulate a slider.  I also use the shoulder rig for a little more than that.  You see, with a shoulder rig you can get yourself in crazy positions that make the angle just right.  Plus, the rig isn't just made for your shoulder.  Many times I have watched a film where the DP (director of photography) seemed to forget that you can put that rig on your knew, carry it like a bag, put it on the ground or anywhere else that is even remotely stable. Even the shake from the rig can give you that extra umph you need to make the shot less Sterile.  

Ultimately, what I am saying is Keep That Camera Moving!  Especially if it's an indie production.  Camera movement can be used to cover up bad acting, script slumps and poor sets.  Always keep an eye out for that crazy angle that is rarely seen because it is so hard to get.  Don't be afraid to shoot from the floor or from a tall ladder even.  It will be worth it in the end.

To Find Out More

or To Contact Me

Visit my Website

www.FigMeisterStudios.com

What makes a good film?

Ah yes, what makes a film good.  That is a question which is sometimes very difficult to answer.  We all know why some films are good but not everyone can pinpoint the exact reason why.  Many of my fellow Filmmakers always believe that it is starting with a good script.  I suppose that's true but that is like saying how to make a good hamburger is to start with good meat.  DUH!  For real, is that the best you got?  You can have the greatest script known to man and a film still can be crap.  More often it's the other way around.  A Script can be mediocre or have been disemboweled by producers and execs to make it more marketable to a "larger" audience and still perform well at the box-office.

While this is a phenomena that you really cannot Google, they do exist.  Once a film starts to make money or gets an audience behind it the script is assumed to be a good script.  I mean, how else could it have been a great movie, right?  Lets take a movie like "Armageddon".  The film itself has everything you want and need to make a great movie; Cast, Music, Love, Peril, Strife, Comedy, Tragedy and more!  But if you just listen to some of the dialogue it isn't that great.  The actors did a great job of pulling it together as a great movie.  This is probably why the critics weren't too impressed by it.  The script just wasn't that good.  It made up for all its misgivings by overpowering those things with Great everything else.  Yes, having a great script can help overcome more than having great actors or special effects, but a great script doesn't come along every day.  In fact, it is quite a rarity.

Most scripts are derivatives of larger literary works.  Most of the time the original narrative is 200 to 400 pages long.  For some reason writers cannot seem to make something short.  They go on and on about the color of someones hair and how that makes the main character think about days gone by to set an emotion or the tone of the scene.  Unfortunately, it is next to impossible to do that in a film.  Do you really want me to stop the movie and take you to another place in time that has nothing really valuable to set the tone of the scene in the movie.  Ok, some of you do but most of us do not.  It causes confusion and adds unnecessary length to the narrative.  As a filmmaker I can set the tone with music, color, lighting or an addition of a small line or two that takes moments instead of minutes.  As a side note, this is one reason why books are mostly never like the movie, there just isn't enough time.

I know, as a man who knows how to make a film, that there is a better way to communicate to the audience what I am trying to say than just having more dialogue and more scenes.  It can be done by having a better camera angle, sounds, music and even the color of the film.  It is actually something that you see quite often but probably have never noticed.  One film I like to talk about from time to time is "Gamer".  No, not the film I made called "Gamer".  The film by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor that released in 2009.  It's color palette and sharpness of the film.  It has a very distinct look that brings out the hardness and the unique edge to the story line.  While this wasn't a box-office superstar, I found it to be a good movie.  It is gruesome and far fetched but that's my taste in movies.

Another movie that has a great color palette and a good sound choice is everyone'e favorite (but not mine) Avatar. The films score undertones the emotions that the director wanted you to feel and the coloring was always custom since it is just a really fancy cartoon with live action stuff thrown in.  (Have you ever seen Pocahontas?) These guys had the opportunity to change every aspect of the lighting and the surroundings.  The script wasn't a poor script and that definitively helped.

So, when we make a film we should worry about the script but even if that script is mediocre we can still make great cinema by utilizing the great tools we have in our film-makers quiver.  Lighting, sound, Actor choices and coloring after the fact.  No way is it all hinged upon the script.  There is so much more to it than that.

To Find More Stuff

or to Contact Me

Visit My Website

www.FigMeisterStudios.com

Great New Cinema: Zero Theorem

Tonight I was in a bad mood because of something that happened earlier in the day that was just just bad.  I won't go into details nor would you really want to hear about it since this is a blog about films and stuff.  When I got home, I decided to browse the Apple TV for anything to make my day better.  I went through everything on Netflix and just wasn't interested.  So I went to the pay movies where I found a piece of Cinematic Gold.  You see I am very interested in strange and wonderful movies.  I noticed that there was a Pre-Release download of the movie by director Terry Gilliam the maker of 12 Monkeys and the crazy movie Brazil.  Zero Theorem is a crazy film that makes me have faith in film again.  The synopsis on the about page for the movie does absolutely no justice to the actual story of the film.

Don't worry, No spoilers here.  The film is about a man who always refers to himself as "We" instead of I or me.  It is distracting for about a minute but it becomes endearing.  Making you want to feel for the man and his plight.  The character Quohen Leth (played by Austrian actor Christopher Waltz) is a simple and delicate man who is stuck in a job he likes but is always in a hurry to go home to catch a phone call from a mysterious being.  The cast of actors grows from there, David Thewlis (Prof, Lupin from Harry Potter fame), and Matt Damon to name a couple of better known folks.  The acting is very good with no flaws other than some minor characters who are there for their looks more than their acting abilities.  The characters are fleshed out with little hints of back-story here and there, just enough to make me feel like I understand them.
The filmmaking is absolutely great, as you would expect from Gilliam.  Crazy shots that span the close but expansive sets that litter the film.  In fact, most of the film takes place in the home of Quohen, which is a burnt out church he got at an insurance auction, but you never feel like you are constrained by the walls of the building, in fact, just the opposite.  And, of course, the dark comedy of Gilliam comes out through out the film.  Remember the church that he lives in?  It was inhabited by monks who took a vow of silence so meaningful to them that no one bothered to yell "fire".  Its not a direct quote, but it gets the point across about the morbidity and darkness of the subtle comedy that is very pervasive within the film itself.

One of the things that I really liked was the color scheme of the film.  All the tones match very nicely with Tacky notes of crazy costumes thrown in.  It hearkens back to his earlier works and holds true to the stylistic tones that are always very interesting.  The good news is that these aren't too overdone like the seventies counterparts to this film and it's genre making this a real pleasure to watch.  Every scene and shot was not only there to show the action but to tell its own story in conjunction with the narrative itself.  Something that modern cinema lacks, as I have stated before in my past blogs.

If you are looking for something different and true to the art of filmmaking, I recommend seeing this one.  Zero Theorem is most positively one of the films I recommend for any cine-file in 2014.  It turned my Very Bad Day into one that I am glad to have lived.

To Find More Stuff

or to Contact Me

Visit My Website

www.FigMeisterStudios.com

How Much Movies Have Changed: Review "The Long Goodbye"

As a filmmaker I am tasked with watching older works from the long ago past to keep a measure of style.  Sometimes I have a hard time finding that odd old film or two that is worthy of my attention.  I scour Netflix and Amazon Prime into their deep dark recesses and look for interesting blog, like this one, to help point me along the way.  Today I found that Netflix recently added "The Long Goodbye"

by Director Robert Altman (screenplay by Leigh Brackett).  The tale is of a Private Detective Philip Marlowe (Elliot Gould) and his accidental trouble brought on by his friend.  The movie has its expected 1970's nakedness from the hippie chicks next door and lots of Smoking.  The obligatory wife beating and mobster fiends who want blood, also a 1970's must have.  

One of the things that I found very interesting is the chasm that separates that film and many others from that era, from the films we make today.  For one, this film seemed to drag on and on.  I was interested for the most part but found that I was slightly bored with the cinematography and the slow story.  At first I was very interested in the strange tale of a man feeding his cat and the long takes of the camera lens, but they wore thin by about thirty minutes in.  In comparison to films of today the way it was shot is not to dissimilar in framing yet very dissimilar when it comes to duration and angle.  They had steady cams (hand held camera rigs) back then, of some sort, but it was all steady pedestal or dolly shots.  I guess you cannot fault them too much for that since the cameras weighed much more than they do now.  But the color of the film was very interesting.  We live in an age that is 80% digital in theaters and even more than that on TV.  That is no excuse, however, for the way our entertainment looks these days.  You see the color palette of the film is very different from today.  I thought about it a minute and although I couldn't find a similar movie, in my mind, that has came out in the past few years that is the same as "The Long Goodbye" I did find a period piece that may just foot the bill.You know is, "American Hustle".  It tries hard to get the period right but as far as the look of the film, it doesn't do it.  Here are two stills, back to back.

I think you can tell the difference.  One is fluid and the colors are intentionally captured in camera with an eye to the artistic side of things.  The other, well, it looks digital, even if it isn't, I mean, "American Hustle was shot on a Fuji Stock but it sure doesn't look like it.  Ok, maybe it does a little.  Regardless, the two film stills are worlds apart from each other.  I much like the look of "The Long Goodbye" much more than the slightly sanitary look of "American Hustle".  

The interesting thing about all of this is the standing fact that these movie makers CAN make their films look any way they want them to look.  Just look at some of the latest action flicks.  Many have that green tinge to them that we all know and love.  It is very easy to change the look of a film these days without worry of destroying it.  In fact, many films of the past had a reel or two destroyed by trying to change the way it printed out.  That is the price you pay with film stock sometimes.  Just to prove a point, here is a nothing film I shot so that I could play around with film emulation styles.  

Not only is the look of films different for today's audience, the way the story is told is much different.   It is said that modern audiences insist on having a fast paced and quick feeling movie.  If it doesn't move along, no one will watch it.  This may be true but I fear it is the film making community that caused it.  The long story line is often covered up by small quick actions that make the audience wake up.  Sometimes that long play is lost in the quick running waters of trying to stay relevant.  Now the audiences have gotten used to it, myself included, and if it takes too long, we walk.  But should we be like this?  Well, no... we shouldn't.  It will take a story that is worth its weight in gold and some better actors to get something like this to play out.  

I'm not saying that we should make every film like "The Long Goodbye".  It was, after all, really long and slightly boring with the story being replaced for just a moment with pretty pictures that meant nothing to the over all tale.   What I would like to see is a little more patience when making the films and a lot more attention being paid to the art behind the film itself.  For that is what I believe we have begun to loose, the heart and soul of our films.  The over all tonality needs to reflect more than a producers need to make money and more about what the film itself is adding to the story.  

To Find More Stuff

or to Contact Me

Visit My Site

www.FigMeisterStudios.com

Can You make a movie with little to no Money?

As you may have suspected I am a Film Maker.  I make very short films that I like to call "Micro Budget" films.  These small movies consist of less than 15 pages of script and last, on average, three to five minutes.  I make these films so small because I have no money to pay anyone and the only way I can guarantee that it will get done and on time is to finish it in one day.  Yes, I know, those are historically called shorts but even a short film usually lasts 30 minutes or so, but when you are working with about $35 bucks for a production budget that can be a tall task.  More over, my actors are usually interested in only working a few hours and want immediate results.  I might be inclined to call myself a short order cook filmmaker, that sounds about right.  You see, I do not live in LA, Denver or even a smaller big city like Little Rock.  My acting pool comes from a very limited pool of actors and crew out of a little North West Arkansas town called Fayetteville.  Fayetteville has a population of roughly 75-80,000 people.  While the art scene here is quite plentiful it is not accustomed to making film, or even shorts.  Now, I am not saying that it is devoid of talent.  There are many here that make great films and more.  What I am trying to point out is the little problem of not having the funds to pay people to work.  Because the area is unaccustomed to the idea of making films, local investors tend to loose interest after saying hello.

Recently, in the past few years we have had some folks who were able to pay for the actors and crew to film in NWA (Fayetteville) and it spoiled the acting pool a little bit.  Films like "Greater, the Brandon Burlsworth Story" and "Valley Inn" as well as a few others paid a lot of people to work on their films.  This was great!  However, some of the films (of which I am not going to name names) had some missteps when it came to paying extras and eventually soured the taste for such things around the community.  Maybe it is starting to fade a little, this pain of working for nothing at all (in one case the extras weren't allowed to even have a bowl of pea nuts from the craft table), but shouldn't a film pay for the services of the people?  Yeah, they should.  I have tried numerous fundraising outlets to get a film going where everyone gets paid and paid fairly.  Those attempts have fallen flat, but at least I have tried, I really have.  So I stick with micro shorts and keep plugging.  Trying to make them as interesting as possible in a small amount of time.  So, it seems that you may need to have lots of money to make a film.  Ok, that makes sense.

Now, lets look at the flip-side of the coin.  Large movie companies are making bigger and bigger budgeted films in the past couple of years, and while they actually get the film to market and advertise incessantly, a lot of them have failed.  In 2014 there have been at least three big budget films that have fallen flat on their face. 

"Transcendence"  the movie with Johnny Depp uploading his consciousness to a computer cost 100 Million to make and only made 43% of it's money back.  Ouch!  That film even had high end great actors in it!  Another was the film Pompeii with Kit Harrington and Carrie-Anne Moss had an estimated budget of 100 Million as well and has of today made $108 million total.  That sounds like it has made money but don't forget that this includes the theater and distribution monies in it, TriStar/Sony/Columbia (all are virtually the same company) didn't get to take all that money home and spend it on Lambo's and pool parties.  All the while little films like "The Conjuring" with its budget of 20 million and "Paranormal Activity" with an astoundingly minuscule budget of 15 Thousand dollars brought in big money.  Makes these mistakes with big budgets look like the end of the world.  

To make a small film of about an hour to an hour and a half takes a little investment.  My friend Todd, who is the creator of the film "Neapolitan" (I am one of the "Stars") is to be released sometime, eventually... maybe.  Todd bankrolled the entire film and thought it would only cost a few thousand dollars, but that quickly ballooned into a figure that I am not privy to but I know it was a lot more than he bargained for.  He paid everyone of us a good wage and then paid some people who shouldn't have gotten as much as they did.  I am not bashing Todd, he did the right thing and no one is mad or upset about money.  The question I have is, could he have done it for less?  Probably.  Would it have hurt production? Maybe.  

I do know that you Can make a movie without spending money on more than pizza, gasoline and a hotel room or two.  The quality will not be world class but that may not matter much.  What does matter is the story.  A great story can outshine even the most mediocre of an actor, director, cinematographer and editor.  The sound could be "just ok" and not even matter.  Finding a story that will make people pay attention and draw them back in for another go is always priceless.  If you don't have that great story, it can be hard, but we can still make a film.  It is all about perseverance, and dedication.  

To make a no budget film that is watchable you will need to pay attention to every detail and you will need to be surrounded by dedicated and deliberate individuals.  Finding the people who actually care about the craft of filmmaking and will stick through the project no matter what, will allow you to make a movie without a mention-able budget.  It can be done.  Unfortunately for me, I haven't quite found the right folks, YET.  So, if you want to be in a film and can spare every free moment of every day making it happen, you and I need to talk.  I have great gear and the skills to make it work without having to break the bank.  If you wanna make a "Micro-Short", well, I am free on Monday.  How about a sequel to this one?

To Find More Stuff

or to Contact Me

Visit My Site

www.FigMeisterStudios.com