What can be done with a reduced budget film.

There was a low cost film in Mississippi I think, filmed by a community collective, which I had heard briefly existed, but despite trying I couldn't find it. Maybe 6 or more years back. Anybody know the name of it?

You probably mean 'Beasts of the Southern Wild', with a budget close to $2 million and exhibiting the familiar pandering twee traits of the American indie/Sundance world, which got nominated for an Oscar and sold about $20 million in tickets worldwide. There are some others which also came out of Louisiana, including one made by a teenager staring Wendell Pierce of "The Wire", which is as hapless as you'd expect, for a teenager.

In a word, it's all been done before and there's no need to reinvent anything. The occasional fluke commercial success only proves that there's no model for doing it and that success doesn't mean the movie was actually any good.

It would probably help to do some research. People have been thinking for many years about how or whether to make movies with no money, and there are rich case histories, from all over the world.

This one was less than $10k I think. $2million is way above the sorts of movies we had been discussing.

I've wanted to be-friend an acting group to do stuff the past. As said, drama is cheap and without as much stage props in their case. The English theatre actor mentality comes out on a number of English shows, with the forced delivery, which is great for comedy. So, it can be done, but it needs modification.

I am interested in case studies to research how they did it. You talk about reinventing the wheel, I actually have and tried to build features into it and rated at 500km/h+. But that's not what I'm doing here, we are presenting cases, and I asked about one case in particular. I might have even seen the film on Netflix, wasn't too much wrong with it, maybe a bit depressing, but maybe another film altogether. Budget IS and excuse, whatever budget you got, with equipment food and power, you can do something, maybe not what you might want to do, but something anyway. But if you have a pocket (2k) and a computer to post it, you can do something, and it will look a little better. Of you got great script and great talent and location, it can be better and better again, and your still low budget. If you got great marketing and distribution, you can be make a packet on great product, but that involves other people co-operating. So, there is only so much one can do.

It's certainly never been easier than right now to make a film.

Which is part of the problem: saturation.

It's never been easier to distribute a film that can live on it's own, surviving purely on word of mouth.

Yes, but not for scripts that require a big budget. Word of mouth in not enough in that case. Case in point: "Under the Silver Lake". It cost $9mil, and it only made back $2mil, despite having a huge word of mouth, because of the puzzles in the storyline (it even has a dedicated subreddit for people to offer theories). The film didn't get any marketing, because A24 decided to not market it as is (they wanted the film cut down to ~110 mins, while the director wanted 139 mins). They had a huge fight with the director, he won, and then they punished him by not offering marketing. The film bombed, went directly to streaming pretty much (2 months later was for free on Prime), and the director deleted his twitter account, possibly because of depression/giving up. He basically has a cult hit on his hands, but only among a niche group which is not enough to recoup. https://www.reddit.com/r/underthesilverlake/top/?t=all

I'm still unsure of the point you're trying to make. So how about you answer me this ?
Why aren't more good films being made ?

'

"Good", by whose standards?

This is the Scorsese vs Marvel discussion all over again. "Good" and "bad" are very human constructs, that not every human agrees with anyway.

Everything is relative in the world, and everything is a point of view. I like movies that are deep but presented in a commercial way, others only like mindless commercial movies, and others only like art-house films that aren't commercial at all. And some are in-between. And some of them like all of these, depending on their mood. And others, like my husband, barely watch movies at all (they prefer reading and computer games).

The whole human construct thing, is just wrong, it exists, and people seem to have a neurotic obsession with things that are wrong, they get attracted and exited about them, unless you aren't evil, then you find them repulsive or you don't even get attracted to them. Innocent or good behaviours just don't get the buzz. Something I noticed about what happens with virtually only evil things.

Now, Marvel films have rich feep dynamics. Football too, cricket, maybe, believe it or not. It is just a different story and language we may not appreciate. So, there is a way you write and an audience that likes such. If your studio is not speaking the same language, they might not get it. As far as warm emotions and emotional dynamic, Marvel films might have them a bit as well. It is a G/PG universe, with a bit for different groups of people, to get more numbers. It works. Has .Atrix ever outdone many of their top end stuff, but it's better.

Now, lets look at Space Rangers, and Cleopatra 2xxxxx done date, which I got my black friends over to laugh at just how much she non stop screams for her life (you got to see it, a re ear opener). I hate the shallow stuff too, desperately hitting the remote if Space Rangers came on. But look at modern Doctor Who, fast paced shallow, but very well done. I like the old Doctor 3,4,5. One of my friends used to go to uni with John Petrie, Monty Python crew, and friends with the Goodies crowd. Any at, solid, respectful, progressive and slow. It's like watching actual science fiction.

As a writer, it is evident the art of doing it well is difficult or rare. After a number of years in my group, the general tone of writing is 10x better, but really good is not much. So, yeah, it's a lot of stuff out there lacking.

Vimeo is good for your portfolio, or getting known from other filmmakers, but not necessarily for gaining new followers. Instagram: you need 3 posts we week (same as on FB) to build a following. Use up to 25 tags (IG doesn't recognize more than that) and make sure your posts have a similar visual theme. You need to start working seriously with social media 2 years before you publish your movie in order to get enough traction to recoup. I'm on the lucky side, since I already have lots of followers from my collage business (which don't necessarily translate into movie buyers, but it helps).

Kickstarter/Indiegogo is also good to use, but in order to be really successful you need to already have a cut trailer to show. Which means that you'll be asking money for post production (or for your own time invested).

Ah I see. Many thanks for sharing Eugenia! Yeah I’m pretty weak when it comes to social media, but it seems to be the key.

Competitive progressive funding. You pitch your ideas in a round, good ones are accepted, or you try another round. This round, or next might have the treatise. The good ones get promoted. The next round is the script, the good ones get promoted, then maybe extra scripting rounds, you may have extra, production planning, crew and talent rounds. At the end of all this somebody is picked for funding, or more than one. It's doing a few things here, one is promoting quality completion, sharpening each other, another is promoting the work with the fabs following the competition. Along the way, people can just drop uncompetitive avenues early. Now, that's a drawn out process. However, you could do treatise, clip, script rounds, and drop a few other rounds, as the clip shows how well the crew and talent are working

...

The reality is that most films under a couple of million dollars, suck. And people just don't care about them, because they expect either big names, or genre films with CGI. Yours and mine micro budget films don't get watched anymore. There's too much content for entertainment out there, too much saturation, and things are getting more saturated by the minute due to the streaming wars, computer games, social media, youtube. And people only have 1-2 hours per day maximum to watch or do something in their free time before they wake up the next day to go to work again.

100% Agree, especially on the saturation part.

Thats why we need some kind of highly reputable online magazine wich specialised in reviewing these indie films. similar to what tv mags are doing. And it should only take you one click to see trailer and movie, after reading the review.
Problem is, current mags are too much embeded into the "normal" distribution cycle, to even consider this (but they would be the ideal candidate), and to build up a reputation you need to invest quite some money and ressources before this would kick off. (and make some actual money)

That's what the proposal was about. A review site reviews and you can watch right from there.

You pitch your ideas in a round, good ones are accepted, or you try another round.

That sounds like a committee. Almost never something good is coming out of them. It always requires the one person who takes a risk to progress the medium. Look at the ABC executive who greenlit the pilot of LOST, and got fired right after wards. LOST made lots of money for ABC though, he was right, and the rest of the board was wrong.

Network tv executives are a well known characture. I'm talking about an alternative to current crowd sourcing model. To narrow focus to what is traveling well.

I must not be that far off if that is the only objection.

Well, here's a story from this afternoon to give you some illumination about what people actually want, and why having committees about scripts won't work.

I just traveled back home from CA. SouthWest Airlines does have a way to watch free movies on your phone during the flight. Lots of new, rather well known movies in their catalog, e.g. "Yesterday", action flicks, comedies, etc.

The man next to me (traveling with his ~teen son) flicks through them, and together they decide to not watch any of these movies. Instead, they load a personal copy of Avengers: EndGame on their phone, and they watch that. And they probably have already seen the movie at least once before.

A lot of people at the filmmaking forums always put the blame to Hollywood, that they don't know what they're doing, but these guys are in business since 1910, and they do know better than anyone else what sells _really_ well. If anything, Kevin Feige perfected it.

A lot of people at the filmmaking forums always put the blame to Hollywood, that they don't know what they're doing, but these guys are in business since 1910, and they do know better than anyone else what sells _really_ well. If anything, Kevin Feige perfected it.

Totally.

The idea that other channels of distribution has meant other stories can now be heard is only somewhat true.

Not everyone wants to hear these stories...

Anyone know about or use the HSX or Hollywood Stock Exchange ?

This is a virtual exchange where players start with 2 million virtual dollars to invest in actual rumoured and confirmed Films and productions. The share prices is a predictor of the box office (the final payout price) and in the decade plus it's been operating it's become remarkably accurate at predicting the commercial success of the film.

https://www.hsx.com/

https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/1 ... -recession

JB

Lol! John.

Has anybody challenged the studios to match the virtual dollars with real dollar investments, as it's been accurate.

Eugenia. I appreciate what you are saying, but like which movie will work, it comes down to the flavour of the idea. Like all vanilla icecream is not the same, some are far more popular. So, the people involved, presentation etc are going dramatically affect the outcomes. But if you put up leeches in a committee who have worked their way up for money and power, they are going likely say "suck" metaphorically, because what do leeches know about movies! The flavour you want is the right people and people voting with their dollars to fund the fun (sorry seen that little blue unicorn series on Netflix).
So, yeah, a lot of tooing and throwing in the crowd funding world, it might be useful to have a competitive system for people to put their money towards more suites projects.

However, we are saying open up to more types of successful worthy movies. Hollywood has been producing a lot of better films for decades than what they did on the past. They must have grown up and figured to get the right people in to figure it out. People on forums with whatever dreams can say what they like, but Hollywood has been doing very well. So many movies in the golden age you used to hear about, where not that good, or not good. Stuff we used to watch on yesterday's Netflix in the 70's/80's, "broadcast tv", rerun do many times, except the comedies, are hard to watch, or subpar. If you go back further to the golden age of British Cinema, they used rerun lots of very watchable black and white movies. I used to watch them as I worked on my computer. Less expensive maybe, but great and great stories. Like the count that falls in love with the gypsie girl etc. Maybe that was the same movie as the one where they go out in the bog pursuing or being pursued, and somebody coming to their end. About the closest American movie I've seen of a type, is The Price of Fear. Sure, Hollywood used to have something to answer for. But now they got their nitches, and their diversions, like the matrix, batman, super hero movies, and other tangents that open them up to finding new types of movies. But for me, it's about new people with good product, being able to prove themselves. But not necessarily everybody, or more than a very few. The industry is monopolised to the exclusion of others, thats just not right.

But here is another point, In playing around with an old iPhone, and the picture levels, and how you can push it even with the built in editor (a gem of ease of use for a phone where I could extremely easily lift the shadows the way I talk about), is surprisingly pleasing. Even the burnout in or around a light is surprisingly nice statement. I've put it against tortious high contrast light and windows shots. Even the noise pattern looks pleasing. Where it fails, it does it with style. No where near perfect, but enough for people to actually do serious work of some sort. I didn't upgrade to a new phone, because whats out there is not as good as I want to end up with, and this will be useful in the meantime. Now, waiting for a better pocket, or a micro.

That editing system they use there, makes you ask, just how effective could you make a pro editing system like that, to quickly set a usable look in post or on set (I see filmic and vizzywig have iWatch versions which could use a setup and lock system like that). The camera pretty much does the colour close enough to what you see, so not much past dealing with dynamic range issues needs to be done.

[Anyone know about or use the HSX or Hollywood Stock Exchange ?

This is a virtual exchange where players start with 2 million virtual dollars to invest in actual rumoured and confirmed Films and productions. The share prices is a predictor of the box office (the final payout price) and in the decade plus it's been operating it's become remarkably accurate at predicting the commercial success of the film.

It's a fascinating idea, but there seems to be at least one obvious bet which maximizes the odds: it's easy to predict which films will get the biggest advertising campaigns. based on the cast and the genre. It also appears that the information traders have is limited to a trailer and a credit list, or what they can pick up from the trades. Aren't bettors wagering on packages, rather than actual screenplays? What's being judged is the personnel, the genre and the budget.

Actual betting on screenplays might be more interesting. But even there, it's easy to see which genre properties are more likely to attract big money and thereby increase the odds of commercial success. This is more a self-affirming of the business model, than predictive.

Or did I miss something in the betting mechanism?

That aside, Hollywood absolutely does know what makes money in a mass-market and what doesn't, despite many miscalculations at the granular level -- you can't win 'em all ("Joker" being a great example of "winning" when they expected to lose, and who could blame them for thinking so?).

In the end, I don't think anyone can reasonably expect "the business" to do anything other than what it does now, given the costs of distribution and the need to reach mass-audiences world-wide. But this is hard to square with the idea that "great" scripts will always be produced.

But "outstanding" in whose estimation?

There *was* a golden age of screenwriting, the kind of stuff taught in MFA classes, from Preston Sturges to Robert Towne, but that kind of writing, cinematic though it is, wouldn't be produced today even if anyone was coming up with it.

Here's a list of a few films from last year: https://www.bfi.org.uk/best-films-2018 Perhaps none of them are as good as The Lady Eve or Chinatown by your criteria, but a pretty good year for screenwriting anyway.

Here's a list of a few films from last year: https://www.bfi.org.uk/best-films-2018 Perhaps none of them are as good as The Lady Eve or Chinatown by your criteria, but a pretty good year for screenwriting anyway.

Of course, most of those are not American movies.... And the Netflix model, which doesn't depend on box-office, and trust-fund billionaires (Megan Ellison), account for the likes of Roma (love it or leave it) and Phantom Thread, respectively.

Anyway, it's great these films are getting made, but they're not products of the Hollywood system. For Americans it's particularly disheartening, thanks to the worthlessness and continuing immaturity of the American "indie" movement, as promoted by places like Sundance.

But there's no shortage of well-produced art films coming out of South America, Europe and Asia, and a lot of it is interesting. The problem today is too many, not too few.

they're not products of the Hollywood system

That wasn't the original argument. If you write a great script, by "anyone's standards", it will get made, "somehow", even in the US. The Hollywood system always produced a lot of not-so-good movies, same as today. It's never been easy to get "great" scripts made in the Hollywood system.

Well, it was *my* original argument. Things are much different in other countries. In the U.S., it's either Hollywood or the indie world, with its limp dramatic conventions, inoffensive content and middle-brow appeal.

Good films can still sneak through, but not enough to sustain a "culture". Imagine trying to make "Zama" or "The Favorite" here, to cite two films on the list.

I have to say, this "will get made somehow" argument always puzzles me. How does anyone know what *hasn't* gotten made? It's arguing from facts which no one can establish. And it's the same as saying the "greatest" scripts are always getting made, so we're watching the flowers of civilization, week after week. Is that claim really consistent with the quality of the movies available?

I have to say, this "will get made somehow" argument always puzzles me. How does anyone know what *hasn't* gotten made? It's arguing from facts which no one can establish. And it's the same as saying the "greatest" scripts are always getting made, so we're watching the flowers of civilization, week after week. Is that claim really consistent with the quality of the movies available?

Of course, ultimately its just an assumption. But the opposite is to the same extent: Its impossible to say that there are better scripts out there that don't get made. But its not the same thing as saying we are watching great films all the time. The reasonable assumption is that there are a few great scripts getting made every year, and the percentage is the same as it ever was.

Any A-List hollywood director has a killer indie as their sprinboard into the majors. 25 years ago Jon Favreau was writing the script for Swingers, now he's a Don.

If your art doesn't speak to anyone is it art or vanity?

Any A-List hollywood director has a killer indie as their sprinboard into the majors. 25 years ago Jon Favreau was writing the script for Swingers, now he's a Don.

If your art doesn't speak to anyone is it art or vanity?

That's factually untrue -- A-list directors come from all sorts of places, including by inheritance -- but this is case in point. Are we really required to admire Swingers and the life's work of Jon Favreau, or be dismissed as snobs and/or navel-gazers?

The situation in the U.S. is unique. Elsewhere, cinema is understood as more than a commercial medium, and with tolerance for movies which may not satisfy the mass-market or the expectations of the navel-gazers in Park City, Utah.

The situation in the U.S. is unique. Elsewhere, cinema is understood as more than a commercial medium, and with tolerance for movies which may not satisfy the mass-market.

That may very well be true, but very good movies are made in the US: Sideways, Michael Clayton, Precious, Nightcrawler, Blade Runner 2049, Interstellar, Margin Call, American Hustle, Get Out, Carol, Her, Winter's Bone, Blue Jasmine, Moonrise Kingdom, The Wolf of Wall Street, Inherent Vice, Birdman, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. It's both art and accessible to a larger audience.

I don't think the audience in Europe has a very high tolerance for non-commercial cinema. Differences might depend on the level of state involvement in film production.

You can admire those movies or not, but they're all well within the mainstream of commercial moviemaking, even when they're not very profitable. Some of artier ones -- Her, Moonrise Kingdom, Precious, Carol, etc. -- strike me as being worse than the usual Hollywood stuff, but you didn't ask me....

This is what's possible in the U.S., good, bad and indifferent -- if you can raise millions The issue for me is a different kind of filmmaking.

And you may be right that general audiences are no more hospitable to the art-house stuff in Europe or Asia than here, but as you note, there often is state support, which is absent here. Non-commercial funding is no guarantee of excellence, but there's a reason the U.S., unique among developed nations, has no actual art-house tradition. When there were still art-house repertory theaters in large American cities, they programmed foreign films almost exclusively.

You can admire those movies or not, but they're all well within the mainstream of commercial moviemaking, even when they're not very profitable. Some of artier ones -- Her, Moonrise Kingdom, Precious, Carol, etc. -- strike me as being worse than the usual Hollywood stuff, but you didn't ask me....

This is what's possible in the U.S., good, bad and indifferent -- if you can raise millions The issue for me is a different kind of filmmaking.

And you may be right that general audiences are no more hospitable to the art-house stuff in Europe or Asia than here, but as you note, there often is state support, which is absent here. Non-commercial funding is no guarantee of excellence, but there's a reason the U.S., unique among developed nations, has no actual art-house tradition. When there were still art-house repertory theaters in large American cities, they programmed foreign films almost exclusively.

But then you want something that has never existed in the US. I suppose I just don't look towards the US for anything else than what is the exceptional American way of film: a commercially accessible art, including Sturges and Towne, Sternberg and Murnau, Wilder and Welles, Ford and Hitchcock, Scorsese and Coppola, Lee and Soderbergh, Kaufman and Gilroy. I don't expect anything like Bergman or Tarkovsky or Wong to come from the US.

I think the classical Hollywood cinema developed because of the specific American history: a country of immigrants who disliked high-brow art associated with oppressive aristocracy. So there was no room for art house cinema. Or more likely a more complicated version of this. Those foreign film theaters probably had an almost exclusively foreign language speaking audience, who wanted to see films from their original countries, and to them for instance the early Fellini films were probably not art house, just realistic films from the country they had left.

Joker wasn't even very good. The acting was messed up, I have to deal with messed up people, even here, and I see big disconnects of delivery there. But to normal audiences driven by morbid curiosity, they might not know, or relate to some cherry picked snippet of behaviour they have seen, but out of context, not learning the true flow and movement of the space that led to the snippet, but being given a disconnected portrayal. The movie is nowhere near what I expected, a semi Holywood portrayal of a nuanced subject. Problem with giving a more authentic but more arthouse version, is that they often do not deliver a very good movie. One of the issues you also get, is getting a production to deliver the extra ten mile of effort for quality, without the reputation or budget to drive people. I mean, if I could get a cast to block out delivery for 6 months to a year, they might be able to even wake up at 1am but still deliver it half asleep (not saying you should use extended times this long, just an illustration), but who has the time to even do a normal amount of rehearsal without budget or reputation, on low budget people are just want to rush it. Is it art house, or smart house, people wanting to look smart with their neurotic little invention? I remember doing film studies, the root movements were just messed up, you can see it sitting before you defecating accrued the screen, like 'aren't I a good little boy', with a vague sense I could use some sort of technique somewhere in a film. Thank goodness much if that is done now. The problem with these things, is liberationists may call it "revolutionary" just because it opened up the industry to trying something new, don't matter how mediocre it was. So, promotion based on a liberationist biase.

But then you want something that has never existed in the US. I suppose I just don't look towards the US for anything else than what is the exceptional American way of film: a commercially accessible art, including Sturges and Towne, Sternberg and Murnau, Wilder and Welles, Ford and Hitchcock, Scorsese and Coppola, Lee and Soderbergh, Kaufman and Gilroy. I don't expect anything like Bergman or Tarkovsky or Wong to come from the US.

I think we're probably trying the patience of folks here, but for one last dance: I don't have to point out that the golden age of Sturges and Towne, Murnau and Sternberg, is long dead. That kind of work no longer has any place in the industry. And even in his time, Welles was a pariah in Hollywood. He spent years trying to get people like Steven Spielberg, and his rich actor friends, to help him raise money. Not one of them did.

More recently, Scorsese had to turn to Netflix, to make his latest. Coppola can't get his big grandiose project off the ground -- he's been trying for years. Soderbergh makes low budget disposable movies when he's not doing franchise movies. And Kaufman hasn't been heard from in a while. "Synecdoche, NY" looks to have been the kiss of death for him, at least as a director.

I realize it's not all black and white. Stuff squeaks through. And there are major American talents working, like P.T. Anderson, if only thanks to Megan Ellison.

Bergman wouldn't be my ideal, but yeah -- I wish it *was* possible in the U.S.

And I can tell you for certain: those theaters weren't full of foreigners. And to the extent they still exist, and there are a few, the customers are Americans starved for something other than American movies.

It's a fascinating idea, but there seems to be at least one obvious bet which maximizes the odds: it's easy to predict which films will get the biggest advertising campaigns. based on the cast and the genre. It also appears that the information traders have is limited to a trailer and a credit list, or what they can pick up from the trades. Aren't bettors wagering on packages, rather than actual screenplays? What's being judged is the personnel, the genre and the budget.

I think you're missing the point.

This is a market predictor that is proving to be very accurate. So while you can't predict the artfulness or "goodness" of a film, it turns out you can very accurately predict it's box office.

This exchange works on many different phases of the film development cycyle...rumoured films that don't even end up getting made, films that are in development. They principals might also change, like who's acting or directing or writing causing the price to reflect that change.

You"play" at being a studio mogul, and in those films in very early development or rumoured you might only get who the director and cast is and a title like Chris Nolan's very secret new film Tenant. All you get is "Written and directed by Christopher Nolan, Tenet is set in the world of international espionage."

Currently trading at $155

What that means is that this market thinks his film will make $155 million dollars in it's first 4 weeks in the US box Office. What say you that we come back here in 18 months and look at the Box Office and see how that works out...

Spike Lee's film Da 5 Bloods is trading at 1.82. That means it's looking at a Box Office of 1.82 million from 4 weeks of release. Given this is a Netflix "film" that would only get a cinema release if they want to qualify for Oscars (like Roma or The Irishman) that seems fair.

"Da 5 Bloods follows African-American vets who return to Vietnam to find the remains of a fellow soldier as well as gold that's been hidden for 50 years. Spike Lee directs from a script he co-wrote with Kevin Willmott."

Of course, most of those are not American movies.... And the Netflix model, which doesn't depend on box-office, and trust-fund billionaires (Megan Ellison), account for the likes of Roma (love it or leave it) and Phantom Thread, respectively."

I think some projects for Netflix are about trying to attract subscribers, but if you think they aren't counting the number of "watches" then you'd be kidding yourself.

Here's an interesting read on the data they use
https://neilpatel.com/blog/how-netflix-uses-analytics/

"We look for those titles that deliver the biggest viewership relative to the licensing cost. This also means that we’ll forgo or choose not to renew some titles that aren’t watched enough relative to their cost."

Netflix is for sure using AI combined with their massive data set to look at scripts in development to try and predict their return.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/28/1863 ... e-learning

Now, does that make for good choices ? Or just choices that people want to pay to watch.

And you may be right that general audiences are no more hospitable to the art-house stuff in Europe or Asia than here, but as you note, there often is state support, which is absent here.

What ? You mean the rebate's that various US states give isn't state support ? The fact that it's cheapoer to make a film in the US than almost anywhere else because of the sheer amount of infrastructure and depth of experience ? I spent two years living in Atlanta simply because of a state based rebate. I lived in Dallas for 6 months because the city of Dallas subsides the show I was on for millions of dollars.

I think you're also missing another big difference. Language.

Even in the English world, Australian English is very different to American English or UK English, or New Zealand English.

Then you go to other languages entirely.

The whole French government subsidy program is really based around keeping the French Language in the fore....

"the French film industry is closer to being entirely self-sufficient than any other country in Europe, recovering around 80–90% of costs from revenues generated in the domestic market alone.

In 2013, France was the 2nd largest exporter of films in the world after the United States A study in April 2014 showed the positive image which French cinema maintains around the world, being the most appreciated cinema after American cinema."

They embrace their own language through the arts and especially through cinema.

I personally think most french cinema is also often crap, just in French. They have the same problems other languages and markets have.

In Australia, most of the Australian domestic state based soft government money developed film has been totally bland film making by committee. The more edgy films often didn't get a lot of money, or the money was only invested late once the film got into a major festival, where they might have picked up some post money from a film agency desperate to get their logo on the credits. It doesn't drive good development by and large.

JB

I think you're missing the point.

This is a market predictor that is proving to be very accurate. So while you can't predict the artfulness or "goodness" of a film, it turns out you can very accurately predict it's box office.

What point have I missed? People bet big on big budget franchise productions. They bet small on small lower budget more personal movies. Of course the stock of Christopher Nolan is going to be higher than Spike Lee's, given the two projects. Where's the mystery? It's like saying a commercial movie will make more money than a non-commercial movie. Is this really news?

I think some projects for Netflix are about trying to attract subscribers, but if you think they aren't counting the number of "watches" then you'd be kidding yourself.

There's no point in two outsiders debating Netflix' business model but, unlike a studio, Netflix isn't driven to show a profit on every movie. It can easily dump $150 million on a project with virtually no box-office at all (like the 'The Irishman'). Netflix subscribers with no interest in Martin Scorsese have funded his movie, which is not how studios work. Every investor in a studio film anticipates a profit, and a $!50 million loss is disastrous. In the case of Amazon, the model is even stranger. They produce movies so their customers buy toaster ovens and designer shoes (their movie execs have actually said so).

What ? You mean the rebate's that various US states give isn't state support ? The fact that it's cheapoer to make a film in the US than almost anywhere else because of the sheer amount of infrastructure and depth of experience ? I spent two years living in Atlanta simply because of a state based rebate. I lived in Dallas for 6 months because the city of Dallas subsides the show I was on for millions of dollars.

I'm sorry, you've lost me completely here. Other countries fund entire productions, from beginning to end. If I go to Atlanta, the state of Georgia would not fund me, even if I was internationally famous. Tax credits are not movie financing.

I can't speak to public funding in Australia but most industrial democracies offer substantial movie funding. So do some of the dictatorships, like China. Without it, there would be no art house cinema. And without it, there's no art house cinema in America.

I think we're probably trying the patience of folks here, but for one last dance: I don't have to point out that the golden age of Sturges and Towne, Murnau and Sternberg, is long dead. That kind of work no longer has any place in the industry. And even in his time, Welles was a pariah in Hollywood. He spent years trying to get people like Steven Spielberg, and his rich actor friends, to help him raise money. Not one of them did.

More recently, Scorsese had to turn to Netflix, to make his latest. Coppola can't get his big grandiose project off the ground -- he's been trying for years. Soderbergh makes low budget disposable movies when he's not doing franchise movies. And Kaufman hasn't been heard from in a while. "Synecdoche, NY" looks to have been the kiss of death for him, at least as a director.

I realize it's not all black and white. Stuff squeaks through. And there are major American talents working, like P.T. Anderson, if only thanks to Megan Ellison.

Bergman wouldn't be my ideal, but yeah -- I wish it *was* possible in the U.S.

And I can tell you for certain: those theaters weren't full of foreigners. And to the extent they still exist, and there are a few, the customers are Americans starved for something other than American movies.

The question is in what sense the old days were a golden age in Hollywood; if the situation was all that different.

The Lady Eve and Chinatown don't lack commercial appeal, not even today.

My guess about the theaters that showed foreign films is based on this Cronenberg interview.

the aspiration of making art and the aspiration of making money are not compatible to each other. However, if the aspiration of making art has a strong background, money will follow.

I have read through to catch up and this is a really interesting thread, thank you to everyone who contributed so far.

I would agree with the point in the thread above though: Don't make your film because you think it will make money. Make your film because you have to tell that story.

I shoot live music and charity/corporate films to pay the bills. Fiction films I make because they are a passion and a compulsion.

I think you're also missing another big difference. Language.

Even in the English world, Australian English is very different to American English or UK English, or New Zealand English.[\quote]

Gday, or in New Zealander, G'day, in a higher pitched voice like somebody is squeezing your nuts.

Then you go to other languages entirely.

The whole French government subsidy program is really based around keeping the French Language in the fore....

In French Good day with a curious inflection, like somebody is threatening to put your nuts in a meat grinder.

In Australia, most of the Australian domestic state based soft government money developed film has been totally bland film making by committee. The more edgy films often didn't get a lot of money, or the money was only invested late once the film got into a major festival, where they might have picked up some post money from a film agency desperate to get their logo on the credits. It doesn't drive good development by and large.

JB

Pirates of the Carribbean. People were spewing over that one, as they gave the entire funding budget to just one production. A guy I knew was part of the group that got the production here, to do filming up Port Douglas way, but when they got the money they went to the other end of the state (admittedly, being in the water up Port Douglas way is a good way to be taken by a crocodile (happened to a friend of mine too), and out at Jacobs well near the Gold Coast looks like around Port Douglas creeks, and the beaches and clear water are pretty interchangeable). Unfortunately Paul died a few months ago, but I remember they wanted to get a studio up in Port Douglas with their team member in Hollywood. That's probably as dead as the proposal for a studio in the multibillion dollar sports theme and resort park near where I live (I could literally walk to work). There was another guy from where I come from that got Opera to Australia, I even had a corporate helicopter buzzing my house doing fly overs to figure out scenic entry angles to a nearby property (which I did not appreciate), but they once again totally avoided the area and went down south.

Quirky stuff in the industry over here. But it depends on the committe. I see the concept you talk about could be applied to film funding in the fashion I talked about, where people that play the game can judge where the money goes.

I have read through to catch up and this is a really interesting thread, thank you to everyone who contributed so far.

I would agree with the point in the thread above though: Don't make your film because you think it will make money. Make your film because you have to tell that story.

I shoot live music and charity/corporate films to pay the bills. Fiction films I make because they are a passion and a compulsion.

True Pete, and tell the story well, preferably in a way that's going make money. If people take their time to do that, yhen there might be a lot less content to compete with. We are lost in a volume world which lowers things. I would rather watch Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, that's art house enough for me (real art). People should go be it a try, just realising that action is multi dimensional and interconnections in stories run deep. Then just compare it to the Fith Element, and see how far they had come, as far as art goes. Jupiter Ascending I wish the main actress was a lot younger, so they could make a number of sequels. I speak about misunderstood movies here. Our problem, is understanding how other people feel differently about things in a movie. This is a crucial thing in commercialisation. The G/PG mob I'm America have understood this well. They often include elements to appeal to different age groups and genres toa massively expand audience appeal. Now patents enjoy cartoons with their kids, because the are multi audience targeted. The Avengers film aren't so popular because they are just action films, but they tap into a deep emotional thing and multi audience types. It is high art, they are mastering. The issue is, people who don't understand, might think it only works their way, a way that appeals a lot less. If they can widen their appeal, with quality and charm too, they could get more success. When I was doing my science fiction novel, I was trying to write it for several different audiences at the same time, a very hard thing to do. But the truth is, even if you don't enjoy something different, doesn't mean you can't recognise what works there. It's like, I enjoy many types of music, but not traditional country and western, but I can identify what is good country and western along with other music. I mean, how hard is it to write, your wife left you for the mail man, and the dog died from loneliness after you crashed your truck or something, with a lot of moaning and howling (that was a joke ).

Anyway, briefly changing the subject, I feel like putting some of my story ideas into graphic novel form, which can be story boards. But I don't know any artists to work with. My friend's daughter does something, but she is only amature and not business minded. Even if I could find a graphic novel or story boarding program to do it on, I won't be good enough to illustrate properly (plus another set of eyes could implent the designs, and offer better alternatives). But what options are there for graphic novel to story boarding and scripting? A successful graphic novel is a sellable quality for a film version, plus the graphic style guides the production look (pretty much it looks great in my thinking, but all sorts of things happen third party). A lot of stuff is SciFi, and bone crushing, and grand scales, which are expensive, except for the few female lead orientated love stories, maybe. A few weeks ago a series of 9 movies over three generations and 200 years came to me. From the start of the electrical revolution to post global warming flooding. The flaming wing stuff flying above the city would go well in a graphic novel, as well as the SciFi NewYotk like skyline feel of the mega city in the last generation.

[
Pirates of the Carribbean. People were spewing over that one, as they gave the entire funding budget to just one production.

Just not true.

Here's the list of what's available from the Australian government.

https://www.arts.gov.au/what-we-do/scre ... -incentive

The way it works in Australia is like this.

If you're a "foreign" production shooting in Australia you get a federal rebate on every dollar you spend. There's no budget cap or limit. The idea being there's not show that's too big to not qualify for the rebate.

Essentially there's a 40% rebate if you're a home grown all Australian show.

If you're a show like Mad Max that is a foreign show in terms of financing and many HOD's / Actors, but are still significantly Australian you get 20%.

You make these two tiers of qualification on a points system based on how many HOD's, creatives and actors are "Australian".

They also have a location offset with a 16.5% rebate if you're an entirely foreign show (say Preacher season 3 that just shot in Victoria)

There's also a "Location Incentive" which is a slush fund that is designed to attract marquee shows that might be wavering on where to shoot and need an extra push. This is a pretty recent fund and wasn't around to the same degree when Pirates was in town. They have the ability to sweeten the deal with a studio.

Here's a screen QLD report on the economic's of Pirates shooting there
https://screenqueensland.com.au/app/upl ... ug2016.pdf

Also, even at the highest rate of incentive as an AUSTRALIAN show (which Pirates was not), the rate is no more than 40% of the total budget.

Also, you need to have what's called "market placement". This means you need to have a distribution deal in place and the funding is only paid once the film has been released into a qualifying number of cinemas.

Screen Australia are the last in, meaning you have to raise your film and 60% of the budget first from "commercial" sources before the government contribution is triggered, AND you have to have been effectively "sold" into the distribution market.

There's no cap on how much is paid out, it's a simple rebate.

And really not the picture being painted by others here that you can make a film with free money from the government. It's still predicated on a commercial return.

I understand that this is mostly the case in other film markets with these kinds of government support mechanisms. Very few just give you money to make a film outright.

JB

I'm sorry, you've lost me completely here. Other countries fund entire productions, from beginning to end. If I go to Atlanta, the state of Georgia would not fund me, even if I was internationally famous. Tax credits are not movie financing.

I can't speak to public funding in Australia but most industrial democracies offer substantial movie funding. So do some of the dictatorships, like China. Without it, there would be no art house cinema. And without it, there's no art house cinema in America.

I have quite a good insight about film funding in my home country Austria and our neighbor country Germany. There is NO funding of entire productions from beginning to end. You cannot have more than 50% of your production costs funded and you have to start to pay the funds back if you cross over even.

In my country there exist no production companies with deep pockets, so without public funding there would be no productions possible anyway.

The total annual amount of public funding in my federal state is EUR 1.3 Mio and that is spread over more than 50 projects each time.

The total annual amount of public funding in my country Austra is EUR 74.5 Mio and is spread over ~1.500 projects - on average a project gets EUR 50.000

You have to apply for pre-production (script writing and research) funding, for production funding and for release separately.

Even well funded productions here need quite some self-exploitation to get finished.

[I have quite a good insight about film funding in my home country Austria and our neighbor country Germany. There is NO funding of entire productions from beginning to end. You cannot have more than 50% of your production costs funded and you have to start to pay the funds back if you cross over even.

In my country there exist no production companies with deep pockets, so without public funding there would be no productions possible anyway.

Granted, I exaggerated a bit, for emphasis, to make a distinction between tax credits/rebates (as in the U.S., if you film locally) and actual money on the table. Most countries which offer public funding today demand at least some commercial financing, and those investors expect some return on investment. Years ago it wasn't that way: Fassbinder, for example, made one film after another, sometimes 2 or 3 a year. Most of these were entirely state funded, one way or another (partnership with broadcast entities, etc.). Today, typical opening credits for an art-house film will list a dozen film funding agencies, often from multiple countries, as well as private production entities.

But, even today, it's public seed money which makes possible productions, and a film culture, which would be inconceivable in the U.S. The best proof of this claim is reality: what comes out the U.S. and what comes out of other countries, and not always in favor of other countries. But there is a difference.

There exists no investing in film by investors in my country. It is quite depressing and the reason why I did not participate in any feature film production since our first feature in 2006. There is zero chance to make the money back.

For example The Counterfeiters (German: Die Fälscher) (Austria/Germany 2007) won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film - they needed 3 production companies and several state fundings to raise the $6.2 Mio production budget but only made $ 20.2 Mio at the box office worldwide. A quarter of that was made in the US. In Austria 190,000 viewers saw the film, in Germany 85,000 (although the ten times larger population).
The most visited Austrian movie of all time is from 1998 and had 800,000 viewers in Austria.

[
Pirates of the Carribbean. People were spewing over that one, as they gave the entire funding budget to just one production.

Just not true.

Here's the list of what's available from the Australian government.

https://www.arts.gov.au/what-we-do/scre ... -incentive

The way it works in Australia is like this.

If you're a "foreign" production shooting in Australia you get a federal rebate on every dollar you spend. There's no budget cap or limit. The idea being there's not show that's too big to not qualify for the rebate.

Essentially there's a 40% rebate if you're a home grown all Australian show.

If you're a show like Mad Max that is a foreign show in terms of financing and many HOD's / Actors, but are still significantly Australian you get 20%.

You make these two tiers of qualification on a points system based on how many HOD's, creatives and actors are "Australian".

They also have a location offset with a 16.5% rebate if you're an entirely foreign show (say Preacher season 3 that just shot in Victoria)

There's also a "Location Incentive" which is a slush fund that is designed to attract marquee shows that might be wavering on where to shoot and need an extra push. This is a pretty recent fund and wasn't around to the same degree when Pirates was in town. They have the ability to sweeten the deal with a studio.

Here's a screen QLD report on the economic's of Pirates shooting there
https://screenqueensland.com.au/app/upl ... ug2016.pdf

Also, even at the highest rate of incentive as an AUSTRALIAN show (which Pirates was not), the rate is no more than 40% of the total budget.

Also, you need to have what's called "market placement". This means you need to have a distribution deal in place and the funding is only paid once the film has been released into a qualifying number of cinemas.

Screen Australia are the last in, meaning you have to raise your film and 60% of the budget first from "commercial" sources before the government contribution is triggered, AND you have to have been effectively "sold" into the distribution market.

There's no cap on how much is paid out, it's a simple rebate.

And really not the picture being painted by others here that you can make a film with free money from the government. It's still predicated on a commercial return.

I understand that this is mostly the case in other film markets with these kinds of government support mechanisms. Very few just give you money to make a film outright.

JB

John, I'm talking about the Queensland government funding, we had the person in in charge here in a conference too. It was on the news as well.

Robert welcome back.

I'll say it again: the more other forms of new entertainment are around, the less one can make their money back. Only "big event" movies can make their money back easily, because they compete head to head with other entertainment "events" and not as a casual product. These are the only movies that become "culturally significant", and in my opinion, it's the only reason why I'd like to make a movie.

So, what this means is that unless your film is dirt cheap ($12k-$50k), or super jacked up in commercialism and cgi ($50+mil), chances are, you won't do that well in recouping. How "good" your script is in terms of "art", doesn't matter if it doesn't fall in between those two categories of budget.

There are exceptions, like Blumhouse Productions' horror films that make good money, because people still like to be scared, even if the movies aren't that great (you go there for the cheap entertainment of "scare", rather than the entertainment of the filmmaking art). I think everyone should read Jason Blum's interview at NYTimes, about theaters becoming exclusive to event films: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/movi ... -blum.html

And possibly, most theater chains closing down by 2030. This was my opinion as well for a few years now, before I stumbled on that video a few days ago that explains it well:

For "filmmaking" to be truly resurrected in its previous glory, it can only happen one way: revolutionize the medium. Transform it into a type of entertainment that can compete against video games and other forms of entertainment. One way to do this: immersive VR with super-realistic computer generated backgrounds, AI, and interactive storylines. We're close to such a thing, just not quite yet. Close though, since we can now even do real time compositing:

and

When young people who watch very little TV were asked why they prefer games, they replied: they're more interactive. Well, there's your cue.

To make it in that business, the big guns need to invest in its transformation. Buying a camera and a video editor and shooting some boring drama with a few actors doesn't cut it anymore. It should also require a whole bunch of engineers supporting the project and a whole new set of skills to provide a truly immersive and interactive art.

In 50 years, the target for filmmaking won't even be "seeing interactive stories via VR", but actually the viewer BEING the story. The AI creates a template for a story with its own societal or other rules, and then the viewer purchases available avatars that have specific skills or some cursory pre-agreed storyline with pre-agreed goals. Kind of like life that is, if you believe in re-incarnation.

If you're finding yourself making cringing faces while reading the above, then you should consider yourselves dinosaurs in the industry. Old fashioned, tied to a single way of doing something. The future can only bring change. Progress is always unstoppable.

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2016/09/18/its-all-over-until-the-next-time/

There are exceptions, like Blumhouse Productions' horror films that make good money, because people still like to be scared, even if the movies aren't that great (you go there for the cheap entertainment of "scare", rather than the entertainment of the filmmaking art).

Well they created a brand wich is not generic. People know what they are getting from that
brand and are willing (or not willing) to pay for it. As you said, its a saturated market, and people have build up filters to avoid wasting their time. Brand recognition is one way to bypass the filters.

The irony is, you can archive some brand recoginition, by producing some super cheap movies for free / low money, and see what resonates with people and build upon it....you can also build up multiple brands, wich you can throwaway once its burned. So this is a reason I don't recommend to use your name as a brand.
I wouldn't release it on festivals though...the time you have a finished product, and only screen it for a select few, is killing the momentum. Nobody renembers a trailer you did a quarter/half year before....so don't release it to festivals, or don't release the trailer before it made it through the festivals. You practically have to have the link to the product aviable on the same page where you release the trailer...everything else is just a waste of money and time.

And possibly, most theater chains closing down by 2030.

It will become what stage plays are today, An event you go for the whole experience, not (only) for the story itself.

For "filmmaking" to be truly resurrected in its previous glory, it can only happen one way: revolutionize the medium. Transform it into a type of entertainment that can compete against video games and other forms of entertainment. One way to do this: immersive VR with super-realistic computer generated backgrounds, AI, and interactive storylines.

But we already have video games... so the niche to evolve/transform for traditional cinematic movie productions is very small. And also this market is slowly oversaturated: Releasing an indie game doesn't cut it either, due the shear amount of released titles. Also other projects to tie in movies with games have more or less failed in the past.

To make it in that business, the big guns need to invest in its transformation. Buying a camera and a video editor and shooting some boring drama with a few actors doesn't cut it anymore.

It does, but you have to communicate better what your product is. Basically what you have to do to really stand out, and get a lot of attention towards your product, is to build a fanbase before the movie is actually released. You basically have to start marketing your movie when the preproduction starts, and do it constantly to keep in mind of your audience and adapt to it while producing the movie.

Eugenia, your first paragraph was quite insightful. Some nearly 30 years ago I wanted to make a 3D short film, much in the vein of the techniques used to make the Avatar series. But when I later came to learn modern 3D graphic technique, I found they were so primitive, only just scraping to start making the tools I envisioned. Because I had the nack of seeing the future possibilities before other people. I had started seeing the ultimate solution to 3D graphics in the mid 1980's, which you need in the sort of solution you envision. I have worked on the design of the technology, some of which subsequently appears to have been stollen, but am unable to afford the avalanche of development and intellectual property required in so much new design. I worked out the metrics for a true simulated world. I worked towards next generation processing and processing of such world's. So, I share your vision from a long time ago (I am a SciFi reader and writer and technologist) but I also see practical limitations. People will still like to relax Infront of a presented story, like they hear speakers instead of read books instead of watching plays instead of listening to radio instead of watching TV. We have all these things, still ongoing, now even games, vr, mr, ar a d what you are talking about. Dancing, extreme sports board games. Different things will suite different people. The big limitation is certain people like physical exertion which has a lot of not so good technological solutions, and others do not like it so much, or just don't like it. So, a brain interface is even better (not working on that one) but people might not like action or drama, or working out choices, otherwise they could just go out and live an interesting life rather than watch movies. We have gone too far with this manic action these days. Even in the story lines I'm envisioning there are fantastic manic flight sequences to the U2 song, Virtigo, if I can the rights to it. But you can go so far and people get sick or revolted by it, and others will see it as boring eventually, same with immersive reality programs, like what we are interested in, which can be there as a fixture, but we can only improve things to a point. So, we shouldn't compete with games, such interactive immersion experiences can be there as a regular that suites various people through genres, but films can still exist we just have to make them well and stop trying to over top every last action movie. People are a bit nuts, they say people will tire of action films, but there are still going, and my father used to watch Flash Gordon when he was young (some of that stuff in the 1930's was surprising) and have we tired of romance comedies, dramas etc etc, they continued to be retold and we continue to watch, I have a collection of romance comedies myself. We have just got to get used to people not watching as much film, but a truely great film a lot of people might still watch. I've rather lost my path here with tiredness. We have to however, concentrate on lowering the cost of quality film development and CGI and AI virtual worlds to develop features even less for when this day comes. We could lower costs 10x+ and latter 10x+ again through computers etc, and latter 10x+ again, through Ai virtual worlds. One day, a person could sit in a room, hook his brain up and draw the world, for under a dollar in today's terms. I could probably in under a day image a feature. Real talent, will be up there. So, for decades I have been designing systems and technological paths to do most studio and field production dead cheap (don't ask me about the designs now, since the brain disease, things are a bit fuzzy). One idea, was a open source 3D models catalogue, so people didn't have to redesign much. I could get a feature production crew down to 1-3 people, because hardly anybody could do it all, so even talented people might need an extra one or two people to cover everything (this had features of AI and drones involved, which are now days out. I am looking at pretty silent drone designs as well, without going Al SciFi, so that's possible). As we work through these things, and into immersion worlds, AI, and brain interfaces, the investment costs of features will go down, and they can survive.

And possibly, most theater chains closing down by 2030. This was my opinion as well for a few years now, before I stumbled on that video a few days ago that explains it well:

Wow, and I thought I talked a lot!

I think this guy is missing the sums a bit. A streaming service could theoretically land you up with less than 20% of that $7 a month he talks about, to just run the thing. But the Chinese are buying the biggest movie chains in the world, and making the biggest studio. It might help Disney to counter with a service. Still, he says Disney, but we know the sub studios bought are the ones doing most of the work.

BTW, on the subject of Indies. I read that that Valerian and the city of a thousand planets film I talked about, was the highest budget indie film of all time, and highest budget EU film I think, and the director funded it. Interesting stuff. On the Google search, it said something like 85% of of Google users liked it.

https://www.newsweek.com/2017/07/14/val ... 32026.html

https://movieweb.com/valerian-2-screenp ... e-planned/

https://movieweb.com/valerian-2-still-p ... reactions/

https://movieweb.com/netflix-luc-besson ... alerian-2/

have we tired of romance comedies, dramas etc etc, they continued to be retold and we continue to watch, I have a collection of romance comedies myself.

I don't know... I'm a female, and I avoid these films like the plague. I largely enjoy good sci-fi, to be honest. Every other type of movie (including action blockbusters or marvel) I pause every 10 minutes to just go eat, bathroom, or just checking my email or reddit. They can't keep my interest for long. 99% of the movies are just background noise for me. This wasn't the case 20 years ago, even if films were not that much better then. What changed was that I have siphoned over the years what I want to see in films, so if the attributes I'm after are not there, I have trouble watching them.

I think this guy is missing the sums a bit. A streaming service could theoretically land you up with less than 20% of that $7 a month he talks about, to just run the thing.

The money is in the data actually. You can't get enough data on a theater. Theaters are the old ways of doing things, and someone else said, they'll be just like stageplays are today: for those who love the art medium, but not necessarily the general public.

I read that that Valerian and the city of a thousand planets film I talked about, was the highest budget indie film of all time, and highest budget EU film I think, and the director funded it. Interesting stuff. On the Google search, it said something like 85% of of Google users liked it.

I personally hated it. I expected more out of it. It was bland, too "fantastical" rather than sci-fi, and the whole Rihanna scene could cut off and not change the story at all. It was a waste of money IMHO. Not an interesting story at all. It didn't provide us anything apart from good vs evil, an old and tired trope. There was also no chemistry among the two leads.

The last great space opera sci-fi movie I've seen, which is my favorite sub-genre, was Serenity, in 2005. Nothing has surpassed it since then. Before that: Galaxy Quest (such a classic). Before that, the old Star Trek movies, old Star Wars, 2001: Space Odyssey. I think that's about it. I don't like any of the other attempts. From non-operatic, hard sci-fi space movies, Interstellar and Gravity are good too. Martian is ok too, just not so hot after a 2nd viewing.

My favorite films of the decade: Gravity, Coherence, Inception, Midnight Special (misunderstood gem), The Big Short (the only "lucid/realistic" film in the list), Interstellar, Drive, Warm Bodies (deep zombie film), Cosmos (2019, shot on BMPCC), Doctor Strange (particularly the first part, which was the psychedelic part).

The worst films of the decade: ALL the biopic dramas. Even Neil Armstrong's biopic "First Man", which has a space theme, and who I respect immensely as a hero, it was like sitting on needles for me.

Every other type of movie (including action blockbusters or marvel) I pause every 10 minutes to just go eat, bathroom, or just checking my email or reddit. They can't keep my interest for long. 99% of the movies are just background noise for me. This wasn't the case 20 years ago, even if films were not that much better then. What changed was that I have siphoned over the years what I want to see in films, so if the attributes I'm after are not there, I have trouble watching them.

it's a bit off topic, but this description you gave does probably resonate in many of us, and also applies to many cinema audiences. Background noise is a good expression for this kind of cinema.

When playing back a modern action movie I first make sure that the VLC remote app on the iPad is running, because I will stop this movie often. The content, the story, is not important. We just watch it for the camera moves and special effects, for the 5.1 sound. How it is done, and what elements we might use for our cinematography. Pause the playback, do other things, some work in the house, respond to forum discussions, then continue the film. Rewind, to enjoy that particular scene, but it's just a piece of disposable entertainment that will be forgotten after a month. It's just background noise of no importance whatsoever.

And as you say, this was different for me (us) some 20 years ago. At that time we were more mesmerised and thrilled by such images. Partly because we were younger and easier to impress, partly because it was new. The film that really flipped my mind was probably The Abyss with that scene where the alien entity formed a water-hose with a human face shape at the end. From that moment on I realised that it is possible to transport also spiritual messages with moving images, sound, and CGI/special effects, as did some few scenes in the Star Wars trilogy.

With that in mind, and with all our available tools, we should be the happiest peoples in the world. I have never imagined that I would ever be able to actually create film with that vast spectrum of possibilities. That alone is a very precious gift given to us.

Now, going back to the topic, it is clear that even with all those gadgets and computing power we can not only rent, but also own in our private studio or home, it has not become easier to produce a piece of art. As Andy Warhol said, it's work. And work is not enough. We have to do more than just work.

have we tired of romance comedies, dramas etc etc, they continued to be retold and we continue to watch, I have a collection of romance comedies myself.

I don't know... I'm a female, and I avoid these films like the plague. I largely enjoy good sci-fi, to be honest. Every other type of movie (including action blockbusters or marvel) I pause every 10 minutes to just go eat, bathroom, or just checking my email or reddit. They can't keep my interest for long. 99% of the movies are just background noise for me. This wasn't the case 20 years ago, even if films were not that much better then. What changed was that I have siphoned over the years what I want to see in films, so if the attributes I'm after are not there, I have trouble watching them.

People do change with age etc. I used to not like watching a movie more than once, except for exceptional ones like the original 1980's Batman and The Matrix. But by the time of the Matrix I couldn't remember what was going to happen next. I like scifi too but also comedy, and a bit of Sherlock homes, House, Unlimited etc etc. I don't watch the Romantic Comedies souch anymore, but they're to show my eventual kids on my Startrek like scanner reading the DVD's etc. I can tell them if I had to watch Black and white 1930's romantic comedies, you can watch this. I also have collections of other genres, including SciFi. But, Romantic Comedy is a good example of a long lasting staple genre, going fur a long time. The point is, it doesn't matter what I or you watch, people still watch them.

The money is in the data actually. You can't get enough data on a theater. Theaters are the old ways of doing things, and someone else said, they'll be just like stageplays are today: for those who love the art medium, but not necessarily the general public.

That can flop badly. I tell Google, if everybody has the same data, it devalues it. The value of data is likely being propped up by the American Government. it is believed that is how certain websites are so profitable. I think the secret lawsuits by Internet companies about being required to hand personal details for the government were resolved by the government agreeing to pay for it. What happens when something happens to save tax payer dollars, or that money is cur off?

I read that that Valerian and the city of a thousand planets film I talked about, was the highest budget indie film of all time, and highest budget EU film I think, and the director funded it. Interesting stuff. On the Google search, it said something like 85% of of Google users liked it.

I personally hated it. I expected more out of it. It was bland, too "fantastical" rather than sci-fi, and the whole Rihanna scene could cut off and not change the story at all. It was a waste of money IMHO. Not an interesting story at all. It didn't provide us anything apart from good vs evil, an old and tired trope. There was also no chemistry among the two leads.

Plenty of chemistry. Haven't you ever seen the original Avengers from the 1960's? As a writer, I am sensitive too these things, to see and feel the world through another person's feelings. I see the appeal.im a wide range of things. I expected more too, but I see and enjoy it's charm. There is some sort of story line there, and emotions, but the entertainment is in the story of the flow in it.

> The last great space opera sci-fi movie I've seen, which is my favorite sub-genre, was Serenity, in 2005. Nothing has surpassed it since then. Before that: Galaxy Quest (such a classic). Before that, the old Star Trek movies, old Star Wars, 2001: Space Odyssey. I think that's about it. I don't like any of the other attempts. From non-operatic, hard sci-fi space movies, Interstellar and Gravity are good too. Martian is ok too, just not so hot after a 2nd viewing.

I like Firefly, but I wouldn't regard Serenity as that deep compared to Valerian either. While I like A space Odyssey, as with all his films, I'm conflicted, as they were just not great in that way. It is rather like a bland sterile Valerian vibe. If it wasn't for the sets etc, designed by the father of a guy I knew, it would be pretty much less interesting than standing around waiting to dry. I like Arthur C Clarks stuff though.

Interesting list you have. I liked the Doctor Strange Comics more. Waiting to find out more about Cosmos though.

I have a wide appreciation of stuff, less so movies though. I like the first starwars film, the 6th film, the side film a few years ago (she should have been the lead in the current series) but not much fur the rest. Startrek original, and Deep Suave Nine, Voyager, Enterprise as the best. The new Discovery series, is well done rubbish genre. The new Startrek movies, the first two are ok. Try the Netflix library, pretty bare in SciFi here, but a few interesting ones. The expanse and killjoys were interesting, bit I can guess you don't like them.

Thanks for the discussion.

It really bothers me when filmmakers talk about the cost of micro-budget movies, assuming free or next to free crew.

I'm shooting a short in two days. I can't pay much, but I'm paying union minimum to EVERYONE except myself and the producer – even those who volunteered. Why? Because it's my project. I'm the one who gets to say "Film by" at the top. So I'm the one who gets to lose all of the money. Above the line talent have their own reasons for working on it, but I'm paying them, too. Below the line crew *need* more than another credit, they need paid.

Beg, borrow and steal to make your movie, but for God's sake, pay the crew! (And no, feeding them doesn't count.)