Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Is it too late for Australia to take over again?
-
Might I also just mention that "digitally shot" does not necessarily equal "not commercial". Commercially released digtally shot features have been around for over 15 years.
-
But then the Film Commission is essentially paying for education, which is really not something I think that the Film Commission should be doing.
That's what they do now (see previous comment re: Eagle vs Shark).
I'm suggesting they should spend less (per project) on this.
-
As far as I'm concerned it should be compulsory for Warren Oates to be cast in every New Zealand film. He might not show up due to a scheduling conflict with his death, but that dude was awesome.
Okay, we agree on something. ;)
-
I do understand your point, but your example illustrates mine
I don't think so.
the NZFC coughed up $1.8 million to make that - not exactly flicking a couple of grand to some novice so they can learn the ropes.
He admitted it!
Yes, it's "not exactly flicking a couple of grand to some novice so they can learn the ropes." That's my point. Only through his vision did it come off in this case, but this is S.O.P.; $2m to "learn the ropes".
Anyway, point made, as you say.
-
If it's all about identifying talent, let's kill two birds and do a Project Runway/The Apprentice-style TV show.
It exists! (but it sucked).
On The Lot:
-
That's the point I'm trying to make - obviously not very well.
Not at all. I'm just saying that there seems to be an assumption that everything has to be commercial. Why? Let's face it, the Commission has many times funded some multi-million dollar turkeys that've sunk without trace. People don't generally call that a waste of money; rather, just an occupation hazard of dealing with such a nebulous thing as creative quality.
Re: the above point, the question is "promising" what? Why must every project be seen as potentially great art and box office gold? It just seems to me that they want a grand mansion without any foundations.
Or, to put it another way - and, as much as I hate to use sports metaphors; moreso rugby ones - if the dozen or twenty feature and short projects green-lit each year are the All Blacks, then where's the Super 12* or NPC?
I'm just suggesting that sometimes a modest investment in a go-nowhere digital test run might prepare a talented newcomer to really kick arse when they've got a real budget.
Taika Waititi, for instance, - a really smart fellow - has spoken of how he had to put BOY on the back burner while he learned how to make features on the simpler - and easier to get right - Eagle vs Shark .
*note to rugby fans: I'm kidding!
-
From what I've seen of no budget movies, pacing, character development, sub plot etc are all secondary to the concept
Sure, that's often the case, but I'm not suggesting they fund any old rubbish. They should still be funding only the promising projects.
-
Let me clarify. I'm not talking about the democratisation of filmmaking so that 'everyone can have a go', rather so that the Commission can be more adventurous in what they support at the lower levels, and thus more likely to discover seeds of greatness.
-
But surely that's the NZFCs rationale behind funding short films? And from what I understand that approach has been criticised as ineffective as well
Indeed, because one only learns from it the technical aspects of making a good feature, not - or only slightly, and incidentally - the creative; character development, pacing, plot/subplot balance, etc.