quote:

---

Last of the Mohicans was done without any really big names and that did well.

---

True - with a couple of notable exceptions. The director was a
huge name when that film was released. After several seasons as
producer of one of the hottest TV shows of the 1980?s and three
successful features, ?The Last of the Mohicans? was a big deal in
1992. And the star had recently won the Oscar for Best Actor.
Maybe not a big name, but a well respected actor with a lot of
buzz. But with a production budget of $40,000,000 and a total US
gross of $72,455,000 it lost money.

quote:

---

How much big Hollywood stuff is digital anyway? Can I really get that richness of panoramic cinematography so that the shots look like Ansel Adams photos with digital?

---

More movies than ever are being shot digitally. I see no reason
why you couldn?t get great cinematography with digital. But with
a $25,000,000 budget there is no reason not to shoot film.

quote:

---

How important is a "Big Name" on the box anyway for the marketability? Or the possibility of finacing it through a group of investors? Is the name going to carry the film out of the "chute"? I personally don't care if it has a big name or not just as long as they accomplish what needs to be done, and have the look I envision for the story.

---

Most people make a decision on what film they pay to see based on
the star. Try a little experiment. Ask your family and friends if
they want to see a movie called ?dark crimes?. Do you think they
are more likely to ask, ?Who?s in it?? or ?Is the cinematography
really good???

Investors are looking for something to draw an audience. Especially
when it?s a first time filmmaker. A name actor can help. But if
you can find investors who don?t care about that, who are more
interested in the cinematography and your vision, then you are in
pretty good shape.

If you can get to Daniels that can only help. There are thousands
of ways to get a movie made. You need to explore all avenues.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

Some of the most incredible cinematography I have ever seen period is the stuff done for the "Planet Earth" and "Blue Earth" series. Have you seen this? I'm pretty sure it's all digital as well. I was reading on the Redrock site about how you can shoot digital at 24fps and get the film feel and look. Digital just might have it's advantages. It might be financially a sound decision to just buy a rig for 25k and shoot it myself with my student film crew (that I'll put together). You are right about getting a star in a bit role just for namesake. It's true what you say about, "Who's in it?" but that didn't neccesarily apply to "Planet Earth." How do I go about the negotiation process with the big star, bit part approach? Just to get some feelers out? I suppose someone with the charisma and flamboyance of a young Robert Wagner would certainly fit the bill for the rich nextdoor defense attorney role. He only has 10 lines in 2 scenes. A young Kim Bassinger would serve well as his sophisticated beautiful wife who says nothing...she doesn't have to. Both these actors need to be in their mid 30's however. The starring role is a 15 year old boy. Maybe look for a big name kid? What say you? What's the verdict?

Mark Dixon

The way to get a name actors (here I'm talking recognizable but not the big, big names) on a budget is to make it as easy as possible for the actor. Actors want work after all.

So write your screenplay so that the character in question is in one location that you can cut to throughout the movie. This means you can hopefully shoot that actors stuff in a single day but make it look as if they are there throughout the movie. Beyond that make the character in question as interesting as possible.

Beyond that you are on your own.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Oh, he's interesting all right. Regionally famous defense attorney made rich by defending the schmuck of the Earth. He's the richest guy in the city, easily the most arrogant, has the biggest and best of everything, and good looking as well. His "silver tongue" cuts like a razor through any and everyone he meets, but somehow none of the blood never gets on any his $5,000.00 handmade silk suits. He's the living, breathing, walking, epitome of a mega-materialistic ass hole who says and does as he pleases, when he pleases, and always walks out of the fire smelling like a rose with a shit eating smile on his face. A regular anti-christ. A wolf in sheep's clothing. What everyone aspires to be, or so his deluded sense of reality leads him to bathe in, like the radiance of the sun on a cloudless day. He's interesting alright. (Now...who is that guy? Alec Baldwin? Too bad I can't stand Alec Baldwin but he would certainly fit the bill for this role. Any ideas?)

Mark Dixon

A lot of character info doesn't make it into the screenplay. What the actor needs, what you need, is to make sure the scenes are interesting from an actors point of view. That means subtext and emotion. I'm not doubting you've got that, I'm just pointing things out.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

quote:

---

Originally posted by mddixon712
You are right about getting a star in a bit role just for namesake. It's true what you say about, "Who's in it?" but that didn't neccesarily apply to "Planet Earth."

---

Once again you?re right, Mark.

Documentaries don?t necessarily need name stars to attract an
audience - especially if they are being shown on TV. With docs
the concept is what draws an audience. But the most successful
docs released in the theaters both had major star power so that
is the exception.

A couple of things to consider:

You may not need to buy a high end HD camera. Rental is an option.
You could hire an experienced DP and rent the equipment.

Which brings me to my second point. Don?t completely dismiss the
skill and talent of the crew to get incredible cinematography.
The camera and the lens is important, but even the very best high
end most expensive camera in the hands of inexperienced students
isn?t going to be as good as a cheaper, smaller camera in the
hands of skilled, experienced people.

I'm hearing that. Maybe what I trade off in the price of shooting film I could make up for in being able to afford more skilled, experienced people to shoot it digitally. Si? I bet RJ can tell that I wrote the novel as well as the adaptation to screen. Just guessing. Ha Ha! That's why I like the story so much and what I want the piece to be...it was all my baby from the inception. I just blew all that character info in there for your benefit. To kind of paint a picture of what I'm looking for. Funny, but when I wrote the character I didn't envision Alec Baldwin, eventhough he would fit the bill. Ha Ha!

Mark Dixon

One of the things to remember when casting is to keep your mind open. You might have a really clear image of the character physically but the actors that fit that just don't cut it but some other guy does. You've got to decide can you deal with the wrong look, or work with the actor who looks right in order to get things right.

Of course occasionally you get both, but when that happens the choice is so obvious you wouldn't need advice.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

One difference between film and novels is the backstory in a novel is very easy. You can write it up as you did before and the audience gets it and then applies that to the motivations as the story progresses. You can't do that in a film, not as easily. You've got to show the backstory in flashbacks, or with dialogue (often clunky when used for backstory) or with very subtle hints.

Often back story isn't laid out at all. It helps the actor to read it all and use that to inform their performance but it may never transfer to the film.

One of the many differences between film and novels.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

I'm pretty fortunate with this story in that there's not a whole lot of backstory that can't be told through dialog. I know what you mean by "clunky." The story stops when the clunk begins. It just doesn't work. It's all gotta flow like a river. In some ways the film may be easier than the novel in that "one picture can say a thousand words." With this in mind, I hear what you're saying about the actor getting things right above and beyond just "the look." I agree wholeheartedly. You know as well as I that a good actor doesn't have to speak one word to convey mountains of information to the viewer. Bergman was a good example of that. Very minimal dialog. Maximum expressionism.

Mark Dixon

Personally I found converting my own fiction into screenplays was a fun challenge and it streamlined and improved the original stories. Screenwriting is minimalism with somewhat strict rules that you don't have to worry about in fiction. I think the original author is probably the best choice for adapting fiction as they know what can be ditched and what must be preserved. Having said that, beware of being too in love with your darlings. Sometimes they must be killed. Good luck.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

quote: Originally posted RJSchwarz

"beware of being too in love with your darlings. Sometimes they must be killed."

I'm a bit slow here. When you refer to my "Darlings" are you referring to excess baggage found in the novel? Please expound.

Mark Dixon

"Kill your darlings" is an old writing quote.

Basically it means that as a writer you may become attached to bits because of the horrors in working out a problem rather than their usefulness to the story. I bring it up because what is useful to a novel may not be useful to a screenplay.

Here is a decent post on the subject:
http://brendacoulter.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-to-kill-your-darlings-without.html

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Quote: Brenda Coulter

"I love every part of the writing process, but bringing a story home--making that final pass with my yellow highlighter and assuring myself that every sentence, paragraph, scene, and chapter is "golden" satisfies my writer's heart on the deepest level."

I guess that says it all. I agree. We wouldn't want to put the people to sleep now would we? I kill "Darlings" all the time. I'm a regular mass-murderer. When you write you really need to be two people... one, the creative darling writer, and two, the grim reaper. I have to admit, it's not always the easiest thing to do. That's why writers have well paid editors look at their stuff before it goes to print. Many times I believe that it's difficult to "see the forest for the trees." You get so close, so intertwined, that you can't see what's staring you in the face. Editorial cuts right through it, and removes all the excess fat.

Mark Dixon

Save the darlings in a text file. That way they aren't really dead and don't clog up the story where they don't really belong. Who knows, they may spark a story of their own someday.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA