Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

The film making process - time


prc1966
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've always kind of avoided learning about the actual process of making a movie, because knowing too much about the making of a film sometimes takes the fun out of watching. But I have a question that maybe some experts on this forum might know the answer to. These days, it seems like a film takes about 3 years to make - the films that are expected in 2015, for example, are already in pre-production, and usually the release of a film is about a year or so after the actual filming took place. But in the old studio system days, it seemed like even a major production film could be completed in well under a year. Historically, how and for what causes did the length of time needed increase? How does the time needed today compare to the length time they needed in the 50's or 60's, and also compared to the 30's? Is the increase in the time needed because of location filming, or special effects or some other issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the old studio system the vast majority of the 'crew' required to make a film was already under contract. There wasn't a question of financing. Of course if the producer or director or actor(s) were independent there could be delays getting contracts negotiated and signed but these were the exceptions. i.e. most were already under contract with a studio. This is why the major studio could crank them out once the studio bosses obtain the rights to the original story. (Note that often a studio would buy the rights to a 'hot' book or play right after it was released but it could take many years before the studio would decide to make the movie).

 

In the 30s the film could be crank out very quickly because most were shot on the lot. In later decades location shooting would add time and cost.

 

Thus my view is the differences between today and the past is mostly related to financial and legal humps more so than technical ones.

 

Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on May 15, 2013 1:39 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Thus my view is the differences between today and the past is mostly related to financial and legal humps more so than technical ones.

 

I think you are right.

 

I think a lot of the "pre-production" time is actually time used to try to "sell" a film idea to different people around Hollywood, and raise the money to shoot it and to go through several drafts of a script, and trying to get good actors and raise enough money to pay for them, long before any sets are built and before a script is finalized..

 

I've been watching the progress of the new "Charlie Chan" film on IMDB for the past couple of years, with the new Charlie Chan being a girl, and I don't think the producers have raised enough money yet to even begin the project. So this "pre-production" in this case is just trying to sell the idea, the concept, of such a film to investors who will put up enough money to make it. Sometimes producers try for a decade or more trying to raise money to make a film.

 

One of the biggest jobs of independent producers is raising the money to make the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm a friend of a friend to a wonderful women named Gloria. She and her husband wrote the Honey West books. She was close to the late Ann Francis. Her house as a room devoted to Honey West. She has great stuff to remind one of a bygone era.

 

BUT the reason I mention all this is because she has been trying for years to get a movie made based on the Honey West character. Female 'tough guys' are hot now and we think a movie would do well at the box office, but getting this project off the ground has been an on-going process for at least 4 years. In the studio era days, a studio would of purchased the rights to the character and plots and made a movie shortly after that.

 

On a funny side note; when I was asked what actress today could play Honey West, I mentioned Reese Witherspoon, but others told me she was too sweet and innocent for the role. Well based on current events I think Reese is sassy enough for the part!

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Reese "too sweet" to be Honey West?

 

 

Wasn't that sort of Ann Francis' rep, too? And look how well it turned out. That outwardly "sweet" persona is what makes it work. I agree with your choice.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They have been dealing with Miramax and I believe one of the hold ups is over script control. If one wants to get her talking about the good old days just mention Aaron Spelling, Charlie Angels and Honey West.

 

She just released a Honey West Volume One Book. It contains 3 Honey West books with an intro by her. Saw it at our mutual friends house last night. Then he and I went hiking. During the hike Gloria called his cell phone. It was funny when he said 'Gloria, I'm OK,,, I'm just hiking up a hill and I'm out of breath!!, yes, I'm not dying!!'. She is one nice and very interesting lady.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is a new angle in the funding of movies, Kickstarter and other social fundraing sites. That is people are going to the general public through sites like Kickstarter to get money to make films. For example, Fans of Veronica Mars have raised money though the Internet to make a movie followup to the TV show which was cancelled by the CW. Obviously a huge action film can not do this, but a smaller DIY project can.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...