production VALUE vs Content

[azirahman]

Its like David vs Goliath, Rocky vs Apollo Creed, Jason vs Freddy, Ryu vs Ken, Chicken vs Egg, Waterworld vs Pi. I want to know your genuine opinion on what is more important in a 'FILMAKA' short.

In an ideal world we want BOTH in a film. We try our best but it leaves us BRASSIC! I want to know your opinion. As winning is a democratic process for entry level I want to know what my peers feel about what catches their eye.

[lisaj]

CONTENT!

"The First Day" competition will be my first time voting, but I prefer a good story to the bells and whistles. I'm a writer and a box office junkie that has turned to shooting my own movies, so naturally the storyline is what captivates me. I like to get totally sucked into a movie and I'm one of those people that "talks" to the screen while its going, (I know--you hate folks like me at the theatre..sorry). I am new to editing, etc and have only two consumer Sony cameras to work with, so I hope more people will get sucked into the quick 3-minute story my first entry and give me one of their votes. :)

[azirahman]

You talk to the screen?? What did you say when you watched Revolver lol :)

[lisaj]

Well I was pretty quiet during the US version of it. I'm yet to see the UK version, but I've heard its better! LOL!

[SergioValdez]

i think content is my choice, i've seen some stuff made with a cellular camera that are really captivating and good.
production values can come later with money.
is like hollywood right now, has the best production values, but the content of most of the movies are really poor.
remakes remakes remakes remakes.
but that's just my opinion.
i wonder: if some people can make a lot of things without money, its interesting to see what they can do with a little money.
cheers

[aliale]

I prefer content more and agree with Sergio...Money can bring in the the production values later but not the content as it will depend mainly on the skills of a writer or a talented cast in a film...
CGI effects have hampered hollywood these days ...gone are the days where we used to enjoy the ROCKY series and cherish those values...Rocky still rox and CGI's are hardly remembered.

[kristjan72]

Straight up this seems like an easy question. Content above prod. value anytime.

However in the context of this competition I think there's more to this, and it all revolves around the question: what is content and what is not?

For example editing. Is that content or prod value? Editing is part of telling the story, no? So content. But good, interesting editing, fun techniques and a little visual trickery can add flavour, style and aesthetics to a piece. So prod value...

Another is music. The choice of music in a film can help the story move along, create the mood context for a scene, help with characterization, thus content! But it also adds style, mood, pace, kudos etc.

So there are many examples in the film-making process of where the line is ill-defined and blurry.

For me the bottom line is that this is a filmmaking competition, not a script writing one. So contestants should be showing a range of the skills that filmmakers need. Foremost of these is NOT scriptwriting. That's what scriptwriters do. As filmmakers our main tasks are: getting the story across clearly, yet without using cliche or over telling; directing the actors so they give a compelling and memorable performance; wrapping that all up in a visually and aurally attractive, interesting and creative package.

I feel that too many peer voters in the Filmaka competition are judging based solely on the idea. Filmmaking is not about having an idea, but about executing an idea.

[DanielLahr]

You know, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the contrary to what is being said. Give me production value any day, and I'll come up with the content.

To me I know that by having a production value heavy shoot, you have a by far better looking film than if you don't. For example, period pieces. I shot a WWII short film and I had 20 people all dressed up in the exact uniforms, both Nazi and American as well as some refugees. It was very historically accurate and I can tell you right now that with my actors putting those uniforms on and walking around in them, their performance changed dramatically. They were able to fully immerse themselves in the world we are trying to create. The more you can make your actors believe they are in the world they are supposed to be in the better. They won't be trying to think, "Oh, how would I act in this world?" And they also won't be taken out of the moment. My actor who played the Nazi soldier in my film is one of the nicest guys in the world, I actually was very concerned when I met him at the audition because he was too nice. I loved his attitude and look for the part and I casted him. Once he put the full SS Nazi uniform on, he was engulfed by the character and it comes through in the film. He told me later that the costume had a power that it gave him unlike any other.

Obviously, there HAS to be content to a film. But think of it this way, if we as filmmakers believed there was no content to our films, would we bother making it? Content is something that is open to opinion. Some can say "It was deep and powerful" and others will say, "It was crap." But when someone sees a bunch of WWII soldiers walking around with period jeeps, camp, weapons, etc., they can see the difference in the film right away.

Just my humble opinion. (Also, the trailer for my WWII film is on here in my personal films if you would like to see.)

~Daniel

[Leonardo812]

I was just discussing this with some other film-makers on another forum, and we came to two kind of mixed-up conclusions.
- A film with great content is as good as its production values.
- A film with poor content is never helped by good production values.
Our conclusion was that content is the number one priority. Great production values will never fix poor content, but if you have great content, the production values determine how "good" the film is. I just watched a short film that had a fantastic concept and a creative idea, but the actors were not convincing at all, and it was shot with a grainy webcam. In this case the film (for me) was good, but only to a point because it was hampered by poor technical quality. The same thing applies in reverse. A film can have amazing production quality, but if the content behind it is sub-par, the film will be sub-par as well.

That's only $.02, though. There are many ways of looking at it. :)

- Jordan