If you've ever been curious about how a movie is budgeted. . .

A director usually asks for a finished product from a composer. A DP works more closely with the director, who exerts more control. Gimme a tighter shot. Come in from the left. I want moodier lighting. DP has less creative power than a composer. Less recognition too.

Not to take away from the enormous role of the composer, but to me the DP is more important. Sans the director, who is in charge of everything, the DP is the chief party responsible for the look of the film. No way in hell the composer is more important than that. As I said before, first and foremost film is a visual medium.
 
What's your favorite silent film? Extra points picking one that's got zero music.

That's an interesting question. Even though it's relatively lightweight compared to many others, I've always been partial to Sherlock Jr.

Also, it's always been my understand that no silent films were actually scored. They were only given soundtracks after the fact.
 
Terrible example: JUPITER ASCENDING's editing bent to Giacchino's score. Good example: ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST was matched to Ennio Morricone's.

That's an interesting question. Even though it's relatively lightweight compared to many others, I've always been partial to Sherlock Jr.
Now pick your favorite film with music.
 
But you picked the silent one quite easily, didn't you? Because you don't like many. When it comes down to it, people prefer their films with music.

During its making no one got JAWS until the music was added.

Hmm. . . Well I've seen relatively few silent films compared to talkies so that makes it easier to choose. But yes, obviously music pairs up well with a film's visuals. I'm certainly not arguing against music's importance. But you actually help to bolster my point: Silent films themselves prove that you can make a movie without a composer, but you can't make a movie without someone who knows how to operate a camera.

I don't want to downplay a composer's contribution, though. It's very important.
 
I loved the concept, but figures it early and was still disappointed the monster wasn't real

As someone who is suspicious of technology, I've always been way more interested in the idea of an experiment of modern people heading off into the forest to live like it's the 19th century than I have been in the storyline about the monster.
 
Here's the full 79-page breakdown of the budget for M. Night Shyamalan's The Village (originally called The Woods):



Plenty of enlightening shit here. M. Night gets $7.2 million for story rights alone but, if I'm reading this right, only $230K to direct. 15 Year Old Boy on Stump walks away with $13K. Roger Deakins only gets $385K but the composer gets $1.2 million?

$184K on film stock. $20K on photocopies. $90K on cell phones?!

Fascinating shit. check it out.

EDIT: I guess you gotta click the little imgur logo in the upper left to go to the actual page.


What Superman storyline is this be?
 
Very interesting. I would like to see the same budget type of printout for Signs.
 
Back
Top