Formatting looks good to me. The only comment I have is that you should avoid the "CLOSE UP", as you've already established it's a two-shot and at least the people I've worked with frown on excessive camera directions.
Also the direction for Zach "(without looking up from the model he’s holding and painting)" is excessively long. This is stage directions for the actor and meant to be read in the flow of things. Trim it to a line or two - "(without looking up)" is fine - or even better since neither actor is meant to look up, just put it in the scene description.
e: Oh, your parantheticals are a bit wide.
Legba on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
Good thoughts. I actually meant to cut to chris as he says "wanna hear a joke" and then to zach as he says sure, and then back out to a two (Busy, I know, but this side really only exists for me to practice scripting)
I'm no genius at scriptwriting, but I would recommend looking at Final Draft for all your scriptwriting needs.
It's on the "too purchase" list but I wanted to dick around now. I'll probably buy final draft and premiere when I buy a new computer.
what would be the proper way to note my intended camera directions?
You had the right idea. I've just been told that I add too many camera directions, and I don't think I've ever added more than one per action, so when I saw four I was like "oh no!"
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
My notion was that I would shoot it from the table top, kind of an obnoxious almost up the nose shot to make the fast cutting kind of funny. If it's filmed, I'll film it so I'll know what I mean, but I want to learn the "right" way to write the script as well.
I notice, for sure, that some scripts - and some drafts of some scripts - have WAY more technical direction/shots in them than others. For example, if you read a Robert Rodriguez script, it's literally also a shot list - he's a lot of specifics in the script. But another script, like I read the script for Bridesmaids the other day - and you could clearly tell that had been written neutrally, so the director could pick his own shots. Is this more a function of an early draft vs a production draft, spec vs writing for yourself, or just a question of style?
If I were writing for myself, I would add a ton of shot directions, because then I could frame it exactly like I have in my mind. For something like Bridesmaids, which most likely didn't have a director attached when the script was written, you want to lay off adding directions because it puts directors off, and they'll want to go through the script with a cinematographer, framing their own shots.
It also depends on where in the story you are. I mean, a dramatic moment might be more tightly scripted. If you check out the scripts for Deadwood, there are large sections with no camera directions at all, and then you get this section:
CUT TO:
EXT. OUTSIDE TOWN - DAY
An improvised burial area twenty feet or so off the wagon
path into Deadwood. Just beside the piled earth covering the
new grave of his brother Ned, a plain coffin with Tom Mason's
body inside is lowered into the ground with ropes by the
newspaperman Merrick and Seth Bullock. The Reverend Smith
reads from the Bible --
SMITH
"The earth is the Lord's and the
fullness thereof, the world and they
that dwell therein."
TIGHT ON BULLOCK
standing back, studying the minister --
SMITH
"For he hath founded it upon the
seas and established it upon the
floods."
Bullock's gaze rises to where Calamity Jane and Charlie Utter,
both on horseback, pass on the wagon path. Jane carries the
Metz child --
SMITH
"Who shall ascend into the hill of
the Lord, or who shall stand in His
Holy place? He that hath clean hands
and a pure heart, who hath not lifted
up his soul unto vanity nor sworn
deceitfully."
Bullock's gaze has risen beyond Jane and Utter and the child
toward the camp which is their destination, and where can be
made out the last of a series of wagons, garishly painted --
SMITH (V.O.)
"He shall receive the blessing from
the Lord and justice from the God of
his salvation."
NEW ANGLE - POV FROM SWEARENGEN'S OFFICE WINDOW
The long row of garishly painted wagons of which the wagon
Bullock saw was last. These wagons bear the dealers and
gambling equipment and other personnel of an organization
new to the settlement, and, the restlessness of the camera's
survey seems to suggest, destined to unsettle its existence.
Whores on horseback also in the organization's employ shake
their tits at gawking onlookers by way of greeting as, from
the lobby of the Simpson Hotel, the hotel's occupant's,
summarily evicted, disgorge onto the street in various states
of disarray. Atop the building a crudely lettered "Simpson
Hotel" sign is being replaced by one rendered more
professionally and rebaptizing the edifice "The Bella Union
Saloon" -- the whole process supervised by three figures
we'll come to know as Cy Toliver, Ed Sawyer, and Comstock
Joanie Stubbs. The Voiceover has continued --
SMITH (O.S.)
"Lift up your heads o ye gates and
be lifted up ye everlasting doors
and the King of Glory shall come
in."
TIGHT ON AL SWEARENGEN
Outraged, incredulous, his gaze moving as if in search of
some impression which does not portend disaster to E.B.
Farnum's Grand Central Hotel, fixing there on the figure,
observable in a second-story window, of Alma Garret, whose
eyes for this brief instant meet Swearengen's --
SMITH (O.S.)
We conclude with verses from Proverbs
Sixteen...
Behind Alma her husband Brom can be seen rehearsing; he
pantomimes, first, exaggeratedly delighted surprise at some
fortuitous meeting, then some serious discussion with the
party come-upon, and, finally, a meeting of the minds which
is punctuated by a mimed handshake; Alma seems embarrassed
to be under Swearengen's scrutiny, disappears from the window --
RESUME - SWEARENGEN
-- after a last cursory look at the street, during which he
may or may not note Sol Star's emergence from his tent in
deal-making attire, also turning away --
RESUME - BURIAL SITE
Smith, plainly unsettled, has found his new place in the
scriptures --
SMITH
"Everyone proud in heart is an
abomination to the Lord; though hand
join in hand he shall not be
unpunished. By mercy and truth is
iniquity purged, and by the fear of
the Lord do men depart from evil. A
man's ways please the Lord when he
maketh even his enemies to be at
peace with him."
Smith closes his Bible, meets Bullock's eye, then takes up a
shovel and begins to cover the grave with dirt. Careful
against impiety, Merrick moves a step closer to Bullock,
addresses him quietly --
MERRICK
Might we edify my readers Mr. Bullock?
BULLOCK
I don't know what "edify" means.
MERRICK
Can we talk about last night's
gunfight?
BULLOCK
No.
Under which Bullock has moved forward, away from Merrick; he
takes the shovel from Smith, continuing the work of burial --
CUT TO:
The important bit here is that the POV changes noted aren't just for dramatic effect. They tell a lot of the story.
I think, as a rule of thumb, that unless you're the writer-director, you're better off only including shot directions if it moves the story forward. Otherwise you might be couching a bad story in visual flair, making yourself believe something works because of the way you've framed it in your head. Plus, the director will ignore whatever you put down anyway, so you might as well save yourself the heart ache.
Legba on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
camera stuff isn't written in until you have a shooting script unless it is absolutely vital. it's the same reason you don't put parantheticals for every line delivery. actors act and directors direct. writers write. don't go insulting their ability to interperet things.
the chances of the original screenwriter writing the shooting script and not say the director or dp are slim (unless they are the same person)
camera stuff isn't written in until you have a shooting script unless it is absolutely vital. it's the same reason you don't put parantheticals for every line delivery. actors act and directors direct. writers write. don't go insulting their ability to interperet things.
the chances of the original screenwriter writing the shooting script and not say the director or dp are slim (unless they are the same person)
I was showing around a 15 page script with one camera direction in it and I got frowns.
And looking back at my first few scripts, most of them had parantheticals for every third line or thereabouts. It was kind of terrible.
camera stuff isn't written in until you have a shooting script unless it is absolutely vital. it's the same reason you don't put parantheticals for every line delivery. actors act and directors direct. writers write. don't go insulting their ability to interperet things.
the chances of the original screenwriter writing the shooting script and not say the director or dp are slim (unless they are the same person)
I'm interested in both sides of this coin, because I will most likely end up directing the project I'm working on most directly and earnestly, but I'd also love to work as a freelance writer.
I'm not a "real" film student or anything. I'm just a guy that has a great idea for a movie and wants to see it made. But I have some money to play with and I think I can get it done.
re parenthetical notes: My educational materials say they're just for vital things that involve only the speaker and his immediate person - so anything that happens outside of that very narrow scope - say a phone ringing - should be in a block of normal text?
A thing about shot directions in something you're not directing yourself is that generally, if there's a real reason for something to be a shot a particular way, there's probably a way to write it that doesn't provide a shot direction that the director or DP ain't gonna be happy about having to read
If you feel like a closeup is absolutely necessary somewhere, for example, you're probably either drawing attention to something or obscuring something offscreen. Describe that detail, or hold of on describing the concealed element until further down the page. The director will in all likelihood read it and be all "that shit's a closeup" because, well, that's the visual way of conveying the information in the text. In my (admittedly sort of limited??) experience POV shots are really the only shot direction that's acceptable to use in screenwriting more often than it's unacceptable.
Yeah, when I was in school they always said that your writing should imply the camera angle, but you should never directly state it. So if you wanted a wide shot you'd start describing a character's surroundings in detail (in regards to him to imply he's still in the shot), if you wanted a close up you start describing the minute details of someone's face etc.
i'm a little worried that posting this might be a massive mistake, but this is a thing I shot last year and rejiggered in post this past winter to use as my portfolio video for a few school applications. it's sort of a goofy action-comedy that's heavy on sorta simple VFX http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOXCjV_ZAKg
0
Options
David_TA fashion yes-man is no good to me.Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered Userregular
Oh, Deadwood scripts. They be crazy. I think it might have been someone in this thread who recommended the Nerdist Writers Panel and man, hearing stories about how David Milch would write scenes completely out of order because a certain set was available sounds insane. Just doing that, never mind that he did it by lying on the floor, dictating the whole thing to a writers assistant and seeing it on a monitor bolted to the ceiling. While a crowd of people were standing around, just watching him work.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
i'm a little worried that posting this might be a massive mistake, but this is a thing I shot last year and rejiggered in post this past winter to use as my portfolio video for a few school applications. it's sort of a goofy action-comedy that's heavy on sorta simple VFX http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOXCjV_ZAKg
I thought this was pretty cool. There's some small things - shaky handholding, your submachine gun is making the wrong sound, but it's basically really good for what it is (a tech demo)
The basic flow of the action is pretty decent and comprehensible as well
(i'm not trying to be "that guy" with this post i swear im not defending my shit from totally valid criticism i'm just elaborating on stuff)
the tripod was, as dumb as this sounds, an intentional thing that we'd actually discussed on set. when we were starting out making internet videos several years ago, we had a bad habit of having one shot in every video where a tripod was accidentally visible, and since then we've made it a running joke to sneak one into a shot of everything we do with a few exceptions (if we're doing something intended to show to a wider audience, or something where it would entirely throw off the tone). if i had known i'd end up using this as a portfolio piece we wouldn't have done it, but i was a total idiot and at the time i figured we were just dicking around and there was just absolutely no way that shot could ever bite me in the ass several months down the line, no sir.
(one of the many legends of anactualbear being a complete fucking moron)
the ridiculous SMG noise was intended as sort of a modernized version of the crazy 80s-style gun foley in movies like the Terminator, Aliens, and Hard Boiled, but i guess it didn't turn out as well as i'd hoped
AnActualBear on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
Well, it's a valid gun noise, just not for that gun. 99% of people wouldn't notice, but I'm odd.
Another consideration with the camera-angles-in-a-script thing is, it seriously kills the flow of the read. Even if the reader is only glancing at it, recognizing, "Oh, that doesn't apply to me," and moving on, that half-second of thought is a speedbump in their immersion. Screenplay formatting is hard enough for a reader to sink into; there's no point making it even trickier.
Also, YaYa, your article made me think of this (criminally underrated and, sadly, un-followed-through-on) webshow pilot:
I really dig its tone, and its vacillations between comedy and creepiness. Reminds me of the parts of David Lynch I like.
So I'm watching Unbreakable for the first time in ages.
First of all, it's a great movie. Second of all, how the hell did I not see the twist coming the first time around?
Third of all, I'm reading the script while watching the movie because I enjoy that kind of thing, and there's a scene that's really interesting to me. Kind of incidental to the main plot, but Bruce Willis and his wife are out on their first date after deciding to try it out again.
What's interesting is the difference in the way it's written (search for the words INT. RESTAURANT BAR - NIGHT ) compared to the scene on film. The clip isn't on YouTube, but if you have the film it starts at the 1:07:00 mark.
In the script, it's written like a close-up, two-camera setup. Loads of details about facial expressions, how they handle their drinks, etc.
In the movie, all of that is thrown out, and the scene is much better for it. I don't know if it's because the art director found/made this lovely painting in the background and the cinematographer lit the scene so lovely, but while the dialogue is the same (excepting inflections and minor changes), the framing of the scene is completely different, and every movement the actors are told to make in the script is completely ignored.
This to me is really relevant when we're talking about the way you frame a scene in a script, and the acting cues you put in. In this case, the dialogue, which pushes the plot forward was kept as-is, but the framing was completely tossed out, and I think that's a valuable lesson. Especially when you consider that it was written and directed by the same guy.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
I actually think it's the best M night movie.
I have been watching the classifieds. What I see the most call for where I live (salt lake/park city area) is boom mic ops with their own equipment, followed by steadicam people. I would love to work at this -particularly in the winter. I've got a stedicam merlin, but I'm still kind of teaching myself to run it, and I'm assuming they want at least the vest/arm setup for most of that work.
I am very tall, and pretty good at holding stuff - and I know I'm going to want some boom mic type hardware when I shoot my movie. So in the mean time, would getting a boom setup and renting myself out be feasible/worth it? And if so, what boom mic hardware have people here used? Any recommends/avoids? I think I may have asked this before, in the infancy of this thread but a) I moved somewhere where there are actual films being shot and can now do it and b) I'm assuming technology has marched on in 18-24 months?
I'm also cooking on a professional services website, where if nothing else, I hope I'll be able to rent some idle gear while I'm making the money to make the movie.
Another tangent question - if I form a company for my own photography work, and a company for my film, can I a) sell gear I've bought on my own to my personal corporation (so I can deduct and depreciate it) and b) can I (or my personal corporation) rent the gear to my film's production company? I want to make sure everything on the business end is done right, to avoid tax issues or personal spats later, and to get every privilege that could possible help me afford this film.
Do any of you rent your gear without yourselves? If so, what kind of rates do you charge and what kinds of deposits do you take and what kind of precautions do you take with people?
Posts
I host a podcast about movies.
You could export the relevant page as a PDF and link to it.
look i followed directions.
Just a quick sketch I "wrote" (actually this actually happened with me as the "camera")
Does it look like I am celtxing correctly?
I host a podcast about movies.
Also the direction for Zach "(without looking up from the model he’s holding and painting)" is excessively long. This is stage directions for the actor and meant to be read in the flow of things. Trim it to a line or two - "(without looking up)" is fine - or even better since neither actor is meant to look up, just put it in the scene description.
e: Oh, your parantheticals are a bit wide.
I host a podcast about movies.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0ZGmgmQw3rbU19Yd3JFY2RhaVE
e: Forgot to add time of day, which is useful.
I'm no genius at scriptwriting, but I would recommend looking at Final Draft for all your scriptwriting needs.
It's on the "too purchase" list but I wanted to dick around now. I'll probably buy final draft and premiere when I buy a new computer.
what would be the proper way to note my intended camera directions?
I host a podcast about movies.
You had the right idea. I've just been told that I add too many camera directions, and I don't think I've ever added more than one per action, so when I saw four I was like "oh no!"
I notice, for sure, that some scripts - and some drafts of some scripts - have WAY more technical direction/shots in them than others. For example, if you read a Robert Rodriguez script, it's literally also a shot list - he's a lot of specifics in the script. But another script, like I read the script for Bridesmaids the other day - and you could clearly tell that had been written neutrally, so the director could pick his own shots. Is this more a function of an early draft vs a production draft, spec vs writing for yourself, or just a question of style?
I host a podcast about movies.
It also depends on where in the story you are. I mean, a dramatic moment might be more tightly scripted. If you check out the scripts for Deadwood, there are large sections with no camera directions at all, and then you get this section:
CUT TO: EXT. OUTSIDE TOWN - DAY An improvised burial area twenty feet or so off the wagon path into Deadwood. Just beside the piled earth covering the new grave of his brother Ned, a plain coffin with Tom Mason's body inside is lowered into the ground with ropes by the newspaperman Merrick and Seth Bullock. The Reverend Smith reads from the Bible -- SMITH "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein." TIGHT ON BULLOCK standing back, studying the minister -- SMITH "For he hath founded it upon the seas and established it upon the floods." Bullock's gaze rises to where Calamity Jane and Charlie Utter, both on horseback, pass on the wagon path. Jane carries the Metz child -- SMITH "Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord, or who shall stand in His Holy place? He that hath clean hands and a pure heart, who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity nor sworn deceitfully." Bullock's gaze has risen beyond Jane and Utter and the child toward the camp which is their destination, and where can be made out the last of a series of wagons, garishly painted -- SMITH (V.O.) "He shall receive the blessing from the Lord and justice from the God of his salvation." NEW ANGLE - POV FROM SWEARENGEN'S OFFICE WINDOW The long row of garishly painted wagons of which the wagon Bullock saw was last. These wagons bear the dealers and gambling equipment and other personnel of an organization new to the settlement, and, the restlessness of the camera's survey seems to suggest, destined to unsettle its existence. Whores on horseback also in the organization's employ shake their tits at gawking onlookers by way of greeting as, from the lobby of the Simpson Hotel, the hotel's occupant's, summarily evicted, disgorge onto the street in various states of disarray. Atop the building a crudely lettered "Simpson Hotel" sign is being replaced by one rendered more professionally and rebaptizing the edifice "The Bella Union Saloon" -- the whole process supervised by three figures we'll come to know as Cy Toliver, Ed Sawyer, and Comstock Joanie Stubbs. The Voiceover has continued -- SMITH (O.S.) "Lift up your heads o ye gates and be lifted up ye everlasting doors and the King of Glory shall come in." TIGHT ON AL SWEARENGEN Outraged, incredulous, his gaze moving as if in search of some impression which does not portend disaster to E.B. Farnum's Grand Central Hotel, fixing there on the figure, observable in a second-story window, of Alma Garret, whose eyes for this brief instant meet Swearengen's -- SMITH (O.S.) We conclude with verses from Proverbs Sixteen... Behind Alma her husband Brom can be seen rehearsing; he pantomimes, first, exaggeratedly delighted surprise at some fortuitous meeting, then some serious discussion with the party come-upon, and, finally, a meeting of the minds which is punctuated by a mimed handshake; Alma seems embarrassed to be under Swearengen's scrutiny, disappears from the window -- RESUME - SWEARENGEN -- after a last cursory look at the street, during which he may or may not note Sol Star's emergence from his tent in deal-making attire, also turning away -- RESUME - BURIAL SITE Smith, plainly unsettled, has found his new place in the scriptures -- SMITH "Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord; though hand join in hand he shall not be unpunished. By mercy and truth is iniquity purged, and by the fear of the Lord do men depart from evil. A man's ways please the Lord when he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." Smith closes his Bible, meets Bullock's eye, then takes up a shovel and begins to cover the grave with dirt. Careful against impiety, Merrick moves a step closer to Bullock, addresses him quietly -- MERRICK Might we edify my readers Mr. Bullock? BULLOCK I don't know what "edify" means. MERRICK Can we talk about last night's gunfight? BULLOCK No. Under which Bullock has moved forward, away from Merrick; he takes the shovel from Smith, continuing the work of burial -- CUT TO:The important bit here is that the POV changes noted aren't just for dramatic effect. They tell a lot of the story.
I think, as a rule of thumb, that unless you're the writer-director, you're better off only including shot directions if it moves the story forward. Otherwise you might be couching a bad story in visual flair, making yourself believe something works because of the way you've framed it in your head. Plus, the director will ignore whatever you put down anyway, so you might as well save yourself the heart ache.
I host a podcast about movies.
the chances of the original screenwriter writing the shooting script and not say the director or dp are slim (unless they are the same person)
I was showing around a 15 page script with one camera direction in it and I got frowns.
And looking back at my first few scripts, most of them had parantheticals for every third line or thereabouts. It was kind of terrible.
It's been a pretty good rule of thumb ever since.
I'm interested in both sides of this coin, because I will most likely end up directing the project I'm working on most directly and earnestly, but I'd also love to work as a freelance writer.
I'm not a "real" film student or anything. I'm just a guy that has a great idea for a movie and wants to see it made. But I have some money to play with and I think I can get it done.
re parenthetical notes: My educational materials say they're just for vital things that involve only the speaker and his immediate person - so anything that happens outside of that very narrow scope - say a phone ringing - should be in a block of normal text?
I host a podcast about movies.
You just don't understand my style, maaaaaan!
But I mean, that includes (to George) and other such mundanities. I'm not peppering my scripts with (angry!) or (furious!!!!!1) or anything.
your head will blow up
If you feel like a closeup is absolutely necessary somewhere, for example, you're probably either drawing attention to something or obscuring something offscreen. Describe that detail, or hold of on describing the concealed element until further down the page. The director will in all likelihood read it and be all "that shit's a closeup" because, well, that's the visual way of conveying the information in the text. In my (admittedly sort of limited??) experience POV shots are really the only shot direction that's acceptable to use in screenwriting more often than it's unacceptable.
ZOMG NINJA TRIPOD @2:06
I thought this was pretty cool. There's some small things - shaky handholding, your submachine gun is making the wrong sound, but it's basically really good for what it is (a tech demo)
The basic flow of the action is pretty decent and comprehensible as well
I host a podcast about movies.
the tripod was, as dumb as this sounds, an intentional thing that we'd actually discussed on set. when we were starting out making internet videos several years ago, we had a bad habit of having one shot in every video where a tripod was accidentally visible, and since then we've made it a running joke to sneak one into a shot of everything we do with a few exceptions (if we're doing something intended to show to a wider audience, or something where it would entirely throw off the tone). if i had known i'd end up using this as a portfolio piece we wouldn't have done it, but i was a total idiot and at the time i figured we were just dicking around and there was just absolutely no way that shot could ever bite me in the ass several months down the line, no sir.
(one of the many legends of anactualbear being a complete fucking moron)
the ridiculous SMG noise was intended as sort of a modernized version of the crazy 80s-style gun foley in movies like the Terminator, Aliens, and Hard Boiled, but i guess it didn't turn out as well as i'd hoped
I host a podcast about movies.
http://www.milkbarmag.com/2012/05/31/the-kingdom-of-doug/
I guess it's okay?
Also, YaYa, your article made me think of this (criminally underrated and, sadly, un-followed-through-on) webshow pilot:
I really dig its tone, and its vacillations between comedy and creepiness. Reminds me of the parts of David Lynch I like.
Also also, I guess I'm posting some again?
PM me when you get a chance and let me know what's happening with you lately!
Also, what the fuck happened to the Comic Edit thread? I coulda sworn there used to be funny shit in there.
it got bitchy, someone took a ban, Sabre doesn't edit much anymore and you left
and can I PM YOU with updates?
And I GUESS. Oh, I just realized I also have a thing you might like reading. So I guess I'll talk about that, too.
SPOILER ALERT: It's Grover Cleveland slashfic.
First of all, it's a great movie. Second of all, how the hell did I not see the twist coming the first time around?
Third of all, I'm reading the script while watching the movie because I enjoy that kind of thing, and there's a scene that's really interesting to me. Kind of incidental to the main plot, but Bruce Willis and his wife are out on their first date after deciding to try it out again.
What's interesting is the difference in the way it's written (search for the words INT. RESTAURANT BAR - NIGHT ) compared to the scene on film. The clip isn't on YouTube, but if you have the film it starts at the 1:07:00 mark.
In the script, it's written like a close-up, two-camera setup. Loads of details about facial expressions, how they handle their drinks, etc.
In the movie, all of that is thrown out, and the scene is much better for it. I don't know if it's because the art director found/made this lovely painting in the background and the cinematographer lit the scene so lovely, but while the dialogue is the same (excepting inflections and minor changes), the framing of the scene is completely different, and every movement the actors are told to make in the script is completely ignored.
This to me is really relevant when we're talking about the way you frame a scene in a script, and the acting cues you put in. In this case, the dialogue, which pushes the plot forward was kept as-is, but the framing was completely tossed out, and I think that's a valuable lesson. Especially when you consider that it was written and directed by the same guy.
I have been watching the classifieds. What I see the most call for where I live (salt lake/park city area) is boom mic ops with their own equipment, followed by steadicam people. I would love to work at this -particularly in the winter. I've got a stedicam merlin, but I'm still kind of teaching myself to run it, and I'm assuming they want at least the vest/arm setup for most of that work.
I am very tall, and pretty good at holding stuff - and I know I'm going to want some boom mic type hardware when I shoot my movie. So in the mean time, would getting a boom setup and renting myself out be feasible/worth it? And if so, what boom mic hardware have people here used? Any recommends/avoids? I think I may have asked this before, in the infancy of this thread but a) I moved somewhere where there are actual films being shot and can now do it and b) I'm assuming technology has marched on in 18-24 months?
I'm also cooking on a professional services website, where if nothing else, I hope I'll be able to rent some idle gear while I'm making the money to make the movie.
Another tangent question - if I form a company for my own photography work, and a company for my film, can I a) sell gear I've bought on my own to my personal corporation (so I can deduct and depreciate it) and b) can I (or my personal corporation) rent the gear to my film's production company? I want to make sure everything on the business end is done right, to avoid tax issues or personal spats later, and to get every privilege that could possible help me afford this film.
Do any of you rent your gear without yourselves? If so, what kind of rates do you charge and what kinds of deposits do you take and what kind of precautions do you take with people?
I host a podcast about movies.