May 10, 2004: Movies
I imagine making a film is a lot harder than taking a pictures, but I'm guessing that some of the same skills are involved. Some of my favorite directors, like Wim Wenders, are also wonderful still photographers- and there are still photographers like Crewdson who use many filmic effects. For now, I'll stick to the still cameras- but one day, I hope to create my pangyric ode to Park Slope in the early 1980s. Who is down to fund it?
Comments
Can I give you a principal-protected investment with 25% upside revenue participation of a dollar?
i will take that dollar, nick!
Uh, that's like WACC
I'm guessing here, but this must be a common sight in NYC with all the TV shows and movies filmed there.
And yes I would agree that making a film (on film, not digital) would be a lot more involved then taking still shots. One bad exposure would lead to the entire reel or possibly the entire scene being scraped instead of just a few still photo frames.
I'll offer help with edit and post :) funding wise, I'll working on that for my own film... Maybe we can pitch it as a two for one deal? heh.
Leave a comment