4 ms·

What's "amateur" about that? It seems that the word appears only in the title. Edit: he had a $25k budget at least (over $150k adjusted for inflation) and whil

by kgwgk 8y ago

What's "amateur" about that? It seems that the word appears only in the title. Edit: he had a $25k budget at least (over $150k adjusted for inflation) and while it was his first movie he hired professional performers and the intention was the commercial exhibition of the film in movie theaters (as it did happen).

Nevermark 8y ago
He was clearly an amateur since he had never made any kind of movie. But his intent was to make a professional/commercial film. They are not necessarily disjoint concepts. To top that off, at the end of the interview he gives himself a humorous critique suggesting he found his own work failed to make the professional grade.
- kgwgk 8y ago
  I wouldn't classify as "amateur" a commercial movie where the lead roles are played by professional actors, but that may be just me. The downvotes I got agree with you. (Being a bad movie may make it look "amateurish", but that's something different.)
  - reallydude 8y ago
    > a commercial movie where the lead roles are played by professional actors, I'm not sure you've gotten anywhere, describing what professional means, when you make it dependent on other entities as an explanation. There are plenty of bad SAG actors. What about just saying "union production"? Although I think that's the minimal bar, there have been non-union successes...which don't look professional to me. eg https://www.reddit.com/r/acting/comments/a59tum/what_are_the_most_successful_nonunion_films_if_any/ https://www.reddit.com/r/acting/comments/a59tum/what_are_the...
    - kgwgk 8y ago
      Are you suggesting that films can be classified as either “union” or “amateur”? Star Wars is an amateur film then. And saying “amateur porno” is redundant.
      - reallydude 8y ago
        > Star Wars is an amateur film then Based on what? There are many unions and they have changed and stabilized over time. SAG-AFTRA https://www.sagaftra.org/about/our-history https://www.sagaftra.org/about/our-history is the one that is distinguishing. The Director's Guild (which George Lucas and others, had spats with) or a writer's guild, etc have traditionally been little more than elitist extortion committees.
        kgwgk 8y ago
        Based on the SAG boycott on non-DGA directors.
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      The adjective "professional" can mean "performed up to the standards of a profession" or "performed for money". I think it's pretty obvious that you're responding to someone using the latter definition, and I very much doubt you are unaware of its existence. Perhaps you could make your point more explicit?
dmix 8y ago
That's pretty typical start in the film industry in that era which would very much be amateur. Not everyone had cheap digital cameras, not to mention cheap video editing on computers to start out back then. Only in the early 1990s did random non-actors in the director's first "indie" films start becoming more normal.

by kgwgk 8y ago

Nevermark 8y ago

He was clearly an amateur since he had never made any kind of movie. But his intent was to make a professional/commercial film. They are not necessarily disjoint concepts. To top that off, at the end of the interview he gives himself a humorous critique suggesting he found his own work failed to make the professional grade.

kgwgk 8y ago
I wouldn't classify as "amateur" a commercial movie where the lead roles are played by professional actors, but that may be just me. The downvotes I got agree with you. (Being a bad movie may make it look "amateurish", but that's something different.)
- reallydude 8y ago
  > a commercial movie where the lead roles are played by professional actors, I'm not sure you've gotten anywhere, describing what professional means, when you make it dependent on other entities as an explanation. There are plenty of bad SAG actors. What about just saying "union production"? Although I think that's the minimal bar, there have been non-union successes...which don't look professional to me. eg https://www.reddit.com/r/acting/comments/a59tum/what_are_the_most_successful_nonunion_films_if_any/ https://www.reddit.com/r/acting/comments/a59tum/what_are_the...
  - kgwgk 8y ago
    Are you suggesting that films can be classified as either “union” or “amateur”? Star Wars is an amateur film then. And saying “amateur porno” is redundant.
    - reallydude 8y ago
      > Star Wars is an amateur film then Based on what? There are many unions and they have changed and stabilized over time. SAG-AFTRA https://www.sagaftra.org/about/our-history https://www.sagaftra.org/about/our-history is the one that is distinguishing. The Director's Guild (which George Lucas and others, had spats with) or a writer's guild, etc have traditionally been little more than elitist extortion committees.
      - kgwgk 8y ago
        Based on the SAG boycott on non-DGA directors.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    The adjective "professional" can mean "performed up to the standards of a profession" or "performed for money". I think it's pretty obvious that you're responding to someone using the latter definition, and I very much doubt you are unaware of its existence. Perhaps you could make your point more explicit?

dmix 8y ago

That's pretty typical start in the film industry in that era which would very much be amateur. Not everyone had cheap digital cameras, not to mention cheap video editing on computers to start out back then. Only in the early 1990s did random non-actors in the director's first "indie" films start becoming more normal.