I just think it's an impossible ask for the government to keep financing the kind of production framework that exists in the United State
True, and that equally applies to the feature film industry.
Look, Craig, the point I was trying to make in a typically long-winded and roundabout fashion is that we will never be able to have a film industry that fulfils all of the requirements. Taxpayers seem more interested in funding health and education than the Scorsese fantasies of every wannabe with a script.
Movies will always be hit and miss and when only a handful can be funded every year - we can go for 5 years with all misses and no hits. A filmmaker might get one made and then spend the next 15 years trying to get another off the ground, never getting to improve and grow as a filmmaker, and no-one goes to see them when they do get made.
All I'm saying is that investment in more TV - more specifically, artistically bold, risky drama that rarely - if ever - gets funded now, could be added to the mix. Talent can be nurtured over time by experienced writers and directors and it's not a one-off 30-day shoot. TV series, unless they are complete failures, have the chance to improve over time. TV is also less encumbered by a film audience's expectations of big screen (ie. big budget) spectacle. And more NZers will see even a low rating NZ series than most NZ features.
Yes, it's "not exactly flicking a couple of grand to some novice so they can learn the ropes." That's my point. Only through his vision did it come off in this case, but this is S.O.P.; $2m to "learn the ropes".
Glad we agree. Or not. I think. :-)
So, what you want is the kind of shows written, directed and produced by people who cut their teeth (and learned their craft) on industrial strength shit churned out by massive, product-hungry industries we seldom see here?
Or put another way: Roger Corman gave a pretty impressive roll call of talent (from Martin Scorsese to James Cameron) their first credits. Don't know if that's much of an argument for the NZFC funding a string of Z-grade exploitation flicks
I hadn't though of that, but now that you mention it...
Argue all you like about the creative merits of Bad Taste, but it was most certainly z-grade exploitation - albeit with less nudity than the average Corman biker flick. And I hear the bloke who made that went on to do ok.
As far as I'm concerned it should be compulsory for Warren Oates to be cast in every New Zealand film. He might not show up due to a scheduling conflict with his death, but that dude was awesome.
It exists! (but it sucked).
On The Lot:
There are no new ideas on this earth. Sigh.
Taika Waititi, for instance, - a really smart fellow - has spoken of how he had to put BOY on the back burner while he learned how to make features on the simpler - and easier to get right - Eagle vs Shark .
I do understand your point, but your example illustrates mine - according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_vs_Shark/ the NZFC coughed up $1.8 million to make that - not exactly flicking a couple of grand to some novice so they can learn the ropes.
Filmmaking is an expensive business.
If it's all about identifying talent, let's kill two birds and do a Project Runway/The Apprentice-style TV show. Aspiring film makers can get ritually humiliated by Ian Mune for 12 weeks and the winner directs the straight-to-DVD sequel to Whalerider, where Paikea and her pet Minke wreak bloody revenge on a Japanese scientific research ship in the Southern Ocean.
They should still be funding only the promising projects.
That's the point I'm trying to make - obviously not very well. Promising projects require millions, I would have thought. Otherwise too many compromises would be required. A great script for a relationship drama requires the right actors, for example, and that's a problem if you have to cast based purely on who's willing to work for free.
Ha, more like Legally Blonde