How much does it pay?

i post this info here - filmschoolthrucommentaries.wordpress.com/2015/02/28/steven-soderbergh-on-filmmaking-part-vi/

Film school would be a good ground for making connections, sure. Any place where there are like-minded individuals is better than trying to find those connections. I think in that regard film school is a perfect place. You can always go for a semester and 'feel it out' in terms of the education you're getting or the people you're meeting. Then bounce. You don't have to always stay if it's not for you.

***** thanks yeah i decided i am going to film school to get the feels, picking up lingo used in the film industry would be great. especially when i need to communicate ideas to others honestly i was worried that i would be taught a "formal" way to make films in film school and it would like kill my creativity. but now i feel like it would be really cool to bounce off ideas with other people who aspire to the same. :)

EeveeFall I feel you so much on this. I really feel like I can do what I love without having to go to school for it, because it's been my passion since I was a child. I had applied for two colleges at different points in the year, and even though I was accepted in both of them I refused to go because I had felt like I truly didn't need film school; and I've felt that way for the longest time, way before graduating High School.

If film school isn't for you, maybe consider starting your own film club. All you need is advertise on film forums (similar to shootingpeople.org) for likeminded people, meet up informally in a public place like a restaurant or a park (if the weather holds up). That way you don't invite potentially dodgy strangers into your home and maybe make new friends/colleagues. There must be loads of people who'd love to do all aspects of film making...?

Cinematography is about a lot more then just the camera. Lighting is a large part of it, and in film school they have a bunch of lights you can practice with, along with a bunch of high quality gear to use in your projects that would cost you hundreds of dollars per day to rent. That is a big part of the value of film school, particularly if you are interested in cinematography.

I know right? maybe your smart self can write a new software that removes it.

I would but all my self confidence just went right out the window for some reason.

***** that is the most fucking funny reply

***** lololololol

Obviously, Linklater has heard of those filmmakers. Before becoming a writer and director, he was a cinephile who founded The Austin Film Society, and watched 700 films a year. There are very few "prodigy" directors in the history of cinema (Chaplin, DeMille and Billy Wilder aren't in that group). One of those few prodigies was Orson Welles, who made Citizen Kane when he was 24 years old. And Linklater knows it very well. He actually made a very good movie about him (Me and Orson Welles).

If nothing else, film school is an opportunity to focus on developing your perspective. Some people don't need the structure of a school to do that, but some do.

They are simply wrong. Prodigies and geniuses maybe Bresson, Tarkovsky and Bergman.

Kino Cineasta Agreed.

***** The Hughes Brothers were 20 when they made Menace II Society - the youngest to date in terms of mainstream filmmaking, for a major studio. Also a financial success in terms of box office which gave them a career. I'd call that pretty damn "prodigy" when it concerns filmmaking. Obviously the first great prodigy was Welles though.

So I'm curious what you mean by a stretch... what is your definition of a prodigy filmmaker then? Because if we're going by age, pretty much anyone in their early to mid 20's is considered a prodigy filmmaker as the median age of a first filmmaker is about 35. Filmmaking is not an easy medium to grasp and do WELL. Therefore if you are 20 and you've made a pretty decent film, nevermind the fact it's also for a studio AND successful... that pretty much fills the criteria of a "prodigy filmmaker" in my book.

***** Yes I'm quite aware of Linklater's comment. I was responding to your posts and your comments on a "stretch". I'm sure you were going off the standard definition of a prodigy coupled with Linklater's comment... but we have to make a distinction here. Chess or music prodigies vs craft based occupations - which filmmaking clearly falls into. Therefore, chances of a 5, or 10 year old filmmaker are slim to none as the set of criteria to meet in filmmaking are vastly more difficult than that of a chess player or an instrumentalist musician. Which, while still difficult and complex are way easier to accomplish or grasp than filmmaking. Which is by its very nature, collaboration, technology, philosophy, literature dependant. Which require vast amounts of time and practice to grasp. So in that regard if Linklater is responding to the classic definition of a "prodigy" he is correct. But if you look at it from a slightly different perspective - where you take into account all the distinctions I've mentioned... then someone who's 20 for instance and makes their first film, a good, successful film as well - is definitely a prodigy filmmaker, WITHIN the context of that world. But NOT a prodigy in the classical sense, because it's virtually unrealistic and impossible.