Additional photography
In Hollywood parlance, “additional photography” is the polite term for what used to be called reshoots. It’s a rare case where the new word is better. Most of the time, you’re not reshooting anything. You’re getting new things you didn’t know you needed the first time around.
Woody Allen is famous for requiring additional days in his schedule (and budget) to allow for a different performance, a new scene, a funnier joke. Given how expensive a day of shooting is, that seems like a luxury, but as screenwriters it really shouldn’t. We’re accustomed to going through multiple drafts, trying things that might be Really Bad Ideas.
The chance to fuck up and fix it can be the difference between a so-so and solid.
I can speak from first-hand experience. For Go, we went back and shot several new scenes, including the resolution of the Simon-Gaines-Claire-Vics plotline. On paper, the new version wasn’t any better — in fact, it made considerably less sense. But as shot, it just worked better, condensing several scenes down to one, and wrapping up the movie faster.
For the first Charlie’s Angels, our additional photography was much more limited, basically just new establishing shots. But having seen the test scores for both the Before and After versions, I can testify to how much difference a few seconds of film can make. In most cases, it’s not that you’re adding something great, but rather that you’re replacing something sucky.
Last week, I was back in the director’s chair for additional photography on The Movie. It was only two days of shooting, but we added two new scenes, and got needed bits for three other sequences.
After seven weeks of editing, the strange thing about going back into production is that, well, it’s production. It means re-opening the production office, and hiring a crew of 45. If you’re lucky, you can hire the same crew who worked on the film the first time around. More likely, however, those people will have moved on to other productions, so you end up hiring a largely new crew. In our case, almost half of the crew who worked on these two days had no idea what The Movie was even about. That’s the remarkable thing about the below-the-line trades in Hollywood: because of how specifically the jobs are defined, they’re largely plug-and-play. The gaffer and key grip may have never met, but together they can light your scene. They don’t need to know why the scene is happening, just where the Chimera is supposed to be.
The bulk of our art department came from Veronica Mars, which has been back in production for over a month. Since the original crew wasn’t available, I got to rock my inner design geek and handle the printed graphics myself, something I haven’t done since college.
The “accebit” poster hangs at a Metro bus stop on Wilshire Blvd. Yes, it means something, so you classics majors can get to work.
This was our first time shooting night exterior, which meant new decisions about how we wanted things to look. Personally, I’m a big fan of very black skies — think high school football movies — so we aimed for that. We also aimed at finishing before 3 a.m. We came close.
Next step? Test screening, picture lock, then sound-a-palooza.
Articles
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:40 pm
i’d love you to expound on this:
“On paper, the new version wasn’t any better — in fact, it made considerably less sense. But as shot, it just worked better, condensing several scenes down to one, and wrapping up the movie faster.”
it seems strange to think that something written would make considerably less sense and yet work out great on screen. that would seem to give fuel to those that feel you can play loose with a script because it will “work better when you see it.”
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:47 pm
I wasn’t a classics major, but I think I get the gist of the poster. Even without knowing the larger context, I love it.
Thanks for blogging your progress on The Movie. It’s a fascinating read, and I look forward to the end result.
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Hey John, just wanted to say thanks for your wonderful imdb columns and blog. As a neophyte screenwriter they’ve proved invaluable, and were instrumental in inspiring me to write my first script (which just made the top 16 of Project Greenlight Australia). Thanks, and best of luck with “The Movie”!
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:52 pm
As they say, filming is re-filming… or something like that.
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Good Luck!
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:51 am
Would like to say “been there, done that”, but with my film “Night Geometry” it is more like “will soon be there and hopefully be done with that”. Waiting for funds to complete the movie and its also mainly night exteriors, which often requires more lights and equipment and stuff. Nights are harder to do gerilla-style, if you want it to look acceptable. Sound post-production is also a major batch of work, very important, almost as important as the visuals (tried to watch “Swimming with sharks” yesterday on an old vhs-copy, with degenerated sound quality, it was impossible). Good Luck, and please give us some hints about the plot soon.
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:23 am
I once worked as a grip on an unnamed project and the first thing I did was ask for a script. This proved helpfull in some ways and unhelpfull in others. On a practical note I spotted a few anachronisms (the film was set in the years following Nam) and also managed to save half a day by pointing out some very obvious location issues…hip hip hurray for me. But….this was one of the worst scripts I have read in my life and I on top of the regular physical exhaustion when working on a movie I felt very, very uninspired. Moral was low and I´m sure I did´nt help with that…..the movie rates 5.5 on IMDB….and stars one of the leads from The American Pie series.
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:45 am
I hope and pray your movie is a bomb, so your Hollywood careers crashes and burns into a flaming, fiery, burning hell John August.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:47 am
Doesn’t that symbol have something to do with the Golden Ratio or somesuch?
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:27 am
Excellent clarification of reshoots as additional photography. Unfortunately there is still that stigma that more shooting means the movie sucks and the production is trying to save it…when most often its exactly how you describe - clarifying or smoothing out bumps…”once we put it all together, we found we needed a transition from this point to that point” or “we couldn’t really see the gun when it came out of the bag and viewer needs to know what it is” or “it made sense on the page that it was now night and so and so was in a bar, but it confused viewer without establishing shot” and so on.
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:51 am
As a producer, I cringe when I hear reshoots. As a director, I think to myself “shame on me”. There’s no good reason for reshoots - think about it. Someone hasn’t sorted out all the details beforehand.
I know, I know, it’s just par for the course these days, along with adr work for the wild lines you forgot to shoot, along with test screenings, to appease investors, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
It’s no wonder a decent movie can’t be made anymore for $10 Million.
Still, glad to see you’re learning.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Makes me think of Vertigo that poster.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:18 pm
All I know is that “accebit” is Latin for something, but I can’t find out what. I hope I didn’t just ruin the twist of the movie. Do you have any idea when this will be released? Have you already said that? Good luck on preproduction! I’m sure the movie’ll be great!
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:36 pm
I was a Classics major and I’m not entirely sure that is Latin. I’m sure it’s trying to be Latin but unless it’s a strange or irregular form of a verb, I believe it is a Latin word missing a letter or two. Like perhaps a ‘d’ and an ‘a’. ‘Accedabit’ would mean “he shall come”. For it to be a Latin word, as he spells it there, the root would most likely be ‘acceo’ which is not a word my Latin dictionary recognizes.
Either way, I can tell you the ‘bit’ ending the Third Person Future Indicative Active Tense of the verb which means “he/she shall” something. He shall ‘acceo’ whatever that may be.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Like Einar, all “accebit” reminds me of is the spiral motif used in Vertigo. Looking down a yellow coil to a point against a milk chocolaty background says nothing specific to me. Maybe we should just accebits mysterious nature (until more hints come along). Not a classics major, so not even the whiff of a scent at the moment. Hope you reveal the big secret in a future blog. Have you heard or know of any good reshoot stories where things went completely haywire because of needed actors who didn’t show up or who were tied up with other projects after a film supposedly finished principal shooting? I understand Francis Ford Coppola had to think quick on the set one day when Marlon Brando didn’t show up for a big dinner scene in Godfather II, I believe. Apparently Coppola’s on-set solution or revision sans Brando worked out better than the one he wrote using Brando as the main dude and he ended up using the makeshift scene. I don’t think Brando ever got into the film. I wondered if the Don of acting got a paycheck or not?
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:59 pm
deepstructure wrote:
In the specific case of Go, one of the scenes we replaced had been shot on the first day of production. Not only was cast and crew still getting their bearings, but the recordist lost all of the production sound. (He actually taped over all of it. Yes, he was replaced.)
The other thing to keep in mind: someone has to pay for those additional days of photography. Imagine if we’d gone to Sony (who financed Go), and said, “Hey, those scenes didn’t work out the way we thought they would. How ’bout we go back and shoot the exact same stuff, only this time, less sucky?”
Crickets.
So instead, you say, “Hey, John came up with a new scene that really nails what we need in the third act.”
Yay! New stuff! Problem solved!
Adam writes:
By the same logic, you should be able to buy your daughter’s wedding dress when she’s eight. After all, it’s just planning.
Things change. Cameras break; actors mess up; nights run long. Even if you get every shot on your shot list, that’s no help when you have a great idea two months later in the editing room.
Yes, you can make a movie without reshooting a thing. But given the opportunity, I bet most directors would. If it can make your movie better, why wouldn’t you?
Hacks settle.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:05 pm
acc.ebit V 2 1 FUT ACTIVE IND 3 S acceo, accere, -, - V TRANS [BXXES] Early uncommon send for, summon (forth), fetch; invite; (w/mortum) commit suicide;
I like the golden ratio theory. It makes me think of a conch shell which can be used as a horn to summon…
Or is it a 9, or the inner ear? Damn you John August!
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:12 pm
The graphic could also be an inverted ‘G’, which could be a backward continuation of your other projects:”God”, “Go”, and now “G”. I don’t know what God is about but based on IMDB, they all feature actor Melissa McCarthy.
Isn’t it fun to see what kind of nonsense people come up with?
August 24th, 2006 at 10:15 am
HOT DAMN, someone finally gives this screenwriting Classicist something to chew on! Seriously, John, I’m jumping with joy. My Classical education does figure heavily in my writing, since I got the B.A. in Classics out of love for the field more than anything else. Kudos for your use of 3rd singular future.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:46 am
The old saying, no one who likes sausage or laws should watch either being made, is appropriate here.
Tootsie is one of my favorites, but you had revolving screenwriters, overruns, re-shoots, etc. Year of the Comet came in on time and on budget. Which do you want on your resume?
It’s too damn hard to get the green light not to make sure it is the best it can be. It should just be thought of, per Woody, as a natural part of the process.
Just like the temp mix, actor overdose and nausea before the first test screening.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:22 am
You have a point, John. Coming from the (normally self financed) indie world, re-shoots are a seldom afforded luxury. You’re so bent on getting it right the first time due to financial constraints that the thought of going back and doing it again never even enters your mind.
Besides, the neighbors have already threatened to call the cops if you return….;-)
August 25th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
I have the most forgiving neighbors on Earth. I went out of my way not to make it feel like there was a Big Hollywood Movie shooting for the two weeks we were at my house, but for reshoots, all those big white trucks were back. But no one complained. I think it helps that my neighborhood has draconian filming regulations anyway.
August 26th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Expounding upon Asuka’s comments above, the root “accebit” is a bit irregular, but I think it means something like “come” or maybe “accelerate.” I think you’re only a letter off on the root, though, because “accedo” is a Latin root, and that’s pretty close.
August 26th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
lasik is overrated. it’s the cateract surgery that’s FUN.
…
thanks for this blog. it’s informative.
August 28th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
I hear that Woody budgets for reshoots — he includes them in the initial breakdown because he knows there’ll be sections he’s not happy with. But then there was also the whole ‘September’ thing were he reshot the whole film with a slightly different cast and junked the original. That takes real courage…
August 28th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
DougJ is our Latin scholar of the week. Or at least, our top Googler.
August 30th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Is there a prize? A producer credit on your new movie should be sufficient.
PS - Google wasn’t much help. I had to actually look it up in a software-based Latin dictionary. What’s this world coming to?