Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: General enquiry

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    0 times
    Is there a standard duration to produce a professional feature film lasting 1 hr 30 mins?.

    For example if Steven Speilberg or Tarantino were to produce a film with a duration of 1 hr 30 mins. Will there be a conventional duration to produce a 1 hr 30 mins film e.g 1 month or 6 months.

    Is it conventional for a professional Director to continue production, if he exceeds his estimated duration for production?. For example Steven Speilberg estimated a 1 hr 30 min film would take 2 months to produce, he exceeds estimated time by a further 2 months through unforseen circumstances. Will he continue production or scrap it?

    Finally if a Director exceeds estimated production time, is it normal for professional actors such as Tom Cruise to quit their role in the production?

    I had a debate with a friend last night and I believed once Directors estimate the duration of a production, if productions substantially exceeds estimation, contracts for the production team will be renewed if funding is available.

    As opposed to scraping production if it is not produced exactly or just over the estimated production time.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    May 2008
    0 times
    I think it depends on who the director is. All fims have a production time from filming through editing and the final film. This is so that the producers can keep a track of production costs. If it was a bankable director and the schedule ran behind then there wouldn't be a problem. Some directors are known for their ability to bring films in on time and under budget. Clint Eastwood being one of them. I don't think that a film has it's director changed very often these days although it can happen. I have always presumed that most actors have an amount of additional time added into their schedule to accomodate any production delay problems as it seems that often they are called back to redo a scene or more voiceovers that haven't recorded well.

  3. #3
    Administrator Country: Wales Steve Crook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    418 times
    It does depend a lot on the director. It also depends a lot on the funding available although I suppose that in turn depends on the director.

    Some projects by less well known people do end up having to be scrapped because they can't get the funds to complete the film - editing and other post-production work and then the cost of making the prints (even digitally) and promoting it.

    Even the best directors, like Scorsese, can get caught up in the editing and post-production loop. He finished filming The Gangs of New York in April 2001. But it wasn't released until December 2002. They were editing it for over a year!


  4. #4
    Senior Member Country: UK DB7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    151 times
    So many factors. Shane Meadows has tried to complete a film in five days whereas It Happened Here took eight years. Even if working to a studio schedule, directors will notoriously run over-budget and over-schedule.

Similar Threads

  1. A Medal for the General
    By hhhhancock in forum Looking for a Video/DVD (Film)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 26-08-12, 06:03 PM
  2. General Hospital
    By Dadwasinflame in forum British Television
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 28-03-12, 06:15 PM
  3. The two policewomen baby sitting enquiry
    By faginsgirl in forum Off-Topic Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-10-09, 09:37 PM
  4. Witchfinder General (1968)
    By DAVID RAYNER in forum Your Favourite British Films
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 23-01-09, 08:25 PM
  5. Witchfinder General
    By daisyhall1 in forum Films on TV
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 28-02-06, 11:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts