Movie-making is all about making tough decisions. Directors and producers, especially, have to make dozens of important decisions every day, and the number of decisions increases exponentially when you move from pre-production into production.
(This is especially true if the director and producers avoided making some hard decisions in pre-prod, or -- far worse -- didn't realize there were hard decisions to be made in the first place. There's a reason why shooting scripts tend to have lots of "[this scene omitted].")
One of the toughest decisions is this:
"Do I want to get a bunch of cool images on film, or do I want to make a movie?"
In other words, you can only get so many shots in a day. How much time should you spend getting the cool, exciting, cinematically-difficult shots that will make for good 'trailer moments'? How much time should you spend getting the relatively dull shots (like coverage of a dialogue scene, for example) that you will need to actually edit together a movie that makes sense?
So: Do you want to get a bunch of cool images on film, or do you want to make a movie?
It may seem like a no-brainer when phrased that way - we're filmmakers after all, not cool-shot-getters - but filmmakers stumble over that decision every day. And even when a filmmaker realizes that decision must be made, it's often complicated by outside influences.
What if you're nearing the end of your scheduled production period, and you're a day and a half behind schedule, and you have to choose between the cool sequence that got you interested in making the film in the first place, or the comparatively dull sequence that sets up the premise of the whole movie? Which one do you cut?
What if your best friend plays a character in the cool sequence, and he thinks this role is his big break as an actor?
What if your investors are on set, and they've been looking forward to seeing how you execute the cool sequence? What if the cool sequence was part of your pitch, and it's one of the reasons why they gave you money in the first place?
There can be lots of valid and compelling reasons why you want to get the cool sequence.
But...
What if you do get the cool sequence, but that means you don’t have time to get the necessary sequence ... and now your editor won't have the footage he needs to cut together a cohesive narrative?
The average director, of course, would say that you don't have to cut either of them - this situation is exactly why God invented 'pickup days.' But pickup days aren't guaranteed. I've seen a number of promising productions lose steam and eventually be abandoned because they weren't able to get the footage they needed during their allotted shooting days, and for one reason or another they were never able to do pickups.
Money runs out. Vital crew members move on to other projects. Actors cut their hair or gain 30 pounds or move back to Poughkeepsie. You can't count on pickup days.
So, if you can't count on getting more time to shoot, which sequence do you cut?
In a way, this is a litmus test for what kind of director or producer you are. Are you into sizzle, or are you into steak? Are you more concerned with telling a cohesive story or with getting a great trailer moment that will help sell your project? This situation can reveal where you stand on the age-old "style vs. substance" spectrum.
For me, the answer is simple. (It's not easy, but it's simple.) Get the sequence that will allow you to cut together a movie that makes sense. Try to schedule a pickup day to get the cool sequence. The cool sequence is the icing on the cake -- but you need to have a cake in the first place. Icing by itself quickly becomes cloying.
We are movie makers - we aren't cool-shot getters. The story is the thing.
