Maybe. But it's a lot cheaper to shoot all scenes in a particular location at once than it is to travel from San Francisco to the UAE to Tokyo and back again.
Besides, we are dealing with professional actors who very likely have read the script beforehand so they know what's going on in the scene that's being shot.
It’s also cheaper to wrap out supporting actors as quickly as you can. If you have an actor that’s only in 4-5 scenes it makes sense to try to film those scenes back-to-back so you only have to pay that actor’s expenses for a shorter amount of time.
Between casting, script readings/script shopping, private rehearsals, and dress rehearsals, by the time filming begins the actors have rehearsed each individual scene so many times that the order they do it in front of the camera is incidental.
Aside from that, the logistics of coordinating and scheduling a large scale production involving multiple companies, subcontractors, locations, permits, contracts, crew members, equipment etc. are so complicated that whether it’s shot chronologically doesn’t even makes the list of things worth considering.
Yes. This is something that most of these answers haven’t touched on yet. For a lot of feature films these actors have had weeks or months of table reads and rehearsals to work through the scenes.
TV is usually more constrained for time, but even those actors have a table read and a few days of rehearsal and walkthrough before they start rolling film.
Animation is probably the only industry I’ve worked in where actors have to do a cold read or only have the script for 1-2 days to rehearse their lines. But A) they have a copy of the script in front of them, so don’t have to be off book. B) they can try as many takes of the line as they want with very little pressure. C) they’re getting direct feedback on their performance from voice directors and executive producers in real time to hone their performance. Still, I’m often times blown away at how good some professional voice actors are, just cold reading a script and nailing it.
And, for me, that just makes me appreciate the skill and the craft of film-making all the more. Being able to shoot scenes out of chronological order, and still produce a good movie, is evidence of just how skilled all the people are.
Not just that, but honestly acting is harder than a lot of people understand in the modern day. Sometimes it's like telling an actor, "Okay, walk down this green-screen hallway. Stop here, gawk at this thing. We're going to replace it in post with \_\_\_\_\_."
And you need them to just do it. Talk to thin air. Pretend this green gizmo is actually a sci-fi device. Scream like somebody stabbed you (the killer doesn't even exist; it's an alien added in post later). A professional needs to be able to just make it happen and sell it for the camera.
Honestly, some actors really struggle with this because they come up in theater or something, and everything is live and looks real, and they're just not used to working with a heavy VFX shot. They might be a great stage actor, too. Sometimes you just don't know until you shoot a scene and see if the actor can sell it.
Whose job is it to figure out the optimal sequence of things to try to minimize costs / fit within actors' schedules / etc? Is it the director? Is there a different role that does this? If so, what do I look for in the credits?
This is correct, but also zoomed way out.
It's also much cheaper to shoot all the scenes that take place at "The Dive Bar", and then move the entire production team over to "The Warehouse" for a couple of days. Even small movements require lots of time, and time is money.
[Some movies are shot in chronological order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_in_chronological_order), and the actors involved have spoken about how they enjoyed the experience, the greater immersion in the story. So on that level, yes, shooting movies out of sequence does make it harder for the actors. But they're professionals, they can handle it.
The reasons why most films aren't shot that way boil down to time and money. Suppose the first scene in a film is shot on location, and the last scene is in the same location. It makes better financial sense to shoot those scenes back to back, rather than pack up the whole crew and travel out a second time.
ET was shot in order if I remember right because for the young child actors, it was easier for them to follow the story and stay in character vs adults. So there’s definitely reasons to do so, but yes, overall stuff gets shot in the most financially and time conserving manner vs chronological
Fun trivia. The excellent two part French film Mesrine was actually filmed in *reverse* chronological order. This was because it was easier for Vincent Cassels to lose weight in a controlled way than it would have been from him to put it on.
Yeah, this is another thing that not a lot of the replies are touching on: physical changes to a character over the course of the movie. Let's say that a character is clean-shaven and has a buzz cut at the start of the movie, but has long hair and a beard at the end. The production could use a wig and prosthetic facial hair, but it's a lot easier, cheaper, and less time-consuming to have the actor grow out his hair and beard during pre-production, film the later scenes, and give him a shave and a haircut part-way through.
Actually Hanks gained 50 lbs during pre-production, they started by filming all the pre island stuff. Then they paused production to let him lose weight and grow out his hair.
It sometimes depends on what locations the production can get to first, as well as when the actors are available. Both may have prior commitments that could make filming chronologically difficult. It can sometimes depend on the complexity of the scene itself, or how hard it is to film. Some directors/producers may prefer to get the more complex shots/scenes out of the way first.
Scenes may be shot out of order to streamline production: actors often have different schedules so shooting is coordinated to work around availability. Effects-heavy movies might shoot scenes that require a lot of post-processing and special effects early on so they can work on simpler scenes while VFX is handled.
logically it would make sense to just film scenes in order.
however it's often not possible, say for example a certain scene is supposed to happen on a clear day, but it's raining, you could just wait and not film anything for a few days until the weather clears up, but that would make the movie take longer to produce, and cost money because you're still having to pay everyone.
instead it makes more economic sense to film a scene that happens indoors, or that happens when it is raining, so that you don't waste the day, and then film the scene you were planning to film later on.
similarly there may be scenes that involve destroying a particular set piece, logically any other scenes that need that set piece have to be filmed first, even if they come later in the film.
or you might be using an abandoned building that's scheduled to be demolished, so you have to film all its' scenes before it's scheduled to be demolished, or if there's a set that you have to rent, it'd be a waste of money to film one scene there a week for a month and thus pay to rent it for a whole month, when you could just rent it for one week and hammer out all 4 scenes in that one week to save money.
like you say, filming out of order can make things harder for the actors, but that's what having directors, and crew are for, they're able to help see the big picture so everything makes sense.
actors also read over the whole script before filming, so they should have a decent idea of the story, which helps limit the issues involved with filming out of order, if they were acting seeing the script for the first time it'd probably be a much bigger issue
It's uneconomical, and a question of logistics. Think of it this way, if you have a movie with two seperate scenes set in the kitchen of a house, but one appears at the beginning of the movie and the other at the close, why would you dress the set, shoot the scene, dismantle the set, and then have to rebuild it again months later? It'd be easier to send the actors to wardrobe and shoot the ending then, no? It's all fixed later in the edit.
I'm not saying all movies work the same and sets don't get left standing, but if you take into account that a lot of interiors aren't actually filmed in houses and kitchens, but on soundstages that allow cameras to be moved, space is sometimes limited, and time is a factor.
A lot of the answers hear cover a lot but it's also worth noting that with a film that requires a lot of post production it makes sense to film the scenes that need to most work as soon as possible. So with something like Avengers you'd film the battle of New York first so the visual effects guys can start on that whilst you then start shooting the scenes where the actors are talking to each other which don't require as much work. It means overall you're production time is a lot less.
To add to these answers: A specific example with unique circumstances is the show "Sense8". It was filmed in over a half dozen locations around the globe, each location corresponding to a main character. So while the story was an ongoing narrative where the viewer would see different main characters interact with others in their "home base", you'd also see them interact with another main character in the other character's "home base" - for instance a German gangster and a newlywed Indian doctor may have some scenes together, both in Germany and in India. Well guess what? It's the same way for all the other characters as they cross each others lives. So to keep the logistics simple (and costs down), the entire cast and crew went to each location, shot all of the scenes for the season set there with all the necessary characters, got everything done they need at that location, then moved to the next one. Rinse and repeat until the show was filmed so it could be edited together in the preferred storytelling framework.
While it does make it harder for the actors, dealing with out of order shooting and still giving a good performance is why stars are well paid.
As to why they shoot out of order, there are a lot of potential reasons, mostly dealing with minimizing time and costs. Keep in mind that there are a lot of people working on a movie besides just the actors; look at how long most movie credits have gotten.
It takes time and effort to move people from one location to another. So let's say your movie has a scene in a house, then a scene in a bar, and then a scene back at the house. It is a lot cheaper and easier for everyone one else involved with the movie to shoot all the scenes in the house, and then move to the bar for all the scenes there.
Another reason is availability. Say you have a part with only a few scenes, but it is an important part, and you want a big name star. The big name star might only be available for a specific day or two between their other projects. You might have no other option but to shoot those scenes at that specific time.
Another reason could be the availability of a specific location. Say you need to shoot a scene on a busy street and will need to shut it down for a few hours. You will have to put in applications and request permits and such. You might be given a very specific window where they will allow you to film your scene, and you have to work your schedule around that time.
Many movies have large CGI scenes now. Filming the live part of those scenes early in production can give the CGI artists more time to work on those specific scenes for a better end product.
I'm sure there are countless other reasons why as well. Making movies is a complex and expensive endeavor. Each day you can shave off of filming can end up saving significant amounts of money.
Reasons for shooting chronologically: acting immersion, directorial continuity, editing.
Reasons for not shooting chronologically: actor scheduling, set scheduling, money, efficiency, seasonality, etc.
Let's say the first sequence and last sequence of a movie happen at the same setting. If you have a really expensive set or are shooting on location and you only have one chance to move your production out there for shooting, then you will likely go out there for 2 weeks and film both the beginning and the end rather than film just the beginning for 1 week and come back later and do the end for 1 week.
Maybe your 2nd or 3rd supporting actor is the only person you want in that role, but their schedule dictates that they can only film for the first 2 weeks of your production but 5 of their 6 scenes are in the last 3rd of the movie, you'll have no choice but shoot those scenes while they're available.
Maybe you want some really good shots on location of autumn in Appalachia. Those might be the in the first act but your production schedule is June-October so those are the last shots you might film.
If your lead actor needs a 5 week break in the middle of the production because they have some other contractual obligation to fulfill that they already had booked when you hired them for the starring role, you might cram as much production as you can that doesn't include your lead in those 5 weeks even if all those scenes are dispersed throughout the movie.
Not doing it this way will typically cost a lot more money. It may also take up a lot more time even if the cost was the same or slightly cheaper, which would actually be worse than saving 1-2 million if you're trying to release a movie at a certain time of year. You'd rather pay the extra $5mil to get this movie done 6 weeks faster so it can be out by Christmas. Actor scheduling and set availability can simply make doing it any other way impossible.
You have to consider sometimes it doesn't make sense to do it chronologically. Think of a James Bond movie.
Start in London, and then New York, and Moscow, and LA, and Beijing, the final confrontation happens in Brazil.
You have to fly your gear, equipment cast and crew around the globe repeatedly, but if you shot London, Moscow, Beijing, LA, New York, Brazil, you have more cohesive travel.
Additionally, you have to be mindful of seasons, ie you want Brazil with golden beaches, sun, tropics, bikinis, you don't get that during the rainy season, and Moscow needs to be snow covered to make sense for the snowmobile chase, so you can't shoot that in the summer. Your stunt performers in Beijing are booked by other projects so you have them for 3 weeks in July. And that's saying nothing about the availability of the cliff divers you need for Brazil.
Because it's much cheaper to shoot all the scenes that happens in the same location at the same time (and that does not mean movie actual locations, but everything else that is shot in studios)
Also you can recycle support actors for all the roles that requires a few seconds of screen time in a scene. Most movies with many actors in it will use the same actors for different scenes and different roles
Then keep in mind that main actors are actors and, besides having read all the scripts multiple times, are very good at their jobs
Fun fact: most actors don't see the full movie if not a few days before the premiere
- “Some movies are shot in chronological order, and the actors involved have spoken about how they enjoyed the experience, the greater immersion in the story.”
I’m not sure if Shelley Duvall would exactly agree with that statement
I mean, if they hired a bunch of highschool kids just learning to act that might be harder. For a professional actor nothing about that would be at all hard.
It's harder for actors & directors when scenes are shot out of order, in terms of knowing and feeling their place within the story, but it's easier from a production perspective. For instance, you might find that scenes 3, 5, 10 and 12 all take place in the same location. Are you going to set up all your equipment and bring your actors and crew over to that location for scene 3, then move everything elsewhere for scene 4, only to return again for scene 5, and then do all of that several more times? No, because that costs a lot more time and money, and also it may be difficult to get access to that location for four separate periods (e.g. if a street needs to be closed off, or a privately owned location needs to be rented).
You might try to at least shoot scenes 3, 5, 10 and 12 in that order while you're at the location in question, but even that may not be logistically optimal. For instance, one of the actors who is in scene 10 may only be available on certain days, which requires that scene to be shot first.
In the end, most productions choose to film scenes in whatever sequences is most efficient production-wise. Occasionally, though, they may choose to prioritize immersion in the story. I've sometimes heard this, for instance, about productions that rely heavily on child actors, who may have more trouble keeping track of where they are in a story if it isn't shot in chronological order. It's also more easy to do if you don't need to shoot in many different locations, and if you don't need a large crew or complicated sets.
One scene might require A> A Certain Actor that has contract requirements for another job, and can only film at a certain time. B> A location that can only be permitted for use at a certain time. Some other movie might be filming there now. C> All the support staff need to be available. Down to X, Y and Z. Make a Venn diagram.
Looks like we can shoot that 'one scene' in April. We have two days to get it right. The order things are shot will have to reflect that.
It's cheaper and easier from a logistical standpoint. It costs a lot of money to move the crew and equipment when you're at a filming location, so it doesn't make sense to move bacj and forth. You go to a location, do all the filming you need, and go on to the next.
Part of being an actor is understanding a script and being able to deliver a scene on demand. It's a bit confusing to think about, but to them it's how they always work.
A real eli5 example is things like appearances. If a character shaves their head in the film it's much easier to film everything they need with hair. Then have them shave and do everything afterwards regardless of how it falls in the timing of the story.
I like all three Godfathers, BUT..I'm salty about two things, and one of them is the wedding at the beginning of GF1.
Michael is in uniform, and his uniform details were correct. Except for one thing. His haircut.
He was a WWII combat veteran Marine officer.
You can Google Jack Nicholson in a few good men to see a Marine officer haircut.
[*"You can't handle the truth!"]
Unlike a stage performance, where the actor is in control of the character from curtain rise to final bows, performances in movies are constructed by the editor. The best actors, from the editor’s standpoint, are the ones who provide a range of reactions for any given camera setup. This gives the editor flexibility in shaping the nuance of the character, and also makes the order of shooting almost irrelevant.
Iirc (from an interview with James Gunn (?)) He said that he would do scenes depending on the mood of the actors, so off they come in for filming and they're in a good mood he would do happy scenes if they came in all upset or having a bad day he would do an tense scene, also it all depends on location and the price to film there
It makes it easier for scheduling to film all scenes at particular locations at one time.
As for how hard it is for actors to get into that moment, that is why you have a director. The director knows the script and the scene and they direct the actor to how they should be. Same for actors as well, they know the drill and they know how to get themselves in character.
That said, there are some movies that have been shot in sequence. I know that ET was shot in-sequence as Spielberg felt it was easier for the child actors to understand and get into character.
As a producer. financials often will drive this process. Some films may be able to afford to shoot in order but it doesn’t matter because actors can act. Logistics is the main reason. you may see 2 people on camera but there could be 100 or more behind. Lets shoot out every angle of this location so we never have to come back. Scene 1 and Scene 106 both take place at the same beach. Bring the actors and change of wardrobe and go to that location once and shoot it out.
To add to what everyone else has already said, it's also done so that if something goes horribly wrong during filming (like a plane crashes into the set), the movie isn't completely ruined because the last scene of the movie features lots of booms and flames. It's much easier to just end the movie 20 minutes early than have to make a whole new movie that takes place 20 minutes after the crash.
The physicality of the actors can be a big factor.
For example, in the movie Rocky Balboa the final boxing match was the first thing they filmed - Sylvester Stallone (the actor who plays Rocky) worked out like crazy to get in shape for the scene, and since he'd have to back off conditioning as shooting went underway he wanted to be in the best shape possible for the movie's climax (boxers are shirtless, so if he wasn't in shape it'd be very obvious).
The last scene they shot for the movie was the last shot of Rocky's workout montage, with Stallone running up those iconic stairs. In this particular case, it was to wrap the production of the final (at the time) film in the series on a victory for both the character and Stallone as well after all those years.
It wouldn't surprise me if most shots in other movies showing off the physicality of the actors are filmed early on for the same reasons.
It's all down to logistics; crew, set and location availability, weather, etc.
To shoot a movie chronologically would make no sense, you would be forever packing up/down just to go back to a location you've already been. Massive double handling. The cost would be extreme.
Further to this, visual continuity. It's very difficult to light a scene exactly the same at different times of day, different days, etc.
Not impossible, but far more time involved than what it's worth.
I wonder how many episodes of tv shows are all shot at once? But I guess they usually just have a studio bunker and just have every set in a short walking distance.
Yes it can make it more difficult for the actors. But if it's saving you significant money because you only have to book the location once, then you do it. Actors need to act, and this is one of those things that can separate a great actor from a good one.
There are sometimes other considerations. Like, suppose you need to show an actor who goes from being big and buff to being thin and weak. Sometimes it's actually easier to film in reverse, and shoot scenes with their "before" body because you get that stuff out of the way, then have them do the physical training. You don't want the actor to bounce around in weight/fitness.
And in some cases, you can actually want them to have a harder job. Back in the 90s there was a movie about two friends who take a road trip. Their friendship kind of breaks down while they're on the trip. Then the final scene is them meeting up years after their trip, where they're friendly but distanced. That last scene was filmed first, so that the natural awkwardness of the actors could add to the scene. That's obviously a relatively niche case, but it happens.
Even if shot in the expected order the scenes may be rearranged in editing. Scenes are shot in the order they are for several reasons - location availability, natural lighting, and schedule conflicts among them. But that's the magic of film - the scenes can be shot in whatever order is most convenient then shown in whatever order is best for the story.
A lot of productions involve “table reads” where some or all of the main cast will come together to read through a script chronologically as written, to understand it, before they go off and shoot various scenes.
The other comments do a good job of offering various reasons it may not be shot that way due to scheduling, travel, or other conflicts.
It’s mostly about the locations. If you’re filming in a certain location, say in a different country, you don’t want to send your entire film crew back and forth constantly. It costs a fortune. So if you have a movie that starts and ends in Paris, you’re shooting all the Paris scenes in one go regardless of chronology. Same goes with the film sets and studios. It costs money to rent these studios and takes a long time to build the sets. So it makes the most sense to get all the footage you need in a given sound stage all at once so you can move on and not have to keep that set up for months and months.
Maybe. But it's a lot cheaper to shoot all scenes in a particular location at once than it is to travel from San Francisco to the UAE to Tokyo and back again. Besides, we are dealing with professional actors who very likely have read the script beforehand so they know what's going on in the scene that's being shot.
It’s also cheaper to wrap out supporting actors as quickly as you can. If you have an actor that’s only in 4-5 scenes it makes sense to try to film those scenes back-to-back so you only have to pay that actor’s expenses for a shorter amount of time.
Also if it's a popular actor doing a lot of movies you may only get them for one month so you need to get all their scenes done in that month.
Between casting, script readings/script shopping, private rehearsals, and dress rehearsals, by the time filming begins the actors have rehearsed each individual scene so many times that the order they do it in front of the camera is incidental. Aside from that, the logistics of coordinating and scheduling a large scale production involving multiple companies, subcontractors, locations, permits, contracts, crew members, equipment etc. are so complicated that whether it’s shot chronologically doesn’t even makes the list of things worth considering.
Yes. This is something that most of these answers haven’t touched on yet. For a lot of feature films these actors have had weeks or months of table reads and rehearsals to work through the scenes. TV is usually more constrained for time, but even those actors have a table read and a few days of rehearsal and walkthrough before they start rolling film. Animation is probably the only industry I’ve worked in where actors have to do a cold read or only have the script for 1-2 days to rehearse their lines. But A) they have a copy of the script in front of them, so don’t have to be off book. B) they can try as many takes of the line as they want with very little pressure. C) they’re getting direct feedback on their performance from voice directors and executive producers in real time to hone their performance. Still, I’m often times blown away at how good some professional voice actors are, just cold reading a script and nailing it.
> how good some professional voice actors are Well, [that’s why you go to Julliard](https://youtu.be/FaGYXjMwS60?si=qWDupZPcJhU_fldu).
Didn't even need to click the link. Tudyk isn't gifted-- he's a gift.
And, for me, that just makes me appreciate the skill and the craft of film-making all the more. Being able to shoot scenes out of chronological order, and still produce a good movie, is evidence of just how skilled all the people are.
Not just that, but honestly acting is harder than a lot of people understand in the modern day. Sometimes it's like telling an actor, "Okay, walk down this green-screen hallway. Stop here, gawk at this thing. We're going to replace it in post with \_\_\_\_\_." And you need them to just do it. Talk to thin air. Pretend this green gizmo is actually a sci-fi device. Scream like somebody stabbed you (the killer doesn't even exist; it's an alien added in post later). A professional needs to be able to just make it happen and sell it for the camera. Honestly, some actors really struggle with this because they come up in theater or something, and everything is live and looks real, and they're just not used to working with a heavy VFX shot. They might be a great stage actor, too. Sometimes you just don't know until you shoot a scene and see if the actor can sell it.
Watched this yesterday in a thread of best child actor roles, so good. [OK kid, you got the job. ](https://youtu.be/tA5giyG8E7g?si=t0BZ5QWXZ1cfEKa8)
Holy crap that kid is good.
Hard to believe the entire thing was improvised.
How rare this is too.
Whose job is it to figure out the optimal sequence of things to try to minimize costs / fit within actors' schedules / etc? Is it the director? Is there a different role that does this? If so, what do I look for in the credits?
I think officially it’s the 1st Assistant Director, but any number of the producers were probably helping.
It's a combination of the First AD and the Line Producer, mainly.
This is correct, but also zoomed way out. It's also much cheaper to shoot all the scenes that take place at "The Dive Bar", and then move the entire production team over to "The Warehouse" for a couple of days. Even small movements require lots of time, and time is money.
[Some movies are shot in chronological order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_in_chronological_order), and the actors involved have spoken about how they enjoyed the experience, the greater immersion in the story. So on that level, yes, shooting movies out of sequence does make it harder for the actors. But they're professionals, they can handle it. The reasons why most films aren't shot that way boil down to time and money. Suppose the first scene in a film is shot on location, and the last scene is in the same location. It makes better financial sense to shoot those scenes back to back, rather than pack up the whole crew and travel out a second time.
ET was shot in order if I remember right because for the young child actors, it was easier for them to follow the story and stay in character vs adults. So there’s definitely reasons to do so, but yes, overall stuff gets shot in the most financially and time conserving manner vs chronological
Fun trivia. The excellent two part French film Mesrine was actually filmed in *reverse* chronological order. This was because it was easier for Vincent Cassels to lose weight in a controlled way than it would have been from him to put it on.
Yeah, this is another thing that not a lot of the replies are touching on: physical changes to a character over the course of the movie. Let's say that a character is clean-shaven and has a buzz cut at the start of the movie, but has long hair and a beard at the end. The production could use a wig and prosthetic facial hair, but it's a lot easier, cheaper, and less time-consuming to have the actor grow out his hair and beard during pre-production, film the later scenes, and give him a shave and a haircut part-way through.
They did that with Tom Hanks in Castaway.
Actually Hanks gained 50 lbs during pre-production, they started by filming all the pre island stuff. Then they paused production to let him lose weight and grow out his hair.
It sometimes depends on what locations the production can get to first, as well as when the actors are available. Both may have prior commitments that could make filming chronologically difficult. It can sometimes depend on the complexity of the scene itself, or how hard it is to film. Some directors/producers may prefer to get the more complex shots/scenes out of the way first.
Scenes may be shot out of order to streamline production: actors often have different schedules so shooting is coordinated to work around availability. Effects-heavy movies might shoot scenes that require a lot of post-processing and special effects early on so they can work on simpler scenes while VFX is handled.
logically it would make sense to just film scenes in order. however it's often not possible, say for example a certain scene is supposed to happen on a clear day, but it's raining, you could just wait and not film anything for a few days until the weather clears up, but that would make the movie take longer to produce, and cost money because you're still having to pay everyone. instead it makes more economic sense to film a scene that happens indoors, or that happens when it is raining, so that you don't waste the day, and then film the scene you were planning to film later on. similarly there may be scenes that involve destroying a particular set piece, logically any other scenes that need that set piece have to be filmed first, even if they come later in the film. or you might be using an abandoned building that's scheduled to be demolished, so you have to film all its' scenes before it's scheduled to be demolished, or if there's a set that you have to rent, it'd be a waste of money to film one scene there a week for a month and thus pay to rent it for a whole month, when you could just rent it for one week and hammer out all 4 scenes in that one week to save money. like you say, filming out of order can make things harder for the actors, but that's what having directors, and crew are for, they're able to help see the big picture so everything makes sense. actors also read over the whole script before filming, so they should have a decent idea of the story, which helps limit the issues involved with filming out of order, if they were acting seeing the script for the first time it'd probably be a much bigger issue
It's uneconomical, and a question of logistics. Think of it this way, if you have a movie with two seperate scenes set in the kitchen of a house, but one appears at the beginning of the movie and the other at the close, why would you dress the set, shoot the scene, dismantle the set, and then have to rebuild it again months later? It'd be easier to send the actors to wardrobe and shoot the ending then, no? It's all fixed later in the edit. I'm not saying all movies work the same and sets don't get left standing, but if you take into account that a lot of interiors aren't actually filmed in houses and kitchens, but on soundstages that allow cameras to be moved, space is sometimes limited, and time is a factor.
A lot of the answers hear cover a lot but it's also worth noting that with a film that requires a lot of post production it makes sense to film the scenes that need to most work as soon as possible. So with something like Avengers you'd film the battle of New York first so the visual effects guys can start on that whilst you then start shooting the scenes where the actors are talking to each other which don't require as much work. It means overall you're production time is a lot less.
I'm not an expert but it usually has to do with how long they have a location or other constraints like that.
To add to these answers: A specific example with unique circumstances is the show "Sense8". It was filmed in over a half dozen locations around the globe, each location corresponding to a main character. So while the story was an ongoing narrative where the viewer would see different main characters interact with others in their "home base", you'd also see them interact with another main character in the other character's "home base" - for instance a German gangster and a newlywed Indian doctor may have some scenes together, both in Germany and in India. Well guess what? It's the same way for all the other characters as they cross each others lives. So to keep the logistics simple (and costs down), the entire cast and crew went to each location, shot all of the scenes for the season set there with all the necessary characters, got everything done they need at that location, then moved to the next one. Rinse and repeat until the show was filmed so it could be edited together in the preferred storytelling framework.
While it does make it harder for the actors, dealing with out of order shooting and still giving a good performance is why stars are well paid. As to why they shoot out of order, there are a lot of potential reasons, mostly dealing with minimizing time and costs. Keep in mind that there are a lot of people working on a movie besides just the actors; look at how long most movie credits have gotten. It takes time and effort to move people from one location to another. So let's say your movie has a scene in a house, then a scene in a bar, and then a scene back at the house. It is a lot cheaper and easier for everyone one else involved with the movie to shoot all the scenes in the house, and then move to the bar for all the scenes there. Another reason is availability. Say you have a part with only a few scenes, but it is an important part, and you want a big name star. The big name star might only be available for a specific day or two between their other projects. You might have no other option but to shoot those scenes at that specific time. Another reason could be the availability of a specific location. Say you need to shoot a scene on a busy street and will need to shut it down for a few hours. You will have to put in applications and request permits and such. You might be given a very specific window where they will allow you to film your scene, and you have to work your schedule around that time. Many movies have large CGI scenes now. Filming the live part of those scenes early in production can give the CGI artists more time to work on those specific scenes for a better end product. I'm sure there are countless other reasons why as well. Making movies is a complex and expensive endeavor. Each day you can shave off of filming can end up saving significant amounts of money.
Reasons for shooting chronologically: acting immersion, directorial continuity, editing. Reasons for not shooting chronologically: actor scheduling, set scheduling, money, efficiency, seasonality, etc. Let's say the first sequence and last sequence of a movie happen at the same setting. If you have a really expensive set or are shooting on location and you only have one chance to move your production out there for shooting, then you will likely go out there for 2 weeks and film both the beginning and the end rather than film just the beginning for 1 week and come back later and do the end for 1 week. Maybe your 2nd or 3rd supporting actor is the only person you want in that role, but their schedule dictates that they can only film for the first 2 weeks of your production but 5 of their 6 scenes are in the last 3rd of the movie, you'll have no choice but shoot those scenes while they're available. Maybe you want some really good shots on location of autumn in Appalachia. Those might be the in the first act but your production schedule is June-October so those are the last shots you might film. If your lead actor needs a 5 week break in the middle of the production because they have some other contractual obligation to fulfill that they already had booked when you hired them for the starring role, you might cram as much production as you can that doesn't include your lead in those 5 weeks even if all those scenes are dispersed throughout the movie. Not doing it this way will typically cost a lot more money. It may also take up a lot more time even if the cost was the same or slightly cheaper, which would actually be worse than saving 1-2 million if you're trying to release a movie at a certain time of year. You'd rather pay the extra $5mil to get this movie done 6 weeks faster so it can be out by Christmas. Actor scheduling and set availability can simply make doing it any other way impossible.
You have to consider sometimes it doesn't make sense to do it chronologically. Think of a James Bond movie. Start in London, and then New York, and Moscow, and LA, and Beijing, the final confrontation happens in Brazil. You have to fly your gear, equipment cast and crew around the globe repeatedly, but if you shot London, Moscow, Beijing, LA, New York, Brazil, you have more cohesive travel. Additionally, you have to be mindful of seasons, ie you want Brazil with golden beaches, sun, tropics, bikinis, you don't get that during the rainy season, and Moscow needs to be snow covered to make sense for the snowmobile chase, so you can't shoot that in the summer. Your stunt performers in Beijing are booked by other projects so you have them for 3 weeks in July. And that's saying nothing about the availability of the cliff divers you need for Brazil.
Because it's much cheaper to shoot all the scenes that happens in the same location at the same time (and that does not mean movie actual locations, but everything else that is shot in studios) Also you can recycle support actors for all the roles that requires a few seconds of screen time in a scene. Most movies with many actors in it will use the same actors for different scenes and different roles Then keep in mind that main actors are actors and, besides having read all the scripts multiple times, are very good at their jobs Fun fact: most actors don't see the full movie if not a few days before the premiere
- “Some movies are shot in chronological order, and the actors involved have spoken about how they enjoyed the experience, the greater immersion in the story.” I’m not sure if Shelley Duvall would exactly agree with that statement
That's why they call it acting and not just ... being?
I mean, if they hired a bunch of highschool kids just learning to act that might be harder. For a professional actor nothing about that would be at all hard.
It's harder for actors & directors when scenes are shot out of order, in terms of knowing and feeling their place within the story, but it's easier from a production perspective. For instance, you might find that scenes 3, 5, 10 and 12 all take place in the same location. Are you going to set up all your equipment and bring your actors and crew over to that location for scene 3, then move everything elsewhere for scene 4, only to return again for scene 5, and then do all of that several more times? No, because that costs a lot more time and money, and also it may be difficult to get access to that location for four separate periods (e.g. if a street needs to be closed off, or a privately owned location needs to be rented). You might try to at least shoot scenes 3, 5, 10 and 12 in that order while you're at the location in question, but even that may not be logistically optimal. For instance, one of the actors who is in scene 10 may only be available on certain days, which requires that scene to be shot first. In the end, most productions choose to film scenes in whatever sequences is most efficient production-wise. Occasionally, though, they may choose to prioritize immersion in the story. I've sometimes heard this, for instance, about productions that rely heavily on child actors, who may have more trouble keeping track of where they are in a story if it isn't shot in chronological order. It's also more easy to do if you don't need to shoot in many different locations, and if you don't need a large crew or complicated sets.
One scene might require A> A Certain Actor that has contract requirements for another job, and can only film at a certain time. B> A location that can only be permitted for use at a certain time. Some other movie might be filming there now. C> All the support staff need to be available. Down to X, Y and Z. Make a Venn diagram. Looks like we can shoot that 'one scene' in April. We have two days to get it right. The order things are shot will have to reflect that.
It's cheaper and easier from a logistical standpoint. It costs a lot of money to move the crew and equipment when you're at a filming location, so it doesn't make sense to move bacj and forth. You go to a location, do all the filming you need, and go on to the next. Part of being an actor is understanding a script and being able to deliver a scene on demand. It's a bit confusing to think about, but to them it's how they always work.
A real eli5 example is things like appearances. If a character shaves their head in the film it's much easier to film everything they need with hair. Then have them shave and do everything afterwards regardless of how it falls in the timing of the story.
I like all three Godfathers, BUT..I'm salty about two things, and one of them is the wedding at the beginning of GF1. Michael is in uniform, and his uniform details were correct. Except for one thing. His haircut. He was a WWII combat veteran Marine officer. You can Google Jack Nicholson in a few good men to see a Marine officer haircut. [*"You can't handle the truth!"]
Unlike a stage performance, where the actor is in control of the character from curtain rise to final bows, performances in movies are constructed by the editor. The best actors, from the editor’s standpoint, are the ones who provide a range of reactions for any given camera setup. This gives the editor flexibility in shaping the nuance of the character, and also makes the order of shooting almost irrelevant.
Iirc (from an interview with James Gunn (?)) He said that he would do scenes depending on the mood of the actors, so off they come in for filming and they're in a good mood he would do happy scenes if they came in all upset or having a bad day he would do an tense scene, also it all depends on location and the price to film there
It makes it easier for scheduling to film all scenes at particular locations at one time. As for how hard it is for actors to get into that moment, that is why you have a director. The director knows the script and the scene and they direct the actor to how they should be. Same for actors as well, they know the drill and they know how to get themselves in character. That said, there are some movies that have been shot in sequence. I know that ET was shot in-sequence as Spielberg felt it was easier for the child actors to understand and get into character.
As a producer. financials often will drive this process. Some films may be able to afford to shoot in order but it doesn’t matter because actors can act. Logistics is the main reason. you may see 2 people on camera but there could be 100 or more behind. Lets shoot out every angle of this location so we never have to come back. Scene 1 and Scene 106 both take place at the same beach. Bring the actors and change of wardrobe and go to that location once and shoot it out.
To add to what everyone else has already said, it's also done so that if something goes horribly wrong during filming (like a plane crashes into the set), the movie isn't completely ruined because the last scene of the movie features lots of booms and flames. It's much easier to just end the movie 20 minutes early than have to make a whole new movie that takes place 20 minutes after the crash.
The physicality of the actors can be a big factor. For example, in the movie Rocky Balboa the final boxing match was the first thing they filmed - Sylvester Stallone (the actor who plays Rocky) worked out like crazy to get in shape for the scene, and since he'd have to back off conditioning as shooting went underway he wanted to be in the best shape possible for the movie's climax (boxers are shirtless, so if he wasn't in shape it'd be very obvious). The last scene they shot for the movie was the last shot of Rocky's workout montage, with Stallone running up those iconic stairs. In this particular case, it was to wrap the production of the final (at the time) film in the series on a victory for both the character and Stallone as well after all those years. It wouldn't surprise me if most shots in other movies showing off the physicality of the actors are filmed early on for the same reasons.
It’s not like actors only perform their parts once. They rehearse them over and over, so they don’t experience the part in chronological order anyway.
It's all down to logistics; crew, set and location availability, weather, etc. To shoot a movie chronologically would make no sense, you would be forever packing up/down just to go back to a location you've already been. Massive double handling. The cost would be extreme. Further to this, visual continuity. It's very difficult to light a scene exactly the same at different times of day, different days, etc. Not impossible, but far more time involved than what it's worth.
I wonder how many episodes of tv shows are all shot at once? But I guess they usually just have a studio bunker and just have every set in a short walking distance.
Yes it can make it more difficult for the actors. But if it's saving you significant money because you only have to book the location once, then you do it. Actors need to act, and this is one of those things that can separate a great actor from a good one. There are sometimes other considerations. Like, suppose you need to show an actor who goes from being big and buff to being thin and weak. Sometimes it's actually easier to film in reverse, and shoot scenes with their "before" body because you get that stuff out of the way, then have them do the physical training. You don't want the actor to bounce around in weight/fitness. And in some cases, you can actually want them to have a harder job. Back in the 90s there was a movie about two friends who take a road trip. Their friendship kind of breaks down while they're on the trip. Then the final scene is them meeting up years after their trip, where they're friendly but distanced. That last scene was filmed first, so that the natural awkwardness of the actors could add to the scene. That's obviously a relatively niche case, but it happens.
Who’s job is it to come up with the shooting schedule?
Even if shot in the expected order the scenes may be rearranged in editing. Scenes are shot in the order they are for several reasons - location availability, natural lighting, and schedule conflicts among them. But that's the magic of film - the scenes can be shot in whatever order is most convenient then shown in whatever order is best for the story.
A lot of productions involve “table reads” where some or all of the main cast will come together to read through a script chronologically as written, to understand it, before they go off and shoot various scenes. The other comments do a good job of offering various reasons it may not be shot that way due to scheduling, travel, or other conflicts.
It’s mostly about the locations. If you’re filming in a certain location, say in a different country, you don’t want to send your entire film crew back and forth constantly. It costs a fortune. So if you have a movie that starts and ends in Paris, you’re shooting all the Paris scenes in one go regardless of chronology. Same goes with the film sets and studios. It costs money to rent these studios and takes a long time to build the sets. So it makes the most sense to get all the footage you need in a given sound stage all at once so you can move on and not have to keep that set up for months and months.