My new short: THE ATHEIST

Question: what about those viewers who are well aware of that Nietzsche quote? When the first thing they hear is a quote that's been read/discussed by millions upon millions of college students through the generations - what is their reaction likely to be? The interesting part is what does the creator of this teaser think is the answer to the question (i.e. the "objective, true" answer itself is not the interesting part here).

This is a teaser, so obviously I'm only reacting to the teaser. What does the teaser creator think the most likely reaction is by the viewer? After all, that's the most important question a trailer/teaser creator must think about when creating such a piece. Thanks!
 
OldCorpse said:
Question: what about those viewers who are well aware of that Nietzsche quote? When the first thing they hear is a quote that's been read/discussed by millions upon millions of college students through the generations - what is their reaction likely to be? The interesting part is what does the creator of this teaser think is the answer to the question (i.e. the "objective, true" answer itself is not the interesting part here).

This is a teaser, so obviously I'm only reacting to the teaser. What does the teaser creator think the most likely reaction is by the viewer? After all, that's the most important question a trailer/teaser creator must think about when creating such a piece. Thanks!
Click to expand...

This answer is going to be a lot simpler than you were expecting. I only have 3 scenes shot so far, guess which ones they are? Those 3 in the teaser. So I used them. There's more meat and potatoes in the film itself, and it should generate some interesting discussion.

However, I beg to differ about the quote being used over and over again. You seem to be an educated person therefore you spotted it. Not everyone is like that, therefore I am not so much sure it's a cliche per se.

Nice observation, though.

peace
 
Fair enough. I do have a sneaking suspicion though, that the audience such a short is targeted to, is precisely the audience most likely to know such a quote. YMMV. Good luck though, it will be interesting to see the rest!
 
OldCorpse said:
Fair enough. I do have a sneaking suspicion though, that the audience such a short is targeted to, is precisely the audience most likely to know such a quote. YMMV. Good luck though, it will be interesting to see the rest!
Click to expand...

I agree with you. This is one of those "life is like a box of chocolates" Forrest Gump moments, sounds a bit cliched at first, but I think it's going to work fine. I'm aware of a couple of things when I wrote this movie:
1. Atheists will say "wait a minute! you didn't touch on the issues of evidence for the existence of God, and evolution, etc" and Christians will say "oh, no! You didn't touch on the points of morality, the life of Christ, etc and etc, etc." I initially wrote a long script touching so many points, but it was just too much. I came to my senses that, "wait a minute! This is just a 15 minute short!" So I narrowed it down to a single topic, and while many people will find it insufficient, I am peace with it.
2. The purpose of the story is not to convert anyone, or make a point per se, but to put a stone in some people's shoes. And I have shown the script to 3 atheist friends, and it did just that.

So I think Nietzsche's line will blend in just fine. But you did give me an idea, maybe the character saying something like, "do you remember that line..."? That might work better.

Do I sense you're an agnostic of sorts? :)

all the best.
 
Well yeah, philosophically I am an agnostic. This is way OT, but unfortunately, "atheist" is a very inexact term - there are many kinds of atheists. The two most common - who are not the same - kinds, are: the antideist who denies that god exists or can exist, and the procedural atheist who says, basically: "the burden of proof of god's existence is on the deist - and I find the evidence supplied totally insufficient". In other words, if someone said "there's a pink unicorn floating behind the moon" the procedural atheist would not say "no, there isn't", he'd say "prove it". Until such a time as proof is supplied, the procedural atheist spends no time thinking about god or the pink unicorn - those are just bizarre concepts with no reality to them until proof is supplied... I mean, how much time in a day do you spend thinking about pink unicorns? To the procedural atheist, god=pink unicorn. This is not the agnostic who says "I don't know if he exists or not", but rather "that is a meaningless proposition, it is your job to make it meaningful so that its truth can be determined one way or another". And the burden of proof exists on the theist, because it is the theist making the claim about god/pink uniform, not the procedural atheist. The procedural atheist makes no claims, he merely examines evidence (scientific, logical, argumentative etc.). And evidence is open to all. Whatever, this is getting way too academic :)

I'm still very interested in seeing your piece, I like thoughtful cinema.
 
OldCorpse said:
Well yeah, philosophically I am an agnostic. This is way OT, but unfortunately, "atheist" is a very inexact term - there are many kinds of atheists. The two most common - who are not the same - kinds, are: the antideist who denies that god exists or can exist, and the procedural atheist who says, basically: "the burden of proof of god's existence is on the deist - and I find the evidence supplied totally insufficient". In other words, if someone said "there's a pink unicorn floating behind the moon" the procedural atheist would not say "no, there isn't", he'd say "prove it". Until such a time as proof is supplied, the procedural atheist spends no time thinking about god or the pink unicorn - those are just bizarre concepts with no reality to them until proof is supplied... I mean, how much time in a day do you spend thinking about pink unicorns? To the procedural atheist, god=pink unicorn. This is not the agnostic who says "I don't know if he exists or not", but rather "that is a meaningless proposition, it is your job to make it meaningful so that its truth can be determined one way or another". And the burden of proof exists on the theist, because it is the theist making the claim about god/pink uniform, not the procedural atheist. The procedural atheist makes no claims, he merely examines evidence (scientific, logical, argumentative etc.). And evidence is open to all. Whatever, this is getting way too academic :)

I'm still very interested in seeing your piece, I like thoughtful cinema.
Click to expand...

hey oldcorpse, I'd be interested in talking to you some more about the lines in this movie, I could use your expertise in the area as well as your love for the movies...
Shoot me an email if you're interested: tonyeua@gmail.com.

take care
 
Finally some internal shots!

After so much shooting outside, having to configure the iris, filters and so forth, nothing like a totally light and atmosphere manipulatable internal shot.

These are flash back scenes Jeremy is having while in his apartment. Craig Graham was very kind to support us by allowing us to use his apartment.




The epiphany of the evening (: a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience. Webster's Dictionary.) was Laura discovering for the first time that she had been brainwashed in believing her eyes were brown when in all reality, they are green. It was a shock for the whole cast/crew.


This eye made me think for a minute, back to a fantastic book I read last year entitled "Darwin's Black Box", by Michael Behe. Mr. Behe is every atheist's nightmare, and they try very, very hard to discredit him as a scientist, but the facts are in: he is a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University and taken very seriously by his colleges. Point is, he coined an interesting phrase, "irreducibly complex". What this means is that biological systems are much too complex to have evolved from simpler predecessors. A classic illustration he gives is a mouse trap. You look at a mouse trap and you see all of its components. The board, the spring, the bait holder and so forth. The mouse trap works as a whole. If you are to take one part out of it, the whole mechanism fails. Without the spring, for example, it's not a mouse trap anymore. Well, how could these parts have "evolved", little by little, by time and chance, and lots of time and chance, to get it working perfectly? Which came first? In a living organism, which came first, the lungs or the veins? All biological systems are much too complex to have evolved, yet this is taught in classrooms as science and not a "not yet proven" theory. Yes, I know this is a bit controversial, but the human eye is one of the most irreducibly complex biological systems in the universe. One part cannot work without the other, or have "arrived" in a functional sense without the other. Just by looking deep into this picture, I am amazed at how intrinsically and wonderfully made Laura's eye is. It keeps me in awe.

Thanks for reading!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top