DVXuser.com Feature movie??

You can't make the best movie possible on a micro budget though. When people break through from the indie ranks, it's because they make something different, whether it's a totally-shot-at-sea type of thing like Open Water, or a "found footage" film like Blair Witch, etc.

I'm thinking that if you're going to try to take on Hollywood at their game, you don't want to go into a gun fight carrying a spork, y'know? Whereas if you can do something compellingly creatively different, now you have a whole new angle and people will be much more willing to look at it.

It's the same reason that every time any indie attempts to do a romantic comedy, they fail miserably. Hollywood does romantic comedy, and they do it better than anyone, and they have Hugh Grant and Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan and Gwyneth Paltrow and Julia Roberts... You can't compete with that on a microbudget level and you never will be able to. You have to do something different -- hence "My Date With Drew".

That's why I'm looking to see if we can put success on our side by doing something different.

If we end up doing the same ol' thing, well, that's not the worst outcome, but it does put us at a massive disadvantage when it comes time to see if commercial success can come from this. Unless, of course, someone comes forward with half a million dollars and we can do like Adam Cultraro did, and put Tom Sizemore and Johnny Messner in there. But without guys like that... there's little to no chance for commercial success.

So, again, back to Group A or Group B. Group A wants to make a conventional indie film the best that they can. With Group B, I think that group is aimed at doing something different, something unique, something that could only be done through a site like this. I don't know what that is yet.
 
Well I don't think there's anybody here who wants to make a sucky movie just to be able to brag it was an Internet collaboration. We all want to make the best movie we can. That's why there's so much discussion and debate going on about it in this forum.

But what will be UNIQUE about our great movie -- separating it from all the other great movies that get made in the next year or two -- will be this new collaborative approach. That will generate a buzz all its own, which will only add to the buzz generated from the movie itself. It will get attention from that. And then people will be WOWED by the fact that it really IS a great movie, and not just a gimmicky piece of crap.

At least, that's my take on it. I'm with you -- I don't want to make a movie just for the sake of being able to say I did it. If it's not going to be done well, I'm not going to want to commit my time and energy to it.

The solution to that -- for me -- is to make sure it IS done well. :)
 
Barry_Green said:
You can't make the best movie possible on a micro budget though. When people break through from the indie ranks, it's because they make something different, whether it's a totally-shot-at-sea type of thing like Open Water, or a "found footage" film like Blair Witch, etc.

I'm thinking that if you're going to try to take on Hollywood at their game, you don't want to go into a gun fight carrying a spork, y'know? Whereas if you can do something compellingly creatively different, now you have a whole new angle and people will be much more willing to look at it.

It's the same reason that every time any indie attempts to do a romantic comedy, they fail miserably. Hollywood does romantic comedy, and they do it better than anyone, and they have Hugh Grant and Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan and Gwyneth Paltrow and Julia Roberts... You can't compete with that on a microbudget level and you never will be able to. You have to do something different -- hence "My Date With Drew".

That's why I'm looking to see if we can put success on our side by doing something different.

If we end up doing the same ol' thing, well, that's not the worst outcome, but it does put us at a massive disadvantage when it comes time to see if commercial success can come from this. Unless, of course, someone comes forward with half a million dollars and we can do like Adam Cultraro did, and put Tom Sizemore and Johnny Messner in there. But without guys like that... there's little to no chance for commercial success.
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! I agree 100%!

So, again, back to Group A or Group B. Group A wants to make a conventional indie film the best that they can. With Group B, I think that group is aimed at doing something different, something unique, something that could only be done through a site like this. I don't know what that is yet.
Click to expand...

My impression is that Group A still wants to make an unconventional indie film. They just wanted a different structure to the production process. But they still wanted a unique and interesting approach, and a real grabber of a story.

The way I see it, Group A wants a centralized production team that manages the financial end and coordinates the separate units doing the actual shooting. They want a writing team to do the scripts, and they want to try to secure investors for budget money.

Whereas Group B wants to decentralize things. Let people come up with scripts and submit them, then choose 4 that will work together. Then farm it out to completely autonomous production units in the field, who will each be responsible for paying for and producing their segments. The segments will then be put together by a master editing team.

Do I have that right? Or am I misstating it somewhere?
 
Barry_Green said:
You can't make the best movie possible on a micro budget though. When people break through from the indie ranks, it's because they make something different, whether it's a totally-shot-at-sea type of thing like Open Water, or a "found footage" film like Blair Witch, etc.

I'm thinking that if you're going to try to take on Hollywood at their game, you don't want to go into a gun fight carrying a spork, y'know? Whereas if you can do something compellingly creatively different, now you have a whole new angle and people will be much more willing to look at it.

It's the same reason that every time any indie attempts to do a romantic comedy, they fail miserably. Hollywood does romantic comedy, and they do it better than anyone, and they have Hugh Grant and Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan and Gwyneth Paltrow and Julia Roberts... You can't compete with that on a microbudget level and you never will be able to. You have to do something different -- hence "My Date With Drew".

That's why I'm looking to see if we can put success on our side by doing something different.

If we end up doing the same ol' thing, well, that's not the worst outcome, but it does put us at a massive disadvantage when it comes time to see if commercial success can come from this. Unless, of course, someone comes forward with half a million dollars and we can do like Adam Cultraro did, and put Tom Sizemore and Johnny Messner in there. But without guys like that... there's little to no chance for commercial success.

So, again, back to Group A or Group B. Group A wants to make a conventional indie film the best that they can. With Group B, I think that group is aimed at doing something different, something unique, something that could only be done through a site like this. I don't know what that is yet.
Click to expand...

I think you are crossing points. I am not talking about making "the same old thing." Primer is one of my favorite movies of all time, easily the best time-travel movie ever made. Definitely unique. But they didn't do anything new production-wise. They made it for nothing, the same way we all do, scrimping and saving and cutting corners and begging and getting their friends to help. The content was unique, but there was nothing new about their approach to filmmaking. Besides, My Date with Drew, Open Water, these movies are awful. I think they validate my point more than disprove it.

I think you crossing unique approach with unique content. The examples you cite have unique content, but the way they were made was nothing new. Open water was made the only way they could make it with their jobs. Blair Witch has the unique idea behind it, but it was made like any other low budget film. the director did some cool stuff to scare them, but noting radically new. The newness was in the content. These films were made the way they were out of necessity. I think that is my main point. Just make the best film you can. If the way you do it turns out to be some big phenomenon, great, but if you set out as that being your goal, I think you are doomed from the start.

Anyway, I am not trying to argue, I just think the bottom line is that a good movie is a good movie, and that should be the focus. And it's hard enough to get a good movie made, so why throw more roadblocks in your own way? That's all I'm saying.

I won't argue anymore. Carry on. :)
 
Last edited:
I like where this is going. If we have people pitch ideas for the whole deal under strict guidelines and then vote on the best one and have people write small segments of it, as long as we can weave them together then we are good. I agree totally with Barry that if this is going to work on a low budget, it needs to be something outrageously original. If it's not, it will just me another crum to brush under the rug.

That being said, I agree 100% with Mark as well. Our focus should be to make a GOOD movie. Because we could do something totally unique and still end up with a piece of crap that won't go anywhere. We need to integrate these two parts.

We are getting closer...I can taste it!
 
Mark Harris said:
I think you are crossing points.
Click to expand...
I don't think I am. I know that everybody wants to make a million-dollar movie on $10,000, and I know that (like it or not) that doesn't happen. Maybe one in a thousand, and those are pretty low odds.

And I totally agree with the idea that if you're going to try to do that, adding more roadblocks just guarantees a tougher time of getting it done.

Which is why I think that that approach has little chance of success, unless someone wants to step forward with a few hundred thousand dollars. I have no doubt if we all converged on the BPress Krew or Fat Monster house with a great script and some money, we could do something awesome. And I hope that happens. That's a worthy and lofty goal and should be pursued -- but it's going to take money. Somebody will have to step forward and raise that.

But I think there's something else possible here. I don't know what it is yet, but there's something out here that can be done with this wide range of talent, range of locations, energy and vitality. Something that lends itself to a different approach and therefore getting different results.

I think you crossing unique approach with unique content. The examples you cite have unique content, but the way they were made was nothing new.
Click to expand...
But that's exactly the point. It's not crossed, it's amplified. We have a unique approach. That's the one thing we do have here, is a unique approach. So what does that mean? What can we do with that? How does this approach lend itself to making unique content? What film could we make with this approach, that could never have been made before? THAT's what I find interesting.

Like Time Code. That film could never have been made on film, because it relied on something the new digital video format offered: 90-minute runtimes. So it's one continuous take, actually four one-continuous-take films split across one screen.

My Date With Drew was a wildly different approach to the concept of a romantic comedy type of thing. They never would have had a chance of making a Hollywood-looking film, so they wisely didn't try. They worked with what they had, which was a guy with a crush, a romantic premise, 30 days, and no money. They used what they had to come up with unique content. So I argue that yes, it was made differently from other films. It was made much differently, and because of how different their circumstances were, that dictated a different outcome.

Blair Witch was made VERY differently from other films -- they had no script, they had the actors improvise, and they even had the actors doing the camerawork. It was about as unconventional a production as one could get. And it made for very unique (if lousy) content. I think Blair Witch was probably the most unconventional film production I can think of, other than maybe a stop-motion film or something.

So, again, we have a unique production tool at our disposal. We can do things that others can't. So let's do something nobody else has done, specifically BECAUSE of how we can do it.

The uniqueness of the film is what could propel it to a new level. The unique way it gets made, sure, that's some talking points for marketing and buzz, but if it's just a simple conventional narrative film, what's new in that? If we make the same thing, but in a different way, then what have we accomplished? Might as well have made the same thing in the same/conventional way... but if this new way offers us an opportunity to take advantage of new creative opportunities, new avenues in storytelling, a new approach that yields a new result -- isn't that the exciting prospect here?

Or am I overthinking this?
 
That only states the problem, it doesn't solve it.

As I said before, I'm game to go with whichever group the majority prefers. So what's it going to be, folks?
 
I've read some of this thread. I think it's a great idea as well. I think the story needs to be unique. I think the story is the driving force and the cohesive jell at the same time. It's the common thread to hold everything together. With that being said, I think there is also a way to keep it unique in terms of having 4 segments (maybe 1 or 2 more) of the film created by different groups. The different groups each have their own unique style that they bring to the project. This is great from a marketability standpoint.

I think people need to relate to the story. Maybe something where it takes them a while to "get" it, giving them that "Oh!" feeling.


This is just a quick thought. Here is a pitch idea:
The background - People, in general, have different sides, different personality traits. Different pieces of their personalities that make them "them". Humans are also very clicky by nature. We make friends with people that we relate to on some level of our personalities. People usually have several different groups that they interact with, however, these other groups never intermingle. It's as if each group we hang out with represents a personality trait within ourselves. Inadvertently (or through a degree of separation), these groups are connected.

It would be a “passing of the torch” idea. You start with the main character of segment 1 briefly interacting with one specific type of group (or humanistic personality). Character 1 then spends more time with a different group or person (it doesn’t need to be in group settings, just a different type of humanistic quality, since that quality is the point). We’ve now seen two personality traits of character 1.

Character 1 leaves his second “personality encounter” and interacts with a 3rd person. This third person with be passed the torch. The 3rd person (or second main character) interacts with a different type of “personality encounter”. This character passes the torch to someone he has interacted with here, ushering in a 3rd main character. Perhaps do this one more time, making 4 main characters that hold the “torch”.

The point of the whole thing is a look inside human interaction and personalities. We all posses different sides, it’s just a matter of which one is dominate. The dominate personality is most likely the one that shows more often. We probably spend more time with one core group due to the commonality of this dominate personality while we need or require the satellite groups in order for us to function.

The key would be to narrow down the different type of personalities (hopefully not in a stereotypical type of way) and focus on those personalities. These personalities need to be conveyed perfectly. The task would involve the extra special. It would involve explaining that “Je ne sais quoi”. (of which I’m having a hard time doing right now as I try to explain this idea, please forgive me)

Another thing I think would be good, as one poster mentioned (sorry, I forge who), would be to use the technologies we have and NOT let the passing of the torch occur with the actors at the same location. Again, it would add marketability. Also, if we made it obvious to the audience that this is indeed the case, say by the 3 exchange of the torch, they will have another “oh!” moment of figuring something out. Maybe the torch is passed during a phone conversation each time, but the way that the first two times are shot it seems as if the characters are actually in the same room. (just ideas)

I don’t know, maybe it’s not unique or good enough. Maybe it’s been done too many times? The concept obviously still needs a lot of work. It’s just an idea.

I’m going to stop now because I’m getting a little self-conscious.
 
spa_edwards said:
Well, that candle blew out pretty quick. If no one can make a choice then someone needs to take charge.
Click to expand...

I have said this a million times. I guess what it comes down to is this, is it going to be:

1) Part of an elaborate fest hosted by the site, or
2) A bunch of us collaborating through the site

From what I can tell the consensus is pretty much 1, that's what Barry is going for I think, and if that's the case then the person who needs to take charge will need to be a Mod who will give us details that this project/fest is in the works, etc...

If it is going to be 2 then I'll go back to what I've said in numerous posts, we just need a talented committed individual to take charge. Either way the ball is out of my court!
 
I suspect most folks are leaning towards #1, in which case you're right -- a mod needs to lay out the ground rules and get the ball rolling.

But if #2 is the way people want to go, then the ball's in EVERYBODY'S court -- because a producer needs to be CHOSEN. He/she needs to be someone the others have confidence in and will follow.

So first let's decide -- #1 or #2?

Stop talking about it and VOTE.

I vote for #2.
 
Or we could do two films.

I think we should use the fact that we are in multiple locations to our advantage. We can get footage from all over the world because DVXuser is global! Lets take advantage of that. Everyone knows what is awesome about their own back yard, they also know what all the tourists come to see in their city. That is our biggest advantage. We're global. Lets write something that involves the whole world. Honestly, this would make for a great documentary as well. The whole world comes together to make a movie! Hollywood couldn't do something like this without a lot of money!
 
I dropped out of this because I am not really in tune with the general philosophy at work. So good luck guys!!!
 
Yeah, Mark I am with you.

I'm out guys, best of luck with this thing. Not a fan of the style this has gone.

I slated my own film to enter production this fall. So I'll be tied up with that.

Cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top