jls4
Veteran
This is what they do. But Maverick paid me all my money! So I'm a happy camper!
Anyone Here do business with Maverick Entertainment?
- Thread starter GregWilliams2175
- Start date
This is what they do. But Maverick paid me all my money! So I'm a happy camper!
jls4
Veteran
Before I leave and respond on Monday - I will say to Nate's defense the Sci-fi/Horror world is more fan based than anything I've ever witnessed. I'm not much of a Horror buff, and must Sci-fi / fantasy is so bad I can't stomach it. So I don't keep up unless it's really good. But I can see his point.
So far this has been very informative, I appreciate everyone and keep talking. These are the discussions that keep me coming back to DVXuser. The site seems to have gotten stale over the last few months - no one's been really talking about importaint issues like this. These are the things that make it great!
Have a good weekend!
So far this has been very informative, I appreciate everyone and keep talking. These are the discussions that keep me coming back to DVXuser. The site seems to have gotten stale over the last few months - no one's been really talking about importaint issues like this. These are the things that make it great!
Have a good weekend!
taormina
Hates to Rent
You're preaching to the choir. I think a one day cameo just to put the guy on the box cover is a rip off to the audience and borders on misleading. I've mentioned several times that Sizemore was in my movie about 50% of it. I believe in giving people their money's worth.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Yep i think (again) Taormina is right here - its a bad attitude to try and scramble all your pennies so someone remotely famous will be in the movie for a couple of scenes.
Not only is a waste of a precious micro budget its demonstrative that there really is no way to cheat with names to try and add percieved production value.
If its a cameo its a cameo - it can still be used to impress some smaller investors and build hype - but a name, (real name not um the more optimistic versions hehe) up front and center on the box makes me expect a lead or principle character.
Plus really - who are we kidding? The distributers? Nooo.... there not gonna look at a 5k micro with a 5 sec cameo and think wow its a blockbuster!
With Taormina's they've hopefully (I know you've already explained how they've reacted in yoru films thread) that what they see is a great - and uber violent slingy one liner gangster/action genre film. But of course its a B movie (I actually love good B movies!!! Subjective what is good of course, but *ahem* anyway ever see Viggo's 'American Yakuza' ? Thats in my DVD collection, i also like Sizemore so i'll add Taorminas movie to my collection too.)
But if i got it and he is like waving away a camera man and thats somehow been cobbled into a scene haha then nooo...
What ive learned from the commercial and 'creative industry world' that is of creative commercial work (documentaries, FX post services and so on) - is that NOTHING is easy. Its all a challenge - its all brutal, and theres no easy quick fixes.
Its actually uber hard work to make a micro budget film watcheable, never mind convincing an audience that its of a uber production value, or that it features stars who only make cameos - or of treating audiences like their stupid.
The straight to DVD market features classics of all sorts, what we would call A and B. In my country the UK we tend to be a bit more affectionate to B Movies as it were, as they were usually produced with more artistic sentiment than the pure exploitation flicks in the states (of which some are good too!)
Tarantino thought so anyway!
I should also think a BIG DOSE of humility if required here especially with the 'i checked out the competition and it sucked' type attitude. Sure that helps to encourage you that yours will be the microbudget exception to mediocrity but don't dellude yourselves - its gonna be hard.
Adam (Taormina) did his the insane way (imo and its no expert opinion) though my doctor wouldnt recommend it for me due to blood pressure anyway! But the general attitude of spending more to build a better quality product (or good enough to raise a distributers eyebrow) i think is valid. But his strategy is very different Nat i think to the one you and some others advocate here.
Being British the ball games slightly different (we just dont get us distribution full stop haha - joking!) My feature will have some cameos (to assist in local press, contributions/ sponsorship) but i won't be banging on here making it sound like a walk in the park hehe
Not only is a waste of a precious micro budget its demonstrative that there really is no way to cheat with names to try and add percieved production value.
If its a cameo its a cameo - it can still be used to impress some smaller investors and build hype - but a name, (real name not um the more optimistic versions hehe) up front and center on the box makes me expect a lead or principle character.
Plus really - who are we kidding? The distributers? Nooo.... there not gonna look at a 5k micro with a 5 sec cameo and think wow its a blockbuster!
With Taormina's they've hopefully (I know you've already explained how they've reacted in yoru films thread) that what they see is a great - and uber violent slingy one liner gangster/action genre film. But of course its a B movie (I actually love good B movies!!! Subjective what is good of course, but *ahem* anyway ever see Viggo's 'American Yakuza' ? Thats in my DVD collection, i also like Sizemore so i'll add Taorminas movie to my collection too.)
But if i got it and he is like waving away a camera man and thats somehow been cobbled into a scene haha then nooo...
What ive learned from the commercial and 'creative industry world' that is of creative commercial work (documentaries, FX post services and so on) - is that NOTHING is easy. Its all a challenge - its all brutal, and theres no easy quick fixes.
Its actually uber hard work to make a micro budget film watcheable, never mind convincing an audience that its of a uber production value, or that it features stars who only make cameos - or of treating audiences like their stupid.
The straight to DVD market features classics of all sorts, what we would call A and B. In my country the UK we tend to be a bit more affectionate to B Movies as it were, as they were usually produced with more artistic sentiment than the pure exploitation flicks in the states (of which some are good too!)
Tarantino thought so anyway!
I should also think a BIG DOSE of humility if required here especially with the 'i checked out the competition and it sucked' type attitude. Sure that helps to encourage you that yours will be the microbudget exception to mediocrity but don't dellude yourselves - its gonna be hard.
Adam (Taormina) did his the insane way (imo and its no expert opinion) though my doctor wouldnt recommend it for me due to blood pressure anyway! But the general attitude of spending more to build a better quality product (or good enough to raise a distributers eyebrow) i think is valid. But his strategy is very different Nat i think to the one you and some others advocate here.
Being British the ball games slightly different (we just dont get us distribution full stop haha - joking!) My feature will have some cameos (to assist in local press, contributions/ sponsorship) but i won't be banging on here making it sound like a walk in the park hehe
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
That fact you referenced Bowfinger is quite awesome.
Okay, so you mainly watch A films: Bruce Campbell is in EVERY Spider-Man film. One of the pleasures of Spider-Man is waiting for the Bruce Campbell Cameo. He's the ring announcer in 1, the theater doorman in 2, and the Maitre'd in part 3. He was a college buddy of Sam Raimi. He got his start in a small B movie called "Evil Dead" which spawned two sequels and an upcoming remake. This is where Sam Raimi got his start as well of course. Campbell is Coach Boomer in "Sky High", Fugax in "The Ant Bully" currently he's on the television show "Burn Notice". If you do a movie everyone likes it doesn't matter whether it's an A, B or C film. These two guys made it from what you would consider a bad B movie but it's loved by people. Sam is a millionaire and Bruce is working actor in movies, TV. Cartoons and Video Games.
Another name you won't know is Ted Raimi, Sam's brother. Check out his IMDB, you'd be shocked by all he's been in. He was made famous by the same film and more famous for his hilarious role in "Xena: Warrior Princess" (He playe Joxer). Bruce popped up on "Xena: Warrior Princess" many times too. Xena was also a Raimi show.
Missing out on a ton. You can never forsake the crossover effect: Video Games, comics, action films, super-hero/sci-fi us geeks move a lot of money and have made many people famous. Look at Raimi's IMDB and you may also be shocked at how far he's come from a small film that got major love from a big audience. Do a good geek movie you will be loved by us forever, especially if you're a babe.
DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND STAY AWAY FROM THESE! Low budget urban films are extremely BAD (And maybe even bad for you). My films usually get grouped into the "urban" category but at least I can tell a story that doesn't involve the F word every ten seconds. The distributors put them out to get the money but they have destroyed the market and are that much worse than your average low budget film.
There's a market for dung too. LOL.
Two of my best female friends are like you but maybe worse. They don't even understand B movies or why they exist. They give me film advice that has nothing to do with the lighting or the movie in general. Everything is perfect in a million dollar film and they don't understand why $5000 and a rag tag crew can't get the same effect.
I believe if you can't get the same effect you can go big as possible. People didn't believe "The Fourth Beast" was done on $800. Simply because of the level of fight choreo and all the locations. I got anywhere from a few thousand to about ten thousand. I just knew how to use my college and people's apartments very well. And I did learn a little something from Sergei Eisenstein and "Battleship Potemkin" even if it was mainly learning how to make apartment's look bigger than they are. (They do this Evil Dead too, see how many rooms that small cabin has).
Simply go to Blockbuster and rent films that look like they'll be fun. I like martial arts films. You ever heard of a film called Drive? Most people I know have never said "The lighting was off in that shot." They mostly say "Daaaamn! When is Mark Dacascos going to get his shot!" Here's a scene of Dacascos doing his thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiTh-6pkytE (he's the guy in the black). You said you didn't want to emulate B movies, but doing a fight scene like this is my dream.
If you can do this, the fans will love your stuff. Brittany Murphy and Kadeem Hardison were in this film too. This is a fight from SPL (another B film) with Donnie Yen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZs48lJXhxM and we'll be doing a fight like this with knives. Fans aren't really hard to please. Just give them what they want. They start wondering about lighting when your movie starts to get boring. Well lit video and sound are the big focus, that's what we're trying to work on, then you can get creative. If people can't hear what your characters are saying, that's a big problem. (One that many of us micro-buget movie makers have).
If you know your audience and you know what you're capable of you don't have to worry about being influenced by bad film. Watch them and take note on what you would do better. Most big movies now are B movie stories with million dollar budgets and that includes every superhero film every made.
Not if you got a green scene, they can be in that film a lot. LOL.
-Nate
Last edited:
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Hmm we are getting a little fixated with B and A movies here of course. Perhaps im just being British hehe but i mean lets take Canadian filmmaker Guy Maddin - 'The Saddest Music in the World or Brand on the Brain' - Okay there arty, but if we're talking budget we're talking 'B movies'
Of course there not - and i think its important to bare in mind the distinction between genre MOVIES and other FILMS hehe not just in the obvious manner (ie genre sells art doesnt) but that within the hyrbid of these elements there is room for films to make some progress.
Art under the radar as it were - for if there is something of a genuinely innovative and interesting character then it can allow a film to stand out. It certainly has lead to some films - British horror film 'The Vanguard' is one, or 'Five Eyes Across' for an American example, getting (eventually) signed onto Lionsgate for example.
Neither had any names, both had original premises. Now Adam has produced towards a more commercial perspective with his film (and if i was a betting man and an investor) i'd be more hopeful for seeing his return $$$ than any pretentious filmmakers BUT...
If your so poor and have NOTHING to lose, and i honestly mean NOTHING - then why the hell (and i take you to court on this JLS with your emulation comment hehe) Then why oh why try to emulate anything so commercial that it's base is already covered by studio pump outs - that are better funded than what you can do.
In fact Adam's film isn't a sell out - (even though he's characterised it as overtly commercial) but the jist here seems to be about emulating big boys with big films.
Not good films with big ideas...
Trust me guys, its that and not some celeb for a day that will make you a reaal filmmaker!
Of course there not - and i think its important to bare in mind the distinction between genre MOVIES and other FILMS hehe not just in the obvious manner (ie genre sells art doesnt) but that within the hyrbid of these elements there is room for films to make some progress.
Art under the radar as it were - for if there is something of a genuinely innovative and interesting character then it can allow a film to stand out. It certainly has lead to some films - British horror film 'The Vanguard' is one, or 'Five Eyes Across' for an American example, getting (eventually) signed onto Lionsgate for example.
Neither had any names, both had original premises. Now Adam has produced towards a more commercial perspective with his film (and if i was a betting man and an investor) i'd be more hopeful for seeing his return $$$ than any pretentious filmmakers BUT...
If your so poor and have NOTHING to lose, and i honestly mean NOTHING - then why the hell (and i take you to court on this JLS with your emulation comment hehe) Then why oh why try to emulate anything so commercial that it's base is already covered by studio pump outs - that are better funded than what you can do.
In fact Adam's film isn't a sell out - (even though he's characterised it as overtly commercial) but the jist here seems to be about emulating big boys with big films.
Not good films with big ideas...
Trust me guys, its that and not some celeb for a day that will make you a reaal filmmaker!
taormina
Hates to Rent
Another paraphrase from Dusty Smith (Director of acquisitions, Roadside Attractions):
"The films we released that did the best were the ones with some commerical potential. We had other films that won awards, garnered critical acclaim, and no one saw (Road to Guantanamo); We also had films that received scathing reviews that filled theaters consistently (What the bleep do we know). Sadly, there's no market for art in the united states"
Interestng quote, man. Soak it up, people. Soak it way up!
PS: Sorry for all the Dusty Smith quotes. I heard a 30 minute long interview the other day with him and I'm still processing all the info!
"The films we released that did the best were the ones with some commerical potential. We had other films that won awards, garnered critical acclaim, and no one saw (Road to Guantanamo); We also had films that received scathing reviews that filled theaters consistently (What the bleep do we know). Sadly, there's no market for art in the united states"
Interestng quote, man. Soak it up, people. Soak it way up!
PS: Sorry for all the Dusty Smith quotes. I heard a 30 minute long interview the other day with him and I'm still processing all the info!
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
But what's a good film? That's so subjective. Something original and fresh could also suck. At the same time a rehashed concept done differently can has mass appeal but still seem fresh. When the Matrix came out it was fresh and new but honestly it was a rehash of one man/group against the government and/or evil controlling power. I never understood why people feel you can't make a film that's commercial as well as deeper than what's out there. There's a lot of people that do do it.
-Nate
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Hey Nat, yep to paraphrase as it were your quote of me (to make my point clearer.)
The jist here seems to be about emulating big boys with big films.
On that score i dont think your point entirely makes sense - something original IS original, whether its good or not is in the eye of the beholder of course - theres no revelation in that though.
Thanks that IS the point im making - because dudes with zilcho budgets aren't going to really get mainstream or competitive genre deals without having something 'good' - vague again.
Lets say innovative, original and interesting - the more risky ideas that tried and true genre pics (that are better funded than me or yours) have covered.
-----
I mean i'd agree with that in respect to experimental art films, though there is an audience for them (and artier films) though goodness knows about the er revenue to expect from such films.
However having (its so difficult to express what i mean lol without stereotyping) artier/original/intelligent/innovative - pick what you will - attempts to cross genre, or enhance genre - to put something of yourself (within the familiar frame work of a genre product) can let it stand out. That i think is something every micro director would be advised to attempt - smack something of yourselve - your unique quality into the film, take the risks a studio pic cannot if financially your operating on a crap budget anyway.
This is true also - though there are circumstances to bare in mind with such sentiments. Was it a very low budget genre pic sellout that packed them in - i doubt it!! Probably something suitably funded - suitably engineered as a corporate brain-stormed product hehe. I'm being a bit pompous here as im a bit artier but i certainly wouldnt try to convince folk thats the way to spin money in film obviously.
In fact if you want to make money fight viciously to provide corporate videos and advertising... No offence but my company will make more in a month than 'most' of you AND ME could dream of making on your 9 - 12 month feature micro budget feature filmed and filled with tears and pain after oh... probably years... of making/selling and so on.
Thats not me showing off about my company (we all know that we can make money - much much more money doing stuff we don't really want too.)
It just makes me think that well, if your trying to make movies because it was your idea of how to get rich then thats just insane anyway. If you make movies because you have stories to tell, then whats the point of trying to emulate committee made michael bay inspired corporate genre pornography?
I mentioned before i love loads of b movies, genre pics etc so im not biased against them, but we must aspire to be more creative than our more insured studio peers.
Im waffling on and on i know. US Indy filmmakers imo have huge entrepeneurial spirit compared to your Limey peers over here - but it seems on the flip side so many of you seek the credibility of commercialisation. Its common sense to make money (i am a business man not some uni student artist pointificating over a spliff!).
Ok finished now!
The jist here seems to be about emulating big boys with big films.
On that score i dont think your point entirely makes sense - something original IS original, whether its good or not is in the eye of the beholder of course - theres no revelation in that though.
Thanks that IS the point im making - because dudes with zilcho budgets aren't going to really get mainstream or competitive genre deals without having something 'good' - vague again.
Lets say innovative, original and interesting - the more risky ideas that tried and true genre pics (that are better funded than me or yours) have covered.
-----
I mean i'd agree with that in respect to experimental art films, though there is an audience for them (and artier films) though goodness knows about the er revenue to expect from such films.
However having (its so difficult to express what i mean lol without stereotyping) artier/original/intelligent/innovative - pick what you will - attempts to cross genre, or enhance genre - to put something of yourself (within the familiar frame work of a genre product) can let it stand out. That i think is something every micro director would be advised to attempt - smack something of yourselve - your unique quality into the film, take the risks a studio pic cannot if financially your operating on a crap budget anyway.
This is true also - though there are circumstances to bare in mind with such sentiments. Was it a very low budget genre pic sellout that packed them in - i doubt it!! Probably something suitably funded - suitably engineered as a corporate brain-stormed product hehe. I'm being a bit pompous here as im a bit artier but i certainly wouldnt try to convince folk thats the way to spin money in film obviously.
In fact if you want to make money fight viciously to provide corporate videos and advertising... No offence but my company will make more in a month than 'most' of you AND ME could dream of making on your 9 - 12 month feature micro budget feature filmed and filled with tears and pain after oh... probably years... of making/selling and so on.
Thats not me showing off about my company (we all know that we can make money - much much more money doing stuff we don't really want too.)
It just makes me think that well, if your trying to make movies because it was your idea of how to get rich then thats just insane anyway. If you make movies because you have stories to tell, then whats the point of trying to emulate committee made michael bay inspired corporate genre pornography?
I mentioned before i love loads of b movies, genre pics etc so im not biased against them, but we must aspire to be more creative than our more insured studio peers.
Im waffling on and on i know. US Indy filmmakers imo have huge entrepeneurial spirit compared to your Limey peers over here - but it seems on the flip side so many of you seek the credibility of commercialisation. Its common sense to make money (i am a business man not some uni student artist pointificating over a spliff!).
Ok finished now!
Last edited:
I couldn't agree more.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Yep i think so too good example. I mean heck artistic merit will enhance anything! Some of the zingers in your script Adam, to other artistic choices will help make yours stand out say against a cynical rush job - and obviously yours is not aiming to be an art film - its a kick ass revenge gangster film. The movie 'brother' was a good example too, or even films like American Yakuza! Plus its not like studio pics don't have art of course, but its no coincidence that those that often do (or do it well!) are among the best! Dark Knight for example, but my favourite genre films and Grindhouse films are those with some artistic merit (not pretentiousness but merit.) Gangster films with wit, edge.... horror films that stand out - you name it.
Oh don't be a spoil sport! I'm sure Greg will pipe in if he wants to bring his thread back to his specific question - on the contrary its raised a good discussion - and heres some film business btw 101 - you can make profit AND art - suuurprise!
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
I think the problem is "art" seems to have a different meaning. In America artist is juxtoposed with the word "starving". People simply don't connect "art" and profit. Once you make something big you've "sold out". Even when I made "Wages of Sin" some people considered it a sale out because it wasn't a "Christian" film. But neither was "The Fourth Beast". Both were action films. But one was a bit more "Hollywood" while the other was just not that great. It had some good work for the budget, but it wasn't great by any means.
My point being art/message or whatever it is, is usually trumped by overall entertainment value and many people don't see these things coming together as one, when in fact, as you've said "you can make profit AND art". It's simply not seen that way all the time in America. We label everything. Either it's art or it's a movie. Again one man's art is another man's garbage and vice versa.
-Nate
My point being art/message or whatever it is, is usually trumped by overall entertainment value and many people don't see these things coming together as one, when in fact, as you've said "you can make profit AND art". It's simply not seen that way all the time in America. We label everything. Either it's art or it's a movie. Again one man's art is another man's garbage and vice versa.
-Nate
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Yep its a Yank thing to a degree!! But its a shame it really is (i mean im making a broad statement to say the least.) In the UK, we expect our genre films normally to have something meritous (artistically) and we expected that of our B movies usually too.
We never celebrated a grindehouse tradition in quite the same way if you get my drift. Thats not to say our huddled masses don't rush to see a Michael Bay porno hehe but unlike the States (or some states cinemas that i was in) our audiences don't talk through films, shout at the screen, take mobile calls.... etc etc
In Britain its still treated a bit more like 'theatre' and the Arts Establishment are fiercely linked to film (as Britain doesnt have a commercial studio based film industry.)
Americans are huge pioneers of commercial film - but i think their industry/economic/business strategies have in a way contributed to a mainstream audience verging a little too strongly towards the superficial.
I dont think art is completely in the eye of the beholder, someone that likes something without any concerns for artistic merit certainly isn't percieving it as art. (The guy that wants a porno and enjoys his porno movie certainly isnt thinking its 'his art') I think too often this subjective metaphysical argument is used to justify too much crap.
Bikini Nymphos vs Zombies is art to some people so its... art *ahem* yeah right hehe! Hey ill still watch it if the babes are hot though!
I don't think a little cultural artistic elitism would hurt the US film industry. But changing the perceptions of art - as an upper class/ thang produced by pretentious gimps is tough - you can only solve that by making good art.
Being a penniless artist well... thats going to happen no matter what film you make (when your starting out hehe!) So long as we can afford a good drink while we write we're not that poor!
We never celebrated a grindehouse tradition in quite the same way if you get my drift. Thats not to say our huddled masses don't rush to see a Michael Bay porno hehe but unlike the States (or some states cinemas that i was in) our audiences don't talk through films, shout at the screen, take mobile calls.... etc etc
In Britain its still treated a bit more like 'theatre' and the Arts Establishment are fiercely linked to film (as Britain doesnt have a commercial studio based film industry.)
Americans are huge pioneers of commercial film - but i think their industry/economic/business strategies have in a way contributed to a mainstream audience verging a little too strongly towards the superficial.
I dont think art is completely in the eye of the beholder, someone that likes something without any concerns for artistic merit certainly isn't percieving it as art. (The guy that wants a porno and enjoys his porno movie certainly isnt thinking its 'his art') I think too often this subjective metaphysical argument is used to justify too much crap.
Bikini Nymphos vs Zombies is art to some people so its... art *ahem* yeah right hehe! Hey ill still watch it if the babes are hot though!
I don't think a little cultural artistic elitism would hurt the US film industry. But changing the perceptions of art - as an upper class/ thang produced by pretentious gimps is tough - you can only solve that by making good art.
Being a penniless artist well... thats going to happen no matter what film you make (when your starting out hehe!) So long as we can afford a good drink while we write we're not that poor!