Anyone Here do business with Maverick Entertainment?

taormina said:
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.
Click to expand...

haha! waaaa-haaaay-haaait a second. i find this really, reeeaaaaalllly hard to believe... that if an Academy Award winning actor said sure, i'll take a supporting role on your movie that amounts to less than 10 minutes of screen time, that you would say... "No, no... it wouldn't be right. I have no other names in this film and I've got to respect my audience. Thanks but no thanks, Mr. Oscar Winner." ¿que? somehow i get the impression that this is less about your principles and more about an opportunity to knock a fellow filmmaker. screw that sh*t.
 
Zak Forsman said:
haha! waaaa-haaaay-haaait a second. i find this really, reeeaaaaalllly hard to believe... that if an Academy Award winning actor said sure, i'll take a supporting role on your movie that amounts to less than 10 minutes of screen time, that you would say... "No, no... it wouldn't be right. I have no other names in this film and I've got to respect my audience. Thanks but no thanks, Mr. Oscar Winner." ¿que? somehow i get the impression that this is less about your principles and more about an opportunity to knock a fellow filmmaker. screw that sh*t.
Click to expand...

First, I write my own stuff, unlike most other people. Second, I don't write cameo roles into my stories. Third, I've never been approached by an Oscar winner to be in my movies, and I don't think anyone else here has either.

What's up with the straw man argument?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: names for cameos are cheap. They're cheap for the filmmaker, and they're cheap for the audience.

If you think that's a slam, then hey! You're entitled to your wrong opinion.

BTW, I wrote about this topic at length before Justin ever cast his movie, if that's what you're referring to.
 
Yah JLS well that sounds about right (er basically all of it) to me personally anyway. Especially the part about me being an interesting person haha!

Yep so when i criticise the 5k to a 10k gross profit (5k net) over 9 months and say that its crap. It is crap i mean we all know it but if that is the way the dice is thrown for us then thats what we have to play with.

There will be many who would be delighted to break even if it was there debut - others excited they made even a dollar!

My criticism is more precisely laid at the business rational (which started my epic opus) that Nate was kinda alluding too. That its a matter of fact business model of progression (my opinion is its crap its no business model.)

Its not something to get excited about - its a tragic circumstance BUT - its essential to growth and right enough knowledge and experience are the most precious commodities one can buy.

Anything that smacks of short cuts - that smells of narrow minded optimism should be scrutinised.

JLS - what Nate is doing is what every indy pretty much without starting capitol is more or less forced to do. Its not a plan but a matter of circumstance. However the theory your devising of course is a plan so of course good luck with that.

My company has probably about 200k$ assets of equipment (of all sorts particularly post software) we're still learning i mean check my cinema 4d thread im no peter jackson or anything.

Capitol budget for a film is a killer though as of course im in the corporate game. Its easier to get 10$k for a corporate video than for a feature as a starting out indy - even though that corporate might just be a 5 minute video with some motion graphics.

Well im waffling now, my first feature will be produced for about 15 - 20k $ through my companies own funds. There wil be lessons from my past work that will help me but there will be lessons ive not learned by not producing a feature with just $5k.

On a more political level i think its up to us as a whole to take responsibility for ensuring that independent film is a better class of product - rather than producing poorly funded emulations of studio pics we should instead produce emulate nothing more than the expression of our own artistic passions (be that a zombie movie or an arthouse drama.)

Genre audiences are hungry for films that won't be filtered through an exec, that speak directly to them. Fan festivals are ideal places to learn what the base as it were want.

And before anyone goes - yeah but those hardcore audiences won't represent a big enough market... forget it - joe six pack left the building but an obsessed goth might just give your shoestring budget horror a 2nd glance because you put a cool new idea in it -oh and passion too.

You're entitled to your wrong opinion.
Click to expand...

Thats almost poetic! Of course a name even in a cameo will feature in the post production - business strategy for the film - but it IS possible to do this without marketing that name as if they are a main character leading to false audience expectation. Its where we indies cheat that we create a bad name for ourselves and others.

I would use my name for press releases at the localised level, to impress investors (who invariably are investing in market tie ins with the film certainly there not daft enough to invest in the expectation of profit.) Some of that is somewhat speculative.
 
Last edited:
Zak Forsman said:
Thanks but no thanks, Mr. Oscar Winner." ¿que? somehow i get the impression that this is less about your principles and more about an opportunity to knock a fellow filmmaker. screw that sh*t.
Click to expand...

taormina said:
If you think that's a slam, then hey! You're entitled to your wrong opinion.

BTW, I wrote about this topic at length before Justin ever cast his movie, if that's what you're referring to.
Click to expand...

Ok! Ok! Both of you are Geniuses BOTH You ZAK and You Adam. Let's not argue over moot points. those of us that can afford someone for 50% to 30% cool, otherwise people will get a cameo. It's not so much a thing about a filmmakers' desire as about a filmmakers money. So I think most of us know that. Heck let's not loose another DVX Guru over a small disagreement.
Have a beer and smile! :beer::)
 
hey, I'm cool. Actually, I don't mind cameos either. If you happen to get a big guy for a day, great! I'd take it.

What I can't stand, what is a blatant misrepresentation to me is to get a guy for a day then follow it up with ads saying the guy is "starring" in the movie.

Let's revert back to the definition of Starring:

star

   /stɑr/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [stahr] Show IPA Pronunciation ,
noun, adjective, verb, starred, star⋅ring. –nou

a prominent actor, singer, or the like, esp. one who plays the leading role in a performance.

If your cameo meets that definition, then you aren't cheating your audience and creating a publicity stunt. I'm not accusing anyone here, I'm just voicing my opinion on how things should be done.

In my book, day players, cameos, really high end people who are not in your movie are ok. It's when they are billed as the star or show up on the box cover that it feels wrong. But that's just me.
 
lawriejaffa said:
Yah JLS well that sounds about right (er basically all of it) to me personally anyway. Especially the part about me being an interesting person haha!

Yep so when i criticise the 5k to a 10k gross profit (5k net) over 9 months and say that its crap. It is crap i mean we all know it but if that is the way the dice is thrown for us then thats what we have to play with.

There will be many who would be delighted to break even if it was there debut - others excited they made even a dollar!

My criticism is more precisely laid at the business rational (which started my epic opus) that Nate was kinda alluding too. That its a matter of fact business model of progression (my opinion is its crap its no business model.)

Its not something to get excited about - its a tragic circumstance BUT - its essential to growth and right enough knowledge and experience are the most precious commodities one can buy.

Anything that smacks of short cuts - that smells of narrow minded optimism should be scrutinised.

JLS - what Nate is doing is what every indy pretty much without starting capitol is more or less forced to do. Its not a plan but a matter of circumstance. However the theory your devising of course is a plan so of course good luck with that.
Click to expand...

I tend to find that even in the midst of argment many times we (people) are saying the same thing. Most of us want multi-million dollar budgets, no cameos but real actors- we want to pay, etc. We want great scripts and awesome ideas! So I always assume this is the case when I read/talk with people. Circumstance is what the difference is for each of us. How much we know, Who we are contacted to, how much money we have, etc.

There are so many smart filmmakers here on DVX until it's pathetic. People love to list Zak, Justin, Adam, the guy for NGL (forget name right now) and more. I always pub Todd. But the main thing is for us to share knowledge with each other. We're not always going to see eye to eye, but it doesn't mean one person is wrong while another is right. I mean you can make a hamburger in the stove or on it.

I'm outta stuff to say, but this has been a great thread. I thank again everyone. I know this thread has helped me! And I thank you all for your opinions, facts, theories, and concepts. :thumbup::dankk2:
 
taormina said:
hey, I'm cool. Actually, I don't mind cameos either. If you happen to get a big guy for a day, great! I'd take it.

What I can't stand, what is a blatant misrepresentation to me is to get a guy for a day then follow it up with ads saying the guy is "starring" in the movie.
Click to expand...

adam, you know I love you!!! and you see, that's what I was saying. which one of us wouldn't accept Cromwell or someone of his caliber and stature for a day? a straw man argument would have necessitated a misrepresentation of your opinion. I was asking you to detail your assertion that you would never disrespect your audience by allowing a name actor to do a cameo. but this is a much more reasoned explanation of your thoughts. naturally, i like it much more than dismissing my "wrong opinion". haha! :)

no but this makes sense. might be fun to see some examples of this... where a cameo is marketed as a starring role on the poster or in the trailer, etc.
 
Zak Forsman said:
adam, you know I love you!!! and you see, that's what I was saying. which one of us wouldn't accept Cromwell or someone of his caliber and stature for a day? a straw man argument would have necessitated a misrepresentation of your opinion. I was asking you to detail your assertion that you would never disrespect your audience by allowing a name actor to do a cameo. but this is a much more reasoned explanation of your thoughts. naturally, i like it much more than dismissing my "wrong opinion". haha! :)

no but this makes sense. might be fun to see some examples of this... where a cameo is marketed as a starring role on the poster or in the trailer, etc.
Click to expand...

I'd take Cromwell for any role, in any capacity, for any term, in a second. He's a gifted actor for sure, dude!

peace, bro. :)
 
it's appreciated but i think you give me too much credit, jls4. let's see how "Heart of Now" performs first. i'm after Bill Pullman for a feature I'd like to shoot in 2010 called "Fingerbang My Heart". When that happens, you can call me one of the big boys. :) haha!
 
Last edited:
Zak Forsman said:
it's appreciated but i think you give me too much credit, jls4. let's see how "Heart of Now" performs first. i'm after Bill Pullman for a feature I'd like to shoot in 2010 called "Fingerbang My Heart". When that happens, you can call me one of the big boys. :) haha!
Click to expand...

Just because Hollywood hasn't recognized your talent, doesn't mean you don't have it Zak. I personally know I'm awesome - although few claim it. ;-)

But I'm loving that title - "Fingerbang My Heart".
 
it's about a married couple making their livelihood with an adult web site and the ramifications of obliterating any sense of intimacy to their sexual lives.
 
That's really cool. Pullman is cool too. You should be able to get him, he's been in some small films lately. What's the budget?
 
Thats a beautiful title Zak hehe - so Bill Pullman - that would be cool! He does a few indpendent films eh and quite a bit of theatre too? Would be great to have him in a movie!
 
i still need to write it so that it exists in a form beyond a stack of outlines, and various notes and research printouts. but it is on the scale of something like The Wrestler or Half Nelson. without a name, $150k at the very least. the veeeerrrry least. with a name, or names it could land anywhere from $250k to $1M. it's funny, I had my eye on a girl who has been labelled an "existential porn star" named Sasha Grey for the other lead and it turns out, Steven Soderberg beat me to her for The Girlfriend Experience. jerk.
 
Last edited:
That's cool. It'll be great to see - just get on that screenplay.

Heck I'm having the same problem - 'except I'm story-stuck. I've got like 10 great ideas but each one would easily cost over $5 mill. I'm trying to find a story in my head that I like that I can do for under $250K
 
I am wanting to produce a horror themed science fiction 'drama' inspired by new wave asian horror in style, but set on the Eastern front. (It would be a bit like that move 'The Fury' - but in a ww2 setting.)

Likewise my ideas outstrip the financial realities haha - its difficult to discipline inspiration!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top