Darn you Sundance

RobMora said:
Naa, you're not a bad monkey but I don't think I'd ever look forward to seeing crap just to admire the great films.
Click to expand...
Ah hell Rob, sobering up this morning, I figure I really wouldn't want to pay $9.00 for crap at IMAX, but still I think you need the crap as a frame of reference. The way you need a Chevy Citation to really appreciate just how good a Toyota Corolla is.

And its nice to know Neil, that there are little dudes who really make it to Sundance, and some even make money. I still want to know though if the groupies are easy when you are a film maker there, especially when you look like the beaver in our logo. hehehehe

:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Has anyone seen Michael Kang's, "The Motel"?

http://www.themotel-film.com/screenings.html

I remember trying to get an internship with the Sundance Institute and that script was used as part of the tryout. It had been accepted into the screenwriter's lab unbeknownest to us.

Kang must have hooked up with Miguel Arteta during the lab. Arteta(Star Maps, Chuck and Buck) is one of the producers.
 
RobMora said:
Yes, crap has its place -- but not on the big screen. I agree that most people just aren't good enough to make films. Film is too important, too beautiful and too complex an art form to be left in hands of people who don't know what they're doing.
Click to expand...
That's absurd. You're taking this limited view of the world the same way Hollywood is. It's not about screen sizes or the distribution medium. If you honestly believe what you're saying in that quote, you are so ridiculously vulnerable to being made obsolete by some "hack" that has a really good idea, an HVX and an Internet connection.

It costs more and more every year to make a movie, when it should cost less. Every other form of media has done this throughout recorded history, starting with print. People are making six figures writing a blog about, well, making money by writing a blog! What does that tell you about the opportunities in creating media?

A bigger cultural problem is that we judge the value of things based on their scale. If a network gets these ratings, it's successful. If a movie grosses this much, it's successful. If a book sells this many copies, it's successful. But with IPTV, some service that hasn't been thought of yet, or Lulu, the traditional metrics aren't relevant. And the coolest thing about it is that an individual who pulls down six figures making his own media might get lucky and hit that critical mass in traditional metrics anyway. The studios, networks, publishers get zero.

Look at how some of these podcasts are listened to by more people than the number who see some network TV shows. I mean, are we naive to think the same thing isn't going to happen elsewhere? I mean, Mark Cuban posted just yesterday that he wants to know how to get butts in the seats of movie theaters. What do you suppose people are doing instead?

I don't disagree that there's a very true and real art to creating good films. What I'm saying is that film festivals, studios and other people who think they're important are not the be all, end all to getting your movie seen, monetized and "successful" (whatever that means).
 
RobMora said:
Yes, crap has its place -- but not on the big screen. I agree that most people just aren't good enough to make films. Film is too important, too beautiful and too complex an art form to be left in hands of people who don't know what they're doing. I'm probably the lone voice in the desert by saying this, but there are way too many people making way too many movies - digital or otherwise.

Rob
Click to expand...
from Mike Curtis' great article on PVC:

"My friend wondered what this would mean for moviemaking in the future - would this kill off future generations of talent? In a way, I kind of hope so. A lot of movies are being made that, frankly, shouldn’t be."

And Mark Gill's superb speech:

"Fifteen years ago, the Sundance Film Festival got 500 submissions. This year, they received 5,000. Virtually all of these are privately financed. There's only one problem: most of the films are flat-out awful (trust me, I have had to sit through tons of them over the years). Let me put it another way: the digital revolution is here, and boy does it suck.
It's not enough to have access to the moviemaking process. Talent matters more."

Hmmm, I guess I was right after all...
 
5,000 movies at MINIMUM $35/pop (Sundance submission fee.) They're making AT LEAST $175,000 off the top, probably closer to $200,000 for regular and late fee submitters. Damn!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top