FEATURE: DEUCE OF SPADES - How I made a period full feature film all by myself on ZERO budget

Kholi said:
Yeah, that's what I'm talkin about, man. Especially slash film and he infamous AIcN. Any press on AIcN is good press... Which might be a bad thing?
Click to expand...

She could try sending it to Boing Boing too. Xeni Jardin seems like she'd be into this sort of thing. Not really a film blog but they have posts about pretty much anything and it could help spread the word.

In addition to blogs, she could maybe try sending out screeners to independent film magazines like Filmmaker, Indie Slate, indieWire, DV, and Videography etc. I'm a little surprised at the kind of low IMDB rating by the way, as almost every review written there seemed really positive.
 
Hello everyone, I am sorry I have been MIA, but I have been swamped. I will interject and reply as needed, but first a quick update. The film is keeping me insanely busy 24 / 7, and it is hard to keep up with the basic emails, orders, shipping and enquiries. Plus I am now planning for a possible US tour. I have had to finally give my notice at my day job!!! After working there for 16 years it is both exciting to finally be FREE but also a little scary. The film is a runaway success in many ways and I keep sprinting after it trying to catch up with it, but it's always ahead of me :/...

I am now at 8000 units sold on my website.

Now a few replies to your above posts:

1- You can buy the film on the offiicial DEUCE OF SPADES website. Seems it would be very easy to figure out since it is the first link that pops up when you google the film title ;) - But just in case here it is www.deuceofspades.com - the store has lots of cool merch and of course the DVD.


2- Reviews: The world most prestigious hot rod magazine (oldest and most established - with a reader base of over 9 million) JUST reviewed the film and write-up came out a couple days ago. HOT ROD MAGAZINE said (I quote) "Deuce of Spades was worth the wait! The best hot rod film since American Graffiti :))" - and "A multi layered story with a dramatic ending guarantied to make your make up run ;) " If that is not a big thumbs up from the most reputable hot rod publication, then I don't know what is. More reviews came out in "HOT ROD DELUXE" ("Color us impressed, a must see film!"), NITRO MADNESS (great review!!), LINE CHASER, NSRA MAGAZINE STREET SCENE, OL' SKOOL RODS (coming soon), DIRTY (UK), CLASSIC CARS (UK), AMERICAN MUSCLE CARS AND HOT RODS (FRANCE) POWERGLIDE (FRANCE), WHEELS (SWEDEN), my God there are many more and even more to still come out!! You can also read lots of reviews here:http://www.deuceofspadesmovie.com/film_reviews.htm and more reviews here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1384586/usercomments . Ignore the one smart ass review from one user in canada on Imdb, that's my ex ex ex boyfriend Richard Smothers being spiteful cause my fim is succesful. People are pathetic. I busted him for it though, the fake handle name didn't fool me LOL.

3- Imdb ratings: To see the real ratings click here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1384586/ratings


My real Imdb ratings should be either 8.3 or 9 - the 4.2 "weighed" rating they are displaying has zero substantiation what so ever. Statistics and numbers simply don't lie. If you add up all my votes you will come up with 8.3 - I am simply being penalized by Imdb for having a cult film and having an audience who simply LOVES my film, worldwide. An audience that is giving it high ratings, which Imdb doesn't like. If the film was a 4.2 flop, as Imdb's skewed rating suggests, how can they explain the 8000 copies sold, amazing media reviews and cover of magazines? Sales figures don't lie. Current Imdb weighed ratings do. I sure hope they wake up and smell the roses soon because this is making them look real bad in the eye of the public.
 
Last edited:
Ted Spencer said:
"...all by myself on zero budget" is pretty much the metaphoric way of putting it. I'd say that actually means "with no outside financial or film company support" (or words to that effect). Faith had the help of any number of people in most technical areas, virtually all unpaid volunteers. She put up all the money for it from her own pocket, on a more or less piecemeal 'as needed' basis. At least that's how I understand it from what I can infer.

But it really, truly is (almost) 100% her baby, no doubt.

Faith, or someone else who knows the inside story better than I, will correct me if necessary on any or all of this...

And no sympathy will be offered nor is it necessary - go ahead and read the darn thread anyway. It's a blast... : )
Click to expand...

DEUCE OF SPADES is 100% my baby. It would be humanly impossible for a filmmaker to do more on their film than I have. And don't let the large number of names you will see in the credit roll fool you into thinking I had a big crew and lots of help. I had to give credit to every person who volunteered, even if they only helped one day. Most people only helped for 2 to 4 shoots at most. It took about 180 shoots to complete the film, so you do the math. Many times I could not find ANY help and was left to film all alone, and in majority of the shoots had a crew of ONE - maybe two on a good day.

There is one shot (an insert) where I had to be in front of the camera AND behind the camera AT THE SAME TIME. I basically posed as an extra to do the insert and paned the camera from the front, working backwards. At the same time I panned and filmed my legs, I had to move them (so the insert would feel natural, and flow with the rest of the scene) - Because I was only shooting my legs it worked (cause you could not see my upper body, which was steering the camera) but I can't say it was all that easy, especially since I was shooting with a 100 mm long lense and pulling focus during the pan LOL.

So there you have it :) - Just listen to the director's commentaries when you get the DVD, and you'll see what I mean.
 
IMDB ratings use a formula that is designed to detect and penalize those who try to "game" the system. While the exact formula is kept secret, it's pretty obvious that if there's a disproportionate and unrealistic number of 10's in your rating, IMDB tosses them out. It's all too common for people to send out a call to action to all their friends and family and coworkers to say "rate my film high" and people just plug in a "10" and think that's gonna guarantee a high rating. But IMDB is smarter than that, and when they see what they consider a self-inflated rating, they chop it way down. Do they nuke all the 10's? Maybe, I don't know.

Do some genuinely good films get penalized by this? Absolutely. Unquestionably. I've seen films that are a good solid 6, that carry an IMDB rating of 2.3 because of the "friends and family" effect.

I'm sure the ratings will equalize once there are many more votes, where it becomes obvious that it can't be a "friends and family" effect. Faith's film right now has only 189 votes. 77 of those are a "10". Look at it from IMDB's perspective: is it reasonable to suspect that if someone were cheating the system, that they could get sixty or seventy people to give a film a 10? Sure, maybe. So they keep a tight lid on those low-vote-count films. But once there's, say, 1000 votes... if 600 of those are a 10, I bet you you'll see Faith's ratings on IMDB skyrocket. Assuming the film is that good, of course... I haven't seen it, I've been waiting for NetFlix to get it, but I think I'm just gonna go push her sales figure from 8,000 to 8,001...

By the way, let's be clear -- I'm not saying there are ANY fake ratings on Faith's film's IMDB profile. There may be substantially higher ratings than would otherwise be given due to the cast 'n' crew 'n' family 'n' friends phenomenon, or there may not be. I don't know. But it is a common-enough thing that IMDB has instituted a special formula to try to catch it and to discredit "family & friends" votes. Faith's pic is such a targeted genre that it is entirely possible that every single vote is legit, and that those in her target market do actually feel that it is worthy of that many "10"'s. I think it's fair to say that teen girls rank "Twilight" higher than the general public does, right? So if Faith's film is appealing directly to the hot-rodders and those are the people voting, then they may very well be giving higher ratings than would be expected of a typical film, reaching a general audience. Which is another way of saying -- it's entirely possible that every single one of Faith's votes are legit.

The only way this situation can be rectified is by more and more voting. If you've seen "Deuce of Spades", go on IMDB and rank it. Rank it what you think it really deserves. Rank it as high as you think it earns, or as low as you think it earns, but give a real and honest vote of feedback. That's the only way that the system can work.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
IMDB ratings use a formula that is designed to detect and penalize those who try to "game" the system. While the exact formula is kept secret, it's pretty obvious that if there's a disproportionate and unrealistic number of 10's in your rating, IMDB tosses them out. It's all too common for people to send out a call to action to all their friends and family and coworkers to say "rate my film high" and people just plug in a "10" and think that's gonna guarantee a high rating. But IMDB is smarter than that, and when they see what they consider a self-inflated rating, they chop it way down. Do they nuke all the 10's? Maybe, I don't know.

Do some genuinely good films get penalized by this? Absolutely. Unquestionably. I've seen films that are a good solid 6, that carry an IMDB rating of 2.3 because of the "friends and family" effect.

I'm sure the ratings will equalize once there are many more votes, where it becomes obvious that it can't be a "friends and family" effect. Faith's film right now has only 189 votes. 77 of those are a "10". Look at it from IMDB's perspective: is it reasonable to suspect that if someone were cheating the system, that they could get sixty or seventy people to give a film a 10? Sure, maybe. So they keep a tight lid on those low-vote-count films. But once there's, say, 1000 votes... if 600 of those are a 10, I bet you you'll see Faith's ratings on IMDB skyrocket. Assuming the film is that good, of course... I haven't seen it, I've been waiting for NetFlix to get it, but I think I'm just gonna go push her sales figure from 8,000 to 8,001...

By the way, let's be clear -- I'm not saying there are ANY fake ratings on Faith's film's IMDB profile. There may be substantially higher ratings than would otherwise be given due to the cast 'n' crew 'n' family 'n' friends phenomenon, or there may not be. I don't know. But it is a common-enough thing that IMDB has instituted a special formula to try to catch it and to discredit "family & friends" votes. Faith's pic is such a targeted genre that it is entirely possible that every single vote is legit, and that those in her target market do actually feel that it is worthy of that many "10"'s. I think it's fair to say that teen girls rank "Twilight" higher than the general public does, right? So if Faith's film is appealing directly to the hot-rodders and those are the people voting, then they may very well be giving higher ratings than would be expected of a typical film, reaching a general audience. Which is another way of saying -- it's entirely possible that every single one of Faith's votes are legit.

The only way this situation can be rectified is by more and more voting. If you've seen "Deuce of Spades", go on IMDB and rank it. Rank it what you think it really deserves. Rank it as high as you think it earns, or as low as you think it earns, but give a real and honest vote of feedback. That's the only way that the system can work.
Click to expand...

Barry,

I understand why they do it...but they ought to through out the 1s as well. Honestly, 1 should be the worst movie you've ever seen and how many movie can actually be the worst?

I've seen local films get torpedoed with 1s after they've "won" an audience award among other local films and can't help but feel like the low scores are "revenge" votes from rival crews just as many 10s are from members of the project.

Of course, if they did throw out all 10s and 1s then the ratings becom really 2 to 9 but hey...

You are correct that over time with many more votes, it will tend to even out.

-Martin
 
Martay said:
I understand why they do it...but they ought to through out the 1s as well.
Click to expand...
Maybe they do? I haven't seen any examples of films being sabotaged with "1's" but I guess it's entirely possible, and if it happens maybe they compensate for it?

You are correct that over time with many more votes, it will tend to even out.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a case of that it will just "even out", I think there's probably a threshold that the film crosses where the "friends and family" filter won't be applied anymore. No idea what that threshold might be, and this is total speculation on my part, but I think if a film has less than, say, 500 votes, maybe the F&F filter is put in place. And after 500 votes, they just decide to call it off and presume that all votes are legit. So it's entirely possible that if the voting holds the way it is, with 499 votes "Deuce of Spades" might have a 4.0 rating on IMDB, and then with one more vote its rating might leap up to 8.5 or something.

Or, maybe they apply F&F to the first 500 votes no matter what, and all future votes are treated as legit, and in that case -- yes, it would be a matter of simply evening out.

Again, I don't know -- I don't know exactly how it works, I don't know what the thresholds are, all I know for certain is that there is a formula that they use which is put in place specifically to punish the rating of those who would try to "game" the system by getting an artificially high number of very-high votes.
 
Most online "review"-polls like these are heavily skewed by 'agenda-based' results as described above.

A film I acted in a while back was entered into an online-voted 'film festival', and I and everyone else involved was urged to vote as many times as possible. I (discreetly) refrained from doing so at all, because it's plainly folly. I did however get cc'd on a number of emails from other participants, breathlessly proclaiming their (and their relatives, friends, co-workers, pets, and everyone and everything else imaginable) having spent all night stuffing votes. As I recall, the film eventually "won".

Yawn...

On the other hand, Faith's sale of 8000 units (if I assume that's true, and I see little reason not to), speaks far louder. If people really are buying them, recommending them to others who then buy them, and so on and so on, then *that's* a 'vote' that really means something. As I've posted previously here, (IMO) people don't do it in that scale to be 'nice'. A couple hundred maybe...but not 8000, and certainly not enough for Faith to have earned enough to pay off all expenses and *quit her day job*!

Now *that's* a success. It makes the IMDB rating, however skewed or un-skewed it might be (for now), completely irrelevant.
 
I've never really valued IMDB's rankings anyway (nor do I know many people who do). It seems like just about every movie, regardless of quality, seems to fall in the 4-6 range. After reading Barry's post, now I know why.
 
Faith, are your actors contracted to receive a portion of the profits? If so, they should probably end up with some decent sized paychecks.
 
Deuceofspades said:
DEUCE OF SPADES is 100% my baby. It would be humanly impossible for a filmmaker to do more on their film than I have. And don't let the large number of names you will see in the credit roll fool you into thinking I had a big crew and lots of help. I had to give credit to every person who volunteered, even if they only helped one day. Most people only helped for 2 to 4 shoots at most. It took about 180 shoots to complete the film, so you do the math. Many times I could not find ANY help and was left to film all alone, and in majority of the shoots had a crew of ONE - maybe two on a good day.
Click to expand...


Call me crazy but I think you are doing an injustice to discredit all the "large number of names" in your credit roll by saying they
only VOLUNTEERED for 1-4 days each and that they had no real impact on you getting your film done.

Sounds like you had a LOT of amazing people giving up their time to VOLUNTEER on your film to HELP you get your film done.

Of course its 100% your baby. You're the director but I don't think it needs to be so "me me me".

My opinion.
 
JacksonCade said:
I've never really valued IMDB's rankings anyway (nor do I know many people who do). It seems like just about every movie, regardless of quality, seems to fall in the 4-6 range.
Click to expand...

Not so for bigger titles at least, which after hundreds of thousands of votes (in some cases) seem to largely reflect their box office success:

Avatar: 8.2
Inception: 8.9
Gigli: 2.4
Battlefield Earth: 2.4

For micro-indies with a couple hundred votes or so, it's pretty meaningless I think, which is presumably why IMDB attempts to rectify things...
 
Exactly -- which is why I think that as more and more folks vote, Faith's film's rating will sort itself out.

I don't know what goes into the IMDB formula, but if I was to take a stab at it, I'd say that they probably look at every vote by anyone who has only ever voted for one film, and if that one vote that they've ever cast, is for a film that has less than, say, 100 votes, and that one vote that they cast is a 9 or a 10 or so -- they nuke that vote. Or even penalize it.

Or, another way to get those friends & family voters, would be to look for people who cast their first vote ever, on the same day as registering, and it's for a film with fewer than 100 votes in total, etc... there are probably many ways that they could do it. However, I think that if every one of the 8,001+ people who has bought "Deuce of Spades" would register and vote, then we would get a much more accurate idea of what its true rating should be.
 
Ted Spencer said:
Do you know when it's going to be available Netflix? Dying to see it, but like I said above I always watch before buying...
Click to expand...

Not anytime soon - Maybe eventually but not for many more months... My focus is DVD sales. THEN will come donwloads, digital rights, rentals and other avenue of spreading the film to general public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top