filmman launches GOLD DIGGERS on KickStarter.com

[filmman]

Jon Starr wrote: Like I tell my actors, feel free to change the line if it works for you, it's just gotta be consistent. On set we discuss changing lines all the time. It goes through many modifications.But perhaps you're talking about them doing it on their own rather than with you...

We agree, you just don't like the way I'm saying it.LOL

I'm talking about my own personal experience. Some directors carry whips, having just come from a Polo match.LOL I don't carry a whip, but I make sure that actors don't hijack the story. Film is a directors medium, right?

I appreciate the criticism though Hope you will continue to review the project from time to time, as I'm working very hard to get it rolling.

I have nothing against showing the script to friends and investors that I know personally. I don't like to post screenplays online (like some people do). I think it's a very bad idea. They get stolen or compromised. I've heard Steven Spielberg doesn't let anybody on the set until the movie is over and he's ready to market it. Of course, I don't mean he doesn't let the cast and crew on the set, you know? LOL I'm not directing this to you, Jon; there is no telling who reads these threads
___________________________
http://www.felliniesque.com/woman_at_the_well.html

 

[filmman]

Thanks everyone for the help you have give me. I have reworked my presentation of this project. I feel better about it.

And hopefully (as soon as I fix my car), I'll be out there shooting a new trailer specifically for the project.

Meanwhile enjoy this one > http://www.felliniesque.com/woman_at_the_well.html

 

[filmman]

Nathyn wrote: Also you need to delete this line: "So I thought, if there is an audience for Christian movies out there, perhaps people would fund this project," from your pitch. I'm openly Christian and would ignore your project based on this line alone, unless you really did something that I was wowed by, otherwise I'd feel you were simply trying to get money from me. Frankly, it's sounds shysterish. I'd tell you to go talk to Robert Tilton, he's got money from all those $100 and $1000 vows people make to his ministry. Also you sound like you don't know there's an audience for Christian films. People who watch Christian films would be like "what?" You sound like a non-Christian trying to scam money is basically what I'm saying.

It finally dawned on me that in order for a film to be funded or distributed anywhere in the world, it must have a fundamental lie about the Scriptures or about Jesus.

My problem has been that I have never viewed a movie about Jesus as entertainment. I agree with you about there being an audience out there what wants to hear the message of Jesus, but "the message" has to be veiled within a story concept that doesn't sound like a message.

So in order to stick a message about Jesus in a movie or even simply say anything that is true about Jesus, a "Christian filmmaker" must find a way to cheat his way into getting a movie funded or distributed.

So in order for me to make a successful teaser, I would have to find a way to present the project as entertainment with "a Christian glitch" embedded somewhere in there. Of course, I'm kidding you a bit here; but you know what I mean.

Thanks for bringing up Robert Tilton. I wasn't watching TV in those days; but I enjoyed reading about the "farting minister." LOL

Nate, I'm not asking you to fund my project. You have your own project to fund, so don't worry about it. What I'm trying to do is see if there is an audience for a purely Christian movie; I want to make a movie that is outright about Jesus, not just an entertainment vehicle with a Christian message.

At one time Hollywood used to make such movies as THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, but I never considered those movies as being authentic even when I was a kid. I have found out since then that there has never been an authentic movie about Jesus. There have been one or two efforts, but in my opinion they are not authentic.

Mel Gibson stole my concept of making an authentic movie about Jesus in the Aramaic language, but he chose a terribly flawed book written by a hysterical nun (City of God by María de Ágreda (1602–1665), a 17th-century Spanish nun.) His website in Italy even posted my audio file, the Lord's Prayer in the Ancient Aramaic; they played it for years. The movie was not an authentic telling of the story of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life on earth. But it was supported by practically all the churches. I don't consider it a Christian movie. It is in fact an Anti-Semitic movie and I said it at the time that the movie was being screened, but nobody listened. Pastors in the US praised it and took their congregations to see it. It was a big success financially.

The movies that I want to make about Jesus are not going to be phony like that. I have nothing against movies like yours that throw in a few lines from the Bible and go on to entertain with martial arts or whatever.... I know you're a Christian at heart and for me that's the important thing.

 

[hungercultfilms]

Lol, your website, http://www.releasing.net is practically an all out attack on digital film making of any discription! You seem to be claiming that all digital film making is essentially amature and transient, that 35mm is the only way to produce real 'films' and real 'art'.Just out of curiosity, why do you seem to hate digital so much? And why does the recording medium itself matter so much to you, so long as the product itself has been carefully crafted and skilyfully created along the way?

 

[Brandon Rice]

Mel Gibson stole my concept of making an authentic movie about Jesus in the Aramaic language, but he chose a terribly flawed book written by a hysterical nun (City of God by María de Ágreda (1602–1665), a 17th-century Spanish nun.) His website in Italy even posted my audio file, the Lord's Prayer in the Ancient Aramaic; they played it for years. The movie was not an authentic telling of the story of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life on earth. But it was supported by practically all the churches. I don't consider it a Christian movie. It is in fact an Anti-Semitic movie and I said it at the time that the movie was being screened, but nobody listened. Pastors in the US praised it and took their congregations to see it. It was a big success financially.

The movies that I want to make about Jesus are not going to be phony like that. I have nothing against movies like yours that throw in a few lines from the Bible and go on to entertain with martial arts or whatever.... I know you're a Christian at heart and for me that's the important thing.

Wow, I am done with this thread! While I don't entirely agree with everything Mel does, I LOVE "The Passion of the Christ" and am moved every time I see it.

You are attacking him, and this is ridiculous! Claiming he stole your idea! Wow.

 

[Nathyn]

It finally dawned on me that in order for a film to be funded or distributed anywhere in the world, it must have a fundamental lie about the Scriptures or about Jesus.

What about "The Gospel of John"? And the fact of the matter is Jesus himself told stories to get His message across. This is infact a tradition of Jesus and his people. Even all the stories in the Bible aren't 100% true. The stories Jesus told were shrouded. Some knew what he meant but many didn't. I'm working on a story now about a demonic infestation. People will get it, some won't. The main idea is the more we try to move away from God, the worse things will get. But it's a story with a message, the movie itself is not a message.

My problem has been that I have never viewed a movie about Jesus as entertainment.

But like it or not, that's what it is. It's not a biography, it's a movie. Even some of those books are suspect and edited. The Gospel of John is the most beloved Gospel by many and it almost didn't make it into the Bible. But most of these films come with a disclaimer about artistic license and all that.

I agree with you about there being an audience out there what wants to hear the message of Jesus, but "the message" has to be veiled within a story concept that doesn't sound like a message.

No it doesn't. There's people out there who would love to hear and see a Jesus film told straight from the Bible. But the world simply doesn't. But Jesus preached and he also told parables. He didn't always say what his parables meant. Because many times the parables attacked the power structure (the religious power structure ironically). And the parables were told for the worldly audience, and the meaning was told to those close to him.

So in order to stick a message about Jesus in a movie or even simply say anything that is true about Jesus, a "Christian filmmaker" must find a way to cheat his way into getting a movie funded or distributed.

If you want to do a gospel movie, then no one's stopping you and people will fund it on the strength of that alone, but you still have to work. People will not give you money just because you say you're making a Christian movie, it helps yes, but no you have to show them something and that has to be professional and something they can understand.

As for me, I never claimed to do Christian films. I did "The Fourth Beast" as a Christian film, but my conscience bothered me trying to sale a film to people based on their beliefs. The passage "they will make merchandise of you..." kept bothering me. Instead I just let it ride and sure enough people did see, in fact a church screened it because someone literally "found" a copy of it and the lead actor went to their Church. The whole church saw it.

My point is, if you're making movies then you are in the business of entertainment. If you want to preach, rent a storefront and do just that. I know many preachers. I'm not one. I'm a filmmaker. I make action and horror films. I'm also a Christian. I don't have to make Christian films to show the world who I am. I don't force it, it comes out in what I do naturally. That's what art is. That's why I don't buy into this new "art is for the public" BS. Art is a reflection of you and what's in you comes out in the art. Jesus himself says this. What's inside you is what will come out in your life and what you do. What you say to them and how you treat others. Even in your filmmaking.

Your film doesn't suffer because no one wants to see an honest Jesus film. In fact many would love to see that. But you yourself are building on a Biblical story, but the stuff that's not in the Bible is stuff that you'll have to assume. You know only the very basics of what she did. You'll have to make up what she said and did. And if this gets real big, someone (a few) will start to believe your story over the Biblical account. See, people in America have this issue, many of us hate to read.

My stories are made up totally, but the facts I use come from the Bible. All I want to say was that I believe Jesus will come back after the tribulation, based on Matthew chapter 24 where He says that he will. It flies in the face of the all the "Christian" media that says the opposite. I'll agree with you that lies about the gospel go further in the media, but it doesn't have to be that way. But you have to find others who believe in your message if you want funding. I turned my little rant about Matthew chapter 24 into a feature film. But the film wasn't Matthew 24, it simply explained Matthew 24 and other things about the endtimes that were simply too controversial. Chris Temple's "Leap 2", and my "Divinity" film are both action films but they also explore some of the same things.

Simple fact is I don't go to the theater to see what I go to Church to hear (and many times both Church and theater have it wrong anyway). I see movies to be entertained. I like it when I'm entertained and I get a faith message (Bruce Almighty is a good example). But honestly if you want to see something 100% the way you want it, you have to fund it and shoot it. You want to do it big, then you may have to either put something together to show people, or come up off some funds yourself. But honestly I'm not keen on Fellini, his style nor Christian films. A lot of people love Christian films, if you can sale them on the story and Felliniesque aspect of yours then you have it made.

-Nate

 

[filmman]

Digital is great for news, DVDs, and the Internet.

Digital is great for news, DVDs, and the Internet.

Lol, your website, http://www.releasing.net is practically an all out attack on digital film making of any discription! You seem to be claiming that all digital film making is essentially amature and transient, that 35mm is the only way to produce real 'films' and real 'art'.Just out of curiosity, why do you seem to hate digital so much? And why does the recording medium itself matter so much to you, so long as the product itself has been carefully crafted and skilyfully created along the way?

I like digital for making documentaries, when stories happen and there is no time to shoot film. I grab my Sony Z1 and shoot some tape. I can put the movie clips on the Internet quite easily too.

Also, for sound editing, there are many convenient and cost effective programs like FCP Studio and Soundtrack Pro and others.

Digital image acquisition and digital motion pictures are coming along nicely though; but it might not be fast enough. The technologies are changing too fast. For example, the work flow of digital to 35mm film is presently very poor. In fact, you can't even find experts who agree on a good work flow. Hollywood still shoots 35mm and all major movies (even TV movies) are shot on 35mm.

There are many movies that are being shot on digital, especially "independent" movies. These are iffy productions for which the producers aren't sure of getting distribution. The studios pick and choose from them and blow-up to 35mm a few of them -- one out of ten thousand.

But if someone has absolutely no money and wants to make a movie, digital is great, especially if they have already bought a digital camera or have one from other work they've been doing, such as wedding videos, etc. It's a way for videographers to try feature filmmaking. There is nothing wrong with it.

But notice almost all the reputable film schools have their students shoot on 35mm film. And I must say Kodak and Panavision have to be commended for supporting 35mm filmmaking. Ultimately it's probably what will remain....

I know emotions run high. When I was starting out as a film student, we used to argue until blue in the face that 16mm was just as good as 35mm. Ironically now 16mm is a viable way to shoot a feature film -- preferable to digital. Kathryn Bigelow won for Hurt Locker, which was shot in 16mm, both Best Picture and Best Director Oscars beating AVATAR!

And even AVATAR's opening and closing sequences were shot on 35mm. I can understand there was a lot of CGI work, which would have not been possible to do as easily as it was with computers digitally. So there is room for digital filmmaking as well.

And you're right with respect to certain subject matter, it's not easy for an average person unfamiliar with movie technology to detect the difference between a well-shot digital movie and a 35mm movie. Still 35mm will always look more beautiful to people who grew up on it.

For me personally digital isn't a professional medium for image acquisition. I strongly favor 35mm film for production purposes.

 

[filmman]

Nate, I pretty much agree with everything you said.

 

[Nathyn]

But notice almost all the reputable film schools have their students shoot on 35mm film.

Actually Columbia College is the biggest and probably most well known film school in the midwest and funded Columbia College LA. Those student learn on 35mm then they move up to digital. That school shoot mainly digital. The JVC HM100s are the big cameras (they have about 100 of them over there) and there's Sony cameras too. Flashpoint, which was funded by Columbia grads, shoot on HVX100s. In fact the only reason film is still so popular as a shooting medium is for the same reason gas is as an energy. In fact once people my age and younger take over film will probably be fazed out, at least not so prominent. I have a feeling you love film because you grew up with it, beyond that it hold no weight beyond being a choice. So this is not quite accurate.

-Nate

 

[filmman]

The Passion of the Chirst was an Anti-Semitic movie IMO.

The Passion of the Chirst was an Anti-Semitic movie IMO.

Wow, I am done with this thread! While I don't entirely agree with everything Mel does, I LOVE "The Passion of the Christ" and am moved every time I see it.

You are attacking him, and this is ridiculous! Claiming he stole your idea! Wow.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center's Rabbi Marvin Heier pleaded with Mel Gibson not to release THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST the way it was, but Mr. Gibson didn't listen. Gibson only agreed to remove the English subtitles that the Jewish nation is forever cursed for the crucifixion of Jesus; but the line is still in the movie in the Aramaic language!

The fact is that the Romans crucified Jesus, not the Jews. And Mr. Gibson gets drunk and uses f-words against Jews publicly (It was in the News). And he's supposed to be a "Conservative Christian".

The American Society of Motion Pictures of America rated THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST as R (for violence.)

To me it's more like a horror film, which I have nothing against people making. But I didn't like what Mr. Gibson did to my favorite subject.

This is an artistic difference of opinion I'm having with you. We have freedom of expression. I don't think the movie should be banned. And it wasn't.

 

[Nathyn]

The Simon Wiesenthal Center's Rabbi Marvin Heier pleaded with Mel Gibson not to release THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST the way it was, but Mr. Gibson didn't listen. Gibson only agreed to remove the English subtitles that the Jewish nation is forever cursed for the crucifixion of Jesus; but the line is still in the movie in the Aramaic language!

Problem is it does say that in some way, it's just various people have different takes on what that means.
"When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." Matthew 27:24-25 (King James Version).

The early church fathers did believe this to mean the Jews were cursed, but others believe it to mean only the people who had to do with Jesus' death. A lot of conservative Christians do still believe this so it's not beyond the pale. Remember in the Bible days there was no political correctness and the Jewish leaders did hunt and kill Christians. And many Christians were indeed Jewish so much of the anti-semetism wasn't against "the Jews" as much as the leadership. And it is shown in many films that the Jewish leaders were out to kill Jesus. It's not even an argument about this fact. One of the things my next film may talk about is that the whole story of Jesus is somewhat anti-semetic if we look at it with modern day eyes.

The fact is that the Romans crucified Jesus, not the Jews.

This is over simplification if I've ever heard it. The Bible is clear, the Jews and Romans both conspired to kill Jesus. Let me put it like this, if you hire an assassin to kill someone, both you and the assassin are tried for murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Pilate washed his hands of the matter but also had the power to allow Jesus to go free but didn't. Also Jesus himself outright tells Pilate he would have no power to do anything to Jesus if Jesus himself did not allow it. This is all in the Bible. And keep in mind Jesus wasn't a white guy with long flowing hair, he was a Jew.

And Mr. Gibson gets drunk and uses f-words against Jews publicly (It was in the News). And he's supposed to be a "Conservative Christian".

Christianity doesn't particularly cure alcoholism. Sorry. But that has nothing to do with whether he made a good film or not.

The American Society of Motion Pictures of America rated THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST as R (for violence.)

To me it's more like a horror film, which I have nothing against people making. But I didn't like what Mr. Gibson did to my favorite subject.

Then it's probably a whole lot you won't like in the Bible. Decapitations, mass decapitations, heads thrown over walls, bodies cut up and mailed to people, people put in ovens, set on fire. I haven't seen the film, but I know an accurate depiction of the whipping, crowning with the thorns, being nailed to cross and having a spear thrust into his side alone would've made this film rated R in themselves and that too is also in the Bible. Bible is an R-rated book. We generally edit the stories when we show them, not the other way around.

-Nate

 

[Brandon Rice]

You're LOOKING for a conspiracy man... the film is not anti-Jewish, at all.

Also, the whole 35mm film thing is silly... most productions are switching to digital, and ALL 35mm productions scan to digital and are color graded and post produced digitally. My wife and I watched Robin Hood on 35mm projection this past weekend after seeing Iron Man 2 in digital projection, and the difference was astounding... the quality was NOT there.

You're speaking out of ignorance here on the 35mm topic.

 

[Zak Forsman]

hey guys, you know the site policy, right? discussion of religion may not continue, or this thread will be closed. thanks for understanding.

 

[Brandon Rice]

Thanks Zak... I think at this point that would be good for this thread.

 

[Nathyn]

This thread went from a movie about three chicks looking for gold to the "Who killed Jesus" question. And I still don't know anything more about either film. Sounds like Filmman wants money to fund a project and at this point it's any project and he's getting frustrated because no one's wants to put funds into something they don't really have a clear idea of what it is. And people aren't wrong for that. It's makes a ton of sense.

hey guys, you know the site policy, right? discussion of religion may not continue, or this thread will be closed. thanks for understanding.

I think it was fair to defend this film theology's (at least where it's theology comes from). I'm not big on the movie, I don't like it being called anti-semetic without people actually knowing the truth of the matter. In the time all this was going on there was no such thing as anti-semetism as we see it today. Various groups simply didn't like each other and when one got into power they went after the other. That's just the reality of it. We try to apply racism, sexism and many other modern day "isms" to the Bible feeling that they actually apply when they don't.

-Nate

 

[Azmyth]

Filmman is still in the same situation he was at the first post he made for this thread.
- He still has nothing to show on his kickstarter
- He's still arguing that anything that isn't 35mm shouldn't be used for any "serious" film making
- and now it looks like he's ticked off someone from here judging from the comment someone left on his page

If you didn't watch House last night, you should have. Pretty sure that wasn't an "iffy" independent production, but I could be wrong.

 

[Nathyn]

- and now it looks like he's ticked off someone from here judging from the comment someone left on his page...

And said person pretty much said the same thing we all did. I'll say this much, this is the strangest thread on DVXU I've ever been a part of.

-Nate

 

[Brandon Rice]

is that me?

 

[Azmyth]

is that me?

I don't think so, this was on his actual kickstarter page. I noticed he had 1 comment, and whoever it was said the exact same thing all of us already have, except they were much less nice about it. I assumed they are from here, but then again.. like we had already told him.. the way its presented... it wouldn't surprise me at all if someone randomly saw it and came to the same conclusion.

 

[filmman]

Don't knock it; at least it's a comment LOL

Don't knock it; at least it's a comment LOL

I don't think so, this was on his actual kickstarter page. I noticed he had 1 comment, and whoever it was said the exact same thing all of us already have, except they were much less nice about it. I assumed they are from here, but then again.. like we had already told him.. the way its presented... it wouldn't surprise me at all if someone randomly saw it and came to the same conclusion.

Negative publicity is good in show business :furious3: