filmman launches GOLD DIGGERS on KickStarter.com

[Brandon Rice]

Good point Barry... however... filmman fails to realize that the percentage of digitally shot films being released theatrically is increasing at a DRAMATIC rate!!

This whole thread is a joke... just have to say that... it truly is...

 

[filmman]

Nathyn wrote: There's a lot of things I want and don't have but I've learned that if I'm always waiting, I'll never shoot. Give me a camera, editing system and a mic and a some money to travel and feed my actors and crew and I'm on it. No more wasting time for the thousands of dollar worth of things I want when I can use the things I have. I've been blessed with a lighting kit, greenscreen, I just need to to get the proper editing set up (and get my script tight) and I'm ready to go.

I really think you have a great attitude for a filmmaker. Your main gift is your energy, passion and commitment to making film. Your books on Action Filmmaking on Amazon are a testament to this philosophy. I'm really encouraged and inspired. I think it's an excuse for a filmmaker not to make film based on whatever hang-ups he or she may have, whether it is 35mm, HDV, 24p, 35mm-adapter, or whatever technology that may be perceived as absolutely essential to the creative process -- none of them is! Norman McClaren used to win festival awards with movies drawn directly on 35mm film cells. Today we have a myriad of cameras and camera devices, so really it's possible for anyone to make a movie, even a feature.

I guess it sounds like I've completely turned around. I haven't; but I want to say that it's just a matter of how one looks at the filmmaking phenomenon. One thing is for sure, filmmaking is the greatest artistic medium, and I think it will always be.

If you want to shoot film that's fine, but no matter what you're going to have to go out there shoot something and show it to people for funding or you're going to have to fund it yourself. I say get a camera, adapter and shoot it yourself and you wont have to worry about all the money. And again if you put something solid together and can sell people on the style someone will probably be open to giving you money or at least loaning you the things you need

I was seriously thinking of modifying my kickstarter project and aiming it at a Youtube Worldwide Premiere!

 

[filmman]

I have nothing against iPhone filmmakers.

I have nothing against iPhone filmmakers.

Is this necessarily a bad thing?

When someone makes an application that causes the iPhone to "break wind" -- and sells $250,000 worth of it IN THE FIRST WEEKEND IT'S AVAILABLE... that shows that cell phone users are a pretty big market.

Latest line of HTC phones all have 800x480 screens, that's higher than DVD resolution.

I guess it all comes back to: what's the point of you making your work? If it's so that it gets seen, then... what would be wrong with a cell phone premiere? But if the point is to get the "prestige" that goes with a theatrical release, then yeah, I can see how a cell phone premiere might be disappointing.

At this point, Barry, I'm like this fellow Monte Hellman that Azmyth told me about; I'll be happy to get an iPhone world premiere.

You brought up resolution. Resolution is really important to me. One of the things that bothered me about the early digital releases was that they looked soft -- maybe it was the early digital projectors. But I hear AVATAR was an incredible visual experience, so I think the new digital projectors must be really on par with 35mm film projectors finally.

As for finding an audience, I agree a hundred percent; I think that's the main battle we're all fighting here ... on this user group and everywhere as filmmakers.

Thank for commenting. I appreciate it. I'm trying to learn this new technology and find my niche in it.

 

[filmman]

The number of digital movies released theatrically is not a joke.

The number of digital movies released theatrically is not a joke.

Good point Barry... however... filmman fails to realize that the percentage of digitally shot films being released theatrically is increasing at a DRAMATIC rate!!

This whole thread is a joke... just have to say that... it truly is...

Far from it being a joke, I think the number of digital movies released theatrically is a significant trend. NGL is the best example. I really think you have hit the ball out of the park with this production. I would never have thought it could be done, based on the early trailers that I saw -- no name actors, prosumer camera, barely adequate production value; but there you are, being screened theatrically and by an up and coming theatrical distributor.

I mean it sincerely you guys should really be congratulated.

However, I was earlier debating 35mm professional filmmaking, which IMO is a whole other ball of wax. I agree with Barry, there is a prestige to a 35mm film release.

And also 35mm filmmaking has its own standards of production and its own film language, a language that has been usurped by the digital filmmakers coming off the streets and shooting movies with anything that will record an image on it. I mean, we have to draw a distinction somewhere. Ok, they may call it filmmaking, but I don't. And so I need to use the term professional 35mm filmmaking a bit more clearly.

But this thread has taught me a lot. Thank you for your comments.

 

[Barry_Green]

I'm trying to learn this new technology and find my niche in it

The niche is simple -- make a product that people want to see.

It really doesn't matter what equipment you use to make it, or what you distribute it on. As long as the content is engaging and people want to see it.

That doesn't mean you have to pander to the lowest common denominator; you just have to make content for an audience that wants to see that content. And you have to make it well. If you do so, people will hunt it down to see it. And they will never know whether you shot it on 35mm film, or a Nokia N8 cell phone, or anything in between. And they will not care. Nor will they notice, or care, whether you had shallow depth of field in your footage. Nor will they care whether it was shot and mastered on 8-bit or 10-bit.

How do you know if you've got good content? It has nothing to do with cast, a-list stars, big-name directors, or any of that. It all comes down to: do people experience the desired emotions when they watch your content? If they do, it's good stuff. If they don't, it's not. Pluto Nash had big-name stars, a big budget, 35mm film and a theatrical release, and was a disastrous flop. "Potter Puppet Pals" features hand-sewn cloth puppets shot on video with no "name" actors or crew or anything, and has garnered EIGHTY MILLION VIEWS. 80,000,000. Hand puppets. Eighty million people, or 1/4 of the population of the entire United States of America, have tuned in to watch some hand puppets.

Why? Because it's brilliant, and very funny.

You don't need 35mm film, or a lens adapter, or 24p, or a theatrical release, or name actors, or to be picked up by a major distributor. You just need content that people want to see.

Vic, your problem (as I see it) is that you've presented this project from the beginning in such a way that nobody wants to see it. You haven't given them anything at all that makes them say "I want to see this." With a finished film, it has to be compelling enough that people will say "I want to see that so much I'll pay $5 or $10" or whatever. With a Kickstarter project, the presentation about the project has to be so compelling that people will say "I want to see this get made so much, I'll donate money to the project." You haven't done that. You haven't given anybody any reason to want to see the project get made. So nobody donated, people called it a "joke" and whatever... say what you want about Mel Gibson, but people lined up around the block to see "Passion of the Christ". I'm not saying it's a good movie, but I'm saying that it was content that people wanted to see. And they wanted to see it very badly, and they organized campaigns to go see it.


On the other end of the spectrum, look at Birdemic: Shock and Awe. A film that's "so bad it's good"; people want to see it, they're organizing campaigns to bring it to their town. I'm driving to another city tomorrow to check it out, it's finally playing near me. Will it be good? Of course not. Will it be entertaining? It's supposed to be very entertaining.

You know what would make a successful Kickstarter project? Something that would raise millions of dollars? "Grayson." Go look up the Grayson short film, and see how incredibly well made it is, and how compelling of a "trailer" it is. People have been demanding for years that it be made into a feature film (but it can't be, because of its use of DC Comics characters without appropriate licensing). But if the Grayson guys were to put that up on Kickstarter and say "we need to raise $10 million to make this film" I pretty much guarantee you they'd get it. Because Grayson is compelling, it's something that makes people want to see more. I'd pledge $10 to it, and I'm not even a comic book reader. I guarantee you at least a million other people in the USA (not to mention worldwide) would pledge $10 towards it.

If you can make your project as appealing as Grayson, people will line up to kickstart it. It's all about making what people want to see. And niche audiences are okay and can be very successful (my books are not exactly mass market, they're very niche, yet they're very popular within that niche). It just makes your marketing job more focused.

In the end, it's all the same thing: storytelling. Marketing is storytelling; telling the market a story that's compelling enough to want them to pay to hear more. Filmmaking is storytelling. Filmmaking without marketing is a dead end. Filmmaking requires money, and if you don't have it and you're trying to get it from someone else, you'd better be an awfully good marketer (storyteller). And if you can't tell a marketing story effectively, then that raises questions about how effective your filmmaking story would be.

 

[Azmyth]

+1 to Barry, but I still doubt you'll make a dent.

 

[filmman]

Barry Green wrote: Marketing is storytelling; telling the market a story that's compelling enough to want them to pay to hear more. Filmmaking is storytelling. Filmmaking without marketing is a dead end. Filmmaking requires money, and if you don't have it and you're trying to get it from someone else, you'd better be an awfully good marketer (storyteller). And if you can't tell a marketing story effectively, then that raises questions about how effective your filmmaking story would be.

What you say is all true. I'm very grateful for this criticism.

When you narrow it down like that, there is no argument.

I can't take down my kickstarter project. I have to let it die on the vine. It was started too fast -- one of my main handicaps. I did not have the teaser to present it properly. I relied too heavily on the subject, thinking that there was a niche audience for it.

And I love the movies you cited -- the unlikeliest of projects -- that succeeded spectacularly because they are brilliant or there are millions of people that think they are.

The next project I put up on kickstarter will have a strong teaser and a well laid out production plan. It's still no guarantee it will get funded, but I've learned enough about kickstarter from this thread that I know pretty much what my chances are.

Thank you for writing an excellent critique about this whole thread.

There are still some technical issues I need to ask about.

 

[Nathyn]

You know what would make a successful Kickstarter project? Something that would raise millions of dollars? "Grayson." Go look up the Grayson short film, and see how incredibly well made it is, and how compelling of a "trailer" it is. People have been demanding for years that it be made into a feature film (but it can't be, because of its use of DC Comics characters without appropriate licensing). But if the Grayson guys were to put that up on Kickstarter and say "we need to raise $10 million to make this film" I pretty much guarantee you they'd get it. Because Grayson is compelling, it's something that makes people want to see more. I'd pledge $10 to it, and I'm not even a comic book reader. I guarantee you at least a million other people in the USA (not to mention worldwide) would pledge $10 towards it.

"Grayson" is a loved film. "Punisher versus Wolverine" sucks productionwise and I don't even think it's a feature, but people pay $10 a pop for the DVD. You'd be suprised at what sales and what doesn't. I'm currently gearing up for a rerouting, instead of shooting a "Divinity" I've decided to shoot a film based on a comic book. The message is generally the same, but the material the film is based on has already gotten people saying "I want a copy!" (That was from a known scream queen). If people like the comic they'll like the film and people like the concept alone. The as a proud geek, the audience isn't hard, just give them what they want.

And also 35mm filmmaking has its own standards of production and its own film language, a language that has been usurped by the digital filmmakers coming off the streets and shooting movies with anything that will record an image on it. I mean, we have to draw a distinction somewhere. Ok, they may call it filmmaking, but I don't. And so I need to use the term professional 35mm filmmaking a bit more clearly.

No disrespect Filmman, but the idea the people are usurping or co-opting the language of film is an elitist and foolish. From the beginning video used much of the same language in production. We still used reels only film people used reels of film and video people use reels of tape or some form of cassette. I have a three light kit, I still have to light like you do and there's no difference in the kind of lights used. In fact much of the do it yourself mentality comes from 35mm filmmakers who were making low budget films. No one's usurping the language but technology has changed and this is how it's done today, some shoot digital and print to film and some shoot 16 or 35mm. You attempt create a term to separate 35mm filmmaking for the rest is laughable at best when so many "professionals" are moving to a digital workflow. Michael Mann is a professional, so is David Fincher and so is Bill Pope. All have done 35mm filmmaking and shoot digital and have no issues.

Your quip about B and C films is also quite silly as "Collateral" and the last two "Star Wars" films (100 million dollar budget for a B film? Really?) are not anywhere near B or C films. In fact the film you want to shoot on 35mm for $25,000, guess what, it's a B film? Wait, you don't have any names. It's a C film.

That's the reality of modern day filmmaking. You're the one making C films. Granted I am too, but I don't have to present it that way. I designed almost all of the weapons for my next film, you can't just buy them at your local Airsoft dealer. They may have the original bodies, but not the mods. I did costume design (mom hooked that up actually) and I make a lot of my own props and do concept designs and photos (which you all have seen me do before).

I come at it from a standpoint where I want to make it as big as I can with what I have. Hollywood production companies design everything themselves right down to some of the most basic things, like backgrounds. So much is green screen now it's crazy. Even one of my swords I resigned the look of the sheath and painted the sword black just to give it a specific look. My point is, I put a lot into it all the way down to creating a bow staff that doubles as a vampire stake, all that just to get the character's weaponary from the comic generally accurate. When I'm done I want some to say "I want a copy!" just like they said about the comic.

And when I actually decide to shoot "Divinity" I'll have more money to do it up the way I want to instead of trying to shoot it for cheap. The film I'm doing now, I can actually do for cheap and come out with a quality product. If you know how to shoot 35mm, then why not take those same exact skills and shoot on your Sony. You can't do a filmout unless you shoot 60i and convert to 24p but you can shoot in their faux 24p mode and go straight video and sale to religious bookstores and website and have showing at church groups. Charge $5 a head and you may even make a profit if you have something good and word gets out.

The next project I put up on kickstarter will have a strong teaser and a well laid out production plan. It's still no guarantee it will get funded, but I've learned enough about kickstarter from this thread that I know pretty much what my chances are.

If you have a strong teaser for something people want to see I think you will get some funding.

-Nate

 

[Gary Huff]

The entire message of this thread can be summed up as follows:

Don't be a luddite.

 

[Brandon Rice]

NGL is the best example. I really think you have hit the ball out of the park with this production. I would never have thought it could be done, based on the early trailers that I saw -- no name actors, prosumer camera, barely adequate production value;

Barely adequate production values? Production value has been one of the main reasons our film has gotten when it has...

 

[Barry_Green]

Barely adequate production values? Production value has been one of the main reasons our film has gotten when it has...

Yeah, I'm not sure about that statement. Brandon, it's true that your early work had barely adequate production values (just like everyone starting out), but you really turned a corner when you made that DVXFest "party" film, and teamed up with guys like Geoff Reisner. I haven't seen NGL, but I'll boost it to the top of my netflix queue and check it out. From what I've seen of your recent work, your production value is just fine, and what you've accomplished (going from kid-with-a-camcorder to published-paid-professional filmmaker) is pretty much the exact dream story that I wish all DVXUsers could accomplish. Watching your journey play out on DVXUser has been very rewarding. Especially because you did it while partnering with and hiring other DVXUser members! Pretty much exactly what I hope this site will help others do.

But, with that said, I haven't seen NGL yet (which is the work Vic was specifically commenting on) so I'd have to say my judgement must be reserved on that until experiencing it.

 

[Brandon Rice]

Definitely check it out Barry I think you'll like it.

And yes, I have lived the dream... it's a blessing... huge.

 

[lambert]

I think Filmman is all wrong about Monte Hellman being a b or c list filmaker or making schlock. If Monte had a major box office success he would be talked about with the same respect we throw at Robert Altman.
I had a friend (I met him very late in his career and life) who spent almost two decades living with a group of indigenous people south of the u.s. border. He shot hundreds of hours of gorgeous 35mm (2-perf) film. He refused to transfer the film to video to rough edit, insisting on the old flatbed and that nothing short of a big flashy premiere in 35 would be good enough for his baby (several groups had made nice offers on the footage).
Sadly he passed away recently and without a finished film or even a rough edit. It had been years since he had sat behind the flatbed to work.

 

[filmman]

Robert Hellman

Robert Hellman

I think Filmman is all wrong about Monte Hellman being a b or c list filmaker or making schlock. If Monte had a major box office success he would be talked about with the same respect we throw at Robert Altman.
I had a friend (I met him very late in his career and life) who spent almost two decades living with a group of indigenous people south of the u.s. border. He shot hundreds of hours of gorgeous 35mm (2-perf) film. He refused to transfer the film to video to rough edit, insisting on the old flatbed and that nothing short of a big flashy premiere in 35 would be good enough for his baby (several groups had made nice offers on the footage).
Sadly he passed away recently and without a finished film or even a rough edit. It had been years since he had sat behind the flatbed to work.

I checked out Robert Hellman's imdb page. This guy has done some pretty good movies. I agree he's not to be classified as anything but a solid filmmaker.

 

[filmman]

King Ludd

King Ludd

The entire message of this thread can be summed up as follows:

Don't be a luddite.

Thanks for introducing me to this term. I enjoyed reading about it. But I ain't no luddite. LOL

 

[Azmyth]

Barely adequate production values? Production value has been one of the main reasons our film has gotten when it has...

Actually brandon, whenever I show people what we are capable of doing now as indie film makers, as far as production value is concerned. I point them to NGL.

 

[Gary Huff]

I looked up "production values" in the dictionary, and the definition stated: "See: No Greater Love." :thumbsup:

 

[filmman]

Nathyn wrote: No one's usurping the language but technology has changed and this is how it's done today, some shoot digital and print to film and some shoot 16 or 35mm. You attempt create a term to separate 35mm filmmaking for the rest is laughable at best when so many "professionals" are moving to a digital workflow.

It is possible to shoot features with digital cameras, and it is possible to use the same aesthetics and techniques of 35mm filmmaking with digital filmmaking. Many filmmakers are doing just that, and you have mentioned some of them ... as others have. So, I'm not saying that the new technology is strictly for amateurs; that's absolutely not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that there are many bad habits stemming from video filmmaking that are creeping into professional filmmaking. So even though I agree you can shoot a blockbuster with an iPhone, that's simply a whimsical application of the technology. Someone would have to have a very good reason to do it; for example, if they wanted to capture the Youtube audience ... for publicity, or as a stunt or something.

I'm talking mainstream filmmaking. Yesterday, I went to visit Arriflex and talked to the sales people about the Alexa. Here is perhaps the camera that will become the standard of digital filmmaking in the future.

I listened to all the technical advance of digital filmmaking. I enjoyed watching the technician taking out the memory chip form the Alexa camera and putting it in the Intel-chip 17inch screen Mac Pro laptop and the FCP 7.

The window popped open on the FCP screen and the Pro Res files appeared. There was an XML file. He dragged it into the FCP browser and all the Quick Time files popped up. He dragged one to the timeline and proceeded to play it.

I said, "It's possible to edit a whole feature film in this laptop?" He said, "Yes."

And there it was, HD files. So, of course, anybody can make professional movies with digital equipment now.

But I also understand how the filmmaker felt that lambert writes about, the one who shot two-perf 35mm and wouldn't think of it -- to scan everything to digital and edit his movies. There is that side of it too. It's difficult to change and adapt, and there is some value in discipline; but I also agree: a filmmaker has to change and evolve.

Personally, I just want to keep the two ways of working as separate. To some extent there is a symbiotic relationship between film and digital, but there is also the parasitical side to it. I don't want my 35mm production sensibilities to be changed too much.

I will not zoom in and pan; I'll dolly in or dolly around. Sounds like a dance, doesn't it? LOL

 

[Azmyth]

It is possible to shoot features with digital cameras, and it is possible to use the same aesthetics and techniques of 35mm filmmaking with digital filmmaking. Many filmmakers are doing just that, and you have mentioned some of them ... as others have. So, I'm not saying that the new technology is strictly for amateurs; that's absolutely not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that there are many bad habits stemming from video filmmaking that are creeping into professional filmmaking. So even though I agree you can shoot a blockbuster with an iPhone, that's simply a whimsical application of the technology. Someone would have to have a very good reason to do it; for example, if they wanted to capture the Youtube audience ... for publicity, or as a stunt or something.

I'm talking mainstream filmmaking. Yesterday, I went to visit Arriflex and talked to the sales people about the Alexa. Here is perhaps the camera that will become the standard of digital filmmaking in the future.

I listened to all the technical advance of digital filmmaking. I enjoyed watching the technician taking out the memory chip form the Alexa camera and putting it in the Intel-chip 17inch screen Mac Pro laptop and the FCP 7.

The window popped open on the FCP screen and the Pro Res files appeared. There was an XML file. He dragged it into the FCP browser and all the Quick Time files popped up. He dragged one to the timeline and proceeded to play it.

I said, "It's possible to edit a whole feature film in this laptop?" He said, "Yes."

And there it was, HD files. So, of course, anybody can make professional movies with digital equipment now.

But I also understand how the filmmaker felt that lambert writes about, the one who shot two-perf 35mm and wouldn't think of it -- to scan everything to digital and edit his movies. There is that side of it too. It's difficult to change and adapt, and there is some value in discipline; but I also agree: a filmmaker has to change and evolve.

Personally, I just want to keep the two ways of working as separate. To some extent there is a symbiotic relationship between film and digital, but there is also the parasitical side to it. I don't want my 35mm production sensibilities to be changed too much.

I will not zoom in and pan; I'll dolly in or dolly around. Sounds like a dance, doesn't it? LOL

I'm not sure why this conversation has went in so many circles as it has..

You can shoot on whatever medium you want to. Point blank, and noone should have anything snide, sarcastic, or downright nasty to say about it. It shouldn't matter for what reason you choose to do so. If its YOUR choice based on what YOU want to get out of the project, then you've made the right one. The facts are all around us to prove that you can be successful in ANY medium you choose to shoot on, so there is really no reason to "downplay" any of them for any reason. We are all on the same team here, or at least I thought we were.

You can use the Panavisions, the Arriflex, the HVX200, the red, the HV20/30/40, the DSLR's, the iphones, the Hi 8, the Bolex, The pen and paper. And you can be just as successful no matter which you choose as long as you know what your after.

 

[majikfraug]

I'm not sure why this conversation has went in so many circles as it has..

You can shoot on whatever medium you want to. Point blank, and noone should have anything snide, sarcastic, or downright nasty to say about it. It shouldn't matter for what reason you choose to do so. If its YOUR choice based on what YOU want to get out of the project, then you've made the right one. The facts are all around us to prove that you can be successful in ANY medium you choose to shoot on, so there is really no reason to "downplay" any of them for any reason. We are all on the same team here, or at least I thought we were.

You can use the Panavisions, the Arriflex, the HVX200, the red, the HV20/30/40, the DSLR's, the iphones, the Hi 8, the Bolex, The pen and paper. And you can be just as successful no matter which you choose as long as you know what your after.

I second that motion. What matters most is the vision of the artist, not the medium they use to realize that vision.