Help me decide...

[David W. Richardson]

Preach!

See my response to Barry.

 

[DBP]

In today's world, NOTHING moves product like a positive review. Posters don't matter (much), the existence of a trailer doesn't matter (much), but if someone you know says "this is great, try it" then you're vastly more likely to try it...

How do you sort the wheat from the chaff? There are probably a hundred thousand different no-name no-budget indie films on Amazon. I've got two hours. I could spend them kayaking, or watching "Gravity", or reading a NYT bestseller, or I could watch endless cat videos on YouTube for free... so why would I want to spend those two hours (and two dollars) on some no-name no-budget indie film on Amazon? Your job, as producer, is to CONVINCE ME that it's worth the investment of time.

You can make an interesting poster, but so can everyone else. You could make a great trailer, but only if the footage is there, and a trailer is an art form in itself.

So how do I make the decision as to whether to bother with a film or not? I get a lot of recommendations from this board; when a lot of people say how magnificent a film is, I throw it in my Netflix list. Or if it's a big-budget production, I head over to RottenTomatoes and/or IMDB to see what the end users are voting it as.

So I went to IMDB. You have five votes -- three are a "10", one's a "5", and one's a "2". Now, I'm savvy enough to know that those "10" ratings are bogus, those are either from you or your mother or your co-star. Here's a hint to any filmmaker posting their own film on IMDB -- NEVER give yourself a "10", it just looks fake. Give yourself an "8" and I might believe it's a legitimate review, but a top-heavy rating of "10" just screams desperation and vote-rigging.

So we have two potentially legit ratings, one is a 5 and the other's a 2. That's not promising. Further, there are zero reviews. Not from users, not from newspapers, not from festivals, not from anywhere. That all combines to say to me "pass."

(Note -- you don't have to like any of this feedback, I'm just sharing what I do when looking up a film I've never heard of before).

If I was on the Amazon page, I'd see that there are zero customer reviews. And while there's a link to the 7.4 on IMDB, which does seem promising, like I said above -- if I click it and look at it, it looks bogus.

So what do you do? Find people who liked it, and ask them to give you an honest review. Fake reviews do nothing for you, and won't help your future films either. Identify your audience. See who liked it. Maybe you aimed it at women, but maybe women don't like it? Of the two votes on your IMDB page that I think might be legit, one of them was a "2", and the IMDB stats show that was from a woman aged 30-44. The "5" was from a male aged 18-29. Both seem like prolific voters, as you have two votes from "Top 1000 voters", and the average is 3.5, meaning that yeah, it's the "2" and the "5". That's not much to go on, but it's at least something.

You need reviews, and you need to learn if the film's any good. Make a deal with people -- make a Vimeo with a password, and post it here with the condition that everyone who watches it, has to leave an honest review in the vimeo comments. Only the first 100 or so get to see it for free. Leave it up until you get 100 views, then take it down, and evaluate the comments. If 95% of the viewers say "yuck", then ditch the idea of ever selling it -- just make it free on youtube and hope for adsense hits. If 95% of the viewers say "this was pretty good", then -- you've got something. Put those comments in your advertising. Put them in your trailer. Put 'em on your poster. Ask them to put those reviews on Amazon and on IMDB. Ask them to tweet about it.

If people genuinely like something, they'll share that.

This should honestly be a sticky.

 

[Derek Chingwell]

Well, Barry's comments are pretty spot on (as always).

I won't hassle replying back to your previous mail - it seems you took offence and, honestly, none was intended!

Anyway, whilst waiting for a particularly long and tedious cloth simulation to process (very boring as you need to watch it as it goes, just in case it screws up), I've done a different take on the poster idea... again, just a digital scamp - tried to move it in another direction. BTW the 4 images are sequential grabs of Shannon putting the gun to her head... might not be obvious via the lo-rez image.

Anyway, best of luck with everything and post or PM if you need anything down the line.

D.

 

[Barry_Green]

Seems like I offended David. Sorry, that was not my intent -- my intent was to assist by explaining the mental process someone may go through when evaluating a film. I never intended it to come across as personally accusatory!

David, obviously I am not saying that YOU or YOUR MOTHER cast a false vote -- that's not an allegation, and I would have no way of knowing that. It was a generalized statement. That's just what pops in my (and I'm sure many other people's) head when seeing a heavily top-weighted score. So much so, that IMDB implemented a policy to discard overweighted top-heavy votes. There are lots of films out there with very low overall ratings, but with excessive 10's, which caused the IMDB to come up with a proprietary/secret formula for evaluating votes and trying to hand out a representative-weighted score. I know several filmmakers whose films were getting low scores, even though they were constantly rating their own picture "10" and encouraging every friend and relative and facebook contact they could find to rate it a "10." It was a thing, at least for a while.

Vote-rigging may seem personally offensive to you (and I don't blame you, as I find it offensive as well!) but it's common. We've had to deal with ballot-box-stuffing here on our DVXFests on many occasions. Sometimes we'll get scads of "10" votes from people who just registered, never voted for any other film, and only showed up to vote a "10". And we've had cases of people voting their own film a "10" and VOTING EVERY OTHER FILM A "1". Every one of them. That's flat-out dishonest, bogus, selfish, and cheating -- but people do it. So maybe I'm a cynic for having seen these patterns of behavior over and over, but -- well, I've seen 'em, and so I was telling you that that's what I saw and what popped in my head, and I doubt I'm alone in that. But maybe I'm just overly cynical.

So I'm not accusing YOU of anything dishonest. It might be interesting if you took a poll of your cast and crew though, as I think it disproportionately likely that you'd find that yes, three of them rated it a 10. It's just what happens. It's common. So common, in fact, that as I said before, I'd advise any filmmaker to avoid giving their own film a 10, just to avoid the appearance of vote-rigging. Once you get over a certain level of votes, maybe 1,000 or so, then any disproportionate influence gets filtered out.

 

[Gillvane]

In today's world, NOTHING moves product like a positive review. Posters don't matter (much), the existence of a trailer doesn't matter (much), but if someone you know says "this is great, try it" then you're vastly more likely to try it...

How do you sort the wheat from the chaff? There are probably a hundred thousand different no-name no-budget indie films on Amazon. I've got two hours. I could spend them kayaking, or watching "Gravity", or reading a NYT bestseller, or I could watch endless cat videos on YouTube for free... so why would I want to spend those two hours (and two dollars) on some no-name no-budget indie film on Amazon? Your job, as producer, is to CONVINCE ME that it's worth the investment of time.

You can make an interesting poster, but so can everyone else. You could make a great trailer, but only if the footage is there, and a trailer is an art form in itself.

So how do I make the decision as to whether to bother with a film or not? I get a lot of recommendations from this board; when a lot of people say how magnificent a film is, I throw it in my Netflix list. Or if it's a big-budget production, I head over to RottenTomatoes and/or IMDB to see what the end users are voting it as.

So I went to IMDB. You have five votes -- three are a "10", one's a "5", and one's a "2". Now, I'm savvy enough to know that those "10" ratings are bogus, those are either from you or your mother or your co-star. Here's a hint to any filmmaker posting their own film on IMDB -- NEVER give yourself a "10", it just looks fake. Give yourself an "8" and I might believe it's a legitimate review, but a top-heavy rating of "10" just screams desperation and vote-rigging.

So we have two potentially legit ratings, one is a 5 and the other's a 2. That's not promising. Further, there are zero reviews. Not from users, not from newspapers, not from festivals, not from anywhere. That all combines to say to me "pass."

(Note -- you don't have to like any of this feedback, I'm just sharing what I do when looking up a film I've never heard of before).

If I was on the Amazon page, I'd see that there are zero customer reviews. And while there's a link to the 7.4 on IMDB, which does seem promising, like I said above -- if I click it and look at it, it looks bogus.

So what do you do? Find people who liked it, and ask them to give you an honest review. Fake reviews do nothing for you, and won't help your future films either. Identify your audience. See who liked it. Maybe you aimed it at women, but maybe women don't like it? Of the two votes on your IMDB page that I think might be legit, one of them was a "2", and the IMDB stats show that was from a woman aged 30-44. The "5" was from a male aged 18-29. Both seem like prolific voters, as you have two votes from "Top 1000 voters", and the average is 3.5, meaning that yeah, it's the "2" and the "5". That's not much to go on, but it's at least something.

You need reviews, and you need to learn if the film's any good. Make a deal with people -- make a Vimeo with a password, and post it here with the condition that everyone who watches it, has to leave an honest review in the vimeo comments. Only the first 100 or so get to see it for free. Leave it up until you get 100 views, then take it down, and evaluate the comments. If 95% of the viewers say "yuck", then ditch the idea of ever selling it -- just make it free on youtube and hope for adsense hits. If 95% of the viewers say "this was pretty good", then -- you've got something. Put those comments in your advertising. Put them in your trailer. Put 'em on your poster. Ask them to put those reviews on Amazon and on IMDB. Ask them to tweet about it.

If people genuinely like something, they'll share that.

Awesome advice. I couldn't agree more about the reviews. Even though just like you, and probably most other people, I often question the reliability of "reviews" they sway my decisions in a big way. Even if it's total strangers on Amazon, if I see a few reviews that say "this product sucks" then I'm out, looking for something else.
The other thing to mention is that although in this case there's not that many reviews to go by, not only do we discard the 10's, I think most people disregard the 1's as well. There's always some jerk that is disgruntled or just being an asshat and you don't pay them much attention either. I usually figure, that's the guy or gal that is never happy with ANYTHING.

 

[jghenderson]

My opinion is you need to move onto something else. Throw it up online for free to hopefully generate views, and start working on a new film. The fact that you made this in 2010 and are still putting so much time and energy into worrying about it is troublesome. Especially the fact that you said you made it in 3 days and with $1000 (incredible to get a feature done that quickly/cheaply), there's no reason you couldn't go and make another film and hopefully that will find a bigger audience. Forward is the key.

On another note, I 100% disagree with the comment made in here that trailers and posters are unimportant. I think a good poster and trailer are immensely important to bringing in audiences who are already swarmed with too many options. So many times I have clicked on a move in Netflix or Apple Movie Trailers SOLELY because I liked the poster. A poster is a way to pique interest, to get them to watch a trailer, which will sell them on the film. In an industry as competitive as this one, you need every edge you can get over other movies, as you are competing with everything else for the audiences time. Reviews are important, of course, but unless they are coming from reputable critics, they are often taken with a grain of salt by many , especially with how easy it is to just make a fake review online (whereas a poster/trailer is something tangible the audience can look at) .

 

[David W. Richardson]

Well, Barry's comments are pretty spot on (as always).

I won't hassle replying back to your previous mail - it seems you took offence and, honestly, none was intended!

Anyway, whilst waiting for a particularly long and tedious cloth simulation to process (very boring as you need to watch it as it goes, just in case it screws up), I've done a different take on the poster idea... again, just a digital scamp - tried to move it in another direction. BTW the 4 images are sequential grabs of Shannon putting the gun to her head... might not be obvious via the lo-rez image.

Anyway, best of luck with everything and post or PM if you need anything down the line.

D.

View attachment 83362

I didn't take offense to your previous message. Sorry if it seemed that way.

This poster is very interesting! Thank you for taking the time to work on it. I like it better than the first one.

 

[David W. Richardson]

I 100% disagree with the comment made in here that trailers and posters are unimportant.

I completely agree that posters and trailers are important. All I said was you can have the most amazing poster and trailer in the world, and it does you no good if nobody sees it because you're not able to drive traffic to your site. And driving traffic seems to be the hardest part.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Awesome advice. I couldn't agree more about the reviews. Even though just like you, and probably most other people, I often question the reliability of "reviews" they sway my decisions in a big way. Even if it's total strangers on Amazon, if I see a few reviews that say "this product sucks" then I'm out, looking for something else.
The other thing to mention is that although in this case there's not that many reviews to go by, not only do we discard the 10's, I think most people disregard the 1's as well. There's always some jerk that is disgruntled or just being an asshat and you don't pay them much attention either. I usually figure, that's the guy or gal that is never happy with ANYTHING.

It's generally a good idea to disregard the highest and lowest ratings, but that's only true if there are only a few of them. If you've got 100 ratings and five of them are 10's and three of them are 2's, then toss those out. But if you've got 100 ratings and fifty of them are 10's -- or fifty of them are 2's -- then you need to take those as being accurate simply because there are so many of them. It's all about percentages.

With only five total votes, as 'Tangled Web' has on IMDB, I don't think you can reach an accurate assessment of the quality of the film -- although it's true that even five votes can sway a person to choose one way or the other. But there are so few votes because so few people have seen the movie, which is the whole problem to begin with. If I could find a way to drive more eyeballs to the Facebook page or the Amazon page, that may result in more people watching the movie. If more people watch the movie, then maybe more people will rate it. And once a decent number of ratings have been logged, then you can get a more accurate picture of how good the movie is.

 

[Gillvane]

It's generally a good idea to disregard the highest and lowest ratings, but that's only true if there are only a few of them. If you've got 100 ratings and five of them are 10's and three of them are 2's, then toss those out. But if you've got 100 ratings and fifty of them are 10's -- or fifty of them are 2's -- then you need to take those as being accurate simply because there are so many of them. It's all about percentages.

With only five total votes, as 'Tangled Web' has on IMDB, I don't think you can reach an accurate assessment of the quality of the film -- although it's true that even five votes can sway a person to choose one way or the other. But there are so few votes because so few people have seen the movie, which is the whole problem to begin with. If I could find a way to drive more eyeballs to the Facebook page or the Amazon page, that may result in more people watching the movie. If more people watch the movie, then maybe more people will rate it. And once a decent number of ratings have been logged, then you can get a more accurate picture of how good the movie is.

I don't disagree with you about the percentages of the ratings. One film you spent three days on isn't going to make your film making career. You need a dozen projects like this or more, and some festival awards. Get crackin'.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Especially the fact that you said you made it in 3 days and with $1000 (incredible to get a feature done that quickly/cheaply), there's no reason you couldn't go and make another film and hopefully that will find a bigger audience. Forward is the key.

I want to clarify something. If the typical indie feature was shot in 3 days on a $1000 budget, that would greatly increase the chances that it would be terrible -- not enough coverage, not enough time taken, etc. But 'Tangled Web' was designed straight from the original concept to be done in this manner. Since the whole thing is seen from the POV of webcams, there's no need for coverage -- no need to break down the camera, move it, set it back up, rearrange the lighting, etc. The camera (for each character) stays in one position the whole time. All that ever changes is the lighting, and that was fairly easy to do.

There was also no need for a boom operator, since the actors didn't have a wide range of movement -- they had to stay within the shot. When they were sitting at the computers talking to each other, the mic was mounted on a stand right beside the camera. When they were away from the computer, having conversations with people in the room with them, the mic was suspended on a boom above them.

So there was almost no crew. Which saves money.

Each scene was shot in real-time. Basically the only thing that changed from one scene to the next was lighting (somewhat) and wardrobe. The actors were interacting with each other in real-time, even though they weren't in the same room. So it was pretty easy to do an entire 73-minute movie in just 3 days, thanks to actors who were completely prepared and almost never stumbled or fumbled. (In fact, I had to engineer a 'blooper' so we'd have something funny to use as an out-take.)

Truth be told, we shot the movie in just 2 days. But when it was edited together, it was short -- only 60 minutes long. So I wrote a couple of extra scenes, brought the actors back, and shot the additional footage on a single day. Thus, 3 days to shoot the movie.

Extremely short shooting schedule. Virtually no crew. That's what made it cost so little.

 

[David W. Richardson]

I don't disagree with you about the percentages of the ratings. One film you spent three days on isn't going to make your film making career. You need a dozen projects like this or more, and some festival awards. Get crackin'.

You make good points, especially about festivals.

As for my next film -- I've got a humdinger! 'The Circle' is another webcam-type feature with an ensemble cast of 9 people. I expect to shoot the entire movie -- 3 times! -- in just 2 days.

 

[Gillvane]

I want to clarify something. If the typical indie feature was shot in 3 days on a $1000 budget, that would greatly increase the chances that it would be terrible -- not enough coverage, not enough time taken, etc. But 'Tangled Web' was designed straight from the original concept to be done in this manner.

I get it. It's "found footage" movie. But most found footage movies ARE terrible because there is no shot list, no lighting, no set ups. The premise of it being web cams doesn't necessarily substitute for a regular shot list. How many times does that work? Blair Witch, Poltergeist...that's pretty much it.

 

[Gillvane]

You make good points, especially about festivals.

As for my next film -- I've got a humdinger! 'The Circle' is another webcam-type feature with an ensemble cast of 9 people. I expect to shoot the entire movie -- 3 times! -- in just 2 days.

No! No web cams!

 

[David W. Richardson]

This is interesting. Yesterday I posted on Facebook the same post that I started this thread with. Since then I've sold 2 copies of 'Tangled Web' -- directly, not through Amazon -- for $4.99 each. That's less than I would receive selling them through Amazon, but I think I've matched the number that have sold through Amazon in the last 4 years.

 

[David W. Richardson]

I get it. It's "found footage" movie. But most found footage movies ARE terrible because there is no shot list, no lighting, no set ups. The premise of it being web cams doesn't necessarily substitute for a regular shot list. How many times does that work? Blair Witch, Poltergeist...that's pretty much it.

No, it's not a 'found footage' movie. I hate those! It's a story seen completely through the 'eyes' of the webcams on the computers of the characters.

Granted, it won't work many times. But I don't need it to work many times. Just like 'Blair Witch', I only need it to work once. Well.....twice, if you count the upcoming 'The Circle'.

 

[David W. Richardson]

No! No web cams!

But I've got a great script! Hollywood legend Lana Wood once wanted a role in it, as did "Farscape" regular Virginia Hey. Melinda Mullins ("Remember WENN") called it 'a near perfect script'. And the events take place in an online video chat room, so webcams are a must.

 

[tmnt]

This is interesting. Yesterday I posted on Facebook the same post that I started this thread with. Since then I've sold 2 copies of 'Tangled Web' -- directly, not through Amazon -- for $4.99 each. That's less than I would receive selling them through Amazon, but I think I've matched the number that have sold through Amazon in the last 4 years.

Nice!

 

[jghenderson]

But I've got a great script! Hollywood legend Lana Wood once wanted a role in it, as did "Farscape" regular Virginia Hey. Melinda Mullins ("Remember WENN") called it 'a near perfect script'. And the events take place in an online video chat room, so webcams are a must.

If the script is so good and garnering so much interest, shouldn't you be able to get a decent size budget for it, allowing you to spend much longer shooting? Even if the camera and lighting do not change, 2 days for a feature gives absolutely no time to work with the actors to get it to a place it needs to be, unless the entire film is heavily rehearsed ahead of time (a la 'Russian Ark').

Another thing to ask yourself is this, what are you going to do differently this time than last? Specifically, what makes you think this will be more successful?

 

[David W. Richardson]

If the script is so good and garnering so much interest, shouldn't you be able to get a decent size budget for it, allowing you to spend much longer shooting? Even if the camera and lighting do not change, 2 days for a feature gives absolutely no time to work with the actors to get it to a place it needs to be, unless the entire film is heavily rehearsed ahead of time (a la 'Russian Ark').

Another thing to ask yourself is this, what are you going to do differently this time than last? Specifically, what makes you think this will be more successful?

I may very well secure a decent sized budget for 'The Circle', although having a track record of losing investors' money on 'Tangled Web' would make that much more difficult. Which is why I'm still trying to get TW to pay off for the investors.

But a bigger budget doesn't mean 'The Circle' would necessarily need a longer shooting schedule. The story has only 3 scenes, and they are performed in real-time, so it's very much like a play. Have you ever seen the movie 'Time Code'? Not a great movie by any means, but the way it was shot allowed them to shoot the entire movie in just 1 day. Their budget was $4 million, which translated into a lot of production value on the screen, but didn't extend the shooting schedule at all.

I know 'The Circle' will need significant rehearsal time. But the actual shooting can be accomplished at least 3 times over the course of 2 days. Because of the way the shoot is setup, there's really no reason for the shoot itself to take any longer.

As to the question of "What makes you think this will be more successful?" It's a fair question.

First, I don't believe 'Tangled Web' has been unsuccessful thus far because it's not a good movie -- I believe it's been unsuccessful due to lack of effective marketing. If I had the funds to launch an effective marketing campaign, I think 'Tangled Web' would find its audience and make a profit. It's a great story with lots of heart, a good amount of suspense, and a twist ending that no one so far has seen coming. Would it make millions of dollars? I wish! But no, probably not. But I believe it would surely earn back its investment many times over. And that's the key to securing investors for the next movie, whatever it may be.

'The Circle' is an excellent script. From just a story standpoint, it's outstanding. But the on-screen concept is going to be unlike most any other movie -- actually, more like 'Time Code', in that respect. Because it's unorthodox, investors will be skittish about it. What I've heard from potential investors so far is they LOVE the story and the idea, but are worried that the presentation is so unusual that audiences might be turned off by it. I don't think that's true, and want a chance to prove it.

That's one reason I made 'Tangled Web' -- to demonstrate a point. In TW there are 3 different locations -- 3 rooms, if you will. In each one, the camera is locked in a single position the entire time. No camera movement at all. So basically the whole movie consists of just 3 shots. No coverage.

Prevailing wisdom says that the result will be visually boring, and that audiences won't tolerate that. But the responses I have gotten have been quite positive. No one seems to notice the lack of camera movement, maybe because they went into it knowing that the underlying concept is that it's all seen from the POV of webcams. People get engaged in the main character and her plight. Not a single person has told me they got bored or turned it off without watching it to the end. That may happen, of course, and I'm just not hearing about it. But what I do hear has been very positive.

'Tangled Web' is not for everyone, of course -- no movie is. It's a niche movie for a niche audience. But the niche audience is women, and women tend to engage with stories about people and romance and conflicts. Women get absorbed in the story, and they don't really care about the camera work. They're rooting for Shannon, booing Alex, and adoring Taylor. They're wanting to be Kelly, who is Shannon's best friend and next door neighbor. They empathize with Shannon's love for her children and fear for their safety. When Shannon's situation becomes desperate, the women in the audience become desperate for her. When Shannon is in a life-or-death struggle, the women in the audience are on the edge of their seats. They laugh, they cry, they gasp and they cheer! And the story is solid, so when it's over they don't look back and think, "Now wait a minute.....this part doesn't make any sense."

So please help me find a way to reach that target audience, make them aware that 'Tangled Web' is out there, show them enough of what it's about to pique their interest, and get them to make that purchase.

Then we'll talk about 'The Circle'.