Help me decide...

I'm contacting the people who I know have watched 'Tangled Web' and asking them to go to IMDB and write HONEST reviews of the movie. Hopefully they will take the time to do so.
 
Again I think you are giving too much power in your life to Tangled Web. You talk about that movie giving you a bad track record of losing investors money, but we're only talking about $1000 here. If someone believes in the script and in you, they won't care one bit about you having lost $1000 on your last film, as that is a very small amount in the business.
 
jghenderson said:
Again I think you are giving too much power in your life to Tangled Web. You talk about that movie giving you a bad track record of losing investors money, but we're only talking about $1000 here. If someone believes in the script and in you, they won't care one bit about you having lost $1000 on your last film, as that is a very small amount in the business.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree, but a few things nag at me.

First, it was my first investor-funded movie.

Second, if we lose, then we lose the entire investment. If we'd had $10,000 from investors and only lost $1000, that would be different. But to lose 100% of the investment capital is a pretty serious thing.

And it will be obvious where we lost it -- we got the movie made, we just failed at marketing the movie. No matter how great the next movie turns out, no matter how much someone may believe in the script and in me, we can't prove that we will be able to market that movie either. Smart money would stay away from that. It's no good to make a great movie if you can't market and sell it.

If there's any way possible, I need to make 'Tangled Web' work. I need it to, at the very least, return my investors' money, which is only $1000. If I fail at that, it's going to be even MORE of an uphill battle to find investors for the next project.

That's why I'm sweating over this.
 
Yeah, I think it's best to let it go and concentrate on the next thing.

The advice of making the different persons web cams have a different look was a good one. Judging from the trailer, it looked more like home video footage than web cams. If you spend any more time on it, fix the look then let it be free and home it gains you a following for future projects...
 
Hey David, As much of a believer in DIY as I am, there's still certain things that I recognize that I don't have the skills to do well. Maybe you shouldn't be the one tasked with marketing and selling this movie? There are people who are really good at marketing movies, love movies, but couldn't film a cat video if their life depended on it. They're called producers. Maybe you should focus on the creation of the film and find someone who'd be better skilled at the marketing?
 
Andrius Simutis said:
Hey David, As much of a believer in DIY as I am, there's still certain things that I recognize that I don't have the skills to do well. Maybe you shouldn't be the one tasked with marketing and selling this movie? There are people who are really good at marketing movies, love movies, but couldn't film a cat video if their life depended on it. They're called producers. Maybe you should focus on the creation of the film and find someone who'd be better skilled at the marketing?
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more! Except those people want to be paid. :-(
 
Gillvane said:
Well, don't you want to be paid?
Click to expand...

Of course. And those people totally deserve to be paid. But if I could afford to pay a marketing expert, I'd have already done so long ago. I'm seeking ways to get the word out on my own because I can't afford to hire a marketing firm.

And marketing pros -- the good ones, anyway -- tend not to be willing to work on either commission or deferred pay.
 
Okay, finally got the description corrected on Amazon. Here's how it reads now...

====================

Shannon Hunter's life is a living hell!

Kept a virtual prisoner in her own home, at the mercy of her abusive husband Alex, Shannon's only comforts are her children, her best friend Kelly, and Taylor -- the man she secretly loves. But Taylor is 3,000 miles away. Their only contact is via their Internet webcams.

One night, after Shannon suffers a terrible beating from Alex, Taylor devises a desperate plan -- a DEADLY plan. If it works, Shannon will be free so she and Taylor can finally be together.

What Shannon doesn't know is that someone is secretly watching her through her webcam -- a twisted lurker with evil plans of his own!

Seen entirely from the point-of-view of webcams, "Tangled Web" is a story of love and desperation that will keep you guessing right up to the very last second!

View the preview trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsI-oCNXrcU

====================

I've had people write reviews on the IMDB page, but so far none of them are showing up. I don't know how long it take for reviews to show up there.

Working on a redo of the poster.

I've gotten the download price on Amazon reduced from $12.99 to $9.99, but they tell me I have no control over the 'rent' price, so it remains at $2.99. But I've got a plan in the works to use Vimeo to allow people to watch the movie online for only 99 cents. And I'm selling copies of the DVD directly to customers for $4.99.

So progress is being made.
 
I realize the description is longer than many found on Amazon -- but most on Amazon are for known movies with recognizable name actors. If you drill down and find descriptions for independent films without the benefits of known actors, the descriptions tend to be longer.

I feel like without a name actor, I need to draw the potential buyer into the story as much as I can. I need them to connect with the main characters and their conflicts. This isn't a scifi movie where the basic concept -- "The first humans on Mars encounter a demon of horrific proportions" -- is sufficient to sell the target audience. This is a character-driven drama. Folks reading the description aren't going to care so much about the webcam aspect, they're going to care about the people. If they're hooked because they think it's a cool webcam-concept movie, they're going to be disappointed. Disappointed viewers give disappointing reviews, which I don't need.

I don't see this as the place for a logline. I see this as the place where I would put the descriptive text that would normally go on the back of a DVD box. This is the last, best chance to convince the reader to rent or buy the movie. I need to sell the story as hard as I can.

At least, that's my philosophy.
 
That's fair enough if you want more description than a log line but it just sounds massively B grade. And I'd get rid of all of the exclamation marks, maybe keep one if you have to.
 
Gotta agree with tmnt about the synopsis. You don't need to reduce it to one line but the current version lacks impact.

The opening line while generic is short, sweet and attention getting and so is good. While it initially suggests a horror theme this will be subverted by the following lines so this is not a problem (and a domestic violence based thriller isn't entirely out of the ballpark); the second stanza succeeds in setting the scene but does so inefficiently and needs the 90s voiceover dudes voice to sell it; the third part is okay, it lets you know the essence of what will drive the story; the fourth (introduction of the lurker) kicks things up a notch, excellent; you should stop there, 'lurker is your power word and the final lines are completely redundant anyway.

And you've already mentioned the webcams. Don't mention them again. Especially the fact that it is entirely shot with them. It's not a selling point. In fact it devalues the movie to sell the gimmick. Allow it to be discovered and appreciated on its own merits. Its a choice that serves the story and in context the viewer will likely think it a clever choice. Out of context it is a warning on the likely quality of the movie. Webcam = "shouldn't this be free on youtube?" Blair Witch was only able to use its cheapness as a selling point because of the era - internet was still new and shiny to the general public, no social media, possession of a mobile/cell phone still had a trace of stigma. And the marketing focussed on the narrative 'that they were clever punks who beat the system', not at all that it was 'a movie made cheap and nasty' (which it was before the distributors spent all that money to fix it up for theatre release).


I had a go at streamlining and focussing the language for you. Still not 100% there but getting close:


Shannon Hunter's life is a living hell!

A virtual prisoner of her abusive, controlling husband; she seeks comfort in her children, her best friend Kelly, and her webcam -- her only connection to Taylor, her secret love.

3,000 miles between them, a final savage beating drives Taylor to devise a plan -- a DEADLY plan to save Shannon and let them finally be together.

But what they don't know is that someone else is watching -- a twisted lurker with evil plans of his own...


Note that because you mentioned your target audience I have emphasized relationships within the text over all else. Hence the overuse of possessives. No need to dwell on character names, they are merely labels out of context. Roles and relationships carry more information. Line three essentially becomes the logline (although without the background contained in line two is meaningless). Succint, it still contains the inciting incident and motives while hinting at the obstacles and complications. And it ends on the change up, the complication that takes this to the next level. If they're not hooked by now there's nothing more you can say. If they are then don't shatter the intrigue with another word. In this version we are now completely focussed on story elements, the production is invisible as it should be.

Hope this helps some.


edit// the end of the second line is bugging me, the information is right but the flow when spoken out loud doesn't really work. Maybe 'the only connection she has to Taylor, her secret love.' The extra couple of words make it a bit wordy for my sensibility but maybe it works better, maybe not.
 
Last edited:
In regards to The Circle, I would like to suggest a movie to you that might have some ideas/inspiration for you. It's from a few years ago and called 'Thomas in Love', from Belgium or somewhere like that. If I remember it correctly it is about a recluse, an agoraphobe who interacts with the world through the internet. The production element I would particularly like to draw your attention to is how the movie is initially claustrophobic, locked predominantly to the webcam but as the characters internal journey opens up so too the movie becomes progressively less locked in and eventually even goes outside. This is an extremely effective tension-release technique and without knowing the details of your script thought it might be of some value to you (especially if there is some parrallel in the script). I just mention it because with all this talk of webcams it was the first thing that popped into my head.
 
That was a long 8 pages of reading... oy. Lots of great advice here for you to take, the best of which is to move on. It will be another 10 years before you make any money back.

It's also possible that your film just isn't good (most of the work I did in the beginning wasn't good). I haven't seen it but based on the trailer it doesn't look good. Your trailer has poor sound (I realize it's a webcam but that doesn't mean you should have bad sound work.. it's a film not reality).. that's 100% a turn off for me for indie productions. Should have spent some $$ and gotten a decent sound guy to do the film. Poor visuals I can deal with but bad sound just makes most indie stuff impossible to sit through. Hard to gauge from the trailer but I'd peg the acting as a neutral 'meh'.

I get that you are proud of doing a feature 'in 3 days' but you didn't really. You basically filmed a theatre play and I'm surprised nobody else has made this comparison, but there is a reason why nobody else has made a feature length film in 3 days, cause it isn't possible. (in the traditional sense) Irregardless of your story it comes off as lazy filmmaking IMO.

I thought you were joking at first when reading about your next project being a 2 day shoot but if that's the case... I have to ask. why... why bother. Go make something new and different from your past work. And please spend some money on a decent on set sound recordist / mixer. and perhaps work with a cinematographer that will make your work look the part.

Of course I am basing this on the trailer and the film itself might turn out to be amazing but I'll never know cause I'm not going to pay $9.99 for it.

The Canadian in me apologizes for being so blunt.
 
Loki said:
Of course I am basing this on the trailer and the film itself might turn out to be amazing but I'll never know cause I'm not going to pay $9.99 for it.

The Canadian in me apologizes for being so blunt.
Click to expand...

It's only $2.99 to rent it for a week. $4.99 to purchase the DVD directly from me. And I'm trying to arrange a 99 cent rental deal. Just FYI.

Regarding 'The Circle', as I explained, because it's performed like a play and shot in real-time, it really doesn't require more than 2 days to shoot it. I'm not shooting it in real-time in order to avoid a longer shoot schedule -- I'm shooting it real-time because it's written as a real-time story, consisting of only 3 scenes. Could it be done in a different way -- shot in a more orthodox (i.e. "normal") way? Sure. But why? Then it's just another "normal" movie. Done the way it's designed, it will be fairly unique.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Right now I'm focused on "Tangled Web". You say it will take me 10 years to "make any money back". At the current rate of sales, I would agree. But the whole point of this thread has become how to tweak things to increase those sales/rentals. The investment is already made, the product is on the shelf. I can either walk away and lose what was invested, or I can put forth some effort and try to earn back my investors' money. I prefer to do that latter. Giving up and walking away is what I will do if all else fails.

On the subject of the sound -- I've been criticized here because the video looks too good to have been from a webcam -- which is fair and I agree with that. But now the audio is too BAD to have been from a webcam? I'm sorry, I disagree. It's absolutely true that it's not the excellence of audio needed for a traditional movie, but this isn't a traditional movie. I think the audio sounds every bit as good as audio from a computer's or webcam's microphone -- the non-headset kind, that is. (Notice the characters don't use headset microphones, so the sound would only come from the microphone on the computer or webcam.)

I do appreciate your input, and I hope you don't interpret my disagreement as being rude or condescending. It's not intended to be. And I'm not just being stubborn out of some misguided feeling that "my movie is perfect just the way it is!" I know it has its problems.
 
One more thing...

Yes, I could walk away from this one and make another movie. But then I would have the same questions and issues -- because the crux of the problem here is how to effectively market a completed movie when you don't have deep pockets to pay for professional advertising campaigns.

If I make a new movie and get it on Amazon, how would I drive traffic to the site for THAT movie? That's the ultimate question here.
 
I have had a number of people tell me they submitted reviews of 'Tangled Web' on its IMDB page. It's been a week or more now, but those reviews still have not shown up on the IMDB page. I can't seem to find out if this is a normal amount of time or not. Does anyone know?
 
David W. Richardson said:
It's only $2.99 to rent it for a week. $4.99 to purchase the DVD directly from me. And I'm trying to arrange a 99 cent rental deal. Just FYI.

Regarding 'The Circle', as I explained, because it's performed like a play and shot in real-time, it really doesn't require more than 2 days to shoot it. I'm not shooting it in real-time in order to avoid a longer shoot schedule -- I'm shooting it real-time because it's written as a real-time story, consisting of only 3 scenes. Could it be done in a different way -- shot in a more orthodox (i.e. "normal") way? Sure. But why? Then it's just another "normal" movie. Done the way it's designed, it will be fairly unique.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Right now I'm focused on "Tangled Web". You say it will take me 10 years to "make any money back". At the current rate of sales, I would agree. But the whole point of this thread has become how to tweak things to increase those sales/rentals. The investment is already made, the product is on the shelf. I can either walk away and lose what was invested, or I can put forth some effort and try to earn back my investors' money. I prefer to do that latter. Giving up and walking away is what I will do if all else fails.

On the subject of the sound -- I've been criticized here because the video looks too good to have been from a webcam -- which is fair and I agree with that. But now the audio is too BAD to have been from a webcam? I'm sorry, I disagree. It's absolutely true that it's not the excellence of audio needed for a traditional movie, but this isn't a traditional movie. I think the audio sounds every bit as good as audio from a computer's or webcam's microphone -- the non-headset kind, that is. (Notice the characters don't use headset microphones, so the sound would only come from the microphone on the computer or webcam.)

I do appreciate your input, and I hope you don't interpret my disagreement as being rude or condescending. It's not intended to be. And I'm not just being stubborn out of some misguided feeling that "my movie is perfect just the way it is!" I know it has its problems.
Click to expand...

you're not being rude, you're protecting your baby. I get that.

The visuals don't support the material is what people are saying. 5 Years ago (and today) nobody used an actual camcorder.. they used.. webcams.. which were shitty resolution.. pixelated and had all kinds of compression artifacts.. none of which are part of your visuals. And just because it's not supposed to sound like a regular isn't an excuse for poor audio. It sounds amateur and also doesn't help support the film. Start with decent audio then make it sound like a webcam not the other way around; right now it is just a poorly positioned microphone.

but none of this matters. The issue at hand is marketing and how to sell your film. I'm of the position that you've squeezed as much as you're likely to get from this and it isn't worth your time to try and pump the well for more water. The well is dry my friend. The future is calling.

Starting a new project DOES NOT inherit these problems. There are so many avenues to get your film out there. Start with a Facebook page as you bring the project together, get a small but growing audience. Twitter is a great tool to network and get info out there. Start following other filmmakers, etc.. create a website (a better looking one that the one I found for you from googling... www.themeforest.com spend a few bucks get a ton of value)

Go into a project with the right mindset. Make a good film. Send it out to festivals get it on IMDB... send it into Ain't it Cool News for their saturday shorts column (I did this and they posted about mine! But only cause I put it out there).

All of that is a ton of work. And it should be. You have so many options and ways of getting your work seen and building an audience right now. Put your movie up for free, and offer a DVD to buy with BTS stuff..

I could go on. Put in the work and results will follow.

There is also that little business of making a great film... the hardest of it all.

PS: Your 'unique' movie won't be unique. They are called Plays... and they work better as live action. The ONLY way that projects works.. is if the cast is phenomenal, and going off a phenomenal script. Good luck with that.. writing is the achilles heal of just about everyone here (myself included).

Ok. I'm all done.. I'll bow out of this as graciously as I can.

good luck sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top