See "Tangled Web" for FREE!

alright, let's polish this up.

A lonely woman
Click to expand...

or... "An attractive housewife"


trapped in an abusive marriage
Click to expand...
trapped in a marriage with an abusive cop


finds solace in her online lover -- a man she only knows through online video chatting.
Click to expand...
finds satisfaction with an online lover -- a hunky Canadian.


Unknown to her, she is also being secretly watched via her webcam.
Click to expand...
Somehow, she doesn't realize she is being secretly watched via her webcam, even though there is a red light that indicates the webcam is on.


After the woman suffers a brutal beating at the hands of her husband,
Click to expand...
After her husband brutally beats her with a belt because he thinks she has been surfing the internet and playing video games all day long,


her lover proposes a bold plan -- a way she can kill her husband and claim self-defense.
Click to expand...
the dude she has been talking to online comes up with a plan for her to start an argument and then stab him in the heart with a knife when he hits her.


But the plan goes very, very wrong.
Click to expand...
But she didn't consider the fact that he is a police officer who carries a gun with him pretty much all of the time.

TANGLED WEB.
 
David W. Richardson said:
Really???? REALLY??? That's a serious question?

Okay.....it's important to me because if there's any way possible, they DESERVE to recover their investment. They believed in me, and they believed in my film -- enough to put their hard-earned money into it. It's incumbent upon me to do everything I can to try to get them their money back. If it doesn't happen, then okay -- that's the risk they assumed when they signed on. But I'll be damned if I'm going to just LET them lose their money without doing my very best to help them recover as much of it as I can.

The investor deserves my very BEST efforts to make the movie earn as much as it possibly can, so they can get paid. The actors and crew deserve that same effort so they can get paid. They are all trusting me to fight for success.

If I don't fight that fight with all the determination I can muster, then I'm just using them to further my own aspirations. I'm sorry, but I'm not that kind of filmmaker. And I hope you're not either.
Click to expand...

It's a 1,000 dollars. If it's that important to you to pay your investor, then get a job and use the money to pay your investor. Shoot some weddings, or whatever is available in your area. Basically do anything at all, and save up a thousand bucks and give it to your investor. Or maybe you have a great job already. Just take our your check book and write your investor a check.
If that's what it takes to move on, then do that. If you want to be a successful film maker, you may need to make, 10, 20, 30 or more of these before you have the experience and vision to make something that actually makes money. You're not growing and learning if you're not making these by the bucket load and churn them out, but instead focus on trying to make back a thousand bucks on something you made years ago. You're working on becoming a distributor, not a film maker. Do you want to be a distributor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_distributors_by_country#United_States

Also, never look to film makers as your audience. Generally, film makers only like two kinds of films. 1. Films made by their idols, film makers they look up to like Tarantino, Scorsese, etc. 2. Films they made themselves. Everything else is generally crap they could have done better. Film makers don't look at your film with an open mind, ready to be entertained. They look at your film with the idea of "this is going to be crap. Let me tell you how I would have done it..."

I cannot watch your film because I am not your audience. I am not entertained by anything that doesn't have deliberate camera moves and editing. If you are not going to move the camera, frame your shots, and edit well I am not going to watch it. Period. Everything that is shot from web cams, found footage, security cams, is not entertaining to me at all. It strikes me as a gimmick, lazy, and an excuse not to be a director. Chronicle, Blair Witch, Poltergeist, Cloverfield, I have seen them all and my entire reaction to all of them was "Oh my god! Get a tripod and shot the damn movie for Christ's sake!"

So maybe your film is great, maybe it's horrible. I don't know. But, who does know is your audience, not film makers. Who is your audience? The people that love the genre you are working in. For example, if you are making a zombie movie, it's people that love zombie movies, are huge fans of the walking dead, have seen over a 100 zombie movies, go on zombie walks at Halloween, etc. It's not film makers.

I am talking about film makers in general. I am not talking about anyone specifically on dvxuser. There will always be exceptions to any general rule.
 
Loki said:
I'm just not sugar coating how I feel about your project is all. I have no personal stake in it. I have no issues with you personally.

If being honest is being rude.. then yeah sure.. I'm being rude I guess, I'm just not sugar coating how I feel about your project. Which can be mutually exclusive to you as a person.

Good luck with your endeavours I'll bow out of this now.
Click to expand...

It's possible to be honest and critical without being rude.
 
Gillvane said:
It's a 1,000 dollars. If it's that important to you to pay your investor, then get a job and use the money to pay your investor. Shoot some weddings, or whatever is available in your area. Basically do anything at all, and save up a thousand bucks and give it to your investor. Or maybe you have a great job already. Just take our your check book and write your investor a check.
Click to expand...

I could do that. I have the money to pay the investors. But don't you think it's important that the movie generate the returns, if that is in any way possible?

Consider this. What happens when I go to seek investors for my next project -- one that will cost far more than $1000? One of the first things they will want to know is if my previous project made money for the investors. Now I can twist the truth and say, "The investors got their money back." But it wouldn't be too hard to see, based on user reviews, whether or not it's likely that the movie paid for itself. Eventually I would be honest and say "I repaid the investors." It's reasonable I could repay $1000 out of my own pocket, but no way could I do that with a considerably larger investment.

Maybe they'll dig further. Maybe they'll watch 'Tangled Web'. And if they hate it, then that's that. But if they think, "That was a pretty decent movie." then the next question will be "So why didn't it make back a measly $1000?" And the only answer I will have is "Because I failed to market it properly." Which will kill any deal they may have been considering.

I need to do everything in my power to make this film pay for itself, so that I will be on firmer ground when I go to see investors for any future films. That's the way I see it.

Also, never look to film makers as your audience. Generally, film makers only like two kinds of films. 1. Films made by their idols, film makers they look up to like Tarantino, Scorsese, etc. 2. Films they made themselves. Everything else is generally crap they could have done better. Film makers don't look at your film with an open mind, ready to be entertained. They look at your film with the idea of "this is going to be crap. Let me tell you how I would have done it..."
Click to expand...

I think this is very wise advice. Thank you.

I am talking about film makers in general. I am not talking about anyone specifically on dvxuser. There will always be exceptions to any general rule.
Click to expand...

Noted. Thanks!
 
ugafan said:
finds satisfaction with an online lover -- a hunky Canadian.
Click to expand...

He's not Canadian.

Somehow, she doesn't realize she is being secretly watched via her webcam, even though there is a red light that indicates the webcam is on.
Click to expand...

Webcam hackers are able to activate your webcam and watch you without the red light coming on.

Condensed these next few into a single segment...

After her husband brutally beats her with a belt because he thinks she has been surfing the internet and playing video games all day long, the dude she has been talking to online comes up with a plan for her to start an argument and then stab him in the heart with a knife when he hits her. But she didn't consider the fact that he is a police officer who carries a gun with him pretty much all of the time.
Click to expand...

Her husband brutally beats her because he's a control freak who gets off on forcing her and their kids to live in fear. Also, he's drunk at the time.

As for the gun, he doesn't normally have it in his hand when he's beating her. With the element of surprise, she could quickly stab him before he could reach for his gun. In fact, as noted in the scene with the bedtime story, he often takes his gun off and puts it on the dresser when he comes home -- also alluded to in the scene where she says "You shouldn't just leave your gun lying around..."

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the movie.
 
Ted Ramasola said:
I'll base my comments on your trailer.

Its not good.

The opening visuals, and the supposed "webcam screen" with "stealth mode" and bright red colors look so fake and does not look menacing and something I should fear.

If its a webcam then I should expect it give me a hint where this webcam is placed in relation to the room. But the angle and framing tells me its on a tripod and the lighting and framing looks like its a soap opera.

Angles are not exciting, and so is the dialog and acting. And your webcam closeup shots are too long, cutting back and forth, its suppose to be a technique that you use to tease the viewer, making him ask, what is this thing, but in first frame showing it, you already know what its suppose to be, -a webcam.

Don't take it badly, it all just looks amateurish and cheap. Something a film student would do.
Honestly, when I saw your post days ago, I have to struggle to watch the trailer. I just got myself to finish it tonight.

In short David. I'd be honest with you. Its not a film I would even want to watch even if its free based on my perception from your trailer.

I'm only saying these things because you want honest feedback. And that, I must commend you, that takes guts.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ted. I appreciate your feedback, and your taking the time to watch the movie. EDIT: Duh! Just realized you said you watched the trailer, not the movie itself. Sorry.

In the real world, why would a webcam screen -- even in 'Stealth Mode' -- ever be designed to 'look menacing'? Who would it be supposed to strike fear in? The only person seeing it is the hacker who is using it to watch other people. It didn't seem logical to make it appear menacing.
 
Last edited:
Gillvane I'm with Dave on making the $1000 back. It's not a big amount of money but it's the principal behind recovering it and it would be easy to get into the mindset of "I couldn't make 1k back, how am I gonna make X back?".

And not that it's a big failure if you don't get the money back, but I'd be trying everything to give it every chance too.
 
tmnt said:
Gillvane I'm with Dave on making the $1000 back. It's not a big amount of money but it's the principal behind recovering it and it would be easy to get into the mindset of "I couldn't make 1k back, how am I gonna make X back?".

And not that it's a big failure if you don't get the money back, but I'd be trying everything to give it every chance too.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I appreciate the support. Was beginning to feel like the lone voice in the wilderness. :-)
 
I don't really think anyone questions the priciple of wanting to earn the money back, but the realism of achieving that. Is it really worth the time it takes? What if it takes 3 years to get the money back? Will you not make another movie for 3 years because you cannot tell investors you didn't make the money back on the last one? What if it takes 5 years to get the money back?

It seems you're in a bit of denial. Trying to find all sorts of excuses for the film not selling (or renting) and seem to be blind to the fact that maybe, just maybe, the film just isn't good enough. You get all defensive when people really tell you it's no good. Not being open to the possibility that they are right.

A good way to tell is by looking at the other people involved in the project, actors, crew etc. People love being associated with good productions. If they are not posting about the film that is a telltale sign they don't think it's very good and don't really want people to associate them with the film.

Personally, judging from the trailer, I would not watch the film even if it was free. It really look more like a cheap day time soap from the 80s than webcam footage. Maybe the script and story is great but the production is simply too bad to make me want to see it.

So I think you're doing yourself a disfavour by lingering on this project and not moving on.

If you don't want to move on and spend more time on it, here's my suggestions:

1) Redo the post work. Make it visually more interesting and better looking, then:

2) Make it an online soap opera! Cut it to 10-15 parts and post them periodically for free. It's easier to get people to watch short clips than a 70-minute movie they know nothing about. Keep the full length for rent/sale for the people getting hooked on the periodicals and cannot wait til the next one or cannot be bothered to watch 15 short ones...
 
dmitrizigany said:
I don't really think anyone questions the priciple of wanting to earn the money back, but the realism of achieving that. Is it really worth the time it takes? What if it takes 3 years to get the money back? Will you not make another movie for 3 years because you cannot tell investors you didn't make the money back on the last one? What if it takes 5 years to get the money back?

It seems you're in a bit of denial. Trying to find all sorts of excuses for the film not selling (or renting) and seem to be blind to the fact that maybe, just maybe, the film just isn't good enough. You get all defensive when people really tell you it's no good. Not being open to the possibility that they are right.

A good way to tell is by looking at the other people involved in the project, actors, crew etc. People love being associated with good productions. If they are not posting about the film that is a telltale sign they don't think it's very good and don't really want people to associate them with the film.

Personally, judging from the trailer, I would not watch the film even if it was free. It really look more like a cheap day time soap from the 80s than webcam footage. Maybe the script and story is great but the production is simply too bad to make me want to see it.

So I think you're doing yourself a disfavour by lingering on this project and not moving on.

If you don't want to move on and spend more time on it, here's my suggestions:

1) Redo the post work. Make it visually more interesting and better looking, then:

2) Make it an online soap opera! Cut it to 10-15 parts and post them periodically for free. It's easier to get people to watch short clips than a 70-minute movie they know nothing about. Keep the full length for rent/sale for the people getting hooked on the periodicals and cannot wait til the next one or cannot be bothered to watch 15 short ones...
Click to expand...

Tell me this -- how do people know if the movie is 'good enough' or not if no one has seen it? There are no reviews on IMDB, apparently for technical reasons because people have told me they have submitted reviews there. But nevertheless, there are no reviews, good or bad, on IMDB. There are ratings, and the current average is 7.3 -- admittedly based on only 8 people submitting ratings. But with no ratings, good or bad, how would people know the movie isn't 'good enough'?

I'm not looking for 'excuses' why the movie isn't being seen -- I'm looking for REASONS. Things I can change. Improvements to the synopsis, the poster, the reviews -- and then ways to drive eyeballs to where they can see the synopsis, the poster and the reviews. It seems to me that the main reason more people haven't watched the movie is they don't know it's THERE. And that's always going to be the problem with any movie that any of us make -- marketing it so people know it's there, what it's about, and are intrigued enough to want to watch it.

(This has ALL been covered in the original thread, so I hate to have to go through it all again. Apologies to anyone who has already read the other thread.)

On Facebook I have over 1000 'friends'. Most of them are people I don't know, have never met, and never talked to. Some are actually good friends. I have gotten GREAT comments from both people I don't know at all and friends about the movie -- these are people who actually have seen it. Some bought it, some rented it. (Via Amazon.) The ones who are friends, okay -- maybe they're just being nice. But the ones who are virtual strangers? They have no reason to lie to me. They don't want anything from me. Of all of those people, only one has given me negative feedback about the movie. A few have simply said things like "I enjoyed it. Good job!" While several have really been glowing in their compliments -- again, including people I don't really know and have never had any communication with.

So there are people out there who like the movie. Some are filmmakers, but most are just people who like movies. They don't have our technical knowledge, so they don't get caught up in how the lighting looks, or how the audio sounds, or whether the GUI "looks right". They get engaged in the characters and the story, and they enjoy it.

Those are the people I need to reach with my marketing. If I could afford to pay for an actual marketing campaign, I would. But I'm forced to try to do the best I can on my own. And that's what I'm doing here.

You do have an interesting idea about turning into an online soap opera. And if all else fails, I may give that a try. But my first responsibility is to the investors and the cast and crew. They deserve whatever payment I can get them from sales or rentals of the movie. So I am going to continue to fight to get this movie out there. Either I will succeed or I won't.

I appreciate your input!
 
Last edited:
Perhaps consider a compromise: put the video on a site free for anybody to watch and underneath include a voluntary donate PayPal button along with a request to Like and Plus.

This way, it's not all or nothing and if someone wants to donate any amount $2, $10 and/or just FB Like it.

Then post on sites informing of a a free movie along with the link to your site.
 
Have you actually tried contacting indie movie distributors? Take the jk rowling route and send a copy of the film to every name you can get your hands on?
 
I don't think that's a good idea. Make you're next feature really kick-ass then go to distributors.
 
Josh Bass said:
Have you actually tried contacting indie movie distributors? Take the jk rowling route and send a copy of the film to every name you can get your hands on?
Click to expand...

You know, even though that would require a fair amount of capital outlay, I would consider doing that. But nearly everything I've ever read here on DVXUser regarding experiences filmmakers here have had with distributors has all been negative. Hardly anyone ever reports seeing a dime of 'profits' for their efforts, and it sounds like no distributor on the planet is paying anything up-front anymore. So I figured my only real chance was self-distribution.
 
Looks like I'll be getting my first professional review of 'Tangled Web' -- by none other than legendary drive-in movie critic Joe Bob Briggs. Gotta love it! :-)
 
Microfilmmaker magazine will do a review (at least that was the case several years ago) but be warned, they are not gentle.
 
David W. Richardson said:
Those are the people I need to reach with my marketing. If I could afford to pay for an actual marketing campaign, I would. But I'm forced to try to do the best I can on my own. And that's what I'm doing here.
Click to expand...

Marketing costs money. Even if it's just promoting on facebook. YOu can do that with as little as 200 bucks. You said you have a thousand dollars you could give to the "investor". Why are you stuck with this idea of the ONLY promotion you can do has to be FREE? Good promotions cost money. If you are going to self distribute, be the director AND the distributor, you need a budget for the movie, and an advertising budget as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top