The most ambitious indy film project I've seen to date

j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
The use of 'home-school', is a valid marketing phrase to catch the attention of the market these filmmakers are tapping.
Click to expand...

I think this film looks good enough to attract a wider audience than that. Most Christian films only preach to the choir and have a limited appeal. This could be the rare one that reaches the non-believers.
 
Batutta said:
I think this film looks good enough to attract a wider audience than that. Most Christian films only preach to the choir and have a limited appeal. This could be the rare one that reaches the non-believers.
Click to expand...

Well obviously since 'we' are discussing it, even if only about the use of 'home-school' as a catch phrase... the ploy worked...

And isn't that what marketing is about...
 
I recall during production their strategy for fund raising was asking people to sponsor a particular prop or other expense. Such as, "we need $1500 to rent a carriage", or "sponsor a soldier's costume for $200". Looks like it worked.

In case you aren't familiar with homeschooling world, they tend to be over achievers, my daughter being a prime example.
 
filmguy123 said:
What's with the negativity? I see where you are coming from, but I disagree with your assertion that it gives "inept" people a chance to compete with "pro studios" or pro-whatever.

While this film had much more budget than a little indie project... I see it as the REVERSE of what you are saying. Today, thanks to YouTube, Kickstarter, decreasing prices of technology/wide access to technology & tools we are seeing the ability for people without tons of money & resources to (1) create & accomplish otherwise impossible projects and feats -- something like this would have been borderline impossible even just 20 years ago -- and (2) be recognized for talent that stands independent of gross resource and financing.

I am not impressed by inept people accomplishing mediocre things. I am impressed by clearly talented people somehow accomplishing things on par with what hugely resourced and experienced professionals and organizations with a lifetime of experience & money can produce. A lot of what is out there is "better" not because the people working on it are more talented, more intelligent, or more resourceful.. but merely because they are better funded.

As for me, I welcome the democratization of talent at every level - from the small one man band, to the midsize studios, to the big players. They all have something to offer. This generation of Kickstarted video games & Indie game developers producing incredible content, either crowd-sourced or discovered and monetized after the fact via digital distribution... to artists being able to skip record labels and record high quality content @ home and direct publish to iTunes.. to Indie film-makers being able to produce increasingly impressive & competitive content at ALL budget levels... to the indie film revolution of late churning out more and more quality scripts and movies... It's an amazing time to be an artist.

Anyway... /tangent

I was impressed by the trailer. Makes sense that the funding is much higher than the initial 'made at home by kids!' post made it sound, but regardless, the fact that passionate people can pull something like this off with today's technology (both filmmaking and communication/internet/etc.) and have something they care about be translated and hold up in a marketplace dominated by multi-million dollar budgets... that's awesome. Keep it up.
Click to expand...

Lets define the terms here. What is "that something" you speak off? Is it as something fantastic in itself or fantastic CONSIDERING outside factors - that they are first timers, young, underfunded (you pick your terms). If its as something that requires that context then it's not enough to impress. YOU have seen stuff like that many, many times before... So why the hoopla? Clearly it's not the story, execution ,depth of ideas or ANYTHING relevant to the work itself as you have seen equal or better before.

Specifically because everyone has the gear and can do things that were not possible 20 years ago we should not spent that fantastic ability on making rehashed stuff that we are all familiar with. And here where we differ too, i defined talent as ability to execute (clearly it's visible here) unique ideas (you would have to shine a very bright light here to show me those "unique ideas" here). Which brings us to this overused and bordering on meaningless terms of "democratization of the medium." Democratization gives voice to everyone and thus the "everyone" also become a judge. In the past the "everyone" was shielded from mediocre work by the elites (the critics) today when the role of the critic has disintegrated and "everyone" is forced to make their own judgement - in lieu of standards, trivia becomes that definer of quality. Here: the fact that some nobodies pulled of what looks like decent production = we are impressed that the work has reach the standard of average!!! It's not negativity but a way to define the changing landscape of the medium.
 
"So why the hoopla? Clearly it's not the story, execution ,depth of ideas or ANYTHING relevant to the work itself as you have seen equal or better before."
Are you speaking here of the independent film world, or within the Hollywood system? Obviously this is nothing spectacular in Hollywood. But in the world of the action/adventure indy film, I think you would be hard pressed to find an example that comes even close.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Lets define the terms here. What is "that something" you speak off? Is it as something fantastic in itself or fantastic CONSIDERING outside factors - that they are first timers, young, underfunded (you pick your terms). If its as something that requires that context then it's not enough to impress. YOU have seen stuff like that many, many times before... So why the hoopla? Clearly it's not the story, execution ,depth of ideas or ANYTHING relevant to the work itself as you have seen equal or better before.

Specifically because everyone has the gear and can do things that were not possible 20 years ago we should not spent that fantastic ability on making rehashed stuff that we are all familiar with. And here where we differ too, i defined talent as ability to execute (clearly it's visible here) unique ideas (you would have to shine a very bright light here to show me those "unique ideas" here). Which brings us to this overused and bordering on meaningless terms of "democratization of the medium." Democratization gives voice to everyone and thus the "everyone" also become a judge. In the past the "everyone" was shielded from mediocre work by the elites (the critics) today when the role of the critic has disintegrated and "everyone" is forced to make their own judgement - in lieu of standards, trivia becomes that definer of quality. Here: the fact that some nobodies pulled of what looks like decent production = we are impressed that the work has reach the standard of average!!! It's not negativity but a way to define the changing landscape of the medium.
Click to expand...

Meh, I dunno. Well worded, well said, and actually I agree with some of this in general..

But frankly, your take sounds both condescending and negative. The trailer is better than most trailers released on multi million dollar budgets in the 90s. None of us have seen the actual movie, so who is to say where it is average or not? Or original or not? As it is, I do not see much originality in hollywood these days, though I do see many remarkably high production values.. so is this film useless because hollywood production values are higher? Because actually the concept and work here is actually pretty niche work - there's not many good Christian films out there, regardless of if thats your cup of tea or not.

Really, it seems like what you're saying has less to do with originality and more to do with production value... as in "its good but braveheart and interstellar are more technically impressive, so this is average". But to me production value is a way to tell a story.

And as far as my view on originality, I think of the holocaust survivor Victor Frankyl's quote: "Everyone has his own specific vocation or mission in life; everyone must carry out a concrete assignment that demands fulfillment. Therein he cannot be replaced, nor can his life be repeated, thus, everyone's task is unique as his specific opportunity to implement it." --- In that, every piece of art or work is an extension of ourselves.. we may all have 2 legs, to arms, to ears, to eyes... but we all see different, we are all unique and have a unique way of telling our stories and perspectives.

What impresses me is for unique individuals to communicate through writing, art, or any medium effectively. For a small team to create a piece of work important to them, an extension of their own uniqueness and perspectives and stories and convictions, etc... and to present it at production values that more than suffice to effectively tell a story... that's impressive! Especially considering the technical and financial limitations.. A period piece is impressive in and out if itself, to do so well without a hollywood budget.. even more so! Nothing wrong with being impressed with that.

But the crux has to do with the communication of our own art and story, and the work it takes to do that. In this case, it's not just the process of dedication and writing etc. but also in the face of extremely difficult financial and technical hurdles.

Well, it comes off as the guy on the bleachers who watches a high school kid make an amazing football play and says, "meh? what's the point. Peyton Mannig is more talented, and I saw a better play at last years Super Bowl." It's more a question of values.

I get it though. For a long time I've wrestled with the, "If I'm not the best in the world, what's the point?" And then I realized thats' completely life destroying on so many levels, not just to me, but to everyone around me that literally NEEDS me to be me. We all have a unique combination of stories, perspectives, and eyes that allow us to communicate something that literally only we can communicate. When anyone has the COURAGE to do that, it impresses me, whether or not braveheart had better production values.

But, seeing as how none of us have seen the movie, doesn't it seem a bit cynical and counter productive to start decrying someone else's hard work as pointless? Not really what this community is about. But I am assuming you don't believe that the only things worth communicating, the only art worth expressing, is that which has the absolute highest form of technical mastery. And if you do, I am sure you recognize that ironically, in that arena, originality often takes a backseat to profitability.

If it's true originality we are after, it's the everyday people that are going to make that happen.
 
Eric Boellner said:
There are a thousand shorts on YouTube that look better than trailers from the 90's.
Click to expand...

true, but my point is that the term "average" as applied to technical quality here is somewhat meaningless as it impacts the ability of a film to tell stories. Some of my favorite movies are from the 90s - arguably better - whose technical production values, cinematography, etc. would be "average" today. As for originality, see original post.
 
Come on guys what are we arguing about here? Some folks got together and made a low-budget indie with some flare and some fun...they've accomplished more here than most DVXusers have narratively. It's worth a clap and a pat on the back at the least.

If it's not for you just say so or don't comment lol. But it's an impressive accomplishment and it's ambitious. It could've been just another two people in a room movie, but they tried to reach for something more grand.

All this arguing seems pointless.
 
KyleProhaska said:
If it's not for you just say so or don't comment lol. But it's an impressive accomplishment and it's ambitious. It could've been just another two people in a room movie, but they tried to reach for something more grand.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point. I think the dissent comes from the idea that this is "the most ambitious indy project..."

Argument aside, congratulations are certainly warranted for attempting and completing something this ambitious. Here's hoping they're successful with it!
 
Eric Boellner said:
That's a fair point. I think the dissent comes from the idea that this is "the most ambitious indy project..."

I titled the thread, "The most ambitious indy film project I've seen to date". If you've seen someone else in indy film do a credible job of trying to recreate the Revolutionary War, then so be it.
Click to expand...
 
I think it looks great. I applaud them highly for pulling it off. I wish them a lot of success. But it's not for me. I've tried watching many Christian movies and it's usually the over-sanitized script and peck-on-the-cheek love scenes that kill it for me.
 
I was given their film Pendragon a few years back when it came out. It definitely had some bad acting, scripting, vfx, etc. However, it was also an impressive feat! They shot battle scenes, period, practical effects, stunts, and quite a bit of vfx. There was something exciting about the epic scale they attempted and sometimes hit.

I expect they learned many valuable lessons and gained enough financial backer's trust to handle a larger budget and as such I think Beyond the Mask should be a far more enjoyable film! The teaser looked promising enough to keep my interest. I also know a few people who worked crew and they gave positive feedback on what they had seen.

And a final question, has anyone else in this conversation been a part of a bigger indie film? I would love to hear about it. There are always many interesting lessons from larger productions.
 
Just finished watching a screener of the movie (my wife writes a film blog and gets advance access) and after viewing it, I stand by my original statement- "the most ambitious indy film project" and would add that from a production values standpoint it can pass for Hollywood produced. It also has a very strong script and excellent acting. Don't know what the budget was but I do know that it looks like 100x what it was probably shot for.
 
This film did not cost $200,000.

This film cost a couple million. Even if they didn't spend actual cash - that's what a production of this scale costs. Costumes, zillions of props, horses and carriages... all that means LOTS OF PEOPLE.
And while people may be able to volunteer their time - you still have to transport them, and you still have to FEED them.
Post is expensive.
If you BUY the gear - it's expensive.
If you rent time - it's expensive.
If someone donates it all - that's just a different form of FINANCING. Just like people volunteering their time or donating food or ANYTHING.

The hard cash spent to make this film might only be $200,000..... but the COST....the expense SOMEONE paid....looks far more like 2-million AT LEAST to me.

Which means this is not a "Low-Budget Indy Film" by any stretch of the imagination. It simply means it was created by what so many in the industry refer to as "Creative Financing".
 
Last edited:
Of course it's high budget -at least by indy film standards - but it's still made outside the Hollywood system, making it an indy film. Do you know of another indy film that looks comparable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top