OTHER: Trailer for our love story narrative

Gary Huff said:
And you cannot deny that the talk has not been about any specifics of your film, just in how your trailer shows a film that won't entice many people to see it.
Click to expand...

Despite numerous questions to clarify, most were not interested to dive into the dialogue which doesn’t necessary mean that there was nothing to talk about in the first place. An obscure statistic found that in one Eastern European country when asked if they are ok with same-sex union 75% of people said ‘no.’ Yet when asked more specific questions such as if they are ok with same sex partners to get tax or health benefits (in essence what same-sex union is about) etc 75% responded ‘yes.’ This means that the first response was in relations to general feeling yet when asked more specific questions people mind contradicted their own feelings. (compare that statistic with the earlier Nixon speech-writer quote where he says that most people feel first and think later)

Gary Huff said:
How so? If a million people watch your trailer and no one watches or buys your film, that's a success? If so, then we do have a very different take on what is successful.
Click to expand...

Your view of economic potential seems very one sided. I can give you a numerous examples (Including from my personal experience) where initial no-money-exchanged scenario transformed into real-money-making opportunities.
 
Last edited:
Gary Huff said:
Not wanting the same 'ole same 'ole does not mean they want to watch something that doesn't follow basic story structure, or doesn't give them anything more than a pretentious treatise on "love" that entails two overly attractive people talking about how much they love each other in contrived romantic settings. I think that's been made pretty clear by the myriad of different responses on here.
Click to expand...

I can’t believe that 8 pages into this conversation you still think that “Don’t love me forever - just love me now” equals “Hey baby, i love you!"
 
I personally think any writer/director/producer that argues to try and justify their creative work to an audience is doing something wrong.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Find out if the feedback i'm getting from people is a sign that they are not engaged by the ideas (are thus are not my audience) or that somehow i'm not reaching the people who otherwise would be interested.
Click to expand...

First of all, I thought your trailer looked great. Maybe a tad long, but visually pretty awesome. However, it didn't make me want to see it for reasons others have already mentioned. I applaud you for having completed a project and for putting your work out there for feedback.

Regarding the post above, it seems that the DVXUSER group tends to look at film more critically than, for the lack of a better word, average viewers. The trailer could work for other groups of people and maybe (if you have not already) post the trailer elsewhere to get some feedback also. It seems like, I could be wrong, that you think it may appeal to only a certain slice of the population, maybe you could show that niche the trailer to see if it is effective.

It seems the majority have said it looks great but the message isn't landing. A few (smaller group) seem to like it and the message.

So if the goal is not to change the trailer and more to find the group that would want to see it, maybe you should get those who like to give you more info on why it worked and suggestions on how to appeal to similar like minded people.

Thanks for the Dark Horse trailer, it got me engaged and I want to see it. But it also had recognizable faces and other things that are not in your trailer. I thought enough of the story was conveyed in the trailer to make it effective and I added it to my Netflix.

For me, when debating we need similar sized (budget and cast) movies to compare to one another. Bringing up City of Angels, Tree of Life (I think someone else brought that one up), just don't land on me in a reasoned based conversation given the different resources involved.

The great thing about filmmaking is you are welcome to do what you wish. How you define success is completely up to you. I think some have tried to point to generalizations on what works and what doesn't given the hundreds of thousands/millions of films out there. Yes, there are always the occasional surprises like Napoleon Dynamite, but there are also the 100's or 1000's that wanted to be like that movie and were never heard from, not heard from again, just never heard from. I do not mean to imply that is the fate of your movie, what the hell do I really know?

Thanks for the sharing your trailer and I wish you success.
 
Interesting. So if the visuals don't engage us we're simply not your audience? What about the possibility that your interpretation of what "your" audience would find engaging is actually wrong?
 
prexdealer said:
First of all, I thought your trailer looked great. Maybe a tad long, but visually pretty awesome. However, it didn't make me want to see it for reasons others have already mentioned. I applaud you for having completed a project and for putting your work out there for feedback.

Regarding the post above, it seems that the DVXUSER group tends to look at film more critically than, for the lack of a better word, average viewers. The trailer could work for other groups of people and maybe (if you have not already) post the trailer elsewhere to get some feedback also. It seems like, I could be wrong, that you think it may appeal to only a certain slice of the population, maybe you could show that niche the trailer to see if it is effective.

It seems the majority have said it looks great but the message isn't landing. A few (smaller group) seem to like it and the message.

So if the goal is not to change the trailer and more to find the group that would want to see it, maybe you should get those who like to give you more info on why it worked and suggestions on how to appeal to similar like minded people.

Thanks for the Dark Horse trailer, it got me engaged and I want to see it. But it also had recognizable faces and other things that are not in your trailer. I thought enough of the story was conveyed in the trailer to make it effective and I added it to my Netflix.

For me, when debating we need similar sized (budget and cast) movies to compare to one another. Bringing up City of Angels, Tree of Life (I think someone else brought that one up), just don't land on me in a reasoned based conversation given the different resources involved.

The great thing about filmmaking is you are welcome to do what you wish. How you define success is completely up to you. I think some have tried to point to generalizations on what works and what doesn't given the hundreds of thousands/millions of films out there. Yes, there are always the occasional surprises like Napoleon Dynamite, but there are also the 100's or 1000's that wanted to be like that movie and were never heard from, not heard from again, just never heard from. I do not mean to imply that is the fate of your movie, what the hell do I really know?

Thanks for the sharing your trailer and I wish you success.
Click to expand...

We’ve done basic box office breakdown of the films we like and found out that they are all on the lower end of the box office returns so we know that the audience is there but it’s also relatively small. Which doesn’t really scare us, if anything those numbers show that ideas do not really get appreciated by general public so monetary failure doesn’t really equal failure in general sense. It also show how important it is to make films we care about as even great films are not guaranteed to return on investment.

How does related to DVX community? That’s interesting question that i don’t have answer to. On one hand we tend to be more knowledgeable about films on the other hand sometimes the knowledge of how to do thing the right way might make us blind or lead to wrong conclusions. (notice, i said “we” as i’m part of the same pool).

The “Dark Horse” trailer. Here is the interesting dilemma that we all face. That trailer told just enough of the story for you to be interested and a bit too much of the story (that i don’t care about) for me to be interested. I know this director so i know this will be about other things than just this simple story so the film is still on my radar but without that knowledge i would have said ‘next.’

I brought up City of Angels to show how shallow story often can be more “successful” that more sophisticated one that is if viewership (thus money) is your barometer. And i agree with you, hyperboles of what was or wasn’t successful in the past isn’t necessary best way to argument because for every success there were hundreds or thousands of failures.
 
Last edited:
Snazzy Flapper said:
Interesting. So if the visuals don't engage us we're simply not your audience? What about the possibility that your interpretation of what "your" audience would find engaging is actually wrong?
Click to expand...

Of course there is that possibility. I tend to believe in power of the image and that an image has a meaning behind it - some images are used as a filer while others are ideas both on whats in the image but also how that image interacts with the rest. I do find that in generals we live in such image rich society that images have lost power in many viewer's eyes that though doesn't necessary mean that the image's meaning is not there.
 
Last edited:
Patryk_Rebisz said:
We’ve done basic box office breakdown of the films we like and found out that they are all on the lower end of the box office returns so we know that the audience is there but it’s also relatively small. Which doesn’t really scare us, if anything those numbers show that ideas do not really get appreciated by general public so monetary failure doesn’t really equal failure in general sense. It also show how important it is to make films we care about as even great films are not guaranteed to return on investment.
Click to expand...

With all respect, it sort of sounds like our feedback wasn't gonna matter either way. It sounds like a passion project. If that is the case, I would say (JOKINGLY), "F ya all I do what I want" lol. Which is totally cool. But then in some ways any sort of contrary feedback wasn't going to matter anyway. Just sort of seems like this was a mental exercise to have some fun, which is cool also. But I think a lot of people took it pretty seriously in giving feedback, like myself.

But it doesn't mean ideas don't get appreciated by the general public, it just means those particular ideas don't get appreciated by the general public. For as salty as I have sounded on the Corrado II thread lately about the "all about me people," I still believe general public has the capacity and willingness to appreciate ideas. Possibly, it also means that those ideas don't merit appreciation. I am not trying to be a d*ck, just trying to point out possibly reasonable conclusions.

Anyway, I originally came back to the thread to share this link about an article called "Nobody Wants To 'Like' Your Facebook Page" by Stacey Parks from filmspecific. It talks about target audiences which is what has been talked about on this thread.

http://independentfilmblog.com/archives/nobody-wants-to-like-your-facebook-page/

Have a great day everyone.
 
Last edited:
"You are making a fatal flaw in your logic assuming that the movie going audience is monolithic and thus wants the same thing. Or that filmmakers are made out of the same material and all want the same thing. Both audience and the makers are diverse (duh!). Just because “you” are looking for a story doesn’t meant everyone is (smaller “duh!” cause i said it a few times before)."

Seriously, dude? Are you playing a character now?

Whatever. I mean, "Whatever." (duh) My fatal flaw was caring, I suppose. I think I'm cured.
 
prexdealer said:
With all respect, it sort of sounds like our feedback wasn't gonna matter either way. It sounds like a passion project. If that is the case, I would say (JOKINGLY), "F ya all I do what I want" lol. Which is totally cool. But then in some ways any sort of contrary feedback wasn't going to matter anyway. Just sort of seems like this was a mental exercise to have some fun, which is cool also. But I think a lot of people took it pretty seriously in giving feedback, like myself.

But it doesn't mean ideas don't get appreciated by the general public, it just means those particular ideas don't get appreciated by the general public. For as salty as I have sounded on the Corrado II thread lately about the "all about me people," I still believe general public has the capacity and willingness to appreciate ideas. Possibly, it also means that those ideas don't merit appreciation. I am not trying to be a d*ck, just trying to point out possibly reasonable conclusions.

Anyway, I originally came back to the thread to share this link about an article called "Nobody Wants To 'Like' Your Facebook Page" by Stacey Parks from filmspecific. It talks about target audiences which is what has been talked about on this thread.

http://independentfilmblog.com/archives/nobody-wants-to-like-your-facebook-page/

Have a great day everyone.
Click to expand...

Criticism with reasoning is positive. It’s very hard to gain anything from a statement of feeling. I liked it i didn’t like it - means very little. On the other hand saying “why” something feels this or that way is productive. For instance a friend of mine (who’s also a film critic) mentioned the reasons why the trailer feels long but he went further and identified shots that take away from form of the trailer by being too “commercial.” This kind of feedback is very valuable - one listens to it more as it talks about specifics rather than generalizations.

I thank you for your link which in a way shows my point - “no one knows anything.” Notice in the comments someone mentioned their film about Monopoly and that they had 4.5m likes - this is HUGE and their films should be a success and yet it wasn’t. It made $13k in box office, sold 200 DVDs to Netflix than got extra $15k in streaming deal (around $30k total). Now compare that to this film “King Of Kong” - similar arch of a competition trying to beat a game that everyone recognizes - even their actual “likes” of the film on FB are similar (15k and 17k) and yet “King” made $680k in box office! How can such similar stories turn out so different? The answer is that despite all that knowledge we accumulate EVERYTHING is our “best guess.” We try to create a system that allows us to out-game the game and it’s all fine but more and more i realise that this is futile. So my answer is, know yourself, educate yourself as much as possible so that you don’t make decisions all in total darkness, listen to what people have to say (especially whne they speak specifics) then create your own conclusions. Don’t try to out-do the system because the system is too complex to be fully comprehended. (and even if it wasn't you are still becoming more of a system analysist rather then filmmaker)
 
This is by far the most amusing thread in ages.
I would personally not call the trailer pretentious, and I wouldn't call you, the director pretentious; Even though you have been lecturing those kind enough to share their thoughts and give their input, across 10 long pages.

Cut the narcissistic waste of your own time and embrace the fact that you don't have to prove yourself to anyone, certainly not here on a bulletin board. Going through the previous pages I noticed several positive and exciting responses, and maybe you should focus on those! After all, that' your target audience right there, isn't it? :beer:
 
Well The Monopoly movie appears to lack something the Kong movie had a compelling "evil" character who wears crazy patriotic ties, has a beard and long hair against a "good" guy. It creates a familiar story of David vs Goliath. An underdog against the evil business tycoon with a handle bar mustache, etc. The monopoly doc covers a bunch of people. The audience can't get into the story as much or get as invested in the outcome.

Morgan Spurlock rated the Top 100 docs and I watched his series. He had an in depth review of King of Kong and interviewed the "evil" guy. You could see he was just an interesting character even if you didn't like him. He had something about him (it factor), that the Monopoly doc people didn't seem to have in the trailer.

Just trying to be fare about the assessments. One has a compelling pair of characters to follow to get emotionally invested in. The other one doesn't it. But since I NOW know this is sort of a game to argue around in a circle, I welcome the return shot lol.

And likes don't mean anything. They are disposable throw away comments. Just like FB friends are sort of useless. Nothing is invested in a like, or adding someone as a friend because she is hot but you have never met her. Click a button, that is it. If you followed that guy who made the Monopoly doc, he did something on a rare disease that will have more legs, it seems, because it is targeted and has more substance to it.

I mean I like monopoly as a game, etc. I play it once in a while with the nephews but you need a good hook to make me wanna watch it for 2 hours. Especially if some of those people might be over acting for their few minutes of fame. But you talk about a rare deadly disease that affects you or someone you know, it is almost a sure thing you will get a high return on that niche.

At the end of the day, finish your movie, show it and try and sell it. At least you have completed a project, many of us, including myself, have not. So I applaud you for that. But I would be curious what kind of success it has, however you choose to define success.

Keep in mind, I am writing counter points because I get the sense this is a game to you - counter something someone says game. If it is actually very serious and not a game to you, then I will stop because I am just wasting your time and energy by providing (hopefully well reasoned) points that in some ways may be striking something personal. In my book that would be something mean, so I will stop. I get that all projects are personal but some projects mean more than others and I think that the deep attachments get to be respected.

For example. my sister's dog died and I was pretty sad, my very good friend said I could borrow his. He actually meant it in a nice way, but I didn't take it so well. Maybe I was over reacting, but I had a deep attachment to the dog vs. other dogs. Same about projects, some mean more than others and sometimes we get to a little tender about them and that is ok.

I am doing this for fun (with logic and reason, I hope), not to be a jerk, and I hope you are not taking it as anything personal. I want to remain respectful during these posts.

PEACE!
 
Last edited:
prexdealer said:
Well The Monopoly movie appears to lack something the Kong movie had a compelling "evil" character who wears crazy patriotic ties, has a beard and long hair against a "good" guy. It creates a familiar story of David vs Goliath. An underdog against the evil business tycoon with a handle bar mustache, etc. The monopoly doc covers a bunch of people. The audience can't get into the story as much or get as invested in the outcome.

Morgan Spurlock rated the Top 100 docs and I watched his series. He had an in depth review of King of Kong and interviewed the "evil" guy. You could see he was just an interesting character even if you didn't like him. He had something about him (it factor), that the Monopoly doc people didn't seem to have in the trailer.

Just trying to be fare about the assessments. One has a compelling pair of characters to follow to get emotionally invested in. The other one doesn't it. But since I NOW know this is sort of a game to argue around in a circle, I welcome the return shot lol.

And likes don't mean anything. They are disposable throw away comments. Just like FB friends are sort of useless. Nothing is invested in a like, or adding someone as a friend because she is hot but you have never met her. Click a button, that is it. If you followed that guy who made the Monopoly doc, he did something on a rare disease that will have more legs, it seems, because it is targeted and has more substance to it.

I mean I like monopoly as a game, etc. I play it once in a while with the nephews but you need a good hook to make me wanna watch it for 2 hours. Especially if some of those people might be over acting for their few minutes of fame. But you talk about a rare deadly disease that affects you or someone you know, it is almost a sure thing you will get a high return on that niche.

At the end of the day, finish your movie, show it and try and sell it. At least you have completed a project, many of us, including myself, have not. So I applaud you for that. But I would be curious what kind of success it has, however you choose to define success.

Keep in mind, I am writing counter points because I get the sense this is a game to you - counter something someone says game. If it is actually very serious and not a game to you, then I will stop because I am just wasting your time and energy by providing (hopefully well reasoned) points that in some ways may be striking something personal. In my book that would be something mean, so I will stop. I get that all projects are personal but some projects mean more than others and I think that the deep attachments get to be respected.

For example. my sister's dog died and I was pretty sad, my very good friend said I could borrow his. He actually meant it in a nice way, but I didn't take it so well. Maybe I was over reacting, but I had a deep attachment to the dog vs. other dogs. Same about projects, some mean more than others and sometimes we get to a little tender about them and that is ok.

I am doing this for fun (with logic and reason, I hope), not to be a jerk, and I hope you are not taking it as anything personal. I want to remain respectful during these posts.

PEACE!
Click to expand...

Look what’s happening. Be both make gross oversimplifications in our critical thinking. My oversimplification is assuming that 4.5M of views equals huge audiences yours is that an exciting “bad guy” helps the story. In a way it’s obvious why we make those simplified statements as it seems facebook fans could turn into supporters and yes there were thousands of films where it was exciting to watch interesting bad guy in action. But clearly this is not the full story. For instance i didn’t see the King of Kong film for the reasons you mention (the exciting bad guy). And i suspect many, many people saw it for many other reasons that remain unmentioned (and here i’m making those up from top of my head): nostalgia, wanting to feel good watching other losers, excitement of watching a competition, yes, the bag guy too, curiosity how in essence a youtube moment could be expanded into a feature-length film (this was my reason). And yet despite this wealth of personal reasons why people chose to watching this film we end up mentioning one... Good drama with a bad guy... The filmmaker in us “knows” the reasons why people watch films but the actuality is often very different.
 
Hey, just clicked on your company website, did you also write this film? I thought you DP'd it (I assumed, sorry). It said you directed it and Dp'd it. Just trying to gain some insight. Have a great day!
 
prexdealer said:
Hey, just clicked on your company website, did you also write this film? I thought you DP'd it (I assumed, sorry). It said you directed it and Dp'd it. Just trying to gain some insight. Have a great day!
Click to expand...

Director/DP on this one but on the actual film i definitely don't want to wear both hats - two minds is better then one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top