Ted Spencer
Veteran
...and the way they were lit, and framed, and...
Yeah. All good. Really good... : )
FEATURE: TRAILER - SUPERSEEDS | Super Powered Adventure
- Thread starter Kholi
- Start date
...and the way they were lit, and framed, and...
Yeah. All good. Really good... : )
Correct, at the moment we're working to get Takumi to lend us a hand on the workload and so his stuff's been crushing my mind.
Ripped clean out of my imagination, as it were, as this is what I've been trying to describe this entire time to everyone. Now there's a visual of Candace and her plasma-dark matter power pistols all complete. She now looks like a genuine super hero character.
Thanks alot, sir. Matty and I worked really well together once we got the mindset down. It was hard to work with very little, but it helps add a certain charm to the feature. And, of course, when the VFX start getting dropped and it all comes together... the results? I'm very happy.
Screenforme
Active member
Keep it up! That force field shot was awesome. Hollywood's knocking at the door for this kinda film. Jealous!
Martay
Veteran
mentatDUKE
Veteran
With all the talk lately of how to setup a feature and secure distribution, the silver bullet seems to be "Get the biggest actor you can afford. The film needs a star."
However, I'm starting to think that effects-driven films are the exception to this rule. The visual effects ARE the star. If someone takes this film to AFM with wall to wall effects shots and action beats, do you really think it won't sell in all territories just because it doesn't have a star? Of course not. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that a drama with a known star would sell LESS than an effects driven action film with unknowns. Especially if the poster and artwork show off the visuals and communicate that the film is a visual spectacle.
Studio Films with unknown actors but were effects-driven:
District 9
Star Wars
The Matrix?
However, I'm starting to think that effects-driven films are the exception to this rule. The visual effects ARE the star. If someone takes this film to AFM with wall to wall effects shots and action beats, do you really think it won't sell in all territories just because it doesn't have a star? Of course not. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that a drama with a known star would sell LESS than an effects driven action film with unknowns. Especially if the poster and artwork show off the visuals and communicate that the film is a visual spectacle.
Studio Films with unknown actors but were effects-driven:
District 9
Star Wars
The Matrix?
Last edited:
Marlon Ladd
Veteran
Films with special effects is where it's at, especially these days. People want to be "wowed" and like to wonder how they did that. I think because of the advances in software programs now days, the sky is the limit for anything you can imagine for a story. You can actually put it to film. Create a world, any kind of world. This is why I think we're seeing so many super hero films, more now than ever before. Before there were limitations. Now they're aren't and the fact that they're making a film about "Thor" should be a big indication. Most people don't even know who he is or know his story, but you best believe people will be there to watch the movie, because of the effects. I do think that movie is going to suck BTW. LOl!
Besides, deep down inside, everybody wishes they had super powers! You can't beat that!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well... hold on a moment though. Yes, a defined genre can definitely help sell your picture, as much as having a star does.
But to say Star Wars had no stars... Alec Guinness was a three-time Oscar nominee and he had already won an Oscar for Best Actor before he was cast in Star Wars. He very well known actor and a major star. Huge. Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge On The River Kwai... And Peter Cushing was no unknown either! He was a major figure in the horror genre, a huge star, and he had already won a BAFTA for Best Actor long before Star Wars came around. Cushing had starred in or appeared in over eighty movies before Star Wars.*
And "The Matrix" had no stars? Keanu Reeves, love him or hate him, was at that time one of the top box-office draws in the world. The Bill & Ted movies, Dracula, Speed... he was about as solid an A-lister as you can get.
As for "District 9" - here, yeah, no major actors. Copley went on to bigger fame from "The A Team" and his starmeter is actually higher than Sizemore's right now. But there was still a pretty big name attached to that film -- every poster, every ad, every review I saw always said "from Peter Jackson". Not as an actor, but right there at the top in every trailer and commercial it always said "Peter Jackson". So they still had a big "name".
*however, I don't think stars are why Star Wars succeeded. Everyone at the studio was convinced it was going to be a massive flop, and it would have been, had it not been for the efforts of George Lucas and his producer Gary Kurtz who tirelessly campaigned for an audience, taking big cardboard cutouts and props and scenes around the country to every comic book store, every sci-fi gathering, everywhere they could, drumming up interest in their core audience. If you want to really see how a little sci-fi fantasy film became the biggest blockbuster of its time (if not of all time), read "Empire Building" -- it's fascinating and its principles still apply today.
But to say Star Wars had no stars... Alec Guinness was a three-time Oscar nominee and he had already won an Oscar for Best Actor before he was cast in Star Wars. He very well known actor and a major star. Huge. Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge On The River Kwai... And Peter Cushing was no unknown either! He was a major figure in the horror genre, a huge star, and he had already won a BAFTA for Best Actor long before Star Wars came around. Cushing had starred in or appeared in over eighty movies before Star Wars.*
And "The Matrix" had no stars? Keanu Reeves, love him or hate him, was at that time one of the top box-office draws in the world. The Bill & Ted movies, Dracula, Speed... he was about as solid an A-lister as you can get.
As for "District 9" - here, yeah, no major actors. Copley went on to bigger fame from "The A Team" and his starmeter is actually higher than Sizemore's right now. But there was still a pretty big name attached to that film -- every poster, every ad, every review I saw always said "from Peter Jackson". Not as an actor, but right there at the top in every trailer and commercial it always said "Peter Jackson". So they still had a big "name".
*however, I don't think stars are why Star Wars succeeded. Everyone at the studio was convinced it was going to be a massive flop, and it would have been, had it not been for the efforts of George Lucas and his producer Gary Kurtz who tirelessly campaigned for an audience, taking big cardboard cutouts and props and scenes around the country to every comic book store, every sci-fi gathering, everywhere they could, drumming up interest in their core audience. If you want to really see how a little sci-fi fantasy film became the biggest blockbuster of its time (if not of all time), read "Empire Building" -- it's fascinating and its principles still apply today.
Last edited:
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
This is truly the key right here... find the audience, and go to them. This holds extremely true to the faith-based/Christian film audience as well...
I need to read that book.
Barry's right in that each of these had something going for it beyond what any of us could really do. Star Wars is the closest to home, and yeah, I can't fathom gathering a fanbase the same way Lucas and his producer did. But, now that I've been reminded I may have to go the extra little mile to try and hit up comic shops and more comic online communities to start getting some fans.
I wasn't really going to say anything about the star power deal... It's a hairy subject and there are people that swear by it and suggest doing otherwise is a bad idea...
If I had 100K, had to choose between putting 20K into a star or 20K on the production, I'm going to put it on the production.
Yes, I've read SO MANY HUNDREDS OF TIMES that having a recognizable face means distribution. Oh, wait, but no it really does not. It means that you can probably get into the distro meetings faster, and it may help your chances, but I think the people that keep saying this are forgetting to remind people that having a known face does not guarantee distribution, and furthermore, any sort of profit.
It increases your chances, can't argue that. But, guarantee? Without that guarantee, as a director that wears many hats, I'm not going to risk my cashflow on it. I'm going to bet on what I know I can do with 20K, which is make it feel ten times the size on screen. I'd rather take my chances with solid content over selling on a gimmick like that. And, that's just me. To each their own, but at this level it's not even an option for me and even at 100K+, it's probably going to be something I'm not to keen to jump on if the cost outweighs the benefits.
I firmly believe that a competent production, on all levels (from paper to post)--as long as the content is marketable to a demographic that spends money, is plenty for sub 100K umbrellas.
Naturally, once you begin to move up the money chain it requires more money to insure money. That's when names become instrumental to recouping investment and turning profit.
This is all just from me, though, and I don't expect anyone else to take it as gospel. Choose Your Own Adventure.
And, you know what else? Last night we went to a nice little cookout, producer around the corner from me gathered a lot of friends (most of which happen to be in the industry somehow-- Los Angeles), Thai food rocks. Since my breaks from working mean working, anyway, conversation starts and it's an important topic for me:
Do you tell your budget?
So many caution against doing so for various reasons, but primarily, the thought that it's going to cripple the amount of money you get if you happen to grab some distribution. Cool, I get that, and for a while it stuck with me. Hey, you gotta get back as much as you can... then, as the cut's finished, trailer started happening, and especially when VFX started showing up... I thought "There's no way in hell anyone's going to believe this was done for less than 50K."
So, at the table, the topic came up and the producer, she says something to the effect of "Use that weapon while you've got it. From what I saw, it looks ten times the budget, and if you can do that with less than fifty, and people know this, you're not going to have a problem getting more for your next project, and fast."
We went on to talk about the cases in which you would hide it, and one of the major ones was if you had to repay a huge debt, the second in line being if you didn't have something you were ready to roll on within the coming months. Indeed, I could see needing to make THE MOST MONEY you can if you don't have a little "slate" (what a weird word) of material you're ready to start on.
Both of these are not scenarios that apply to us. Our goal was always to recoup investment (pay people back), deliver our Kickstarter rewards (woot), and start the next project asap. Keep the momentum going.
Anyone can search up on Superseeds and find the Kickstarter first out on Google, they'll see a number. And, I'm not gonna hide it. If it's going to help get us recognized so we have a better shot at breaking even, and help with getting a larger budget next go round, then yeah...
Why NOT play the card while you still can?
Do you tell your budget?
So many caution against doing so for various reasons, but primarily, the thought that it's going to cripple the amount of money you get if you happen to grab some distribution. Cool, I get that, and for a while it stuck with me. Hey, you gotta get back as much as you can... then, as the cut's finished, trailer started happening, and especially when VFX started showing up... I thought "There's no way in hell anyone's going to believe this was done for less than 50K."
So, at the table, the topic came up and the producer, she says something to the effect of "Use that weapon while you've got it. From what I saw, it looks ten times the budget, and if you can do that with less than fifty, and people know this, you're not going to have a problem getting more for your next project, and fast."
We went on to talk about the cases in which you would hide it, and one of the major ones was if you had to repay a huge debt, the second in line being if you didn't have something you were ready to roll on within the coming months. Indeed, I could see needing to make THE MOST MONEY you can if you don't have a little "slate" (what a weird word) of material you're ready to start on.
Both of these are not scenarios that apply to us. Our goal was always to recoup investment (pay people back), deliver our Kickstarter rewards (woot), and start the next project asap. Keep the momentum going.
Anyone can search up on Superseeds and find the Kickstarter first out on Google, they'll see a number. And, I'm not gonna hide it. If it's going to help get us recognized so we have a better shot at breaking even, and help with getting a larger budget next go round, then yeah...
Why NOT play the card while you still can?
I hate to say this and I hope your movie turns out great, but your business talk is delusional.
If you're making this for the sake of the movie, that's the justification right there. The rest is just gravy. But if you're expecting to turn a profit or get a gig at the Asylum, you might want to check your expectations. Don't justify perfectly valid personal and artistic motives for making something with insane business ones. Even Sundance-winning features are struggling to make back $100K out of 3 million plus budgets. And, yes, you do need a star and no, this isn't a genre your market wants--way too high-concept.
Hit the festival circuit and see what happens. But save the delusions of grandeur for the art side, not business.
If you're making this for the sake of the movie, that's the justification right there. The rest is just gravy. But if you're expecting to turn a profit or get a gig at the Asylum, you might want to check your expectations. Don't justify perfectly valid personal and artistic motives for making something with insane business ones. Even Sundance-winning features are struggling to make back $100K out of 3 million plus budgets. And, yes, you do need a star and no, this isn't a genre your market wants--way too high-concept.
Hit the festival circuit and see what happens. But save the delusions of grandeur for the art side, not business.
Last edited:
Pretty much exactly what I said in my post: people are going to swear by the knowledge and shred you if you say anything against it.
Thanks for posting.
Yes, unfortunately those people are the same people who buy movies. If you bring this to a film market with that kind of attitude, distributors' replies will be far less subtle than what others here, who have dealt with distributors, are writing.
As I said, festivals (or self-distribution). But until then...just focus on making something as good as possible, don't even start to sweat distribution until you're getting offers or the movie's done. The movie itself looks solid and the effects are great. Hope it goes well.
As I said, festivals (or self-distribution). But until then...just focus on making something as good as possible, don't even start to sweat distribution until you're getting offers or the movie's done. The movie itself looks solid and the effects are great. Hope it goes well.
Last edited:
Hey, like I said in my post, it's not gospel. Choose your own adventure.
We both agree that I am delusional: there's no way I would've done something this ambitious on the budget that I had. That's settled!
The "art side" thing was flattering, I'll say that! I would never call what I did art, versus popcorn fair, but thanks! And, thanks for the advice from the side of the fence that has dealt with producing a feature and dealing with distribution. We need more people to share their stories so we'll have case studies around here.
If it's not too much trouble, is there any way you can share details on your experience with selling your product at film markets or distribution in general? What about your feature in festivals? Yeah, I read that distro is the last thing I should be worried about...
Oddly enough, everyone else says it's the first thing you should worry about when producing a feature.
Getting my wires crossed, which may be the source of my delusion... or the fact that I only eat Ramen or Chicken Nuggets these days.
Matt Harris
Veteran
This looks fantastic Kholi, can't wait for the trailer.
Praise the Lort it looks goot! Hallelujer.
Seriously though it looks sick.
Thanks for showing me the rough and everything - oh wait. Daaaaayyyyuuum!
:beer:
Seriously though it looks sick.
Thanks for showing me the rough and everything - oh wait. Daaaaayyyyuuum!
:beer:
Martay
Veteran
I think you answered the question with your "art" response though.
There are films and there are movies. Films may (and this is a HUGELY qualified "may") be able to afford to worry about quality first and distribution last if they're so singularly awesome that they are in demand at the top festivals and get noticed on those merits.
On the flip side, Movies don't really get much action at the top festivals and need to find their audiences early and reach their audience (primarily non-festival attendees) through distribution.
Thus, if you make a Movie...you need to be worried about distribution from jump...of course, that's just my opinion.
-M