FEATURE: TRAILER - SUPERSEEDS | Super Powered Adventure

Policar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Keep in mind that I was talking about international sales. I.E. Outside of the U.S.
Do you seriously think international (and domestic) audiences don't want high concept fare? Uh... dude. That's the bread and butter! Why do you think there's a comicbook movie released every other week? Do you need stars? The jury's still out on that. Keep in mind that the disruptive technology (off the shelf visual effects software w/ commoditized high powered cpus) is just now hitting paydirt. We saw how that helped District 9, Monsters, and the viral web videos of 2010.

Now let's see how it helps indie film makers. I'll say it again. Visual effects are the new stars. Kholi's film does NOT look like it cost 50k.


Barry, interesting points, although I don't think I'd call Alec Guinness and co "stars". I'd call them thespians/character actors circa 1977. I mean were they really household names back then? I admit I wasn't born til 2 years later though so I defer to you. Point taken regarding Peter Jackson, but that didn't help "The Lovely Bones" :)
As for Keanu, I was a huge fan of Speed, but remember. That was like 1994. His star cooled wayyy down before The Matrix in 1999 (which then put him back on top).
Thanks for the book recommend. I read "Skywalking", but they didn't discuss grassroots marketing of the film in that book.

As a final point, I'll point everyone toward the upcoming "Priest" which is being positioned as a mini-tentpole. It's the director's followup to "Legion" (which wasn't that good). I do find it interesting that Hollywood is now tapping former visual effects supervisors to direct (I believe he was with the Orphanage).

Kholi, two years ago everyone would have told you NOT to make this movie. "Hollywood already makes them. Do something else." Now? Not so much....
If your film is sufficiently story and character driven, I'd say you have the potential to beat them at their own game.
 
Martay said:
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
Click to expand...

Do trust, Martay, that I understand and am one hundred behind you on that one. I set out to make a movie, not an art house piece. I respect all areas of the business, it just wasn't my intention to do anything but try to entertain and pull off what I felt I could on the shoe-string budget.

Again, I'm open to other ways of working, and I greatly appreciate people who've been there and done that first-hand offering experience. I do not mean to sound as if I'm discounting it, and it may be quite romantic to say "You don't need it sub 100K"... but, that's just how it's gonna be for me right now. Everyone else can try it the other way, I'm going to do it this way for now, and not on merits of the film, etc, but on merits of creating a career out of this.
 
mentatDUKE said:
Huh?

Keep in mind that I was talking about international sales. I.E. Outside of the U.S.
Do you seriously think international (and domestic) audiences don't want high concept fare? Uh... dude. That's the bread and butter! Why do you think there's a comicbook movie released every other week? Do you need stars? The jury's still out on that. Keep in mind that the disruptive technology (off the shelf visual effects software w/ commoditized high powered cpus) is just now hitting paydirt. We saw how that helped District 9, Monsters, and the viral web videos of 2010.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Monsters somehow has become the new Blair Witch or PAranormal Activity. I mention it, and Tiny Furniture, and theyr'e immediately discounted as "needles in haystacks" or "one in a million shots." Well, yeah, I guess if the other million follow the other model (Get a star but keep the barely competent production value) then okay, cool. So, unfortunately, we filmmakers are not even allowed to use these as examples of success...

It's just brushed off.

Now let's see how it helps indie film makers. I'll say it again. Visual effects are the new stars. Kholi's film does NOT look like it cost 50k.
Click to expand...

Thanks, sir. Greatly appreciate it.


As a final point, I'll point everyone toward the upcoming "Priest" which is being positioned as a mini-tentpole. It's the director's followup to "Legion" (which wasn't that good). I do find it interesting that Hollywood is now tapping former visual effects supervisors to direct (I believe he was with the Orphanage).
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's amazing what kind of opportunities are out there. Even better, if anyone has yet to see the interview on the Spiereg brothers "Day Breakers" Blu Ray, you should watch it. It's worth the price of the Blu Ray alone to hear Lionsgate guys representing these two brothers that went into debt, sold their homes, etc to fund their first 100K feature.. and how they were moved to a 20M budget on the next.

But, hey, needle in a haystack.
Kholi, two years ago everyone would have told you NOT to make this movie. "Hollywood already makes them. Do something else." Now? Not so much....
Click to expand...

Ha! Two years ago? Try a few months. I don't even talk about it that much with other filmmakers anymore because they immediately assume that, because the budget is as much as their vehicles cost, it's probably non-existent as a whole.

The most you'll see me talking about it is RIGHT here in this thread, which might be a bad thing.
 
I dunno, I'm still "new"but I still support "dreaming". I don't support going into debt and owing friends and family money that they needed to survive and that you'll never be able to pay back. But IF you can get your hands on a budget, and make one hell of a cool "movie" out of it, then do it. I'm not a believer of "well those things happen 1 in every million so why try". Yes I'd say "they happen one in every million so don't get your hopes too high up". But why the hell not shoot for doing what YOU want if you have the power to do so.

For instance, it was said that 3million dollar movies are struggling to make back 100k...so if you know that making ANY MONEY on a movie is a crap shoot anyway, why not make the movie YOU WANT. At least if you're going to fail, then fail on your own, not following behind someone's "error proof plan" that had errors in it. I mean, before indy films found distribution, there was "no need to make indy films, no ones going to ever see them"..but then someone said "to hell with that" and did it anyway..and it worked. So Kholi may be "delusional"...but that's only for now, if his plan works then he was never "delusional" more so a trailblazers, a "genius".

I think people saying "you need a name to sell the film"..is the new way of saying "you need to prove to the audience that you're a legit film maker". There are PLENTY of movies with names that don't make money. Hell the biggest bombs in box office history usually have the BIGGEST names at that time attached to them. (Gigli, Mars Needs Moms)...honestly, if I saw the Trailer for Corrado, and I saw the trailer for SUPERSEEDS (And I'm assuming the trailer is going to be comprised of shots we've seen in this thread or similar)...I'd choose Superseeds. I mean that's not to say that I wouldn't watch them both, but if I HAD to choose based on "preview footage".

And if you told me this guy made this movie for under 50k, I'd DEFINITELY check it out...I think in this financial climate, more and more people are fascinated with seeing High quality films made on lower budgets. It's admirable, it's awe-inspiring, and it's flat out impressive.

When you say "VFX are the new star you need to drive a movie". I agree (depending on the type of movie obviously). Now a-days people think "oh this movie has a star, can I really trust that though, or is this just someone itching for a paycheck"..but when I see VFX, there's no faking the talent it takes to pull off a bad ass shot. The time it takes to get the details to look "cool" and I "trust" that that film maker is just as serious as someone who lined up a washed up actor just to throw them on the cover. Hell honestly now a days when I see "Featuring such and such"..I expect them to be in the movie no more than 2 minutes TOPS..where as I haven't been disappointed by films like "Monsters" or "Paranormal 1" yet.

Kholi, as a fan, I like knowing the budget is under 50k...it makes it more impressive, if I thought you did a superhero film for like 800k, I'd say "duh, it's supposed to look this good"..if I hear 50k I go.."Man that's bad ass, I wanna know just how much he was able to pull off on so little"..

Ultimately, like everyone else, I'm speaking from MY perspective. And I'm not a distributor, nor have I sat in front of one...but I have sat with investors and fellow film makers..and fans of genre films...and I know based strictly on what I've seen, this film will EASILY find an audience. If a distributor isn't willing to take a chance on it, do another kickstarter and raise 15k or so to distribute it yourself..but with things like comic-con, comic book stores period, and like I believe Martay said..EVERYONE WISHING THEY HAD AT LEAST ONE SUPER POWER...this movie will get seen...
 
Kholi, keep it up man!

Lately, the why bother vibe seems to be taking over the film-making forums when talking about "under 100k" features. Today the truly talented have the tools available to compete and you sir are the first voice I hear taking a stand.

Thank You!
 
CRProductions said:
In this business, the only difference between delusional and genius, is success.
Click to expand...

Pretty concise, man. Haha! Nice quote. Also not claiming to be the genius at all, and honestly if my purpose is to exist as an inspiration to another Faith Granger out there, then I'm doing what I'm supposed to do by being crazy.

I am not expecting any huge break off of this, but I am determined to break even and move on to the next one by any means possible. If that means exactly what CRP said and what Policar suggested, self distro deals and footwork, so be it. I'm down to bleed a little more to make it happen.
 
mentatDUKE said:
Barry, interesting points, although I don't think I'd call Alec Guinness and co "stars". I'd call them thespians/character actors circa 1977. I mean were they really household names back then?
Click to expand...
Yes. It'd be like having something like Jeremy Irons or something now. George clooney? No. But better than say Tom Siezmore.
As for Keanu, I was a huge fan of Speed, but remember. That was like 1994. His star cooled wayyy down before The Matrix in 1999 (which then put him back on top).
Click to expand...
Keanu was still a green light picture person at that time. Remember, having Tom Sizemore on your DVD box is enough to improve distro, sales. Keanu might not have been SPEED hot at the time of the MATRIX but he was / is a star.

We're not necessarily talking biggest star in the world. Even now I'd put keeanu as a person that can get most projects green lit - certainly sic fi action. And it's been longer since the matrix than it had been since speed when the matrix came out.
 
For the record, I'd like to emphasize that my POV is for sub 100K (or possibly 200K) feature films.

Not for larger budgets. It's pretty obvious that to use more money means to spend more money insuring that, which means names, etc.
 
Checked out some of your preview clips and screenshots, looks good man! Read through the thread and just wanted to say congrats on completing the shoot and good luck with the movie.
 
GoodLuck said:
Checked out some of your preview clips and screenshots, looks good man! Read through the thread and just wanted to say congrats on completing the shoot and good luck with the movie.
Click to expand...

Thanks much, sir.

And, unfortunately for everyone, my delusion and lunacy has been placed on Zak Forsman's Workbook Project: The New Breed for mass consumption.

http://workbookproject.com/newbreed/

Thanks, Zak, for the opportunity to talk on the blog! If you haven't checked it out, please do so! Oddly enough, the NewBreed post right below my own talks about distribution in an interview with a distributor. SUPER great info!
 
Last edited:
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
Yes. It'd be like having something like Jeremy Irons or something now. George clooney? No. But better than say Tom Siezmore.

Keanu was still a green light picture person at that time. Remember, having Tom Sizemore on your DVD box is enough to improve distro, sales. Keanu might not have been SPEED hot at the time of the MATRIX but he was / is a star.

We're not necessarily talking biggest star in the world. Even now I'd put keeanu as a person that can get most projects green lit - certainly sic fi action. And it's been longer since the matrix than it had been since speed when the matrix came out.
Click to expand...



I think what he mean by "names" in "Star Wars" is that the main stars in the movie were virtually unknowns and for people like Harrison Ford, it put him on the Map. I was around to see the original "Star Wars" film in the theater with my parents and at least from my perspective, I didn't know anybody in the film (that probably made it better - more believable), besides the voice of James Earl Jones. Neither did my parents. It was a great film, with a great story and great actors, but known actors did not make that film what it was. It was the story and special effects especially that blew everybody's minds it seems.

I think the same was true for the "Matrix." Keanu's star had faded. Lawrence Fishburne still had a name, but I think you could have put some totally unknown actors (just as good) in that film and it still would have been a huge success. These films broke ground by doing things on screen that people had never seen before. Couple that with a good, believable story and you've got gold.

I think that's what this is all about. Hollywood is a business. They know with certain names attached to films that it will potentially bring in a certain amount of money. So, since this is a business, what's the safest way to protect your investment and make money? Get a "name." An actor that's "proven.' That's the business side of film, but it's not always sound and that's why we've seen some of the biggest films with the biggest names totally flop. A film is a way of telling a story visually. At it's basic roots, it's a story. If you read a great story, there's not going to be a character introduced and then in parenthesis the name of the actor who will play him. Gandolph (played by actor blah, blah, blah). Because nobody cares. It's the story that's important and engaging. Now, granted, films are a little bit different from books. However, a great story inspires people. If it didn't, there would not be any room at all for us indies. Our stories are being told by great storytellers. We don't have names, because we can't afford them, but we do now and will continue to have a voice. Of course the more into the money and business side we get, we'll most likely have to go the same route that has been most proven (attaching a name to a film), however, there will always be room for the unknown director with the unknown actors with the great story.
 
Kholi said:
Thanks much, sir.

And, unfortunately for everyone, my delusion and lunacy has been placed on Zak Forsman's Workbook Project: The New Breed for mass consumption.

http://workbookproject.com/newbreed/

Thanks, Zak, for the opportunity to talk on the blog! If you haven't checked it out, please do so! Oddly enough, the NewBreed post right below my own talks about distribution in an interview with a distributor. SUPER great info!
Click to expand...

Nice.

That's a good outlet to spread more word. Good get.

-M
 
mentatDUKE said:
Nice article. When's the next one?
Click to expand...

More than likely with the next two days or so. That's after I finish shooting something for someone else so I can pay rent this month. Yikes.

Been thinking about production, things that I still need to get (Small bits and pieces like running shots, vehicle, etc. Nothing too major) and things that I couldn't afford to get. Also, what sparked the internal conversation was the new trailer for ANOTHER EARTH (if you haven't seen it, google it up and check it out.) There's a little discussion going on in the Film Discussion sub forum between a few of us, it reminded me of how very much I wanted to really sew the outrageous element in my feature together with some practical, simple effects work.

We just didn't have the budget, or the time, to commit to it. It would've meant soaking actors in glycerin, or something more jelly-like, for most of the feature. Impractical at my budget level. Some of the sacrifices that we had to make are fine, the larger ones that could've made it in had I a larger budget would've really brought out how I view detail in direction from the get go.

It's not a very special thing that these guys run across, but the science fiction behind it, to me, would have meant that anyone under the influence of such a thing would probably incur side effects, one of the major ones would be excretion of this clear, jiggly-jelly type matter from the pores, particularly the hands and wrists. They would literally excrete this stuff while walking around, and it's soaking their clothes, dripping off of their fingers, and when they go to use their super powers it only gets worse.

Very good reason for it.

It would've been really cool to not only see that, have the audience wonder what the heck it is, then get a short explanation as to why... then go "crazy, this is their world."

That's the kind of stuff that a larger budget allows filmmakers to do, really get a chance to breathe life into the world. Not saying I regret ANYTHING! The smaller budget also helped me realize how out of place a lot of things were.

Just thinking out loud. Hopefully, there's enough of my "process" tagged in the overall feel of the movie.
 
Kholi, you're pissing me off with all this greatness! Now I guess I'll have to give my guys super-powers and make them fly or something. Jeez. RESHOOTS!!

Looking stellar, man!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top