Okay, I have a few concerns and questions...
1) Rob Ellis is a big boy, why did he not post this pitch?
2) Proofread, proofread, submit to others to proofread...rinse and repeat.
3) Is the project film or digital medium? The pitch's stress on 'amazing piece of cinema' and 'costly processing of the film' leads me to believe the project is on film stock, hence the call for more monies?
4) What is this technique 'which has never been done before'? Not to be snarky, because I am truly interested, but it seems either live action with some sort of mosaic or stained glass effect or you've rotoscoped the live action and painted on these effects (on film stock?) Neither of these techniques is revolutionary.
5) I think you should leave hyperbolic statements such as "Be a part of something destined for greatness" out of your pitch.
Hey Bird, thanks for taking a look at our project.
1. The way our team is going to function, it will be pretty common for one person to film a project, one to edit it, and yet another to run publicity for it. It's not a matter of hand holding, I'm just doing my part in a collective effort to raise money for the team.
2. Sorry, got in a hurry and made a couple typos, will fix
3. The project is more time consuming than it is expensive per say. The original film that represents the source frames cost me about 35k. The mutation into a feature length painting in motion will cost me a significant amount of time and money, probably a couple grand all told. And of course fundraising would be innefective if all of the funds raised went directly into production. If people find this project worthwhile, we'll share it freely with the world in return for a very small amount compared to the actual production cost.
4. You may be overanalyzing some of our advertising verbeage here. It's a very original piece of art, that I can say for sure. Does it qualify as a breakthrough? I don't know, that's a matter of opinion really. Along this same line I feel you should be informed about the supposed "6 million dollar burger" which goes quite a bit further than we did in stretching the fabric of opinion based semantics.
5. That was really intended as humor, but I guess it didn't come across. Perhaps I'll change it.
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary.
