No I don't expect anyone to give me money. I just appreciate any help I can get, be it financial or even just sharing my post. Same goes for family and friends.
-
READ BEFORE POSTING!
- If posting a video, please post HERE, unless it is a video as part of an advertisement and then post it in this section.
- If replying to threads please remember this is the Promotion area and the person posting may not be open to feedback.
Crowd Funding
- Thread starter FantasyFilmProductions
- Start date
No I don't expect anyone to give me money. I just appreciate any help I can get, be it financial or even just sharing my post. Same goes for family and friends.
Okay, got it. I'd include a showreel clip in the video you make to showcase what you can do.
You got to have a video if you want any chance of raising those $$$$
Okay, got it. I'd include a showreel clip in the video you make to showcase what you can do.
You got to have a video if you want any chance of raising those $$$$
Yep I'll get onto one soon
I would suggest that there may be people right here on this forum willing to collaborate on sound mixing, etc for little or no cash expenditure. Exploring those opportunities could certain help you cut back on budget, or keep the same budget but dump more of it into the actual production.
To be honest, I'm really not a big fan of shorts either. They have mostly no marketable value, the vast majority are dreadful, and it's an entirely different thought process that goes into their writing. It has to be.. more of a scenario or one act usually, though a lot of people try to cram some kind of three act story into a short, which seems wrong and generally fails.
That said though, there is value to them from many various aspects. You gain experience in a variety of things necessary to successfully produce a film. They are much cheaper to produce, and thus a good vehicle to hone ones craft. The list of pros is rather long...
I didn't know any of your background though. So when you said this is your first film, and that you're trying to crowdsource $10k, that concerns me a bit. Simply because you're an unknown quantity at the moment, or at least based on the 'my first film' statement along you are. You may well be the next great thing to happen to movies, but without something out there, publicly, with your name attached I think you're going to have a hard time drumming up the cash.
I'd hate for it to fail and crush your spirits to the point you shelf the project. Anyway.. just a few extra thoughts I thought I'd share.
If nothing else, I admire your ambition.
To be honest, I'm really not a big fan of shorts either. They have mostly no marketable value, the vast majority are dreadful, and it's an entirely different thought process that goes into their writing. It has to be.. more of a scenario or one act usually, though a lot of people try to cram some kind of three act story into a short, which seems wrong and generally fails.
That said though, there is value to them from many various aspects. You gain experience in a variety of things necessary to successfully produce a film. They are much cheaper to produce, and thus a good vehicle to hone ones craft. The list of pros is rather long...
I didn't know any of your background though. So when you said this is your first film, and that you're trying to crowdsource $10k, that concerns me a bit. Simply because you're an unknown quantity at the moment, or at least based on the 'my first film' statement along you are. You may well be the next great thing to happen to movies, but without something out there, publicly, with your name attached I think you're going to have a hard time drumming up the cash.
I'd hate for it to fail and crush your spirits to the point you shelf the project. Anyway.. just a few extra thoughts I thought I'd share.
If nothing else, I admire your ambition.
No one ever goes out with the intention of making a crap movie. It's assumed. The reality is most people aren't able to make a great movie. The difference between a crap movie and a great movie isn't $10k.
Are you sure you can do it for $10k?
What's the shooting schedule?
What gear do you need to hire. For how long?
Are there going to be any unexpected requirements you didn't expect?
There are a bunch of people who are usually needed to make sure a movie is great. Just a few include:
Caterer.
Production Designer, Art Director, Wardrobe Designer, Property Master, Set Designer
Production Manager/Production Coordinator/First AD/Second AD
Production Sound Mixer
Director of Photography
Editor
Post Sound Mixer
Colorist
Production Photographer
Publicist
Script Supervisor
Producer
Writer
Location Scout/Location Manager
Production Lawyer
Those jobs that don't have someone doing means you're either going to end up doing that job or pay someone to do that job of the film will suffer. Be aware, each job you take on will take away from your directing.
Not to mention the following: DCP, 5.1, Deliverables, festival entry fees, petrol, food costs, expendables, damages, insurance (hard to hire gear without insurance), insurance (hard to get insurance without permits), EPK, paper and the list goes on and on. Did I mention marketing?
It's not all doom and gloom. It's fun and exciting. No budget filmmaking can get done for very little if you've spent the time and built up your network of people or you are extremely talented at motivating and building high performance volunteer teams. You won't need everything. You'll learn what you do need and what you don't over time. If you're learning this while trying to direct, it'll also hurt your performance.
There are better options if you shopped around.
Hey, that's a great attitude to have. I love it.
I see you don't like shorts. That's fine. Just be aware that your journey may take longer if you avoid shorts. You need to create content. If it's movies, that's great. Make movies. Get them out there. Do whatever you have to do to make them and get people to see them. You're likely to have to both give it away for free and then pay (advertising) people to watch them. That way you can build up your fan base. There are alternative ways to build your fan base and if you discover those ways, you're going to be ahead of the curve.
Is a great film that gets no one to watch it still a great film?
On a more general, crowd funding level:
Who's your publicist? Who's your PMD? (Yeah, I only heard the term the other day, but I gotta use it, right. For those who don't know, it's Producer of Marketing and Distribution - Not sure if it was just something that was coined by a gal or something real, but I got what they meant)
I'd guess the answer is either you, or no one.
This is the primary reason this crowd funding campaign will fail. You don't have the tools and you haven't built up the resources required to realistically reach your goal. I wish it wasn't the case, but it is. I'm not saying this to be mean. I like you as a person and I'd rather see you succeed than see you fail.
You are asking for $10k. You've stepped outside the realm of beginning amateur and moved into the land of the established filmmaker. You don't have a large enough base of fans who are vested in your career to have a reasonable expectation to reach your target of $10k, and on top of that, you don't have either the marketing/publicity skills or the people who have those skills to get you there. There are plenty of established filmmakers who would find it very hard to raise $10k to make a feature film.
All is not lost.
You'll figure it out, I'm sure.
How about doing individual scenes then? They essentially take the same kind of resources to produce as a short, and if you could show a scene from the film as part of your crowdfunding effort it could go a long way towards convincing people the full film is worth contributing to.
F L I C K E R
Pledge or share please.
Pledge or share please.
I don't do shorts
I never made any publicly released material.
i'm curious to know more. five years is a long time. were you making features ?
yes
Edited to explain further.
For five years I made feature length movies. This for me is a little embarrassing, but I feel the need to explain.
I had a camera that had auto zoom that could not be changed after the record button was hit. And Filming in 720 definition it would only film in letterbox format. Further, I had nobody to help me film so I filmed myself doing each scene while my camera sat on a tripod.
I then edited myself, and made music for it using software. I also wanted to learn green screening so I set up my sleep out with a red bed sheet, covered the windows over completely, and got two normal household lamps as lighting, along with a mechanics lamp.
For any of you watching the results, you would no doubt lose interest very fast, but for me, it was good to be able to film and learn. I also read books on making films, and watched lots of tutorials and online videos.
However, I also learnt by watching movies. I watched well over a thousand films, taking notes on things I noticed such as lighting within certain scenes, camera angles, clever shots etc. Anything I considered to be good, I wrote down in a word document, and put it under its title such as lighting, photography etc.
But it is for these reasons that while I have made films, I would never release them to the public. They were trial runs done by me for me. They were my education, my cutting of teeth. And more then that, they allowed me to play and learn with zero pressure of what anyone else would think of them.
Last edited:
It's very good that you found your way to learn! But you have to understand that filmmaking is work to be done as a team. If you want to be a director you'll need to work with other people, learn how to take them to your own ideas, and adapt yourself to theirs. For me it seems that you have a lot to learn before you ask for 10k. I wouldn't give you my money for a 10k feature length movie. I would give you my money if you were doing 20 $500 short films!
Yes film making is very much a team exercise. I completely agree. My main career path has taught me extensive team work, and team leadership skills.
I do not do short films. I agree with another poster that there a many very good advantages to making shorts, and if that is something you can do, you should, but I disagree that shorts are for everyone, just as I disagree that film festivals are the way to go now. I will explain both points.
Shorts
Do not get me wrong, I have one or two short films I do like, but for the most part they annoy me. When I am imagining a story, my mind takes me through it, and it never stops or finishes in time to be called a short. My head just does not work that way. Its easy to jump on the short story as a starting point bandwagon, and many here do, for various reasons, but what we are discussing basically breaks down to nothing more then story telling style. My style does not lend itself well to short stories, just as some people that make great shorts struggle to fill in all of the blanks required for a feature length film. Its nothing more or less then personal story style.
Film Festivals
Many here seem to have it ingrained in their heads that the idea is that when you do make your first feature length, it should be sent straight to a film festival.
Why? Because it was the way.
However it has been discussed on posts throughout this site that it is getting harder to get distribution deals through those festivals, and often, the cheaper camera's used do not lend themselves well to the big screen. I know that the camera I use will certainly not lend itself well to the big screen, but it would be fine for dvd, blueray, and internet distribution. Why then would I not play to the strengths I do have as opposed to sending my film in to be viewed in a way that I know will not show it at its best? Further, with almost everyone going the film festival route, I can know one thing for certain...that path is going to be very crowded. The Film Festival route for me then is clearly not the best way to move forward. I would prefer to try other avenues that play to the strengths I do have.
I do not do short films. I agree with another poster that there a many very good advantages to making shorts, and if that is something you can do, you should, but I disagree that shorts are for everyone, just as I disagree that film festivals are the way to go now. I will explain both points.
Shorts
Do not get me wrong, I have one or two short films I do like, but for the most part they annoy me. When I am imagining a story, my mind takes me through it, and it never stops or finishes in time to be called a short. My head just does not work that way. Its easy to jump on the short story as a starting point bandwagon, and many here do, for various reasons, but what we are discussing basically breaks down to nothing more then story telling style. My style does not lend itself well to short stories, just as some people that make great shorts struggle to fill in all of the blanks required for a feature length film. Its nothing more or less then personal story style.
Film Festivals
Many here seem to have it ingrained in their heads that the idea is that when you do make your first feature length, it should be sent straight to a film festival.
Why? Because it was the way.
However it has been discussed on posts throughout this site that it is getting harder to get distribution deals through those festivals, and often, the cheaper camera's used do not lend themselves well to the big screen. I know that the camera I use will certainly not lend itself well to the big screen, but it would be fine for dvd, blueray, and internet distribution. Why then would I not play to the strengths I do have as opposed to sending my film in to be viewed in a way that I know will not show it at its best? Further, with almost everyone going the film festival route, I can know one thing for certain...that path is going to be very crowded. The Film Festival route for me then is clearly not the best way to move forward. I would prefer to try other avenues that play to the strengths I do have.
Quentin Tarantino
1 short film that was destroyed in lab fire, followed by.
Reservoir Dogs
Steven Spielberg
2 short films followed by.
The Daredevil Gesture
Stanley Kubrick
Many short films
Orson Welles
Citizen Kane
Ridley Scott
The dualists
The list goes on...what is my point here...my point is, you all talk of shorts as if they are a tried and tested, proven right of passage that all Directors should take...and yet when we look through some of the greatest directors of our time, it seems that some did make shorts, while others did not...and it didn't stop them or make them any less brilliant at what they do. I understand there are great benefits to making shorts, but the way it is constantly drummed in through these forums is almost manic.
1 short film that was destroyed in lab fire, followed by.
Reservoir Dogs
Steven Spielberg
2 short films followed by.
The Daredevil Gesture
Stanley Kubrick
Many short films
Orson Welles
Citizen Kane
Ridley Scott
The dualists
The list goes on...what is my point here...my point is, you all talk of shorts as if they are a tried and tested, proven right of passage that all Directors should take...and yet when we look through some of the greatest directors of our time, it seems that some did make shorts, while others did not...and it didn't stop them or make them any less brilliant at what they do. I understand there are great benefits to making shorts, but the way it is constantly drummed in through these forums is almost manic.
Last edited:
I was actually talking about experience and credibility to ask for someones money
I won't argue that it's not possible to make a great feature as your first project, but it is rare and the examples you gave are problematic. Spielberg made numerous shorts on 8mm as a teen. Ridley Scott spent years making commercials (the shortest shorts of all) after spending years in art school, followed by years working as a set designer and then directing television shows.
Welles had years of experience in theater and radio before making Citizen Kane, so while you're right that he didn't make shorts he was practicing most of the disciplines necessary elsewhere for over a decade. Tarantino's the only one that really had little filmmaking experience and supports your argument.
And of course, looking to the few top people in a field for examples on how to achieve success is akin to looking to lottery winners for examples on how best to make a lot of money - you have to look at the losers too. You say "the list goes on" but that list is dwarfed by the number of people who made one feature, failed, and never made a film again - you just never hear about them because they failed. Of course that's true about people who make shorts, too - in fact, I think it would be easy to argue that success in the filmmaking field is highly dependent on factors well beyond the approach you take to learning the craft.
Yes, we got that the first time. I didn't ask if you could do a short, I asked if you could do a scene from your film. You do do scenes, right? I mean I assume your film isn't just one long 90 minute shot of you talking to the camera.
So go shoot jut one scene from your film. If it makes it easier you can tell yourself "I'm going to shoot the whole feature!", do the first scene and then just stop. Boom, done, now you've got something to show on your crowdfunding effort that might convince people you know what you're doing and your film is worth supporting. That's what we're talking about here - not whether or not you need to make shorts to learn or get better or succeed at filmmaking.
When you look at examples like Welles and Tarantino you seem to be missing the fact that they both did something that showed someone they were worth taking a risk on. With Welles it was his success in radio that convinced the studio, with Tarantino it was his writing skills that impressed Harvey Keitel enough to sign on, which was what enabled them to raise over $1 million for the budget.
So now you're asking people to take a chance on you - but you haven't done anything to show us that you're worth taking that chance. I've contributed to several different crowdfunding projects, including a few films on indietalk. The reason I chose those is because they showed something that indicated to me they had the potential to do something I thought would turn out worthwhile. Sometimes it's previous shorts, once it was the opening scene of the film, another was a previous feature. It doesn't matter, the point is just that you've got to figure out a way to convey to people who don't know you, and don't know your work, that your project is worth supporting. Right now you're not doing that.
Last edited:
Actually, there's generally a pretty significant budgetary difference. Without prior experience and completed work to show around, getting the significantly more budget for a feature is a big challenge.
And, if you don't rocket out of the gate with a phenomenal end product, assuming you manage to raise the funds in the first place, you'll likely burn all of those bridges and shut yourself off to future funding from them.
I know shorts suck.. I agree. But the point is, you do as many small free/cheap projects as you can, because 99.9999% of the time those first several (or a lot, in the case of most people) are going to be truly awful, no matter how awesome you think it'll be going into the project.
I am not disagreeing with either of you.
I want to highlight itdonnedonme's comment about the many more bad films...and right there is a little golden nugget of wisdom in case anyone missed it. It is not enough to study the best films, one must study the films that turned out badly so that you can understand what does NOT work. This is just as crucial.
I have explained that I will go out and do some filming to get some footage for it. That's good advice. Thanks for repeating it.
Will...I hear you bud. I do. I am working my ass off to try to save as much money as I can. If the 10k doesn't come from pledges then its not the end of the world. It just means that I will have less because I cannot make that kind of money in this amount of time. All will not be lost. My entire team is volunteers, and I have found one very charitable colour Grader who has agreed to help me. I also have somebody ready to master the audio.
I guess, the key point here that I want to point out is that I have set this shoot to take until October'ish. Its almost March and we will begin shooting around the end of March. Considering that I could film such a film in well under half that time, why do you think I have allowed so much time? Perhaps, it is because I know that I am not waiting for the "perfect take" but rather leaving myself plenty of time to go over shots, review them, and re-film them if necessary to do these scenes in a better way. I have left myself time to play around with different concepts for each scene. This also allows me, and my actors, sound crew etc time to make mistakes, learn from them, and have time to come back and correct.
I am not running into this blind. I am doing the equivalent of parking a tractor in a big wide field. I am not starting with the hay-barn but I am promising that by the end of shoot I will have the tractor in the hay-barn. And I am leaving myself a tonne of time to achieve the goal within.
I want to highlight itdonnedonme's comment about the many more bad films...and right there is a little golden nugget of wisdom in case anyone missed it. It is not enough to study the best films, one must study the films that turned out badly so that you can understand what does NOT work. This is just as crucial.
I have explained that I will go out and do some filming to get some footage for it. That's good advice. Thanks for repeating it.
Will...I hear you bud. I do. I am working my ass off to try to save as much money as I can. If the 10k doesn't come from pledges then its not the end of the world. It just means that I will have less because I cannot make that kind of money in this amount of time. All will not be lost. My entire team is volunteers, and I have found one very charitable colour Grader who has agreed to help me. I also have somebody ready to master the audio.
I guess, the key point here that I want to point out is that I have set this shoot to take until October'ish. Its almost March and we will begin shooting around the end of March. Considering that I could film such a film in well under half that time, why do you think I have allowed so much time? Perhaps, it is because I know that I am not waiting for the "perfect take" but rather leaving myself plenty of time to go over shots, review them, and re-film them if necessary to do these scenes in a better way. I have left myself time to play around with different concepts for each scene. This also allows me, and my actors, sound crew etc time to make mistakes, learn from them, and have time to come back and correct.
I am not running into this blind. I am doing the equivalent of parking a tractor in a big wide field. I am not starting with the hay-barn but I am promising that by the end of shoot I will have the tractor in the hay-barn. And I am leaving myself a tonne of time to achieve the goal within.