• For posts related to budget, finanace, legalities, distro, and marketing (including festivals) please post in Film Biz.
    Rule of thumb:
    Filmmaking for directors (creative)
    Film Biz for producers (buisness)

crew Why is it so difficult to find collaborators for a project?

Nate North

Business Member
indieBIZ
I have to assume that I'm not the only one on an independent film form that wants to make an independent film. If you've ever tried making one, you know that it's nearly impossible to have any type of success without a larger group involved. My question is, why are people uninterested in joining teams or groups? As a lone individual, your fate is sealed, if 1000 of us worked together, there is no question we'd get something published. I bought a product yesterday. 12 people got together and worked full time on it for 3 years. It was great, I paid full price for it. They now have funding for the next product, and everyone is happy and headed for a profitable carreer in the industry.

Here's the clip I watched about their team and project. It's just a simple top down shooter, innovation level 0. It was great, no issues, everyone is happy.


I live in a small town, and neighborhood garage bands are common. People get together and practice for years, travelling 50 miles to a practice spot, to split up 200 dollars a gig, once they are good enough. They spend thousands each on equipment, and hundreds of hours just getting to that point, and everyone shows up for that.

If people are as passionate about making film as they say they are, why is the willingness to team up and commit so fractional in filmmaking, compared to music, which is arguably hundreds of times easier to succeed at (at least in terms of getting a set written and playing it for an audience)? Do you think it would be strange to watch 6 people collaborate and spend for years to build a lemonade stand, and then go over to a skyscraper construction forum and find everyone trying to do it solo with no money?
 
I think sfoster is dead on. You want people to work on your projects, work on theirs.

I went to film school 30 years ago. I spent the next 10 years working in the industry. I couldn't make a decent living of it, so I went and got a real job to support myself. I've continued the last 20 years working in various ways on other people's projects. Because I'm a Producer by trade, much of that work has been budgets and consulting. However, I have technical skills, so I am also able to shoot (I am an owner/operator with camera, grip and electric). I can edit. I can even create VFX. At various times over the years, I've brought those skills to bear on other people's projects.

I constantly help other people with their projects. I love it, it's rewarding and I continue to learn. However, even with all that, I rarely get support for my own projects. People want to see their dreams realized, not yours. Because I do have a track record as a Producer, I can't tell you the number of people that approach me, asking me to raise money for their projects, so they can fulfill their dreams. I think it's human nature to be self-centered, but let me get this straight (speaking out loud now)... you're an unknown commodity and you want me to get people to put their money into your project so you can fulfill your fantasy as a filmmaker??? If you're so good, did your script win a competition? Did your script get optioned by a producer? If you're so good, did your short film win an award at a film festival? Did others see your film and and ask you if they could work with you? Did your cinematography wow some musician so much that they asked you to shoot their next music video? There are sooooo many people trying to make a go of filmmaking these days, if you're not getting responses, it's because you're not offering the kinds of things others want to be a part of.

The system isn't rigged. There are huge numbers of people collaborating on films right now. They have something to offer each other, so they want to collaborate with each other. Either you have something to offer that others want or you need to work really, really hard to show the world what you have and get to the point that you do. They don't want to collaborate, because you're not showing them something they want to jump on board for. Anyway, mostly, they want you to jump on board their projects. They want you to help them get their thing done. Maybe you can try that for awhile and see if these people will reciprocate.

Nate, I've seen enough of your posts to imagine you are genuine. I have a vague sense you might have something to offer the world. Keep at it. Keep working on it. Stop wondering why you haven't been discovered yet. You are likely years and years from that... if ever.
 
"Why are people uninterested in joining teams or groups?"

You don't join teams or groups, you help friends, knowing that they'll help you in return. People won't join a team just because that team may need them, but they'll join a team if the project interests them AND if they feel comfortable with the team. I don't care who someone is or how interesting their story is... if they're being a dick or (even worse) BORING, I'm going fishing.
 
Everybody who wants to work on a film project wants to work on their film project. As everyone else here has said, to get people to work for you, you have to work for them. Most call that networking, my dad called it "casting crumbs upon the waters." By helping someone else with their project, they feel indebted to you (as long as you actually helped). Hopefully, while working on someone else's project, you will make friends and good acquaintances. That way, when you ask them to work for you, you'll be able to crew up. Run your ship tight, but keep it fun and friendly, and people will come back for the next adventure.
 

directorik

IndieTalk's Resident Guru
If the people in your small town say they are passionate about filmmaking
but put all their effort into their band; then they are not passionate about filmmaking.

Even though you make the comparison I don't think that's what you mean.
It seems in your small town you don't know people who are as passionate
about making film as they say they are.

The odds of success don't play into it. If someone is passionate about a
neighborhood garage band then they will but time, effort and money into
that passion; regardless of the odds of success.

sfoster is correct. Just take a look at the posts here in indietalk; people
come here looking for people to collaborate on their project. It's far less
common for people to offer to collaborate on someone else's project.
My question is, why are people uninterested in joining teams or groups?
For a little clarity I'm going to separate the terms; "group" is several people who
get together to create a film project. "team" is a person with a vision who brings
people together to work on a film.

I can't tell you why others are uninterested in joining groups โ€“ but I can tell you
why I'm not interested.

Far too many poor experiences. A film needs one strong vision. That can be
the producer who โ€œhiresโ€ a writer and then a director. When a group gets together
to make a movie everyone wants to direct. Or the group starts with several writers
with differing ideas cannot decide which one to pursue. In my experience a film is
not started by a group.

Over the years I have been involved in over ten group projects and each one
falls apart due to creative differences. I have also been involved in about 30
projects headed by one or two people who put together a team of passionate
people with specific skills to bring to the project.
 
I really should not throw my two cents in here because my project plate is already overflowing but ig you could call me a joiner. I don't have any projects of my own and up until now, I have never declined a single project that has come my way. These last few projects I agreed to, I did require the writer/director/filmmaker to be extra persistent but only bc I was already feeling over stretched but with Indie (coming from my accounting and taxation background) Films, I think it is a necessary evil when starting out to take on as much as you can (that you're passionate about) since Indies (forget source, maybe The Numbers) funding can take 1-5 years, this then will naturally dictate what projects get to demand your full attention and when... but I'm just talking out my rear bc Im an Indie baby (less than 24 months in biz) and maybe none of these films Im on will ever get made - or maybe they all will ๐Ÿคท๐Ÿปโ€โ™€๏ธ ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿผ
 

Nate North

Business Member
indieBIZ
I know you're doing your best to help.

The reason there is an empty quote box up there is that I started to reply to one post, and by the time I formulated a decent response, there were a lot of other similar replies.

I've worked on other peoples projects, lots of them. Not one person has ever bothered to reciprocate in a way that helped much. It was much more effective to just work for companies and increase wealth, which actually does work. I only quit doing that because I hated it. I hated being a creative person being directed by non creative people to get it "right" by being as bland and uncreative as they were. (I worked for large corporations)

Look, I know this won't increase my popularity here, and maybe pandering would get me further, but I have to say I think this is bad advice, or at least, non circumstance specific advice. One size fits all. If I was a beginner filmmaker, or businessman, etc, it's pretty good advice I think. We all have to start somewhere.

Ok, for one thing, If we are supposed to give up and just follow the "other", which one of us is the "other" one. That math seems random. In terms of helping someone else in the hopes that that help will be returned, that's illogical. It's trickledown economics at best, and at worst it's a bastardization of the concept of generosity and humility that it appears to represent on it's surface. If I only give when hoping for return, I'm neither generous nor humble, just bad at math. Let's say you have 10 dollars and you want 10 dollars in your bank account. Would you deposit it, or would you hand it to someone, wait for them to spend as much as they wanted, and then hope that they gave you back 11? Trickledown economics is idiotic. The system I envision is more like collective buying power. Let's say you wanted to buy a steak, and it cost that same 10 dollars. What would make some sense, is to get together 100 people that want to buy steaks, buy a bulk rate package of 100 steaks, and each of us gets the same steak for 3 dollars instead of 10. That's a situation where everyone actually wins, and there's no hope or dreams or magic math involved.

As far as just being a good buddy and helping out your friends, that's cool, I'm not mad at that. You work on whatever seems fun at the moment without caring if it makes sense? That sounds like a great way to organize a tetherball game. I'm not sure it makes sense if your goal is to engineer an escape from the crushing bondage of poverty that turns our brilliant film ideas into disposable garbage. You can take offence if you want, but I've worked myself half to death on my films, and the best one isn't even half as good as that rerun of law and order episode 544 that you flipped past the other night.

I'm actually incredibly passionate about creating, and since total failure doesn't seem like a good option to me, I'm not happy with folksy solutions. I want real solutions, where the problem gets solved. This is my perception, I ask how a 10 ton lead block can be transported from the east coast to the west coast. I'm looking for flowcharts, spreadsheets, invoices, loan rates, transportation options, in short, a plan. When I talk to most people, what I get is that they look at the giant lead block and say something like "you either get busy livin, or you get busy dyin" They seem pleased with themselves, and we proceed to stand in silence next to the unmoved lead block. F(ck that. I want to move that block. My goal wasn't to sound clever, or appear to be a good person, or show people how confident I am. My goal is to move that block. Once the block is moved, I can sell it, and then I can pay off the mortgages of 100 people with the proceeds from that block. That's real help, not the appearance of help.

It comes up a lot here on the forums, and IRL, but let's talk about the word "dreams". It seems to me that it's a word we use to invalidate the goals of others, and even ourselves. If I was born on an oil well, then any stupid thing I come up with is a reality, and if I wasn't then the smartest idea I ever came up with is a "dream". This logic leads us to a world where we devalue each other unfairly, and put some of the dumbest and worst people in the world on a pedestal, showering them with support they don't need to help them accomplish their "realities" which are often times far less progressive or interesting than the "dreams" It seems to me that this mode of thinking creates a situation where we judge what we should support based on money rather than merit. It's not like I don't understand what you mean, and I neither infer nor intend any malice. I simply think that we should re-evaluate how we judge the validity of ideas and goals that people propose.

Lastly I'll mount a defense of what I expect most people are correctly believing is my underlying motive. I think people should join my project. All of the above advice makes sense if all things are completely equal. It's based on a valuation system where every stock on the S&P 500 is magically the same price. Bob's idea of making an unmarketable 3 minute film is completely equal to Ricks 90 minute film with an actual plot. I may be wrong, but I feel there is an assumption here that I think people should join my project vs some other project because of ego, or because I think I am more important than others. I definitely understand where that assumption comes from, statistically speaking the US had about 3% narcissists by population in the 1970s, in 2020 some studies indicate that the number has grown to over 20%. When you factor in that those people shove themselves into the spotlight disproportionately, what you actually see out there IRL is more like 60% narcissists by volume. A humble person doesn't usually demand to be the center of a reality TV show.

I knew all this when I created my project, and designed it to be something truly different. It isn't about me. If I had to say it in one sentence, that's it. I made the format animated, so that people could collaborate across great distances. I made it animated so that every idea a team member had didn't have to carry an astronomical price tag that influenced decisions. A planet costs the same amount do display as a dinner plate. I made it choice based, so that we could tell many stories, not just my stories, but your stories. a way we could accomplish our goals in parallel, rather than the old way, where it's either me or you succeeding. I made it infinite, so that the opportunities didn't dry up as soon as my personal goals were accomplished. I'm not trying to get a bunch of people to build me a house, I'm trying to get a bunch of people together to level a field, and build an aqueduct, and install an electrical grid, so that all of us can build houses there, and form a community where each person has a chance to pursue their individual goals of home ownership.

I didn't design this one out of ego. I did it because I once looked for years for something to join, and never found it. No project I ever encountered actually gave me an opportunity to express myself creatively, only to conform to what someone with more money thought was creative. What I'm trying to accomplish is the democratization of independent filmmaking, a way that we can work together to create a synergistic environment where we all collaborate effectively to improve EVERY persons chance of realizing their own goals.

I have those concrete plans, those spreadsheets, those flowcharts. It's not a dream, it's a plan, and it's not about people joining my thing, it's about people joining our thing. I just wanted to tell stories, and I can't do that in a way that meets public expectations of quality. I feel like there are others out there that feel the same way. If some of you are here, talk to me.
 
Last edited:
I've read through your last post a few times and tried to digest it, but I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to communicate.

If I understand your initial post, you were asking "why don't people want to join groups?" You went on to point out that together a group is far more likely to succeed at doing something than a loner. In the latest post, you make it clear you have an underlying motivation in the question, namely, "why aren't people joining my group?". It wasn't a totally generic question. Am I correct that this is the basic question you were asking?

The answers to your question were almost unanimously "no one wants to help you on your project, because they are interested in getting their project done". Almost all the posters went on to say "you want help on yours, go help someone on theirs". If I am reading your last post correctly, you are saying that solution isn't for you because 1) you've tried it before and the results have been lackluster and 2) eventually someone needs to be the alpha in all this and have people join that group and 3) at one point in time, this might have been advice you would follow, or it might be good for others, but you are at a point in your career where this advice does not make sense. While I recognize there was more to your post, have I distilled your answer down to something that represents what you are saying?
 

Nate North

Business Member
indieBIZ
Well, mostly you've got it. It was a generic question, and I was interested in hearing the generic answers. But I asked the generic question because I was thinking about the topic for a specific reason. Basically what you said is correct. I didn't necessarily have an ulterior motive, though I can see how it would sound like that. I just talk about my personal experience or what I'm thinking about. When people said I should join someone else's project, I simply made a case for the question "why" That involved relating it to my current reality, with the goal of making the answers less generic, and therefore more practically actionable and well reasoned.

I think a lot, and I know my posts are sprawling and hard to digest. Thanks for bearing with me. One of my life goals is to supersede Duckman as the all time champion of ranting. I feel like I'm on my way at least.

And to add clarity to my stance, I'm actually very much in favor of helping others, and I do it all the time. I just don't think it's efficient to follow cliques around, in favor of taking the time to develop a more logical system designed to provide opportunities unidirectionally.
 
Last edited:
Okay, thank you. This will help me formulate a response to your last post.

FYI, I could care less if you have ulterior motives for asking things. That's just fine. In fact, at this point, you put it out in the open. It's hardly ulterior any more.
 

Nate North

Business Member
indieBIZ
lol, good point! If you look across all the answers, everybody having some ulterior motive is the one true constant. They say capitalism is the greatest system the world has ever seen, explicitly because it generates energy based on self interest, rather than idealistic gears that never quite mesh. I think even great ideas need balance though, and a bit of unity can provide a refining effect to the raw power and reliability of self interest.
 

Nate North

Business Member
indieBIZ
@directorik

I understand and agree with almost all of that. Perhaps I should have stipulated that I am already aware that everyone out there wants you to work on their project. That's a given. What I'm not so sure about is that the thinking of all these people is more complex than "I'm the greatest because I'm me" certainly there are some that are better than that. I wish I met people that cared if we all won not because it's generous, but simply because it's different. I'm not super impressed by imagination that's so indistinguishable from the default. That's what everybody is like? If we want to make original films, I think we ourselves have to be original. What can I learn about that from a copy of a copy?

Where I do agree with you is that projects need leadership, and many group projects don't have it. There is a third option though. It doesn't always have to be one rich narcissist proclaiming proudly that they have all the answers. And it doesn't have to be a bunch of hippies organizing a casey jones singalong with no script. You can build a meritocracy, with many opportunities, structured to provide advantages, with leadership shifting from one strong leader to another.

Sound like science fiction? That's what the studios have been doing this whole time, ish. Most people don't watch the credits of their favorite shows too closely, but if you do, you'll notice that it's extremely common for a show to change directors every episode. The company built the platform, which is the show itself, and then many creative people pass through that platform and direct individual episodes. Each one makes money, gains experience, and if they do well, furthers their career. This type of system is far more advanced than what we are discussing here, which is framed by every responder as a binary choice between you standing on the sidelines of my show, or me standing on the sidelines of your show.
 
Perhaps I should have stipulated that I am already aware that everyone out there wants you to work on their project. That's a given.
I'm not sure that's right. People want to see their projects brought to life, whether they want anyone of us to help is not a given. They want people that can help realize their project. A shade of difference.

There is a third option though. It doesn't always have to be one rich narcissist proclaiming proudly that they have all the answers. And it doesn't have to be a bunch of hippies organizing a casey jones singalong with no script. You can build a meritocracy, with many opportunities, structured to provide advantages, with leadership shifting from one strong leader to another.
There is some black and white thinking here. While there are some examples of rich narcissists, most of the things built within and without the film industry are the result of people spending years working and building. There are no quick fixes. The system of meritocracy has already been built. It's the world around you. You say it yourself in reference to studios in the next paragraph. Many, many of us here are just like you. We're trying to build something, based on a vision we have. Just like you.

which is framed by every responder as a binary choice between you standing on the sidelines of my show, or me standing on the sidelines of your show.
No. Just no, Nate. Not one responder suggested a binary choice between you standing on the sideline or them standing on the sidelines of your show. The suggestion was to help others with their projects and very slowly, over years, build a small group of people that will help you out on yours. I'm living this principle this week on a project and I'm talking 6 people that I've worked with for years.

I have no idea... how many years did Elon Musk work at building Tesla before he had 10 paid people around him? How many more years before it was 100 people? How many people volunteered to help him in the beginning before anyone got paid? How many resumes hit the doors of Tesla every week now? That should give you some idea of the number of people you can count on collaborating for free, the timeline and the investment required to bring your vision to the point that hundreds want to collaborate with you. Oh, and that's Elon Musk, your timeline may vary.
 
My question is, why are people uninterested in joining teams or groups?
It's kind of an incorrect question. People join groups all the time, so it's not that people don't want to join groups. That being said, the majority of groups remain unfilled. So the question should really be, why do people join one group but not another.

There's a saying. People are in your life for a reason, a season or for life. People join teams for the first. A reason. If they're not joining your team, you're not giving them a good enough reason (from their perspective) for them to get involved.

I've never found it tough to get people involved with my projects. That being said, I was always happy to get involved with passion projects and could walk into positions that were typically difficult to fill in my area and used that as an opportunity to network with good talent and crew. (and sometimes learn who to avoid)

You need to find people whos' goals allign with yours.

Here is the secret to finding collaborators on a project..

You collaborate on THEIR project, not yours.
erk. This can be true in theory but in practice, it isn't the case. I knew someone who volunteered on anyones project who asked. He did this for years. He worked full time, but most of his spare time was spent on someone elses set. When he was putting his own projects together, no one was willing to step up.

I constantly help other people with their projects. I love it, it's rewarding and I continue to learn. However, even with all that, I rarely get support for my own projects.
This is closer to the typical reality.

The system isn't rigged. There are huge numbers of people collaborating on films right now. They have something to offer each other, so they want to collaborate with each other. Either you have something to offer that others want or you need to work really, really hard to show the world what you have and get to the point that you do. They don't want to collaborate, because you're not showing them something they want to jump on board for. Anyway, mostly, they want you to jump on board their projects. They want you to help them get their thing done.
I found the trick is to make a gut check. Work out if they're trying to use you for your skills, or whether they'd recriprocrate. You're right there are a lot of people trying to get their baby made.

That math seems random. In terms of helping someone else in the hopes that that help will be returned, that's illogical. It's trickledown economics at best, and at worst it's a bastardization of the concept of generosity and humility that it appears to represent on it's surface. If I only give when hoping for return, I'm neither generous nor humble, just bad at math. Let's say you have 10 dollars and you want 10 dollars in your bank account. Would you deposit it, or would you hand it to someone, wait for them to spend as much as they wanted, and then hope that they gave you back 11? Trickledown economics is idiotic. The system I envision is more like collective buying power. Let's say you wanted to buy a steak, and it cost that same 10 dollars. What would make some sense, is to get together 100 people that want to buy steaks, buy a bulk rate package of 100 steaks, and each of us gets the same steak for 3 dollars instead of 10. That's a situation where everyone actually wins, and there's no hope or dreams or magic math involved.
The issue is the potential benefits from each opportunity isn't balanced. It takes all types to make a film but the opportunity cost is almost the same for all involved. The benefits of a directors, writer, dop or actors career taking off is much higher than the benefit of say a grip, a lighting technician, a soundie or a runner.

This is why it's usually easier to fill the roles of director or an actor for free for a collaboration, but it's harder to find an experienced grip or a soundie. Unless you pay them, there's little reason to join teams.

I'm not happy with folksy solutions. I want real solutions, where the problem gets solved.
The best solution I can give you is to become the leader people want to follow. Understand it from other people's perspective. Create situations that are win/win for all involved. Trying to get people involved when there's nothing in it for them is a losing proposition.

but if you do, you'll notice that it's extremely common for a show to change directors every episode.
While not always, in TV, the director is typically the hired help. In a feature, it's the director who's typically the boss. In TV it's the showrunner who's the boss.
 
I live in a small town, and neighborhood garage bands are common. People get together and practice for years, travelling 50 miles to a practice spot, to split up 200 dollars a gig, once they are good enough. They spend thousands each on equipment, and hundreds of hours just getting to that point, and everyone shows up for that.

This comparison with a garage band, or any other kind of music group, is not really relevant to your situation - or indeed to film-making at all. A musician is a "complete work" in and of him/herself: put them in the middle of a desert with nothing but their instrument, and they have all the resources they need to play as much music as they want. Give them the opportunity to play with another person, and they might find they've a rhythm in common, and the chance encounter with a few others might mean they go on to create something innovative that brings them world-wide fame and fortune. But at the end of the day, when you kill the lights, unplug the sound system, kick all the groupies out and leave them alone, they're still as much - or as little - a musician as they were before, as if none of the in-between bit ever happened.

Making a movie is not at all in the same category: it's a multidisciplinary process, and there is an inherent conflict between the artists who create the truly artistic elements, and the technician-dependent production process needed to create a viewable, distributable work. I think your vision has foundered precisely because you believe in the equality of every contributor, but they're not equal. Technicians and craftsmen don't tend to be passionate about what they do - they want to do a good job for a fair price, but also to leave their work behind at the end of the day, because it's not their whole reason for living. Artists are more likely to be passionate about their discipline and invest an irrational amount of time, money and energy into achieving their vision ... but for their vision, which will rarely fit the mould of a monolithic corporate - or even cooperative - production.
 

indietalk

IndieTalk Founder
Staff Member
Admin
Nate's project is unique. He markets it as something bigger than a film, a project that is ongoing, and can be a springboard for careers (according to video promos). One where you can join and receive help on your own projects as well. So I think his surprise in low join rates is not that people don't want to help him, but that people don't want to help themselves by joining this new idea. I think that is where he is at, but he can correct me if I am wrong.
 

Nate North

Business Member
indieBIZ
These answers are really improving in quality, I don't agree 100% with everything said, but for the most part these last few posts have been intelligent and insightful. I've been in sort of a "mood" for the last few days, maybe just lack of sleep again. I'm just frustrated by multiple factors, chief amongst them the fact that I can't just raise money and pay people. Obviously there is a solution that would work, and I can't implement it, and I'm basically surrounded on all sides by people that could easily solve a problem like this, but have absolutely zero interest in achieving anything at all for their entire lives. That's not some judgement I made, I mean I ask them and they tell me that directly.

I'm not talking about anyone on this forum, or even the internet. I just live in a very regressive area, and many of the people I know have millions of dollars in the bank, which they use to address problems such as "maybe I'll buy a lawn chair to get drunk in". I am literally the only person I am aware of in a two city area that aspires to any goal greater than just taking care of themselves, and I'm incredibly poor now. There are obviously people that start banks and build parking garages, but they didn't aspire to it, they all have the same last names. A few years back I started driving 45 miles each way to the nearest city to join that cities largest business center. I rented a workspace for 50 dollars a month and worked physically alongside other entrepreneurs. The top idea in a city of 60,000 people was a guy who wanted to organize foot races. His technology, research, and education amounted to the fact that he had gone to a store and bought some colored tape and made some custom t shirts. Then he figured out how to send spam emails. That was the most ambitious person I met. To be fair, like myself at one time, all the smart people leave here, for lack of opportunity. My elderly parents took ill though, and I can't just leave them to fend for themselves so I can make more money.

When I encounter an obese drunk wearing a rebel flag t shirt, they have 100 grand to accomplish their goal of going to the bowling alley. I graduated with the single highest aptitude score in a class of over 3000, and live on 285 dollars a month after bills on average. I'll be honest, I'm just an incredibly frustrated person. A few years ago I met a crackhead, and they were somehow making $150 a day, and spending it all on crack. And they had a dozen friends helping them out. A whole support group just helping some guy smoke crack and lay on a sofa. I'm guessing that smoking crack with people builds some kind of friendship bond that ranting on the internet doesn't. I really wouldn't know. To be fair, that guy died sleeping in the streets a year after I met him, so I probably shouldn't be too jealous of his financial success. In the past I was once a very lucky person, I should likely be grateful that I ever had such a good life, but it seems smaller and smaller in the rear view mirror.

I'm sorry I rant so much, I have many productive ways to spend my time, but it gets very silent and monotonous just processing task after task on an unpaid assembly line. I could reach escape velocity if I had as much help and dedication as I see present in local cover bands, but I can't seem to draw that from a worldwide pool. This thread was just born out of my cognitive inability to grasp why I can't find 10 good friends globally, and people with no vision whatsoever can find that locally. The math of 1 city vs the world makes that incomprehensible to me. This should have been easy. My attitude at the outset was really positive, some days it's just difficult to maintain that amongst what I see as needless adversity.
 
He markets it as something bigger than a film, a project that is ongoing, and can be a springboard for careers (according to video promos). One where you can join and receive help on your own projects as well. So I think his surprise in low join rates is not that people don't want to help him, but that people don't want to help themselves by joining this new idea. I think that is where he is at, but he can correct me if I am wrong.
I think you are wrong in this regard. Almost every new filmmaker has fallen for the "It'll be good for your career to work for me for free" pitch. It's much like a pyramid scheme. It may work for some, but those are few and far between. People might fall for it once, but usually it's a once bitten, twice shy thing.

This thread was just born out of my cognitive inability to grasp why I can't find 10 good friends globally, and people with no vision whatsoever can find that locally. The math of 1 city vs the world makes that incomprehensible to me. This should have been easy. My attitude at the outset was really positive, some days it's just difficult to maintain that amongst what I see as needless adversity.
I hope you're going to take this the right way. I mean it with the best intentions.

Dude, stop. Just stop. Put this on pause for a little bit. From what I can tell, you're working yourself into an early grave. I think you'd do yourself well to take a break from it all. If you can, take a step back and get a wider view and gain a little bit of perspective.

What you're doing isn't working for you. It leads me to a saying. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome.

I think you need to try different approaches so you can find the approach that works for you. Stop focusing on how others may have it easier. Focus on how you can do it with what you have.

If you feel your current approach is your best path, may I suggest you figure out a way to answer this: If you're saying together, our careers will take off together, convince me (not me personally, but others) that you're the right person to trust to make this happen. I haven't seen anything that makes me believe you're capable of delivering this result. Some sort of proof that it works this way, but most importantly, that you're the right person for this task.
 

indietalk

IndieTalk Founder
Staff Member
Admin
I think you are wrong in this regard. Almost every new filmmaker has fallen for the "It'll be good for your career to work for me for free" pitch. It's much like a pyramid scheme. It may work for some, but those are few and far between. People might fall for it once, but usually it's a once bitten, twice shy thing.
I was actually only trying to interpret his disappointment, I wasn't agreeing. Pretty sure he feels this way, because his promos tend to lean toward this is the next big thing, and can help your career.
 
Top