I'd believe you, Clive. Mostly, because I think you have shown yourself to have integrity, and I don't see why you'd be motivated to lie. Thanks for the update. I'm excited about your progress.
-
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.
$1000 Spielberg
- Thread starter clive
- Start date
Update
Ironically, the change of site has had almost no effect on the number of visitors and the second we took the posts off the old site, the old site's hits went through the floor.
For obvious reasons I've been monitoring google keyword analysis on the old site and the word "spielberg" doesn't account for ANY of our traffic. It never has.
The move is going to hurt us with google for a few months, but I think there's a very clear message here -- our audience is interested in us, the project and the articles and not any perceived benefit people may believe we got from having a particular word in our url or banner.
The truth is, I think we may have inadvertently been done a huge favour -- it seems like the "$1000" concept is bigger than any name we attached to it. Even though the only thing we ever did was use that name to mean "high quality, commercial film maker."
Now that's genuinely funny, when you think about it.
What I really can't get over is how many people are completely behind what we're doing -- we're getting the most incredible offers of support.
I can say in honesty this is the most exciting film project I've ever been involved in.
Ironically, the change of site has had almost no effect on the number of visitors and the second we took the posts off the old site, the old site's hits went through the floor.
For obvious reasons I've been monitoring google keyword analysis on the old site and the word "spielberg" doesn't account for ANY of our traffic. It never has.
The move is going to hurt us with google for a few months, but I think there's a very clear message here -- our audience is interested in us, the project and the articles and not any perceived benefit people may believe we got from having a particular word in our url or banner.
The truth is, I think we may have inadvertently been done a huge favour -- it seems like the "$1000" concept is bigger than any name we attached to it. Even though the only thing we ever did was use that name to mean "high quality, commercial film maker."
Now that's genuinely funny, when you think about it.
What I really can't get over is how many people are completely behind what we're doing -- we're getting the most incredible offers of support.
I can say in honesty this is the most exciting film project I've ever been involved in.
It would seem that would invalidate the experiment, somewhat. If you can make a movie for $1000 because it's a novel idea and everyone wants to provide free help. Once the novelty wears off, it may not be as easy to stay within the budget! Just an observation ... not a criticism.
Good point, but the truth is we're getting the support on the strength of the screenplay concept -- which has always been our basic premise. We're not getting offers from complete strangers, everyone who has offered help has been pitched the logline of the movie and how we're making it. Although we are getting a very positive reception to the budget, mainly what drives people to offer support is the kind of movie we're making.
We see the $1000 movie as a one off project to demonstrate our ability to create a great movie on limited capital -- and we've always argued it's people and resources that make movies and not money. We've always been completely up front about the fact that we'd be aiming to pull together nearly $500,000 worth of professional resources to create this movie -- it's the fact that this is possible when you only have $1000 in capital which is our story.
Although we also know that there are film makers out there who are funding their entire features on budgets just like ours, without pulling any support from the professional community.
We think it's entirely possible for other people to duplicate what we're doing -- but after we've shown we what kind of return we make on a picture, we'd fund a second movie based on traditional film investment. Only at that point we'll have demonstrable figures based on past achievements -- rather than the guesswork that most film makers present as their business plan.
I think the only way we'd invaildate the experiment at this point is if we either went over budget or if we ditched the budget completely because we'd been offered serious funding -- as we've got the project being pitched to a major UK name over the next few weeks, we may find ourselves under pressure to accept a real budget from indsutry investors -- something we're not keen to get into -- but that we'd have to seriously consider if the offer came in.
I hope that helps -- and by the way, I didn't take it as a criticism -- we're just blown away that anyone is interested.
Don't even consider it! Politely decline, but tell them you'd like them to keep track of the process and contact you when you're done. Once you throw money into the machine, the gears get gummy. You've been gaining so much momentum lately, without the burden of a big budget. If you bring money in, they expect the money in return, and the more they spend, the more they own the movie. The greatest thing about your thousand dollar movie, is that you can just up and do it, and you own it in the end. Do it, even just to see if you can do it.
And I want to see it done, as a resource to learn from! You're making commercial art that also helps the community by raising the bar and lowering the cost. That's a triple threat.
And I want to see it done, as a resource to learn from! You're making commercial art that also helps the community by raising the bar and lowering the cost. That's a triple threat.
I think as penned, this is an important excercise, consider offers of hands, knowlege and equipment, but not money. The $1000 dollar premise is compelling. Anything above that breaks the spell. It's a challenge, I'm excited to see you succeed.
The "Independant" (read: not funded by big studios) scene is complianed about by the "Indie" scene as being unapproachable financially, I'd love to see the two worlds collide!
The "Independant" (read: not funded by big studios) scene is complianed about by the "Indie" scene as being unapproachable financially, I'd love to see the two worlds collide!
Totally with you on that Spatula -- when the money people come knocking we've got fourteen other spec concepts they can invest in -- we really need to do this film our way.
You're right about the momentum at the moment -- it's kind of awesome watching this project take off.
There is also another good reason for holding to the budget -- James and I are at our most creative and resourceful under these circumstances -- I don't think we'd have the same focus with a larger budget -- we've really had to think about what kind of project would excite people enough to bring them on board even when there was no possibility of payment -- that in itself is a strength.
You're right about the momentum at the moment -- it's kind of awesome watching this project take off.
There is also another good reason for holding to the budget -- James and I are at our most creative and resourceful under these circumstances -- I don't think we'd have the same focus with a larger budget -- we've really had to think about what kind of project would excite people enough to bring them on board even when there was no possibility of payment -- that in itself is a strength.