You give a few choices; 1 or 2 what if I don't like either one?
Sould have another option; I don't give a shit, and neither.
Not selecting one or another is a badly designed poll.
Give an option, NEITHER.
If too many select NEITHER then you have to modify your poll.
That's a valuable input!
@Directorik
Ah, man... you know this is not true in Hollywood
My opinions are not based on the way the studio system works. I
fully understand that when there is $100,000,000 and more at
stake and shareholders and corporate concerns that polling is
necessary thing. And most often wrong. What the public say they
want and what they pay to see is often quite different.
My opinions come from the independent world. It’s still a huge risk,
but we can all give examples of small movies that no poll suggested
the public wanted did very, very well. The passion of the filmmaker
was what drove the production and when it was done the distributor
took a chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by p38
BTW your advice; passion to make a movie is correct, but not a good idea if you want to make money
I can name 10 films right off the top of my head that were not
made with any polling of the public but still made a lot of money.
And I know there are many, many more. Hell, I’ve made money on
films that were made with no polling of the public. So I feel
making a movie out of personal passion is a good idea if you want
to make money.
I would not make a movie using the poll results: An original,
suspense thriller with blood and ghosts. Since at this point sci-fi
is so close it seems a lot of people would like to see an original,
sci-fi thriller with blood and ghosts. Really? People want to see a
science fiction movie with ghosts? Only 12% say they want horror.
Yet one of the biggest success of 2012 was a low budget horror
film. And no Sci-Fi movie has done well in years. And an original
science fiction film hasn’t done well in several decades.
I’ll close again by saying if any filmmakers want to poll the
public and use those numbers to help them decide on what project
to make I have no problem. We do what we we want to do.
Sucker Punch had good visuals and was without a story.
D@mn. That girl sure can dance.
And yet it was in a TON of theaters.
I'd rather watch a visually appealing movie with great sound with a sucky story than a crappy grainy movie with a good story.
back to the OP-
If you are going to make a movie with the goal of getting it sold then make something the public wants. Not some crummy artsy film or drama that everybody and their brother has seen a million times.
Also, a lot of people don't realize that a good business plan EXPLAINS to investors HOW and WHY a movie will appeal to the public. Appeal to the pubic = higher chances at making money. So yes, you should ALWAYS (if you are doing it as more than a hobby) make a product that will appeal to the general public. I personally believe that polling is a great thing. The big time production companies do it. They may not use a straight up survey but you better believe that they are doing their research on what is selling right now and what the trends are.
lol...but you also click the "x" if the movie has a company logo at the beginning.
A properly done logo would last 4 to 5 seconds. Then its bang, right into the story. If I have to clock the logo beyond that time, chances are quite low the rest of the film is worth watching to the end, so that first 10 seconds better be compelling.
--------
My feature doesn't have a logo at all. Just what is it I missed in life that killed my urge to make a snazzy logo?
Last edited by GuerrillaAngel; 02-21-2012 at 10:09 PM.
Just what is it I missed in life that killed my urge to make a snazzy logo?
Perhaps you have suppressed memories of being traumatized by a snazzy logo.
Maybe.
PS: I've always found hot logos to be stuck up beyotches.
If you want some serious action you gotta go after the third-tier down plain jane logos.
They've usually got some pent up frustrations primed for release.
Anything with Helvetica and her younger sister Arial are both good to go logos in my book!
Hubba hubba!
I went to Blockbuster's going out of business sale today and bought 15 movies for $20.
Julia / Women In Trouble / The Answer Man / Six Wives of Henry Lefay / Away We Go / Cyrus / Factory Girl plus other movies you've actually heard of. I've seen all these, and I'll watch them again. They're all very entertaining (from what I remember). They all have name brands, and they're all flops according to the numbers.
They wouldn't even register on a poll. Tilda Swinton in Julia, never heard of it. GREAT MOVIE.
Polls mean nothing. No offense to the OP.
Do what you're going to. Do what you can afford. Do it the best you can. If the acting is good enough (That's so important) you'll have something to be proud of. Whether it makes a million or leaves you broke. You've created a piece of art, that is solely your own.
SUCKERPUNCH tanked, big time. Made on a budget of 82 million, the U.S. domestic gross was just 36 million. The reason it got into so many theaters was Zack Snyder's reputation with DAWN OF THE DEAD and 300.
SUCKERPUNCH's poor performance has derailed or pushed back Snyder's projects - ARMY OF THE DEAD (DAWN sequel) and MAN OF STEEL (this will get made because BATMAN's Christopher Nolan is the producer).
Even when it comes to the CGI vs. practical efx question I can't
really answer. Some CGI is so much better, but in many cases
it looks bad - blood efx for example. I'm talking as a movie fan
not a filmmaker. CGI blood efx look awful - background replacement
looks great.
You know, I'm glad you said it, Rik. To hear you say that with such authority about CG blood, it really rings the bell of truth for me. It's true. Though I totally understand why it's used. It's more convenient and you can make it behave in ways that you want it to in the computer with software. But, mainly, it looks pretty fake. I mean, take something like Kill Bill, which I'll bet used practical blood, and compare it to something like 300. The bloody violence in 300 is pretty far out, but yeah, is there a blood spray in that film with which you are not exquisitely aware was done in AE or its equivelant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ussinners
Do what you're going to. Do what you can afford. Do it the best you can. If the acting is good enough (That's so important) you'll have something to be proud of. Whether it makes a million or leaves you broke. You've created a piece of art, that is solely your own.
Do what makes you happy.
Follow your bliss?
QFT. My bias, though, is that I don't think that I care about filmmaking professionally for Hollywood.
Still, if you do want business success, isn't it standard operating proceedure in Hollywood and probably elsewhere to use focus groups?
Yeah, there are some lucky people who can do that
They may not 'polled' but got their 'input' from good sources to make a movie the public wants. If they just made one without any consideration, then I'd say that was one helluva lucky move.
Hey, I make shitty art movies and don't care what the public wants because I do it for my own amusement. However, I may have to consider polling and getting inputs from sources to make a feature this year. It's gonna be shit, (in my mind) but at least it will make money, so I can fund my crappy art movies again
SUCKERPUNCH's poor performance has derailed or pushed back Snyder's projects - ARMY OF THE DEAD (DAWN sequel) and MAN OF STEEL (this will get made because BATMAN's Christopher Nolan is the producer).
Except, of course, that it isn't. The most recent attempt to bring Justice League to the big screen failed precisely because executives feared putting parallel iterations of Batman and Superman on the screen at the same time. Why they have changed their minds now, beyond the potential for generating extra revenue, is somewhat open to question.
Interesting poll. The most interesting to me is the crowdfunding question, where half of the people that answered say they'd never donate.
Story vs visuals is a debate that happens a lot. My opinion is, especially for we little guys, they both have to be equally excellent to have any kind of success selling the final product. Story is probably more important in a lot of ways, but if you use that reasoning to make a movie that looks and sounds like crap then nobody is going to see it.
Visuals are more important in the getting people to pay money for a movie ticket sense, your trailer is cut from visuals with only hints at a story and that's what people decid to give you money with. If it looks terrible, you won't get paid even if the story is great. If it looks good but has a terrible story, well, you probably tricked a few suckers out of there $8. Not that that's the goal, but you understand what I mean.
I don't know much (if anything) about focus groups, polls, or anything of the like. But, look at things like Presidential Polls. They ask 1000 people and use that as a margin as what's going to happen. Who are these people they're asking? What makes them the majority of the minority.
You asked a series of questions to a bunch of people you don't know. You're allowing them to possibly sway you in a direction that might be totally wrong. This is art not toothpaste or Coke vrs Pepsi.
You want to see failure in focus groups, go to the "specialized jury selection professionals" that the OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony Prosecutors used.
You have a brain, it can ask opinions. But, those opinions should coincide with what's in your mind. If it's going to change your opinion, the answer shouldn't be "check this box" it should be "Why should I change in favor of what you want? What do you know that I don't?"
I'm not arguing. It's just my opinion on polls. I took yours. It was quick and painless. Just know, I'm not part of any demographic that matters in society anymore.
Linear Mode
