Again, I'm not seeing the virtue of this approach or the articles relevance to film makers who frequent No Film School - he's essentially describing how he dumped his film on Amazon for a total of 22 viewings to date (rough guess) for a mere $1.50 remuneration. Is the purpose to simply show how easy it is to publish on Amazon? I don't see how it speaks to the platforms virtues for a film maker or distributor either way. Can't help think this article is just a ploy to drum up extra viewership and self marketing - which isn't necessarily bad I suppose. I guess I'm not seeing the logic or maybe it needs a summation of this approach as opposed to the other options. In comparison. Was it actually easier? Somehow more profitable? No other platform was exercised so I don't know how he arrives at the assertion this was the best option for the film as opposed to posting on Youtube - other than being considered a marginally more 'legit' platform for a 'movie'. Not looking to bag anybody - but this feels like little more than a transplanted personal blog post with a nebulous agenda. I didn't find it enlightening. No Film School is starting to feel a little like a dumping ground lately. E
Had he used one of the other sites like Vimeo and invested time in online marketing - hell even pamphlets - he'd have reached a couple thousand views slower but would have netted the film four or five grand cash. You can still dump it on Amazon later, when you've recouped some money. What's the virtue of this approach? He would likely have reached a wider audience and made more money posting it on youtube with advertising. What am I missing here? E
The average RT score of his films is something like 35% as apposed to Pixar's very high average. Inputting critical response would be useful, in this case his films most often had bad word of mouth.
The point about relationships is important. The real barrier to diversity in film is relationships. I know personally on my little projects I default to working with people I know and like, that group is odd and diverse but admittedly short on women besides my partner. Studio execs are about money and decisions are solely driven by profit and risk minimization. A mandate to diversify film and good intentions is in itself of limited value if the players don't mix it up up more in life, and people are slow to change. Looking at the relatively short history of film and television, there has been tremendous change, while it's small comfort to women and minorities struggling today - I think the near future is looking bright. E
Well I'm shocked. Not a single novel element in that whole piece and it's terribly executed and boring. It's hard to imagine from this that the screenplay is terribly good either. Producer or agent must be a GOOD salesman, I may look them up :)