ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

11 years, 10 months ago - Steel Wallis

DON'T BAN IT - CHANGE IT
Perhaps every month should have a new theme and/or parameters and filmed within that month,rather like how the brilliant Filmaka.com used to run back in the day. Which would then make SP a source of insperation and actively get stuff made.

11 years, 10 months ago - christopher Stylianou

Regarding the Leaderboard. Let's say you don't make the top five. And let's say you don't get wildcarded by the Shooting People Hipster Set either. Or worse, the patron (i dunno, Chris Tarrant) doesn't like it either. Then your film must be crap, right?

11 years, 10 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Putting your work out into the world for all to judge is the worst feeling. As for me, nobody can beat me at loathing my own stuff, so I have an advantage there. "You like it? Why? You obviously don't know what you're talking about."

Look, if I had directed "Twilight" I would be sickened with myself, even though the world of teens LOVES it. No amount of ticket sales would give me pride about that. I guess because of my self loathing, I found a pretty good match for what I do: working UNCREDITED fixing movies. But it does make that IMDB resume quite thin. Which doesn't help in getting work outside of that fix it world. But I kind of like being invisible.

You've done something that takes guts: made a film, and stuck it in a competition. On top of that, it's good. If you're looking for validation with votes, well, that's a hard row to hoe. The problem with SP in particular, is that not everyone watches. And you don't know why they don't watch or vote. Perhaps there are those that don't click on anything with a running time of more than 5 minutes. Or anything with the word "dream" in the title. Really arbitrary stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with the work itself.

Know what my validation is? That a film I fixed got a distribution deal. And all of them have, so far. If I went by box office or the number of downloads from a pirate site, I'd blow my brains out. All of that shit is ARBITRARY and there is nothing you can do about it. An opening weekend of a film is based on the hype around a film. Not whether it's good or bad. If Paul Greengrass had directed the first Bourne film with that shaky-cam, quick cutting, no geography style, it would have flopped. But because the first was a hit, he was riding those coat tails. Fucking arbitrary!

SP has no ability to make or unmake your career. Zero. You'll kill your style if you think that way. Do you think David Lynch was thinking about his career when he made "Eraser Head"? Even those that win Sundance with a short, don't have much going for them. Hell, look at past short winners of the Oscar. Where are they now? A win at the worlds major festivals will only get you a toe in the door, at best. So put that career nonsense out of your head right now.

Do you like what you made? Do people you respect like what you made? In the end, that's all you have. Don't put your self-respect into the hands of others that probably didn't even watch your film. That's a dark hole with no way out.

11 years, 10 months ago - Dan Selakovich

By the way, everyone, the "BAN IT" in this thread's title was just a way to get people to read it. Much like a trailer gets people to watch the movie (see what I did there?). I don't think ANYTHING should be banned from being seen. Just wanted to clear that up.

11 years, 10 months ago - christopher Stylianou

Okay, once you've compromised with the process, refined your methodology and your subject, you then upload your film, only to come 142nd on the leaderboard. It means your process, methodology and subject are off base. It must be. Shooting People said so, Vimeo said so, if indirectly. I think my point was slightly missed. If you are a filmmaker, you will care how your film performs competitively. How it performs helps you to determine what you've made, how you fit and whether your methods and calculations worked. I agree, Ms Martins, that our focus should be on being better filmmakers, but once your film is public, the context changes and you will suddenly jettison those noble claims and get just as upset as everyone else if you 'underperform.'You can't NOT feel that way. So, ultimately, I don't quite believe that you believe your own comment. An analogy: You want your kids to do well at school. You know you raised them well and you know they are smart. Yet, they're having a tough time with the other kids and teachers. They keep getting beaten up, ignored or misunderstood. You start to think you're a bad parent. The trouble is, returning to the Leaderboard, I don't think it's the kids who are at fault. It's the school. How you perform competitively has a profound and unexpected effect on you. It messes with your aesthetic sense. The danger is that you will compromise that sense to get better results next time, essentially warping your instincts to appeal to the impeccably refined tastes of self-appointed panelists. I say, screw that. Why should any of us care what Paul Greengrass thinks? I'm not Paul Greengrass. I'm me. And yet I find myself wanting his validation, wanting his permission to carry on making films. I have a growing suspicion that Shooting People and Vimeo are subverting the perceptions of a whole generation of filmmakers. I don't think their aim is to help you break out. I think they are trying to keep you hemmed in. (As long as you keep paying you subscription fee.) That's not to say they are not some magnificent filmmakers here. Because there are. But that's what worries me. They have voluntarily paid to join the other pigs in the pen, always under the watchful eyes of the gatekeepers. SP and Vimeo have the power to make or un-make your career. A whole generation of filmmakers have essentially handed their power over to these people. We have subjugated ourselves to the judgement of panelists whose credentials can, in themselves, be quite shaky. So, who's ultimately in charge of your film? You? Or them? And at least I was called a 'reactionary' and not an 'insurgent.' That's way worse, apparently.

11 years, 10 months ago - Stephanie Walton

@Dan Selakovich
We always get there by the end of the first round. But there is a lot of films and we make sure to watch them all properly, some films we watch a few times so you can imagine it takes a while.

11 years, 10 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Yikes, Cheryl! That is a tough one! I don't know this for sure, since I'm not in this situation, but I'd probably not vote for mine or anybody else if I had a film in competition, just to keep my own sanity. You bring up excellent points, and I think most would find it difficult to "do the right thing" if they were one star away from number 1.

11 years, 10 months ago - Cheryl White

Hi Dan - this conversation really piqued my curiosity as I'm one of those who has a film up this month.

Good to hear from Stephanie and everything SP is doing to try to make it fairer. I knew about the wildcards but not about the trailers, so I'm glad to hear that they aren't in competition.

A couple of things from this experience I'd like to share.
1) FOTM has been a great way for me to join the community. In the past, I've posted a few jobs, watched a few films and met some Shooters at events. But reaching out to the community and watching others' films has really started to develop relationships. And I think that's not only important for FOTM but our careers in general. SP should be applauded for making us talk to each other.
2) I think the idea of not being able to vote if you have a film in comp is a great idea. It's too tempting not to vote because someone has more stars then you. (And so I don't get ex-communicated, I've voted for films above and below me if I believed in it - one has even overtaken me! Ouch).
3) And, it's really stressful! And hard work. My film is yo-yoing from 3 to 12 so it's a bit of an emotional roller coaster. And while I don't think position on the leader board really reflects the quality - or not - of the film/s, it's just nice to be recognised by your peers.

Good luck to everyone in the comp - it's a fun ride, yes? Yes?

Cheryl.

11 years, 10 months ago - Marlom Tander

Don't ban it but....have an alternative DB View. Leaderboards psychologically prime people to :-

1) Tend to watch the films at the top.
2) Give those films good marks. Marginal, but enough to reinforce the early, possibly accidental / friends looking at it leaders.

I suggest that the Leaderboard be dumped and films presented on a category / genre basis.

So if I fancy very shorts, I choose "Under 4 mins", if a comedy "Comedy", "Budget between X and Y" etc. I don't have to scroll through pages of tables hunting for what I want to watch.

This would mean that people will see a wider range of movies and aid serendipity.

And, great story structure, SP get to do a big REVEAL at the end of each month :-) I'd suggest of the Top Ten though, as this model is likely to highlight a cluster good films rather than artificially producing "The Winner".

Cheers

11 years, 10 months ago - Tom Hruby

Marlom was close to a revelation there, but a bit undefined. I've often thought the competition should be divided amongst genre; narrative, documentary, music video, trailer, etc. It would seem to be a fair division of competition and much easier for devotees of genre to wade into the competition and not be bogged down with films they're not interested in. I often feel a bit bad about passing by films I'm not in the mood for based on its form, but you have to confront the long list in some manageable fashion.

Mashing up any and all films each month to battle it out leads to a sort of blender splat of response.
As for budgets and so forth, whew, it's tough to compete against slick money films, but films don't rule on money alone. Underdog stand tall, take your lumps if deserved, and shine bright if you've got yourself the winning formula.

11 years, 10 months ago - Betty Martins

completely agree with Dan... independent is independent... great debate! But would just like to say that as filmmakers we shouldn't be concerned to fit into a standard, or a competition, but compromised with our own filmic methodologies. Hate it when people say "if no one liked it, then you must be crap", how reactionary is that? Our compromise should be with our process, our methodology and our subject, only.

11 years, 10 months ago - Alex Kruszelnicki

I think there is justification for a film made for peanuts to compete against one with a generous budget as it represents on a small scale the 'David and Goliath' sensation that you get from feature films.

How many times have we seen $200 billion + movies be trumped in substance and credibility by the indie filmmaker?

By separating short films in terms of budget you are creating a divide that will deny the inventiveness and creativity of filmmakers to shine through.

Having a large production budget doesn't always guarantee a successful film but at the same time if you have a great idea but not the funds available its your responsibility as a filmmaker to make it work or leave it alone.

I fear if you create a special subcategory for films it will encourage a negative attitude to emerge where rather than the filmmaker striving to achieve the best they can with what they got and push the boundaries, it will be all too easy to adopt a 'cop-out' approach.

11 years, 10 months ago - Dan Selakovich

That's great George! I'm not really advocating to separate things by budget. More so that things conceived, written and produced to be broadcast by a major network that millions will see anyway. Like I said, I am on the fence about it and could go either way.

11 years, 10 months ago - Dan Selakovich

HA! Thanks Louise.

11 years, 10 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Thanks for that, Philip. I stand corrected. Being in America, I am completely ignorant of how the BBC works.

11 years, 10 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Thanks, Stephanie. That does clear up a bit, but from what I've watched so far, you have 3 trailers in competition, and I haven't watched everything yet. So I'm a bit confused. Do you remove trailers for the final round?

I was unaware that SP chose 5. That makes a lot more sense to me now. I'd hate to see a good film over-looked just because it was uploaded late. That certainly solves it.

And Marlom, thanks for clearing that up. I misunderstood.

11 years, 10 months ago - Matt Jamie

I wondered if I should chime in here with my regular rant about the star rating system (how the old "average vote" was much better and fairer than the current "accumulated stars" by actually representing what people thought of your work...e.g. now 100 people could give my film "1 star" (which is a crapper than crap film) - but I'd have 100 stars on the leaderboard (yipeee) - the old system I'd have an average vote of "1" (boo, but more relevant). But I won't chime in here. I'll leave it.

11 years, 10 months ago - George Graham

I think it's good that shoestring films compete here alongside bigger budget ones. I speak from the experience of having entered and to my surprise won the film of the month. I made a film with no budget and did nearly all the crewing, as well as writing, directing, and editing myself. Because of that the production values weren't all that great, but the film managed hold its own on the internet, perhaps better than if it had been seen on the big screen in a festival. So it was a good forum in which to test its value as a story.

11 years, 10 months ago - Louise Pennington

Great discussion and the 'BAN IT' tag certainly got me reading, Dan!

11 years, 10 months ago - philip ilson

I wanted to comment on Dan's initial post, this paragraph in particular:

"there's some very slick shorts that look to have aired, and been funded, by the BBC. Should they be seen? Of course. But be in competition? Hmmmm... I personally don't think so. I'm kind of on the fence on this one, but when I think of the films that were made for the cost of a pizza, or made in 48 hours, or had a time limit of 90 seconds, the idea of a well backed piece that will be seen by millions regardless of being in a shootingpeople competition"

In many ways, the lower budget films posted on YouTube are more likely to be seen by millions than short films that have funding that may mainly be shown on the festival circuit where the audiences are limited to a cinema (and we all know how hard it is t get people into a cinema to watch short films). There's also actually very little funding in the UK for short film; the BFI Film Fund funded 16 shorts this year, which is 16 more than previous years after the UKFC was shelved along with their shorts funding schemes. At the moment, as far as I know, there's no plan to fund shorts in 2014. Film Four sometimes put a bit of money into shorts with directors they want to work with. But there's certainly nowhere major on TV where shorts can be seen (except for C4s late night Shooting Gallery which has recently been revived, and their on-going Random Acts shorts which is a low budget scheme for 3 minute films). I'm not even sure the BBC fund films; they might give filmmakers a bit of top up support and have their logo on, but they certainly don't show them anywhere.
Virgin Media Shorts are also where shorts could get audiences of millions through their website and in cinemas where the winning films are shown but again, this is for shorter lower budget work.
So, outside of festivals, Shooting People FOTM is actually one of the few places where higher budget films can get an audience, as the FOTM audiences are people interested in watching shorts.

11 years, 10 months ago - christopher Stylianou

You're right, Dan. I took some Valium and I'm over it now.

11 years, 10 months ago - Andrew T. Wright

Any competition that is based on abstract 'Votes'. 'Likes' and 'Thumbs Up' and all the rest of it is going to be flawed. When 'Winners' are decided on your popularity and the size of you social network 'Connections' and 'Friends', as opposed to an objective critique where the film is judged on its merits by professionals within the industry, then you have to accept that it isn't your work being recognised and any 'Win' in these circumstances has no substance whatsoever.

11 years, 10 months ago - Stephanie Walton

Hi Dan, Everyone,

Just to clear up a few things. Trailers don't count in the competition, we watch everything on the leaderboard in house and remove anything that isn't a short film - we also watch everything because we're aware some really good shorts get overlooked by being uploaded later in the month and various other reasons and we pick those films as our 'wildcards' for the final round.
The final round starts on the 21st of each month and includes 10 films, 5 chosen by SP member's and 5 chosen by us from films entered that, we feel, have a lower place on the leaderboard than they should.

At the moment the only way of watching non-fotm films on SP is through people's profiles. We're aiming to developing a better filtering system so that you can watch things based on genre, length, and things like trailers. This will likely be a feature in our big re-design for later in the year.

All the best,
Stephanie

11 years, 10 months ago - Marlom Tander

Dan, it's not that I don't watch longer films, it's that I want a quick route to the films that I want NOW. Yesterday, for example, I watched a few music videos, and did start to watch a 20 min one but gave up 5 mins in as the script and idea were good but let down by the sound and acting (lack of).

Sometimes I have a few mins and want a quick hit. Somwetimes I want a laugh, and sometimes art, sometimes a big long session.

Tagging systems are easy, and SP have told us they are doing a major upgrade, so mentioned to get it in the mix.