A Proposal to the QFG/QFS/SOTT.
I thought I might make the following proposal. I have been thinking for quite some time about how best to contribute to this group (including using the best skills/talents I possess, as well as financial ways - which I’m still working on devising) and perhaps in a creative and collaborative way pay back for the great benefits I, as well as so many others, have reaped from the material I was exposed to on these web sites (although I sense I will still be indebted and never fully be able to repay for my edification). I have several abilities that could be useful in collaboration with this group and its members to reach a potentially larger audience, to potentially wake up a larger mass of people. I will list some of these abilities and suggest certain scenarios. I apologize if there’s some technical terminology, I think they’re all self explanatory, but if they’re not I would be happy to give further explanations. Also let me warn that it will be a pretty long post (and may seem rambling) and I apologize ahead of time, but if you read the whole thing, I think you’ll get the gist of what I’m getting at.
My main background is filmmaking. I am very proficient in Directing, Writing Screenplays, Editing, Cinematography, Producing, and generally planning preproduction, production, and postproduction of film projects. (I have done this on my own and my ex-girl friend’s small budget projects only, although a film of mine won an award at a festival - let me state here that it won best film by audience vote, not a professional jury; it was a pretty unconventional film - black and white, and the acting style and style of the film in general was close to German Expressionism [where the internal is externalized to be seen] although not quite as exaggerated as, say, the silent German Expressionist films; and the audience was not a particularly [snobby/pseudo-intellectual] cinephile one, but a pretty broad section of the general population; so this proved to me that you can reach a general audience with a very offbeat film using an unconventional approach). I can do all this for projects originating on film as well as digital video (DV). I should state here that I have not been involved in filmmaking since about 1993-94 (I’ll explain why below). I know how to edit on film, and old analog linear video editing (pretty useless). When I began to learn about digital nonlinear video editing in its early days, I already decided to move on to still photography/graphic arts. But I can learn nonlinear digital editing on one of the top software applications (Apple Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere, Avid, etc.) - I usually learn this type of software pretty quickly and thoroughly. Or I can collaborate with someone who is already proficient. So let me mention here that another ability is traditional photography (shot on film rather than digitally) and digital imaging (high resolution scanning, Photoshop prepping and targeting for offset printing, digital print output, as well as electronic - internet, CD, etc. - output, graphic design/layout, etc.) I am highly proficient in all forms of photography, Photoshop editing (nuts and bolts production work equivalent to traditional darkroom techniques and procedures more than "special effects" or doctoring images) and digital imaging in all its forms, as well (I have done this professionally for many years, and in the last few years won many of the top graphic arts awards).
In the early to mid 90’s, based on some research on different ways of financing and securing distribution, I developed an alternate business model for independent feature films that entailed very small budgets by film industry standards ($100,000 to $400,000) I hoped to use for my own film projects, as well as any new talented filmmakers I hoped to meet. The idea was to be able to finance any high quality film project that would otherwise not be made that could be shot on such a budget range, which is most films (if those involved are talented/skilled enough) that don’t have scenes blowing things up, some really high tech special effects, etc., and big name actors that get paid millions each, as it would be a non-union project for people to work on good films while they are just starting their careers. These projects could be self financed by a very few people (as little as 3 or 4 or even less), even using credit cards as one option. The concept was to give talented unknown actors, crew, etc. that were non-union to begin with (it is very difficult to get into the unions - it's catch 22) opportunities to ply their art and craft, and perhaps be "discovered" (if they wanted to go mainstream). Everyone on the project would get paid (except myself if I was the producer, director, etc.) quite well for non-union independent film standards and additionally be given a small percentage each if the film was distributed and made a profit, which was the goal. Back then I had planned to shoot the projects on super 16mm film which is ideal to blow up to the standard 35mm for theatrical projection since video quality was not up to par. If shot well, there should be no noticeable quality difference from being shot on 35mm (and, excluding the pay of cast and crew, etc., would cost about a quarter of 35mm for film, processing, camera equip., etc). So the production quality of the projects would be of the highest standards (and overall production value much higher than the vast majority of films released). Today, it could be done on DV, especially if it will be released only on DVD, with no quality difference at even less cost, probably a quarter to a third of super 16mm. Also today, many theatrical projections are done by projected DVD or other digital projection system rather than film.
If, for instance, a project was made for $275,000, all distribution rights foreign and domestic could be sold for a high quality completely finished film very easily for $400,000 to $700,000. This would give a profit of a few hundred thousand dollars before the first ticket was sold. This would be a very good deal for a distributor or international sales agent (who would then sell different rights in diff. regions of the world to distributors for a profit). It would be like the distributor getting all rights worldwide for the price of domestic rights only, greatly increasing the chance of getting a distribution deal. While many film projects will never get made, if a completed film is any good at all, a distribution co. will buy the rights and distribute it because all the co. has to do is pay for prints and advertising, where usually all the major and minor studios (who are in the production and distribution business) have to finance the production as well and make their money back after distribution and hope for a profit in a reasonable amount of time. And most of the projects are pretty bad fare and are hit or miss when it comes to profits. That’s why everyone banks on one, or if lucky enough two, "blockbusters" per year to offset losses and make a profit. And if a film does badly at the box office, the chance of it selling well in auxiliary markets (video, network TV, cable, etc.) is pretty low. It’s a really absurd business model and also why the films are so bad, among other reasons.
The "standard" distribution contract is 70% for the producer 30% for the distributor, after the distributor has recouped their expenditures (prints & advertising). If a "small" film were to play in just 300 theaters/screens in the US & Canada (at that time there were something like 27,000 screens), even if it was moderately successful, it would make millions of dollars just on that continent. Just to give some perspective, a "major" film release is 1,500 to 2,500 theaters/screens initially (first couple of weeks). If we do a quick hypothetical scenario with the above example, say 300 theaters/screens total for the whole box office run, times average 45 days each screen, times avg. 40 people at each screening, times avg. 3 screenings per day, times avg. $9 per ticket (the exhibitor/theater owner gets a very small cut of ticket price & makes huge profit margins from popcorn/soda, etc.), we get $14,580,000 box office gross. Take out the distributor’s cost of (P & A) of about $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 for a film this size and we’re left with $4,580,000 to $7,580,000 of which 70% goes to the producers who owned the copyright which leaves them $3,206,000 to $5,306,000 just from the US/Canada box office without the rest of the world markets and without any auxiliary markets being accounted for. This money can finance many other projects (for waking people up).
This is a viable business model today, maybe even more so - shot on DV with a feature length project costing more like $45,000 to $135,000 and a shorter than feature length (less than about 70 min.) film costing much less (not to mention all the new distribution outlets). And we can also think about only web and DVD distribution and be able to do self-distribution; you guys already have the distribution "infrastructure" to do this. Also computer animation can be used, maybe even 3D, instead of using live actors and real locations, etc. - although I, myself don’t know anything about computer animation, I can collaborate with someone who does; I know of someone here (who is the ex-husband of someone I know personally) who’s supposed to be an ace 3D animator for medical applications, I believe; and I personally know a professional nonlinear digital video editor whose part of the same crowd as the woman whose ex-husband is the animator. Anyway, the possibilities are endless.
I rewrote a Screenplay for about a 1 hr. 45 min. film recently. It was originally written in 1994. I did it with this business model in mind. It is even less expensive to produce than I had anticipated then, not only because of the possibility of shooting on DV, but also me being in Armenia instead of America (the best food [free range/organic meat/chicken and vegetables, etc.] and travel/accommodation expenses for cast & crew would be a fraction of the cost [of the garbage that passes for food in US supermarkets for instance]). It is a very interesting story (in my opinion) in the way it’s told as well as the plot and characters. However, I’m not sure if I want to put the time & energy into this project. It had some minor and subtle esoteric themes, some of which were done sort of unconsciously at the time without fully understanding what I was touching on, including the concept of OP’s vs. Adamics but very implicitly, a sort of Spirit of Decay that dominates humanity/the world (STS Overlords-like) which is a character from a book whose author is one of the main characters in the film and comes to "haunt" the main character in "real life" in the movie and the events that unfold, as well as co-linear networking/cooperation, although I didn’t know that term (or any of the others) at the time. But it is a very "low key," gentle, and somewhat indirect introduction to esoteric concepts, so I’m not sure if the "timing" would work - by the time it is finished and released, I think something more pronounced may be needed at this time to wake people up, I’m not sure (maybe I’m anticipating too much when I shouldn’t). I did make a few things more emphasized in the rewrite, but not much - mostly the collinear groups aspect (having learned so much more about this and a few of the other things); mostly I rewrote a character that was to be played by someone (basically playing himself) I had heard about just as I was beginning to write the script and then met shortly after I had started writing his character into the story - and a bit later did a collaborative theater project with him. Well, he turned out to be a psychopath. So basically I rewrote the plot and character (and changed his name) so that he ends up betraying all his friends (there was already an attack and destruction of artwork scene originally, but none of the main characters could prove who they suspected did it). In the new version this character ends up being part of the sabotage - the added "kicker" is that the vandalism and fire were set in the character’s own puppet theater, so it is a self inflicted wound like a false flag operation to throw off suspicion from himself.
So if anyone in the QFS/QFG/SOTT Forum members wants to collaborate on a project that has a chance of reaching a large audience and waking them up, I would love to contribute whatever I can. It doesn’t even have to be explicitly esoteric or even fictionalized - it could be "documentary" in approach (although I have no experience in documentary filmmaking, but filmmaking is filmmaking). Also this idea of collaborating to do a (2D/3D) computer animation instead of live action seems very interesting to me with huge possibilities on a small budget, if there are any computer animators (especially for formats that can be utilized on more than just the internet/computers) in the group. (The Screenplay mentioned above can also be adapted to be animated instead of live action, opening up huge possibilities - making it easier to portray certain things - as well as being rewritten again to emphasize certain issues).
I will now briefly explain why I decided to abandon filmmaking as a career choice. In the early 90’s, I experienced the so-called "independent" film scene, including festivals, film markets, etc. I was pretty disgusted and disillusioned by the whole film industry, and decided I did not want anything to do with these people. There’s no real difference between "the independent scene" and Hollywood (I’m sure you can imagine) except the size of the budgets - $5-10 million instead of $100-150 million. There was that lack of collinear cooperation / collaboration which made me decide to take a different direction. Unlike other fields, it is impossible to make a film without dealing with a pretty large group of people, no matter how many aspects I took on myself. And I’m not even including all the "business" people you have to deal with to get your film to an audience. The industry is run by lawyers, ex-lawyers, and others who care nothing about films or filmmaking. And it is thoroughly ponerized; and controlled to mind boggling extent. There are a lot of CoIntelPro type things going on and countless "desperate characters," clappers, spellbinders, and pathological characters of all types running around creating much heat and very little light.
But now we can overcome this problem in this group, and producing and distributing a film has become much easier, with many new technologies and opportunities for viable business models in the intervening years. Also we don’t have to do it based on a "profit model" at all (free distribution?), since certain types of projects will not take a huge chunk of money to complete. However if a viable profit model can be utilized, it can generate revenue for all sorts of other projects.
Also, I can provide the highest quality publishing services for heavily imaged print projects (utilizing photography). I provide the best quality practices for photo reproduction where the lithography simulation of the photography is so convincing that it actually looks more like a photograph than a lithograph - it has "photographic quality and vibrancy" in the details/nuances. This is important in very high quality, high impact photographs where so much of the impact can be lost in the reproduction. And printing costs are pretty low here, but I don’t know how cost effective a project will be after adding in additional shipping costs, depending on the size and nature of the project.
Anyway I won’t ramble anymore. If there are any projects that we can collaborate on that I can help get off the ground, I would be more than happy to do so. Just a suggestion, of course, you guys might think this is totally from left field.
I am open to any other ideas for creative collaboration.
I thought I might make the following proposal. I have been thinking for quite some time about how best to contribute to this group (including using the best skills/talents I possess, as well as financial ways - which I’m still working on devising) and perhaps in a creative and collaborative way pay back for the great benefits I, as well as so many others, have reaped from the material I was exposed to on these web sites (although I sense I will still be indebted and never fully be able to repay for my edification). I have several abilities that could be useful in collaboration with this group and its members to reach a potentially larger audience, to potentially wake up a larger mass of people. I will list some of these abilities and suggest certain scenarios. I apologize if there’s some technical terminology, I think they’re all self explanatory, but if they’re not I would be happy to give further explanations. Also let me warn that it will be a pretty long post (and may seem rambling) and I apologize ahead of time, but if you read the whole thing, I think you’ll get the gist of what I’m getting at.
My main background is filmmaking. I am very proficient in Directing, Writing Screenplays, Editing, Cinematography, Producing, and generally planning preproduction, production, and postproduction of film projects. (I have done this on my own and my ex-girl friend’s small budget projects only, although a film of mine won an award at a festival - let me state here that it won best film by audience vote, not a professional jury; it was a pretty unconventional film - black and white, and the acting style and style of the film in general was close to German Expressionism [where the internal is externalized to be seen] although not quite as exaggerated as, say, the silent German Expressionist films; and the audience was not a particularly [snobby/pseudo-intellectual] cinephile one, but a pretty broad section of the general population; so this proved to me that you can reach a general audience with a very offbeat film using an unconventional approach). I can do all this for projects originating on film as well as digital video (DV). I should state here that I have not been involved in filmmaking since about 1993-94 (I’ll explain why below). I know how to edit on film, and old analog linear video editing (pretty useless). When I began to learn about digital nonlinear video editing in its early days, I already decided to move on to still photography/graphic arts. But I can learn nonlinear digital editing on one of the top software applications (Apple Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere, Avid, etc.) - I usually learn this type of software pretty quickly and thoroughly. Or I can collaborate with someone who is already proficient. So let me mention here that another ability is traditional photography (shot on film rather than digitally) and digital imaging (high resolution scanning, Photoshop prepping and targeting for offset printing, digital print output, as well as electronic - internet, CD, etc. - output, graphic design/layout, etc.) I am highly proficient in all forms of photography, Photoshop editing (nuts and bolts production work equivalent to traditional darkroom techniques and procedures more than "special effects" or doctoring images) and digital imaging in all its forms, as well (I have done this professionally for many years, and in the last few years won many of the top graphic arts awards).
In the early to mid 90’s, based on some research on different ways of financing and securing distribution, I developed an alternate business model for independent feature films that entailed very small budgets by film industry standards ($100,000 to $400,000) I hoped to use for my own film projects, as well as any new talented filmmakers I hoped to meet. The idea was to be able to finance any high quality film project that would otherwise not be made that could be shot on such a budget range, which is most films (if those involved are talented/skilled enough) that don’t have scenes blowing things up, some really high tech special effects, etc., and big name actors that get paid millions each, as it would be a non-union project for people to work on good films while they are just starting their careers. These projects could be self financed by a very few people (as little as 3 or 4 or even less), even using credit cards as one option. The concept was to give talented unknown actors, crew, etc. that were non-union to begin with (it is very difficult to get into the unions - it's catch 22) opportunities to ply their art and craft, and perhaps be "discovered" (if they wanted to go mainstream). Everyone on the project would get paid (except myself if I was the producer, director, etc.) quite well for non-union independent film standards and additionally be given a small percentage each if the film was distributed and made a profit, which was the goal. Back then I had planned to shoot the projects on super 16mm film which is ideal to blow up to the standard 35mm for theatrical projection since video quality was not up to par. If shot well, there should be no noticeable quality difference from being shot on 35mm (and, excluding the pay of cast and crew, etc., would cost about a quarter of 35mm for film, processing, camera equip., etc). So the production quality of the projects would be of the highest standards (and overall production value much higher than the vast majority of films released). Today, it could be done on DV, especially if it will be released only on DVD, with no quality difference at even less cost, probably a quarter to a third of super 16mm. Also today, many theatrical projections are done by projected DVD or other digital projection system rather than film.
If, for instance, a project was made for $275,000, all distribution rights foreign and domestic could be sold for a high quality completely finished film very easily for $400,000 to $700,000. This would give a profit of a few hundred thousand dollars before the first ticket was sold. This would be a very good deal for a distributor or international sales agent (who would then sell different rights in diff. regions of the world to distributors for a profit). It would be like the distributor getting all rights worldwide for the price of domestic rights only, greatly increasing the chance of getting a distribution deal. While many film projects will never get made, if a completed film is any good at all, a distribution co. will buy the rights and distribute it because all the co. has to do is pay for prints and advertising, where usually all the major and minor studios (who are in the production and distribution business) have to finance the production as well and make their money back after distribution and hope for a profit in a reasonable amount of time. And most of the projects are pretty bad fare and are hit or miss when it comes to profits. That’s why everyone banks on one, or if lucky enough two, "blockbusters" per year to offset losses and make a profit. And if a film does badly at the box office, the chance of it selling well in auxiliary markets (video, network TV, cable, etc.) is pretty low. It’s a really absurd business model and also why the films are so bad, among other reasons.
The "standard" distribution contract is 70% for the producer 30% for the distributor, after the distributor has recouped their expenditures (prints & advertising). If a "small" film were to play in just 300 theaters/screens in the US & Canada (at that time there were something like 27,000 screens), even if it was moderately successful, it would make millions of dollars just on that continent. Just to give some perspective, a "major" film release is 1,500 to 2,500 theaters/screens initially (first couple of weeks). If we do a quick hypothetical scenario with the above example, say 300 theaters/screens total for the whole box office run, times average 45 days each screen, times avg. 40 people at each screening, times avg. 3 screenings per day, times avg. $9 per ticket (the exhibitor/theater owner gets a very small cut of ticket price & makes huge profit margins from popcorn/soda, etc.), we get $14,580,000 box office gross. Take out the distributor’s cost of (P & A) of about $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 for a film this size and we’re left with $4,580,000 to $7,580,000 of which 70% goes to the producers who owned the copyright which leaves them $3,206,000 to $5,306,000 just from the US/Canada box office without the rest of the world markets and without any auxiliary markets being accounted for. This money can finance many other projects (for waking people up).
This is a viable business model today, maybe even more so - shot on DV with a feature length project costing more like $45,000 to $135,000 and a shorter than feature length (less than about 70 min.) film costing much less (not to mention all the new distribution outlets). And we can also think about only web and DVD distribution and be able to do self-distribution; you guys already have the distribution "infrastructure" to do this. Also computer animation can be used, maybe even 3D, instead of using live actors and real locations, etc. - although I, myself don’t know anything about computer animation, I can collaborate with someone who does; I know of someone here (who is the ex-husband of someone I know personally) who’s supposed to be an ace 3D animator for medical applications, I believe; and I personally know a professional nonlinear digital video editor whose part of the same crowd as the woman whose ex-husband is the animator. Anyway, the possibilities are endless.
I rewrote a Screenplay for about a 1 hr. 45 min. film recently. It was originally written in 1994. I did it with this business model in mind. It is even less expensive to produce than I had anticipated then, not only because of the possibility of shooting on DV, but also me being in Armenia instead of America (the best food [free range/organic meat/chicken and vegetables, etc.] and travel/accommodation expenses for cast & crew would be a fraction of the cost [of the garbage that passes for food in US supermarkets for instance]). It is a very interesting story (in my opinion) in the way it’s told as well as the plot and characters. However, I’m not sure if I want to put the time & energy into this project. It had some minor and subtle esoteric themes, some of which were done sort of unconsciously at the time without fully understanding what I was touching on, including the concept of OP’s vs. Adamics but very implicitly, a sort of Spirit of Decay that dominates humanity/the world (STS Overlords-like) which is a character from a book whose author is one of the main characters in the film and comes to "haunt" the main character in "real life" in the movie and the events that unfold, as well as co-linear networking/cooperation, although I didn’t know that term (or any of the others) at the time. But it is a very "low key," gentle, and somewhat indirect introduction to esoteric concepts, so I’m not sure if the "timing" would work - by the time it is finished and released, I think something more pronounced may be needed at this time to wake people up, I’m not sure (maybe I’m anticipating too much when I shouldn’t). I did make a few things more emphasized in the rewrite, but not much - mostly the collinear groups aspect (having learned so much more about this and a few of the other things); mostly I rewrote a character that was to be played by someone (basically playing himself) I had heard about just as I was beginning to write the script and then met shortly after I had started writing his character into the story - and a bit later did a collaborative theater project with him. Well, he turned out to be a psychopath. So basically I rewrote the plot and character (and changed his name) so that he ends up betraying all his friends (there was already an attack and destruction of artwork scene originally, but none of the main characters could prove who they suspected did it). In the new version this character ends up being part of the sabotage - the added "kicker" is that the vandalism and fire were set in the character’s own puppet theater, so it is a self inflicted wound like a false flag operation to throw off suspicion from himself.
So if anyone in the QFS/QFG/SOTT Forum members wants to collaborate on a project that has a chance of reaching a large audience and waking them up, I would love to contribute whatever I can. It doesn’t even have to be explicitly esoteric or even fictionalized - it could be "documentary" in approach (although I have no experience in documentary filmmaking, but filmmaking is filmmaking). Also this idea of collaborating to do a (2D/3D) computer animation instead of live action seems very interesting to me with huge possibilities on a small budget, if there are any computer animators (especially for formats that can be utilized on more than just the internet/computers) in the group. (The Screenplay mentioned above can also be adapted to be animated instead of live action, opening up huge possibilities - making it easier to portray certain things - as well as being rewritten again to emphasize certain issues).
I will now briefly explain why I decided to abandon filmmaking as a career choice. In the early 90’s, I experienced the so-called "independent" film scene, including festivals, film markets, etc. I was pretty disgusted and disillusioned by the whole film industry, and decided I did not want anything to do with these people. There’s no real difference between "the independent scene" and Hollywood (I’m sure you can imagine) except the size of the budgets - $5-10 million instead of $100-150 million. There was that lack of collinear cooperation / collaboration which made me decide to take a different direction. Unlike other fields, it is impossible to make a film without dealing with a pretty large group of people, no matter how many aspects I took on myself. And I’m not even including all the "business" people you have to deal with to get your film to an audience. The industry is run by lawyers, ex-lawyers, and others who care nothing about films or filmmaking. And it is thoroughly ponerized; and controlled to mind boggling extent. There are a lot of CoIntelPro type things going on and countless "desperate characters," clappers, spellbinders, and pathological characters of all types running around creating much heat and very little light.
But now we can overcome this problem in this group, and producing and distributing a film has become much easier, with many new technologies and opportunities for viable business models in the intervening years. Also we don’t have to do it based on a "profit model" at all (free distribution?), since certain types of projects will not take a huge chunk of money to complete. However if a viable profit model can be utilized, it can generate revenue for all sorts of other projects.
Also, I can provide the highest quality publishing services for heavily imaged print projects (utilizing photography). I provide the best quality practices for photo reproduction where the lithography simulation of the photography is so convincing that it actually looks more like a photograph than a lithograph - it has "photographic quality and vibrancy" in the details/nuances. This is important in very high quality, high impact photographs where so much of the impact can be lost in the reproduction. And printing costs are pretty low here, but I don’t know how cost effective a project will be after adding in additional shipping costs, depending on the size and nature of the project.
Anyway I won’t ramble anymore. If there are any projects that we can collaborate on that I can help get off the ground, I would be more than happy to do so. Just a suggestion, of course, you guys might think this is totally from left field.
I am open to any other ideas for creative collaboration.
