[qzar9999]

Originally Posted by vincent_richter

I'm going to take this time to echo what I take to be the sentiments of LK here, in a number of points raised by Blackbat: you may be making a huge mistake partnering with this director (at least from a potential revenue standpoint). I call bullshit on every single one of his points, simply because it resonates with his product to demonstrate a severe lack of discipline.

Time. You MUST have storyboards before even THINKING about booking models. Anyone who figures they'll just freeform behind the camera - especially when they're being paid to produce pay-content - needs to back. The fuck. OFF. This isn't fucking cinema school; this is a for-profit business. Keep this artsy-fartsy "it'll work after I try it a couple times" bullshit out of the equation. You're not fucking Shyamalan, and that really only worked for a couple flicks; furthermore, when you ARE doing this very thing, the issue of "not having enough time" rings hollow.

Money. Buy a camera. Even a shitty one. Even from Craigslist. If you're losing a substantial portion of your budget to hardware loans, alarm bells should be going off like mad. Again, storyboards dictate timelines better than "as fast as we can do it, in one take" ever could - with the upshot that you have a battle plan going into the project.

Also, care to wager a guess how much Paranormal Activity cost?
15. Grand.
The exact total being requested here, and that's an estimate INCLUDING existing technology.
350k buyout to $150 million under Paramount's ownership.
Recurring returns of TWENTY TIMES OR MORE the investment in each "shitty" sequel.

Shoot with a plan or go home.

Space. I can buy the lack of a sound stage. The question here is whether the current technology is being used to its fullest potential, and it seems like the green-screen chroma-keying errors haven't gone away from recent buyer reviews. Mocap? Huge computers? For the love of Christ, get a Kinect and a cheap-ass laptop. $500, tops, going through third parties.

My point is this: I cannot comment on this effort from a directorial perspective. I can only interject good business sense into the idea, as it seems - Qzar - that you're being pushed into a business venture that could be infinitely more lucrative were the principal more concerned with the end product than immediate financial gain.

You could get so much more out of a couple G's with the right cinematic eye, than you ever could throwing money at someone who seems to deliver hit after hit of identical "masterpieces"; I suspect that - from LK's perspective - he's just largely concerned that encouraging your principal will only waste your potential at best, your financial future at worst.

I see where you're coming from, I do. I also tend to see Dave's point that it's a little hard to come up with the time to storyboard when he already has a day job and has to do 100% of the work, from booking the models on through post-production, but I do see your point.

He actually already has a Kinect that he uses for mocap, but it turns out it works a lot better with more than one camera...

And the lack of space really is a serious issue, whether or not he's currently living up to the full possibilities.

I can understand that this could be seen as a waste of my time, effort, money, whatever. Let me assure you, though, that I wasn't nudged into it, the fundraiser was actually my idea; it was the only thing I could think of that could possibly get the money he outlined for the upgrades. More to the point, I'm not actually doing this for money. I'm doing it because I want to be able to present a better product. I make money off my existing clips--maybe not a lot, but it's a nice supplemental income. And I'm not squandering any of my potential, as you say, because I lack the resources and knowledge to be making -any- videos on my own, so...

Originally Posted by LK

What the hell, man? I never wrote he has NOT EVER IMPROVED, his model selection has gotten a lot better, and I'm sure there's been some polish on his work. The underlying point is that he hasn't improved all the much, and has fallen severely behind current technology standards, I explained in detail on this. His style of film-making also leaves a lot to be desired, and that has seen extremely little improvement over the years.

Details MATTER. There's a world of difference between what I wrote and what you thought I wrote and are parroting back.

Jesus Christ. No, you never wrote those exact words; it was a quick summary of the general attitude of your statement. I have an unfortunate tendency at times to oversimplify things when I summarize them. That said, there's not really a "world of difference" between "He never improves" and "He has shown little significant improvement over a decade and consistently lags behind other content producers." Roughly the same sentiment.

Originally Posted by LK

I can't explain to you all the problems with Dave's approach and planning. I can't. It's like explaining how Reality A works to someone who has spent their entire life in Reality B. Nothing about what he's written is realistic or sound business. It's insanity.

I don't believe Dave knows what he's talking about. I'm sorry. I've worked enough with experts in the different disciplines to smell bullshit, and it's coming off in volumes here.

Dave *isn't that talented.* New tech isn't going to fix *him*. I realize that you're going to grip on harder and harder to your position the more I attack it. I don't know how to put "colossal waste of resources" politely.

We have a difference of opinion here. "Do you think a bigger better studio, better green screen, professional lighting, support staff, better software, etc. are going to improve the quality of Dave's videos?" You say no, I say yes. That's it. Rather extreme to compare it to living in two different realities, don't you think?

You're basing your opinion on your experience with him (admittedly a bad one). I'm basing mine on my experience with him. Is your experience somehow more valid or more real than mine?

Originally Posted by LOD

We should just calm down and not go back and forth on this. Trading insults is something that we are all better than. Lorekeep, you as much as anyone can admit that people can change, better themselves. I'm not saying that this is garunteed to happen here with this exact director, but he's got a specific plan in place in order to upgrade the quality of his production. I believe i read "hire staff" in that plan, maybe an sfx expert?

Also, when was the exact time that you made that investment lore? Are you talking about those early process productions shrink and growth clips from the turn of the century, or was there another video investment you made after you scraped plans to continue any future video productions and stick to comics?

Personally, I think that this is a time that Xil needs to prove he is ready for a permanent improvement. He cannot release any more videos with stunning visual errors, he has to take quality serious and show lorekeep that he is wrong if he wants this to go favorably. I have indeed seen some of these errors, they are even blantant in his preview clips like that recent fmg video. I wish you noth luck on this, and look forward to a great outcome and better quality videos for your studio.

See, that's exactly how I feel about it. I'd like to at least give him the chance to make the permanent improvement. He says he's tired of releasing low-quality stuff; here's his chance to prove it.

So let me ask all the naysayers: if Dave could, say, produce a demo reel of better-quality stuff that indicates what he hopes to do with this upgrade, and it was good, would that be enough to convince some of you? Or at least get you to stop knocking what we're trying to do?