Does this sound interesting or worthwhile?

D

dallas42

New member
I'm a relatively inexperienced filmmaker, but I have an idea that I would like to get some feedback on. One of my close friends is a singer/songwriter musician (think John Mayer, Matchbox 20, Dave Matthews, Howie Day, etc.), and after looking through his 30 some songs, I came up with an "original" idea. I say original because I don't know of anything similar to this, but I could just be ignorant. My idea is to take 16-20 of his songs and create a music video feature film ("a musical for the 21st Century MTV audience"). The story (for which I have already written a story treatment or outline for) would be based around his romantic adventures with two women and would be set in the senior year of high school. It would feature my friend as the protagonist (and antagonist since the conflict is an internal one), and would feature a mix between music video style and traditional narrative film style (visually), similar to the way musicals are shot.

I'll get into more details if people want them, but my main question is whether this is a good and workable idea. Thanks
 
I like the idea! It sounds very different than the usual indie fare—quite refreshing. It also sounds like it might be a challanging and costly project to pull off effectively. Good luck, I hope you persue it!
 
Good and Evil

Good and Evil

Could be great...I certainly think it is great that you have a new idea. We need more new ideas. Make it happen. having a great idea is the first part. Now you need to do the foot work so to speak. I like it.


Kim
 
Sounds like an interesting idea... but I wanted to just get a bit of clarification...

When you say musical, are you talking about Sound of Music, Newsies, and other films of the Musical Genre... or are you talking music video films... like "The Wall" and "Yellow Submarine" etc.?

Sounds like lots of fun either way.
 
any idea is workable....you have to make it work.

when u put an idea forward to people, so will like it, some won't and some will think it is crap....irrespective of that IF YOU THINK THE IDEA IS WORTH A SHOT, THEN GIVE IT A SHOT..... there are no rules to follow....

Best of Luck with your project....cheerio
amit
 
I agree. Most of the films that we now consider to be great were at some point dismissed by the so called "experts", (this is true of art in general). Go with your gut. It may work, it may not. You'll never know until you try.

The only thing I would suggest is to DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Too many potentially good films have been doomed from the beginning because the "filmmakers" never bothered to learn their craft. Having a digital camera doesn't make someone a filmmaker any more than having a power saw makes them a carpenter!

Of course these are general comments, I have no idea of your personal skill level. I'm in no way implying that you don't know what you're doing.

-Brad Hoover
Educational Director,
Blue Ridge Motion Pictures
 
Thanks for the feedback. As far as the concept is concerned, it's a blend of the old-style musical (in which music was essential to the film), and yet choreographed and visually represented as a typical soft rock/accoustic music video. There are two main distinctions as far as the film is concerned, there will be two type of scenes/sequences: "video scenes" which are pretty much music videos in style and "inter-video" scenes which contain the dialogue and progress the story. The way the film is sequenced, the lyrics also advance the story because the guy who wrote the songs was going through a lot of stuff (I just split his gf into two girls, a snobby rich girl, and a sweet, innocent girl). During the "inter-video" scenes, the feel will be that of a typical romantic drama, but during the video scenes, the feel will be very similar to a John Mayer or Matchbox 20 video. Most of the shooting will be on location (there will be some greenscreen/bluescreen shots), I am going to shoot with a DVX-100A or an XL2, and if I can raise enough money, I will use the Andromeda (http://www.reel-stream.com/products.php) and a mini-35 adapter to give me full use of the camera (depth of field, color richness, etc).

As for my personal experience, I've been using a digital camcorder for 5 years now, but mostly for pleasure. My editing skills are creative, but it will take me a little while to adjust from using a $20 editor to something like FCP. I have hooked up with a DP and possibly an Art Director here at my college (Virginia Commonwealth), and I hope to assemble about 15-20 people to help me through this entire endeavor. If anyone's willing to give their two cents of advice, I'd gladly listen.

Thanx
 
In your first post, I was unsure but the way that you clarified it in the second post, it sounds great and refreshing.
 
If you can't get all those adapters/modifiers for cheap then you might as well just shoot on 16mm or something - at least that way you learn about actual film and it's not as hard/complicated as it might seem - the only way to really learn is to just jump in.
 
Perhaps, but I really like digital, and I'm not too enamored with film (especially with the advances being made for digital). As for money, I'm going all out with this in the hopes of getting distribution (mainly the video market and perhaps MTV or VH1). I'm in the process of hiring an entertainment lawyer and forming an LLC. Then I'll try to raise about 20-30k for Development, after which I'll look into raising about 150-200k for the whole Production (and marketing). It may sound crazy, but I feel that this is truly fresh and unique (considering all the music will be from one artist), and as such, I want to put as much into as I can. Personally, I don't think money will be an issue, the biggest issue will be keeping everyone on task and focused.
 
If you really want to shoot for any sort of bigger distribution you'll have to shoot in HD or film I believe. Good luck man.
 
With the andromeda and mini-35 adapters, that isn't necessary. The andromeda is an attachment that allows you to capture the full uncompressed video signal from the CCDs before it loses 75% of its color. It essentially replicates HD for the price of an additional camera. And by using a mini-35 adapter, you can replicate the depth of field and film look of 16 and 35mm cameras. With this in mind, I can market towards a cable and video release, and if someone wants to distribute it in theatres, I can stick them with the transfer cost. Of course, going this route is going to require extensive hard drive space (and portable at that), but I think it's worth it in place of shooting with 35mm and the price of stock for a 100-110 min film.
 
Sounds like an awsome film... I'm really interested in seeing it happen!

As for the earlier comment about big distribution & HD or film... NOT TRUE.

Just look at 21 grams & 28 day's later, and most television...
21 grams was shot on DV
28 day's later DV on the Cannon XL

lots of television is still shot in betacam... some in DV... and others in DVCPRO, DIGIBETA, HD, etc... there's no medium restriction for big distribution... it's just content... you have to be able to sell your content to an audience.

Anyhow... good luck... I really hope it all goes well for you!
 
Right I wasn't being absolute about it, but it certainly lowers the overall chances you're looking at... 21 grams and 28 days later were both shot with a big huge budget and all kinds of things to make DV looks super nice - - you've just got to be able to match that kind of production value - I'm not putting your idea down, I'm just hoping to keep you in reality check.
 
21 Grams was not shot on DV. It was shot with a Moviecam SL and Zeiss Ultra Primes. They used Kodak Vision 250D 5246, 500T 5279, and 800T 5289.
There are ultimately very few features shot on DV that actually make it. Blair Witch Project? For me at least though, until I fully get the hang of this 'film thing' i would definetely be weary of spending 30k to shoot on 35mm or whatever. As for your whole marketing plan, I really don't think that you should be thinking about that. Its like thinking of winning an oscar before you've shot the film. Its more fun to go at it guerrila style anyway. I used to think funding was the only way to get anything done in the film industry (sadly), but the fact is, is that funding maybe nice, but it just makes you more creative when you don't have that 12000w hmi you wanted, or you don't have that 90k camera you had to have. Just work with what you have.
 
Mr. Eastham, please check your facts. "21 Grams" WAS NOT shot on DV. It was shot by Rodrigo Prieto ASC on 35mm FILM using an Arricam SL with Zeiss Ultra Prime Lenses. The stocks were Kodak Vision 5346, 5279 and 5289. A bleach bypass process was used during developing. (American Cinematographer, Dec. 2003)

To my knowledge there have been only two films shot on DV that have achieved major theatrical distribution. One was indeed "28 Days Later". The other was last year's "Open Water". "28 Days Later" was excellent. I have not seen "Open Water".

To say that most television is shot on video is extremely misleading. The truth is that the vast majority of network episodic television shows (excluding soaps), are shot on 35mm film, as are most national commercials. It is true that a good deal of cable programming is shot on video as are most news and reality shows.

Brad Hoover
Educational Director,
Blue Ridge Motion Pictures
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bayramjazz
How does November sound?
Replies
0
Views
1,085
bayramjazz
bayramjazz
Y
How does this hypothesis for a movie sound?
Replies
3
Views
2,280
Tylerb
Tylerb
Maura N.
How Much Does DaVinci Resolve Cost?
Replies
0
Views
169
Maura N.
Maura N.
Maura N.
What does it mean to be a “Filmmaker”?
Replies
0
Views
581
Maura N.
Maura N.
Maura N.
What does the F in VFX stand for?
Replies
0
Views
553
Maura N.
Maura N.

Network Sponsors

Back
Top