Jump to content

Proof of concept


Recommended Posts

This is incredibly subjective. For a feature? For a short? Genre?

 In general I would wager the goal is to shoot just enough to get across the style and concepts behind the production, prove that the vision can be accomplished and works well on film, all the while spending as little money as possible.  
 

also often used to prove a technical problem has been solved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm about to shoot a proof of concept TV series pilot episode in a couple of months. 

It's going to be a full 15 minute episode to show the story but I haven't seen any difference in pre production.

I'm also considering shooting a short proof of concept for the feature I wrote that I'm talking to with a producer. 

But I haven't figured out a way to do it yet. 

I think that I would do it like if it was a proof of concept for a feature, I would create a short and if it was a short I'd shoot a shorter short.

It definitely a dilemma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These things are a massive double edged sword.  If they are VERY GOOD, it can propel your project forward.  If they are not VERY GOOD it will have the opposite effect and sink you.  The problem everyone faces is, how do we make it VERY GOOD on a shoe string budget?

Problem 2....if it is VERY GOOD, you might sign a deal to move it forward with a major player like a LA studio, there it will languish in development hell for 10 years, and then you'll be thinking...we should of just made it ourselves.

R,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to agree.  I think it's only worth it if you have someone important whom you've already established contact with and is considering your project but that wants to see something.  If you're making it to shop around, goooood luck getting anyone to even care enough to watch it.

On the other hand, getting your script properly packaged by a development company for hire like Buffalo8 will cost the same as a trailer or short and they'll get you pitch meetings on top of it.  Personally, if I had the cash, I'd go with them and forgo trying to make a teaser.

There are never any guarantees but I agree with Richard that unless you  have access to amazing resources and great talent, you're likely to make a product that does the opposite of what you intend.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again, it was the crude proof of concept that got South Park going.  So as they say in Hollywood, nobody knows anything.

R,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made teaser trailer for a movie pitch some years ago - it was a ton of work and although we got some meetings the film sat in development hell for ages and never happened.

I don't think I'd do it again because a lot of effort when into a trailer that I could only show to a few people and it only "sells" that script, rather then my ability as a director - since its not a satisfying watch because it doesn't really tell a story, just cool shots.

I think the effort and time would have been better spend on a short film - that potentially could go into festivals, win things (maybe) or just be viewed by the public - showing my directing (skillz) in a better way because people can see a complete story with a beginning middle and end. 

These days you need to have an indie feature under your belt to be taken seriously by the bigger film funders. So I think its better to scrape the money together and make a micro budget feature to prove you can make a feature. A trailer proves nothing - I found this to my cost - people liked my trailer and they liked the script (I didn't write it) so because I had no feature track record, there was a strong push by any interested parties to hire a more experienced director. If your not a writer/director you have less leverage to stay on the project. The closet it got to being made was when I left the project and the writer continued to pitch it alone (I was a liability) 

Better to just make stand alone work that stands up on its own as a complete film, that proves you can make an actual film and then a good script will be your best asset.

Unless your crowd funding, having a trailer for that is a good asset it helps those sort of investors see what your planning. Some of the successful crowd funds: Blue Ruin, Little Miss Sumo, Kung Fury, Slice of Life etc... worked because they had compelling visuals.

I'm now focusing on the micro budget indie feature approach, rather then waisting years pitching a script to UK financiers that are only realistically going to commission Phoebe Waller Bridge or Danny Boyle. 

I am hoping I don't have to resort to crowd funding next time round. But  If it came to a Hail Mary kickstarter as the only way to financed it the the script,  I'd look at filming a sequence that could work as a stand alone film and a trailer. So if the feature never gets made, I have a short film that can go out to festivals, list on IMDB etc... can't do that with a more conventional trailer. 

But its something I'm hoping to avoid. I have a short in post at the moment thats I'm hoping is good enough to at least help the financing of the feature idea. I think at least it would work better then a trailer.

I've also found on low budgets its easier to get high calibre cast for a low budget short then it is for a feature trailer. I was lucky with my casting, because they responded to the script. 

I doubt they would have signed up for a feature trailer without some commitment to be eventually cast in the feature which would be problematic from a finance POV. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard Boddington said:

Then again, it was the crude proof of concept that got South Park going.  So as they say in Hollywood, nobody knows anything.

R,

 

The South Park video worked because it wasn't a proof of concept - it wasn't a pitch for TV series it was a self contained short film that worked on its own. And good enough to get people interested in the idea of a TV series - but I'm not sure it was on Matt and Trey's radar when they made it or it would have been more commercial 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

‘The Duck’ is a “proof of concept” film which I produced and directed in 1998. Our work on ‘Space Jam’ was just finished and I came up with an idea about a real duck that turns into a cartoon and decides to become a super hero, rivalling and competing with existing super heroes. We projected this film at all the major studios as part of a pitch the idea and came very close to making it. But alas, it all collapsed in the end and the film was never made. The animated woman is a blatant “homage” to Jessica Rabbit but I hope that 22 years on, I am forgiven.

Looking at it on its own today, it is way too long. It was part of a pitch performance and as a stand-alone doesn't tell the story. We were young and had a lot of fun doing it though. And I got a lot of commercials work out of it.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2020 at 8:24 PM, Shawn Sagady said:

This is incredibly subjective. For a feature? For a short? Genre?

 In general I would wager the goal is to shoot just enough to get across the style and concepts behind the production, prove that the vision can be accomplished and works well on film, all the while spending as little money as possible.  
 

also often used to prove a technical problem has been solved. 

I was thinking for a feature film. But am not picky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

‘The Duck’ is a “proof of concept” film which I produced and directed in 1998. Our work on ‘Space Jam’ was just finished and I came up with an idea about a real duck that turns into a cartoon and decides to become a super hero, rivalling and competing with existing super heroes. We projected this film at all the major studios as part of a pitch the idea and came very close to making it. But alas, it all collapsed in the end and the film was never made. The animated woman is a blatant “homage” to Jessica Rabbit but I hope that 22 years on, I am forgiven.

Looking at it on its own today, it is way too long. It was part of a pitch performance and as a stand-alone doesn't tell the story. We were young and had a lot of fun doing it though. And I got a lot of commercials work out of it.
 

Fascinating Uli, you put a hell of a lot of work into that. Tell us more, how was it financed? Length of time from start to finish? Was there a completed script?

R,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice job Uli! 

I work in animation/VFX and have contributed to a number of pitch pieces. These days a lot of pitches are done as Previs, or rather "PitchViz" which can be a combination of low-rez previs and animatics or anything to tell the story. 

Often times, a VFX house will be asked to do a VFX test. This was the case with the first Iron Man; a lot of companies were asked to come up with a sequence and would be awarded work based on that, sadly it was entirely on each company's dime, if I'm not mistaken. This was a piece that I previs'd, then was anim supe on. It's a little rough around the edges but the director liked it and actually worked it into the story. Later we did the finished VFX, but of course the margins are low and the company went out of business in 2009. Our editor put it up online (just standard resolution):

 

 

Edited by Webster C
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 3/17/2020 at 4:50 PM, Richard Boddington said:

Fascinating Uli, you put a hell of a lot of work into that. Tell us more, how was it financed? Length of time from start to finish? Was there a completed script?

R,

 

Hi Richard,

I had hoped that there would be a follow up project with Warners after we finished on 'Space Jam'. I kept the crew on to make The Duck proof of concept film, tying the animation crew over and hoping that we would move onto something else, giving me time to pitch the idea. Instead Warners set up their own animation studio in London, made one film and closed down again. When The Duck was finished, we had spent pretty much all the money we made on Space Jam. It was a gamble and didn't work out but I don't regret it. I won't tell you how much it cost because you'd think I'm crazy. The Live Action shoot lasted four days in the White City warehouse, one day in the City of London, one day at the Battersea power station and two days in New York. I worked with a crew that I used on commercials and they were happy to work for lesser rates. The animation took several months to complete. When we pitched the film, we had a great script, designs, maquettes, the whole shebang. We received excited responses everywhere and I was sure the project would move further. I was very young and naive and insisted on directing both the Live Action and the animation. At one of the studios a trio of executives worked on the basis that a project would go further if they voted for it unanimously. They told me at the time that two of them were in favor. Close but not close enough.

Sinking a lot of money into a proof of concept film is a very big gamble. If you have a bit of cash available, today I would make a low budget feature instead, with no effects or animation. Something that can be completed.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

Sinking a lot of money into a proof of concept film is a very big gamble. If you have a bit of cash available, today I would make a low budget feature instead, with no effects or animation. Something that can be completed.

 

Great story, and good for you.

Unfortunately you broke the number 1 rule of producing....never use your own money. ?

R,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

Yeah, and I keep doing it...?

Yep, we've all done it, I had to self finance my first low budget feature.  And I keep spending my own money on development costs. I see that as an investment in my career, I would never do it for another filmmakers project.  

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

So, we're now looking at a situation which will at the very least provoke a very severe recession, and very possibly a global depression at least as severe as the great depression of the 1930s. Based on that model it could last for a decade, unemployment may approach 33%, and people of my age (I'm 41) may never really work in a healthy economy again.

Almost everyone I know is in the creative industries and these will be the first jobs to go and the last to be reinstated.

Who's going to put down money on a mere movie at this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Phil Rhodes said:

So, we're now looking at a situation which will at the very least provoke a very severe recession, and very possibly a global depression at least as severe as the great depression of the 1930s. Based on that model it could last for a decade, unemployment may approach 33%, and people of my age (I'm 41) may never really work in a healthy economy again.

Almost everyone I know is in the creative industries and these will be the first jobs to go and the last to be reinstated.

Who's going to put down money on a mere movie at this point?

Depressing point, but the thing is everyone in lock down right now is consuming media. There is plenty of demand for entertainment, it's not as important as food, shelter, medicine etc.. but art in its various forms is important for a lot of peoples sanity.  Expensive movies are a problem - there will be less Marvel $200million efforts. But hopefully some interesting films will still get made...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There's a demand for a lot of things; very few of those demands will be filled. Even if nobody else ever catches the disease as of right now, we're probably looking at the most severe economic downturn that there has ever been in human history. It will affect standards of living and it will make life a lot less fun, and there is absolutely nothing whatsoever we can do about it.

Right now, I'm not even sure I want to survive the pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
3 minutes ago, Phil Rhodes said:

There's a demand for a lot of things; very few of those demands will be filled. Even if nobody else ever catches the disease as of right now, we're probably looking at the most severe economic downturn that there has ever been in human history. It will affect standards of living and it will make life a lot less fun, and there is absolutely nothing whatsoever we can do about it.

Right now, I'm not even sure I want to survive the pandemic.

It is a spectacularly good time to be a pessimist. 

On the bright side though, there are dolphins swimming in Venice canals, air pollution is dropping to record lows, and there are random acts of kindness happening all over the place. The world is definitely going to change in ways we don’t yet understand or perhaps appreciate, but I wouldn’t give up all hope just because of what economists predict.

I keep thinking of that phrase “stop the world I want to get off”..
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

Who's going to put down money on a mere movie at this point?

I'm still planning on shooting in Sept, which was the start date all along, and nothing has changed.

Phil, this will all be over in two months, once the warm weather hits and flu season ends, the media will start to run out of fuel to feed the hysteria they are creating.  If I never watched the news I would have no idea there is even an issue.  Everything is open here, the stores are packed to the rafters with food, there is no panic anywhere that I can see.  No lines for gas, in fact gas is hitting record lows, and that gives everyone a raise in Canada, as we all drive here, like the USA.

The one industry thriving right now is "TV".  No one is cutting their cable now, everyone wants cable to monitor the news, and when they are bored they need something to watch.  I would bet cable TV consumption is hitting record highs right now.

They already beat this in China, so I'm not sure why you think the same won't happen in the rest of the world?

R,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dom Jaeger said:

but I wouldn’t give up all hope just because of what economists predict.

Right, after the 1918 pandemic, 50 million dead, the world entered a massive economic expansion, the Roaring 20s.

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Richard Boddington said:

Right, after the 1918 pandemic, 50 million dead, the world entered a massive economic expansion, the Roaring 20s.

R,

There was pretty severe economic hardship in the short term, but yes, the world economy quickly recovered. I think because so many young people died there was a labour shortage so employment bounced back and wages quickly rose. 

But Richard, I would urge you not to dismiss the seriousness of this pandemic. Even Donald Trump has finally had to face the fact that this is a real crisis unprecedented in our lifetime. It’s not a media invention, governments and health experts globally are the ones issuing warnings and shutting things down. A cavalier attitude is what causes mass outbreaks and exponentially more deaths. We don’t need to panic or wallow in gloom (or hoard toilet paper) but equally we should heed the advice of health officials and modify our behaviour to reduce the spread of this virus. It’s definitely not the time for peddling conspiracy theories.

There is certainly a demand for distraction, but whether that translates into more content production soon is something we’ll have to wait and see. Currently every production we were servicing is cancelled or postponed indefinitely, and I can’t see things returning to normal for several months at least. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...