9.23.2006
Are we unoriginal?
Katie M. pointed out in a comment recently that there is already a "open, collaborative film project" on the market right now. Well, sort of.
You can check out this website to see what it's all about. I think it smacks more of a marketing ploy. The last update to the website (as far as I could see after registering and digging around) was February. It seems the project must have be having trouble finding distribution (a problem that we have already solved).
Also, the project was purely democratic, but only on minor issues: members were asked questions like, "What breed of dog should "Buddy" be?" and "Who should be cut from the story: Billy, Johnny, or Timmy?" and whatever members voted, the filmmakers followed. Our project is the other way around: instead of the filmmakers deciding what decisions the "people" should be able to make and giving them a few options, this project lets you make direct input and comments every step of the way, and then the filmmakers (or Village Editors) make the final decisions. I think our way is a whole lot more interesting.
There are two other "collaborative film" projects that i'm watching closely. One is called "NOW!" film, and relies on people to send in footage that they shoot themselves to create a worldwide filmic "snapshot". Interesting concept, if you ask me. But not the same as ours by a long shot.
The other is the "XIFilm", which purports to be the first ever film project created entirely online. It looks as though people will be able to participate as Audio/Visual Technicians, or they may donate their computer's "Idle" time to rendering the project, or they may donate man-hours to promote the film. In any case, I don't think this project is even fully thought out yet (I found it through a "back door", not the official site), and its definitely a different kind of project than ours. Also, it's being directed by the guy who made a feature-length documentary-ish film based on "The Purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren. So that's...interesting.
Oh, one more: this Dogberry & Bob project that lets you see the production process and pay some money to become a "producer" of the film. They rely on a centralized website, and there' really no easy way to make comments on anything. But they do let you see a lot of what's going on with the shoot (I couldn't find any videos, which I think will be a plus to our project).
Anyhow, after some more research, I think its fair to say that ours is still the first project of its kind in several ways:
1 - Participants can actually make suggestions and critiques at any point, not just vote on minor issues. Since all the critiques are public, one may make suggestions building off of other suggestions, and so forth.
2 - We're not trying to make any money doing it, not even for the participants. The other projects purport that they will pay their participants in some way for their involvement. Since we plan a free, online release anyway, the reward for working with the project is, well, the project.
3 - We're the only ones using online collaborative software for each step. And, while we're at it, we're the only ones using Google apps.
I hope this clears up any questions or concerns anyone may have had about the originality of the project. Keep your ears and eyes open for any other projects that may start up in the coming months.
You can check out this website to see what it's all about. I think it smacks more of a marketing ploy. The last update to the website (as far as I could see after registering and digging around) was February. It seems the project must have be having trouble finding distribution (a problem that we have already solved).
Also, the project was purely democratic, but only on minor issues: members were asked questions like, "What breed of dog should "Buddy" be?" and "Who should be cut from the story: Billy, Johnny, or Timmy?" and whatever members voted, the filmmakers followed. Our project is the other way around: instead of the filmmakers deciding what decisions the "people" should be able to make and giving them a few options, this project lets you make direct input and comments every step of the way, and then the filmmakers (or Village Editors) make the final decisions. I think our way is a whole lot more interesting.
There are two other "collaborative film" projects that i'm watching closely. One is called "NOW!" film, and relies on people to send in footage that they shoot themselves to create a worldwide filmic "snapshot". Interesting concept, if you ask me. But not the same as ours by a long shot.
The other is the "XIFilm", which purports to be the first ever film project created entirely online. It looks as though people will be able to participate as Audio/Visual Technicians, or they may donate their computer's "Idle" time to rendering the project, or they may donate man-hours to promote the film. In any case, I don't think this project is even fully thought out yet (I found it through a "back door", not the official site), and its definitely a different kind of project than ours. Also, it's being directed by the guy who made a feature-length documentary-ish film based on "The Purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren. So that's...interesting.
Oh, one more: this Dogberry & Bob project that lets you see the production process and pay some money to become a "producer" of the film. They rely on a centralized website, and there' really no easy way to make comments on anything. But they do let you see a lot of what's going on with the shoot (I couldn't find any videos, which I think will be a plus to our project).
Anyhow, after some more research, I think its fair to say that ours is still the first project of its kind in several ways:
1 - Participants can actually make suggestions and critiques at any point, not just vote on minor issues. Since all the critiques are public, one may make suggestions building off of other suggestions, and so forth.
2 - We're not trying to make any money doing it, not even for the participants. The other projects purport that they will pay their participants in some way for their involvement. Since we plan a free, online release anyway, the reward for working with the project is, well, the project.
3 - We're the only ones using online collaborative software for each step. And, while we're at it, we're the only ones using Google apps.
I hope this clears up any questions or concerns anyone may have had about the originality of the project. Keep your ears and eyes open for any other projects that may start up in the coming months.
Logos....well...um...
Today is, if you look at the calendar, the final day for voting on your favorite logo...and it should mean that we'd have an official logo soon. Except for one problem: our graphics people are not ready to move forward with ANY of the options currently available. They listed several problems with each attempt, and so I am going to try to sum up the issues:
1 - Too many reels. Our design people think the Film Reel is not immediately recognizable (most people have never seen one), which detracts from the impact of the logo.
2 - Too much tiny details/texture. Our graphics people say that modern logos are simple, and work well on any medium. Many of the logos submitted rely too heavily on details and textures, which won't translate well in one-color operations such as business cards and t-shirts.
3 - Too cliche / unimaginative. I had to agree when they pointed this out. We all pretty much put people and filmstrips (or reels) together with some text. Not that this is bad, but it just means we haven't really explored enough. Our graphics people feel we should try to incorporate the Internet aspect into the logo -- this project is cutting edge, its Web 2.0, and they feel the logo should reflect that somehow. Or at least we should explore it.
4 - Not enough LOGOS. This was also hard to hear, yet difficult to contest. Few of our logos actually implemented a good font choice for the Project Title with an accompanying logo (like McDonald's and the Golden Arches--the words and logo are separate, but look good together). They think we should definitely try this direction.
5 - Too Big. This sort of ties in with the "texture and detail" one, but it hits on something they wanted to emphasize. Our final logo needs to be able to work as a small printout, not only as a splash screen to a website. Also, our graphics team reminded me that a strong logo will fit into a square--not that it has to be a square, but that it will fit well within one (again, think the McDonald's "M", the General Electric "GE", the Shell Station's, well, Shell).
So thats the logo situation. I hope noone is offended. I personally think this is proof of concept for the last post I made (regarding the Philosophy). Every step of this project is completely open to input and suggestions and critiques, but we rely on the people that "know their stuff" to make final decisions based on the popular input.
Let's think more graphically, more representationally, and more simply. I'm looking forward to new submissions. We're gonna get this down. Send me new submissions at: villagefilm@gmail.com.
1 - Too many reels. Our design people think the Film Reel is not immediately recognizable (most people have never seen one), which detracts from the impact of the logo.
2 - Too much tiny details/texture. Our graphics people say that modern logos are simple, and work well on any medium. Many of the logos submitted rely too heavily on details and textures, which won't translate well in one-color operations such as business cards and t-shirts.
3 - Too cliche / unimaginative. I had to agree when they pointed this out. We all pretty much put people and filmstrips (or reels) together with some text. Not that this is bad, but it just means we haven't really explored enough. Our graphics people feel we should try to incorporate the Internet aspect into the logo -- this project is cutting edge, its Web 2.0, and they feel the logo should reflect that somehow. Or at least we should explore it.
4 - Not enough LOGOS. This was also hard to hear, yet difficult to contest. Few of our logos actually implemented a good font choice for the Project Title with an accompanying logo (like McDonald's and the Golden Arches--the words and logo are separate, but look good together). They think we should definitely try this direction.
5 - Too Big. This sort of ties in with the "texture and detail" one, but it hits on something they wanted to emphasize. Our final logo needs to be able to work as a small printout, not only as a splash screen to a website. Also, our graphics team reminded me that a strong logo will fit into a square--not that it has to be a square, but that it will fit well within one (again, think the McDonald's "M", the General Electric "GE", the Shell Station's, well, Shell).
So thats the logo situation. I hope noone is offended. I personally think this is proof of concept for the last post I made (regarding the Philosophy). Every step of this project is completely open to input and suggestions and critiques, but we rely on the people that "know their stuff" to make final decisions based on the popular input.
Let's think more graphically, more representationally, and more simply. I'm looking forward to new submissions. We're gonna get this down. Send me new submissions at: villagefilm@gmail.com.
9.18.2006
The Village Philosophy
This village of ours is an experiment, to be sure. But it is NOT an experiment in democracy. It is an experiment in filmmaking.
Thoughts on this are comprised by what I like to refer to as: the Village Philosophy.
We will allow anyone to make comments/suggestions/critiques at any point throughout the entire process, regardless of their expertise or level of involvment. We believe that the collaborative efforts of many minds will outshine what any one of us could do on our own.
We recognize that some are gifted in ways that others are not--for example, some are excellent story writers, some are excellent drawers, some are excellent musicians, some are excellent cinematographers, etc. We believe that these people, though they will not be given special treatment, ought to make the important decisions directly related to their expertise, providing that they consider thoroughly and objectively the varied suggestions of the rest of us. We also hope to have at least two "experts" making each major decision along the way, weighing the options and input and arriving at a unanimous conclusion.
We also realize that at some point someone has to make a decision. When no expert is available and the Village Public cannot agree on a direction, or when two or more experts drag on their decision making unnecessarily, it will be up to the VillageFilm Editors to make a final decision.
We also realize the importance of deadlines. Thus, if we miss a deadline as defined in the Village Calendar, we forfeit our right to speak on or contribute to the subject whose deadline we missed. The Calendar, of course, may be updated at the discretion of the Editors, though they probably won't make any deadlines any earlier than they currently stand, since the Editors recognize that would be Mean and Unhelpful.
That's all I have right now. Feel free to suggest, add, comment, rebuke, joke, whatever. As always, your input is the key to this entire project.
In other news:
The Village (side)Bar <-- Check out how helpful THIS is!
The Village Calendar <-- Deadlines are posted!
Thoughts on this are comprised by what I like to refer to as: the Village Philosophy.
We will allow anyone to make comments/suggestions/critiques at any point throughout the entire process, regardless of their expertise or level of involvment. We believe that the collaborative efforts of many minds will outshine what any one of us could do on our own.
We recognize that some are gifted in ways that others are not--for example, some are excellent story writers, some are excellent drawers, some are excellent musicians, some are excellent cinematographers, etc. We believe that these people, though they will not be given special treatment, ought to make the important decisions directly related to their expertise, providing that they consider thoroughly and objectively the varied suggestions of the rest of us. We also hope to have at least two "experts" making each major decision along the way, weighing the options and input and arriving at a unanimous conclusion.
We also realize that at some point someone has to make a decision. When no expert is available and the Village Public cannot agree on a direction, or when two or more experts drag on their decision making unnecessarily, it will be up to the VillageFilm Editors to make a final decision.
We also realize the importance of deadlines. Thus, if we miss a deadline as defined in the Village Calendar, we forfeit our right to speak on or contribute to the subject whose deadline we missed. The Calendar, of course, may be updated at the discretion of the Editors, though they probably won't make any deadlines any earlier than they currently stand, since the Editors recognize that would be Mean and Unhelpful.
That's all I have right now. Feel free to suggest, add, comment, rebuke, joke, whatever. As always, your input is the key to this entire project.
In other news:
The Village (side)Bar <-- Check out how helpful THIS is!
The Village Calendar <-- Deadlines are posted!
