Life In 19x19

Hope I can offer some insight here.

As a video editor, I get paid $250 to $350 per day for freelance projects.
And feature films like these can go up to 8-10k just for editing. Not to mention color grading.

In fact, 30k is hardly enough. These film makers probably don't even make money from it and might even have to pay from their pockets to produce Surrounding Game.

Kirby wrote:And as a result, greater transparency has been achieved through this thread...

It speaks well to Cole and his crew that they have shown greater openness as a result of this thread.

I wouldn't get too excited about this small victory in the name of transparency. Yes, Cole was shamed, in a sense, into explaining in considerable detail the process he and his team have been going through. I'm sure his conscience feels lighter for it, but the general readership of this forum should understand that it was an extraordinary courtesy that is atypical for film production. I wouldn't go around expecting all such future projects to yield similarly.

And the biggest reason is because it is impractical to do so. Unless the producers are going to take time out of hideously busy schedules to update some sort of production blog on a regular basis, just for the benefit of investors and other online lookeeloos, you aren't likely to hear squat about the production in any detail. For one thing, circumstances change too rapidly and frequently, and keeping everyone not directly involved in production updated is simply not feasible. Nor is the culture of film production likely to change much in this regard just because online funding efforts are more publicly exposed than usual.

Take a look at almost any past small-time, independent film project that started out with a semi-regularly updated blog. It usually didn't take long before updates slowed to a crawl and then the blog fell to more or less complete silence. It's not that filmmakers are irresponsible and have no regard for the concerns of investors. It's that the chaos of production leaves no time for giving everyone tickertape updates of every little thing that has a financial impact.

There's a reason why indie filmmakers are discouraged from seeking funds from individuals (especially friends and relatives) and the general public. I am willing to bet that most who take the Kickstarter route once never return to it again.

zslane wrote:...
I wouldn't get too excited about this small victory in the name of transparency. ....

While I'm hesitant to say that I agree with your entire post, what you've said doesn't strike me as being in significant conflict to what I've said. I do think that a good thing happened in this thread, and I'm happy with leaving it at that.

zslane wrote:[..]the general readership of this forum should understand that it was an extraordinary courtesy that is atypical for film production. I wouldn't go around expecting all such future projects to yield similarly.

And the biggest reason is because it is impractical to do so. [..]

I think this is a ridiculous and pretentious attitude. It isn't that hard to keep track of receipts or keep a general log of the major issues. Lots of busy projects manage to do so. You should be doing so anyways to keep track of your budget and project management. Filmaking isn't the only kind of project where things get hectic.

PaperTiger wrote:...

I think this is a ridiculous and pretentious attitude. It isn't that hard to keep track of receipts or keep a general log of the major issues. Lots of busy projects manage to do so. You should be doing so anyways to keep track of your budget and project management. Filmaking isn't the only kind of project where things get hectic.

I can see where you're coming from, and I can't say that I disagree. However, to me, when it comes down to it, without laws on the matter, people are going to do what they want. Some people might be interested in scamming others, and they might be able to legally do so. They might get away with it on Kickstarter projects, for example.

But being open about what you're doing is not only a courtesy, but it helps yourself (as the project owner). In doing so, you establish credibility with the people that are funding you. Of course, people that do these projects have the option of not trying to establish credibility in that way. But it's truly to their benefit, because the contributors can feel like they're a part of the project, and can trust and believe in what they're doing.

Case in point: when this project was first advertised, I didn't donate any money. But after seeing how the team reacted to the constructive criticism in this thread, they established credibility in my eyes and I, too, became one of their financial supporters. Without their being open, I would almost certainly not have participated.

The people doing this project are not "obligated" to be open about their finances and what they are doing. But when they are, they not only benefit those that support them, but they benefit themselves.

Hey everyone,

Wanted to follow up on the thread postings from last week. As promised by the end of the week, last night we made a massive Kickstarter update with more info about budget, expenses, and scope of the project. I hope it's helpful and I encourage you to take a look.

You're right that it's very difficult to be completely open and 100% engaged with the community because a lot of the things we do require an immense amount of time and some level of technical and professional know-how, so it can be very time-consuming to explain everything in terms that the general public can understand. At the risk of losing specifics, it's much easier and more powerful to speak in terms of the potential impact and the general stage of the project, and most Go community members intuitively understand these sort of ideas and challenges faced in trying to promote a Go-based film to the public.

We of course welcome professional and non-professional opinions (and reserve the right to make decisions that we think are best). If our motivations and progress ever feel vague or unavailable for everyone to see, please, ASK US about it! It can be hard to lift the blinders when much of one's time is dedicated to working on something big.

Lastly, I want to make a huge and shameless plug for the collaborative go game on our site http://www.surroundinggamemovie.com. Each day, we add a move based on the votes of everyone who goes to the page and clicks on the board to vote. To our knowledge, it's the first time a game like this has been 'crowdsourced', and it's going to be really cool, with commentary by strong players provided every ten or twenty moves.

Cole

There was also hivego.info, but I don't think anyone has played there since last spring.

cdpruitt wrote:Wanted to follow up on the thread postings from last week. As promised by the end of the week, last night we made a massive Kickstarter update with more info about budget, expenses, and scope of the project. I hope it's helpful and I encourage you to take a look.

Thank you, I noticed it and was glad that you had taken our concerns on board and addressed the issue in a positive way.

cdpruitt wrote:...To our knowledge, it's the first time a game like this has been 'crowdsourced', and it's going to be really cool, with commentary by strong players provided every ten or twenty moves.

Cole

I think there have sometimes been games in similar format. For example, I believe it was on the old godiscussions.com that someone had the idea for a forum-wide game. I think also on IGS, they had some sort of games where people would vote on moves, but that was against a single pro player, I think.

I don't recall a situation where a game was played in exactly the same format as this one, though.

In any case, it's pretty cool!

cdpruitt wrote:... collaborative go game on our site http://www.surroundinggamemovie.com.
... and clicks on the board to vote.

This is a truly wonderful and super-duper-clever idea!
There is one thing I would like you to repair, though:
I accidently clicked on N8 and was welcomed for my vote

I would like to have the opportunity to confirm my
vote. Something like that:

system wrote:Oh Rainer, that was quite a funny move: N8.
Are you sure you want to do this bloody move?
YES / NO

or maybe a bit less sarcastic:

system wrote:Thank you for voting. Please confirm N8:
OK / CANCEL

Cool and funny as N8 looks, I vote for 11 = C14, though.

Cheers,
Rainer
(GoChild GoRo with 1662481 points)

PaperTiger wrote:

zslane wrote:[..]the general readership of this forum should understand that it was an extraordinary courtesy that is atypical for film production. I wouldn't go around expecting all such future projects to yield similarly.

And the biggest reason is because it is impractical to do so. [..]

I think this is a ridiculous and pretentious attitude. It isn't that hard to keep track of receipts or keep a general log of the major issues. Lots of busy projects manage to do so. You should be doing so anyways to keep track of your budget and project management. Filmaking isn't the only kind of project where things get hectic.

I'm sorry, but unless you have substantial experience in professional film production, and fully understand its particular brand of insanity, you really aren't in a position to assess what is ridiculous or pretentious. I know you won't believe me, any more than I can convince a blind man how beautiful a sunset is. All I can do is point out the reality of it and suggest that folks not bring a layman's notion of "common sense" to their expectations, because they will be disappointed, frustrated, and bewildered if they do.

I doubt there has been a single film of any real substance that didn't encounter dozens of unpredictable obstacles, emergencies, mistakes, and opportunities for which the best--if not only--solution was the (unplanned) expenditure of money. There is a reason that every production budget has a line item labelled "Contingency", and a reason why it is never itemized. If you ever get the opportunity to work on a professional film or documentary in a production capacity, you will find out all about it first hand. Believe me, you will never be the same afterwards.

GoRo wrote:

cdpruitt wrote:... collaborative go game on our site http://www.surroundinggamemovie.com.
... and clicks on the board to vote.

This is a truly wonderful and super-duper-clever idea!

I second this!

Well it would also be naive to think that other projects aren't chaotic and that setting aside contingency is somehow unique to film making. Some people seem to be boxing at shadows in this conversation.

Originally the question was "why do you need more money?" Cole came along and answered that question to most people's satisfaction quite awhile ago.

After that, the conversation shifted to "ok, how can we help you raise the money you're asking for?" This involved a lot of suggestions, like how to make the project look more professional and credible, because this will help them to raise more money!

So what's with all the motherhood statements and claims that they don't need to do any of that stuff and that we're a bunch of pedants? Sure they don't have to do it, but do you want them to be successful in raising more money or not?

Cole, you're doing a great job. Thank you.