Fan Film Creation and Critique

[martok2112]

Hell, I have high hopes for how my projects come across, but I also accept that I have limitations on what I can do. I'm sure that when I get iClone 6 PRO, 3DExchange 6 PRO, Hit Film 3, and the latest versions of Magix Movie Maker and Blender that I'll be able to punch up the appearance of my projects, but I wouldn't tout them as looking even remotely close to those of more talented CG artists let alone looking like a multimillion dollar epic. That's ambitious but unrealistic. All I can hope for is that my projects are accepted on whatever merits the viewer can find in them.

 

[fireproof78]

I base my critique on how much the fan film is pushed.

Meh.

Eh, I think there can be a mix of the two. Assertions of the "greatest film ever!" can produce a law of diminishing returns effect, at least for me.

The trend of late here seems to be though that where once constructive criticism was encouraged and actually in some cases requested, even that can be trounced upon and shouted down by the overly sensitive pack mentality of the fans and fan filmmakers who simply cannot abide anything other than universal adoration.

Sometimes I wonder what forum it is that you're reading, man.

Not that I can speak for Karzak, but I note the term "can" in cases of individuals finding opposition to a film to be "hatred" and responding as such.

So, while I don't completely agree with the assertion that constructive criticism is unwelcome, but, as with other things, the sensitivity reaction to text based criticism can get over the top quickly.

It's just one of the fun things about the Inter-webs.

 

[BigJake]

So, while I don't completely agree with the assertion that constructive criticism is unwelcome, but, as with other things, the sensitivity reaction to text based criticism can get over the top quickly.

As can the sensitivity reaction to disagreement.

I'm not saying oversensitivity doesn't happen, but I'm far from thinking it's confined to "the overly sensitive pack mentality of the fans and fan filmmakers who simply cannot abide anything other than universal adoration." Not even close and I'm far from convinced the bolded claim is even a thing at all, even among those who have adverse reactions to some criticisms which... whether they're good-faith or not can vary widely, sometimes they're justified and sometimes not so much.

 

[Amaris]

I base my critique on how much the fan film is pushed.

Meh.

If someone gets up on stage and tells me that she can give Aretha Franklin a run for her money, then that girl better deliver. Before, I was just listening for quality, but if someone throws down the gauntlet, you bet your ass I'm going to expect excellence. Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

 

[BigJake]

I base my critique on how much the fan film is pushed.

Meh.

If someone gets up on stage and tells me that she can give Aretha Franklin a run for her money, then that girl better deliver.

Would seem equally petty to me for the same reason. I guess I just take publicity as an aspiration and not a guarantee, and I'm unimpressed by people who insist on treating it as the latter because the specific nature of the aspiration offends them. It's a crabs-in-a-pot mentality.

(Exceptions made for certain circumstances, of course. If it's someone saying "I'm trying to match the sound of Aretha Franklin" and plus they say "by the way, I'm the real shit and Aretha's the pretender" that's a bit different. But if someone says they can do a better David Lee Roth than Sammy Hagar, and they don't quite come up to the standards of Daivd Lee Roth? If they're good in their own right and their own way, the difference isn't that interesting.)

 

[Amaris]

Meh.

If someone gets up on stage and tells me that she can give Aretha Franklin a run for her money, then that girl better deliver.

Would seem equally petty to me for the same reason. I guess I just take publicity as an aspiration and not a guarantee, and I'm unimpressed by people who insist on treating it as the latter because the specific nature of the aspiration offends them. It's a crabs-in-a-pot mentality.

If you tell everyone you have a broadcast/series pilot quality production, and they drop money on it in the hopes that is what they'll get, then they should receive a broadcast/series pilot quality production.

Go to a Broadway performance where the cast has been replaced with a middle school theater group, and tell the people as they're paying that it will be a Broadway quality production. Let's see how well that goes over when half the kids forget their lines, and the other half can't find their cues on the stage. It's not about being petty, it's about truth in advertising.

People are going to expect top quality if you keep reinforcing the notion that you are pushing top quality; if you push the idea that you've got a meeting with the suits, and they're looking into making your production the pilot for a new TV series, you're going to get very strong expectations of quality. Don't make promises on which you cannot deliver. Self-deception is no excuse for poor quality, either. Most people don't let you keep their money just because you tried. Most critics won't go easy on you solely because you did your best.

Using Renegades as an example, they made so many big promises, and even late into the game they were still asking for money and making big promises. I went by their words, and watched the film with cautious optimism. They failed to deliver on every single level, and I judged them for what they said they could do.

I have seen a large number of fan films, some great, some awful, but you could tell the people cared, and just wanted to make something they loved. While I cringed at many, I knew what they were trying to do, and they didn't tout themselves as some kind of professional production. The ones that do? I will judge them with their own words. If I hear "pilot ready," "professional," and other lately fashionable words of the fan production trade, then they will be judged as a TV pilot, or a made-for-TV film. I have seen some fantastic TV pilots and made-for-TV films. So I will expect high quality.

If they can't bring it to that level, then they shouldn't say it. They need to be honest with me. Yanking my crank in order to get money from me, only to deliver a subpar result is not on me to justify, it's on them.

I realize I repeat myself, but I have to make this point clear: intent is everything. A couple of people using their basement to make a fan film, and humbly submitted as a love letter to their favorite show is one thing. I will watch it, and I will enjoy what I can of it without being too critical (beyond basic suggestions). An amateur production that stars fans who only want to make Star Trek they can enjoy, who do it for the sheer love of it? They don't get judged harshly, either. Oh, I'll be more critical of some things, if they're blatant enough, but otherwise I take it in the spirit it is offered. A team of people who push professionals as their main attraction? Who ask for piles of money? Yes, I will judge them, and I will do it as a professional level production. Why you see that as petty, I don't know, because it's not at all petty, it's being fair to all involved. The higher the stakes, the better the payoff, or the greater the loss. That's just common sense.

 

[fireproof78]

So, while I don't completely agree with the assertion that constructive criticism is unwelcome, but, as with other things, the sensitivity reaction to text based criticism can get over the top quickly.

As can the sensitivity reaction to disagreement.

I'm not saying oversensitivity doesn't happen, but I'm far from thinking it's confined to "the overly sensitive pack mentality of the fans and fan filmmakers who simply cannot abide anything other than universal adoration." Not even close and I'm far from convinced the bolded claim is even a thing at all, even among those who have adverse reactions to some criticisms which... whether they're good-faith or not can vary widely, sometimes they're justified and sometimes not so much.

I have not been on this sub-forum for long, so I'll grant your experience is better than mine in that regard.

However, I also know that fan film opinion can become quite entrenched, on both sides (at least on the Star Wars side of things) and sensitivity can be quite, um, sensitive, when it comes to productions.

Again, personal experience and that may vary.

 

[BigJake]

If you tell everyone you have a broadcast/series pilot quality production, and they drop money on it in the hopes that is what they'll get, then they should receive a broadcast/series pilot quality production. .

If you assume that nobody involved can be expected to exercise their reason and manage their expectations based on the actual financial resources available to a production, I guess. Except that we live in pretty much the precise opposite of that world, don't we? So the insistence gets to seem more bizarre rather than less.

I also know that fan film opinion can become quite entrenched, on both sides (at least on the Star Wars side of things) and sensitivity can be quite, um, sensitive, when it comes to productions.

Basically what I'm getting at is that if Karzak is actually complaining about being "censored" on threads where he underwent nothing worse than the occasional adverse comment and didn't receive so much as an infraction or a mod "friendly" -- as Maurice is surmising -- then I'm calling bullshit. I'm not seeing much grey area there.

 

[Amaris]

If you tell everyone you have a broadcast/series pilot quality production, and they drop money on it in the hopes that is what they'll get, then they should receive a broadcast/series pilot quality production. .

If you assume that nobody involved can be expected to exercise their reason and manage their expectations based on the actual financial resources available to a production, I guess. Except that we live in pretty much the precise opposite of that world, don't we? So the insistence gets to seem more bizarre rather than less.

If you can't deliver, don't make the promise. It's as simple as that.

 

[BigJake]

If you can't deliver, don't make the promise. It's as simple as that.

If you can't exercise goodwill, restraint and judgement, don't expect your views to be credible. It's as simple as that.

 

[Amaris]

If you can't deliver, don't make the promise. It's as simple as that.

If you can't exercise goodwill, restraint and judgement, don't expect your views to be credible. It's as simple as that.

I always exercise goodwill, until I feel I have been deceived. If you tell me that your production is TV series quality, I will expect TV series quality. I realize that holding these productions to the promises they make me while they're asking for my money seems petty to you, but I just see it as fair.

Don't promise steak and deliver hamburger. It doesn't matter how much I paid for it; if you promised steak, over and over again, even though not enough people were giving you enough to bring everyone steak, then I expect steak. Only a fool keeps making promises even as they find they won't have the budget to keep them all. That is deception. It doesn't go over well with me.

 

[BigJake]

If you can't deliver, don't make the promise. It's as simple as that.

If you can't exercise goodwill, restraint and judgement, don't expect your views to be credible. It's as simple as that.

I always exercise goodwill, until I feel I have been deceived.

Accusing people of "deception" increases the difficulty threshold for the credibility of your commentary, it doesn't decrease it, and unless you can decisively prove such "deception" it probably isn't worth it.

Apply your criteria to JJTrek. Was Abrams intentionally "deceiving" fans when he said he was delivering a product faithful to Trek? I don't remotely see how anyone could go about substantiating such a claim, whether or not they felt the results worked. Ergo claims of "deception" mostly come off as entirely nutty. The same rule works at smaller scales, such as fanfilms. (Not to mention that engaging in such claims makes it harder to believe people who say they "always engage in goodwill" -- especially the more they do so without apparent and provable justification -- although in your case I do believe that.)

 

[Amaris]

If you can't exercise goodwill, restraint and judgement, don't expect your views to be credible. It's as simple as that.

I always exercise goodwill, until I feel I have been deceived.

Accusing people of "deception" increases the difficulty threshold for the credibility of your commentary, it doesn't decrease it, and unless you can decisively prove such "deception" it probably isn't worth it.

I believe Renegades did deceive people in order to raise as much money as possible. They made the entire production appear as if it were a high quality, professional production that was ready for a network television broadcast.

What we got would qualify as an Asylum film at best. They've stated that they will continue production of the series. How much more money will they ask people to donate now that people have seen the supposed "high quality" of the film?

Apply your criteria to JJTrek. Was Abrams intentionally "deceiving" fans when he said he was delivering a product faithful to Trek? I don't remotely see how anyone could go about substantiating such a claim, whether or not they felt the results worked. Ergo claims of "deception" mostly come off as entirely nutty. The same rule works at smaller scales, such as fanfilms.

The Abrams films are backed by the licensed holder of the Star Trek property. There have been two productions, and both productions have become critically and financially successful films. If JJ Abrams says the next movie will be backed by the studio, then it is highly unlikely that he is lying.

Can Renegades say the same thing?

As for your comment on the "Trekness" of the new films, that is nothing but opinion. Production quality, on the other hand, can be measured.

 

[BigJake]

I believe Renegades did deceive people in order to raise as much money as possible.

Then you're accusing them of fraud and should be reporting it to a law enforcement agency, not a message board. Unless of course you have no proof to do that with, in which case you're engaging in slander.

Not that I think Tom is the sort of person who'd sue you, it's just that I'm amazed that people here don't seem to understand that claiming people are somehow defrauding the fans is a potentially consequential action that goes beyond shooting the shit on a message board. That's delusional.

The Abrams films are backed by the licensed holder of the Star Trek property. There have been two productions, and both productions have become critically and financially successful films.

Zero relevance to what I asked you. If you can prove Tom defrauded people, then report him and do so. That kind of "deception" claim is very serious.

 

[Amaris]

I believe Renegades did deceive people in order to raise as much money as possible.

Then you're accusing them of fraud and should be reporting it to a law enforcement agency, not a message board. Unless of course you have no proof to do that with, in which case you're engaging in slander.

Just one fan's perception based on what he sees, nothing more.

Zero relevance to what I asked you.

Then read the rest of the post.

 

[BigJake]

Just one fan's perception based on what he sees, nothing more.

But now you've loaded your "one fan's perception" up with strident claims about outright fraud. You really don't see how that might become a barrier to taking your critiques of the film seriously, at the very least? (Leaving the possibility of opening yourself up to suit for slander out of it?)

 

[Amaris]

Just one fan's perception based on what he sees, nothing more.

But now you've loaded your "one fan's perception" up with strident claims about outright fraud. You really don't see how that might become a barrier to taking your critiques of the film seriously, at the very least? (Leaving the possibility of opening yourself up to suit for slander out of it?)

I do think they practiced deception in selling their film to fans so they could raise more money, but you're the one bolding words and tossing out legal terms here, not me. I don't like the film because I think its combined production values fell far short of what was promised, and that one of those promises involved being touted as TV pilot ready. I felt deceived. Make of that what you will.

 

[BigJake]

I do think they practiced deception in selling their film to fans so they could raise more money

In other words they made a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation?

 

[Amaris]

I do think they practiced deception in selling their film to fans so they could raise more money

In other words they made a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation?

I think they bolstered their abilities in an attempt to get more people to donate. Happens all of the time. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[BigJake]

I do think they practiced deception in selling their film to fans so they could raise more money

In other words they made a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation?

I think they bolstered their abilities in an attempt to get more people to donate. Happens all of the time. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Well, portraying yourself positively in a way someone doesn't necessarily agree with is not the same thing as deliberately deceiving people into believing you could materially deliver something you couldn't. It probably matters which of those you are accusing them of.