4 ms·

Crapify

19 points by twampss 18y ago

gsmaverick 18y ago
I also watched the trailer not that good. I definitely see no future for crowd-sourced movies.
ejs 18y ago
While I agree that this will probably not be a great movie... who cares? Why must the whole endeavor be run down this way. So since they may not produce anything very exciting they should just throw their hand up, go home, and watch TV? I find it very interesting that these people have enough motivation and drive to at least try to do something. To me it feels like going and telling the people at the park playing basketball to just go home, they wont make it to the NBA.... Is it so bad to make something, potentially sub par, just for the enjoyment of it?
- iamdave 18y ago
  Right. While I understand the idea that Matt is trying to convey here (and agree that a dying/inherently boring genre as slasher horror was a poor choice to christen this idea on), I think he's going about it from the wrong angle entirely. One bad movie does not negate the utility, and overreaching novelty of crowdsourcing a movie. That, and I think Letting a gas station employee play director is perhaps less dangerous than letting him be a thoracic surgeon, but it’s no more likely to achieve a good result. Is a wholly inappropriate thing to say, given the ultimate goal of this entire project: do what has never before been done in this spectrum of entertainment and produce a complete movie. That's an especially tough pill to swallow if you haven't seen the movie, or met the director. (actually, it's an inappropriate thing to say even if you put aside the fact that they're making a movie. That's needlessly harsh)
- mikeryan 18y ago
  Perhaps the movie can come out before crapping all over it?
ken 18y ago
"they couldn’t even afford the narrator with the really deep voice that everyone else uses" That's because he's dead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_LaFontaine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_LaFontaine
- mikeryan 18y ago
  There's actually a few of these guys, but LaFontaine was the best (and some only do Disney fare) http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1633395 http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1633395
- Angostura 18y ago
  Not the only one: You can watch Hal Douglas do his stuff here, in an amusingly self-referential trailer http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yXbFuNQwTbs http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yXbFuNQwTbs
jfarmer 18y ago
That reminds of these paintings, "designed" by committee: http://www.diacenter.org/km/painting.html http://www.diacenter.org/km/painting.html Everyone likes each individual element, but in concert they produce (hilariously) awful artwork.
puzzle-out 18y ago
Good writers develop through practice. If crowdsourced films gives aspiring writers the opportunity to practice their craft, then there is some justification alone in that.
gruseom 18y ago
Based on direct observation of some similar projects, I'd advise skepticism about claims of "crowdsourcing". It is typically used as a buzzword to draw attention to projects that don't actually deserve any, and wouldn't otherwise get it. The way this movie was made is likely a lot closer to traditional methods than the hype would suggest.
rantfoil 18y ago
Massify looks like it has the potential of becoming a great social niche play for indie/low budget film production. ModelMayhem seemed like a tiny idea, but now they're as big as friendfeed. Not everyone is going to be churning out Henri Cartier-Bresson-level work, but that's not the point.
- bd 18y ago
  I just checked ModelMayhem. Wouldn't their growth be explained by the fact that a significant chunk of their content appear to be naked ladies?
  - rantfoil 18y ago
    It's a members-only site and it's hard to become a member without actually being a model, makeup artist or photographer. Though I suppose it doesn't hurt. ;-)
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
jawngee 18y ago
I posted this on your blog, but I'll post it here since you want to take this pointless discussion to a new level: You're post is so incorrect, I don't even know where to start. Apparently they crowd-sourced an entire movie. Everything from the script to the casting was voted on, presumably by the same lunkheads who turned Digg into an extension of Apple marketing interspersed with unfunny comics and left-wing commentary. It’s a process scientifically designed to produce a film that’s mediocre for its budget range, which apparently was somewhere in between what a student film normally costs and my monthly car insurance payment. First of all, the process you've outlined in your post is not the process used on Massify. Massify users voted for the story, not the screenplay. The winner did not direct the movie, he served as a producer and got a small role in the movie. What he did get to do, however, is sit in on the production and participate, work with the screenwriters to flesh out the story, etc. Furthermore the budget for the film was way beyond the cost of a student film and your monthly insurance car payment combined. Don’t get me wrong, it’s neat the way the process worked, but I guess I’m unable to see the value in coming up with a novel way to produce more cinematic detritus. Hollywood regurgitates this crap 10 times a year, except (judging from the trailer) with more polish. They don’t need crowd sourcing to add to the dung heap. It's painfully obvious you've had little to do with film, like ever. Do you really believe most films are the work of a single individual? Movies have been crowd sourcing since before the internet tubes. The only thing Massify changes is who gets let into that particular crowd. Don’t get me wrong, it’s neat the way the process worked, but How can you call the process neat when you haven't the faintest clue how it works? I guess I’m unable to see the value in coming up with a novel way to produce more cinematic detritus. Hollywood regurgitates I'm not exactly sure our process is that novel. All we've really done is put a web interface on the same mechanic and opened up who can participate, nothing more and nothing less. In fact, the one thing the movie industry has going for it is that it’s still much more meritocratic than most of the rest of America. A good script is a good script, no matter who wrote it, Again, you write with authority but it's obvious you aren't a student of film history. I'd argue your points more, but discourse on the web is futile, specifically when there is a risk that the OP will be shown to be clueless and pedantic.
- jawngee 18y ago
  PS. I'm the CTO of massify and built the entire thing with my own eight hands (props to Nick, PDM, George and the rest of the crew).
neeson 18y ago
I'm surprised that Iron Sky hasn't come up. It's an online collaboration, and the trailer looks frickin' awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn4DW1uvsAE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn4DW1uvsAE From Wikipedia: Iron Sky is produced in collaboration with an on-line community of film enthusiasts. At Wreck-a-Movie, everyone interested in chipping in with their ideas and creativity can read the tasks given to the community and take a shot (write an entry) at them.

19 points by twampss 18y ago

I also watched the trailer not that good. I definitely see no future for crowd-sourced movies.

ejs 18y ago

While I agree that this will probably not be a great movie... who cares? Why must the whole endeavor be run down this way. So since they may not produce anything very exciting they should just throw their hand up, go home, and watch TV? I find it very interesting that these people have enough motivation and drive to at least try to do something. To me it feels like going and telling the people at the park playing basketball to just go home, they wont make it to the NBA.... Is it so bad to make something, potentially sub par, just for the enjoyment of it?

iamdave 18y ago
Right. While I understand the idea that Matt is trying to convey here (and agree that a dying/inherently boring genre as slasher horror was a poor choice to christen this idea on), I think he's going about it from the wrong angle entirely. One bad movie does not negate the utility, and overreaching novelty of crowdsourcing a movie. That, and I think Letting a gas station employee play director is perhaps less dangerous than letting him be a thoracic surgeon, but it’s no more likely to achieve a good result. Is a wholly inappropriate thing to say, given the ultimate goal of this entire project: do what has never before been done in this spectrum of entertainment and produce a complete movie. That's an especially tough pill to swallow if you haven't seen the movie, or met the director. (actually, it's an inappropriate thing to say even if you put aside the fact that they're making a movie. That's needlessly harsh)
mikeryan 18y ago
Perhaps the movie can come out before crapping all over it?

ken 18y ago

"they couldn’t even afford the narrator with the really deep voice that everyone else uses" That's because he's dead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_LaFontaine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_LaFontaine

mikeryan 18y ago
There's actually a few of these guys, but LaFontaine was the best (and some only do Disney fare) http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1633395 http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1633395
Angostura 18y ago
Not the only one: You can watch Hal Douglas do his stuff here, in an amusingly self-referential trailer http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yXbFuNQwTbs http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yXbFuNQwTbs

jfarmer 18y ago

That reminds of these paintings, "designed" by committee: http://www.diacenter.org/km/painting.html http://www.diacenter.org/km/painting.html Everyone likes each individual element, but in concert they produce (hilariously) awful artwork.

puzzle-out 18y ago

Good writers develop through practice. If crowdsourced films gives aspiring writers the opportunity to practice their craft, then there is some justification alone in that.

gruseom 18y ago

Based on direct observation of some similar projects, I'd advise skepticism about claims of "crowdsourcing". It is typically used as a buzzword to draw attention to projects that don't actually deserve any, and wouldn't otherwise get it. The way this movie was made is likely a lot closer to traditional methods than the hype would suggest.

rantfoil 18y ago

Massify looks like it has the potential of becoming a great social niche play for indie/low budget film production. ModelMayhem seemed like a tiny idea, but now they're as big as friendfeed. Not everyone is going to be churning out Henri Cartier-Bresson-level work, but that's not the point.

bd 18y ago
I just checked ModelMayhem. Wouldn't their growth be explained by the fact that a significant chunk of their content appear to be naked ladies?
- rantfoil 18y ago
  It's a members-only site and it's hard to become a member without actually being a model, makeup artist or photographer. Though I suppose it doesn't hurt. ;-)
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]

jawngee 18y ago

I posted this on your blog, but I'll post it here since you want to take this pointless discussion to a new level: You're post is so incorrect, I don't even know where to start. Apparently they crowd-sourced an entire movie. Everything from the script to the casting was voted on, presumably by the same lunkheads who turned Digg into an extension of Apple marketing interspersed with unfunny comics and left-wing commentary. It’s a process scientifically designed to produce a film that’s mediocre for its budget range, which apparently was somewhere in between what a student film normally costs and my monthly car insurance payment. First of all, the process you've outlined in your post is not the process used on Massify. Massify users voted for the story, not the screenplay. The winner did not direct the movie, he served as a producer and got a small role in the movie. What he did get to do, however, is sit in on the production and participate, work with the screenwriters to flesh out the story, etc. Furthermore the budget for the film was way beyond the cost of a student film and your monthly insurance car payment combined. Don’t get me wrong, it’s neat the way the process worked, but I guess I’m unable to see the value in coming up with a novel way to produce more cinematic detritus. Hollywood regurgitates this crap 10 times a year, except (judging from the trailer) with more polish. They don’t need crowd sourcing to add to the dung heap. It's painfully obvious you've had little to do with film, like ever. Do you really believe most films are the work of a single individual? Movies have been crowd sourcing since before the internet tubes. The only thing Massify changes is who gets let into that particular crowd. Don’t get me wrong, it’s neat the way the process worked, but How can you call the process neat when you haven't the faintest clue how it works? I guess I’m unable to see the value in coming up with a novel way to produce more cinematic detritus. Hollywood regurgitates I'm not exactly sure our process is that novel. All we've really done is put a web interface on the same mechanic and opened up who can participate, nothing more and nothing less. In fact, the one thing the movie industry has going for it is that it’s still much more meritocratic than most of the rest of America. A good script is a good script, no matter who wrote it, Again, you write with authority but it's obvious you aren't a student of film history. I'd argue your points more, but discourse on the web is futile, specifically when there is a risk that the OP will be shown to be clueless and pedantic.

jawngee 18y ago
PS. I'm the CTO of massify and built the entire thing with my own eight hands (props to Nick, PDM, George and the rest of the crew).

neeson 18y ago

I'm surprised that Iron Sky hasn't come up. It's an online collaboration, and the trailer looks frickin' awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn4DW1uvsAE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn4DW1uvsAE From Wikipedia: Iron Sky is produced in collaboration with an on-line community of film enthusiasts. At Wreck-a-Movie, everyone interested in chipping in with their ideas and creativity can read the tasks given to the community and take a shot (write an entry) at them.