I think London might be out as they would require ongoing residuals based on their union. I think the only way to do this is to use non union players which can be done; however its just a bit more R&D time on the project coordinators end.
The Evergreen Orchestra in Taiwan is full of Juliard grads and they are non union. Perhaps another good group to approach.
This is a brilliant idea: however, I do question the groups ability to get a series of recordings of quality from the amount of money they are raising. I tried to find out which orchestra they were planning to use, as this is a HUGE decision on a project like this and having the best is what most music buffs will want.
A composer that I know just used an orchestra in Taiwan where the costs are considerably lower for the recording of a film score. The length of the recordings were significantly shorter, but cost more than what is mentioned in the campaign.
Does anyone know who they are going to use? I would love to contribute to this project but will not do so until I know who the musicians and conductor are.
"However, if I, instead, simply go to the shop down the street, see how they make their pizzas and then MAKE MY OWN COPY and sell it for $5. That's competition."
This is all fine and dandy if the guy down the street is prepared to outlay the cost for the oven, dough, and other ingredients that go on the pizza. In fact if he chooses to kill the market by setting an unnecessary price anchor that's his business, and in most cases won't be in business for long.
The same goes for media when someone is planning to copy and earn without compensation to the originator of the work. If I outlay 100K to make a film, I could give two shits if someone first pays out the debt that I have incurred by making the film in the first place. You seem to think that filmmakers and distributors actually care about IP and sharing when in fact, all they really care about is mitigating risk to ensure that they can continue on to the next project.
You can copy my film all you like. Simply put into my pocket the total amount that it took for me to make it and off you go! When I'm free and clear...you can be too.
Its not about protectionism....its about debt. plain and simple.
This is great example how blogs and social media create confusion. About a year ago I remember reading all the flutter and kaffufle about how you could not afford the license fee for your music and that price tag was going to be more than the budget of the film. If you did not comply you would have to ditch the film or find all new music etc etc etc. There were hundreds of posts on this matter that discussed the legal implications around the matter and that you may actually be forced to into paying.
This is what got me interested in the first place as it is an important matter in how film producer's plan their projects in advance.
I'm glad that the current fans no nothing of the copyright matter, I'm just wondering if that was the reason for the early adopters to begin marketing the project?
The law suit comments were more than likely on linkedin or some other social forum that discusses legal, finance, and film distribution.
I have followed the "plight" of your film since day one and am really glad that its working for you now. My only question regarding SITA SINGS THE BLUES, is do you think your marketing strategy using only word of mouth would have been nearly as successful if you were not trying to leverage the lawsuit that was put forward against you?
I don't agree with the bullying tactics that they tried on you but for someone who does not know you personally, but did end up watching your film, I can say that it happened as a result of watching due process occur and it piqued my interest to see your film. Do you not think that is was primarily the reason for the marketing success of your film? Would you not fall into the "black swan" category?
Thanks and congrats on your film by the way...I enjoyed it.
Releasing the online version of a documentary that has a successful book behind it may really bite them in the rump here. I read this blog regularly now and I am for the most part am at around 50% in agreement with most of the opinions, and theories that Mike posts here.
This one is however, is a very interesting case study that I will be following closely. I actually like Morgan Spurlock and was planning to see this film when it came out in theaters. Now, as it is a documentary and I normally reserve my cinema experience for new releases that i must see and for films that require a big screen, I am more than likely going to watch this film online.
I've already got the book, and I won't watch the film again as there are only about a dozen films in my library that I would watch repeatedly, and I'm wondering if perhaps a true day and date would have been a better move for this one?
If they offered this film up on a site like dynamoplayer of eggup I would certainly pay to watch it, but giving it away for free prior to selling tickets may set the wrong anchor for pricing. I hope for the sake of any backers that may have contributed to this production that they get their money back.
This is truly a risk and an experiment worth watching unfold.