Only 43% of all Kickstarters succeed. To add to that only about 40% of film projects get their funding. According to an article from The New York Times, the most Film is the largest category on Kickstarter.  So with that I am pleased to announce that my Kickstarter was successfully funded!  And through its 20 day run, I learned a lot about the behind the scenes process of running a grassroots Kickstarter.

The first, and maybe the saddest one, is that all of our media face time didn't seem to immediately help , but it did raise a hype level, which that did help. Our team was in an article in Jonesboro Occasions, a guest on talk morning radio through East Arkansas Broadcasters, so like KISS fm. We were even on Mid-day on KAIT. Though we never really saw direct money raised, the fact that we were able to use these outlets a news items on our social media feeds, made word of mouth move much faster. Which I believe with our small Kickstarter, was what helped us the most.

Another really good tool was a service called Green Inbox. This service sinks with your Facebook to message your friends about your Kickstarter. Sometimes your friends will not see your posts asking to donate, this makes sure that they at least see it one time. 

With funding in hand, I am making a movie! I will update this blog with the process of it all and hopefully at the end of all this, have a really cool movie to share!

AuthorAustin Lott

So this post might be made in more of a selfish reason than some of the other posts. I am in the middle of trying to get funding for my Kickstarter movie. This process has lead to a lot of insight on the whole process of making a movie via crowdsourcing.

Kickstarter has a 43% success rate, according to a Mashable article. That means most Kickstarters fail. So with the most popular crowdsourcing platform having a failing rate on projects funded, why bother?

Crowdsourcing is still the best way for the little guy to get funding. A studio's success rate for giving the little guy money? Still is zero precent.

AuthorAustin Lott

One of the perks of wanting to make movies, is that with technology becoming cheaper, the easier it is to get into the world of indie film making. And by that I mean making a movie with no studio backing. But with that vague definition, indie film does not mean, low budget film, in fact some indie films can still be very expensive. Just check out this list, which shows what cameras were used by some of the directors that got their film into Sundance 2015.

In the list, many directors chose cameras that are more than $3,000. This would blow the minds of any filmmaker pre-1950, where studios were the only people to afford a camera. This might seem like a lot for a camera, when our phones can shoot "just as good" videos. However in the movie world, this is peanuts.

So what does this mean?

With the cost of cinema cameras coming down, that means an indie film set can afford microphones, lights, and lenses. When a camera might be $50,000, then a small budget film could easily blow their money on just the camera, then have no money for anything else. $50,000 can make an entire movie, instead of just a certain equipment.

This has caused something interesting, big budget indie films, which seems like a contradiction. However, with more and more people being able to produce cinema quality movies, the people at the higher end have to pump in more cash to make their projects stand out. Take for instance Sundance is year, they have a star studded list of people that showed up. Sundance used to be the definition of indie, now it looks like a normal Hollywood A-listers party. 

It seems to me that there should be two different kinds of indie productions; a indie movie, an then an indie-indie movie. Maybe those trying to get into the film world should take amount to be thankful about their cinema technology roots before buying the new Canon c100 or new cheap editing software.

AuthorAustin Lott

By now you probably know about The Interview, starring Seth Rogen and James Franco, and it's odd battle with North Korea. 

This movie caused such a fuss, that North Korea declared releasing this film as an "act of war" and threatened 9/11 types attacks on theaters that showed the film. North Korea took credit for a computer hack that effected the movie's studio, Sony Pictures. Needless to say Sony pulled the movie. This lasted about a couple of days, then Sony came back and said they would release it to theaters that wanted to show it and give it to iTunes, Google Play, Xbox Video, and other V.O.D. sites.

However the damage was done. Though the movie made $40 million dollars in online sales, it only made $6 million in its limited theatrical release. In an 
article on, reports shows that Sony might lose $30 million after its all said in done, due to marketing costs and cuts from video on demand websites.

Terrorists threats aside; what did hollywood learn from all this? Unfortunately the biggest message they are going to take away from this is not a freedom of speech issue, but that same day online release of movies is not a viable opportunity for studios to make right now. 

Even though the movie pretty much marketed itself, the fact that not all the ticket buying audience is not online yet hurt this movie, and by that stretch of the logic any movie will get hurt if its presented online the first day. The next test for hollywood's dabble into same day on demand would be a movie, with big name stars and big budget, that is shown on a wide release on both screens and online. Though when this will happen? It might be awhile. 

AuthorAustin Lott