Originally Posted by gideongallery

how the fuck did you get from a chart that documenting INCOME

maybe you should learn how to read data before your talking out of your ass.

That the percentage of income they make not the time they spend.


zoe keating has repeatedly talked about how family friendly her touring schedule is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo%C3%AB_Keating





the odds are against every single musician out there

the signed musician earns less then 7k per year

most have to get second jobs in the food industry to survive.

Your problem is that you discredit every success on this side of the equation as not being good enough.

a signed artist would have to sell $1,760,000 of music to match the success level of this girl. and all the artist who failed to do that will be forced to work for no money on their next 5 albums until they pay it back.

Originally Posted by kane

At long last you finally agree with the point I have been trying to make all along which is that making it in the music business is very difficult. That means having one project funded on kickstarter does not mean she is going to go on to fame and fortune. Maybe she will, but the odds are better that she will win the lottery. Hence, as I said before, her kickstart deal is basically her lotter ticket just like a record contract for another band might be theirs.

I am not discounting kickstarter success, I am simply saying it is does not mean that someone is going to be a huge success.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

So again you bald face lie



i said


That a clear declaration of how hard it is to succeed

produce crap and you will die faster then ever.

you replied with




your claiming that the equation has flipped that it now harder to get noticed (at least get noticed to the point where you actually make some money and have success)"

And that statement is bullshit

It way easier for a movie to get made now because the gatekeepers no longer dictate who has a right to show up in the film festivals

When clerks aired at sun dance it was the only non studio film that got airing time.

This year 10% of all the movies were kickstarter funded.

One crowd sourcing company is responsible for 37 times the number of independent movies getting shown at sundance.

The increased difficulty of getting noticed has not grown in the same speed as the reduction of cost of production.

So over all it way easier to succeed as a independent content producer

now if your a studio who was used to being able to block all those independent self funded films from getting an airing. Your fucked and it is a lot harder

but if your independent film maker who used to be completely denied access to the film festivals and now 10% of all the films are independents like your it gotten easier.

0 to fucking 37 is an increase.

and your bullshit argument against that fact is what i was objecting too

Originally Posted by gideongallery

It way easier for a movie to get made now because the gatekeepers no longer dictate who has a right to show up in the film festivals

Originally Posted by kane

My original post in this thread was that Kevin Smith had said these days it is easier to make a film than it was when he made Clerks, but harder to get noticed because of the larger number of films being made. I paraphrased some, but the gist of the argument is there. Kevin is correct in his statement and I was just agreeing with him.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you mean you ball face lied about what he said



and your doing it again ignoring the increase in the number of accepted "winner" to make it appear that it harder to get in

since 2000 sundance had every hotel turn every conference room into mini theaters

turn the public library into theaters

add 5 new smaller theaters

and doubled the hours of movie showings.

http://www.sundance.org/festival/film-events/theatres/

over all there are more then 10 times as many movies shown at sun dance then there were 10 years ago.


and there are more categories that you can "win" at.


so you have 4 times as many people competing for 10 times the spots.

That the exact opposite of harder to get in.

the odds of getting in to sundance have gone up not down.

Originally Posted by kane

show proof that getting into sundance is easier today than it was in 2000. Don't give me shit about the number of theaters they have or the number of people that attend the festival. Give me hard and true numbers that show proof.

Here are a few numbers taken right from the sundance website.

in 2000 the festival had 16 people, 7 panels, 200 projects, 18 awards
in 2011 the festival had 28 people, 29 panels, 218 projects, 36 awards

So the number of submissions quadrupled, but they only took on 18 more projects.

Another number. in 2011 Sundance had 10,279 submissions. Of those 3,812 were feature length movies. Of those 118 were accepted. That means if you make a feature length movie you have about a 3% chance of actually getting into Sundance.

Using your math this would mean that now there are 10 times as many spots which means that there were only around 12 feature film spots in 2000. Show me proof of that.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

seriously are you every going to stop with the bullshit misrepresentations


so when you want to pretend you competition has increase you add in all the categories that didn't exist in 2000, like shorts, animations, foreign films .... when counting the submissions (10,279 - 3,812)

but when i point out all the extra screens that come about as a result of all those extra catagories and the non competition screenings that sundance added to the schedule


sun dance has always been more then just the top picks (your own articles prove that )



and those non-competiting broadcasts have only expanded



pick a side are you talking about the competition (which doubled the number of awards)
and expanded from a national showcase



to an international one



or are we talking about the entire festival with all the dusk till dawn screening, the new frontier screenings etc.

Originally Posted by kane

Okay, this will be my last post in this thread. It has, as most Gideon threads, devolved into a useless sludge pile. The bottom line is that you, Gideon, are wrong. Your ego won't let you admit it and I'm not going to continue to spend time trying to convince you. It doesn't matter what I say, you will just change the criteria and speak a bunch of babbling bullshit to try to prove you are correct.

Here are the numbers.

In 2000 there were a total of 963 feature films submitted. Of those 254 of them were international movies. There were a total of 1,928 short films submitted.

In 2011 there were 3,812 total features submitted of which 1,869 were international movies. There were 6,467 short films submitted.

In 2000 the festival accepted 112 features and 65 shorts.
In 2011 the festival accepted 118 features and 81 shorts.

As you can clearly see that between 2000 to 2011 the number of features submitted nearly tripled yet they only have 6 more films accepted. The number of shorts also more than tripled and they only have 16 additional shorts accepted.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the competition has increased.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

since you bald face lied about what kevin smith said

let see your proof.