From: theirony2013@gmail.com   
      
   On 2026-01-17 14:13, JTEM wrote:   
   > On 1/17/26 4:21 PM, Mike wrote:   
   >   
   >> It might be cool if could feed the whole submission to   
   >> an AI and see what it can turn it into. You could do this   
   >> for any your weaker submissions, to notch it up a level.   
   >   
   > Sometimes I wish we could have a real conversation on A.I.   
   > but then I think, "Why? If wishing is an option then I'm   
   > going to cure cancer and get laid, but not in that order."   
   >   
   > We can't do anything with the works submitted.   
   >   
   > We won't even share contact information!  The best we'll   
   > do, if someone asks, is pass along THEIR contact info to   
   > the filmmaker, with an explanation.   
   >   
   > As for weaker submissions, think on this:   
   >   
   > I attended the Boston International film festival last   
   > year, the festival I served on for years. The owner said   
   > he had 6,000 entries!   
   >   
   > I keep asking you to manifest 600 for us! He claims 6000!   
   >   
   > Anyway, let's assume that only half of those are films and   
   > the other half are screenplays...   
   >   
   > 3000 films.   
   >   
   > Get it?   
   >   
   > He screened, he "Selected" less than 100. The rest were   
   > all rejected.   
   >   
   > So if only half of his 6000 claimed submissions were films,   
   > he had a selection rate of around 3%. Or, if you prefer, he   
   > rejected roughly 97%.   
   >   
   > Rejected = "Cashed the check then told them NO THANKS but   
   > kept the money"   
   >   
   > We have a VERY high selection rate. The only way to have   
   > any higher would be to either charge an obscene submission   
   > fee or hold an "Online Festival," which just means streaming   
   > some shit.   
   >   
   > Percentage wise, I'm talking.   
   >   
   > What I'm saying is that if a film really sucks we reject it.   
   >   
   > We don't "Improve" it.   
   >   
   > All our films that we "Select" have a lot going for them.   
   >   
   > If you're not a narcissist.   
   >   
   > They all have something about them that makes them worth   
   > watching.   
   >   
   > We had one, for example, "Hunter Nickless." He was 12 when he   
   > made the film, 13 when we saw it. It was a bit rough but it   
   > was a cell phone video so what do you expect?  His acting was   
   > noteworthy. The kid was a ball of energy, really popped on   
   > stage. And the more energy, the more convincing an actor comes   
   > across.   
   >   
   > Yes "Low key" can also work -- acting so subtle that you don't   
   > even realize they're acting! Could be a person just being   
   > themselves, it seems, not playing a character, they're so good.   
   > But Hunter went the other way:  Energy! But...   
   >   
   > But, what really stood out for me was not his acting (which I   
   > did notice) as his filmmaking. He easily used twice as many   
   > shots as most shorts, and this was a short. So we gave him "Up   
   > & Coming Filmmaker."   
   >   
   >   
   > It's an award, recognition specifically for a young person.   
   > This is because we've gotten student films from people up into   
   > their 70s, and of course college students are common enough.   
   > So we didn't want kids competing with people who had potentially   
   > a great deal of resources nor life experience.   
   >   
   > We're looking for innate qualities. Instinct. Talent. Not skills.   
   >   
   > But it was a "Rough" film. Still. That kid made a few more films   
   > and one of them literally took him around the world!  He got into   
   > festivals all over the planet, won a bunch of them, got to meet   
   > some really cool (and important) people in the industry and we,   
   > the oh so humble Screaming Ostrich, were literally the first   
   > people EVER to see that potential.   
   >   
   > So we stand by every movie we select. Sorry. What we often find   
   > ourselves apologizing for are the films we reject. Because there   
   > isn't a festival in existence that doesn't have to reject some   
   > mighty good films, for one reason or another.   
      
   Do you think people put the rejected ones on the social   
   platforms for the public to see? Or do they generally   
   go into a personal 'black box'? How would you even know   
   know? Maybe people make these films for other reasons and   
   a submission is just a 'last resort' so to speak. It seems   
   like a lot of work one would have to go through, without   
   any recognition.   
      
      
      
      
      
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)