Brendon Marotta

Archives for June 2016

The First Edit of American Circumcision is Done

By

After years of hard work, the first edit of American Circumcision is done.

I couldn’t be happier. Here’s a quick update:

Where We Are Now

The current edit is nearly 5 hours long – which means we’re in a really good place. By the time the film is edited down to it’s final runtime – around 2 hours or the length of a standard feature film – only the most powerful moments will remain.

Great films often run an hour or two longer in their first edit than the final edit released in theaters. Look up the post-production stories behind American Beauty, Blade Runner, and The Godfather if you want examples. Even lighthearted studio comedies will have an extra hour of improv in their first edit. Serious documentaries usually have even more footage, and American Circumcision certainly qualifies.

What’s Next

Looking through the current edit, I can also see the places were I’ll tighten sequences and take things out. If you’re the type who could watch five hours of an interesting documentary (or wants to after seeing American Circumcision, since what we show is so fascinating), then know that the special features will have everything I’ve taken out. (Seriously, we might have close to eight hours of special features. There’s that much material. If there is something you want to know about this topic, we probably have it.)

In the coming months, I’ll be editing the film down. As we get closer to finishing, two things will happen. First, I’ll share more content from the film publicly – something I’ve deliberately kept secret – and do a lot more on social media. Second, I’ll need more help. I’ll be hiring post-production crew, like a researcher, a sound editor, a composer – and yes, doing a Kickstarter.

There are going to be a lot more opportunities for you to participate in what we’re doing. If you’re interested in seeing what comes next, please sign-up for our email list here.

Read more: American Circumcision

Why Do People Keep Seeing Remakes & Sequels?

By

In an article titled Why People Keep Buying Bad Comics, the publisher for New World Comics writes that most of what drives the sale of bad mainstream comics is loss aversion.

Loss aversion is the idea that the fear of missing out drives behavior more than the possibility of experiencing a great new thing. In other words:

When presented with an option of getting something great or not losing something, people would prefer not to lose rather than get something great.

How does this apply to movies?

People are more likely to see another bad remake, then a well reviewed indie – even though we all know an award winning indie is more likely to be a good film.

When was the last time you saw a great sequel or remake?

Logically, you know that most remakes and sequels aren’t that great, and are almost never better than the original. However, loss aversion dictates that you don’t want to be the one to miss out on a cultural event.

So when choosing between a remake with a slim chance of being good, and an award-winning indie, with a high chance of being amazing – audiences will actually chose the remake. Crazy right?

Box office receipts back this up. And between losing remake money, and risking their investment on a potentially great original idea, what do you think the studios will chose – based on loss aversion? Which choice are they making?

What does this mean for you as an audience member?

If you want to know why studios keep pumping out sequels and remakes – it’s because you keep watching them.

The obvious solution – go see indies instead of remakes.

You actually have better odds of seeing to a good film by walking into an indie you know nothing about then a studio film you’ve been seeing ads for six months, because competition for distribution for indies is so difficult that in order to get a theatrical release that indie likely had to be really good.

Studio properties are often greenlit based on name recognition of the underlying IP. It doesn’t matter if the remake is only mediocre, what matters to the studio is that you’ve heard of it, and that people will go just to see if it’s good.

If you see a film playing and you think “I’ve never heard of that” – GOOD – go see it.

Taking the risk of ‘trying something new’ is actually the safest bet.

And yes – this principle also applies to why people keep going to the same bad restaurants, stay in the same bad relationships, or keep living the same life they aren’t happy with. Loss aversion drives more then industry.

What does this means for filmmakers?

As the publisher of New World Comics noted – his first comic got great reviews, and those reviews didn’t do anything for sales. Lots of indie films get tons of awards, and never get distribution.

Why? Even though indies may be great, people don’t feel like they’ll be missing out if they don’t see them.

What this means is rather then saying “this movie is great,” filmmakers who want their film seen need to communicate, “if you don’t see this – you’ll be missing out.”

It’s a slight change in message, but a big one.

Good is not enough. It has to be an event. An exclusive. You can’t risk not seeing it.

“Don’t miss out.”

P.S. Sign up for the email list for my upcoming documentary on American Circumcision. It’s going to be a cultural event that will share exclusive stories and life-changing information you won’t hear anywhere else. Don’t miss out. Sign-up now.

Read more: How We Could See Films If There Were No Theaters