Pat Sharp. Pat 'Mullet' Sharp.
Do you want to be taken seriously as a director? Do you aspire to be a real filmmaker? Then make a fan film and hire Pat Sharp to play a serious cameo role of a doctor. A surefire way to be taken seriously.
Oh and then create an imdb page, because imdb is the holy grail of films to be taken seriously. Now you too are a real film director.
So had you actually watched Superman: Requiem before posting this?
If not, have you watched it since posting this?
If you had, you would have realised how pointless your post was and deleted it.
So if a film is listed here, it isn't to be taken seriously?
Sin City, Pulp Fiction, Star Wars, The Shawshank Redmption, 300, etc. - are these not films to be taken seriously?
And if IMDb is such a laughable site, why are you even here? Are you a clown or court jester per chance?
Have I seen the film - what do you think?
Im not sure the fact ive seen the film makes my post pointless, would you care to elaborate.
My point about being on imdb as the be all and end all is not that all films on it shouldnt be taken seriously (how on earth did you deduce that?) and youve missed my point entirely, whos laughing at imdb? its a great site.
my point is the listing of a (weak) fan film on a site usually reserved for genuine films. its as if the producer has thought "we must get on imdb", i know this from experience as every single work he has done is listed here - its laughable.
fan films (especially ones with pat sharp in them) rarely deserve to be here, they should be concentrating on taking it to appropriate festivals or peoples basements.
My point is that he seemed less misplaced than other people in the film. (The female reporters giggling in the background when Superman may have been dead, for example.)
Considering he was in it for less than a minute, and without his mullet, I think I spent far longer reading your post.
I didn't actually realise it was him, until I read this, then re-watched it. He just looked familiar. From that perspective, I thank you!
Okay, regarding IMDb. Maybe it started out as just for mainstream blockbusters but it grew into something much bigger and better in my opinion.
If you go back to pre-1900, you will see entries for 'films' from the beginning of moving images history. Some are just scenes from a market place, or panning the horizon. I feel that those are important entries from a historical point of view.
I have discovered, (then hunted down and watched), a French detective series (a little akin to Sherlock Holmes) from 1916/17 called Judex. This would not have been possible had the site remained purely for 'big' films.
Where do you draw the line between fan films and genuine films these days?
Battle For Los Angeles could be considered genuine, as it had an established studio behind it, despite it being a cheap knock-off of Battle: Los Angeles, (which itself is just a morale booster for the US troops, much like Independence Day was.)
Take Star Trek, the original series. After it's demise, the fans and writers, (and even Walter Koenig (Chekov)), eventually got together and started writing a continuation of the series, Star Trek: New Voyages. This was never picked up by a network, so remains forever a fan-made series.
Fan films often contribute good stories yet lack budget, as opposed to many Hollywood films which do the opposite. How are they less deserving to be on here?
i think every single member of the cast is misplaced - but my point is who decided to cast pat sharp? was it for promotion? was it a favour? either way it shows the level this film is at.
all your points are valid - im not sure you understoof my imdb perspective. imdb is great, but fan films should be the limit.
you wanna make a film with your mates with copywrited material and put it online for free thats fine - listing it on imdb with these credentials is not really.
the difference between a fan film and a non-fan film is that you dont use copywrited material without the rights, you dont use your mates to make, you dont make it just because you are a fan and you accept you are a fan film and dont have delusions of grandeur. does a fan film need an imdb page? does it need a premier? its people playing at filmmaking.
if fan films deserve to be on imdb then so do my home movies i made with my friends when i was 14.
Maybe he found out about it and asked if he could be in it.
Ah, I think I see your point now - using copyrighted material.
So, if they had purchased the rights to use the material, if would have been okay?
the difference between a fan film and a non-fan film is that ...you dont use your mates to make
oh good lord, my whole point is not about copyrighted material. its about fan films. fan films being just that. made by fans.
using your mates to make a film is not wrong per se, in these types of films (where you and your mates want to make a fan film, with pat sharp) it just makes it even less professional.
if they had made a really good film, that was a fan film, with their mates then i would hold my hands up and say well done - but they havent. not even close.
yes showing a film for the first time is a premier - but the premier of this film where they rented out a cinema (which anyone can do by the way) and all tuxed up smacks of lots of patting yourself on the back and self-congratulations.
real premiers are more about promotion of the film - the cast and crew usually see the film way before the public premier.
my point is that it is a production with delusions of grandeur, very self-congratulatory and is a bunch of mates playing at filmmaking.
oh and using other peoples money to do it in exchange for a credit and dvd.
So you thought the story sucked?
It reminded me of Superman III but without Richard Pryor. (Now that would be a hard cameo do.)
Going back to an earlier post,...
Where do you draw the line between fan films and genuine films these days?
Battle For Los Angeles could be considered genuine, as it had an established studio behind it, despite it being a cheap knock-off of Battle: Los Angeles, (which itself is just a morale booster for the US troops, much like Independence Day was.)
Take Star Trek, the original series. After it's demise, the fans and writers, (and even Walter Koenig (Chekov)), eventually got together and started writing a continuation of the series, Star Trek: New Voyages. This was never picked up by a network, so remains forever a fan-made series.
Fan films often contribute good stories yet lack budget, as opposed to many Hollywood films which do the opposite. How are they less deserving to be on here?
battle for los angeles is not a fan film.
the star trek things you mentioned are not fan films - if its written by the writers of star trek. making a show or film that doesnt get picked up does not make it a fan film.
its not about not deserving to be on here - its the makers of the film. youve made a fan film with your mates and pat sharp and then think it deserves to go on imdb. its another self-congratulatory event. look how good our little fan film is, its got an imdb page and everything.
if i made a fan film with my mates i wouldnt submit it to imdb.
i havent seen colin, nor heard of it. how is it a fan film? do you actually know what fan film means? its a genre. it means taking a series, character or set of films or whatever and doing your own version with your mates and without the consent of the copyright holders.
being a bad film alone does not exclude it from anything. producers list their film on imdb because its the go-to for info on the film, crew, cast etc. submitting a fan film to imdb is to go "look, im on imdb".
Ah, I see where more where you're coming from now, I think.
Fans of the genre or the characters, making a film of said subject/genre = fan film?
Where does this fit then?
(I haven't just picked a random obscure. I have actually seen it.)
(It's now available on DVD with English subtitles.)
Captain America and Santo Vs. Spider-Man (1973)
Official title: 3 dev adam - Also Known As: 3 Mighty Men
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181947/
'Istanbul is being terrorized by a crime wave, and the police call in American superhero Captain America and Mexican wrestler Santo to put a stop to it.'
its more films made by amateurs or low budget filmmakers. not just that its made by fans - more that its made by fans of a specific character or film or even game like batman, superman etc. importantly its films that the creators or owners of the copyright have not endorsed, seen, heard of or care about.
the film you mentioned i have no idea - seeing as it looks turkish and no doubt the copyright laws are different it might not count. the same way bollywood steal all the hollywood stories and make their versions because they dont have the same laws.
if it was made by fans of the original without permission then it may count.
but fan films also have the allusion of being more amateur and made for fun than business.
re: this superman film - its a fan film made by 'amateurs' with delusions of grandeur. theyve made a film about superman but have treated it like a hollywood film - a glitzy premier, glossy website and an imdb page. all with £20k of other peoples donated money.
should have spent the marketing budget on the film
pat sharp is a tv presenter not an actor (he was entertaining on Fun house though)
the guy playing Luther had a bit part role as a death eater
all the best to the future in films, hope you all get better
fallaize is way more interested in marketing and waiving his film around than the film itself.
he loves putting it all on amazon, filling his imdb and glitzy premiers in middle england, when a real filmmaker doesnt care about these things.
So it's not just me then!! Phew!
I don't mind when a film is cheap and a bit of fun and everyone's having a laugh.
But when a film's trying to be something it's clearly not and is punching a ton above its weight - it's horrible.
Cheap and fun: http://youtu.be/A-90ycYJwL0
Cheap and nasty: http://youtu.be/-neEzF75-V4
yea exactly, when you have no budget, cast, crew, talent etc you have to embrace it and do something original or fun. accept its a fan film and, yes put effort into it, but then selling it on amazon or having a premier just makes you look arrogant.
no one is going to launch a career off the back of this, thats for sure.
Not sure where the source of the venom is coming from, and the OP is certainly entitled to their opinion about the quality of the film, but the record should be set straight on the facts here. These are NOT "amateurs" playing at filmmaking. They may not all have the most impressive resumes, but by-and-large, this film was made by a team of professionals and aspiring professionals.
I take it the OP recognizes this one Pat Sharp character, but he's not the only professional performer here. The villian, for instance, had a bit part in the "Harry Potter" series.
If you've checked into this production at all, you'd know they've taken it all as seriously as they have because they're wanting to showcase their talents and advance careers. Debate all you want whether they succeeded. To be fair, much of the criticism I've read has centered around how disappointing the film is given that it's the product of experienced pros.
In any case, of course they're doing everything they can to promote the effort, including the IMDb listing. Why would they sweep it under the rug? This particular criticism seems unfounded.
www.thefreething.com/indyruss