The trailer for my movie is just about done, although I'm not quite satisfied with the current sound mix. Let me know what you think..... How To Grow Your Own--the trailer - ( New Window )
This one is definetly better, but I think you have the same major problem overall. That is, none of the scenes seem to flow together to tell us in 2 min. what the hell the movie is about.
It's still a little confusing, I would swap the scenes to the very start of your trailer from the first one and the second. The second scene explains what kind of movie it is, the first is just a funny dialouge scene. I would still maybe cut some of the scene's down, and again put in some titles to aid with the flow instead of relying on dialouge to carry the trailer. Music is a little cheese, but it's not the major problem.
Anyway, congrats, making your own movie is very consuming and a lot of work. You should be proud. Just don't rush it, if your not content with the final product. I had a good friend do that with his movie, and while he spent a ton of money to have it made, he really needed some touching up in the editing and effects process and because he didn't it didn't really go anywhere. He had some good actors in it, Tom Savini starred in it.
on your film, Milton. As a cinematographer, I understand the rigors of making a film, and I commend you on making your own work.
From a cinematography perspective, the film definitely has that digital, RED One look to it that I'm not particularly a fan of (I really dig the Epic much more). For the most part it's pretty clean and crisp, but I feel like the lighting looks a bit source-y at times and has an early 2000's television look to it. I think that works for the story of it being a documentary clashing with a drama, but I think a more distinct contrast in looks between when it's 'documentary' versus 'narrative' scenes would have sold it better. Overall though, I think that it has visual quality that is better than most independent films, and it looks like it's well-composed and makes visual sense in terms of telling a story through the shots.
As for the trailer, I agree with an earlier comment that it is not giving me a sense of what the film is really about, or what to expect of it. I like the concept of a documentary turning into a narrative within the movie, but I don't know if the trailer is effectively selling how that concept is weaved throughout the film. What I'm guessing that the film is about is the main character's (at least I'm assuming the character making the documentary is the main character) objective capture of his friend's potential relationship with the lead actress. And yes, the sound mix is a bit all over in terms of balancing, I had to crank my volume to be able to understand what they were saying, but aside from that the quality of sound capture seems to be pretty good (which I feel like can make or break a film from a watchability perspective). Also, I think the montage near the end of the trailer should be quicker paced, or re-cut. It re-establishes what the beginning of the trailer has already said (that it's about weed and this potential relationship) and kind of drags on with that instead of teasing me with more snippets that makes me want to be excited to watch the film, or establishes the real conflict of this movie, if that makes sense. Also, the moment in the trailer where they're yelling 'may-day' and running around with the weed, I kind of want to see the source or a tease of the source of conflict that is causing them to react in that manner, even if it's something as simple as adding a loud knocking on the door to make the audience believe that it's the police about to bust them. I want to feel what is making them react that way. The way the trailer is now, I don't believe I would want to go out of my way to see this film unless a friend recommended it to me.
Just some observations, but overall good work Milton, I hope that it turns out well for you!
that said, it was overall interesting and catchy... made me generally interested in the movie.
But it was a little all over the place. Both visually (the switch the dancing scenes at the end were weird) and from a content standpoint. I am not sure if I know what the movie is about (a guy making a movie or a pot growing competition?)
Milton you asked for reviews,
To see if this is your big breakthrough,
If you want my real sentiment,
It is completely far from excellent,
And ah f it no rhyme that shit looks retarded. Like really stupid retarded. I feel bad I'm sure it took a lot of work but the whole weed culture thing belongs in 1998 with Half Baked and isn't funny at all anymore.
My initial impression of the cast... really like the kid from EuroTrip, the blonde guy I'm a little more iffy on but atleast he passes for a total stoner, and the hot blonde chick absolutely stole that trailer.
It looks interesting. Someone mentioned it earlier, but I really like how this trailer doesn't explain the entire plot of the movie. It's not really clear where this movie is going. I guess that might turn off some people but I liked it.
Only thing I'd say is that it seems like a weed movie that's not really targeted at the 20 year old or younger crowd, which tends to be a big demographic in weed movies. This is the type of movie where I'd definitely read about the critics reviews and ratings before deciding to watch it or not. So good luck to you on that and congrats on the movie..
I decide on whether I'll see a comedy based on 2-3 laugh out moments during the trailer - humor is subjective, but personally, I didn't have one of those moments re: this trailer.
think about it - how many people do you know who are funny just about every time you see them? And, how many movies were really funny throughout - the better ones have a lot of good gags but still struggle to maintain that funniness throughout the film.
looks pretty funny. It has an Arrested Development feel to me. Nice job. I would watch this.
Thanks, I love Arrested Development, and there is a similarity between Eli (played by Travis Wester) and Gob (Will Arnett) in terms of their absurdist delusions of grandeur.
looks pretty funny. It has an Arrested Development feel to me. Nice job. I would watch this.
Thanks, I love Arrested Development, and there is a similarity between Eli (played by Travis Wester) and Gob (Will Arnett) in terms of their absurdist delusions of grandeur.
I usually hate trailers because they show too much of the movie. I think this was good because it didn't show the whole movie.
Yeah, for the most part I avoid trailers for that very reason. In fact, my original idea for the trailer was to have Eli talking directly to the camera about the movie and saying how he hates the fact that trailers "give away most of the plot and all the best jokes, so you wind up spending 15 bucks to see a movie when you've already seen ten dollars worth of it for free. I wouldn't do that to you." He goes on to say how in his trailer, he is "only going to show you the stuff that wound up on the cutting room floor." And then I show a series of fun stuff that we shot, but had to be cut for structural reasons while Eli continues with narration. I decided against it, but may come back to it as kind of "director's cut" of the trailer versus the "distributor's cut."
This one is definetly better, but I think you have the same major problem overall. That is, none of the scenes seem to flow together to tell us in 2 min. what the hell the movie is about.
It's still a little confusing, I would swap the scenes to the very start of your trailer from the first one and the second. The second scene explains what kind of movie it is, the first is just a funny dialouge scene. I would still maybe cut some of the scene's down, and again put in some titles to aid with the flow instead of relying on dialouge to carry the trailer. Music is a little cheese, but it's not the major problem.
Anyway, congrats, making your own movie is very consuming and a lot of work. You should be proud. Just don't rush it, if your not content with the final product. I had a good friend do that with his movie, and while he spent a ton of money to have it made, he really needed some touching up in the editing and effects process and because he didn't it didn't really go anywhere. He had some good actors in it, Tom Savini starred in it.
I hear what you're saying, for an indie movie like mine with no stars, the trailer is a key component. I considered using titles, but a) to do titles right it takes a professional graphic artist, rather than me working with what FCP makes available; and b) I felt like it was a choice between titles and Eli's narration and I had a lot of narration to work with. On the other hand, since the current target market for the trailer is sales agents, distributors, and producer-types, one goal of mine was that the trailer look professional--and I don't think I achieved that goal.
As for your specific note, I originally had those two scenes reversed, but when I flipped them it just seemed to work better on a visceral level even if it felt more confusing on a cerebral level.
on your film, Milton. As a cinematographer, I understand the rigors of making a film, and I commend you on making your own work.
From a cinematography perspective, the film definitely has that digital, RED One look to it that I'm not particularly a fan of (I really dig the Epic much more). For the most part it's pretty clean and crisp, but I feel like the lighting looks a bit source-y at times and has an early 2000's television look to it. I think that works for the story of it being a documentary clashing with a drama, but I think a more distinct contrast in looks between when it's 'documentary' versus 'narrative' scenes would have sold it better. Overall though, I think that it has visual quality that is better than most independent films, and it looks like it's well-composed and makes visual sense in terms of telling a story through the shots.
As for the trailer, I agree with an earlier comment that it is not giving me a sense of what the film is really about, or what to expect of it. I like the concept of a documentary turning into a narrative within the movie, but I don't know if the trailer is effectively selling how that concept is weaved throughout the film. What I'm guessing that the film is about is the main character's (at least I'm assuming the character making the documentary is the main character) objective capture of his friend's potential relationship with the lead actress. And yes, the sound mix is a bit all over in terms of balancing, I had to crank my volume to be able to understand what they were saying, but aside from that the quality of sound capture seems to be pretty good (which I feel like can make or break a film from a watchability perspective). Also, I think the montage near the end of the trailer should be quicker paced, or re-cut. It re-establishes what the beginning of the trailer has already said (that it's about weed and this potential relationship) and kind of drags on with that instead of teasing me with more snippets that makes me want to be excited to watch the film, or establishes the real conflict of this movie, if that makes sense. Also, the moment in the trailer where they're yelling 'may-day' and running around with the weed, I kind of want to see the source or a tease of the source of conflict that is causing them to react in that manner, even if it's something as simple as adding a loud knocking on the door to make the audience believe that it's the police about to bust them. I want to feel what is making them react that way. The way the trailer is now, I don't believe I would want to go out of my way to see this film unless a friend recommended it to me.
Just some observations, but overall good work Milton, I hope that it turns out well for you!
It was a very tight budget and we actually shot most of the movie on a couple of Canon7D's, with only four or five days of shooting on the Red. My cinematographer was paid only $125/day and he provided the 7D's free of charge. Considering his talent and experience, you can appreciate what an incredible bargain that was. In fact, the whole crew worked for $125/day, from the production assistants to the production manager. The actors all worked for $115/day.
As for getting the story across in the trailer, it was difficult, because it featured a few different story-lines and I couldn't tell them all in the trailer, yet at the same time, there were reasons to show bits of each. Earlier cuts of the trailer attempted to explain more, but they felt long. And I feel like the montage was necessary to give the viewer the illusion that this is zany stoner comedy (the ultimate target audience is 20-something males), even though it is actually more of romantic comedy (that follows two relationships--one being Eli trying to win back his ex-girlfriend by showing her that he has some ambition and the other being about Fran, the agoraphobic pot-grower, trying to win the affection of his beautiful neighbor who is being stalked by her ex-boyfriend).
p.s.-- And the reason they are running around is because Eli's ex-girlfriend just buzzed the door and Eli doesn't want her to know he is smoking weed, because that was the reason she broke up with him (and kicked him out).
Do you mean the movie page or my personal page? When I'm satisfied with the trailer, I will include it on the IMDB page. And because of the poster (I'm guessing), IMDB now has two pages for me, one for Milton Chassman and one for Milton Mortimer Chassman (that's right, my mother was concerned that I wouldn't like the name Milton, so she gave me the middle name Mortimer as a second option--thanks, Mom). In any case, Milton Chassman sounded like just another Jew boy from Long Island, so for the movie I went with my full name (in the tradition of Francis Ford Coppola and Paul Thomas Anderson).
My initial impression of the cast... really like the kid from EuroTrip, the blonde guy I'm a little more iffy on but atleast he passes for a total stoner, and the hot blonde chick absolutely stole that trailer.
It looks interesting. Someone mentioned it earlier, but I really like how this trailer doesn't explain the entire plot of the movie. It's not really clear where this movie is going. I guess that might turn off some people but I liked it.
Only thing I'd say is that it seems like a weed movie that's not really targeted at the 20 year old or younger crowd, which tends to be a big demographic in weed movies. This is the type of movie where I'd definitely read about the critics reviews and ratings before deciding to watch it or not. So good luck to you on that and congrats on the movie..
Thanks, it's nice to hear that the more ambiguous approach works for some people. Unfortunately, you also hit the nail on the head with one of the issues of the movie. It's written by a 50-something for 40-somethings and 50-somethings, but the subject matter is more suited for 20-somethings. It's a problem. I'm hoping that the weed angle will bring in the 20-something males and that they will like the movie despite the fact that it's not what they thought it was going to be.
I decide on whether I'll see a comedy based on 2-3 laugh out moments during the trailer - humor is subjective, but personally, I didn't have one of those moments re: this trailer.
Yup, that's a problem.
RE: being funny in general is harder than most people realize
think about it - how many people do you know who are funny just about every time you see them? And, how many movies were really funny throughout - the better ones have a lot of good gags but still struggle to maintain that funniness throughout the film.
The truth is that this movie can not survive on the comedy alone, it really requires that the viewer get into the characters and their story. No pun intended, but I found that it's a movie that "grows" on you as you get deeper and deeper into it. Which is both good and bad.
is stunning, and I think she can help take this movie off.
I appreciate the reply Milton, I like to see small film makers succeed. In the case of my friend it was a little heart breaking with the years and money he put in to it to see it flop. I would highly recommend getting the graphic artist for the trailer, and even perhaps some of the titles and intro to your movie. When your looking for buyers it will pay dividends, trust me.
I agree with others in the film quality looks something very similar to Arrested Dev., but more so I thought of it as in the same category as Weeds. You should aim it at that type of audience. Congrats again, and I really wish you much success with this creation.
and I gotta be honest, Milton, I'd pay to see this in a theater for 4 reasons and I really think you could improve on this trailer based on this perspective as I was/sometimes still am your target.
1. I love what I saw as far as the cast goes.
2. Watching it high sounds like an excellent idea
3. The chick. Enough said.
4. Knowing that you directed it I'd wanna support your efforts given that you've been updating us on its progress. It's been pretty interesting reading the details when you've posted about it and it'd be cool to see more indie type directors getting to theaters as much as the big studio produced ones. Obviously this reason has nothing to do with helping you reach the market but I wanted to mention it anyway.
As for the other 3 reasons I'd go and what I think would make more people my age go see it. Just a few thoughts.
- Make sure people know there's some rom-com to it as that will draw the girls to it more. I hate rom-com on principle but I don't deny the effectiveness.
- I love the idea you mention in your 4:18AM post to start the trailer off with. It's different and if you script it, right, I think Travis could pull off bringing people in, I think he's fairly recognizable and women would probably think he's hot, tying back to the rom-com point.
- Probably does need to give a bit more clarity as to the plot otherwise it just looks like a hit or miss stoner movie. You gotta give a little bit away in that regard. No idea how you do that but I'm sure you can figure that out.
- More Hankin. He's just funny.
- Maybe more scantily clad chick? Never hurts? Seriously, she's hot.
Ideally, as a stoner I'd watch it on the couch with a nice dank green and bowl but I'd seriously pay to see this in the theater in an instant since you directed it.
I honestly think it could do well if you can reach people and I'd certainly tell people to check it out too. Cool stuff man, I'm real impressed.
I don't go to the movie theater often but I watch a lot of movies for my age and really enjoy all kinds so I feel like I am pretty knowledgeable and can spot quality writing and acting when I see it. I really do like the cast and I think you can tell there's some pretty good comedy in there. Especially if there's more Hankin than there was in the trailer.
Congrats! I am a movie buff(go to more then 150 a year)and I love comedies. I didn't find the trailer overly funny but funny enough to go see and the girl is hot. Now that I know it's coming from a member of BBI,I will definitely go see it. Best of luck
the trailer is a bit...incoherent. it's not very clear what the movie is about. all we really get is that it's a docudrama about growing your own, but i suspect the movie is a little deeper than that, so the trailer should do it better justice.
i also especially agree with...i believe it was Darren in TR...who said that the first scene of the trailer should be the protagonist explaining what he's doing. that sets up the story much better than the first scene you have now - which is funny - but is out of context.
This one is definetly better, but I think you have the same major problem overall. That is, none of the scenes seem to flow together to tell us in 2 min. what the hell the movie is about.
It's still a little confusing, I would swap the scenes to the very start of your trailer from the first one and the second. The second scene explains what kind of movie it is, the first is just a funny dialouge scene. I would still maybe cut some of the scene's down, and again put in some titles to aid with the flow instead of relying on dialouge to carry the trailer. Music is a little cheese, but it's not the major problem.
Anyway, congrats, making your own movie is very consuming and a lot of work. You should be proud. Just don't rush it, if your not content with the final product. I had a good friend do that with his movie, and while he spent a ton of money to have it made, he really needed some touching up in the editing and effects process and because he didn't it didn't really go anywhere. He had some good actors in it, Tom Savini starred in it.
Congratulations!!
From a cinematography perspective, the film definitely has that digital, RED One look to it that I'm not particularly a fan of (I really dig the Epic much more). For the most part it's pretty clean and crisp, but I feel like the lighting looks a bit source-y at times and has an early 2000's television look to it. I think that works for the story of it being a documentary clashing with a drama, but I think a more distinct contrast in looks between when it's 'documentary' versus 'narrative' scenes would have sold it better. Overall though, I think that it has visual quality that is better than most independent films, and it looks like it's well-composed and makes visual sense in terms of telling a story through the shots.
As for the trailer, I agree with an earlier comment that it is not giving me a sense of what the film is really about, or what to expect of it. I like the concept of a documentary turning into a narrative within the movie, but I don't know if the trailer is effectively selling how that concept is weaved throughout the film. What I'm guessing that the film is about is the main character's (at least I'm assuming the character making the documentary is the main character) objective capture of his friend's potential relationship with the lead actress. And yes, the sound mix is a bit all over in terms of balancing, I had to crank my volume to be able to understand what they were saying, but aside from that the quality of sound capture seems to be pretty good (which I feel like can make or break a film from a watchability perspective). Also, I think the montage near the end of the trailer should be quicker paced, or re-cut. It re-establishes what the beginning of the trailer has already said (that it's about weed and this potential relationship) and kind of drags on with that instead of teasing me with more snippets that makes me want to be excited to watch the film, or establishes the real conflict of this movie, if that makes sense. Also, the moment in the trailer where they're yelling 'may-day' and running around with the weed, I kind of want to see the source or a tease of the source of conflict that is causing them to react in that manner, even if it's something as simple as adding a loud knocking on the door to make the audience believe that it's the police about to bust them. I want to feel what is making them react that way. The way the trailer is now, I don't believe I would want to go out of my way to see this film unless a friend recommended it to me.
Just some observations, but overall good work Milton, I hope that it turns out well for you!
But it was a little all over the place. Both visually (the switch the dancing scenes at the end were weird) and from a content standpoint. I am not sure if I know what the movie is about (a guy making a movie or a pot growing competition?)
Good luck though.
To see if this is your big breakthrough,
If you want my real sentiment,
It is completely far from excellent,
And ah f it no rhyme that shit looks retarded. Like really stupid retarded. I feel bad I'm sure it took a lot of work but the whole weed culture thing belongs in 1998 with Half Baked and isn't funny at all anymore.
It looks interesting. Someone mentioned it earlier, but I really like how this trailer doesn't explain the entire plot of the movie. It's not really clear where this movie is going. I guess that might turn off some people but I liked it.
Only thing I'd say is that it seems like a weed movie that's not really targeted at the 20 year old or younger crowd, which tends to be a big demographic in weed movies. This is the type of movie where I'd definitely read about the critics reviews and ratings before deciding to watch it or not. So good luck to you on that and congrats on the movie..
think about it - how many people do you know who are funny just about every time you see them? And, how many movies were really funny throughout - the better ones have a lot of good gags but still struggle to maintain that funniness throughout the film.
This one is definetly better, but I think you have the same major problem overall. That is, none of the scenes seem to flow together to tell us in 2 min. what the hell the movie is about.
It's still a little confusing, I would swap the scenes to the very start of your trailer from the first one and the second. The second scene explains what kind of movie it is, the first is just a funny dialouge scene. I would still maybe cut some of the scene's down, and again put in some titles to aid with the flow instead of relying on dialouge to carry the trailer. Music is a little cheese, but it's not the major problem.
Anyway, congrats, making your own movie is very consuming and a lot of work. You should be proud. Just don't rush it, if your not content with the final product. I had a good friend do that with his movie, and while he spent a ton of money to have it made, he really needed some touching up in the editing and effects process and because he didn't it didn't really go anywhere. He had some good actors in it, Tom Savini starred in it.
I hear what you're saying, for an indie movie like mine with no stars, the trailer is a key component. I considered using titles, but a) to do titles right it takes a professional graphic artist, rather than me working with what FCP makes available; and b) I felt like it was a choice between titles and Eli's narration and I had a lot of narration to work with. On the other hand, since the current target market for the trailer is sales agents, distributors, and producer-types, one goal of mine was that the trailer look professional--and I don't think I achieved that goal.
As for your specific note, I originally had those two scenes reversed, but when I flipped them it just seemed to work better on a visceral level even if it felt more confusing on a cerebral level.
From a cinematography perspective, the film definitely has that digital, RED One look to it that I'm not particularly a fan of (I really dig the Epic much more). For the most part it's pretty clean and crisp, but I feel like the lighting looks a bit source-y at times and has an early 2000's television look to it. I think that works for the story of it being a documentary clashing with a drama, but I think a more distinct contrast in looks between when it's 'documentary' versus 'narrative' scenes would have sold it better. Overall though, I think that it has visual quality that is better than most independent films, and it looks like it's well-composed and makes visual sense in terms of telling a story through the shots.
As for the trailer, I agree with an earlier comment that it is not giving me a sense of what the film is really about, or what to expect of it. I like the concept of a documentary turning into a narrative within the movie, but I don't know if the trailer is effectively selling how that concept is weaved throughout the film. What I'm guessing that the film is about is the main character's (at least I'm assuming the character making the documentary is the main character) objective capture of his friend's potential relationship with the lead actress. And yes, the sound mix is a bit all over in terms of balancing, I had to crank my volume to be able to understand what they were saying, but aside from that the quality of sound capture seems to be pretty good (which I feel like can make or break a film from a watchability perspective). Also, I think the montage near the end of the trailer should be quicker paced, or re-cut. It re-establishes what the beginning of the trailer has already said (that it's about weed and this potential relationship) and kind of drags on with that instead of teasing me with more snippets that makes me want to be excited to watch the film, or establishes the real conflict of this movie, if that makes sense. Also, the moment in the trailer where they're yelling 'may-day' and running around with the weed, I kind of want to see the source or a tease of the source of conflict that is causing them to react in that manner, even if it's something as simple as adding a loud knocking on the door to make the audience believe that it's the police about to bust them. I want to feel what is making them react that way. The way the trailer is now, I don't believe I would want to go out of my way to see this film unless a friend recommended it to me.
Just some observations, but overall good work Milton, I hope that it turns out well for you!
As for getting the story across in the trailer, it was difficult, because it featured a few different story-lines and I couldn't tell them all in the trailer, yet at the same time, there were reasons to show bits of each. Earlier cuts of the trailer attempted to explain more, but they felt long. And I feel like the montage was necessary to give the viewer the illusion that this is zany stoner comedy (the ultimate target audience is 20-something males), even though it is actually more of romantic comedy (that follows two relationships--one being Eli trying to win back his ex-girlfriend by showing her that he has some ambition and the other being about Fran, the agoraphobic pot-grower, trying to win the affection of his beautiful neighbor who is being stalked by her ex-boyfriend).
p.s.-- And the reason they are running around is because Eli's ex-girlfriend just buzzed the door and Eli doesn't want her to know he is smoking weed, because that was the reason she broke up with him (and kicked him out).
It looks interesting. Someone mentioned it earlier, but I really like how this trailer doesn't explain the entire plot of the movie. It's not really clear where this movie is going. I guess that might turn off some people but I liked it.
Only thing I'd say is that it seems like a weed movie that's not really targeted at the 20 year old or younger crowd, which tends to be a big demographic in weed movies. This is the type of movie where I'd definitely read about the critics reviews and ratings before deciding to watch it or not. So good luck to you on that and congrats on the movie..
think about it - how many people do you know who are funny just about every time you see them? And, how many movies were really funny throughout - the better ones have a lot of good gags but still struggle to maintain that funniness throughout the film.
The girl is smoking hot
I appreciate the reply Milton, I like to see small film makers succeed. In the case of my friend it was a little heart breaking with the years and money he put in to it to see it flop. I would highly recommend getting the graphic artist for the trailer, and even perhaps some of the titles and intro to your movie. When your looking for buyers it will pay dividends, trust me.
I agree with others in the film quality looks something very similar to Arrested Dev., but more so I thought of it as in the same category as Weeds. You should aim it at that type of audience. Congrats again, and I really wish you much success with this creation.
1. I love what I saw as far as the cast goes.
2. Watching it high sounds like an excellent idea
3. The chick. Enough said.
4. Knowing that you directed it I'd wanna support your efforts given that you've been updating us on its progress. It's been pretty interesting reading the details when you've posted about it and it'd be cool to see more indie type directors getting to theaters as much as the big studio produced ones. Obviously this reason has nothing to do with helping you reach the market but I wanted to mention it anyway.
As for the other 3 reasons I'd go and what I think would make more people my age go see it. Just a few thoughts.
- Make sure people know there's some rom-com to it as that will draw the girls to it more. I hate rom-com on principle but I don't deny the effectiveness.
- I love the idea you mention in your 4:18AM post to start the trailer off with. It's different and if you script it, right, I think Travis could pull off bringing people in, I think he's fairly recognizable and women would probably think he's hot, tying back to the rom-com point.
- Probably does need to give a bit more clarity as to the plot otherwise it just looks like a hit or miss stoner movie. You gotta give a little bit away in that regard. No idea how you do that but I'm sure you can figure that out.
- More Hankin. He's just funny.
- Maybe more scantily clad chick? Never hurts? Seriously, she's hot.
Ideally, as a stoner I'd watch it on the couch with a nice dank green and bowl but I'd seriously pay to see this in the theater in an instant since you directed it.
I honestly think it could do well if you can reach people and I'd certainly tell people to check it out too. Cool stuff man, I'm real impressed.
Good luck...
i also especially agree with...i believe it was Darren in TR...who said that the first scene of the trailer should be the protagonist explaining what he's doing. that sets up the story much better than the first scene you have now - which is funny - but is out of context.