Hi All-- I'm looking for some honest feedback, please...
This is a patriotic project my team has been working on for over 20 years. We have some very reputable experts on our team including the two lead investigators, Steve Murphy and Javier Pena, from the hit international Netflix TV show Narcos, among several others. This show idea has turned heads at Realscreen Summit from several networks, but no takers so far (almost, a couple of time tho--).
The Lost Clipper project is about finding fifteen Americans that were unwittingly used by President Franklin Roosevelt in a secret mission to bring three million dollars in ransom to the Japanese Yakuza holding aviatrix Amelia Earhart. The research is not so much about Amelia Earhart (as that subject has been "done" already) but about the true historical rescue efforts to rescue her. Of course, we have years of research and official US government documentation and interviews to back this show series for several years.
The hitch? Why didn't the networks take us up on this epic guaranteed show idea? We need $150K to go back to a remote area in the Pacific with cadaver dogs for DNA evidence before those networks will bite. But how to raise $150K? We've tried the crown sourcing idea a few times for lesser amounts here and there over the years... and we're kind of turned off by it. I'd like your take on ideas. Your thoughts on how we should proceed and perhaps where we should go with this. Any particular person or organization that can help? How do you feel about this show tease? Is this something that YOU would watch as an annual reality series? What are we missing? As professionals in this field, I'd appreciate your input to get this going. Shoot me a message. More here: www.LostClipper.com and all social media @lostclipper Thanks in advance!
--Jeff
Needs? Story writer and Development? Interested?
My take, for what it's worth:
1. What makes you think spending $150k will make any network/studio "bite"? My own experience is that if no one is offering the development funds, they are not likely to be interested after that money is spent.
2. Is it documentary or unscripted? If Earhart is the attraction, it's documentary, you don't need necessarily the names, and you better be able to show pretty compelling evidence that Earhart was really a spy and there was a ransom. And an attempt to pay/rescue on that ransom. On the other hand, if it's unscripted, those names must be interesting enough personalities to gather an audience aside from any particular thing they are doing and you don't need to prove anything about Earhart because it's their drama and personal struggles that are interesting. And you are likely to have to shoot the full season in a couple weeks.
3. To be brutally honest about the concept (you asked), yes we all know the story, and the theories. I would be unlikely to watch this unless you had real evidence at the beginning that proves Earhart was a spy. None exists to my knowledge. And proof of the rescue attempt. I would be uninterested in any series even with that proof. Though if you actually have it, I might watch a one hour special.
Thanks for your feedback, Shadow. It's worth a lot. To answer each of your questions and for others reading this to note... regarding #1: The $150K is to go back to this remote Pacific location (not cheap) with a team of specialized scientists and cadaver dogs (as opposed to "regular" cadaver dogs) to recover 80 year old DNA. We have the process in place, just not the funds. The networks want that DNA evidence to finish the story. Of course, we have our 20 years of other evidence, interviews, and documentation to support it all. We just need this physical evidence. This strikes me as strange as many, many "reality" shows never find their evidence, or string the viewer along for many many seasons before either giving up, or ever finding their evidence, or finally finding something. ie: Oak Island.
#2-- Ours is an unscripted reality investigative show ala Oak Island or other Discovery Channel shows. The production company, I feel, leaned too heavily on the Earhart story, but they wanted to hook viewers on something they recognized rather than on the intriguing story of her ransom. We have 20 years of interviews with eye witnesses, other researchers, and gov't officials to cover. The real-life Narcos guys, Steve Murphy & Javier Pena, are also on our team among other notables. There are an unbelievable amount of drama in the plots and subplots we have laid out to more than easily cover a three+ year series.
#3-- I hear ya, Shadow. And that's what will make this project super cool, but can't go into detail here. We have numerous contacts in various positions working behind the scenes getting things declassified. Ultimately, our goal is to get these 15 MIA's repatriated home to the USA and their families, whom are part of this story. Finding their DNA (with funding) will actually officially prove (per the international declaration and definition of war) that the start of WWI for the US was not Pearl Harbor but rather this act of highjacking and murder of the US military & citizens onboard our plane.
$150K is a lot for us (or anybody). But think of the outcome and how it will officially change history! As mentioned, the story & subplots are mind boggling. I was originally hoping to have the viewer follow us to the epic "find" of this DNA (yes-- we know where it is) with a network's payroll. But for us to find that evidence first THEN hold on to it from the world for potentially years until the series ends doesn't seem right?
So there you have it. As with any show idea, there's a lot more behind the scenes but that's it in a nutshell. Any ideas from you or others reading this, any interest or ideas on someone or business with philanthropic, historic and patriotic feelings-- let me know.
Thanks in advance--
--J
1 person likes this
I am no expert on this. I will say though, that I have pitched a ton of companies in the last two years. I realized that if I wanted to be taken more seriously, the music videos and short films I had produced weren't enough. So I used my own money and credit to produce a $154k film. I have pitched only a few companies since completing this film this year (2020) but the conversation is very different. It's less about what they can do for me and more about how we can partner. So my suggestion would be, if you have decent credit (or an asset you can borrow against) and you believe this much in your project, ask your card to give you an increase and 0% for a year and fund it yourself. It's a lot easier to find someone interested in a finished project than one that they would have to invest in to complete. Also, once you are spending your own money, you'll find ways to cut cost and make things work. Good luck. If you take my advice and it works out, please let me know through ig @bySinclair (or youtube, twitter, or here...).
1 person likes this
It’s odd that a network wants you to spend $150,000 on basically a “proof of concept” which ultimately they will reshoot with their own approved crew & vetted by network censors & legal team. That’s what the “pilot” is and Networks pay for pilots under their control.
I worked a year at FOX reality tv dept with the main Bosses (at Nakatomi plaza Aka FOX HQ) and they listened to pitches by vetted prod companies they’ve done business with. And Fox funded lots of pilots, most never aired and stayed in the can forever. The thing is once you partner with a Network, they own it. So if the pilot is shelved, your idea is shelved too.
Jeff Riegel I was reminded of Oak Island as I was reading your original post. My one comment, and I am very serious, is that your one and only reliable indicator that "the networks want" any part of a project is if they are offering the money to get it. I would never advise you to spend this sum to develop any concept at all. My producer alarms are going off at full decibel range that someone told you they "would, if" and #if you do (X, Y or Z)" is a very specific industry code phrase. It is ALWAYS and ONLY an objection to your pitch, and NEVER a bona fide indication of interest. The only evidence you can ever have that they want it is if they are giving you the cash to get it and signing you up so that no one else can get it. I am not trying to rain on your parade. But someone has to be honest and clear about what is happening. if you simply want to do this project, you are better off raising the money and shooting the whole thing yourself and then trying to sell it after. Because developing one part of it when nobody is actually offering you the development funds to tie you down is not safe for business like.