I think the old thread dropped past the 30 day mark, so I'm starting a new one to share our progress on the movie project.  For those not familiar with the effort - we are making a movie series based on the book "Lights Out" by our very own David Crawford (AKA "halffast").  David wrote the book here with all of us, and as an experienced producer - I've acquired the rights to make a series of movies based on his work.  Lights Out has been downloaded or sold in book form millions of times, and was in the top 10 list on Amazon's action & adventure list for months.  You can certainly find out more at our Lights Out Saga website and our Lights Out Saga Facebook page.  We have NOT started shooting the movie yet, so this is your opportunity to provide input and support on the ground floor, and join us in our journey.  

The challenge with an independent start-up like the Lights Out Saga is that we need your support early on - but we don't have actors, locations, crew and funding yet.  So what we've done is create a "concept trailer."  We don't have any real 'movie footage,' but we can't wait for that level of content before we get the word out.  So what we did to share the concept (for publicity and fundraising reasons) was set up a 48 hour shoot.  We did hire recognizable actors from the Walking Dead, a helicopter, a full film crew, the stunt team from TWD, the Noveske Shooting Team to train our actors and extras, etc.  We capped our budget at $25K, from set-up Friday night to tear-down Sunday afternoon was capped at 48 hours, and we could have at most two locations.  We wrote a short script within those parameters and pulled it off!  These compromises mean we couldn't have extensive fortifications in the woods, trenches dug, etc.  The improvised barricade (more concealment than cover) is certainly a point of contention with a lot of viewers.  We get it.  We had most of the electronic optics pulled, so there's a scene with a rifle without a rear site.  Yes, we know.  Hopefully this six minute short film/concept trailer still strikes a cord with all of you, and gives you an idea of what we're going to do in the movies!  

Here's the new short movie/trailer!!  Also be sure to check out our new Fundraising Site



I look forward to your feedback.  

  - Travis

loved it..need MOAR....

Very nice.  I like it.

Can't wait till its done.

The dudes in the woods make good targets

Full steam ahead Travis!!!

The Georgia crew has your back, just tell us what you need.

The more I watch it, the more I like it.

And I liked it the first time I saw it

Wait until it's done?  You're not driving up with me to spend some time on set?  




Your rock!  Look forward to getting you down to GA next time.  We've been talking about it for years.  I have some significant things I'd like your help with - right up your alley




Thank you my friend!  You GA boys are okay - I don't care what anybody says.  I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot of each other next year....

Love to, when?

Yep, that looks AWESOME!!!!!!!

  ZMB's.......

frontal assaults against an entrenched/fortified line bristling with guns when the attackers have mobility to flank if they so choose?

The charge of the motorcycles to engage the front lines was intentional even though it exposed them. Their role was to engage the "good guys" and get their attention. Then the 1919 was set up on the left flank to suppress their fire, keep their heads down, and actually took out several of them. While that was happening, several pre-positioned attackers (led by the ATV crossing the river) were trying to flank them on the right (after taking out the "good guys" on the right side with accurate fire). Mark and a few good guys had to make a desperate move and break cover to engage the flanking force, which is what led to the ATV buttstock scene, engaging the flanking force and recovering their injured teammates. Isn't that how it works? Admittedly it would have been nice to do on a grander scale (as we will in the real deal), but I think the concepts were there.

Admittedly our plan was a little different before a monsoon turned our dry riverbed in to a raging river (and put us 5 hours behind schedule).  Still, hopefully the mobility, flanking attacks and use of supressive fire you felt might be missing make more sense when you watch it again.  I know it's not intuitive the first time.....

Looks good Black Fox.

It does not look like Texas at all

Georgia is but a small planet that revolves around the sun that is Texas .

Texas has minimal film crews and no State rebates or other incentives to shoot there.  GA has incredible film crews, incentives and a State rebate that make it the perfect place to shoot.  I'm standing by for the donation of several hundred thousand dollars that would make shooting in Texas affordable, but haven't gotten any takers yet .  Until that happens, the story and the movie will be based in GA.

I guess I'm trying to figure out what the MZBs objective was.

If I led a group on vehicles into the woods, unless I didn't know a way around a road block like that I would evade and go around them, flank entirely. I suppose if we were running low on food... desperate...

I mean, I suppose if my armed band had only enough gas to make it to the next town - and we ate our last ration 2 days previously....and the dirt track was the only passable route to guaranteed resupply... and the flanks were trackless swamp.... then it makes sense to attack the defenders. Otherwise it seems foolish. of course people have done similar when on drugs so...

Yeah - fair question.  Yes, they were desperate, low on food, etc.

In the movie itself, our sets will be larger, the ambushes more 'real' and general tactics a bit more solid.  For a low budget weekend-long shoot with what we had to work with - hopefully this story at least gets your curiosity up about the movies themselves!

Post up your latest trailer! We'd love to see how to do it better.

Oh, it's okay DJ. I don't think someone has to earn the ability to critique, and they certainly have a point. I sure as heck would have maneuvered around the barricaded group if I was an MZB (rather than charge straight at them). We simply didn't have the budget, time, space or anything else for something more realistic.  It's admittedly tough to see what feels like 20% of the entire Internet tearing up your work, but that's okay.  A part of me feels like people should support time project because of what we're trying to do, but In reality - that have to support it because they like what they see.  We are saving our budget for the movie.  I still don't know if doing the concept trailer was the right move or not, but look at it this way- at least they're talking about us now!!

I mean, dialogue can make the scene understandable.

MZB scout reporting in, stage left.

"Hey, I been probing about half a mile to the left flank here - it's all bog and marsh. None of our bikes will get through. I almost lost a boot trying to get through myself. Seems like they've got the only passable piece of ground".

MZB scout #2 reporting in stage right.

"same picture here Hoss, that creek there is deep - probably was some sort of canal at one time - at least 8-9 feet in the places I checked. Runs back to the open highway where that big .50 almost blew us apart yesterday. That open ground.... pure suicide man. This ground - at least we'll have some cover".

MZB boss is eyeing the left and right, chewing on a stump of a cigar or stick...

Biker chic with bloodshot eyes mumbles.... "we don't even know if they're low on ammo or not.  If we make a diversion they might panic and blow their wad - then we hit them with the main force while the 1919 opens up."

Camera zooms in.... boss is considering it. Yeah, they haven't taken many shots so far - like they're saving their ammo. They've got to be low. It just might work.

Looks at fuel gauge. Quarter tank. Looks at empty saddle bag - crumbs.

Then he makes the call. "Let's hit em."

So the main actor takes a bullet to the noggin fighting zombies......how the hell did he end up there???   The Govenors gonna be pissed!!!

You just described two extra days of shooting (roughly doubling the budget, and moving us from a convenient volunteer weekend shoot - to one that now interferes with everyone's 'day jobs').  Your idea would have been disasterous (although I appreciate that it probably seems so easy on the surface!).  People who have not shot a movie think 'oh - it would take 10 minutes to get this extra line,' but unfortunately that's not the case.  When you look at all the preparation of the set, blocking/set of cameras, sound, director's vision to team, multiple takes with multiple angles each, etc. - what you described really is a day or two (at great expense).  Your ideas definitely would have solved a lot of "plot" problems, though.....

 

For the teaser trailer, why didn't you shoot an actual scene from the book? At least something close. I was expecting to see something I recognized, and was disappointed that I didn't.  I agree with the above poster that the trailer was too "Hollywood" for my taste.

Which scene?  Pick one - that could have stood on it's own two feet (literally no background or character development), been produced in two days (max of two simple locations) for less than $25K - and still resonated with potential fans.  Given that we're an action adventure - it has to have a shoot-out or fight in it to fit that genre, and hit our target audience (preppers and gun nuts).  I'm trying not to spend my day debating with armchair movie producers, but maybe can help you realize it's not as easy as you think.  If you expected to see something you recognized, then you weren't paying attention.  We've been telling you it wasn't going to be a scene from the book for almost 6 months.  

On top of that we are intentionally separating a concept trailer from the real deal - and your feedback is a textbook example of why.  The real movie footage is going to look completely different than this.  This battle scene will play out completely differently.  You'll have more perspective and background in the movies, of course.  If we had done a specific scene (even if we could have found one) - we would have gotten creamed for "not doing it justice" and "that's not what I thought it would look like" (because it will look different than the real movie).  I guess I overestimated people's ability to differentiate a teaser/concept trailer from the actual movies - and appreciate it for what it is.  It's been a good lesson for sure.  I thought people would be hungry for something.  That they would accept something less than Hollywood-level production and polish for an early concept. Looks like I misjudged.  I'm trying to figure out whether it's even worth keeping people engaged at this point....

But if you read the book you would have recognized this as the attack at the rear of their development.

Any scene. How about the first scene he makes contact with MZB's, when returning home in the truck, and ends up in a firefight in the ditch?  I thought you were looking for feedback.  I will refrain from posting in these threads in the future.

I read the book twice.  Once from the downloaded version, and a second time when I bought it.  The scene in the trailer did not strike me as the final battle behind the development.  Based on BlackFox's comments, it doesn't sound like it was intended to be either.

I'm just a fan of the book, who doesn't want to see the movie adaption turn out like crap, like most movie adaptations do.  Never said it was easy. Like I said, I will stay out of any future 'feedback' threads.


You got me there. I haven't been paying attention.



I actually stated that the trailer was too "hollywood" for me.  In other words, I thought it was over produced, or polished.
I do sincerely wish you success in this project.  That's why I posted to begin with.

Sorry if I came across as defensive - I sincerely didn't mean to.  Understand we're getting a lot of flack right now from people with no idea what they're talking about, so my responses may be a little 'direct.'  I'll respond to your proposal about a scene we should have shot (instead of what we did) momentarily.  In the meantime - I will state in the nicest way possible that you can't throw stones and have a thin skin at the same time.  You can't suggest we're going to make a movie that's 'crap,' not read any of the posting (literally just above the trailer you watched), judge us for doing exactly what we said we were doing, throw out some really horrible suggestions - and then play the victim by saying you'll "stay out of such threads in the future" as soon as somebody challenges you.  We're adults here, and while everybody wants to hold me to a 'higher standard' - I'm going to hold all of us to a high standard.  If you're going to suggest you know better than we do how to make a movie - you have to convince me (not the other way around).

What I would actually really like to have is a productive conversation about how to move forward.  I'd like to post pictures of our extras, actors and their gear, and have us work together to make it better.  What I need is support for the future, rather than a bunch of people second guessing the past.  That's not to say you can't critique.  Critique away!  Just be aware it's in the past, and there's nothing we can do.  The sign of a contributor in my mind is someone who says "what do you have planned in the next few months, and how can we help?"  For reference, I have not had a single person ask such a question on any of the dozens of forums critiquing our work.  Hundreds of people are content to criticize from the comfort of their sofa, but less than five people have stood up to help us moving forward.  While I'm glad to talk about why I made the decisions I did for the concept trailer, ultimately - understand that we're wasting our time.  It's done.  We're not doing another one.  We're not re-editing or re-shooting what's done (until we have movie footage). There's no way for us to please everyone, and we're not even going to try.  The trailer did what we needed it to do (raise awareness) - in spite of it's imperfections.  There are some lessons learned for sure, but given a time machine - I wouldn't do things altogether differently.  This really needs to be looked at as a point in time, with disposable footage.  It's the same reason people all across the world eat fast food - it's not the 'steak' we want, but it's here now and we can afford it, and in a few hours, we won't remember it.....

I'm not sure you meant this the way it came out. Many of us have volunteered to help, previously and now. You know we've been asking to help for months.

<sigh> You're right DJ, and I clearly place you (and your wife) amonst those who have stood beside us.  My point is that out of the anonymous people on the internet (who are prone to critique - see text in purple) - VERY few have actually offered to do anything constructive.  

There's a whole team of people who show up, help and support in a very practical sense, and I never want to take away from that.  You guys are active participants in the most obvious sense.  I never meant to mix you guys up with armchair movie producers!  I was talking more about the anonymous internet persona kind of thing versus my friends who have stood shoulder to shoulder with us.....

I will state in the nicest way possible as well.  You are coming off as extremely defensive, and thin skinned. My original post was really mostly a question of why you shot a scene that wasn't in the book.  And then I agreed with the poster above me that it felt a little too Hollywood.  I was not expecting the tirade you came back with.  A simple link to the post where you discussed your reasons would have sufficed.  Based on what you said, I am guessing you have received a lot of negative feedback, and my post was in some way a final straw for you. I am not sure what 'horrible suggestions' I threw out.  Or maybe that was directed at some one else.

For the record, I was an original backer of the Remnants project, and I followed it very closely.  In all honestly, while I liked the concept of the movie, I was a bit disappointed with the final product, including the added scenes in the second version of the movie. That is why I decided to sit this one out.

As far as moving forward, the only thing I can offer you, coming from just a guy who liked the book and not a movie producer, is that you should stay true to the book as it was written.  I have never understood why movie writers, directors and producers all feel the need to "adapt" the book to the movie.  I understand certain scenes may need to be cut due to time constraints and such, but most movies based on books tend to veer off greatly from the original story line, adding scenes that never existed, and eliminating scenes that are crucial to the plot.  And I hope you can view my feedback to you for what it is.  Just some ideas from a guy who appreciates the Lights Out story, and wants to see the movie do it justice.

Okay, so your idea is a car chase with a running shoot-out through multiple blocks of neighborhoods (with extras, broken down cars, dressed houses, etc.), cars impacting each other and windows being shot out, turning in to a country road, passing the gate (clearly established as a large imposing metal gate with blockades, a wall around the neighborhood, houses in the background set on multi-acre lots, etc.) and crashing the truck in to a ditch.  Then a large firefight commences with ~4 actors at the truck, two at the gate and roughly 8 bad guys.  The Silver Hills crew at the truck bounds and fires over to a ditch with a hill.  Several MZBs are cut down in the ensuing cross-fire, while the rest surender.  

In order to produce this we would need helicopters, mounted camera units, incredible stunt teams, and more.  Aside from the railroad tie ambush, the gas line easement ambush, the "billy the kid" rescue or the final battle scenes - that's one of the most complex (and expensive) scenes of the entire story.  My best guess is a week and a half of shooting to get these scenes.  Your suggestion is that we film this as disposable footage?  You're suggesting we create the gate to the neighborhood, the entire neighborhood backdrop, establish multiple blocks of houses beforehand, find the right location for the shoot-out, purchase and destroy multiple vehicles, use weapons, squibs, hollywood glass and everything else - to throw away?  Just to give you an idea - the creation of all the sets, buying vehicles, hiring stunt crews, weaponmaster, etc., would have cost us approximately $250K for this scene.  While those sets and props would be used elsewhere in the actual movies, if we had done this just for the concept trailer - it would have literally bankrupted the entire project when done on a pre-production basis.

That is a great description of what it would take to shoot a scene like that.  If you had originally just said "budget constraints", I would have got it. Honestly, I went with "it has to have a shoot-out or fight in it to fit that genre", and picked a cool scene that people would relate to.  Here is what it comes down to.  You stated you had reasons why you went down the road you did with the trailer. I'm sure they are very good reasons, and like you said, there is no going back in the past.  Understandably budget constraints played a major role. I think the thing maybe you can take away from my original post is that, as a person who read the book a couple times and appreciated it, I did not relate to the trailer in the slightest way.  There was nothing familiar about it, other than it was an action scene with cool guns. Maybe your target audience was not people intimate with the book.  I don't know.

I see it as the complain/compliment rule - for every 1 person who will pay you a compliment, 10 people will lodge a complaint.  I wouldn't take the criticism personally - to extrapolate, I would guess that for every 1 person who raves about the teaser, 10 will bitch about something (lol, just look at GD's ability to bitch about everything), and 100 will work to help and support you.  So if you have 5 people volunteering, you probably have 500 who will help if asked or presented an opportunity.

very nice

I enjoyed it very much

Are you serious?  You spent all this time and drug us all the way down this path - because you didn't bother to read?    









So you watched the trailer and didn't recognize Mark, Gunny, Samantha, David, Ralph or anyone else?  You didn't notice the Garand or the FAL they carried?  The barricade didn't remind you of the improvised barricades they used at the back of the neighborhood?  You couldn't tell who the MZBs were?  Mark and a few friends rushing to stop the MZBs from getting across the barricade (in this case a creek) doesn't sound at all familiar?  You found absolutely nothing from Lights Out in it?  

Between not realizing there was a budget, suggesting I should have filmed one of the most expensive scenes in the entire book (as throw-away footage) and then this - I have to be honest, I'm not really sure if you're serious at this point.  Are you playing a joke on me??

It never ceases to amaze me how some people always finds fault in things instead of looking for the good......  Just my observation.

You did a great job Travis...

Yeah, I hear you.  Don't get me wrong - I actually share a lot of the criticisms folks bring up.  I get it.  I also want to be accessible - so people can go straight to the producer and ask questions.  I probably have to get better about weeding out unproductive conversations, though, versus those that are.  For every one person that posts - there are a hundred reading it, and wondering the same thing.  Even if I can't get through to the person critiquing in many cases - plenty of lurkers do get it.  Personally, I don't care if people call me names, photoshop my head on donkey butts or whatever.  I'm your pinata!  I do worry that all the unproductive mud-slinging brings the project down, though.  I know for a fact there were a lot of people who were planning to contribute, but all the mud slinging dampened their enthusiasm - and they never followed through.  Unfortunately, not only is the mud-slinging taking up time and energy we dont' have - it's actually hurting us financially, and THAT is where I tend to get a little protective .  That doesn't mean people shouldn't critique or question.  It's the difference between asking "hey, what led you guys not to film a scene that was actually in the book?" versus "that was stupid."  

I think the thing that makes conversations about the movies difficult is that everyone fancies themselves a producer or director.  It's a funny thing.  They wouldn't walk in to an open heart surgery and start telling the doctor he doesn't know what he's doing.  Not that I'm a surgeon, but it's always interesting how people have no problem walking up and telling me what I should have done instead (literally without having ever been on a movie set in their lives).  Not that I am above questioning!  I just wish people could understand the real life aspect of movie making.  I suspect you saw some of this on set last time .  JustAdBellum's suggestions about dialogue were good ones, for example, if you don't have to consider what it would take to film them.  When you don't have to worry about budget, creating sets, hiring crews, fading daylight, schedule conflicts, rain, going to work on Monday and so forth - yeah, let's just shoot some more footage!  It doesn't work that way, though.  If I try to explain the 'real life' aspect of all of this - I come across as defensive or making excuses.  If I don't try to explain it, though, it looks like we don't know what they're doing.  

As stated above - the thing I underestimated is some people's ability to understand the real life nature of compromise.  I thought putting out something that we intentionally kept low budget (but high quality) would have excited people.  I thought they would think "wow, if they can do this with $25K and one weekend - imagine what the real deal is going to be like!"  I think the majority of people did feel that way.  Our ratings on YouTube and elsewhere are 25 positive comments or likes for every 1 negative comment or dislike.  We landed some huge sponsors and leads as a result of the trailer, and we did bring in some funding.  We're exactly where we need to be, and I look forward to sharing some additional good news (and footage) later this year.....

Thank you fantomas and JeffB!

While I agree the content of the trailer was nothing paralleling the book (almost Jericho-esq actually), I also recognize it as something to whet the appetite of the viewer and garner support of the film.

I found the production quality of the trailer much better than what I was expecting and the resources put into such a short clip very admirable. If the video quality stays high, time is spent to ensure fight scenes stay realistic (no bottomless magazines, shooting from the hip, etc.), and the production and editing are as well done as they were in the concept, I believe this can be a top tier movie, perhaps one of the better ones in the "survival genre".

I'll support your efforts and encourage you to keep up the quality of production.

I am glad you are doing this project.  As I stated before, I sincerely wish you success.  I think part of the problem may be that everyone who are fans of the book have a very high expectation.  Maybe too high.  I think that was part of my issue when I clicked on the trailer and watched it. I was expecting something different, and when it wasn't what I thought it was going to be, I commented. Something was missing, and clearly I am not able to effectively relate what that missing element is. But if the trailer is helping to bring money in, then like you said, it did what it needed to do.

You didn't respond to my comments about staying as close to the book as possible in the actual movie.  What are your thoughts on that? Do you agree that most movie adaptations tend to go offtrack from the book?

Whew!  Now that we have all that over with, let's get to constructive conversation....

How close will the movies be to the book?  Well, our goal is to keep it as close as we reasonably can.  The scriptwriting team is a delicate balance of creative people (tend to make their own stories), production people (have an eye on the practical side of the story - because they have to build it/film it), structural people (an eye towards best practices, such as three chapter structure, protagonist arks, etc.) and Lights Out fans (including the author David Crawford).  A few thoughts:

(1) Transforming a book to a movie inheritently means it must change.  A book can describe things in great detail and let your imagination run.  A movie has to show you everything explicitly - and cannot describe or explain anything.  In a way, a movie has to "dumb down" the presentation a bit.  A good writer minimizes the change, but some change in the way things are presented is inherent.  The transition from imagination to visual presentation is not minor by any means.  

(2) A movie has to be less than a book.  Lights Out is 600 pages of 8pt font. (just under 1.5 million words).  A movie generally runs 1 minute for every page of script, and you want your movies to be ~100 minutes of content (not including intro, credits, etc.).  A script is 12pt font double spaced, and has a lot of background data.  Just to give you an idea - our first draft of the first script is way too long right now, but has just under 23,000 words.  Once we prune it back closer to 100 pages, it will be ~20,000 words.  The means 3 scripts together will be around 60,000 words.  In other words, the scripts contain 4% of the content of the story (using word count as a guide).  As you can imagine, this means you have to cut certain things.  It's amazing how little 100 pages of script can contain!  

(3) Cost is an issue with a movie, whereas everything is free in a book!  In a book you can have 1 million zombies running across fields, you can have entire cities, you can have nuclear bombs - whatever.  It's all free.  In a movie, on the other hand, everything cost money.  Every location costs a minimum of $10,000.  Every extra cost you $100/day when you total food, the production team finding them, coordinating schedules, etc.  If you need a car for major portions of the movie - you have to buy it.  If you need trenches and fortified fighting emplacements - you have to build them.  Any weapon, jacket, toolbox or anything shown throughout the movie has to be purchased.  I'm not suggesting we change the story because we're too cheap to do it right.  On the other hand, for example, there are several locations and characters that simply didn't add value in the story.  The auto parts place and the friend that ran it, the Mahindra tractor dealer, and the water barrel guy are probably going away.  

(4) I'm going to get lynched for this, but Lights Out wasn't perfect.  It was never intended to be a book, but more of an online story.  It also was intended to appeal to a very niche audience (which is different than our target audience for the movies).  The dialogue was fairly forced in many places, and there were a few other weaknesses.  David and I spend a few hours a week on the phone with each other, and he'll be the first one to tell you - he would change a lot of things about it if he could.  It's been described as too "Leave it to Beaver" or "Mayberry."  All of Mark's kids are perfect, do as they're told, don't complain much, and think of others more than they think of themselves.  How many teenagers do you know like that?  The children probably won't be so compliant in the movies.  There are other things we need in a movie that the book didn't.  We need a grander entrance to contrast with the disaster.  Think about Poseidon Adventure for a hint

(5) The structure of distinct movies requires some movement (versus Lights Out being one big story).  Without getting in to technical details, each movie must have character development, tension build, some conclusion (with suspense for the next one), and some themes/plot lines that are free standing.  Usually this means items move.  For example, Ronnie's rescue may happen earlier or later depending on content.  

With all of that said, we are not changing things just for the sake of changing them.  Every deviation from the book is going to be evaluated with a critical eye, and it must be justified.  In case you're not aware, I have invited David Crawford (the author of Lights Out) to be an active participant on the writing team, the production team and anything else he wants to be a part of.  David needs to approve the scripts.  I'm making the movies because I'm passioniate about the story - so want to keep it intact.  

I know that's a long-winded answer, but does it make sense?  

    - Travis

Definitely makes sense.  I know that certain scenes / characters will get cut when writing the scripts due to time and money constraints. As a casual movie watcher, I often feel that many of the scenes that get cut shouldn't have been, and vice versa. And then sometimes they will add in brand new scenes or characters that were never in the book.  In my mind these are major factors in ruining a movie adaptation.  I'm sure with having David in the mix, the two of you will figure out what is fluff and what matters.  Other than that, keeping the technical aspects in line with reality is a big factor.  As someone mentioned before, no endless magazines, backwards Eotechs and such.  It sounds like you already got raked over the coals for the barricade concealment versus cover technicality. I think the reason a lot of people are so passionate about technicalities and the laws in physics in movies, is because Hollywood can't seem to put out an action movie that actually follows them.  I get the impression they think the average audience is just too stupid to notice.

Lights Out was the first work of fiction that really made a sudden stop, EMP event "real" for most of us - it walked through all the "therefores" to expect in terms of social and cultural challenges - how would people react?

How long would the inertia of habit endure? When would sporadic crime lead into despair and total anarchy? How long before strategic thinkers (good and bad) realized that they'd need to re-evaluate everything and seek a long term solution?

The EMP envisioned in 2005 when few of us were 'preppers' etc. meant within 6 months half of us would be starving or dead. That was sobering. The idea of sieges and trench warfare and desperate tricks.... all made preps that much more urgent so as to obviate the scenarios in the book.

How many folk kept Lights Out in their minds eye when buying NV and armor? Or extra barter items or medicines. Or grow a garden or get chickens...or dig a hand well.... or buy pre-1965 engines? Or get into wood fired generators etc.?

Notice that there was little in the way of JBTs and heavy handed totalitarian government forces - for the most part the action was entirely between civilians. Times haven't changed that much except than since 2005 there are now 30 million more firearms in civilian hands and billions of rounds stockpiled....

Since this is ARFcom.... @ 3:41 in the trailer the guy is firing away with his M4 and has no rear sight on his rifle.

Thank for being the 20th person to report this.

Good write up.

I'm amazed how you have time to post/reply to questions across multiple online platforms.

Thank you!  It's nice to know the background is helpful.  Part of running a project like this is that I have to be accessible to the supporters.  As we bring on cast members and other senior crew - they'll have to be similarly accessible.  I'm trying to set the example for that from the beginning!  

I actually think I'm doing a horrible job keeping up with this all over the place .  I'm working three jobs right now to try to pay for the movie.  I actually really need to transition from trying explain the concept trailer to getting the word out more.  Would love your guys help with getting our links, website and crowd funding info out there more!  Between work and pre-prod (scriptwriting, casting and planning), four shoots this fall/winter (you heard it here first!), expanded fundraising, four publicity events and everything else this year, expanding sponsorships, and gear prep (I'm personally building, painting and prepping over 80 rifles in the next 6 months) - I'm definitely running out of steam!  Thanks for the good words, though.  Knowing people appreciate what we're doing is all the motivation we need.....

    - Travis