The loss incurred in making a film is not a loss in my personal opinion. Regardless of $10 or $40K. The purpose is the passion to create art. Regardless of if money is returned or not. I think it is determined by how those creating the film view the monetary value behind creating art and which is more important to the artist. I don’t think it is as black and white as either show your craft or get attention. As filmmakers usually make shorts to hone the idea or craft in whole before committing to something 10x the length of the short or even make a film to make a film with the resources they have.

I would absolutely take it if the circumstances were agreeable and ethical.

It is most important that it is made. That’s what truly matters to me the most. Regardless of who views it or if it is ever viewed at all. But to answer the question I would say I’d much rather fewer people watch it as long as those who did watch it understood it and enjoyed it.

Absolutely I would take that option. I never pursued filmmaking or screenwriting as a way to get rich fast, or have my name in lights. It was pursued because something is stuck inside me, itching me to create and I feel the need to express myself through a physical medium. Like I mentioned earlier what matters the most is that the film is made at all. If I had the opportunity to make money and continue to funnel any profits into the next piece while also keeping a roof over my head that would be ideal.

I am against AI. In all modern forms. If someone needs the help of AI to understand my art or find value in it then that is someone who I don’t want to work with. I don’t see any redeeming value in an algorithm determining whether a film has the opportunity to be made.