I do feel kind of bad for the guy. It can be pretty rough when you're so bad at something that you don't even know you're bad at it, and then suddenly the real world intrudes and you have no choice but to realize you're bad.
The best outcome is he sucks it up, learns from it, and maybe goes out and works on getting some skills.
I'm not super confident that will happen.
I can understand why you feel a smidge of pity for him, but he's not unlike the many of the other aspiring filmmakers out there with self-entitled, shitty mindsets.
Anyone who has had to make something with scarce resources can attest to having to find creative solutions that could have been avoided if the said thing had more money. It's a matter of WHAT you do with your limited resources that illustrates your skills and talent. I've seen GRADE A work created from pennies.
I don't dislike his short because of the lack of budget or some sort of agenda. I find his work abysmal because it shows a dearth of creativity. What is this thing trying to say? It sounds like a dumb question, but it's the most important thing someone can ask while creating a story in any medium.
Think about this, say we were financiers and gave this guy more money. Do you see any potential? Would widening this filmmaker's scope actually result in anything worth a damn? Remove the technical flaws and what do you have? Another forgettable short with nothing going on under the hood.
Most accomplished filmmakers have an assortment of shorts under their belt. Each one is flawed and meant to be a safe place for mistakes to be made, but they still possess potential.
The greats often suffer from imposter syndrome even after they've accomplished so much. It's the people who look at their work with blinders that never elevate themselves past an amateur level.
His response shows he probably won't make it.
