The agency quoted fifteen thousand dollars and six weeks; your launch is in nine days. Brief Dreamz in chat instead — the problem your users wake up with, the moment your product dissolves it — and a directed launch film comes back with script, cast, voices, and score.
Great launch films dramatize the pain before the product. The studio scripts your user's worst Tuesday as a scene, so the demo lands as relief.
Open the investor meeting with a ninety-second film that does what slide one never could — make the room feel the problem before you present the market size.
Hero film for the site, cutdown for Product Hunt, teaser for X — commission the set with shared cast and style, each quoted separately in the same chat.
The exact cost appears in chat before you approve — no agency retainers, no revision invoices, no surprise line on the month's spend.
Dreamz is also a Claude connector (MCP) — describe your film to Claude and the finished video comes back in the conversation. If Claude is already your workspace, your film studio now lives there too.
Tell Dreamz about the video for startups you want — story, mood, who's in it. The director agent writes the script and casts characters with you, in chat.
Scenes generate live on your dashboard — visuals, voices, music and editing handled for you, with the exact price quoted before anything is charged.
Watch the finished cut, request changes in plain words, then download it — everything you make is commercially yours.
The quote came back at fifteen thousand dollars and six weeks: two weeks of scripting and storyboards, a shoot day, three weeks of post and revision rounds. Your launch is in nine days, your runway math does not have fifteen thousand of discretionary in it, and the six weeks would land the film a month after the moment it was supposed to serve. So you do what every seed-stage team does — you cut a screen recording with a voiceover recorded into a laptop mic, put it at the top of the landing page, and tell yourselves the product speaks for itself. It does not. The screen recording explains what the software does, and nobody has a problem understanding what your software does; they have a problem caring. The thing you cannot afford is the thing that would actually move the number: ninety seconds that dramatizes the ache your user wakes up with, then shows it dissolve. That has been an agency-only asset because it needs a script, a cast, a voice, and an edit.
You brief it in chat like you would brief a designer who has never seen the product. For example: "A ninety-second launch film for a scheduling tool for home-service contractors. Our user is a two-truck HVAC owner in Charlotte who does his dispatch in a group text at 6:40am and loses about four hours a week to it. Open on the group text at dawn — three technicians, four conflicting messages, one job double-booked. Show the cost: a customer standing in a driveway at 10am, nobody coming. Then the turn to the product, shown as calm rather than as a UI tour: one screen, jobs assigned, the truck arriving. End on him drinking coffee sitting down. Dry and specific, no startup-y triumphal music, no stock-footage handshakes. Our product name only appears in the last five seconds." The chat asks what it needs — aspect ratio if unstated, whether the founder appears. It quotes a price in chat, and that quote is the exact charge; nothing bills until you approve. Then it writes a screenplay and shows you the whole thing before a frame renders, which is where your co-founder's opinion belongs — argue about the script, not the film. Revise in plain words. The finished film comes back in the same chat, commercially yours.
The recurring failure of startup video is proportion. Teams give eighty percent of the runtime to the product and twenty to the problem, because the product is what they think about all day. The films that convert invert it. Spend sixty seconds making a stranger feel the 6:40am group text, and the product needs eight seconds to land, because by then the viewer is doing the work for you. The corollary: do not tour the interface. An interface tour is a documentation asset, useful on a docs page and inert on a homepage. Show the product as the absence of the problem — the driveway that does not have an angry customer in it. If you must show the UI, show one screen for two seconds at the moment of relief, and keep it honest about what ships today rather than the roadmap. Investors and users both punish the film that shows a feature that does not exist yet. Be specific about the user, too. "Small business owners" produces a generic film. "Two-truck HVAC owner in Charlotte" produces one somebody recognizes.
Treat the ninety-second film as the master and derive the rest, because the expensive part — figuring out the story — is already done. The derivatives that earn their place: a thirty-second cut for paid, where the problem gets twenty seconds and the product gets ten; a fifteen-second vertical that is just the group text and the driveway; and a slide-zero film for the deck, which is the same problem sequence with the product removed entirely, played before you say a word in a partner meeting. That last one is the underused asset. Most first meetings open with a founder explaining a market, and a room that has heard nine pitches that day is not listening. Ninety seconds of a specific person's specific bad morning changes the register of the conversation before you have made a claim. Keep the film out of the parts of the raise that are regulated — a marketing film is marketing, and anything that speaks to returns, traction, or investment terms belongs in the deck and the data room where your counsel can look at it. Check current AI-disclosure policy on whichever platforms you run paid media through.
No discovery calls, no six-week timeline, no five-figure retainer. You brief in chat, approve the cast and the exact quote, and receive a finished, directed film.
You see the exact price in chat before anything is charged, and the approved quote is the exact charge. Short films start at a few dollars.
Yes. Everything Dreamz makes is commercially yours — embed it in the deck, the data room, the landing page, and paid acquisition.
Dreamz generates original film rather than editing uploaded screen recordings, so it excels at the story around your product — the problem, the user, the payoff — while your demo shows the pixels.
Yes. Dreamz ships as an official Claude connector, so a founder already working in Claude can commission the launch film without switching tools.
Yes for the problem half, which is most of the film and does not depend on shipped code. Be careful with the product half: show only what exists today, because a film that dramatizes a roadmap feature will be discovered, and the cost of that is worse than launching with a shorter film. The problem sequence alone is a usable asset.
Usually not in the launch film — it competes with the user's story, and viewers came to see themselves, not you. A founder-voice film is a separate, useful asset for the fundraise and for hiring, where the person is genuinely the subject. Decide which film you are making before you brief, and say so explicitly.
Do not try to picture the technology; picture the consequence. Infrastructure, developer tools, and API products all have a human on the other end of the failure — the on-call engineer at 3am, the finance lead reconciling by hand. Brief that person's night. The abstraction becomes filmable the moment you locate the human who pays for it.
Yes. Dreamz ships an official Claude connector (MCP): connect it once in Claude, then describe the video you want in any conversation — pricing quotes, drafts and the finished film are delivered right in the chat. The website and the Claude connector share the same account and pricing.
Brief the problem you solve in chat and get the film your landing page is missing.