Ok so I know everything I've done to this point hasn't been well received so as I'm trying to make an actual legitimate short film reboot of The Chip to enter into Newport FIlm Festival, I've practiced some small stuff and here's a trailer for an ambitious novel called The House of the Spirits by Isabel Allende. The focus in this is the cinematography, manual focusing, and some trace elements of color grading.
I Took Your Advice.
Moderator: Erik
Oh man.
Okay, you seem to have taken some of the advice given, but it's just not working at all. What is that voice over? Don't do voice overs if you have unconvincing actors, it's jarring as hell. The manual focusing, I didn't follow really, is it something you were never doing before? Manual focusing is kind of a norm, I don't know, so I don't get it. Anyway, it seems you're just starting to work on it, because it is horrible. A blurry mess, the focus is too slow, too abrupt, need to work on that.
Did you color correct this? Because it doesn't look like it, now, I don't know with what camera you're shooting, but it just looks very very cheap, the dolly shots or camera movements are abrupt, muddled. The font used for the title is horrendous.
I think you need to go back to the basics. Keep it simple, don't try to do something that you can't do, or don't have the budget for, or the material for.
I don't know, get a decent script, a character driven story, people talking, the visuals are clearly not your strong suit, focus on something else.
I'm sorry if this all seems harsh, but I have to be honest & blunt on this.
Okay, you seem to have taken some of the advice given, but it's just not working at all. What is that voice over? Don't do voice overs if you have unconvincing actors, it's jarring as hell. The manual focusing, I didn't follow really, is it something you were never doing before? Manual focusing is kind of a norm, I don't know, so I don't get it. Anyway, it seems you're just starting to work on it, because it is horrible. A blurry mess, the focus is too slow, too abrupt, need to work on that.
Did you color correct this? Because it doesn't look like it, now, I don't know with what camera you're shooting, but it just looks very very cheap, the dolly shots or camera movements are abrupt, muddled. The font used for the title is horrendous.
I think you need to go back to the basics. Keep it simple, don't try to do something that you can't do, or don't have the budget for, or the material for.
I don't know, get a decent script, a character driven story, people talking, the visuals are clearly not your strong suit, focus on something else.
I'm sorry if this all seems harsh, but I have to be honest & blunt on this.
Let's go through this step by step.
0:00 - 0:04: Your teaser trailer has not been officially rated by the Motion Picture Association of America. Don't use their good name. Leave this out of your teaser.
0:04 - 0:35: Opposed to Jax, I kinda like the voice-over here. However, that has said everything about this.
Video quality is bad. Lighting is awefull. No trace of collor correction. Actor that is clearly not an old man (despite his 'fake' stach). Audio quality is bad and ends abruptly. See, there is some static noise on the background of the voice-over. That is unfortunate, but can be passable. However, to make that good possible, you need the static to fade out at the end of the VO. The VO ends at 0:32, let the static fade untill 0:35 instead of this abrupt silence.
0:35 - 0:42: Video quality is better, but it takes too long with the focus. What is the point of this segment?
0:42 - 0:44: I don't believe this guy's wig.
0:44 - 0:52: Focus takes too long. Why not showing the complete sugar bowl? I guess because you needed someone to move it, but that's not really resourcefull. Ever thought of fishing line?
0:52 - 1:00: That guy again and the moving sugar.
1:00 - 1:01: I guess the plane has something to do with the book. Nice idea for the shot, but poorly executed. Try to stabilise the shot and make that airplane exactly in the middle of it. Stabilising can be done with every good editing software (Adobe Premiere, Final Cut, etc.)
1:01 - 1:06: The first actor again. Him watching the plane probably has something to do with the book. However, what the hell did you write there? The director of? I don't know. Who are you? You're nobody. I thought we had been over this when you wanted to do a sequel to The Chip. You don't want to refer back to old work that is irrelevant and can possibly work against you. I by the way googled on your name and those 'projects' and found nothing. So what's to refer to?
1:06 - 1:10: Bad performed stunt, no lighting, no trace of collor correction. Poorly edited.
1:10 - 1:17: Again, too long out of focus. Seems like a meaningless shot.
1:17 - 1:29: Could have been the epic finally of this teaser. However it lacks good cinematography. Could you also use a different text type for the title? This looks cheap.
First of all: What is this? Is this a book trailer (so, right now a finished product) or a trailer for a short or feature film (based on the book)? I don't really get that. Either way, why didn't you mention Isabel Allende in the trailer?
I recently started writing some sort of book on producing short films like you want to make. I haven't been able to write the second chapter yet, but let me know the answer to the questions of the first chapter: http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/viewtop ... ad#p729561
What is your goal and who is going to be the audience? How many people are part of the core crew and what are they doing?
I stated before that there are a lot of people on this forum that would like to help you, but they probably won't step out to you. You have to contact them. Have you tried to contact anyone for a consultant on this?
When I look at this and read your discription, I can only conclude that you misinterpretated every advise we gave you.
0:00 - 0:04: Your teaser trailer has not been officially rated by the Motion Picture Association of America. Don't use their good name. Leave this out of your teaser.
0:04 - 0:35: Opposed to Jax, I kinda like the voice-over here. However, that has said everything about this.
Video quality is bad. Lighting is awefull. No trace of collor correction. Actor that is clearly not an old man (despite his 'fake' stach). Audio quality is bad and ends abruptly. See, there is some static noise on the background of the voice-over. That is unfortunate, but can be passable. However, to make that good possible, you need the static to fade out at the end of the VO. The VO ends at 0:32, let the static fade untill 0:35 instead of this abrupt silence.
0:35 - 0:42: Video quality is better, but it takes too long with the focus. What is the point of this segment?
0:42 - 0:44: I don't believe this guy's wig.
0:44 - 0:52: Focus takes too long. Why not showing the complete sugar bowl? I guess because you needed someone to move it, but that's not really resourcefull. Ever thought of fishing line?
0:52 - 1:00: That guy again and the moving sugar.
1:00 - 1:01: I guess the plane has something to do with the book. Nice idea for the shot, but poorly executed. Try to stabilise the shot and make that airplane exactly in the middle of it. Stabilising can be done with every good editing software (Adobe Premiere, Final Cut, etc.)
1:01 - 1:06: The first actor again. Him watching the plane probably has something to do with the book. However, what the hell did you write there? The director of? I don't know. Who are you? You're nobody. I thought we had been over this when you wanted to do a sequel to The Chip. You don't want to refer back to old work that is irrelevant and can possibly work against you. I by the way googled on your name and those 'projects' and found nothing. So what's to refer to?
1:06 - 1:10: Bad performed stunt, no lighting, no trace of collor correction. Poorly edited.
1:10 - 1:17: Again, too long out of focus. Seems like a meaningless shot.
1:17 - 1:29: Could have been the epic finally of this teaser. However it lacks good cinematography. Could you also use a different text type for the title? This looks cheap.
First of all: What is this? Is this a book trailer (so, right now a finished product) or a trailer for a short or feature film (based on the book)? I don't really get that. Either way, why didn't you mention Isabel Allende in the trailer?
I recently started writing some sort of book on producing short films like you want to make. I haven't been able to write the second chapter yet, but let me know the answer to the questions of the first chapter: http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/viewtop ... ad#p729561
What is your goal and who is going to be the audience? How many people are part of the core crew and what are they doing?
I stated before that there are a lot of people on this forum that would like to help you, but they probably won't step out to you. You have to contact them. Have you tried to contact anyone for a consultant on this?
When I look at this and read your discription, I can only conclude that you misinterpretated every advise we gave you.
The MPAA logo and stuff there are just for the heck of it. The main point was the color grading (which you've pointed out is barely existent) and the manual focusing (which you pointed out needs to be a little quicker). I was going for a Malick-esque look. All the other stuff (from the director of Moby Dick, Nox, and The Bomb) was just to make it more like a trailer.
The fact that you gotta explain what's wrong with it is weirder than the video. Dude, cmon.
You guys told me to put up some stuff that I have actually IMPROVED on. That's what I did. I'm not arguing with you that some of it doesn't look as good as it should, but that's because I just figured out how to do some of the stuff such as manual focus and small color grading (specifically on the leaves) WHICH one of you -- I believe Z. Cobb -- told me to color grade on since leaves are colorful. In what ways can I improve on those two techniques: color grading and manual focus? I understand what Erik said, but anyone else think there are other things I can do to improve my craft with those techniques?
I didn't say to colour grade the leaves. Lol. That doesn't matter anyways. One key thing that is missing is nothing to do with technical equipment or understand. What's really absent is a critical eye. That awareness will improve The choices you make down to the smallest detail which is what can elevate The film. But there is no critical eye and minimal self critique.FreakLikeMe wrote:You guys told me to put up some stuff that I have actually IMPROVED on. That's what I did. I'm not arguing with you that some of it doesn't look as good as it should, but that's because I just figured out how to do some of the stuff such as manual focus and small color grading (specifically on the leaves) WHICH one of you -- I believe Z. Cobb -- told me to color grade on since leaves are colorful. In what ways can I improve on those two techniques: color grading and manual focus? I understand what Erik said, but anyone else think there are other things I can do to improve my craft with those techniques?
Man, honestly, I don't know.
When you say " I was going for a Malick-esque look", I just, I don't know, why the hell would you try to go for a Malick-esque look (especially, when the dude is unique, and anything that tries to mimic it will just come across as a pale imitation), when you lack basic skills, and need to work on the basics, before even attempting anything else.
I don't know what to tell you when you say you need to work on it. You should get better short after short, that's usually how it works, maybe watch tutorials on color grading (which is far from being the main problem), try to find some better content, and actually try to say something or express something meaningful to you.
I remember seeing you talking about great directors or movies that you admire, be inspired by those, pay attention to what makes it great, this will teach you a lot, but I'm guessing you already do that.
I don't know what else to tell you, work on it, and work on it, so it looks a bit more stylish, maybe change your equipment, learn some things about cinematography, or framing, lighting, keep working on it till you get results or not.
When you say " I was going for a Malick-esque look", I just, I don't know, why the hell would you try to go for a Malick-esque look (especially, when the dude is unique, and anything that tries to mimic it will just come across as a pale imitation), when you lack basic skills, and need to work on the basics, before even attempting anything else.
I don't know what to tell you when you say you need to work on it. You should get better short after short, that's usually how it works, maybe watch tutorials on color grading (which is far from being the main problem), try to find some better content, and actually try to say something or express something meaningful to you.
I remember seeing you talking about great directors or movies that you admire, be inspired by those, pay attention to what makes it great, this will teach you a lot, but I'm guessing you already do that.
I don't know what else to tell you, work on it, and work on it, so it looks a bit more stylish, maybe change your equipment, learn some things about cinematography, or framing, lighting, keep working on it till you get results or not.
Even the mallick shots which are suppoed to be simple as hell are just wrong. Mallick, nor any amateur, woukdn,t think he'd achieve a beatiful shot by filming leaves up close and wide. In cinema there are no wide up close shots of objects' unless they are very wide. You should've zoomed in and opened the apperture. What's your camera anyway?
