Turning Point - trailer

[Guest]

This is a trailer for a feature length film called Turning Point. It was shot about 90% with a DVX100.

http://vegasusers.com/vidz-18t/zeroalias-movie_trailer_256k.wmv

[David Jimerson]

Anamorphic adapter? 16x9 squeeze? If not, how did you do the letterboxing?

[THiNSPiRiT]

Might I ask what the other 90% was shot with.

It looks alright... odd framing in the shot at the beginning...

What did you use for audio?

[Guest]

It was letterbox.

The other 10% was shot with a GL1 in frame mode.


The audio was dubbed with a SGM-2x and a ME-66.

;) The film was upgraded as it was shot.

[Guest]

Oops, I meant, It was letterboxed in post.

[THiNSPiRiT]

I find it strange that you would switch cameras during shooting. The optics and quality of each of the cameras is different, and would thus make the visuals inconsistant.

I thought the audio was a little off. It being dubbed explains it.

[gualbert]

I can't see this link... ???

[Neil Rowe]

me either..

[Guest]

Well. I had the opportunity to upgrade to the DVX from the GL1. Thus, we decided to change the production camera. It's not really that huge of a difference in the scope of things (both are low end SD cameras). Unfortunately I had to leave before we could reshoot that last 10%.

[Guest]

For those who can't see it, download Windows Media 9.

[Neil Rowe]

i have wm9. i dont believe it has anything to do with having the wm9 player.. the link is bad. the url is not found.

[Mike_Donis]

I can't see anything either. It tells me that there's nothing to be found at this URL.

[Mike_Donis]

Ok, this time the link worked.

I can't say I was very impressed with the cinematography; it wasn't *bad* in my opinion, just nothing that spectacular. It has its moments, though. I liked a lot of the telephoto close ups, when you had more side lighting - it makes the picture look more 3D (and then the shallow depth of field makes it look more film like, too :P ). A lot of what you had, though, looked relatively flat, and didn't show off the DVX to its full potential.

And what's up with the story? Then again thats not the DVXs fault...

[Guest]

It's kinda hard to get the full story just from the trailer don't you think? There is more to it.

As for the cinematography, it's hard when there is a budget of absolutely nothing, with no one around (within a few hundred miles) with the resources to help.

We tweaked the camera best we could to get a picture that was usable without lighting in most shots.

[Mike_Donis]

It's kinda hard to get the full story just from the trailer don't you think? There is more to it.

Fair enough...I was merely talking about what *I* thought of what the story was from the trailer. But you're right...I very well could have been mistaken!


As for the cinematography, it's hard when there is a budget of absolutely nothing, with no one around (within a few hundred miles) with the resources to help.

Man, do I ever know how you feel. I know what it's like having no budget (hell, I spent all my money on MY dvx, and have nothing left for my film either, I know where you're coming from). The fact is, though, that regardless of the situation, I gave my thoughts on what the *product* was. So im not judging your skills as a *cinematographer*...only what I thought of this piece of *cinematography*. You very well could be as good as Conrad Hall, and the money's just screwing you over. Sorry if you took my critisism personally, it wasn't meant that way.

[Neil Rowe]

...after going to the main site and finding the links to the trailer, i finally was able to watch this. ive watched it a few times now.

i liked the music.

the concept was intruiging, although the storyline was not really clear through the trailer. ..i know its just a trailer, but if anyone watches any hollywood film trailer made using even less running time, they know pretty much exactly what the film is going to be about. , or at least have a pretty good idea.

i too liked the medium close ups, and close ups,they were great..very filmic. but the wide shots seemed to throw that whole cinematic feel out the window. i have to say the cinematograpy only lacked in the wide shots. im not just saying it sucked or what-not, im saying that the wide shots (which constitued a moderate amount of the content) lost the intimate feeling that the few closeups brought, and what drew me into the trailer. just looked to videoish from the lighting and composition in the wide. ..please dont blame budget for this, framing and composition and usage of natural lighting can all be done with excellence regardless of how much money you have in your pocket at the time. ..again im not a mean guy with some vengance to tell people they smell bad or somthing, im just being honest, and letting you know what i think you need to work on.. im not digging for stuff to rag on, it was just really obvios. we all need to work on stuff in the craft, and i would expect that if i posted somthing that people would give me their honest opinion good or bad about it.but bah... enough of me trying to explain my good intentions.

i thought it seemed like a pretty cool idea..whatever it is . and again id like to see the film. good job, and i was actually overall impressed, and good luck with the film :)

[J.R. Hudson]

Not to parrot IAL's take, I have to agree.

There were some shots I really liked. Don't let a llack of resources or being in the middle of no where be a burden. There are a ton of films that are centrally located in the middle of no where. Its all in how you potray it.

I liked many of the shots in this although on my computer screen, it seemed to be lacking in lighting (no pop) or lighted incorrectly.

I like what I see for the most part. I see effort for one! Is this a student film? I see a patern in so many trailers, films, etc at our level in that the cast are usally in high school or near. I think casting the right people in the right roles is so important.

Not exactly sure either what this about. It would be nice to know. Anyway, good luck with this!

[Neil Rowe]

..ive noticed that same pattern john.. i think that its just harder to find adults willing to work for no or little money. younger people still believe that they can actually become somthing through a production such as this. which is true. your dead on about casting though. very important in dee ddididilly doo..

[THiNSPiRiT]

It is harder to find adults when you're a student film maker that's true, but still no excuse.

The trick is to network with as many people as possible. Teachers are pretty supportive of this kinda thing as well.

I find though, once you get out of highschool, you can start finding actors who are willing to work on deferral or for free just to get some exposure and add something to their resumes.

I'd say if you're 18 or older, you can find enough adults to be in films, or at least friends who look older.

[Mike_Donis]

The trick is to network with as many people as possible. Teachers are pretty supportive of this kinda thing as well.
That is so true. *If you're in high school (or keep in touch with people from your high school) many drama teachers love to be in student films. *I've gotten some of the best performances from them; they know what they're doing (usually) and they have a presence that you can't get without having real adults. *
It'll make your stuff look just that much more professional.

[Neil Rowe]

..i dont think its an excuse either, i just think that thats a big part of why the trend exists. at my age i can get any type of person i want, but its still alot easier to find juveniles with time on their hands, and a ready and willing attitude.

[Mike_Donis]

It is easier to get younger actors for the roles...but then why not write a *good* story that stars younger actors in the roles. The way I look at it, you gotta work with what you have. You don't need to make "Degrassi High: The Movie" if you're using kids, you can write something just as worthwhile. But then it looks like you legitimately WANTED younger actors, than having just SETTLED for them, know what I mean?

[Neil Rowe]

..i agree. i dont , and havent disagreed with anything being said here. im simply stating why i believe the trend exists. cause its the easy road.. although not always the right road to take. just letting you know were on the same page here :)

[Mike_Donis]

just letting you know were on the same page here :)

My bad...I know what you mean now!

Good to know we're on the same page :D

[Guest]

I didn't take personally, just explaining. :)

Excuses are excuses. I have no excuse for making excuses, and if something isn't up to par, I take all responsibility.

[Guest]

Sometimes to decide what is considered cinematic we must redefine what that word means to fit individual tastes. It could be associated with what Hollywood considers to be cinematic. The preconceived conceptions of cinematic means something completely different in France or Italy than it does here in the States. I could have tried making this film in a manner in which I deemed to be "safe". It may have been something that you would see aired on a late night cable channel. Typical, safe, commercial. Or you could go with your gut feeling. Incorporating everything you've learned about convention and reshape them to fit your personal taste and vision. Hopefully, it will make people take a look and think hmmmm, that's different, and if not, hey, oh well. This is how evolution in art works.

I've branded the trailer with a style which I find to be intriguing. I personally dislike Hollywood trailers that give the entire movie or story away. I don't feel as if I want or need to watch the film as I have already seen it in 2:30 minutes. I want something that gives the atmosphere and essence of story without giving any away. Tim Burton himself said that he felt the whole system of pre-selling a film takes the magic away from the experience of seeing the movie as a whole.

As far as the odd angles go. While to some they may seem odd because they are not of convention. I didn't seek to create paint-by-numbers convention. To me they are specific to each action within the film. The photography is exactly as it needed to be for what we had. I chose the angles because they told the story. I don't like for angles to be a hindrance but a tool that can be reshaped to serve the greater cause of the picture. To me, this film is an achievement that I am proud of and I am proud of those that helped make it possible including Mark and Zuriah. It was a great learning experience and our next film will be even better. Better to make an imperfect films than to sit on my butt and make no films.

Thanks to all who watched, Akira Wing

[Mike_Donis]

You *should* be proud of yourself, man! Even though some of us said aspects were imperfect, that doesn't mean we think you're a bad person and should burn in hell because you made a film.

The bottom line is, YOU MADE A FILM.

If you had nothing to improve on, there would be no REASON to show your work, except unless you only wanted praise. And if you only wanted praise, you're not in this industry for the right reasons; THAT would make you worthy of burning in hell :P

The fact that people are giving constructive critisism is a GREAT thing!

I'd love to see your final film when its all done! And I think I speak for everyone here when I say that you don't have to defend yourself on this...nobody means any harm.

[THiNSPiRiT]

I understand what you mean about not following traditional conventions and such. That explains why the style is so different. However, our commenting on the style is purely subjective to our tastes, there's no harm in that. In fact, Mike made a feature that I particularly dislike although I'm in it... just not my style and there's nothing wrong with that.

I think though, what you need to work on is simply the visual interest and beauty of the moving picture. For example, you have a shot where you can see a big sign for a sporting goods store. That completely takes you out of the moment. Had your depth of field been shallower, you wouldn't have even paid attention to that.

Also, you can still tell the story with different conventions while still having a beautiful picture on the screen. That's all our criticism is really about. Psychologically, we respond to certain things in very predictable ways. That's why there are conventions... and why the conventions in many ways are tried and true. It's good you're experimenting though, but I think you'll end up finding much of what makes a "holly-wood" convention has only been found through over 80 years of experimenting and is tried and true.

[Mike_Donis]

Thinspirit, I think you hit it on the button.

[Neil Rowe]

..i think thin spririt hit the nail on the head. but again nobody means any harm..were simply offering our advice to helo you take your filmmaking to the next level. now..
when i said "it threw the entire cinematic feel out the window" , i didnt mean that it didnt look like a hollywood film in those shots. i meant that the imagery was distracting enough as to where it conflicted with me trying to get into the story. i dont mean to be insulting, that just my honest opionin. it really did affect me in that way. i was only offering my input as a building block for you. take it or leave it.. apperently its already been left. which is fine. you are the artist, and if the imagery makes you happy than so be it, but you should keep in mind one thing. as an artist yes. you need to be true to yourself, but remember that filmmaking is the art of telling a story through film, so unless you are only telling the story to yourself, you need to be aware of what the audience thinks. good or bad. your not going to become a famous filmmaker if you make films that only you like. *i didnt have a problem with the angles, i liked them.i liked the concept as a whole. i still believe that a trailer should let people know what the basic premise of a film is though. your chances of getting someone to go see a film that they know nothing or little about are very small. when i go to the theatre(and probably everyone else) and i dont know what im going to see yet, its very rare that i look at a poster and say.."hmm i dont know anything about this one but it looks like theres a pirate, and a snowman in it .." and then go see the film. i usually pick one that i know roughly what its going to be about, so that i can decide whether or not i might enjoy it. same thing with renting films. i dont often just pick one up that i know nothing about. *so while its great that you want to fight the norm (i do to) ,what you may be forgetting is that the trailer is not an art peice, its a marketing peice. * even as still , while i may not agree with you on these things, it dosent matter. again your the artist.

seriously though , i cant stress enough how much i applaud you for this peice. *it was clear that there was talent present through some of this small trailer. please dont take anything im saying personally, as that is not my intentions at all. *again i would like to see the whole thing. *so , well earned congrats on your accomplishment, and i very sincerely wish you the very best. id love to see more in the future. :)

[J.R. Hudson]

I think the term cinematic is there for a reason. It is what separates, say, a news piece or home video from a film or movie.

There are certain rules and time honered techniques that have been developed and for a reason. Like in any medium, film or oil painting, there is a reason things are done or taught a certain way.

Unless one is doing an experimental piece, I think it is a better idea to follow convention to achieve a cinematic feel than to do what one might think is 'their' way of telling the story.

I also think in post, during editing, is where one can tell a story 'their' way and not during production.

[Guest]

Sort of paraphrasing what I said in my first post, "Using convention but bending the rules a bit to accommodate a new way of telling a story is how innovation has always happened since the beginning of time", I did not mean to say to throw them out the window, as you can see from the many conventional shots I used in there, I am aware of them and they have the utmost validity because there is a reason they became convention.

While I agree the sign in the background is somewhat distracting, when your working within certain time constraints and technological constraints, there just wasn't time to telephoto every shot with a whole scene left to shoot and two hours to shoot. It's actually been a pretty semi-recent development in film to use DOF to the extent that it is being used now. Many of the old classics utilized a majority of wide angle shots. It's also sort of weird to see that shot out of context. I will consider puting a different shot for the preview.

Granted, the DOF of film is much more shallow than video, we were not shooting film and our tracking equipment was lacking. Many times our choice of wide angle or not depended on our motion as well. The more wide angle, the smoother our steadycam shots would be. Anyway, we got what we got and edited as best we could. We are actually planning to re-shoot some scenes to replace our older footage in the future when the time is right, hopefully, the story, which most of you got a tiny glimpse of, can stick up for itself. Thanks for the comments. Making this film was like a year and a half of film school. We learned a lot.

-Akira Wing

[Guest]

I just wanted to add one more thing. This film was over year and a half in the making so a lot of those shots that you see are a mixture of really old footage that was shot two summers ago and footage that was shot at the end of last year. Generally, the later the better. The billboard in the background was one of the first scenes we ever shot, back when we thought this would be a short little 5 minute movie no one would ever see. Some of the ways I shot things then I would probably never do now. Innovation happening right inside myself.

[Mike_Donis]

While I agree the sign in the background is somewhat distracting, when your working within certain time constraints and technological constraints, there just wasn't time to telephoto every shot
It's not hard or time consuming to step back ten feet and zoom in rather than just do the shot with a wider angle lens. It takes the exact same amount of time. Well, that is considering that it takes twenty seconds more or so to actually use the zoom and then to focus it. It's still easy as pie.


Many of the old classics utilized a majority of wide angle shots. *
They normally had such controlled sets that there was no issue with annoying parts in the background. The higher depth of field was used as an advantage, and the sequence was lit accordingly. If the film is a 'classic', it is a classic because it still holds up today. If we didn't like the way it looked, we'd *not like the way it looked*. But we do, as in Citizen Kane for example. But if we're mentioning we don't think it works in your film, its because we *don't think it works*.


We are actually planning to re-shoot some scenes to replace our older footage in the future when the time is right, hopefully, the story, which most of you got a tiny glimpse of, can stick up for itself.
That might be a good idea if you're not satisfied with the footage.

The main thing im trying to get at is that you don't have to freakin justify every damn thing that we found less than perfect in your trailer. No offense is meant, seriously, we're just trying to give our thoughts.

If you think it's good enough, be the bigger man and accept that we don't know what we're talking about. But if you thought that, why the hell would you ask our opinion anyways?

My 2 cents.

[molocono]

Yeah, when you start offering excuses for every piece of criticism that is handed to you, then you have a problem.

I don't think you should have used the Fargo music.

[THiNSPiRiT]

I KNEW I HEARD THAT MUSIC FROM SOMEWHERE!

Grrr... bugs me when people use music from other films in their own. Just somehow cheapens the entire thing.

Excuses never made a good film. I understand you'd like to defend your film but the artform of film is entirely based on the audience's interpretation of it and never the creators.

If the audience doesn't like your film, then you just gotta deal with it and understand the reasons why to make a better film later... not to say your film would've been better if "something something" had happened or you had more time or cared more. The film is the film regardless and is the only thing we can judge it on.