What matters to you?

[Z B Brox]

Okay, got a question for you all: When talking about and rating these films, what matters the most to you? This is a forum based around a camera, so are you most interested in cinematography, lighting, etc.? I think most of the people involved here are aspiring (and for the entrants at least, now accomplished!) directors and filmmakers, so are you most interested in camera work, editing, the nuts and bolts of production? Or are you here because you want to see some things you might not be as familiar with, the intricacies of lighting, sound, or visual effects? I'm a wannabe writer, myself, so for me, the fact is if you don't have a story, dialogue, or characters that I'll buy into, I'm gonna have difficulty with your piece. What else do you think about when you look at these? Do you mentally "make allowances", knowing so many of us have limited resources? Do you prefer a flawed film with great strengths, or one that's just all around pretty good?

In short, what matters to you when you watch these movies?

[EJ Pennypacker]

Ultimately, the whole package. But I make allowances due to limitations... like no budget. Etc.

EJ

[krestofre]

Isn't this the reason we have the catergories for voting? That way you don't have to make allowances like we did for ZombieFest. If a short has great camera work, but a poor script, you can rate it that way on the ballot.

EDIT: Just reread the post. It sounds like you're asking this more as a casual question instead of deciding how to vote. Just as a viewer I'm with EJ. A complete package is important, but story wins out overall. If the lighting isn't perfect, if the effects are a bit off, but the story is captivating, then it was still a good short.

Somewhere in all of these Sci-Fest posts someone made the point that too often we bit off more than we can chew. If we don't have ILM's resources, why try to make a film that relies heavily on CGI? I think that's an excellent point, and definitely playing into this as well.

[Z B Brox]

We definitely kept that in mind with "A New Tomorrow"--we had no budget, and no SFX experience, so we looked for an idea which wouldn't require it. Invisible robots seemed like a way to go. ;)

Another question, do you rate comedies on the same kind of scale as serious pieces? How do you compare the two? And I understand that in feature-length movies, some of the best have elements of both. That's hard to manage in six minutes, where it's much harder to establish a tone. Will a "makes you think" piece always have the advantage over a "makes you laugh" piece?

[EditPhish]

Hi ZB,

For JTyner and I, it's the whole package. For example, The Odd Squad had "B" FX, but those effects really fit the film... and it was a good story. Something like SIMILO wouldn't have worked at all with tongue-in-cheek FX. Something like A Briefcase has no CG FX, but there were subtle practical FX that were amazing, and worked -- and it was an EXCELLENT story.

A story that works (and isn't hard to understand)... attention to details, cinematography, editing, color, music and sound -- it's all important. I can certainly overlook "production value" because we all don't have big budgets or lots of resources to work with... but all the basics still need to be in place. I also have to say, I don't care how beautiful a film is if the story falls short... and it works in reverse as well. If it looks like crud but tells a great story, it's going to fall short too. Sound is a big issue for me... if the sound mix sucks, it's hard to enjoy the film. I know sound is something lots of us struggle with. Visual FX? We can all only work to our means... I think we have to focus on what we CAN do (and challenge ourselves to make it better), and not try to pass off what we can't. That's why our film "set" was an ordinary house ;)

[EJ Pennypacker]

Another question, do you rate comedies on the same kind of scale as serious pieces?

I rate on quality alone.

The problem with comedies is that they are very hard to do right. If something made me literally pi$$ my pants while watching, I'm sure it would be a winner. As it would everyone else who it had that effect on.

Everyone wants to laugh out loud, so hard they fall on their knees crying. But when was the last time you did that while watching a movie?

EJ

[EditPhish]

Everyone wants to laugh out loud, so hard they fall on their knees crying. But when was the last time you did that while watching a movie?
There were a few in this fest that made me laugh right out loud... and a select few that I almost fell out of my chair laughing so hard... and I mean because that was the intention ;)

Humor is pretty subjective -- you might not think Austin Powers is funny at all, but I might love it. There's different kinds of "funny".

[abraham]

I rate on quality alone...

...Everyone wants to laugh out loud, so hard they fall on their knees crying. But when was the last time you did that while watching a movie?

EJ

So EJ, if you are voting based on quality, and you watch a comedy that is quick and new, and keeps you there -- but all the while not cracking you up, isn't that just that same as a "serious" drama? Just because it isn't serious, doesn't mean it isn't drama, and isn't just as moving as a piece with a stern tone -- without being "rip-roaringly" funny. Am I right?


There were a few in this fest that made me laugh right out loud... and a select few that I almost fell out of my chair laughing so hard... and I mean because that was the intention ;)

Humor is pretty subjective

True that. I'm with you.

[Z B Brox]

Humor is rough, yeah, it's always going to be more subjective, I think. Obviously rating a movie becomes fairly subjective anyway, but humor is such an instinctual, reactive thing that a gauge based on just how much you laugh is going to be the next worst thing to random.

So do we judge a movie by how well it does what it's trying to do, or do we also judge what it's trying to do? I mean, if a movie sets out to intentioanlly annoy it's audience, doe sit become a good movie by doing so?

[J.R. Hudson]

I want to be entertained.

In this, I mean being suspended and transported into your created world.

[Barry_Green]

I vote on entertainment. For example, there was one that was very well crafted, well lit, great effects, good sound, and boring as all get out. Tedious. Couldn't wait for it to end. So while it might earn high marks for the individual crafts, it was overall something I wouldn't recommend.

Whereas there's been cheesier films that have had me thoroughly entertained, and I was disappointed when they were over because I wanted 'em to keep going. And one in particular had decent sound, mediocre cinematography, one great actor and one fairly bad actor, and an absurd premise -- but the overall entertainment value was very high and I went back to watch it again just because it was so much fun.

So, it's the total package. If you combine great story and great cinematography and great acting, then you've really got something.

[WilderWorks]

Based on some of these comments, I can't wait to see how the scores compare to the post-counts. I am hoping for a big surprise or two! I love dark horse candidates swooping in for a victory, and it doesn't happen enough in the big bad real world. :)

[Z B Brox]

I want to be entertained.

In this, I mean being suspended and transported into your created world.


Just for the record, this is my favorite response so far.

[Blaine]

I want to be entertained. If there is a truly compelling story I'll forgive it technical shortfalls. What I find interesting is: I have seen clever and interesting stories and people rail about about sound or perhaps some video noise. On the other hand there may be a technically astounding picture and the complaint is no story. You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself. (I think Rick Neslon said that.) I am much more apt to enjoy a movie that captivates me or grabs my attention but still might not be technically perfect, while on the otherhand a beautiful boring story is still boring.

[Z B Brox]

Blaine--

I tend to agree. However, I'm all about immersion. If a technical matter is so noticable it pulls me out of the story, then even a compelling story is working uphill. I think I'll tend to take a competently produced film with an excellent story of a an excellently produced film with a competent story. But, then, I'm a writer, and a visual artist may totally disagree.

[Brandon Rice]

I agree with a lot of what is being said here. I think a film must be technically sound enough to not disqualify itself, meaning, take me out of the story. And, the story must be interesting enough, and understandable enough for me to be gripped and "along for the ride" if you will. Several films were astounding technically but I was not "along for the ride".