Harvest of Redemption Trailer

[javier]

Hello everyone. I just finished my first trailer teaser which was shot on the dvx 100. Please let me know what you think. Thanks for your time.


Javier



www.homepage.mac.com/javierchapa/
www.harvestofredemptionfilm.com

[J.R. Hudson]

I thought I was watching two different clips there (which I know is the intention). My attention was waning in the first half but once the BASS kicked in and the whole mood changed I started to dig it. I liked the extreme CC and pacing.

I'd like to see the first half at a quicker clip or shorter and then jump into the HOOK.

It also felt like two styles in terms of Cinemetography (and I don't mean that how it was intended) but it felt almost generic or amatuer.

But...

When the BASS kicks in it's as if a whole nutha' Director and DP were involved.

I'm torn on my rating here.

First Act: 2

Second Act: 3.5

I also liked the fact that I have a sense of what this is about. Some people submit trailers that leave you with a "what the poo poo just happened" taste in your mouth. This did not. I like that.

I'd shorten the first act to half its length and then kick in with the Hook.

Well done to say the least. Not the best I have ever seen, but surely not the worst.

[THiNSPiRiT]

I'd have to agree with john there. The second half is way better...

I love the shot with the guys around the fire. Probably the best part...

It would really help if in some of those scenes with dialogue, like at the beginning, if you had some ambient noises or some score... it sounds too soundstage or crisp with the dialogue and no surrounding noises. Makes it seem weird because your ears are always picking up ambient noises everywhere... films have to reflect that.

[Mike_Donis]

I love the shot with the guys around the fire. Probably the best part...

Yes

I liked the shots that you had of the lake, and that (helicopter?) shot that you had when the first title was revealed. I didn't, however, like the psychadelic titling, it didn't seem to fit with the subject matter (though, not having seen the film, I don't know this for sure).

John and Thinspirit are right; the second half looks much better than the first. I think its because (especially with the black and white footage) you used the wider end of the lens, and had bown out highlights, showing off the "video look". It might have looked more filmic if you underexposed a stop or two, allowing you to keep the detail in the highlights, and then you could push the footage in post to get a more grainy, "old movie" look, while retaining more detail in the highlights, like film does.

[javier]

Thanks for the input guys. I agree. I definitely need to work on the first half. I worked on the b&w footage-its looks a lot more cinematic now! Thanks for all you guy's feedback and time. I took out all of my color correction so that everything didn't look so saturated. I saturated way too much. Anyway. Thanks guys. I have a lot of work left.

[THiNSPiRiT]

Good to hear you're working on it more. Fun part about films is how much you can go back and rework stuff... as long as you cover your bases shooting, you can always make things better!

[J.R. Hudson]

Exactly why they have Sneak Previews and Test Screenings