Trailers for my own little super-8 epic

J

JohnH

Member
I see that there's some interest here about super-8 and how it looks transferred to video so I thought I'd post a couple trailers for my nearly-complete feature that I shot almost entirely on Kodachrome, Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare. I was going for a very dirty, experimental grindhouse look so I thought that the color palette of k40 was exactly what I needed. The first one is almost entirely super-8, the second has a many more minidv inserts -

http://www.pulsingcinema.com/JRHFilms/fbntrailer1.mov

http://www.pulsingcinema.com/JRHFilms/fbntrailer2.mov

The film-to-tape was done by Cinepost in Atlanta and processing was handled through the whole Walmart-Fuji-Dwaynes connection which was what allowed me to even think about shooting in k40 in the first place.
 
When posting for computer users, it is better to post in 24fps not 29.97 to avoid the visible interlace artifacts that can ruin the film look and distract from your content.


About the content, my personal opinion is that the trailer/film must communicate a clear message or view to the viewer (but always in an artistic way). In the case of a trailer this will give him a strong motive to see the full movie.
 
I kept getting very strange artifacts in the video when I attempted encoding in 24ftps so I decided to keep most of the material in 29 as it just looked better any way I attempted it. But my original goal was to encode in 24 and I'll see what I can do.

As for your second point I agree to a point but I think a trailer can also do many things to illustrate a film's style and mood without specificially articulating the plot of the film or spending so much time laying out this complex architecture when a simpler and more direct visual approach would be more appropriate. I think by your criteria most of the trailers made by greater filmmakers than I and indeed most of the trailers posted here by other members would fall very short. I don't know, it's hard to discuss matters when people are so vague about what they think.
 
JohnH said:
As for your second point I agree to a point but I think a trailer can also do many things to illustrate a film's style and mood without specifically articulating the plot of the film or spending so much time laying out this complex architecture when a simpler and more direct visual approach would be more appropriate.
Click to expand...

JohnH said:
I don't know, it's hard to discuss matters when people are so vague about what they think.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that at least you "agree to a point" but I didn't say that you should lay out your film's "complex architecture". I will try to explain and be less "vague" as you said but that would take more than two lines :)
What I believe is that a film may be an optical art but it's a lot more than that. It has to have a *meaning*. I think it's like a pyramid. The base is the base of the optical art, or the photography, the way you compose and light each frame. Going higher there is motion, another level of this art form, then somewhere higher will be the scenes and their relations and finally on the top of the pyramid will be one single thing: The "meaning" of the whole movie, the message that the filmmaker wanted to pass to the viewer, the motive that made him make *this* specific movie (not the chance to gain money or fame :) ) or what he wanted to express. Each level should be in total harmony with the higher of lower ones and all should be consistent to the central meaning or purpose of the movie -the top of the pyramid. If the movie lacks of a central meaning it will be like a pyramid without a sharp top that will leave the viewer with a feeling of emptiness or incompleteness -or in the worst case it will not be a pyramid at all, a salad maybe. In a trailer, you just have to give a hint of this meaning using samples of your creation in a convincing but always in an artistic way. If all the "levels" was in harmony it will be easier to make an interesting trailer.

JohnH said:
I think by your criteria most of the trailers made by greater filmmakers than I and indeed most of the trailers posted here by other members would fall very short.
Click to expand...

Glad you didn't say "all of them"... I try not to shape my opinion or my point of view from statistics or from seeing what the majority does. "Most of them do this or that" it's not a strong motive for me and won't make me do anything different than everybody else and wont worth the effort too. Remember, to be creative means to be different!
 
Last edited:
Proteus said:
I'm glad that at least you "agree to a point" but I didn't say that you should lay out your film's "complex architecture".
Click to expand...
What I meant by "complex archtecture" were the usual cornerstones we see in a trailer, the stray lines of dialogue connected together to form a mini-story in a couple minutes in a rather boring and drab manner IMHO. When I cut those two trailers together I was inspired primarily by some of the trailers I saw coming out of the sixties and seventies, all of Stanley Kubrick's later films, schematic representations of a film's style and mood which told one "what the film was about" in a very non-direct manner. I definitely agree that films need a backbone, a thesis statement, a "base" of ideas to build from but a trailer is just a promotional device ultimately, it's a part of the film but it can also be something very different.
 
John,

Personally, I like the trailers. While they are slightly unconventional, I think they are completely appropriate for the grindhouse look that you're going for. I especially like the second trailer. Good retro usage of text.

Proteus-I do understand what you're saying about harmony. But although good films usually embrace the harmonic principles you speak of, there's a rich history of B movies, spaghetti westerns, grindhouse, and manga films that rely specifically on dischord and dissonance (to carry the musical analogy to an extreme). And some good films embrace those elements...the introduction to Kill Bill would be a good example. I think that's what John is trying to accomplish.

I've got to say that I'm interested to see the finished product...and consequently, I'd have to say that your trailer is a success, since the number one goal of a trailer (IMHO) is to make someone want to see the full movie.
 
Well thanks ASA, I mean I get what Proteus is speaking of in regard to the way I cut the trailers and he's not the only one who's had made similar comments but I think there's many different ways to develop a story and these trailers are in some respects stylistically consistent with how I made the film - I was definitely going for striking visuals. So I'm thinking of eventually cutting a more conventional trailer (possibly to coincide with some screenings I'm working on for this fall) but in the mean time these will do.
 
i liked the trailers .. prefer 2 over 1 .. i like the "experimental-ness" about them especially the 2nd ...

i did notice the interlace artifacts ... you can get rid of them IF - you shot the film at 24fps and Cinepost transferred with film running at 24fps ( tape running at 29.97) ... you would then use your NLE to remove the pull down and that would leave you with all progressive frames ...
then set up you project settings as 23.97 progressive and make sure ALL rendering is set for progressive 23.97 ... if you shot at 18 fps then it's difficult to remove pull down ...

i always edit my S8 ( also have used cinepost) at 23.97 ..
 
The super-8 was shot at 18 fps but Vegas does seem to do an okay job with the 24p conversion, usually; there were a few too many motion artifacts (most likely having to do with the 18 fps issue) so encoding interlaced 29.97 was a bit of a compromise. Also, the trailer (and the final product) is a mix of super-8 , both pure interlaced video and video deinterlaced in magic bullet along with super S8 that I deinterlaced and treated for some special effects so encoding interlaced seem to provide the smoothest and most consistent quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top