Envision & RebeccaD Present "Where Silence Falls"

tommyinla said:
If you're editing it yourself right after you shoot, then you can get away with it... :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Yeah... especially for shorts... features on the other hand... hehe. The slate is my friend :)
 
Speaking of features... I should start a new thread for what I'm going to be working on next in the "User Films" forum... :thumbsup:
 
tommyinla said:
Speaking of features... I should start a new thread for what I'm going to be working on next in the "User Films" forum... :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

You should! Or at LEAST tell me about it! :thumbsup:
 
Brandon, I've chosen not to slate a shot once or twice in the past, and really even if you're the one editing it I guess you can still just watch through ALL of the footage again & see what you like, don't like, etc.

But I will state that slating CLEARLY saves you time in post production, if you have someone making clear notes of what take worked, what didn't, etc. Then, as you (or some other editor) begin to put together your picture, you can quickly look at the thumbnails & pull the clips you want to work with based on the notes of the takes. It'll save you a ton of time of looking through all the takes & trying to figure at that time what you want. Also, the more angles you shoot, the more that slate becomes necessary.
 
Totally agree with you there Norm.

I guess I am just USED to looking through hours of footage. When I shot and edited a feature comedy two years ago, there was over 72 tapes of footage, with no slates, no specific scenes, nothing. It is a mockumentary type film. I think they're trying to get it distributed now. Anyway, I got so used to looking through footage, I just decided to not waste the time on set to slate, and just go do it. For my next project I plan on slating :)
 
Tis true! Let's face it, if you've got an average of 60+ takes in a day, you've possibly saved yourself an extra 30 minutes that day alone that could be applied towards ... well, I'm not really sure where you'd apply the extra time, if you're working towards an actual schedule. Shoot, maybe everyone gets to go home an extra 30 minutes early.

However, post production ... YUCK! That 30 minutes you may have saved during production will add countless HOURS to post as you have to dig through the stuff ... even with a short. I know this to be true, because I had to have added an EASY 6-7 hours worth of work just trying to listen to all of the audio to know where it should go within the film, since all the slates were gone for the final locked edit. And I could be underestimating at that even.
 
Right, and, I like not having to slate, so the actor's can just immediatley go again... again, it's preference... I never usually do more than 2-3 takes on one shot either, so I generally don't have too many takes to choose from from one particular angle. I think if the performance can't get there in 2-3 takes, it's not going to get there (general rule of thumb for me, not a rule for every situation)
 
Brandon Rice said:
I think if the performance can't get there in 2-3 takes, it's not going to get there (general rule of thumb for me, not a rule for every situation)
Click to expand...

Yikes, then you CERTAINLY wouldn't want me to be acting in one of your films, lol. :crybaby: Even the great Rebecca (and I DO mean GREAT ... wait 'till you see the raw clip I'm about to post) didn't NAIL it until the 4th or 5th take ... but when she did, WOW!!!

Not to mention, sometimes the takes aren't a performance issue so much as a technical issue ... a boom showed up in frame, the DP realizes the light just isn't doing what he hoped, a plane flies overhead/barking dog, etc.

And finally there's the director (I've done this myself) that just isn't feeling what he thought he would when watching it, and suddenly changes things up on the actor to try something different. Hopefully not all these things happen at the same time/angle (performance, technical issues, and director changes), but it can be quite easy to get up into 5-6 takes sometimes.

But, bottom line is that if you don't like to slate, then you don't like to slate. No big deal, just not a way I could work myself, especially if I want to continue to becoming less of a one-man team and more of a producer/delegator to specialists in their fields (i.e. editors, sound designers, etc.).
 
Sometimes, yep. In my limited experience (6 or so shorts, and Smuggler's) I've not had to do more than 4 very many times.
 
The first three are always the most natural IMHO. But, alas, not a good thread to start a director/actor philosophy conversation in :)

Back to the topic....
 
Quite the discussion guys. I will say, most of us did nail it on the films I was involved in in 3-5 takes usually.
 
Yeah, I was going for more, but the stinkin' 1st AD was screamin' something about schedule, blah, blah, blah. I mean ... you know ... I just didn't really FEEL it yet, and absolutely KNEW that if I could do a few more warm ups, I'd be ready for the real one.

I better be careful, or I'll start sounding like Mark Johnson ... that guy can spin tales that I even believe when I'm reading them (Mustang Theater with Rev. Bunny - Sheesh!). :grin:
 
Few can sound like mark Johnson, Norm... but if you do, I'll try to stop you!!! :)

Hey, great discussion here.

I just wanted to say that TTN was the first film that I ever worked on (mind you, it was my 2nd film!) that we had a slate. I LOVE THE SLATE! I can tell that, in time, I will learn how to make the slate a best friend... that and a great Script Supervisor!

As for the statement I read about "if an actor is not going to get it in 2-3 takes, it's not going to happen" (or something like that), I completely disagree! Or at least, I would never make that a general rule of thumb.

Yes, certainly, there are those actors who deliver their most natural performance the first time it comes out of their mouth but their are those who need a few takes to get adjusted.

I will, hopefully, always be a director who can judge my actors and shoot accordingly.

A quick story... I was an actor in a feature (that sucked and only made the Asian market... it used to play in Turkey all the time!) and we had this critical scene. The master was a 2 shot of me and this woman, sitting at a piano. The camera was on a curved dolly track and it was a complex sequence. (I entered the scene and sat at the piano, blah, blah, blah...).

Well, it took 27 takes! And it was a long scene. Something like 90 seconds. On FILM, not video. We shot over and over and over again. And not always because of us actors, but mostly because of the mechanics of the shot.

We had to stay fresh, take after take. And we did. A solid actor, (which I do feel that we were), can deliver, take after take. Sometimes they get better. Rarely (if they are any kind of actor) does their performance degrade! And if they are not getting it the way the director wants in 2-3 takes, then the director needs to either do a better job getting his vision out of the actors or get new actors if he has to!

Maybe it is because I come from stage where you may have to perform in a role, 8 times a week for extend runs (if you are lucky) and must keep your performance fresh yet consistent.

Sorry. I really didn't mean to rant... but I read that comment and, well.... I just don't agree. At least, I would never live by that as a "general rule."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top