Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A good point to keep in mind for anybody wanting to do the same type of shooting. But even if you maybe let her down a bit on the directing part, I'm sure that on the DP-side she will SHINE.I was so anxious about the location we were stealing, I neglected to delegate any attention to "DIRECTING." That's the huge Achilles' heel to both DP'ing and directing.
Cool to hear you plan on working with her again.I am promising myself, that on the NEXT project, I will dedicate much more attention to her performance.
Thanks for your comments, Charli. Yeah, now that you posted that, I'm thinking I like that one too. It's the closest tagline to the actual story. My writer friend at work doesn't like it at all. Tnis seems so subjective, but I KNOW that some are CLEARLY better than the others.Charli said:As a writer, I liked: they would have to kill to have that body. But hey, that's just me. The others didn't do it for me. If you ask me if I prefer that one to the survive tag, I prefer the "would have to kill..." - it works.
Whenever a GIRL says, "that just doesn't do it for me," I LISTEN. For some reason, I think a girl's opinion is more valid here. But then again, Theo ranked "body" as only fourth. My writer friend suggested "Dying is Over." He thought that was the sh*t. What do you think?Charli said:The others didn't do it for me.
Well, of course the answer is "Yes" and "No" and "Not necessarily."-zach- said:When you "steal" a location, after you've gotten all the shots they're yours, right? You can't get in trouble for something like that if you've already got all the shots. You can only get in trouble if you get caught while shooting, right?
Am I completely wrong or is it one of those, "Not necessarily" situations?
Thanks for the high compliment, David!david jerome said:Ralph, with that poster you can't go wrong with a tag line.
Ralph Oshiro said:SCRIPT DEPT.:
I guess the moral is, don't be afraid to scrap everything, and then regroup, rethink, and rewrite your short film script in order to meet the often unforgivingly tight constraints of your alotted time, budget, and sanity.
Thanks, Zack! Oddly enough, I shoot almost everything twice. Sometimes three times. I know that sounds horribly inefficient, but I think it's like a painter who skeches on the canvas (only some do that) before they commit to oil. I think that's the benefit of owning your own gear, and shooting light (no crew). It doesn't cost you that much more in resources (just time) to reshoot. Thanks to the inexpensive desktop NLEs we now have, this approach really allows you to get things right. It also follows my (sometimes extremely flawed) methodology of "interactive" filmmaking. Shoot, rough cut, re-create/re-think. re-write, re-shoot, etc.-zach- said:Serious hats off, man! That takes alot of confidence. Way to go. I'm sure it'll be better the second time around.
Thanks, Elton! Looking forward to "Birds" as well!Elton said:Kudos and good luck with the continuing "Level 4" saga!
Thanks again, Ted, for your thoughtful comments. I'm no location expert--that's just been my experience. About my fillmmaking methodology (if you can call it that) . . . Well, at times, my approach can be extremely flawed. As of a day or so ago, the project as written was really unshootable. Yup, the "add more women" mantra did seem to help, though.Theodore J Arabian said:I admire your filmmaking approach and attitude, Ralph. And I love the rule . . . "when in doubt, add more women!" Can't go wrong, right?!
A lot! I've only shot 1.5 days, which is basically one scene.Charli said:Ralphy - how much more shooting do you need to do?