Call of Duty, Operation Kingfish. Full Audio Remake

[VanZeng]

Hi guys,

As a fan of Call of Duty series,
I recently remade the movie Call of Duty, Operation Kingfish's audio (incl. music, sound & voice-over). (Improper words. Modificated by Van.)
I recently made an experiment in duplicating the audio production of Call of Duty, Operation Kingfish.
Don't know how many of you guys here are call of duty fans. Really hope you would have time to watch it.
And thanks Jeff Chan for bringing us this awesome movie
Here's my works.

-Van
www.vanzeng.com

 

[Noiz2]

Not having seen the original I can't compare them. But over all the reverb in the end and start is a bit over the top for the space, but since this is about the most gratuitously violent film I have seen in a long time maybe that is OK. With that in mind whatever I say is too much may be right in the ballpark for this audience.

So head shots way into the video game zone. I would cut way back on the squirty parts and stick more with the impacts. Also they sound really similar and since we get so many you should probably make them more different. Gun shots, it really helps to get some variety so it doesn't sound all the same. One classic "trick" is to keep the "good guys" (not sure who that would be here?) in one sound style and the "bad guys" in another so you can get some of the back and forth of the action. Shots out side can have that big open sound, but when you get inside they should be shorter with less ring out. Also in one shot outside there is a metal hit but the "hits" at the time look like they are hitting brick so that sounds a bit weird. It's good to get the variety in but if there isn't a logical reason for a metal hit then it makes your audience thing they missed something and right out of the action.

I didn't hear a bunch ricochets, and that is good. Very few things make a sound anything close to what folks are forever sticking in as ricochets.

Explosions, Kind of one dimensional - ie they sounded very much the same. Very little in the way of debris. An explosion is as much about what it does to things as it is about the actual explosion. So when windows blow out glass breaking is an important part of the sound. Also things that blow up come down so stuff should be happening for awhile after the boom is gone. Explosions will often benefit from a bit of slapback. You want to build that not use a delay since building it lets you have more control and lets you build in more variety. I didn't get much in the way of low end from any of the explosions. I was listening with good headphones so it's not the fault of laptop speakers. So either there isn't much (and there should be) or you are relying on the subwoofer too much and it's all too low for normal speakers/ headphones. You would have to be REALLY low to have the later be a big factor so I suspect just not enough bottom.

Foley or Foley like SFX were largely missing. You had footsteps (FS) in the field but they didn't feel like they belonged to anybody. You should actually cut (or Foley) FS for the principals, and then you can fill the rest with Background (BG) FS. For the BG FS the rule of three's works well. One sounds like one, and two sounds like two, but three sounds like a bunch.

There were a lot of other places like when one guy pushes a gun aside and there is no sound, FS inside were largely missing, etc. A lot was covered but a bunch wasn't.

Again variety is critical. The loading of the magazine at the start for instance. Each one sounded the same or so similar as to be the same. Also he is still loading but the minute the cut doesn't show it the sound stops. You need to cover not just the sounds you see but also the sounds that should be there that we don't see.

The voices are maybe a bit hot? This is also maybe a style thing? I'm assuming that they are in the same locations as the original. I'm also guessing that the ones that seem to be radio talk are, I would probably have given them more of a "radio" sound, thinner, maybe some static bursts? something. Right now they sound a bit like VO, and that is a little confusing since I believe there is some VO also.? However the sync was quite good and the voices sounded good. Again maybe a bit over the top but that kind of works here.

Music seemed to fit the genre. When you have big music it helps to have some of the SFX poke through. This is where some Foley, of Foley like SFX can really help. You generally want to lose the BG's or take them way down because they will compete with the music but shorter SFX especially Foley will anchor the audience in the story. Otherwise you run the risk of it sounding like a music video. You don't really have that problem but it's something to watch out for with big music moments.

If this were me grading you it would be a B, or maybe B+.


I will give you my standard warning for clips like this. And that is that while it gives you something professionally shot and edited to work to it's not a good thing to use in a reel or to show around to professional sound folks you want a job from. IF you show it make VERY clear that you are not in anyway implying that you worked on the original. Some folks get really upset by folks redoing sound tracks, most wont be upset IF you make it very clear though. Also you may be showing it to someone who worked on the original who will be less than thrilled with your version.

And second it really doesn't say a lot about you as a working editor and it throws up a warning flag.

The reason it doesn't say much is that nobody knows how log you took to do it and there was no director you needed to please. In the real world you are under tight time constraints and you have to make the director/ producer happy even if that means going in a direction that you don't think is the right one. Lots of pressure and not a lot of sleep.

The flag is because there will be some worry that you think of yourself as a "sound designer" and will not be happy with the long hours of sometimes boring work since on a big film you would be an assistant or apprentice and be mostly doing paperwork and tracking progress of editors shipping stuff off, checking change notes etc. It could take years before anyone lets you do any actual editing.

Now for young no-budget filmmakers none of those dangers apply.

 

[Rippie]

I'll keep this short. I watched some of yours and I found the original on youtube.
I absolutely appreciate your hard work you put into this and also the time it took.

That being said, while I didn't study either by any means it really just sounds like you took their ideas, found sounds that were similar
and put them in their place. How do I know this? There's a scene at 3:00. They are in a room and in the original there is a VERY strong reverb going on.
Yours? Almost the same type of verb on the dialog even though visually it almost looks like it should be a dead space.

So you really didn't sound design this thing, at least not even close to being original.
Because of that, I think it's a bit dangerous to say you "remade it" implying sound design.

I think it was probably a great learning process for you, seeing how other guys pick and layer their sounds.
Once you get that idea down, you need to try this with a complete blank canvas. See what you come up with.

 

[VanZeng]

Not having seen the original I can't compare them. But over all the reverb in the end and start is a bit over the top for the space, but since this is about the most gratuitously violent film I have seen in a long time maybe that is OK. With that in mind whatever I say is too much may be right in the ballpark for this audience.

I agree that the reverb is a little bit too much compared with the reality. But I was intended to do this as I think the audience might love to hear the difference when the scene changes between outside and inside, otherwise the reverb difference would be too subtle for audiences to realize it.

So head shots way into the video game zone. I would cut way back on the squirty parts and stick more with the impacts. Also they sound really similar and since we get so many you should probably make them more different.

I loved to enhance the bullet impact rather than blood. Now it looks like I did it not big enough. But in another way, I think blood is a trick to make every hit sound different. If I give the impact way bigger, does it even sound more similar?

Gun shots, it really helps to get some variety so it doesn't sound all the same. One classic "trick" is to keep the "good guys" (not sure who that would be here?) in one sound style and the "bad guys" in another so you can get some of the back and forth of the action.

I agree and I think I did it. My way is to give the good guys the gun sound recorded in close range. So it will sound clean, less sustain (from echo), more detail (gun mechanic mvmt), more low end,whereas I tend to give bad guys the gun sound in sort-of medium range, as I think it contains more sustain, sound more saturated, more AK-like.

Shots out side can have that big open sound, but when you get inside they should be shorter with less ring out.

I don't know if I'm right but I was afraid to make the sound not clean enough if I made really big open sound, especially when dealing with several machine guns in one single scene.

Also in one shot outside there is a metal hit but the "hits" at the time look like they are hitting brick so that sounds a bit weird. It's good to get the variety in but if there isn't a logical reason for a metal hit then it makes your audience thing they missed something and right out of the action.I didn't hear a bunch ricochets, and that is good. Very few things make a sound anything close to what folks are forever sticking in as ricochets. Explosions, Kind of one dimensional - ie they sounded very much the same. Very little in the way of debris. An explosion is as much about what it does to things as it is about the actual explosion. So when windows blow out glass breaking is an important part of the sound. Also things that blow up come down so stuff should be happening for awhile after the boom is gone. Explosions will often benefit from a bit of slapback. You want to build that not use a delay since building it lets you have more control and lets you build in more variety. I didn't get much in the way of low end from any of the explosions. I was listening with good headphones so it's not the fault of laptop speakers. So either there isn't much (and there should be) or you are relying on the subwoofer too much and it's all too low for normal speakers/ headphones. You would have to be REALLY low to have the later be a big factor so I suspect just not enough bottom.

Explosions. - Debris. I totally agree and I thought I did it for I use some glass / bricks / dust debris in different explosions. Now it looks like I didn't do it enough.- Slapback. I don't if I get it right. Your advice is to make some slapback without using delay?- Low end. I didn't realize it but now I totally agree with you.

Foley or Foley like SFX were largely missing. You had footsteps (FS) in the field but they didn't feel like they belonged to anybody. You should actually cut (or Foley) FS for the principals, and then you can fill the rest with Background (BG) FS. For the BG FS the rule of three's works well. One sounds like one, and two sounds like two, but three sounds like a bunch.There were a lot of other places like when one guy pushes a gun aside and there is no sound, FS inside were largely missing, etc. A lot was covered but a bunch wasn't.

Foley sound. Here's what I thought. I used more foley sound when inside, as I think that would be a way to enhance the difference between inside and outside, as there're many close shots when inside. As a result, I used more foley (ie gear, weapon handing) and more debris. But since you're saying largely missing, am I supposed to make more? inside? Or outside?

Again variety is critical. The loading of the magazine at the start for instance. Each one sounded the same or so similar as to be the same. Also he is still loading but the minute the cut doesn't show it the sound stops. You need to cover not just the sounds you see but also the sounds that should be there that we don't see.

Variety. You're right. Totally agree.

The voices are maybe a bit hot? This is also maybe a style thing? I'm assuming that they are in the same locations as the original. I'm also guessing that the ones that seem to be radio talk are, I would probably have given them more of a "radio" sound, thinner, maybe some static bursts? something. Right now they sound a bit like VO, and that is a little confusing since I believe there is some VO also.? However the sync was quite good and the voices sounded good. Again maybe a bit over the top but that kind of works here.

Voices are actually all mine. (My first time to be a voice actor ) I didn't design the voice script. What they were supposed to say is all from the original version.As for the radio sound, I was thinking, keeping it understandable is top priority. I was afraid adding too much static, might make the audiences difficult to catch it?

Music seemed to fit the genre. When you have big music it helps to have some of the SFX poke through. This is where some Foley, of Foley like SFX can really help. You generally want to lose the BG's or take them way down because they will compete with the music but shorter SFX especially Foley will anchor the audience in the story. Otherwise you run the risk of it sounding like a music video. You don't really have that problem but it's something to watch out for with big music moments.

About foley sound vs music, I agree that shorter sound wouldn't compete with music like sustaining BG. But I found foley would still be immersed in the music easily, with some high-mid freq left as a result. With such hi-mid freq, the foley would finally sound more like some kinda noise, which is very confusing to audiences.

If this were me grading you it would be a B, or maybe B+.I will give you my standard warning for clips like this. And that is that while it gives you something professionally shot and edited to work to it's not a good thing to use in a reel or to show around to professional sound folks you want a job from. IF you show it make VERY clear that you are not in anyway implying that you worked on the original. Some folks get really upset by folks redoing sound tracks, most wont be upset IF you make it very clear though. Also you may be showing it to someone who worked on the original who will be less than thrilled with your version.And second it really doesn't say a lot about you as a working editor and it throws up a warning flag.The reason it doesn't say much is that nobody knows how log you took to do it and there was no director you needed to please. In the real world you are under tight time constraints and you have to make the director/ producer happy even if that means going in a direction that you don't think is the right one. Lots of pressure and not a lot of sleep.The flag is because there will be some worry that you think of yourself as a "sound designer" and will not be happy with the long hours of sometimes boring work since on a big film you would be an assistant or apprentice and be mostly doing paperwork and tracking progress of editors shipping stuff off, checking change notes etc. It could take years before anyone lets you do any actual editing.Now for young no-budget filmmakers none of those dangers apply.

Thank you very much for taking your time for such long reply. And thank you very much for your helpful advice, no matter the professional ones or the professional folks to the newbie ones. I will keep these in mind. (actually I've copyed n pasted it in a word document).

 

[VanZeng]

I'll keep this short. I watched some of yours and I found the original on youtube.
I absolutely appreciate your hard work you put into this and also the time it took.

That being said, while I didn't study either by any means it really just sounds like you took their ideas, found sounds that were similar
and put them in their place. How do I know this? There's a scene at 3:00. They are in a room and in the original there is a VERY strong reverb going on.
Yours? Almost the same type of verb on the dialog even though visually it almost looks like it should be a dead space.

So you really didn't sound design this thing, at least not even close to being original.
Because of that, I think it's a bit dangerous to say you "remade it" implying sound design.

I think it was probably a great learning process for you, seeing how other guys pick and layer their sounds.
Once you get that idea down, you need to try this with a complete blank canvas. See what you come up with.

Thank you for your info.

You're right. I realize I'm not original enough. I shouldn't call it a remake.

But when I was doing it, I didn't try to find something to simulate the original. As you've watched both versions, I think you might be able to easily tell the differences (I've pasted the original below):
gunshots, mix, music (not only the arrangement but where to enhance, where to stop). Voice is the part I tried to get similar with the original.

But as a whole I agree with your point. So what should I call this reel?

 

[Noiz2]

I agree that the reverb is a little bit too much compared with the reality. But I was intended to do this as I think the audience might love to hear the difference when the scene changes between outside and inside, otherwise the reverb difference would be too subtle for audiences to realize it.

Well you may be right for phones and tablets. So it is one of those things where what you need in the end plays a big part. If you played this on a big screen it would sound like they were at the bottom of a well. Headphones also make the reverb bigger. I would avoid making decisions based on what you think the audience will "love" for two reasons. The biggest is that it isn't your job. Your job is to help tell the story. The story is NOT your sound, if it is then the director has failed miserably. You are there to support, not star. If they notice the big difference then they are now out of the world of the film and sitting in a theatre thinking about your sound. Directors and actors don't like to be upstaged and really the audience wants to get sucked into the world of the film and tends to get bugged by things that pull them out of it.

The second reason is that there is really nothing you can do that is going to make everyone happy, and trying to guess what an audience is going to "love" has lower odds than winning the Lotto. I have done a lot of theatre over the years and there has been no show no mater how bad that at least one person seeing it thought it was the best thing they ever saw and Visa Versa.

If you are going to put something in to make someone happy better to aim at the director (or yourself) ,much better odds.

I loved to enhance the bullet impact rather than blood. Now it looks like I did it not big enough. But in another way, I think blood is a trick to make every hit sound different. If I give the impact way bigger, does it even sound more similar?

This may be a genre choice but I was not arguing for more, but less. If you are trying for a "video game" style sound then you are probably in a good place. For most action scenes you will want to be more "realistic". You have probably cut your self at some point. Did you hear yourself bleed? Od course not. The convention of horror and action films having a lot of viscera sounds comes from the "if you see it you should hear it" school of sound. Because it's not "realistic" on a regular film there would be little or no "blood" sound. If anything since the visual is so splattery you would have a very wet impact. You might have some splatter sounds IF you are close enough AND there is something you can/will see it hit. These were most/ all distant hits with the spray not hitting anything.

On the other hand if you are really going to go over the top add some sounds for the blood/ skull bits landing on the ground. That should gross out most people.

I agree and I think I did it. My way is to give the good guys the gun sound recorded in close range. So it will sound clean, less sustain (from echo), more detail (gun mechanic mvmt), more low end,whereas I tend to give bad guys the gun sound in sort-of medium range, as I think it contains more sustain, sound more saturated, more AK-like.

Pitching and just using different guns for the two sides is fine. I would watch out about "close" VS "distant" as a difference because you will need to be able to use that for placing the weapons so you can't really keep it consistent. Also kind of like punches and hits some are more important than others. If you have a fight and there are a lot of hits some will be important turning points and others will be filler. Sorting that out will give you a way to make them more "musical" and less repetitive.

I don't know if I'm right but I was afraid to make the sound not clean enough if I made really big open sound, especially when dealing with several machine guns in one single scene.

mostly I was commenting on how the sounds didn't become "interior" on the inside. The "openness" of a sound generally has a lot to do with location and distance. If a machine gun is firing away close I don't expect to hear much of a distant sound/ reverb till it stops. On the other hand if it's a long way off I don't expect to hear close up details.

Explosions. - Debris. I totally agree and I thought I did it for I use some glass / bricks / dust debris in different explosions. Now it looks like I didn't do it enough.- Slapback. I don't if I get it right. Your advice is to make some slapback without using delay?- Low end. I didn't realize it but now I totally agree with you.

A lot of big explosions in action films have a sort of pre-explosion that sets up the main event kind of like a slapback echo. You can often also hear it on important gunshots. Think kaBoom.

Foley sound. Here's what I thought. I used more foley sound when inside, as I think that would be a way to enhance the difference between inside and outside, as there're many close shots when inside. As a result, I used more foley (ie gear, weapon handing) and more debris. But since you're saying largely missing, am I supposed to make more? inside? Or outside?

Time for the Foley Police

Foley is always capitalized, it is someones name. Lower case will really bug some professionals, as will referring to SFX as Foley. You are probably not going to be doing real Foley, just using SFX to cover what Foley traditionally covers. As a choice (not covering actions you can see)? I wouldn't for two reasons. First low budget films have hardly any coverage as a rule so most folks are going to think you either missed stuff or ran out of time. IF I was going to do something like that I would still have the coverage and just change the quality of the sounds. IF we see something interact big budget Hollywood films will have it make a sound even if it wouldn't in real life. Actually any well done sound post in the Hollywood "style" will have a lot of coverage. Non US films generally have a bit less, but still most things are covered.

Variety. You're right. Totally agree.Voices are actually all mine. (My first time to be a voice actor ) I didn't design the voice script. What they were supposed to say is all from the original version.As for the radio sound, I was thinking, keeping it understandable is top priority. I was afraid adding too much static, might make the audiences difficult to catch it?

So little of it is important that I would go for style here but that would be a director choice.

About foley sound vs music, I agree that shorter sound wouldn't compete with music like sustaining BG. But I found foley would still be immersed in the music easily, with some high-mid freq left as a result. With such hi-mid freq, the foley would finally sound more like some kinda noise, which is very confusing to audiences.

If you put a sound in and it sounds like "noise" whether you have music or not it's the wrong sound. You are right though that it's a dance with music, but people are smart. If they see a door open and you put in a door opening sound they are not going to think it's noise.

 

[Noiz2]

Well the original had better Foley coverage but in many ways was a lot hokier than your version. They used a LOT of zippy sounds for bullet bys and some other really silly "video game" kinds of sounds.

FWIW your voice acting was better than some of the "pros" in the scene.

Also notice that the radio chatter sounds pretty "radio" like. The guys on the ground don't but that is another Hollywood convention where the people you see you hear in the clear and often a LOT closer than they really are and the folks you don't see sound like they have a bad radio connection.

Also notice that the explosions and even a lot of the gunshots have that "kaBoom" pre slapback sound I was talking about. They are also using the zips like you would use a whoosh in a Hong Kong Action film. That also gives you the "warm up sound", zip - hit. It's a cheat to tell the audience to pay attention something important is about to happen.

 

[DPStewart]

You should title this reel something like: "My experiment in duplicating the audio production of 'Call of Duty, Operation Kingfish'." That way it more exactly describes what you have created.
If you want to really learn about sound design - start with SILENT (audio removed) scenes you've NEVER seen before. See what you can create, then for curiosity purposes- go check how the original sound editors did the scene.
(Hint: 1st thing, learn about the Fletcher-Munson curve. Or more accurately- the Robinson-Dadson curve. It's not about "Loudness" so much as how we perceive distance and position of a sound based on frequency content.)

A few years ago I made this reel here: https://vimeo.com/14922561
I was challenged by an associate in Hollywood to do this - he handed me a bunch of silent clips that were utterly unknown to me and said: "You've got 1-week."
Well, this demo actually got me some work out there - but, lo-and-behold...I HATED IT. Dear lord, sitting in posting rooms all day long for days on end was like cruel punishment for my personality type. Ditched it after 7-months.
I went back to producing - I need to be running around everywhere in order to not go all nutty.

 

[VanZeng]

You should title this reel something like: "My experiment in duplicating the audio production of 'Call of Duty, Operation Kingfish'." That way it more exactly describes what you have created. If you want to really learn about sound design - start with SILENT (audio removed) scenes you've NEVER seen before. See what you can create, then for curiosity purposes- go check how the original sound editors did the scene.(Hint: 1st thing, learn about the Fletcher-Munson curve. Or more accurately- the Robinson-Dadson curve. It's not about "Loudness" so much as how we perceive distance and position of a sound based on frequency content.)A few years ago I made this reel here: https://vimeo.com/14922561I was challenged by an associate in Hollywood to do this - he handed me a bunch of silent clips that were utterly unknown to me and said: "You've got 1-week."Well, this demo actually got me some work out there - but, lo-and-behold...I HATED IT. Dear lord, sitting in posting rooms all day long for days on end was like cruel punishment for my personality type. Ditched it after 7-months.I went back to producing - I need to be running around everywhere in order to not go all nutty.

About title change, sure thing. No problem. I've fixed it.

About the beginning of your reel, I did have some comment like yours in my video, claiming I didn't participate at the original. So I guess it's about the "remake" thing. Of course I can surly use a proper one.

About using silent material, actually I always kept the original track muted, till I finished sound and music and started to record voice. I did it for the purpose like you guys. But like you said, I heard the original at first so I was inevitably affected, no matter intentionally or not.

And the reel, that's interesting that guy gave you so much Hong Kong movie material. I can even recognize some of them.

Thank you very much for your advice, your reel, and your story.

 

[VanZeng]

Thank you very much for the kaBoom thing, for the Foley thing. Thank you very much for all your advice.

And, if I'd better not call it Foley if I don't do a real Foley, would simply calling it SFX confuse people, as it's too general?

 

[Noiz2]

...
I was challenged by an associate in Hollywood to do this - he handed me a bunch of silent clips that were utterly unknown to me and said: "You've got 1-week."
Well, this demo actually got me some work out there - but, lo-and-behold...I HATED IT. Dear lord, sitting in posting rooms all day long for days on end was like cruel punishment for my personality type. Ditched it after 7-months.
I went back to producing - I need to be running around everywhere in order to not go all nutty.

Very nice. I can see why it got you work, covers a bunch of different types of scenes and action styles. To OP I would point out the amount of coverage, I didn't notice anything I wished there was sound for, and plenty going on the should be there that we don't see.

I may have been lucky to have worked mostly in norther CA. The studio style/ environment is a bit different. Even as an assistant I did a fair amount of field recordings of FX, and often did some of the temp editing. Plus as a rule it was the editors and assistants that found or recorded sounds. In LA it was more common for the supervisor to pick the sounds and some options and hand the editor a spotting list and a drive full of the sounds. Either way though you do spend a lot of time sitting down at the computer.

 

[Noiz2]

Thank you very much for the kaBoom thing, for the Foley thing. Thank you very much for all your advice.

And, if I'd better not call it Foley if I don't do a real Foley, would simply calling it SFX confuse people, as it's too general?

BTW if you listen to the other demo reel you can hear some excellent examples of the kaBoom.

Foley is this weird thing that gets a lot of people confused. A lot of folks who don't work in the industry (and too many that do) thing Foley and SFX are the same. Foley is a specific type of SFX. Technically if you use Foley from one show in a second show it is now SFX. So it is fuzzy in a lot of minds. The term also gets used in a kind of generic way to describe sounds that normally done in Foley but are being cut in as SFX. So you see libraries of "Foley FX", but of course they are not actual Foley for your film. In the Bay Area (and maybe a bit in LA) they used a term WIFO (WIld FOley), to describe SFX that were recorded to be used to cover what Foley would normally cover, such as footsteps.

Short story, I wouldn't call it Foley unless it actually is Foley. Calling it Foley implies different skills than what you are trying to sell. Just call it all SFX or "sounds", that covers it all.

If this is a job reel then I would cut together a selection of genres like the other "reel". Get some quiet stuff and some action, avoid a lot of dialog unless you are trying to get work dubbing things. It's a bit like some resume advice I got a long time ago, "don't list jobs you don't want to do again".

 

[VanZeng]

To OP I would point out the amount of coverage, I didn't notice anything I wished there was sound for, and plenty going on the should be there that we don't see.

If this is a job reel then I would cut together a selection of genres like the other "reel". Get some quiet stuff and some action, avoid a lot of dialog unless you are trying to get work dubbing things. It's a bit like some resume advice I got a long time ago, "don't list jobs you don't want to do again".

The videos I'm able to get are normally trailers. Trailers often count on special SFXs (rumbles, wooshes, stings), short piece of dialog and music to maximize the overall audio effect. I don't know if I'm right but based on that, I think few of them are good sources to practice sound design and editing.

And the video that DPStewart attached is a collection of actual movies' scenes that I cannot get.

 

[Noiz2]

Trailers are generally done by a separate crew from the sound crew for the film and since they are usually produced before the film has finished editorial work they often contain different shots and almost always different sound than the finished film will have. And yes they are basically an ad, not a film. Non actionie films though don't generally have actionie trailers so...

That said you can pretty easily get shots from any film you want. Your options range from ripping from a DVD or screen grabbing a streaming clip, or just searching YouTube which has tons of clips from commercial films. Or head over to Archive.org and you can get full versions of a lot of films that managed to end up in the public domain. There are actually quite a few Hollywood films and TV shows that are available.

The legality of all of this is pretty much the same except for the PD stuff. Technically you don't have the rights to the images. I actually asked a lawyer for one of the more litigious big producers I have met about using clips in "reels" since even if you worked on the film you don't have a right to use the images or sound. His answer was that reels were an understood exemption and were not an issue because if they were nobody could ever have a reel and it would be a nightmare for the folks who actually do control the rights.

You have no more right to use a trailer than footage from the actual film and you actually have to do the same things to get them so there is no reason not use actual clips.

 

[VanZeng]

Trailers are generally done by a separate crew from the sound crew for the film and since they are usually produced before the film has finished editorial work they often contain different shots and almost always different sound than the finished film will have. And yes they are basically an ad, not a film. Non actionie films though don't generally have actionie trailers so...

That said you can pretty easily get shots from any film you want. Your options range from ripping from a DVD or screen grabbing a streaming clip, or just searching YouTube which has tons of clips from commercial films. Or head over to Archive.org and you can get full versions of a lot of films that managed to end up in the public domain. There are actually quite a few Hollywood films and TV shows that are available.

The legality of all of this is pretty much the same except for the PD stuff. Technically you don't have the rights to the images. I actually asked a lawyer for one of the more litigious big producers I have met about using clips in "reels" since even if you worked on the film you don't have a right to use the images or sound. His answer was that reels were an understood exemption and were not an issue because if they were nobody could ever have a reel and it would be a nightmare for the folks who actually do control the rights.

You have no more right to use a trailer than footage from the actual film and you actually have to do the same things to get them so there is no reason not use actual clips.

Oh yeah. I was pretty worried about the legality. Now it's clear. Thanks so much!