Coverage, yes or no?
- Thread starter jghenderson
- Start date
PopcornFlix
Well-known member
coverage
coverage
Lots of good opinions. Here's mine.
I use coverage to give the editor room to fix things. For example, I always shoot B-roll and reaction shots when shooting a dialogue scene, so the editor can cut together several takes into a single performance. If I'm doing a complex moving master, I'll shoot simple closeups so if we run out of time for the moving shot, the scene will still cut together.
And yes, if I have a wild experimental setup that I'm not sure of, I'll cover it with a more ordinary setup in case I'm wrong.
FWIW, Spielberg used to shoot exactly what he wanted without coverage. Duel, Sugarland, Jaws, Close Encounters, 1941. All of them went way over budget and schedule, and when 1941 tanked, he needed to finish his next picture (Raiders) on time. Watch Raiders; he covered all his complicated shots, and when they couldn't get it right, they fell back on the coverage. The drinking scene in the Raven was designed to be a single shot using the then-new Louma crane. The final version has plenty of cuts to cover the various mistakes they made in the continuous master.
coverage
Lots of good opinions. Here's mine.
I use coverage to give the editor room to fix things. For example, I always shoot B-roll and reaction shots when shooting a dialogue scene, so the editor can cut together several takes into a single performance. If I'm doing a complex moving master, I'll shoot simple closeups so if we run out of time for the moving shot, the scene will still cut together.
And yes, if I have a wild experimental setup that I'm not sure of, I'll cover it with a more ordinary setup in case I'm wrong.
FWIW, Spielberg used to shoot exactly what he wanted without coverage. Duel, Sugarland, Jaws, Close Encounters, 1941. All of them went way over budget and schedule, and when 1941 tanked, he needed to finish his next picture (Raiders) on time. Watch Raiders; he covered all his complicated shots, and when they couldn't get it right, they fell back on the coverage. The drinking scene in the Raven was designed to be a single shot using the then-new Louma crane. The final version has plenty of cuts to cover the various mistakes they made in the continuous master.
Cracker Funk
Member
I'm all about coverage! Because I'm an editor! I can't believe a previous poster complained about having too much coverage, while editing. What? The more coverage the director gets, the more control the editor has over the way the movie takes shape. So, when I direct, I DEFINITELY want as much coverage as time will afford, so that my editor (me) has more to work with.
There are a lot of reasons why coverage makes editing easier. A previous poster mentioned being able to control pacing in post -- YES!!! That is so important. Besides pacing, you also have more leeway to completely re-shape the narrative of a scene.
Then, there's just the simple issue of continuity. Even big-budget Hollywood productions deal with problems in that department. Us low-budget guys have it even more difficult. If the OP has to ask the question of whether or not coverage is good, I'd venture to say that they're probably somewhat inexperienced. That means that they probably don't have a script supervisor, they probably don't have people dedicated to wardrobes and makeup, and they probably are working with talent who aren't particularly experienced at reproducing the same performance, take-after-take-after-take. In my experience, low-budget guys have a bigger problem with continuity than the big-dollar guys do, so that makes coverage even more important -- it saves your butt!
And, as a previous poster mentioned, it's not one-or-the-other. Just because you prefer coverage, that doesn't mean that you can't storyboard and plan out some really awesome and creative shots. No reason why they can't or shouldn't go together.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that coverage is the act of a lesser director. That's just poppycock!
There are a lot of reasons why coverage makes editing easier. A previous poster mentioned being able to control pacing in post -- YES!!! That is so important. Besides pacing, you also have more leeway to completely re-shape the narrative of a scene.
Then, there's just the simple issue of continuity. Even big-budget Hollywood productions deal with problems in that department. Us low-budget guys have it even more difficult. If the OP has to ask the question of whether or not coverage is good, I'd venture to say that they're probably somewhat inexperienced. That means that they probably don't have a script supervisor, they probably don't have people dedicated to wardrobes and makeup, and they probably are working with talent who aren't particularly experienced at reproducing the same performance, take-after-take-after-take. In my experience, low-budget guys have a bigger problem with continuity than the big-dollar guys do, so that makes coverage even more important -- it saves your butt!
And, as a previous poster mentioned, it's not one-or-the-other. Just because you prefer coverage, that doesn't mean that you can't storyboard and plan out some really awesome and creative shots. No reason why they can't or shouldn't go together.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that coverage is the act of a lesser director. That's just poppycock!
jghenderson
Well-known member
Yes I am relatively inexperienced when it comes to directing. I was however a production assistant for an Oscar nominated editor on a major feature film, so I think I have a good amount of experience seeing "coverage" at work. Frankly my opinion is that the film needs to be formed in the mind of the director and on the storyboard. I don't think the editor should have all that much say in the structure of the film. The editor's job is to do what the director tells them to (i'm a believer in the auteur theory), but they still obviously can give opinions and try different things. But ultimately I think the best films are films that had a cohesive vision from the director and didn't fall to the thought process of "whatever, we'll fix it in post". Obviously this is difficult, and coverage can save your butt if the film isn't well planned, but I don't think it is the ideal that should be pursued. I realize this is all relative to my opinion that film is a directors medium.
Cracker Funk
Member
Dude, that's awesome that you're having such a great experience as a PA. Seriously, that's really cool that you could work on such a movie, and get that front-row seat to how the pros do it. I hope my comment about you being inexperienced didn't sound like an insult. I meant it as just a reality that when someone first starts directing, you have very meager resources, and that obviously makes things more difficult.
Please don't confuse coverage with "fix it in post". First of all, the only times I ever hear that phrase, it's either a joke, or it's coming from a place of frustration, in which the director cannot seem to get what they want, and "fix it in post" is there way of saying, "I give up". Coverage is not even slightly comparable to that.
Coverage is planned in preproduction. It's just a regular part of forming your shot-list. It is part of the planning process. It is not a way around the planning process. It is not a way of saving your butt because you didn't plan. It's a way of saving your butt, because in one shot, your actor speaking is holding the beer can very near to their face, but in the shot you want to cut to, the beer can is by his waist. s**t! Can't cut them together. Thank God we got coverage!
Coverage doesn't save your butt from lazy planning. It saves your butt from mistakes that happen during production. Mistakes happen during production for EVERYBODY, but they especially happen for beginners, who don't have script supervisors, and the director is probably wearing 12 different hats, etc.
In Hollywood, the editor rarely just does what the director tells them to do. If that were the case, the director might as well just edit. Even the best directors have to be willing to hand over their project to the editor, and let them work their magic. The editor is not a button-pusher who happens to be technically-adept. The editor is an artist, just like all of the other people who contribute to the movie. Filmmaking is a collaborative effort, don't ever forget that.
And again, coverage allows you to do so much more in the edit. That doesn't mean you have to ruin everything the director did. If you want to leave the scene exactly the way the director originally envisioned it, you have that option. But if you feel like it needs to go in a different direction, you have greater ability to make that happen, too. So, coverage actually allows for more creativity in the overall process. Even if you think that subscribing to auteur theory means that the director tells the editor what to do (though they really don't), coverage still gives you more options. How is more options ever a bad thing?
Please don't confuse coverage with "fix it in post". First of all, the only times I ever hear that phrase, it's either a joke, or it's coming from a place of frustration, in which the director cannot seem to get what they want, and "fix it in post" is there way of saying, "I give up". Coverage is not even slightly comparable to that.
Coverage is planned in preproduction. It's just a regular part of forming your shot-list. It is part of the planning process. It is not a way around the planning process. It is not a way of saving your butt because you didn't plan. It's a way of saving your butt, because in one shot, your actor speaking is holding the beer can very near to their face, but in the shot you want to cut to, the beer can is by his waist. s**t! Can't cut them together. Thank God we got coverage!
Coverage doesn't save your butt from lazy planning. It saves your butt from mistakes that happen during production. Mistakes happen during production for EVERYBODY, but they especially happen for beginners, who don't have script supervisors, and the director is probably wearing 12 different hats, etc.
In Hollywood, the editor rarely just does what the director tells them to do. If that were the case, the director might as well just edit. Even the best directors have to be willing to hand over their project to the editor, and let them work their magic. The editor is not a button-pusher who happens to be technically-adept. The editor is an artist, just like all of the other people who contribute to the movie. Filmmaking is a collaborative effort, don't ever forget that.
And again, coverage allows you to do so much more in the edit. That doesn't mean you have to ruin everything the director did. If you want to leave the scene exactly the way the director originally envisioned it, you have that option. But if you feel like it needs to go in a different direction, you have greater ability to make that happen, too. So, coverage actually allows for more creativity in the overall process. Even if you think that subscribing to auteur theory means that the director tells the editor what to do (though they really don't), coverage still gives you more options. How is more options ever a bad thing?
Well, actually, it's not so much "do what I tell you", it's more like "here is what you have."
When all things are great, the assembly is pretty much the director's vision being pieced together. In a perfect world, director gets final cut, as well. Television is more a writer/editor's medium. Film/motion picture is director's.
There're also only so many ways you can cover narrative, coverage may save you and can help in some cases, I'm personally resigned to the idea that I need to be able to cut coverage and know what I'm going after so that I may be able to focus on what I need performance wise.
Comedy's a bit of a hairy beast, in that sense I could see an over-abundance of coverage being very helpful.
At the end of the day, it's just as situational as any other topic on directing: do what you want or what you think works for you.
jghenderson
Well-known member
Well I can't speak for all of Hollywood, but what the Editor I worked with told me is that during production and for a few weeks after production ends, the Editor puts the film together the way he believes is best, the Editors Cut. Then the Director comes in and they usually have 8 weeks (if i remember correctly) to work with the Editor to create the Directors Cut. Then the producers come in and spoil everyones fun haha.
But I understand what you mean if coverage is put in during pre-production. I guess what I really mean to say is I am opposed to the typical master shot, over the shoulder, blah blah blah type of setup. I think it's boring and doesn't take advantage of the medium.
But I understand what you mean if coverage is put in during pre-production. I guess what I really mean to say is I am opposed to the typical master shot, over the shoulder, blah blah blah type of setup. I think it's boring and doesn't take advantage of the medium.