J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
My bother's name is ERIK
-
You guys shot this in NYC without a permit ?
-
****ing bravo :beer:
EIGHTEEN SECONDS by Jack, Zac and Mac
- Thread starter macgregor
- Start date
My bother's name is ERIK
-
You guys shot this in NYC without a permit ?
-
****ing bravo :beer:
SomewhereinLA
Well-known member
Love it. The only thing I didn't care for were those film effects (probably artbeat). They have been over used and abused, it seems that every other film or music video I see use them. I don't think they were needed, nor added anything to the film.
Very good work.
Very good work.
Tom Marshall
Actor!!!!!!
You killed Jack. You bastards.
Jason Ramsey
Admin
I don't have much to say here, that hasn't been already.
I will say I had never seen Mac's work before. I did happen to watch this films first, and I was totally there. I was watching a film.
Hugely cinematic. I don't care if you shot it in 2 months or 2 hours. This piece was professional in feel, style and overall quality (to me).
Subtle acting performances. I love it. I love it when people can actually be subtle and naturalistic. It is so much more powerful than trying to be powerful. So much more so. That is what it is supposed to be like.
My thing: Re-working of the ordering of some of the "scenes". I totally love disjointed telling of stories. However, this film kind of has that going for it naturally by its style. It seemed to me that some different placement of the scene order could have shown a more linear progression of a day and a half, for example with the footage you had there. That would have helped to "bring it all togethor" for me much more effectively, had I been able to follow a bit of a timeline of these characters, as I am watching all of these parallels.
That is a great quote, right there. I hadn't thought about it, but that totally would have given me a lump in my throat followed up by seeing Jack get creamed just as we see that soft, subtle, shy smile, and we start to forward think about these two togethor, or whatever. Then, boom.
Jack. Nice "jack".
Jason
I will say I had never seen Mac's work before. I did happen to watch this films first, and I was totally there. I was watching a film.
Hugely cinematic. I don't care if you shot it in 2 months or 2 hours. This piece was professional in feel, style and overall quality (to me).
Subtle acting performances. I love it. I love it when people can actually be subtle and naturalistic. It is so much more powerful than trying to be powerful. So much more so. That is what it is supposed to be like.
My thing: Re-working of the ordering of some of the "scenes". I totally love disjointed telling of stories. However, this film kind of has that going for it naturally by its style. It seemed to me that some different placement of the scene order could have shown a more linear progression of a day and a half, for example with the footage you had there. That would have helped to "bring it all togethor" for me much more effectively, had I been able to follow a bit of a timeline of these characters, as I am watching all of these parallels.
Barry_S said:
That is a great quote, right there. I hadn't thought about it, but that totally would have given me a lump in my throat followed up by seeing Jack get creamed just as we see that soft, subtle, shy smile, and we start to forward think about these two togethor, or whatever. Then, boom.
Jack. Nice "jack".
Jason
Mark Johnson
The Dude Abides
Have watched your film several times today and love it more each time. Really love your car strike and it compares favorably to the Joe Black scene which is one of my faves. The great thing about shooting there is its got so much damn richness and detail. I wouldn't be surprised if Jack didn't paint that mailbox grafitti and arrange that cardboard trash there.
Zac (Bruno) is like the grim reaper in these shots with that hood.macgregor said:Funny facts:
About to scoop us both up!
lol, yep ... here's me trying to act, while watching traffic out of the corner of my eye and then running out of the street.John_Hudson said:
http://www.frenchquarterfeatures.com/18_Seconds/jack-roadH.264.mov
thanks for the warning Zac! :-Mad(DBG)
Mac's eye was in the camera only) :grin:
Last edited:
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
macgregor said:Funny facts:
he reminds me of my favorite music video... 'rabbit in your headlights'
janzie
Active member
ok, drama fest was the first i couldn´t follow at all, due to too many projects, but i couldn´t resist watching the movies immediately.
i must admit, while checking the entries, i was looking for jack´s name (ever since "shed" it´s the first movie for me to set the bar for the rest of the bunch)
i couldn´t find him and downloaded 18 seconds-macgregor (i always loved his cinematography and haven´t seen anything from him in a while - while i´m writing this i´m realizing, that i´m talking as a true fan of their work, it´s like desperately waiting for a new tarantino/scorcese/spielberg movie, which is probably the biggest compliment of them all, i´m really interested in their work and artistic approach to a new theme!)
of course i´ll still try to watch the other movies,but i already know, which one would get my vote (if i had enough posts, that is)
guys, i´m not trying to comment on your movie, i really,really enjoyed it and was drawn into it from beginning to the end, but i have a few questions/thoughts and would really appreciate, if you could answer them:
on handheld-style:
i´m a big fan of the habdheld style, but i didn´t get the hectic movement of the camera, when he is brushing his teeth. i first thought it was supposed to tell us, that his life/job/day is faster, more stressful, and more hectic than hers, but in his office it´s more of a lonely, boring, quiet feeling (no camera movement...). what was the creative decision on that?
on editing:
-i liked most of the jump cuts, but didn´t quite understand the one on her masturbating and the one before they cross the street.
-my favorite shot is him arriving in the cab/then her getting into it, but where is she going? i first thought, it was a set-up, to tell us that they live/work in the same area, or a teaser,that they just missed each other (could have been 18 seconds apart from each other, because at that point, i didn´t know where the story was headed), but they then meet on the street- it just felt a little strange. i then thought, maybe they meet another day, but they are wearing the same clothes...
on masturbating:
i know, in the movie it´s the point, where "everyone" should get their connection, but it felt a little weird, that he´s masturbating in his office- a little too "obvious". i don´t know if i can make myself clear, but could there be an (emotional) equivalent for him, to her masturbating, that still transports the "message" of the connection between them?
on technical devices:
what lenses did you guys use (maybe i missed that in a previous post)?
i hope, i´m not too confusing with my questions, but i regard that thread as the possibility to get informations on the creative approach of very exciting filmmakers...like listening to a directors commentary, with the opportunity to ask questions.
i really enjoyed it and can´t wait to see your next projects
jan
i must admit, while checking the entries, i was looking for jack´s name (ever since "shed" it´s the first movie for me to set the bar for the rest of the bunch)
i couldn´t find him and downloaded 18 seconds-macgregor (i always loved his cinematography and haven´t seen anything from him in a while - while i´m writing this i´m realizing, that i´m talking as a true fan of their work, it´s like desperately waiting for a new tarantino/scorcese/spielberg movie, which is probably the biggest compliment of them all, i´m really interested in their work and artistic approach to a new theme!)
of course i´ll still try to watch the other movies,but i already know, which one would get my vote (if i had enough posts, that is)
guys, i´m not trying to comment on your movie, i really,really enjoyed it and was drawn into it from beginning to the end, but i have a few questions/thoughts and would really appreciate, if you could answer them:
on handheld-style:
i´m a big fan of the habdheld style, but i didn´t get the hectic movement of the camera, when he is brushing his teeth. i first thought it was supposed to tell us, that his life/job/day is faster, more stressful, and more hectic than hers, but in his office it´s more of a lonely, boring, quiet feeling (no camera movement...). what was the creative decision on that?
on editing:
-i liked most of the jump cuts, but didn´t quite understand the one on her masturbating and the one before they cross the street.
-my favorite shot is him arriving in the cab/then her getting into it, but where is she going? i first thought, it was a set-up, to tell us that they live/work in the same area, or a teaser,that they just missed each other (could have been 18 seconds apart from each other, because at that point, i didn´t know where the story was headed), but they then meet on the street- it just felt a little strange. i then thought, maybe they meet another day, but they are wearing the same clothes...
on masturbating:
i know, in the movie it´s the point, where "everyone" should get their connection, but it felt a little weird, that he´s masturbating in his office- a little too "obvious". i don´t know if i can make myself clear, but could there be an (emotional) equivalent for him, to her masturbating, that still transports the "message" of the connection between them?
on technical devices:
what lenses did you guys use (maybe i missed that in a previous post)?
i hope, i´m not too confusing with my questions, but i regard that thread as the possibility to get informations on the creative approach of very exciting filmmakers...like listening to a directors commentary, with the opportunity to ask questions.
i really enjoyed it and can´t wait to see your next projects
jan
Michael_Petro
Veteran
I keep watching this one part over and over...
Michael_Petro
Veteran
The car strike people geesh
Like your film... but did you have to kill jack hes like famous and stuff
Like your film... but did you have to kill jack hes like famous and stuff
hey janzie -- thanks first of all, lol
as for lenses .... we used two adaptors, mostly the guerilla 35 (now cinemek , a nice static adaptor) and the letus35advanced(non flip). Mostly the the guerilla 35 since my letis was in major surgery for most of the shoot.
As for lenses there was ofcourse a 50mm nikon I believe.
there was a wide angle and a long lense but I will have to let Mac speak for himself on that score.
as for lenses .... we used two adaptors, mostly the guerilla 35 (now cinemek , a nice static adaptor) and the letus35advanced(non flip). Mostly the the guerilla 35 since my letis was in major surgery for most of the shoot.
As for lenses there was ofcourse a 50mm nikon I believe.
there was a wide angle and a long lense but I will have to let Mac speak for himself on that score.
Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
This movie felt like it had the same pacing as Similo. I didn't really see anything new here. I looked like you were treading familiar territory. I liked how you set up and framed your shots for the most part but I was constantly distracted by the handheld camerawork. Some people are going to like it and some are not. I don't care for handheld unless there's an overriding reason in the story for it. That said, I understand why you had to go handheld (no permits) but I think you movie suffered for it. You had a lot of production value with your use of NYC.
I felt you telegraphed the car hit. But it struck me odd that at a busy intersection this would happen so easily. Of course I don't live in NYC so what do I know. I thought the use of lens flare was also over used. As I read over this it comes off a lot harsher than I mean for it because, just like Similo this has a nice overall look. It has a lot of style, I'm just concerned the substance isn't there.
Acting was great by both Jack and Amy.
I felt you telegraphed the car hit. But it struck me odd that at a busy intersection this would happen so easily. Of course I don't live in NYC so what do I know. I thought the use of lens flare was also over used. As I read over this it comes off a lot harsher than I mean for it because, just like Similo this has a nice overall look. It has a lot of style, I'm just concerned the substance isn't there.
Acting was great by both Jack and Amy.
Michael_Petro
Veteran
oooo the directors cutBarry_S said:
Norm Sanders
Script Wrangler
Wow, where to start? Like everyone else, I'm blown away by this film visually. Even the story worked really well for me, as it felt quite original (although there is definite similarity to SIMILO, though more in look/tone than actual story line).
Stylistically, the music was top notch, and I personally LOVE those lens flares. If I remember correctly, that was something that you produced within Vegas for SIMILO, so assuming you used the same approach for this?
My ONLY nit-pick issues with the film are more towards the end ... I absolutely knew Jack was going to get hit by a car the moment he leaned down & parked it there in the middle of the street. Destiny. However, the car hit itself was FREAKING AWESOME! I had to frame through that, and it still looked great to me.
K, back to the nit-picky ... his head would have been a mess, I believe, because it showed him going under the car, so his head would/should have massive injury to it, pool of blood, etc. I read back & see you had no permits, so therefore probably couldn't take the time for it (nor want to draw attention), but that's why we shoot within what we have to work with. If you KNOW you can't make the scene look real, then don't do it, or find a way to hide it, fake it, etc. If, however, it was artistic choice to have no blood & only have his glasses eskew, then forget what I've just said, because whether you had permits, time, etc. you still would have left it that way ... if that was an artistic choice.
I didn't get the '18 Seconds' (didn't care, loved the title anyway, as well as the opening statement), but now after reading about it, I'll have to go back & see if that is indeed only 18 seconds that they share a moment. If so, too cool. Love it. Regardless, it was obvious to me that these two shared an uncommon bond, and that when he died, she was destined to die. Not a heart attack, not fainting, but her soul leaving her body as his did ... that they were SO connected (at a spiritual/soul level) that they had to stay together in that sense ... so if he dies, so will/must she.
That said, someone did ask if this was NC (non-compete) ... it would appear to be that way because there's no where in the film that identifies either character as Eric/Erik or Erica/Erika. I was looking at the office to see a name plate or something with the name, or listen for even a whisper, but nothing. If it weren't for that, this would be in my tied section for the winning vote.
Stylistically, the music was top notch, and I personally LOVE those lens flares. If I remember correctly, that was something that you produced within Vegas for SIMILO, so assuming you used the same approach for this?
My ONLY nit-pick issues with the film are more towards the end ... I absolutely knew Jack was going to get hit by a car the moment he leaned down & parked it there in the middle of the street. Destiny. However, the car hit itself was FREAKING AWESOME! I had to frame through that, and it still looked great to me.
K, back to the nit-picky ... his head would have been a mess, I believe, because it showed him going under the car, so his head would/should have massive injury to it, pool of blood, etc. I read back & see you had no permits, so therefore probably couldn't take the time for it (nor want to draw attention), but that's why we shoot within what we have to work with. If you KNOW you can't make the scene look real, then don't do it, or find a way to hide it, fake it, etc. If, however, it was artistic choice to have no blood & only have his glasses eskew, then forget what I've just said, because whether you had permits, time, etc. you still would have left it that way ... if that was an artistic choice.
I didn't get the '18 Seconds' (didn't care, loved the title anyway, as well as the opening statement), but now after reading about it, I'll have to go back & see if that is indeed only 18 seconds that they share a moment. If so, too cool. Love it. Regardless, it was obvious to me that these two shared an uncommon bond, and that when he died, she was destined to die. Not a heart attack, not fainting, but her soul leaving her body as his did ... that they were SO connected (at a spiritual/soul level) that they had to stay together in that sense ... so if he dies, so will/must she.
That said, someone did ask if this was NC (non-compete) ... it would appear to be that way because there's no where in the film that identifies either character as Eric/Erik or Erica/Erika. I was looking at the office to see a name plate or something with the name, or listen for even a whisper, but nothing. If it weren't for that, this would be in my tied section for the winning vote.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
What's to understand ?