Final project short film shot exclusively on 5d/7d

da//media said:
thanks for giving the story a chance, lets face it, it is dirty, over the top and very in your face every second, most of the humor I beleive is directed towards a younger audience.. like I said before in a earlier post, just open your eyes a little bit and laugh, not every movie is not a french neo-bla blah blah something or other that doesnt have a real storyline but it was artsy and thats why people praise it ... I feel like thats what you see from a lot of student and amateur film makers , stories that didnt make any sense at all but hey it was artsy ...

what most people might not notice about this story, (and yes it does need to be re-worked and have better flow to it) is that it follows a script writing structure and story structure that is used in Hollywood on almost every movie .... some may have heard of it or have been taught about it, but its called the 12 column story structure..
every screenplay has a certain runtime (most comedies and romantic com. are 120min long) .. throughout this 120min, there is 12 different parts of the story...
we could sit here and talk for hours about the columns and what happens, but Im not gonna tell people on here about that, that is your job to go and talk to and interact and learn how to make the films! but look it up , its interesting and makes sense

also thanks for the props on the technical side of things, if there was one thing I wanted this film not to struggle with it was the tech side of things, I think we did realy F*** good for a 1500.00 budget , 4 person crew, and 1 month to do it, and it was 22page script ... so many things we learned and will do differently next time, but I think we did well with the tech side of making the story come alive inside the camera.

Thanks
Matt
Click to expand...


What exactly do you mean by "open your eyes a little bit and laugh"? My eyes were wide open while watching the film, and all that did was make me want to gouge them out. Are you trying to say that someone disliking the film must not be "open" enough?

And who the heck cares if the film is in 12 column structure if nothing in the film works? That would be like an architect responding to his bosses question as to why the house he built is in ruins by saying "oh but I built it on the 12 column structure that most houses get built on!" . Ok....so what? If the house is in ruins, then why does it matter what the intended structure was? The real issue with the film in my eyes is not that it's badly structured, or even to be honest that it's too fast paced. It's that there's just nothing there. It's not funny, it's not deep, it's not anything except disgusting and juvenile.
 
jghenderson said:
What exactly do you mean by "open your eyes a little bit and laugh"? My eyes were wide open while watching the film, and all that did was make me want to gouge them out. Are you trying to say that someone disliking the film must not be "open" enough?

And who the heck cares if the film is in 12 column structure if nothing in the film works? That would be like an architect responding to his bosses question as to why the house he built is in ruins by saying "oh but I built it on the 12 column structure that most houses get built on!" . Ok....so what? If the house is in ruins, then why does it matter what the intended structure was? The real issue with the film in my eyes is not that it's badly structured, or even to be honest that it's too fast paced. It's that there's just nothing there. It's not funny, it's not deep, it's not anything except disgusting and juvenile.
Click to expand...

what i meant was...
sex,bad language, crude humor, naked girls, gays and lesbians, offensive acts etc are all real life, so get over it...
 
jghenderson said:
So is racism, murder, rape, etc. I guess I should just get over all those too, right?
Click to expand...

im not argueing with you on here dude, your trying to argue points that arent even at all ... i didnt say murder, rape or anyof that idiot...
do yourself a favor a stop commenting on this post, this isnt a place for fighting about whats wrong and right, its a film making site ...
peace
 
dtjohns1 said:
Its funny how people on here will praise a movie that is probably way worse than this as far as the content in it goes and the come down on you hard when you bring out yours. The funny thing about the naysayers on here is they have everything in the world to critique when it comes to you but if you ask them to put together/show you a 15 min project half of them would look at you like youre stupid. As far as the car scene goes it was fine too. Ive seen plenty of movies, commercials, music videos where the outside is overexposed in order to keep the talent exposed. People on here could tell you to gel the windows and do all that crazy crap but who wants to go through all that lol.
Click to expand...


Well, I for one am new on this specific forum but I'm happy to provide constructive criticism wherever I can. None of the criticism here has been negative, it's been helpful - and whether or not anyone posting it is technically inexperienced (again, I for one am not) doesn't change how valid it is. And yes, gelling the windscreen might have been a way around it - as for "who wants to go through all that lol", people who don't want their shots overexposed. If this was for TV those whites would need to be brought down, and that would make the scene look a lot worse than how you view it now.



da//media said:
thanks for giving the story a chance, lets face it, it is dirty, over the top and very in your face every second, most of the humor I beleive is directed towards a younger audience.. like I said before in a earlier post, just open your eyes a little bit and laugh, not every movie is not a french neo-bla blah blah something or other that doesnt have a real storyline
Click to expand...

I seriously don't think that's the problem, as people have said before. It's not that the jokes are over the top, they're just not that funny - and they're not held in place by a solid story. Throwing crude jokes randomly at the audience doesn't make for a good comedy.

da//media said:
what most people might not notice about this story, (and yes it does need to be re-worked and have better flow to it) is that it follows a script writing structure and story structure that is used in Hollywood on almost every movie .... some may have heard of it or have been taught about it, but its called the 12 column story structure..
Click to expand...

From my experience writing, most screenplays conform to the simple 3 act structure. I can't say I've heard of the '12 column story structure'. But, regardless - remember that structure doesn't guarantee a good script. The basics in the script are there, but they're not connected very well and the dialogue is very forced. There's just too many jumps in the narrative that are not properly connected which break the flow of the entire film.

It's worth bearing in mind that for short films, you don't have to stick entirely to the structure set out for features. Short films are generally for discussing a short, simple idea - whereas features tend to have multiple plots and therefore require more structure. If the idea doesn't conform to the structure easily, bend the structure to fit your needs. It's there as a guide.

da//media said:
also thanks for the props on the technical side of things, if there was one thing I wanted this film not to struggle with it was the tech side of things, I think we did realy F*** good for a 1500.00 budget , 4 person crew, and 1 month to do it, and it was 22page script ... so many things we learned and will do differently next time, but I think we did well with the tech side of making the story come alive inside the camera.
Click to expand...
Did camera/lighting rental come into that cost? What other costs were there?

I can only speak from my own experience, but I wouldn't say $1500 is particularly good. Not bad by any means, but I'd expect to shoot something like this with my University (i.e. free Canon 7D and lighting kit rental) for £200 (probably about $300, equivilant), max. If I had to rent equipment, maybe £600.


I would just make the point that if you're only posting for positive responses, don't ask for feed back. You're getting constructive feedback and you're throwing it back at people saying they should just "put up" with it. Their comments are useful, read them and take it in.
 
da//media said:
I would love some feed back from everyone .. this is a 2nd rough cut , one more and we r done.
Click to expand...
You have asked for feedback and you got it. It appears it isn't what you were hoping for. People like or dislike a movie for all kinds of reasons. So far it looks like you still have some work to do on this one. If you don't agree with what people have said, it's best to let it go and move on, especially if you don't agree with it.

I wasn't offended by the subject matter BUT I WAS offended that I didn't get ONE LAUGH out of what was supposed to be a comedy. You brought up Superbad as a reference point. I think this was a bad idea because this was a long way from Superbad, which I thought was laugh-out-loud funny.

All the characters were one dimensional and you didn't give me any reason to like any of them. If you want us to care about what's happening to a character, give us a reason. The actors in here really felt and looked young for the parts they were supposed to be playing.

This opened up with a lot of exposition and it felt like it was taking a long time to get to the story and you almost lost me several times. When we did get to the story, it just didn't work for me...sorry. It really comes across as a stereotypical student film.
 
@Dave W well last time I checked I didnt see anything about him saying this was going to TV so I think he'll be ok. Ive seen QT, Spielberg and Scorsese films that have had overexposure in them and if they can do it im sure he can.
 
Blaine said:
You have asked for feedback and you got it. It appears it isn't what you were hoping for. People like or dislike a movie for all kinds of reasons. So far it looks like you still have some work to do on this one. If you don't agree with what people have said, it's best to let it go and move on, especially if you don't agree with it.

I wasn't offended by the subject matter BUT I WAS offended that I didn't get ONE LAUGH out of what was supposed to be a comedy. You brought up Superbad as a reference point. I think this was a bad idea because this was a long way from Superbad, which I thought was laugh-out-loud funny.

All the characters were one dimensional and you didn't give me any reason to like any of them. If you want us to care about what's happening to a character, give us a reason. The actors in here really felt and looked young for the parts they were supposed to be playing.

This opened up with a lot of exposition and it felt like it was taking a long time to get to the story and you almost lost me several times. When we did get to the story, it just didn't work for me...sorry. It really comes across as a stereotypical student film.
Click to expand...

Blaine,
if you look through the rest of the responses I have taken everyones response in and said thanks and that I agree the story isnt that great, im not throwing anyones opinions out except for the guy that wants to keep argueing about the story and whats right and wrong...

so to continue, thanks for checking it out and giving your opinion.
once again, I didnt write this, so really I could careless if people love or hate the script, it appears by numbers that it is not getting a good response lol ..doesnt surprise me..

I was more looking for some opinions on technical things, camera work, editing, sound, color grading etc , but everyone has stuck on talking about the script lol

I agree with you on the point of the characters being very one dimensional and not being developed at all, I like stories where I grow to form a relationship with the characters as a viewer, this story most definately didnt do that haha

Thanks
Matt
 
Dave W said:
Well, I for one am new on this specific forum but I'm happy to provide constructive criticism wherever I can. None of the criticism here has been negative, it's been helpful - and whether or not anyone posting it is technically inexperienced (again, I for one am not) doesn't change how valid it is. And yes, gelling the windscreen might have been a way around it - as for "who wants to go through all that lol", people who don't want their shots overexposed. If this was for TV those whites would need to be brought down, and that would make the scene look a lot worse than how you view it now.





I seriously don't think that's the problem, as people have said before. It's not that the jokes are over the top, they're just not that funny - and they're not held in place by a solid story. Throwing crude jokes randomly at the audience doesn't make for a good comedy.



From my experience writing, most screenplays conform to the simple 3 act structure. I can't say I've heard of the '12 column story structure'. But, regardless - remember that structure doesn't guarantee a good script. The basics in the script are there, but they're not connected very well and the dialogue is very forced. There's just too many jumps in the narrative that are not properly connected which break the flow of the entire film.

It's worth bearing in mind that for short films, you don't have to stick entirely to the structure set out for features. Short films are generally for discussing a short, simple idea - whereas features tend to have multiple plots and therefore require more structure. If the idea doesn't conform to the structure easily, bend the structure to fit your needs. It's there as a guide.


Did camera/lighting rental come into that cost? What other costs were there?

I can only speak from my own experience, but I wouldn't say $1500 is particularly good. Not bad by any means, but I'd expect to shoot something like this with my University (i.e. free Canon 7D and lighting kit rental) for £200 (probably about $300, equivilant), max. If I had to rent equipment, maybe £600.


I would just make the point that if you're only posting for positive responses, don't ask for feed back. You're getting constructive feedback and you're throwing it back at people saying they should just "put up" with it. Their comments are useful, read them and take it in.
Click to expand...


Thank you for all your repsonses, you make good points.
to delve into your budget questions....
from what I have learned about movie budgets, everything and anything is put in the line item budget... we paid for gas,food,drinks,equipment rentals, equipment purchases, some talent, ...etc when it all added up it was right at 1600
just to feed a crew of 5 people and 4 actors for 10 days straight can rack up to $400 right off the top, so thats where most of the budget went .. we spent about $500 on lighting,cam,lenses,grip and such things for the 10-15days of shooting
then there was all the other misc. stuff and costs.. we did it bare bones...

if we had added up everything like a real budget, all the cam equip. that people owned, computers, tranpsportation, location fees, etc ... we would have been in 15K
 
Blaine said:
You have asked for feedback and you got it. It appears it isn't what you were hoping for. People like or dislike a movie for all kinds of reasons. So far it looks like you still have some work to do on this one. If you don't agree with what people have said, it's best to let it go and move on, especially if you don't agree with it.

I wasn't offended by the subject matter BUT I WAS offended that I didn't get ONE LAUGH out of what was supposed to be a comedy. You brought up Superbad as a reference point. I think this was a bad idea because this was a long way from Superbad, which I thought was laugh-out-loud funny.
.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. It's not that I'm not open enough (you kidding? it's always sunny in philidelphia is one of my favorite shows, I work on South Park itself), it's just that it wasn't funny. I'm not really sure it was the script I wasn't connecting with, but the actors themselves. They really didn't sell it.

And trust me, after going through school and getting my degree, none of our "actors" sold it either, though it could've been the directors fault.

Anyway . . . shot compisition was solid!
 
Fidelis said:
Exactly my point. It's not that I'm not open enough (you kidding? it's always sunny in philidelphia is one of my favorite shows, I work on South Park itself), it's just that it wasn't funny. I'm not really sure it was the script I wasn't connecting with, but the actors themselves. They really didn't sell it.

And trust me, after going through school and getting my degree, none of our "actors" sold it either, though it could've been the directors fault.

Anyway . . . shot compisition was solid!
Click to expand...

interesting points,
your right if the actors arent solid and directing isnt solid, you could have the best script in the world but it still wouldnt work out ..

thanks for the props on the shot composition.

Matt R
 
da//media said:
Blaine,
if you look through the rest of the responses I have taken everyones response in and said thanks and that I agree the story isnt that great, im not throwing anyones opinions out except for the guy that wants to keep argueing about the story and whats right and wrong...
Click to expand...


The moment anyone has made a comment about content you have blamed them for either 'not getting it' or being too old or not having a sense of humour. The best way to handle criticism of that kind, if you do not want it, is just to say "I didn't write the story, but I'll pass that on to the writer".

You've made a point about defending the film by saying the fault is with the viewer (which is a bad idea), but while simultaneously saying that the story isn't actually very good. It's not a very good way to take feedback, in my opinion.
 
I'll throw two cents in.

You made a 20 minute film! That is AWESOME! I would bet that 90% of the people that frequent these forums have not come close to that feat. I know how it feels to spend countless hours working on a project only to open it up for feedback... and get backed into a corner of critique.

Believe it or not, you have a lot of support on this forum as a DP. I work in LA at a production company where I see pitch/sizzle/demo/pilot reels day in and day out. Technically, this project blows 95% of them away.

When we shoot on low/no budget, we always shoot with the goal that the audience doesn't notice the cinematography at all (or sound, or art direction, or wardrobe, etc). We just want everything to flow together at a level of quality that is standard to television. I think you've achieved that here. It might seem like a backhanded compliment... "Your work isn't worse than the other crap on television" haha. But its true. There are working professionals out there that would have been just as happy with the look of this film.

I would like to see some productions stills or at least see a rundown of your lighting package. Everything was really clean (give the camera a bit of credit :) ). To that point, I think a professional color pass would really add to the tone of the film.

A side note about school projects. Students playing adults is really really tough. Even in BRICK, the students played students. There was a period piece on these forums about a month ago about a bank robbery. They had great art direction and locations, but it was so unbelievable because it looked like my younger brother was robbing the bank. Its hard to "see the forest for the trees" in filmmaking sometimes because of these distractions.

I'll dole out a little advice from my experience (take it or leave it): Team up with a good director (they are out there). Find a great writer (many on these forums). Cast people that aren't your friends (super important) and are right for the roles (this goes hand in hand with finding a good director). I think the shot selections were good. I think the editing was as good as it could be (every project needs to be tightened). I think that the cinematography was the best part of this film. Don't let the other elements work against it. You need to surround yourself with people that are just as talented as you are. Once you do that, you won't need to come to this forum for feedback... you'll be screening for networks and studios (and trust me, they love giving feedback).

I look forward to seeing your next project!
 
mikemiho said:
I'll throw two cents in.

You made a 20 minute film! That is AWESOME! I would bet that 90% of the people that frequent these forums have not come close to that feat. I know how it feels to spend countless hours working on a project only to open it up for feedback... and get backed into a corner of critique.

Believe it or not, you have a lot of support on this forum as a DP. I work in LA at a production company where I see pitch/sizzle/demo/pilot reels day in and day out. Technically, this project blows 95% of them away.

When we shoot on low/no budget, we always shoot with the goal that the audience doesn't notice the cinematography at all (or sound, or art direction, or wardrobe, etc). We just want everything to flow together at a level of quality that is standard to television. I think you've achieved that here. It might seem like a backhanded compliment... "Your work isn't worse than the other crap on television" haha. But its true. There are working professionals out there that would have been just as happy with the look of this film.

I would like to see some productions stills or at least see a rundown of your lighting package. Everything was really clean (give the camera a bit of credit :) ). To that point, I think a professional color pass would really add to the tone of the film.

A side note about school projects. Students playing adults is really really tough. Even in BRICK, the students played students. There was a period piece on these forums about a month ago about a bank robbery. They had great art direction and locations, but it was so unbelievable because it looked like my younger brother was robbing the bank. Its hard to "see the forest for the trees" in filmmaking sometimes because of these distractions.

I'll dole out a little advice from my experience (take it or leave it): Team up with a good director (they are out there). Find a great writer (many on these forums). Cast people that aren't your friends (super important) and are right for the roles (this goes hand in hand with finding a good director). I think the shot selections were good. I think the editing was as good as it could be (every project needs to be tightened). I think that the cinematography was the best part of this film. Don't let the other elements work against it. You need to surround yourself with people that are just as talented as you are. Once you do that, you won't need to come to this forum for feedback... you'll be screening for networks and studios (and trust me, they love giving feedback).

I look forward to seeing your next project!
Click to expand...

Mike,
wanted to say thanks for checking the film out and for the great advice and also the props on the photography ...
you have brought up some great points about casting, directors and writers.. I couldnt agree with you more ...
I also thank you for not going on and on about the script and talking about the other points in which I was looking for feedback (as i stated in my first repsonse on this topic after someone gave there opinion on the script)

as far as the tech aspect on this film.
all the lighting inside the house was the KinoFlo 4ft banks and Arri 1k's
we used gels, diffusers, flags,scrims and all that jazz depending on the specific scene.
the outside shots were mostly all naturaly light since we didnt have budget to get really powerful lighting and lots of it .. so unfortunately thats not how I wanted it to look but sometimes you have to settle for whats possible.
everything was shot on the 5D MKII (an amazing camera) and with the 24-70 2.8L
then we did some CC in fcp and did the edit in FCP7

you are right, I would love to see a professional color grader or CC artist go to work on the film! im sure it would reach a new level.

Thanks again!
Matt
 
mikemiho said:
Believe it or not, you have a lot of support on this forum as a DP. I work in LA at a production company where I see pitch/sizzle/demo/pilot reels day in and day out. Technically, this project blows 95% of them away.

When we shoot on low/no budget, we always shoot with the goal that the audience doesn't notice the cinematography at all (or sound, or art direction, or wardrobe, etc). We just want everything to flow together at a level of quality that is standard to television. I think you've achieved that here. It might seem like a backhanded compliment... "Your work isn't worse than the other crap on television" haha. But its true. There are working professionals out there that would have been just as happy with the look of this film.
Click to expand...

+1

I was very impressed with the job you did as DP, most people don't realize how difficult it is to do straight, consistently well lit, well composed shots, there's such a tendency, especially now with DSLRs to always go for hyper-dramatic-artsy lighting and ultra-shallow DOF, especially folks who get their hands on the 5D Mkii - I was very impressed with how well thought out your shots were and that you didn't go after all the hyper-shallow DOF, unlit shots/available light shots that so many folks think they can get away with due to the DSLRs low-light capability - your shots are *SUPER* clean - this is some of the better work I've seen with the 5D and you kept it up throughout the film, clearly you didn't just get lucky - you did a great job with the camera and your light kit, and the images are so solid they could easily take a color grading, which is a good sign, you clearly have a good eye for all things DP related. The cinematography was indeed "invisible" and that's what you want - honestly, it might actually be the problem for this film - it looks so good that the look is not an issue whatsoever, so you set the stage perfectly to tell the story - so the focus here is on the story (where it should be) but this story lacks - if you'd done a crummy cinematography job, people might have noticed the story less :)

Ha! You simply presented this story too well for its own good :)

Anyways, again, great job on this as DP - depending on the project, if I were looking for a DP for a film, I'd have no hesitation whatsoever hiring you based just on your work on this short, it's so much better than any of the work any of the DPs did on shorts when I was in college (back in the dark ages when the Sony PD150 and Canon XL1s were just coming out my senior year and we all thought they were the greatest things since sliced bread), it's really impressive and very pro - I think if you can get the right people to see the work you did on this (as DP) you'll get gigs.
 
Mikemeho hit it right on the money. It looked great. I like the colors. But anyways...nice camera moves and placement. The use of lighting was great. There was a lot of thought behind it. But the story and acting....um...no. Cut out the best parts of this and use it as a demo reel for yourself and you'll be good to go.
 
thisisapocalypse said:
+1

I was very impressed with the job you did as DP, most people don't realize how difficult it is to do straight, consistently well lit, well composed shots, there's such a tendency, especially now with DSLRs to always go for hyper-dramatic-artsy lighting and ultra-shallow DOF, especially folks who get their hands on the 5D Mkii - I was very impressed with how well thought out your shots were and that you didn't go after all the hyper-shallow DOF, unlit shots/available light shots that so many folks think they can get away with due to the DSLRs low-light capability - your shots are *SUPER* clean - this is some of the better work I've seen with the 5D and you kept it up throughout the film, clearly you didn't just get lucky - you did a great job with the camera and your light kit, and the images are so solid they could easily take a color grading, which is a good sign, you clearly have a good eye for all things DP related. The cinematography was indeed "invisible" and that's what you want - honestly, it might actually be the problem for this film - it looks so good that the look is not an issue whatsoever, so you set the stage perfectly to tell the story - so the focus here is on the story (where it should be) but this story lacks - if you'd done a crummy cinematography job, people might have noticed the story less :)

Ha! You simply presented this story too well for its own good :)

Anyways, again, great job on this as DP - depending on the project, if I were looking for a DP for a film, I'd have no hesitation whatsoever hiring you based just on your work on this short, it's so much better than any of the work any of the DPs did on shorts when I was in college (back in the dark ages when the Sony PD150 and Canon XL1s were just coming out my senior year and we all thought they were the greatest things since sliced bread), it's really impressive and very pro - I think if you can get the right people to see the work you did on this (as DP) you'll get gigs.
Click to expand...

Hey Bud,
thank you for the kind words on the photography ...
I definately took some time to make sure everything was on point from the beggining and end, and I must say, KINO FLO lighting all the way haha.
I cant imagine what the experience would have been without the 5D MKII as it really lent a hand in making everything look cinematic ...
and I completely agree with you and can say that I see way too many people shooting these cameras at 1.2/1.8 and getting super crazy shallow DOF, which in some scenes and shots is what you want, but not on every shot..
you can notice this in any production in theatres, they dont go crazy DOF on everyshot, it doesnt make sense ...

the next step is to try to cut some of this apart and make some sort of demo reel, im not really sure what yet, seeing how the story is pretty out there lol ..

Thanks again for looking at the film and providing useful and thoughtful advice and feedback.

Matt
 
Ian-T said:
Mikemeho hit it right on the money. It looked great. I like the colors. But anyways...nice camera moves and placement. The use of lighting was great. There was a lot of thought behind it. But the story and acting....um...no. Cut out the best parts of this and use it as a demo reel for yourself and you'll be good to go.
Click to expand...

Hey bud,
thanks for checking the peice out and providing me with your thoughts..
and thanks for the props on the technical side of the film..

I have been trying to figure out what I would use from this whole peice to throw in my reel, do you have any thoughts or suggestions as to what you thought the best photographic scenes were in it?? leave the acting and story out lol

Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top