Implications of having affordable HD production?

The point being -- what made it excellent? Is it camera movement? Lighting? Shallow DOF? High-def resolution? Latitude? A Mini35 adapter? Editing? Special effects? Compositing?

I mean, I know we all get hung up on that stuff, and that's okay, but the first step -- the Most Important Step -- is to make something that someone would actually want to watch. Doesn't matter if it's a movie or a training video or a commercial or a short film or whatever -- just make sure that someone would want to watch it.

My daughters have probably watched that thing twenty times...
 
On the other side of the coin - and I am absolutely in no way saying this to be devil's advocate or merely to argue your point (I do understand what you're getting at here) - but just watching this clip the way it was filmed drove me absolutely nuts. The horizon isn't level and the dancers aren't centered half the time - and those aren't even camera issues. There is no replacement for ingenuity and creativity, I will always gladly defend that. But I'm really tired of hearing how "story/idea trumps everything" as if technical ability (and the importance of having good equipment with which to film with) doesn't affect the overall experience as well. I realize these guys are going out of their way to be nerdy and the "hi-8 look" probably suits their project as far as they're concerned, but most story-based films that are made aren't self-parodies. We shoot with the best we can afford. There's a reason that big studios use the best, most expensive equipment they can - I think you even mentioned that yourself in a post not too long ago.

I respect you as a person immensely and agree with most everything you say, but I think that a lot of people lately have been trying to take this noble, artistic attitude that it doesn't matter how you shoot anything as long as you've got something worthy of being shot. I think perhaps there's just a larger amount of bad stuff being made because filmmaking has become so much more affordable and everyone wants to try their hand at it. As a result, you see a lot of crappy stories and that's frustrating and a turn off. But you ALSO see a lot of bad lighting, composition, and editing as well, and those things are just as important to me (along with resolution, latitude, and artistic style). Please don't throw all of those things out the window just because you have an idea that you think will change the world.

Just my two cents.
 
The reason so much crap exists is because the market and desire for visual media is so much larger than the amount of good solid stories out there. You should be glad too. If all we made was amazing, fulfilling and wonderful programs and movies, we'd never be able to make a living. My favorite set motto from a director friend...
"One for the meal, one for the reel."
 
Hey Haakon, no offense taken at all. In fact, I thought it was comical just how badly it was filmed -- nobody even reframed it when the guys were halfway off the screen.

I'm not one of the crowd that says "nothing else matters", not by a long shot. I'm the guy who's always saying "better is better, because -- well, it's better". Even so, I did think this was an entertaining video, and it has perhaps the worst production values of any video ever made. This one, and the Fatboy Slim "Praise You" video... Either one are far more entertaining than a lot of the short films on ifilm.com!

Now, compare this video to Fatboy Slim's other video, "Weapon of Choice".
http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/astralwerks/fatboy/weapon_of_choice_300.asx

It's a similar basic concept (nothing but watching a guy dance), but this time it's with Christopher Walken, and lush production values, and dollies and jibs... it's brilliant, and even more compelling. But these "A Million Ways" guys got at least 80% of the bang out of maybe 5% of the buck, and there's something to be said for that.

I'm not knocking production value, not in a million years would I do that. But I am saying -- make something compelling; offer something of value. Don't put together some cliche-ridden piece of crapola about a cop who goes after a drug dealer because the drug dealer killed his partner... compelling content is the underlying key. And it always has been. That doesn't mean just "story", it means compelling content. If your content is compelling enough, they'll watch it regardless of how awful the production value is (I'm thinking of the Zapruder film, or the Rodney King beating video, etc). Combine compelling content with Hollywood-caliber production values, and you're looking at a breakthrough hit.
 
Barry_Green said:
It's a similar basic concept (nothing but watching a guy dance), but this time it's with Christopher Walken, and lush production values, and dollies and jibs... it's brilliant, and even more compelling. But these "A Million Ways" guys got at least 80% of the bang out of maybe 5% of the buck, and there's something to be said for that.
Click to expand...

Isn't that John Hudson in the video...hard to recognise him without the standard "sleeveless," I know, but the guy sure has the moves...
 
That's funny, Barry. The first thing that popped in my head when I watched that first video was "Hey, that's kind of a funnny low-rent version of the Fatboy Slim video with Christopher Walken, er Hudson.

I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that the first video didn't even have a camera operator. I think they just turned it on and got into position.

I also agree that the fantastic production values make the Fatboy Slim video much easier to watch (didn't Spike Jonze direct that?), but I also think the choreography is more interesting. And the idea is more compelling because it's Christopher Walken dancing to Fatboy Slim. The first time I saw this video a few years ago, I started laughing as soon as Walken started to move his head while sitting in the chair. Just the idea of Chris Walken dancing is funny (because of the characters he's played throughput the years). So although the lush production values make it more watchable than the first video, I was hooked not by the slick floating through the air bit or the dozen Walken reflections in the mirrors, but by the very idea of the thing.

So I still say that story/idea is trump. That doesn't mean it trumps everything. When you're playing euchre, you can still have more trump than your opponents and lose the hand. But I think video professionals are more likely to notice the poor production values than the average person. For most people, it's story that matters. I inherited some old, old vinyl records from my grandmother of old jazz guys such as Jelly Roll Morton. Would I rather hear a remastered version on CD that's been cleaned up? Definitely. But would I rather listen to that old scratchy Jelly Roll vinyl than a highly-produced Britney Spears single? I'll take Jelly Roll.

My point is that all points made here have merit, but you've got to have the good writing firsabove all in a feature film.

Cheers,

Josh
 
braw said:
C - resign yourself to it being a fun and expensive hobby
Click to expand...
Well . . . this was an unexpectedly provocative thread! Of course, I couldn't help but throwing MY stupid two cents in . . .

1. I went to film school. I learned how to shoot and edit actual film. But I didn't have any money to shoot a film after the paid-for, 1st-year assignment was over. I dropped out.
2. I started working in the "industry" as a camera guy. Learned how to really light. Couldn't make a living at it, so, I dropped out.
3. I went back to real school and started all over again. Five years later, I earned a bachelor's degree in business. Got a marketing job at a high tech company and got to travel and do all kinds of cool things. It was fun. But I got burned out in five years, and . . . I dropped out.
4. I returned to the production world, and within a year, lucked the **** out, and got hired on an NBC show as a camera guy making pretty good money.

So here I am . . . 25 years after shooting my first short, which won 3rd place in a Francis Ford Coppola-judged Sony video contest, and I still haven't directed "my big movie" yet. The HVX200 now gives me the hope of adding the visual credibility to my vision that I've longed for. In that at least, my tools will soon be more able to faithfully represent what I'm trying to visualize. Now it's up to me. And I'm ready.

Moral:

Film school is cool. It's fun and you learn the basics. Some may become frustrated because you've learned too much already and going to film school is too rudimentary. Real school and real degrees are cool. You can pretty much get a job anywhere with a degree. It's good insurance for not having to be the manager at Taco Bell when you're 35 years old. "Hollywood" takes some effort to figure out. I've finally figured out enough to make all the contacts I need, once I have the goods. If you have the confidence, you'd be surprised how well you can cold call your way through some of its front doors (and back doors).

The dream may take a long time to come. But I've kept mine alive. And look how ****ing long it's been! At least I have a really "fun expensive hobby" to keep me occupied in the meantime!
 
Real school and real degrees are cool. You can pretty much get a job anywhere with a degree. It's good insurance for not having to be the manager at Taco Bell when you're 35 years old.
Click to expand...

Hey, why are you knocking my day job at the Bell!?

Just kidding. I didn't go to film school but I do have a B.S., which allowed me to get corporate gig that's several steps up from Taco Bell. So yeah, I agree, degrees are cool.
 
Josh_Boelter said:
I still say that story/idea is trump. That doesn't mean it trumps everything. When you're playing euchre, you can still have more trump than your opponents and lose the hand. But I think video professionals are more likely to notice the poor production values than the average person. For most people, it's story that matters. I inherited some old, old vinyl records from my grandmother of old jazz guys such as Jelly Roll Morton. Would I rather hear a remastered version on CD that's been cleaned up? Definitely. But would I rather listen to that old scratchy Jelly Roll vinyl than a highly-produced Britney Spears single? I'll take Jelly Roll.
Click to expand...
I think video professionals are more likely to notice the poor production values than the average person, too... but shouldn't you also, if you care about your craft? Are you saying it doesn't matter if the technical aspect of your work is crap because most of the viewing audience isn't going to notice/care in the first place? If that's the case, then your Birtney Spears example is completely contradictory... most people (on here, I'm sure) would say that Britney's music is crap - and not "content" worthy - but she still sold millions of records...
 
I had a guy at work ask me, "What makes movies not look like there's a guy working the camera?"

I wasn't sure how to respond. I told him that it was because of tons of expensive dollys, jibs, and steadycams. So even though he was technically devoid of how stuff really worked, he as an average user knew when something had good production value.

It seems like just because we geek out about techie crap all day here, we seem to think Joe Average doesn't notice this stuff. When you start to get as close to a film look as we have, sure most people don't notice. Although they may not know the terms or the technology, it's subtle and they do subconsciously pick this stuff up.

I would like to switch this whole argument to good actors as being the most important part of your movie. The best story in the world gets destroyed by poor acting. Some of the greatest actors can deliver some of the most horribly written tripe in an acceptable way. To me, watching all the clips on this and other sites, the first thing that makes me lose interest is piss poor acting.
 
would like to switch this whole argument to good actors as being the most important part of your movie.

...........................

i totally disagree. only the most exceptional actors can transcend weak material. off hand, morgan freeman and robert duvall are the only guys i can think of that do it consistently. the script is primary in my book. i've heard alot of directors tells actors "just say the lines..." and if the material is strong, sometimes that's all it takes.

acting is the second most important element while craft services ranks a close third.
 
Are you saying it doesn't matter if the technical aspect of your work is crap because most of the viewing audience isn't going to notice/care in the first place?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying that at all. The technical is indeed very important. But I still say it's less important than story. Maybe Britney Spears vs. Jelly Roll Morton was a bad example; I dig jazz, and although I'm more into current musicians such as David Sanchez, I like to listen to the old timers sometimes as well.

A couple years ago I was visiting my parents and my mom wanted to pop in a video. She had a rental copy of "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" I dig the Coens and I like Clooney as an actor, and I hadn't seen the flick. So yeah, I wanted to see it. Five minutes in, it was clear that my mom had gotten a shitty scratched up VHS copy. Not to mention that it was full screen, with cheap tinny speakers straight from the TV. We messed with the TV and the VCR, but it was a shitty VHS rental. I'd much rather have gotten a DVD and watched it at home on my meager, but better than my mom's, system. However, my mom wanted to watch a movie. It was either that flick or "Pearl Harbor". She had a shrink-wrapped DVD of "Pearl Harbor". But I'd tried to sit through that movie several times before and couldn't stomach it. So I opted for the messed-up VHS full-screen version of the Coens' flick on DVD. And you know what? I got involved enough in the story that I stopped bitching about the technical problems.

That "Pearl Harbor" DVD was no doubt very much superior to the scratchy VHS of the "O Brother, Where Art Thou". And I saw the Coens' flick later on DVD and enjoyed it much more in a technically superior setting. So yeah, the technology matters. I'm not saying it doesn't. But story is still trump, in my opinion. After story comes performances from the actors. That doesn't discount the technical all, in my opinion. In the indie world, we've always had to make compromises with the technical side. Thankfully, that's becoming less true every year. But let's not forget that great writing, acting, and directing all are vital.

Cheers,

Josh
 
Josh_Boelter said:
The first time I saw this video a few years ago, I started laughing as soon as Walken started to move his head while sitting in the chair. Just the idea of Chris Walken dancing is funny (because of the characters he's played throughput the years).
Click to expand...
The real irony is that Walken is actually a trained dancer.

-Nate
 
Braw wrote:

"Well I unequivocally disagree with your disagreement"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

oh really? well, disagree with my disagreement if you want to, but I disagree with your disagreement of my disagreement. I don't find disagreeing agreeable so Maybe we should settle this in the parking lot?
 
"but just watching this clip the way it was filmed drove me absolutely nuts. The horizon isn't level and the dancers aren't centered half the time" :huh:
Click to expand...

For me (and I make my living shooting commercials on film btw) that was the best aspect of the video. The lo fi, low tech approach. If it was a slick bjork style production, it would have had no charm whatsoever - its the subtle lack of coordination, the fact that they step off the screen and the earnestness of the dancers that makes this a work of genius and makes it stand out from other videos. If it was a directed work, I thought it was great (especially that the guys had to turn their own camera on and off - Genius).

People have been referencing FatBoy Slims "Use of Weapons" video as a parallel to this, when I would suggest another Fatboy Slim/Spike Jonze combo "Praise you" - with the dancers outside the cinema (one of them played by Jonze himself btw) as being more its equal. It too is shot to look like low grade video and features earnest dancers performing a routine with heart. It shows that Spike Jonze is a director who knows his formats (since he shot to give it a low rent look but it contributes hugely to the reality of the piece.)

One of the things that slowly seeps in over the years of shooting is that equipment will never make a bad idea good. Many first time directors are obsessed with steadicam or cranes or 35mm and 95 percent of them never get close to producing a good shot or scene once they get them out on the floor. Look at the Blair Witch project - stunning. Very involving, great performances and hugely limited resources.

I feel that while the HVX will democratize filmmaking, it may also see a raft of poorly made films that try to ape hollywood in their look and general feel but without care and attention paid to the story. As is often said: "Stock is the cheapest thing on a shoot". Filmmaking won't get cheaper just because the camera is cheap. Write an amazing script and I think you can shoot it on toilet roll and it will still find an audience. :laugh:

PreyAloneTheMovie
 
That said, I'm not sure I want to go to the multiplex and see two dozen films made that way. But great nonetheless. Two thumbs up.
 
brianluce said:
oh really? well, disagree with my disagreement if you want to, but I disagree with your disagreement of my disagreement. I don't find disagreeing agreeable so Maybe we should settle this in the parking lot?
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. :thumbsup:
 
jamestmather said:
If it was a slick bjork style production, it would have had no charm whatsoever - its the subtle lack of coordination, the fact that they step off the screen and the earnestness of the dancers that makes this a work of genius and makes it stand out from other videos.
Click to expand...
Well I guess we just have to agree to disagree... I hardly find it to be "a work of genius." I think more than anything people just find it amusing that thirty-somethings wearing suits are dancing around to silly music, but it's hardly making a profound statement that's changing anyone's life. You are right, that in the isolated instance of this particular piece, a slick production probably wouldn't work as well. But as I mentioned earlier, most people's art isn't a tounge-in-cheek self parody. It only works here because they're playing up the "look, we're dorks!" aspect of their presentation. I don't think that's the message most people are trying to communicate with their lives.

jamestmather said:
People have been referencing FatBoy Slims "Use of Weapons" video as a parallel to this, when I would suggest another Fatboy Slim/Spike Jonze combo "Praise you" - with the dancers outside the cinema (one of them played by Jonze himself btw) as being more its equal.
Click to expand...
I agree. Actually, when I first saw someone mention Fatboy Slim (and before I read the reference to Christopher Walken), I thought "Praise You" was the video they were talking about. Coincidentally, I can't stand that video either. "Use Of Weapons," on the other hand, managed to be humorous and not take itself seriously, while still retaining good production value. It's a better video because of it.

jamestmather said:
One of the things that slowly seeps in over the years of shooting is that equipment will never make a bad idea good.
Click to expand...
I definitely agree with you here. However, for some reason when it comes to this topic, people seem to think only in diometric opposites; as if the only choices when making a film are "a good idea with bad equipment" (like this video, I guess), or "a bad idea with good equipment." The equipment isn't going to make you come up with better ideas... we understand that. You're gonna have to bring the good ideas on your own. But wouldn't you strive to use the best equipment you can to capture your ideas? That's all I'm saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top