Post on Everyone's Films

penfever

penfever

Well-known member
Seriously. Telling the guy that did a great job, "hey, you did a great job" for the 195th time isn't helping him, you, or that other guy who really needs to know how to get his film looking and playing better. Instead, spend that time watching and critiquing a film that maybe wasn't as good, and take the time to consider WHY it wasn't as good. That way, even those who don't win get to take away something useful from the fest - and that's what communities are for, after all.
Big ups to all the FESTers, especially those who are walking away empty-handed. Kudos, brothers.
 
Penfever, you make a good point. I'm not sure why people aren't really giving honest critiques at this point... maybe they are scared that if they say something too negative (or brutally honest), it may be held against them on the voting ballot? Anyway, whatever the reason may be, we certainly need some more honest critiques. Every film I've seen so far has some errors... some of them have lots of errors.

Honestly, a film that is riddled with errors is not a good film. There was a guy on here earlier who posted something about him rather watching a dog lick it's own butt than have to watch more of these shorts. The guy was rather rude and got banned, but I think he's probably been the most honest one here so far. I must admit that I too found myself rather disgusted with many of the films... but by the same token, I've been quite satisfied by several.

Anyway, the point is that we need some good honest criticism on these films. As for me, I'm going to sit down this weekend with a note pad and watch all the films straight through while writing down notes/critiques on each one. I suppose I'll just start a thread with everyone's brutally honest critiques in it which I'll probably put up Monday since I'll be gone most of this weekend. If someone else, or several others want to do the same, that'd be sweet and I'm sure it'd be much appreicated by many.

So basically, let's get going with some more honest, but constructive criticisms!

-pastywhiteboy
 
penfever said:
Seriously. Telling the guy that did a great job, "hey, you did a great job" for the 195th time isn't helping him, you, or that other guy who really needs to know how to get his film looking and playing better. Instead, spend that time watching and critiquing a film that maybe wasn't as good, and take the time to consider WHY it wasn't as good. That way, even those who don't win get to take away something useful from the fest - and that's what communities are for, after all.
Big ups to all the FESTers, especially those who are walking away empty-handed. Kudos, brothers.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you... I don't think anyone should set out to be mean, but there's a way to give constructive criticism, which JTyner and I are both hoping for on our film.

I am taking pretty detailed notes on ALL the films and will be watching each multiple times (I've already downloaded what's available and watched each through twice so far). I won't give an comments until I've seen all the films... I just don't think it's fair to. I look at this as a learning experience from multiple angles, and gather a lot of us here do...
 
Well, so far, I've only commented on the films I really liked. The ones I thought were amateurish, I didn't have the heart to say anything. I mean, I thought one was really bad, but everyone else in the thread thought it was good. I mean the acting was bad. And everything looked "too normal." I'm sure if I were dead honest, I would bruise some egos pretty badly.
 
NBC: We can recover from bruised egos... and that's how we'll learn to make it better for next time! :)
 
NBCshooter said:
Well, so far, I've only commented on the films I really liked. The ones I thought were amateurish, I didn't have the heart to say anything. I mean, I thought one was really bad, but everyone else in the thread thought it was good. I mean the acting was bad. And everything looked "too normal." I'm sure if I were dead honest, I would bruise some egos pretty badly.
Click to expand...

Oh man... I guess that tells me what you thought of my film ;) J/K!
 
Perhaps I can just make some general commentary about what irks me about many of the mediocre shorts I see here and elsewhere. It was my biggest complaint about other students' films when I was in film school . . .

Rule No. 1. Try to find older actors.

Now, young actors are great when they fit the role and the genre. I think Hiro's Zombiefest entry was an EXCELLENT example of young people playing young people's parts. They were 20-somethings that were doing things typical of 20-somethings. I think Hiro is an excellent, extremely edgy and creative filmmaker.

Now, not that my shorts are any great works either. Someday, I have GOT to write a SCRIPT! But I think budding filmmakers make far too many compromises in the casting department. As many directors agree, casting IS the movie. I know many of us don't have a lot of Hollywood-type resources, and good acting ability (the ability to act without looking like you're acting) is actually very, very rare. But nothing blows your suspension of disbelief quicker than an an actor who simply isn't credible for the part. Now, I'm as guilty as the rest--in my zombie film, I used what I had available to me--my girlfriend and my best friend. But at least HE was old!

As silly as this sounds, instead of writing scripts, and trying to cast the parts for the characters that I have "created," I've found it so difficult to cast succesfully (I've run several casting sessions for other projects), that I'm going to start making movies backwards. I recently bought an iPod 60GB video-capable player. I've encoded some of my work onto the iPod. Now, wherever I go, and I see someone who's "right," I simply ask them if they would be interested in being in my short film. Then, I write [the script] to THEM. I just scored two incredible hotties the other day--one on a film set, and the other at a premiere--one was just a stand-in, the other was a reporter. Anyway, I showed them my work, and then they knew . . . it wasn't just some dweeb running a line to hit on her. I actually said, "Hey, I am way not hitting on you . . . I just think you might be good in my short. Are you interested?"

It's not just about the hotties. At another event, I did the same thing to one of the security guards. He totally looked like a cop. Turns out he was definitely interested, and even spoke Arabic! (And no, he's not the one in "DISTRACTION"--this occured after the deadline.)
 
Last edited:
Hey NBC, I appreciate hearing what you have to say, so I hope you'll comment on me and JTyner's film when it's get uploaded :)

The acting thing IS tough for some of us, especially since a lot of us don't have the resources. I was talking to a fellow friend (and filmmaker) recently and we were talking about ideas for getting actors. My daughter is into acting and goes to a local acting school with actors of all ages, and we have a few colleges around here with drama programs, so posting info in the college classifies or up on their bulletin boards is a great way to find people!

Seems like a lot of folks around here are willing to work with each other too if they're local to one another... that's certainly an option for those willing.

I think it's definitely an area to seek to expand our horizons in... not an easy one, but a necessary one to take it to a whole new level.
 
Rule No. 2:

(As if I were to be so presumptuous to issue "Rules" on filmmaking) If you don't have the location or the set to "sell" your scene, DON'T SHOOT IT. If I can't "buy" it (the credibility of your set), because the whole film looks like it was shot in your brother's apartment, and it's supposed to be this "high tech lab" or something (kinda like the lame-azz "lab" in my apartment as seen in my zombie short, "INFECTION")--either rewrite or don't shoot it that way. You need credible locations and sets to "sell" it. If I can't "sell" it, I generally don't even shoot it.
 
NBC, I know you're talking about the horrible acting in mine and waltind's film, so there's nothing to hide anymore. :) Just get in there & make your comments. Good, Bad, and ugly are all appreciated as long as they're not praises full of hot air or blasts that are spiteful in nature and have zero value to them.
 
Envision said:
Eeek, and there's the "high tech lab" hint ... just get it over with & post your comments in the thread!
Click to expand...
No, no, no! I haven't even seen your film yet! I was talking PURELY hypothetically, honest! I used MY short as an example only, specifically so no one would feel singled out! I HATED how the door handle looked like an apartment door handle in my short!
 
HA! FUNNY! Both of your comments fit our current film (i.e. people saying they liked the acting, we have a "lab" in our film, etc.)!

Okay, laugh's over. Watch the film now. :)
 
NBC, I am with you a 100% that the poor acting kills many potentially good beginner projects.

I am definitely planning on creating some initial short films specifically around people that fit the characters in their real life (actors and non-actors) so I can up the credibility factor until I have access to professional casting and professional actors.

I know there are quite a few successful Indie feature films out there that have used non-actors, and actually I just saw Steven Soderbergh's 'Bubble', which used all non-actors!

From CNN:

"Bubble," about a murderous love triangle at a small-town doll factory, was shot on high-definition video and runs just 73 minutes. It had no script: Doebereiner and her co-stars, all non-actors from the southern Ohio-West Virginia border where the movie was set, improvised their dialogue based on an outline by screenwriter Coleman Hough, who also wrote Soderbergh's similarly stripped-down "Full Frontal."

Now admittedly this is an experimental film, and in a lot of ways and it's not the same as a major motion picture where you need serious character actors (and also wasn't that impressed with the film itself, though the "acting" was a lot better than most of the "real actors" I see in most home brewed shorts (probably because they weren't "acting", which when it's done well is brilliant and amazing!

Needless to say, I'm not saying I could do better (hence the reason I don't act), but most struggling actors look like they're acting and it kills a lot of potentially good beginner films.


And of course things like story, sound, editing, etc, all play a very significant role in the ultimate success of a film, but I think it's fair to say that even the best script with the best sound and editing won't fair well if the acting is bad.


NOTE: By the way, I'm still extremely grateful to everyone who posted their film in the Sci-Fest regardless of the credibility of the acting, I think it's always better to do anything at all than to wait until everything is "perfect" (as we all know that perfection never happens!) ;-)
 
Last edited:
Don't even start with the 'non-actors' kick. Non-actors play one thing well - themselves. And in a sci-fi movie, almost no one plays himself. And even when they play themselves, non-actors are easily spooked, have trouble with repeatable actions and don't take direction well, as a rule of thumb. After all, if they did all of these things well, they'd be actors.
Using actors doesn't mean giving up your beloved off-the-cuff style...it means planning and working so carefully that it LOOKS off-the-cuff, but is actually carefully thought out , down to the last camera shake. All the really great 'verite' movies do this - and no one on this board is quite ready to call himself a great filmmaker anyway.
I'll add another to NBCShooter's quality list of across-the-board criticisms...make it ABOUT THE STORY. Any Hollywood person will tell you that when it comes to an audience, story is king. Now, take my short. I thought I had a strong story, but now from the comments I see that it was very difficult to understand and most people find that off-putting. I can talk through my hat all day about style, look, lyrical, blah blah whatever, but the fact is an enjoyable film is a tightly plotted film, 9 out of 10 times. What people are calling good filmmaking is more often than not, dazzling technical skill. Which is SOOO not the same thing.

ANYWAY, what I wanted this thread to reiterate was ... WATCH THE LESS POPULAR FILMS AND COMMENT ON THEM. Everybody needs your feedback - even the 'uncool' kids. If it's bad, well, they can take it and use it, and if they ask you to back off, then back off. But otherwise - let's share the wealth, guys!
 
Yeah...it is difficult to pull all of the necessary resources together in fairly short order to successfully complete a film project...the final product good or bad, still usually takes a considerable effort. Juggling actors schedules, some even not showing up on shots and locations on time, or not at all forcing script adjustments, etc... It can get interesting.

We are very happy to have went through the process and created something truly original.

The only repeatitive critique I'm hearing from many of our college students who viewed the films so far, is that, while some are highly original, there are more than a few storylines that seem to be very similar to popular screeplays. I suppose some decided to go with the tried and and true and use what has already worked. Which is probably smart on one hand.

We are very, very happy to be part of this online festival and hope you guys liked our first original sci-fi action comedy.

Thanks,
ProfD
La.
 
i think acting is the pitfall for many studen films. In my case i had to stand in because one of the actors didn't show up.. it really sucked. I've been having trouble finding actors and i hate it. i might turn to animation for awhile... or maybe a nature film...im messing around but you get the point...
 
Originality and a similar set of creative tools would make the playing field more even. ie...making the contest about the individual's creativity instead of access to big toys and computers would be awesome! We just don't have that type of access in our small college town. Work with what we have I guess.

Wish we had the budgets and access to the CGI computing capabilities of some of these shorts.

Wow...some are amazing. Next time, we will try and seek investors or perhaps some local art grants to get to that level and improve our toy box.

Again...hopefully you guys appreciated our original sci-fi comedy from the deeeeeeeeppppp south....just happy to be here.
 
pastywhiteboy said:
Honestly, a film that is riddled with errors is not a good film. . . . So basically, let's get going with some more honest, but constructive criticisms!

-pastywhiteboy
Click to expand...

Honesty can be good, but if the point of constructive criticisms to help someone grow, then the criticism should include some positive comments.

I am going on a guess that anyone who entered a film, is probably presenting an effort that is their personal best given the circumstances. And let me be honest when I say that film-making is HARD. It can be plenty difficult if you have time and money, and if you don’t have a lot of resources, it can be even more difficult.

I remember being a producer for a sketch comedy show in college, where I didn’t like to show our sketches to non-production students. If you showed it to a fellow student, they knew how much work went into it. Someone outside would look at it and say: “This isn’t as good as NBC’s Friends.” As a sophomore, the stuff we were doing in our sketch comedy program was better than most of the video coming out of projects from seniors. On the other hand, it sucked if you compared it to big budget national TV.

I am trying not to be too long winded, but I guess I just think that everyone who got an entry in, from the best to the worst, probably worked damn hard. We all WATCH movies, but more importantly, we all MAKE movies. I am going to try and remember this when I get a chance to view all the films. If a film doesn’t rock my world, I might still be able to find some qualities in it that are promising.

The point is both to help someone figure out what they should concentrate on improving for their next one, and to encourage them to actually make that next one.

Also feel free to critique this post, and then maybe my next post can get the same point across with less words. :)

~Ian
 
You know, acting is so subjective. I can watch one film and think it has brilliant acting, and someone else can watch it and say it has terrible acting. Obviously some people just can't act. Anyway, just my 2 cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top