FEATURE: Rise of the Beast-the new feature from STARS Pictures

Just finished watching it a bit ago. I liked it a lot. Much better than the first, fast paced and much more interesting than a lot of other films of it's ilk. My only complaint was that it could've been lit a little better. Grab some work light. I'm probably going to grab two 500 watt Work lights at $36 a pop from the hardware across the street. It's a good deal! And the first fight scene when Shane saves Luke could've had some tighter editing, but aside from minor flaws I really enjoyed it. Good ADR too. I could hear and understand everything and that's something indies overall must learn! I myself have turned to ADR for this film. Can't wait for Leap 3. I love what you're doing man and how you're making this a tool for evangelism too. You should press a few freebie copies of the first disc and pass them out at specific places. I'm really waiting for Derek! I think that will be the one that really hits! Watching your behind the scenes now. One more thing, I went back on this thread, it's great to see how that first scene started off with the Sony and what it looks like now.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
A few pics:
419323_3247810548595_1066873203_33266998_435904697_n.jpg


The first and second films together!
423732_3247951072108_1066873203_33267039_1602031056_n.jpg
 
LOL! Peanut Butter and Raisins product placement. Everyone get this and see if you can spot Chris in the film.

-Nate
 
El Director said:
The peanut butter, yes, the raisins no, but I think that falls under fair use ;)
Click to expand...

One of the more annoying things on the various BTS features of the DVD/BD's these days is the blurring out of 'trade marks'... it's really obnoxious.

But I bought a copy of you DVD today to help with the legal defense fund...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
One of the more annoying things on the various BTS features of the DVD/BD's these days is the blurring out of 'trade marks'... it's really obnoxious.

But I bought a copy of you DVD today to help with the legal defense fund...
Click to expand...
Agreed. We make a joke about it with the Mountain Dew bottle, but otherwise don't worry about it. Thanks, I saw. I'll get it in the mail tomorrow or Tuesday =)
 
Hi sorry if I offended you but if you make a film thats obviously biased towards "christians" then you are cutting away half your audience straight away especially if you actually call it a "christian" film.
I am a spiritualy person and I believe in a lot of the bible I am not an athiest or a catholic.
I just think its a very limited concept as in a LOT of people are just not going to find it believable or entertaining. Lord of the Rings is NOT a christian book it is written from the man's imagination and if he WAS Christian then certain things will appear in the form of his sub-conciousness thoughts through the art of the book. (also with abstract fantasy surely you can find anything with such broad symbolism?).

You can dismiss me as some sort of heathen and be a prejudice and judgmental extremist's that dismisses anything other people say that does not fit into your beliefs, or you can take my non judgmental opinion and listen as I am not the only one saying those things.

A++ for effort
D- for actually making a film that people will want to watch.

Thats the facts, sorry. And try not to be judgmental and call me a heathen and athiest, that is not what the bible teaches, I didnt even say I was an athiest so that pretty judgmental no?

Sorry but I am being honest, you could make a film about anything and I will just be honest about the actual "experience" be it a Jewish film, Buddhism, Satanism, Muslim whatever! I still dont think a film should be made with a specific religion as the target audience its primitive and sounds like propaganda more than actually writing a good screen play regardless of faith.
 
I looked through the trailer again. Great job on having locations and sets that give it a pro feel. You have a made a real effort and it DOES show. I believe my earlier comments are very one sided but you HAVE to take them seriously. Great job with what you had and the actors you had at the time. I think you can do better with a better script. Great work though. Sorry if I ruffled some feathers.
 
Also feel free to slate my first experimental film we did as a test, we didnt have a script just made it up on the spot.
 
Disease8 said:
I looked through the trailer again. Great job on having locations and sets that give it a pro feel. You have a made a real effort and it DOES show. I believe my earlier comments are very one sided but you HAVE to take them seriously. Great job with what you had and the actors you had at the time. I think you can do better with a better script. Great work though. Sorry if I ruffled some feathers.
Click to expand...
No feathers ruffled on my part =)
 
Disease8 said:
Lord of the Rings is NOT a christian book it is written from the man's imagination and if he WAS Christian then certain things will appear in the form of his sub-conciousness thoughts through the art of the book. (also with abstract fantasy surely you can find anything with such broad symbolism?).
Click to expand...

Then I guess you'll have to disbelieve Tolkien's own commentary on his own works...

A++ for effort
D- for actually making a film that people will want to watch.
Click to expand...

The 'project' of democratizing film making, is in fact, so that people who make films can make them for less, and more targeted audiences, than what would be required for a 'blockbuster'...

In fact, one of the primary criticism of Hollywood today, is that the films often lack substance, are directed to 'easy' world distribution, so themes, and methods of presentation are 'modified' and reduced down to some 'world common denominator'.

Looking back on a 'sensation' film of the era, I find "Billy Jack"(1971) to be pretty 'hokie' by even the standards of the era. "hippie/indians" against 'the straights'(*)... a few karate kicks here and there... etc. and that's it... but apparently it caught a wave, and propelled Tom Laughlin to make 3 more films. Laughlin is also 'credited' with the concept of wide distribution, which has become the standard for today's 'blockbusters'.

The point being is one never knows if one is watching the next Ed Wood, a Coppola, a Laughlin, or what... and Coppola in particular made some pretty 'unwatchable' films while working with Roger Corman... the King of 'unwatchable' films... may be I should say 'unwatched' films... most of his films probably played well at drive ins... which in those olden days, were frequent places for young people to drive in, then spend the rest of the movie in the backseat, exploring the 'mysteries of life'... and having to ask someone what the movie was about... but I digress...

*In that era there were a whole slew of films which pitted the 'hippies' against X, X being motorcycle gangs, police, outraged 'towns people', whatever... and were the fodder for 25 cent movie houses... yeah see a movie for 25 cents... and the management didn't kick anybody out until 4 am... when the last show ended...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Then I guess you'll have to disbelieve Tolkien's own commentary on his own works...



The 'project' of democratizing film making, is in fact, so that people who make films can make them for less, and more targeted audiences, than what would be required for a 'blockbuster'...

In fact, one of the primary criticism of Hollywood today, is that the films often lack substance, are directed to 'easy' world distribution, so themes, and methods of presentation are 'modified' and reduced down to some 'world common denominator'.

Looking back on a 'sensation' film of the era, I find "Billy Jack"(1971) to be pretty 'hokie' by even the standards of the era. "hippie/indians" against 'the straights'(*)... a few karate kicks here and there... etc. and that's it... but apparently it caught a wave, and propelled Tom Laughlin to make 3 more films. Laughlin is also 'credited' with the concept of wide distribution, which has become the standard for today's 'blockbusters'.

The point being is one never knows if one is watching the next Ed Wood, a Coppola, a Laughlin, or what... and Coppola in particular made some pretty 'unwatchable' films while working with Roger Corman... the King of 'unwatchable' films... may be I should say 'unwatched' films... most of his films probably played well at drive ins... which in those olden days, were frequent places for young people to drive in, then spend the rest of the movie in the backseat, exploring the 'mysteries of life'... and having to ask someone what the movie was about... but I digress...

*In that era there were a whole slew of films which pitted the 'hippies' against X, X being motorcycle gangs, police, outraged 'towns people', whatever... and were the fodder for 25 cent movie houses... yeah see a movie for 25 cents... and the management didn't kick anybody out until 4 am... when the last show ended...
Click to expand...


Yeah your totally right man, I came across very jaded I think I was in a bad place at the time...
I love a director called Albert Pyun who is completely slated by a LOT of viewers and critics alike, some of his best films are "Cyclops" (jean claude Van Damme) and "Nemisis".. He makes 1000's of terrible films but is respected and has a massive cult following. This is because although he is limited in every way; budget, control over projects, sitting in on final edit, location, props...etc He still manages to make a film "his" as in after its finished you KNOW it was an Albert Pyun film as he simply uses techniques and has artistic originality that most film makers do not even have or think would work. I love that he is different and does not care he has a voice and needs to express it!
Thats is why I realised I should be giving respect to a fellow artistic film maker who has their own voice and that is also why you will get shocked people saying its crap like I did.
But I think you DO have to listen and make certain sacrifices, because mass consciousness in the form of the "public" is a reflection of our own mentality and the other way around. We DO need to make something that people can understand to get our message across and its great if you can take the critiscism and use it to fuel your next project!
Albert Pyun gets slated and he asks for more, he does not want people to hold back he wants to know why you felt the way you did, he wants to get inside the viewers mind to use the criticism to formulate another take on his unique vision that includes those criticisms and makes it even better, not less unique but more "edible" more accessible..

I dont know if I am getting my point across but I enjoyed this thread and the trailer (in the end lol).. Its easy to judge but to really see something we need to stay away from judgment!

Nice one guys sorry again for coming across like a D*ck!!!!
 
I have to say that I really do love the versatility of the T2i. It'd be tough to beat the image for the price. ROTB is a very contrasty and saturated film. On Sunday we shot a teaser for my next flick, Derek. By using a different picture style (Flaat 2), light color grading, and adding grain from a grey card, I get this:
383549_326320700764464_217185731677962_904632_261336094_n.jpg


Whereas my Leap 2 Camera settings would look more like this:
538271_324289987634202_217185731677962_898978_1869142355_n.jpg


It's nice to know that the camera is flexible enough to fit the project's needs, whatever they may be
 
El Director said:
I have to say that I really do love the versatility of the T2i. It'd be tough to beat the image for the price. ROTB is a very contrasty and saturated film. On Sunday we shot a teaser for my next flick, Derek. By using a different picture style (Flaat 2), light color grading, and adding grain from a grey card, I get this:
383549_326320700764464_217185731677962_904632_261336094_n.jpg


Whereas my Leap 2 Camera settings would look more like this:
538271_324289987634202_217185731677962_898978_1869142355_n.jpg


It's nice to know that the camera is flexible enough to fit the project's needs, whatever they may be
Click to expand...


The second one demands that I look up Simon and Garfunkel's "Kodacrhome"...


But from my tests on the GH-1, I've found that 'flatter' seems to allow for more choices in post, and with small 'tweaks' one can get fairly good results. But if "Kodachrome" is what one wants... that probably should be done 'in camera'...

For example, if you want this sort of 'look', you'd probably have to do that 'in camera', in terms of the basics, blue back ground light, warm/red light on the talent, then one could tweak the colors slightly for the T2i and GH-1 type cameras...

"True Grit"(2010)

true-grit.jpg
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
The second one demands that I look up Simon and Garfunkel's "Kodacrhome"...


But from my tests on the GH-1, I've found that 'flatter' seems to allow for more choices in post, and with small 'tweaks' one can get fairly good results. But if "Kodachrome" is what one wants... that probably should be done 'in camera'...

For example, if you want this sort of 'look', you'd probably have to do that 'in camera', in terms of the basics, blue back ground light, warm/red light on the talent, then one could tweak the colors slightly for the T2i and GH-1 type cameras...

"True Grit"(2010)

true-grit.jpg
Click to expand...

haha, I just watched that last night :) One of my favorite movies. I may decide to go for the punchier look of True Grit, but right now I'm digging the spaghetti western look. I'll just have to decide before we start shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top