Signs of an amateur

R

Ryan-Guy

Well-known member
Besides bad audio and story/dialogue (which are a given), what are some of the obvious and not-so-obvious signs of an amateur/bad film?

I have people tell me that it is always bad audio, which I agree for the most-part, but even after muting the volume, there is many times just something that screams "Amateur!"
 
-- bad writing (stories picked up from other films rather than real life thus one ends up with a script filled with screen cliches - dialog and interactions rather than descriptions of how the set up could play out in real life; lack of understating the story arch and story within the scene; bland dialog or dialog that is being written only because of its cuteness rather than because it's mean to add something to the scene; bland characters or cliche ridden characters)
-- bad casting (actors who don't look their part thus you have some high school prey kid trying to act like say a mafia boss - this can work in a way but is very hard to pull off)
-- bad acting (actors just delivering their lines, actors that are obviously a bit uncomfortable on the screen as they haven't done it that much, actors who use their understanding of other movies rather than life to inspire their character)
-- bad location (run of the mill places that we see everyday thus the potential of "let me show you this cool/unique place" on the part of the filmmaker is gone)
-- bad art direction (lack of understanding that the environment and how it's set-up can influence our perception of the characters/world they live in)
-- bad framing (conventional TV-like framing or lack of understanding that average frame has a meaning as much as weird frame too)
-- bad lighting (lack of understanding that lighting can be both realistic or highly stylized where realism comes about from the strangeness of the scene rather than because the light come sin through the window)
-- bad camera moves (meaningless moves that add nothing to the scene, or no moves at all when the scene call for some move)
-- bad audio (badly recorded on the set and never re-recorded, if needed, in the post)
-- bad shot selection (assumption that you are describing the scene with the camera rather than collecting important quotes, notes and descriptions for later interaction in the post)
-- bad staging (the most boring, TV-like staging of the scene so you have 5 pages of dialog playing out between 2 people sitting across each other at a table)
-- bad extras work (or often not enough extras to give sense of us being in that scene, likewise by forgetting about extras one doesn't have the chance to show quirks of the world surrounding us - thus potential to add yet another layer of interest to the scene is missing)
-- bad direction (not understanding how this shot or scene will inter-cut in whole film so "for safety" time is wasted to shoot typical coverage rather than shooting important shots brilliantly; likewise time is wasted shooting an unimportant cutaways that will be used only for fraction of the scene but only redoing a technicality that would never end up in the final edit anyway; not understanding that a scene has an arch just like whole film has thus shooting scenes that don't change something in the viewer or the character is pointless)
-- bad edit (lingering too long on lines, assuming that edit is juts an assembly of lines rather than search for actor's feelings that best describe the scene/character, lack of story arch)
-- bad sound design/mix (assumption that sound design is about being realistic rather than meaningful)
-- bad color grading
-- bad marketing
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
-- bad casting (actors who don't look their part thus you have some high school prey kid trying to act like say a mafia boss - this can work in a way but is very hard to pull off)
Click to expand...

Yeah, like this gang...

bugsy-malone-05-g.jpg


Or the gang Moll... (ok, she played a 14 year old hooker in the same year... ok, ok, and a displaced bodywise adult as well...)

tallulah-bugsy.jpg

"Bugsy Malone"(1976)
 
Last edited:
Great write up Patryk. One thing to add to the list would be pacing. Pacing the story as not to confuse or lose you audience.

And about the color grading/timing I have to disagree with that. While I do like and grade all my work, there are so many films that are great with only color correction. Color grading is like special effects they accent the story, but do not make it.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
-- bad writing (stories picked up from other films rather than real life thus one ends up with a script filled with screen cliches - dialog and interactions rather than descriptions of how the set up could play out in real life; lack of understating the story arch and story within the scene; bland dialog or dialog that is being written only because of its cuteness rather than because it's mean to add something to the scene; bland characters or cliche ridden characters)
-- bad casting (actors who don't look their part thus you have some high school prey kid trying to act like say a mafia boss - this can work in a way but is very hard to pull off)
-- bad acting (actors just delivering their lines, actors that are obviously a bit uncomfortable on the screen as they haven't done it that much, actors who use their understanding of other movies rather than life to inspire their character)
-- bad location (run of the mill places that we see everyday thus the potential of "let me show you this cool/unique place" on the part of the filmmaker is gone)
-- bad art direction (lack of understanding that the environment and how it's set-up can influence our perception of the characters/world they live in)
-- bad framing (conventional TV-like framing or lack of understanding that average frame has a meaning as much as weird frame too)
-- bad lighting (lack of understanding that lighting can be both realistic or highly stylized where realism comes about from the strangeness of the scene rather than because the light come sin through the window)
-- bad camera moves (meaningless moves that add nothing to the scene, or no moves at all when the scene call for some move)
-- bad audio (badly recorded on the set and never re-recorded, if needed, in the post)
-- bad shot selection (assumption that you are describing the scene with the camera rather than collecting important quotes, notes and descriptions for later interaction in the post)
-- bad staging (the most boring, TV-like staging of the scene so you have 5 pages of dialog playing out between 2 people sitting across each other at a table)
-- bad extras work (or often not enough extras to give sense of us being in that scene, likewise by forgetting about extras one doesn't have the chance to show quirks of the world surrounding us - thus potential to add yet another layer of interest to the scene is missing)
-- bad direction (not understanding how this shot or scene will inter-cut in whole film so "for safety" time is wasted to shoot typical coverage rather than shooting important shots brilliantly; likewise time is wasted shooting an unimportant cutaways that will be used only for fraction of the scene but only redoing a technicality that would never end up in the final edit anyway; not understanding that a scene has an arch just like whole film has thus shooting scenes that don't change something in the viewer or the character is pointless)
-- bad edit (lingering too long on lines, assuming that edit is juts an assembly of lines rather than search for actor's feelings that best describe the scene/character, lack of story arch)
-- bad sound design/mix (assumption that sound design is about being realistic rather than meaningful)
-- bad color grading
-- bad marketing
Click to expand...

Wow awesome thoughts! Thanks!

http://www.filmmaker.com/DUMPS
Click to expand...

Great link.
 
Well, I dunno. I go to Vimeo and look around a little and can find a lot of decidedly delightful films made by amateurs with lots of passion and skill. I flip on the telly and see huge amounts of drab, dull, uninspired stuff that's obviously made by pros going on autopilot. I think the word you are looking for, Ryan, is dilettante.
 
Martti Ekstrand said:
Well, I dunno. I go to Vimeo and look around a little and can find a lot of decidedly delightful films made by amateurs with lots of passion and skill. I flip on the telly and see huge amounts of drab, dull, uninspired stuff that's obviously made by pros going on autopilot. I think the word you are looking for, Ryan, is dilettante.
Click to expand...

+10000000 and 1.
 
Martti Ekstrand said:
Well, I dunno. I go to Vimeo and look around a little and can find a lot of decidedly delightful films made by amateurs with lots of passion and skill. I flip on the telly and see huge amounts of drab, dull, uninspired stuff that's obviously made by pros going on autopilot. I think the word you are looking for, Ryan, is dilettante.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but the title, "Signs of a dilettante" just didn't have the catch I was looking for hahaha!
 
Really? Most of the stuff I've seen on Vimeo is crap and to me it seems people love it BECAUSE it was shot on a 5D or something, even though the content is boring and just a zero budget attempt and reenacting a gun fight, etc. The tools used to make a film should be invisible. VFX (in my opinion) should also be invisible. The best ones are the ones that the audience doesn't even know were used but the story benefited from their use.
 
I confess of beeing guilty in those points:

"the lone, slow piano"

"the lone guitar" (flamenco esp.)

The "impish" clarinet

The cello dirge.

and

Shooting into Mirrors

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