Teaser for Feature

thisisapocalypse

thisisapocalypse

Well-known member
Teaser Trailer for our film "For the Love of God" - this teaser is a very early rough edit of Scene 15.25, the audio on the closeup shots is not fully synced and there is a ton of sound post-production to be done, the sound is in nowhere near its final form with regards to noise/clarity, etc. - and the explosion sound effects are very, very, very placeholder. This has a very quick pass of early color correction just to match shots and should in no way be considered final.

Shot on the Panny GH13 with Canon FDs, FLs, and a Samyang 85mm f/1.4, sound through a Fostex FR2LE and Rode NT3 microphone, shot on location at An Tua Nua in Boston, it was very noisy in the bar (refrigerator buzz, etc.) so we've got a lot of post sound noise removal to do, but it was a great spot and we're very thankful for having had the opportunity to use the space!


password: dragons

Again this is hyper-preliminary and I can't leave it up very long but I'd love to get feedback.
 
There were a few composition/framing issues that I found distracting. The explosions sounded fake. They should be more muffled and the explosion should cause some kind of vibration in the bar and you would hear glass/bottles give off a little rattle. That would add to the atmosphere. Otherwise, good job.
 
marlontorres said:
There were a few composition/framing issues that I found distracting. The explosions sounded fake. They should be more muffled and the explosion should cause some kind of vibration in the bar and you would hear glass/bottles give off a little rattle. That would add to the atmosphere. Otherwise, good job.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback - the explosion sounds are ultra-placeholder, we're going to spend a lot of time in post-sound production, we just shot this on Saturday so it was a very quick and dirty edit to see how the scene flowed. I've got a lot of takes for this scene so I'm curious as to which shots/moments you found distracting from the standpoint of composition and I will take a closer look and I might have something that works better. We're going to add glass-rattling, etc., in post as well - may add some camera shake.

Thanks again!
 
Hey nice work. Lighting was great, framing was generally good, very nice DOF.

The thing I wanted to comment on is your actor, he's very talented, and seems like a tried and true pro, this is great, but it also has the adverse affect of making your actress feel out of place. I buy him 100% and his delivery and looks are perfect, where as her lines and movements seem forced and "acty" if you catch my drift. She's not terrible by any stretch, but because hes so damn good it highlights her shortcomings. I bring it up because that may be something you want to help elminate with cutting, or by taking some lines again in ADR.

But again, very nice stuff.
 
seanmcleod said:
Hey nice work. Lighting was great, framing was generally good, very nice DOF.

The thing I wanted to comment on is your actor, he's very talented, and seems like a tried and true pro, this is great, but it also has the adverse affect of making your actress feel out of place. I buy him 100% and his delivery and looks are perfect, where as her lines and movements seem forced and "acty" if you catch my drift. She's not terrible by any stretch, but because hes so damn good it highlights her shortcomings. I bring it up because that may be something you want to help elminate with cutting, or by taking some lines again in ADR.

But again, very nice stuff.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for the kind words, he is indeed spectacular and these aren't even the best cuts yet, but I wanted to start putting it together. Ruby (the actress) in this scene is also extremely talented and for her character in the overall sense of the film I like the way she delivered in the main take I was using in this cut of the scene - but she's got some better moments in some other cuts and ADR is likely to happen for this scene since where we were shooting was so noisy (bar equipment that they wouldn't let us shut off) - Thank you for the kind words, we're really going to work this scene.

I really appreciate the feedback - with regards to Ruby's performance, I'm curious as to the specific moments (or if it's all of them, it's all of them) where you feel that she may be out of place. I actually really like the chemistry between the two of them, they're both good friends and stage actors here in Boston.
 
It's a general feel, but I would say specific moments that are off for me are the delivery at about 47-53 secs in... and again at 1:23 with the really hows that. I mean I don't know the context of the script but to me, it doesn't match her demeanour in the beginning of the scene, I feel like she delivers as if she's thinking oh maybe this bar keeper has all the answers, when I think a more truthful response would be more along the lines of oh right, like you know how to solve my problem you know nothing about... and then again her wide eyed stare is a little too comedic i think, but then again, it depends on the context of the whole film, from the title i can deduce it's probably fairly tongue in cheek, but I think if she played it more serious than comedic it would fall better in line with the way he's playing it. I think they are approaching the scene with two different ideas and the way the play off each other derails as it goes on, for me at least. I think her opening no thanks line works perfectly though, and I think that's the tone that should be carried throughout.
 
seanmcleod said:
It's a general feel, but I would say specific moments that are off for me are the delivery at about 47-53 secs in... and again at 1:23 with the really hows that. I mean I don't know the context of the script but to me, it doesn't match her demeanour in the beginning of the scene, I feel like she delivers as if she's thinking oh maybe this bar keeper has all the answers, when I think a more truthful response would be more along the lines of oh right, like you know how to solve my problem you know nothing about... and then again her wide eyed stare is a little too comedic i think, but then again, it depends on the context of the whole film, from the title i can deduce it's probably fairly tongue in cheek, but I think if she played it more serious than comedic it would fall better in line with the way he's playing it. I think they are approaching the scene with two different ideas and the way the play off each other derails as it goes on, for me at least. I think her opening no thanks line works perfectly though, and I think that's the tone that should be carried throughout.
Click to expand...

Right on, I was going back and forth as to whether or not I'd end on the "stare" or cut it on the bartender's last line. In the story both Joanne (the female character) and Kevin (the bartender) know each other well and she takes his advice from time to time, she trusts him, I'm not sure if that makes a difference as you watch the scene but I thought I'd share that.

Thank you again for the thoughtful feedback - I've got a lot of options as to how they delivered and the variations they did from take and I will think about your comments as I go into it further. This is actually the first scene I've ever edited in full - I'm a total first time filmmaker, I've DP'd a few shorts in college but this is my first project of my own (writing, directing and dp-ing) so I'm still very much learning!

Thanks again!
 
I think the performances are good. I just see it as each character is unique and not any weakness in anyone's acting.

Personally, I would have liked upstage keys better but it doesn't look bad per se.

And the subtitle should really be dropped. Kubrick used it and used it well. I know you're paraphrasing but it's still too close. A nod? Maybe, but why not just be compeletly original? There's also the chance that those who have never seen Dr. Strangelove will think you're title is way cool and you shouldn't get that kind of appreciation.

Good luck, interesting concept.
 
jimpatro said:
I think the performances are good. I just see it as each character is unique and not any weakness in anyone's acting.

Personally, I would have liked upstage keys better but it doesn't look bad per se.

And the subtitle should really be dropped. Kubrick used it and used it well. I know you're paraphrasing but it's still too close. A nod? Maybe, but why not just be compeletly original? There's also the chance that those who have never seen Dr. Strangelove will think you're title is way cool and you shouldn't get that kind of appreciation.

Good luck, interesting concept.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much - going to stick with the title, it's definitely a nod to Kubrick and our target audience is definitely intended to be one familiar with Kubrick. The "or How I...." had been used well prior to Kubrick in other ways, even though ours is definitely an homage to Dr. Strangelove, and our film is a satire. Not sure how to take that we wouldn't "deserve that appreciation," I can't control whether or not someone is familiar to a reference in the title - I don't think it make our film any less original, I don't find a Clockwork Orange any less original because it featured "Singin' in the Rain," I do think there's a big responsibility to make such homages with respect and an even bigger responsibility to "make them new," if you are going to go down that path, and I feel we are with this film.
 
Here's what I mostly meant by " you shouldn't get that kind of appreciation". Say your film has screened and the audience leaves the theatre. A couple stops for coffee and the fella says " Great film, and what a clever title".
The gal says " Yeah, they are so creative, they should win an award just for the title". They aren't familiar with Dr. Stranglove and now you've inadvertently scored some major kudos for something that wasn't even your concoction.

Would you really be okay with that?
 
jimpatro said:
Here's what I mostly meant by " you shouldn't get that kind of appreciation". Say your film has screened and the audience leaves the theatre. A couple stops for coffee and the fella says " Great film, and what a clever title".
The gal says " Yeah, they are so creative, they should win an award just for the title". They aren't familiar with Dr. Stranglove and now you've inadvertently scored some major kudos for something that wasn't even your concoction.

Would you really be okay with that?
Click to expand...


Well that's a moot comment because they could also easily have said "Great film, but what a silly and awful title. No one should disservice Kubrick like that.", the gal says "Yeah, they tried too hard and it's just really pretentious and self-congratulatory. That almost threw me off from watching the film" :P

Also who cares. That's like hypothesising if Robert Rodriguez should feel bad for picking the title "Once Upon a Time in Mexico"

ANYWAY I'm quite interested in seeing this film =] Sounds good, and I agree with the previous posters suggestions.

I'm not feeling the 2:35 or composition choices though, the eye lines especially are too far apart. Having the audience scan their eyes from side to side and showing the actors doing the same gives a very "untrustworthy beginners cinema" kind of engagement, although that may be the effect you're looking for.
 
Lammy said:
I'm not feeling the 2:35 or composition choices though, the eye lines especially are too far apart. Having the audience scan their eyes from side to side and showing the actors doing the same gives a very "untrustworthy beginners cinema" kind of engagement, although that may be the effect you're looking for.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the feedback - we're shooting a good deal of the film in anamorphic 2.35:1 and other stuff in 1.85:1 and then cropping to match the anamorphic footage. 2.35:1 is the kind of framing that I naturally gravitate towards, it's what feels best for me although I will admit it's not without some issues now and then - I know it's not everyone's bag, but it's the look I like better or for worse my eye is what my eye is until it changes :)

That said, if you have suggestions I am very open, we're still in production and I've received a lot of help on this forum - as I mentioned before, this is my first project, never been to film school, and I'm really trained as a photojournalist, I'm still learning how to do shots that will edit together so that people really connect with the story, so I am very open to tips and recommendations - I want to keep absorbing - to me, probably due to my photojournalism background, it's all about the eyes, sharpness and exposure - still learning how to do different shots with different lighting where I get things to match well, but all in all I've been more often successful than not.

With regards to the above posts with folks leaving the theater and talking about the title, regardless of the audience response I'll just be thrilled to have people see the film. I like the title, but honestly think it's probably a risk having one that's so long - but it's still what feels right so I'm going with it.
 
Some comments

The girl needed some lights behind to give depth to the scene say a out of focus fruit machine blinking would have been cool

I think you need to follow the 'action' - im disturbed by the bit where the male moves almost out of frame and the camera does not follow

I find shooting two up dialogue needs intense concentration of framing and focus not just a dead locked camera

the glasses needed rattling or maybe the camera shaking

S
 
thisisapocalypse said:
Thank you for the feedback - we're shooting a good deal of the film in anamorphic 2.35:1 and other stuff in 1.85:1 and then cropping to match the anamorphic footage. 2.35:1 is the kind of framing that I naturally gravitate towards, it's what feels best for me although I will admit it's not without some issues now and then - I know it's not everyone's bag, but it's the look I like better or for worse my eye is what my eye is until it changes :)
Click to expand...


Oh I'm a huge fan of 2:35 myself, but it has to be done really well. It's not just about framing backgrounds and actors. In fact, it's not about that at all in narrative, it's about framing the action and performance. Otherwise the director will lose all impact in the scene and trust in the audience. Things like eyelines and scanning have to be very guided otherwise it becomes a tiring experience.

You'll see what I mean, put on any recent film shot on 2:35 and watch where the eye-lines are positioned and how the next cut flows with the eyeline. Notice how their eyes are usually pointing in the correct direction and you don't have to dart your eyes so far for the next cut. In fact, most of the time the juxtaposed eyes are near enough the same position, or the action is lead into that zone, or the camera moves in such a flowing way.

Alternatively, like the very first 2:35 movies, the camera is quite wide and you see everyones reactions, as opposed to the traditional 4:3 cutting in close ups for coverage.

Here I'm having to scan my eyes across the entire frame on whats effectively a medium close up! Gah!
 
Lammy said:
Oh I'm a huge fan of 2:35 myself, but it has to be done really well. It's not just about framing backgrounds and actors. In fact, it's not about that at all in narrative, it's about framing the action and performance. Otherwise the director will lose all impact in the scene and trust in the audience. Things like eyelines and scanning have to be very guided otherwise it becomes a tiring experience.

You'll see what I mean, put on any recent film shot on 2:35 and watch where the eye-lines are positioned and how the next cut flows with the eyeline. Notice how their eyes are usually pointing in the correct direction and you don't have to dart your eyes so far for the next cut. In fact, most of the time the juxtaposed eyes are near enough the same position, or the action is lead into that zone, or the camera moves in such a flowing way.

Alternatively, like the very first 2:35 movies, the camera is quite wide and you see everyones reactions, as opposed to the traditional 4:3 cutting in close ups for coverage.

Here I'm having to scan my eyes across the entire frame on whats effectively a medium close up! Gah!
Click to expand...

Excellent advice - I'm going to go through my shots and see how I can do what you've mentioned better, I've got a lot to work with - going to pull out some 2.35:1 films and do a little research as well. Thank you for the good advice!
 
Really liked it. The guy actor is hollywood material..sadly the gal is not..and he makes her look bad. Only other thing..was the opening shot was the same two angles for to long (they were nice looking tho) before you went tight.... Great Job!
 
I'm working on a cut of another scene we did with both of these actors in the same location, maybe I'll put it up - I actually really like Ruby's performance (the actress) - but I think her performance also makes more sense in the context of the overall film, could be wrong - I have more cuts of her too from this scene and I may rework it a bit and see if I can get the tone of their performances to match a little better, I think she's a remarkable actress, I may not have given enough attention to the cuts I used of her in this scene....funnily enough, Billy, the actor, thought all of his takes were awful :)
 
I can't comment on the actors performance because I don't know that plot or haven't seen the entire story. She may be a fairly flat character and in that case her dialogue would be good for that. Lighting seemed good although I would have put a back light on her with something in the back ground like mentioned before, this really sells your DOF. I do have a question about focus though, it seemed to me that during your 2 wide of the bartender and the girl she was just barely out of focus. Are my eyes deceiving me or is she out of focus here. While shooting our feature we had this happen 2 times and I made everybody reshoot it just because of that, it may seem small here but you throw that up on a big screen and it is gonna be really noticeable. Other then that I like what you are doing, just remember when you ask for feedback you don't always get good feedback. Most the time the feedback you get isn't an improvement on what you did, it is just them telling you how they would do it differently. It wouldn't be art if we all did it the same! Good luck with the rest of your project, I will be keeping an eye on your project it looks fun.
 
Robertson6 said:
I can't comment on the actors performance because I don't know that plot or haven't seen the entire story. She may be a fairly flat character and in that case her dialogue would be good for that. Lighting seemed good although I would have put a back light on her with something in the back ground like mentioned before, this really sells your DOF. I do have a question about focus though, it seemed to me that during your 2 wide of the bartender and the girl she was just barely out of focus. Are my eyes deceiving me or is she out of focus here. While shooting our feature we had this happen 2 times and I made everybody reshoot it just because of that, it may seem small here but you throw that up on a big screen and it is gonna be really noticeable. Other then that I like what you are doing, just remember when you ask for feedback you don't always get good feedback. Most the time the feedback you get isn't an improvement on what you did, it is just them telling you how they would do it differently. It wouldn't be art if we all did it the same! Good luck with the rest of your project, I will be keeping an eye on your project it looks fun.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the message - she is in focus, but we were shooting with a Canon 24mm f/1.4 L lens wide open and it's a little soft wide open. Thanks sir!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top