The Aftermath - 48 hour film

Really? No thoughts from anyone either way?

I'm not here for a pat on the head (I can get that at home) but is there like some secret handhsake around here I'm not aware of that allows critical fedback to thrive on these boards from the community? ;)

I've used the DVX pretty extensively since they first appeared on the scene and I'd love to share my insight and hear about others adventures in relationship to my own, but I don't know what works and doesn't work for people here about my own personal experiences and I'm not just going to talk to myself needlessly.

Well, not after this particular post...

I think...

Peace.
 
Great shooting. Great acting. Some fun stuff. Pace is way too slow over all though. I think this short would kill at 3 minutes long. Right now it's 9 minutes! I didn't reach the ending.
 
sean90291 said:
Great shooting. Great acting. Some fun stuff. Pace is way too slow over all though. I think this short would kill at 3 minutes long. Right now it's 9 minutes! I didn't reach the ending.
Click to expand...

Interesting observation. Definitely unexpected. Great shooting, great acting but the story doesn't hold enough of your attention to even spend nine minutes with it? Less still if you don't watch the one minute of end credits.

It's a short film made for a 48 hour festival and nine minutes is hardly egregious in any stretch of the imagination considering that's what this discussion board is even all about in the first place.

You have to indeed watch all of it to even be able to have an opinion that has merit let alone a valid observation. "What don't you like about the story?" helps me (and others) become better filmmakers, you know? Telling me otherwise - even though you did find it interesting looking and well acted - is more telling of who you are as a filmmaker than helping me out.

Personally, I've watched plenty of films from other users on this and other discussion boards and regardless of my thoughts about the work I at least watch them all to the end. Just to call myself a filmmaker I have enough respect for the craft not to phone it in like that in my life anyhow. To each their own I guess, eh?

So all due respect to all who read this here, but there really are only two choices, folks: Invest the time or don't waste mine.

Not to mention, it's the ending of this film that we all work very hard on that justifies the story overall.

Needless to say, thanks for doing your best, Sean.
 
I think it's the audience's time that gets wasted by work that's unnecessarily long. And a nine minute film is a long short. Especially on a small screen. And even more so when the story doesn't move forward. A meandering story is long at 3 minutes even! Think about your audience, man. DVXuser short films are 6 minutes for a reason! A shame you took my compliments and constructive crticism the wrong way. But rather bizarre to ask TWICE for feedback "good and bad," but when I try and give my reaction I'm told I'm wasting your time. You obviously don't listen to your audience, which may well be why your movie got boring. If you have a great ending but you can't keep me watching until that end, it only means one thing: edit it. That's how this audience of one reacted at least. I don't see anyone else commenting on your film, which is often a sign the film has issues. Like I said, great moments, great acting, great shooting. Too long--I couldn't catch the point of the whole thing.
 
Sean worded himself perfectly. If you can't take criticism, don't ask for it. Also, it WAS long. I was losing interest rapidly even though I was intruiged by the premise. For 48 hours, though, I wouldn't really critique you on anything since you didn't even have more than 2 days to think about length-- or anything else. For that reason, I think judging time-constrained contest entries is really difficult.
 
Ah, the venom of misintepreted posts on message boards.

Apples and oranges, gentlemen. I'm perfectly within my rights to impugn someone who says "great shooting, great acting" and then didn't finish the film and offer those "constructive critiques" because they are as baseless as if it were said, "bad acting, terrible shots."

So what's the point of even bothering to comment?

My point being that a person doesn't have an opinion on a film if they didn't watch in it's entirety. This not a can of cola and this is not a taste test. If one can't take the time to watch the film completely then one shouldn't comment regardless of the length. Feature, short or otherwise. It's useless as a learning tool for those that come here to find that commentary and kinship.

Calling either one or both of you out on that is something that should have been done back in film school if that is a behavior you all find acceptable in offering what you call criticism, constructive or otherwise, gentlemen. That's not criticism, it's laziness.

Take the moment to empathize and/or respect my perspective as I have with either of you. How would you feel if someone turned off your movie halfway through and said whatever they felt about it judged as a whole?

Love or hate it. I don't care. What I want to know is - based on the whole - is what you feel as an audience member. (Well, not from Sean in particular as I'm confindent I know what that's worth from him.) So from anyone else who has nine minutes to waste then, how or what can be improved or addressed in it as a short film?

Everyone has an opinion. Just awesome. Pat on the head for you both then, OK? Move along then and validate your thoughts on someone willing to put up with your perspective based on that "half watch whole opinion" work ethic.

I'm in my right to ask for an informed opinion when it comes to my movie on a board that says this is the appropriate place for that question.

There are no shortcuts. Filmmakers know that much at least.
 
Last edited:
Having watched the whole 8 minutes, I agree with what's been said. It's too long, too slowly paced. The problem is the story you've crafted can't sustain an eight minute film. There's not a continuous narrative. Each flashback scene doesn't directly follow the one before it, but they all obviously have an effect on the outcome. Unfortunately, since none of the flashbacks connect, it ends up being a string of random scenes, only held together by the real time scene because you cut back to it. There's really no story progression, no character arcs. While the randomness can hold attention for a while, that time is short because the novelty wears off rather quickly.

If you were to take this back into editing and trim it down, it would work a lot better. Each scene could stand to be shorter, they tend to linger a bit too long. Let the joke be made and get out as quickly as possible. This will not only pull down the run time, but increase the pacing and make it seem even shorter while watching. Before the ongoing joke can wear thin, the movie will be over.

A prime example is the fight. We as the audience don't really know why they're fighting. Sure strange things have happened, but since we never saw their reactions to each event, it seems out of place. It's funny, but since we can't connect, it goes on way too long. We don't need every punch, every line. Trim it down to at least half its length and I'm willing to bet it will play far better.

I've done my share of 48/72 hour films and the cut submitted is never the final one. I always go back and reedit when I have more time. Proper editing and pacing just can't be done in a matter of hours. It takes time to work and play with the footage before you can get a really tight cut.

This may sound rather disparaging, I realize. All the elements are there and the film has the potential to be really good, much better than it is right now. Hopefully you're willing to take the time and effort to make it so.
 
Duly noted Rogue 09 and thanks for stepping into the gap and taking the time and effort to provide the better example for others to appreciate.

I appreciate it anyway.

You raise some good points (and with an example too? Awesome!) and although it's an interesting idea with suggestions that strike me as both earnest and honest, I personally am not interested in going back and tinkering with it based on deflating the moments between jokes purely as a technical exercise alone. I doubt that would actually clarify story or character arcs for anyone who would care to examine it closer than you already have in that context.

I knew, in this style of filmmaking competition, I had to cater to the audiences lust for the almighty joke over the desire for expository dialog and delineated character motivations (AND still use the qualifying elements to remain eligible) in a short space of time to be one of the winners.

Guess what? Mission accomplished.

Yes, there is a great deal of reliance on cliche to distend the story's motivation and "sell" character in favor of the quick laugh but in doing so it got us into the winners circle. The goal of the film was fully realized if not the story itself.

Don't be too surprised. Hollywood's been cashing in on the masses for ages now.

What would probably be needed to address the concerns you raise would be a rewrite and some reshoots to be perfectly frank, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of even having made it in 48 hours for a competition in the first place?

So I'm wondering now if there is such a thing as a virtually inscrutable film (story?) made under these conditions in competitions like these? Is it merely a matter of the least worse wins them or is it possible to actually tell a strong story and have it win on that merit alone with the same conditions and qualifications?

It's that old saw of good, fast, and cheap. Pick any two at the expense of the third. Since fast is the given factor here then it's really just a matter of how much of "good" and "cheap" does one have to mete out to find balance, right?

Is there a balance?

Anyone interested in answering that one? Anyone got any examples they care to share?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top