The Dreaded Church Of Scientology

Im sorry you feel that way. However, it is very easy to close out your browser when a video begins boring you or making you feel that the DVX is not living up to its fullest capabilities. Have you made any documentaries before ? I'd like to see them so I can see an example of where you're coming from. The experiment was not only to see how long it would take for a security guard to approach me but to see just how weird Scientologists get when a camera appears anywhere near their land. When I was there the first time with my camera a few janitors stopped and asked me if I was selling the pictures to anyone, why was I taking pictures, etc. These things are not 'normal' in the everyday world, even for a religion, come to LA, come walk around the scientology building and your mood will change.
 
you should hang around and point your camera at the NBC building in NYC. they arent as friendly as the 'guards' in your short.
 
Boomerang said:
Thats semantics- beyond the "doc" title what was the experiement? Like I stated above you are timing a second encounter which sorta of defeats the purpose.
Click to expand...
Isn't this how [size=-1]Michael Moore works? Aren't his works called documentaries? :cheesy:
[/size]
 
What were your camera settings? I love the color and tone. Did you use any post production software to ajust the look (color, image quality, etc) before exporting the movie and placing it online? Did you use any additional lens? And what codec did you use to compress the movie for placement online?
 
Hey MagnumDB - To answer your questions, I did not use any post software to enhance color, no additional lenses were used. Compression was applied through Discreet Cleaner 6. I used the 3ivx codec. I like this codec more than the Sorenson 3 codec. It produces richer colors and darker blacks. Its much closer to the orginal dv footage.

As far as camera settings go;

Detail = -3
V Detail = +7
Detail Coring = +7
Chroma Level = +3
Chroma Phase = 0
Color Temp = 0
Master Ped = -7

CineLike Gamma, CineLike Matrix, Thin and I shot in 24pa. Hope that helps!
 
What was your thinking around the detail (first 3) settings. Seems you lowered the detail, but cranked up the vdetail and the smoothing (coring).

Just curious as to your reasoning here. The color settings make a lot of sense given your footage turned out that richly.
 
HansK said:
Isn't this how [size=-1]Michael Moore works? Aren't his works called documentaries? :cheesy:
[/size]
Click to expand...


Not by people who knows what they are talking about. And as my example I use Mr. Robert Drew, and not my humble self.

PS: Man I really want to see this! Curious as hell in this slow download...
 
Okay, I've seen it.

Besides standing up for Boomerang for a bit, I do admit it's not a doc in the ideal form, I'd consider it a TV show. You built the whole scenario, but you did it very nicely. If I were you, I'd use the existing cinematic construcion and edit this piece differently, change your priorities. Maybe the main discussion is not how creepy this guys are, but how does it feel like to have a camera on you, and worse yet, how does it change your attitude, what does it trigger, because from my point of view, the bilatteral side of being watched added a tension to both sides. It was a true standoff, and instead of being a slightly unnethical program, this could be an interesting discussion about ethics and reality of the documental image. The scene is precious, I loved it.
 
Im sorry, but anyone who says anything negative about this has got to be a scientologist themselves. I don't think rdg was trying to impress you with editing skill or picture quality. Rather he was just bringing you an event which happened to him while simply filming a building. Besides I didn't think he did a bad job. The thing gave me the willies.
 
avatuar said:
Im sorry, but anyone who says anything negative about this has got to be a scientologist themselves.
Click to expand...

Although it's an analogy that will generate some undesirable rufus, I have to say that is the same of saying everybody that thinks that the US f*cked Iraq only for their oil is a Terrorist.

avatuar said:
I don't think rdg was trying to impress you with editing skill or picture quality.
Click to expand...

Me neither. I think he was trying to impress us with a good dramatic construction that was as I said, very well done.

avatuar said:
Rather he was just bringing you an event which happened to him while simply filming a building.
Click to expand...

That is not true. That is what happened the first time, with the first security guard (the "jerk"). Now the series of events was created by the filmaker, under a supposedly experiment on the response time of the security guards. The security guards (and I have no Idea about what is scientology, or how sinister and evil they can be) never had a chance of being anything other than the opposing force, because the filmmaker was acting as to force teir action (their job is to do that - I think that's also f*cked up, when you even can take pictures of a building without having a guard on your back, but that's not the point).

avatuar said:
Besides I didn't think he did a bad job. The thing gave me the willies.
Click to expand...

Mee too, and as I said, I though the standoff was excellent stuff.
 
Hhmmm, first off avatuar I found your comment unnecessary- I my self find scientology an odd religion and im alittle freaked out by Tom Cruise of recent pushing the practice so aggressively. But also I strongly believe to each there own and I have no right to judge.

So with that said my opinion is purley based on the aspect of not finding anything remotley intresting in the clip or any thought put into the concept. If it were to be explored more in depth with a better theroy behind it, than it would be worth watching.

Im from Manhattan, I cant count the number of times Ive been asked to stop filming a building, a person etc. So to me this "experiment" is not fully devolped and has no real insight to Scientology and the privacy that they oddly require or why.

Your stand off with the gaurd with the camera could have been more intresting if you didnt run away so quick when he came around the fence and put such distance between you two. Plus I find it sort of funny you wouldnt let him take a picture of you as it showed in the dialouge between the two of you.

All the events that would have been of intrest occured in the first encounter which you have no visuals of. So anyhting after the fact is exactly that- after the fact.

Thank you taubkin for making this a discussion and having balanced opinons.
 
Boomerang you suck.

The film is amazing; a dead bat faced loon could see that.

Stop imposing rules on it, that’s what stifles creativity!

I don’t see what you're even holding it up against; he didn't come on here like "I MADE THE EFFING BEST DOCUMENTRY ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY"

It’s just a bit of video which is beautiful and invokes feelings.

its not like a doc on ww2 which he half assed researched is it.....

I dunno. Its good, not a doc or like massively planned or structured just.. good.


It has soul not science......

no pun intended.
 
i thought this was really interesting. i dont care whether its pure documentary or not. and i dont care about his motives or his choice to stay behind the camera. it was really interesting.. end of story for me. theres no point in trying to squeeze lemon juice out of an orange.. it is what it is.. you either appreciate it for what it is or not.. IMHO theres no point in comparing it to something which it is not and is not intended to be.

..i have some very casual footage of my family taking a little nature walk at home. if anyone ever came over and watched it and started to critique my motivation and style as im running down a trail after my daughter i think id shut it off and tell them to go home.
 
Seems to me rgd's film has achieved its purpose documentary or not.
I have just found out about the...sooooshhh...E..thingy....
The film has created awareness about one particular subject.
Case closed, jobs a goodaan.
J.P.
 
it doesn't really paint Scientology as all that strange - it's about a being a voyeur and the reaction to it. If someone was standing outside my house training a camera on it you bet I'd come out and see what was up. And kick his ass down the street.
 
Wow, a few people finally introduce intelligent insight and criticism into this thread and it's met with "you suck," and other forms of defensiveness. Unfortunate, and good to know about this community. The film isn't an experiment. It's agenda is clear, as demonstrated by the music on the soundtrack. Any "findings" "discovered" through the course of the filmic event have been tailored to be recieved in a very specific way: uncomfortably. I think it's hilarious and great that you're pointing your camera into the faces of a couple of security guards, and one of them decides to do the exact same thing to you, and you find him weird and disturbing and whatever else. And you attempt no dialogue or anything. You run. As a bit of exploitational spookiness, absolutely. You have succeeded. As an observational piece about a religion or a security guard or a building or an ideology or on anything other than your own attitude, the piece doesn't cut the mustard.

BTW, I know nothing about Scientology, and still know nothing, having watched the film, and having read through this thread.
 
[Wow, a few people finally introduce intelligent insight and criticism into this thread and it's met with "you suck,"] i see this happening more and more every day, this site has really taken a turn for the worst. really unfortunate .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top