This is my film everybody!

Batutta

Batutta

Major Contributor
Hi, folks. You know me. Long time Dvxuser. My first feature film Derelict is now available to watch on Amazon Prime. It's for rent or purchase in the US. In Canada and overseas it's available for free streaming if you have PrimeVideo. Shot on the GH4, with a crew of just me for the most part, for the price of a used car, I couldn't have made this movie without all the knowledge gleaned over the years from visiting this site, so thank you all. I nervously await your reviews, and wait in utter abject terror for OldCorpse's nine hundred page evisceration. :eek:


US--
https://amzn.to/2WpbAYm


Canada--
https://bit.ly/2JzFK5O
 
I will definitely rent it on Amazon, in a couple of weeks from now. At the moment, I have some family visiting from Europe, so my schedule is a bit tight, but once they leave, I will give it my full attention and feedback - always honest good or bad :)

But regardless of anything - just completing a feature is a huge accomplishment! Many talk and plan, but never actually finish it. So my sincere congratulations!
 
Batutta said:
Hi, folks. You know me. Long time Dvxuser. My first feature film Derelict is now available to watch on Amazon Prime. It's for rent or purchase in the US. In Canada and overseas it's available for free streaming if you have PrimeVideo. Shot on the GH4, with a crew of just me for the most part, for the price of a used car, I couldn't have made this movie without all the knowledge gleaned over the years from visiting this site, so thank you all. I nervously await your reviews, and wait in utter abject terror for OldCorpse's nine hundred page evisceration. :eek:


US--
https://amzn.to/2WpbAYm


Canada--
https://bit.ly/2JzFK5O
Click to expand...

Watching now, looks very cinematic, would have thought a red camera maybe...great work for livin the dream !
 
Wow. This is impressive! And shot on a GH4 you said? How much time did filming, the editing and the effects cost?
 
Publimix said:
How much time did filming, the editing and the effects cost?
Click to expand...

Filming, 18 days. Editing, effects, and all post production, cost me nothing. I've been a professional editor for over 20 years, and have learned how to mix, do color correction and handle all post duties myself. My lead actor did most of the visual effects (multi-talented guy), although I did some basic composites and background replacements myself in After Effects. About half my budget was paying for expenses, the rest was actors and food. I already owned all my equipment which was built up over several years for other projects, but it was mostly cheap, lightweight gear. Never kept an actual budget, but it was in the realm of $12,000 USD.
 
Congrats. Huge achievement. Will put on the watch list. Trailer looks great!

KS.
 
Finally got to see it, and again, I'd like to congratulate you for completing a feature! That's an unequivocal success just by itself. I hope you'll find my feedback of use, or at least a jumpin off point for future considertations. There may be spoilers below, so for anyone who wants to see this, don't read any further!

************SPOILERS ALERT***************************

WARNING: Honest feedback ahead, no punches pulled. I mean this sincerely, because I think it's the only way it will be helpful. Good news: I am certain, that thinking about this, will be helpful to you.

I had a lot of problems with the sound in this film. I don't think the problem was at my end, because I watch movies with the same setup all the time, and have no such issues, so I think it's inherent in the film - if it was me or my equipment, I'd have these issues all the time, and I don't (unless the sound is bad, and yes, this happens from time to time on indie films). I jacked up the volume to max, and still could not clearly hear the dialogue in many places. The problem seems to be in the way it was mixed, and in a few places the way sound was recorded (I'll mention the specific places later). Now, I know we all know (including you!) how important good sound is, so it seems a crazy thing to complain about, but, well, here we are - unfortunately, I think the sound in the film is just not very good. This has unfortunate consequences, such as the fact that I really am not sure what the key premise is about - every time there's an explanation given, the actor(s) drops his voice and the sound mixer doesn't correct for understandability. If there is any silver lining to this complaint here, it's that it is a good lesson to the effect that even if you are an experienced filmmaker (as I think you are), and think you know how important sound is, well, you still underestimate it; if you were not paranoid about sound before - you should be, and if you already were paranoid, then you should be twice as paranoid - for example, it's not enough to check with one or two people as to whether they can hear everything - there will be that part of the audience who still won't hear clearly (see: me), and you need to reach those people too. It's not enough to listen to it when you are editing/mixing - you must always account for the fact that your film will be shown under a range of conditions, where both the picture and sound may not be optimally re-created... remember how when rock records are mixed, they intentionally listen to it on cr@ppy speakers? That's because they know most people will listen on such equipment and not optimal conditions. It is your duty as a creator to account for this. I have to be honest and report, the sound on this picture is POOR.

Right off the bat, the intro has two issues to me - first, I already didn't hear what the VO said in the very last word ("rise"??, "wise"?) - there is a problem if I can hear some of the sentence but not all... it's not that somehow Amazon streaming is bad, that's a bad sound mix; it's a well-known trap in sound, because you the creator know all the words, you fill in the blanks and let poor sound slip by you unnoticed; but others don't know the words, so they get caught. The voice filtering in that VO was not only cheesy, it also made it hard to understand - and after watching the movie I went back to listen to this intro and only then understood that somehow it's two individuals talking... because I know some of the premise - without that, when it first hits you, it's hopeless trying to make it out. You are making this way too bandwidth-heavy for the viewer (more about that later).

One of the most brilliant openings in sci-fi film history, is Carpenter's "The Thing". Note, we're given a hint about the genre (sci-fi), but without any words - just a spaceship careening into the earth's atmosphere and crashing. No words, no explanations, nothing. Mystery. And note the brilliant use of music and sound effects - start off with silence in the first few titles, then a gradually intensifying sustained series of notes, resolving into the sound effect of the spaceship passing and then crashing - and then, a beat, and an opening scene with one of the most brilliant musical treatments ever recorded for film - the "dum dum, dum dum, dum dum" - as minimalistic as you can get... OK, you are dealing with one of the greatest film composers ever, Morricone. The point is not to match this brilliance, but to note the principle - less is more. That fantastic opening scene of Antarctica - first, 99.99999% of films would start with the establishing shot being completely stable... but not here! - instead, the whole landscape is swaying, immediatly raising the tension dramatically - already the stark Antarctica landscape is dramatic, and now the emotion is sent way up by that swaying camera. A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y BRILLIANT! Can you imagine if the music here swelled orchestrally? That would be total overkill and it would destroy the scene - it would seem like a cheesy low budget flick. Instead, the music develops in a quite understated way as the chase ensues. The predominant effect of the title sequence and opening scene (why would you chase and shoot at a dog from a helicopter??! - brilliant!) is mystery and intrigue. We are communicated that it's a sci-fi - that's all we need. The rest is mystery - only increased with the opening scene of the helicopter chase.

This "mystery" approach is what I think you more or less went with in your intro; except, the mystery was not quite as aesthetically pleasing and minimalist as The Thing... to your detriment. If you are going to do "mystery", do it right... a cheesy VO is not going to cut it. Be careful with how much an audience can focus on (bandwidth) - The Thing plays it right, without any words, just isolated, simple images - easy to concentrate on. Now comes the best part of the whole Derelict movie - starting 0:42, with the fuzzy tumbling shape of a person slowly getting up and approaching - even, and this is super rare, the music actually works! Very nicely done - the low key music is very successful, the musical mood is excellent (hard to do!) and this goes on until the title "presents" around 1:31 comes on, and then the music goes off the rails swelling too much and becoming too conventional a musical trope and arc, and continues to deteriorate as the titles come and finally by the time the foot comes on, the music is poor. But this part of the intro, until the foot, is very nicely done - a good idea, and good execution. Now, I understand the budget is low/zero, but that's where creativity is free to express itself - so f.ex. I'd say at this point I'd have liked the titles/cards to be more aesthetically pleasing - more creative perhaps, or simply nicer... but something. A lost opportunity. Having said that, again, I must compliment the part of the intro from 00:42-02:20 - legit excellent, by far the best part of the movie, and honestly the movie is worth watching just for those couple of minutes! The idea, the execution, the mood, the visual, and partway the music - it all works very, very, very well... you feel you're in for a treat. So whereas I thought the intro from 00:00 - 00:42 was a failure, the rest was simply - EXCELLENT.

Another kind of an intro might serve as a contrast to the 00:00-00:42 is how they handled it in The Terminator (1984) - The Terminator. Again, the bandwidth - text, not too long - harder to miss meaning than VO words that zip by and if you miss it, you miss it, here they take no chances. Titles slightly more creative, in keeping with the "machine" sci-fi aspect - good. Music not the greatest, but at least against a background that does not compete with it... titles, not images or actions. Note, that once we go to the action, the music stops altogether and then comes on eventually very, very minimalistically - the action provides the drama, don't distract with too dramatic music.

And the character intro - look how you introduce the Derelict and the intro in The Terminator! Arnold - a naked bizarre massive guy instantiating in an electric storm! He too walks to look at the LA cityscape (night!). Tell me, which is the character intro that catches attention more? The first 11:40 minutes of The Terminator just doesn't quit, it's non-stop FASCINATING and involving. OK, you might say "I had no budget" and why compare it to one of the great sci-fi movies... but why not? It's not really a budget issue - you could have done exactly the same (minus the garbage truck and cop cars and street scenes full of extras). It's really not about the money here - being naked costs nothing. The "electric storm" SFX you could do easily. The punks and the chase (you had a chase!), and cityscape - all you could've done. And why compare to a great movie... why not? It's what you are competing against - audiences that have seen Terminator - you gotta impress them somehow, and you don't need money for that, as discussed. That's your competition. It's not 1983. It's 2019. You gotta do better to grab the viewer - find a fascinating way to intro your character. The most expected way is how you did it - the guy slowly comes to and looks at his own hands and so on... a letdown - I think you must agree, better can be had. When you see that character intro, your heart sinks - where is the creative way to show something interesting on no budget, something I don't expect (I expect the guy looking over his human form, and duh - that's what you do, sigh)? If that creativity ain't here, at the most important moment of your main character intro, what hope is there for the rest of the movie experience? See what I'm saying?

But let's talk about the premise. The key thing is CLARITY. First of all, I honestly don't know what the premise is, partly because I couldn't hear key dialogue - I'll characterize it as best I can: there is another dimension where other beings send their members to earth to experience emotions, because they can't have emotions themselves; then, they must be fetched back after awhile (why? maybe file a report like Mork from Mork and Mindy?!) and it's a representative who comes, who has a supervisor ("guardian") already on earth whom he is supposed to relieve(? I think); some of these "souls" want to leave because of all the suffering on earth, and some don't want to leave because they're enjoying themselves; then the representative (Derelict) hunts down a few, but comes to understand that he likes the emotions on earth and doesn't want to deprive others of their partners (coroner's wife), but the guardian sees that as dereliction of duty and a fight ensues which the Derelict eventually wins. OK - if there's anything I got wrong, I apologize - I just couldn't hear. What can I say about the premise? IF I GOT IT RIGHT - it is fuzzy and complicated. Maybe I got it wrong, but keep in mind, regardless of the details I might have gotten wrong - how (1)STRONG (2)SIMPLE (3) CLEAR-CUT is your premise? Can you put it in a few words, or a logline? The Thing - an extremely invasive alien lifeform has crashlanded in Antarctica and threatens to take over the world - THAT'S IT. The Terminator - an extremely dangerous killer machine in a man's form hunts a human being. The concepts are very simple and easy to grasp - is yours similarly simple? I can't tell - I know Derelict is collecting those souls (but I don't know why?). The motives of the villain (Terminator or The Thing) are extremly simple - "kill" - "take over". "Why" is also very clear - to destroy a key future human leader (Terminator); to survive and take over the world (The Thing). Is your concept STRONG? Terminator & The Thing - "kill", "destroy humanity" - can hardly get stronger. Is it CLEAR-CUT? Terminator - Machines (SkyNet) will rule the world and humanity if their one human leader can be killed, so they send their best assassin - nothing more to it! The Thing - to live, it must take over the world and all life-forms it can perfectly imitate - that's it, nothing more to it! Is your premise as clear-cut? Maybe, I couldn't tell because I couldn't hear, but I suspect it's a bit more fuzzy. Collecting souls - who are these beings? Unclear (to me - maybe because of sound) - who is the guardian and why is he seemingly more powerful than the Derelict, and what kind of "guardian" is he? Note, there are no such multi-faceted questions about the Terminator or the Alien in The Thing.

With the important caveat that I couldn't hear so I AM NOT SURE EXACTLY what the premise is - this is your #1 problem. Coming up with a premise doesn't cost $. It's not a budget issue. It's about the concept. Is it STRONG? Blade Runner - Androids want to live and love, but are slaves, and they rebel, SEEKING LIFE. STRONG. Terminator - STRONG. The Thing - STRONG. Is your concept STRONG? Only you can answer (on account of the sound, LOL). Is it clear-cut? Or is it fuzzy with lots of nooks and crannies and unclarity and conditionals and this and that? "KILL". "TAKE OVER". "SEEK MORE LIFE"... all very SIMPLE. all very STRONG, all quite CLEAR CUT. This is your challenge. If you don't have this, your audience cannot grasp the stakes, cannot identify with any of the characters, understand the villain's motivations and so on. Who is the villain in your story? The Guardian? Why - what motivates him, and is it interesting and compelling? Terminator - motivation crystal clear and super compelling - ABSOLUTELY. WILL. NOT. STOP. Life and death and no questions if, buts or maybes - fight until the death, only one can survive, no compromise possible. The Thing - to live it must take over all life forms - you can't bargain with it, can't blah, blah, blah... quite like the Terminator in a way! It is compelling! Blad Runner - you want to LIVE and LOVE, Android or human! Compelling. And very interesting.

So you must ask yourself - are my characters similarly compelling and interesting? What is the opposition my hero faces? Who is my villain(s)? What's his deal? Why do I care? How much do I care? How scary is s/he? None of this costs money. It's just human emotion - fear of the villain, pulling for the hero, involvement of the audience. We care - why? The rest is just the mechanics of movie-making. But it all starts with audience involvement. We can discuss shots, angles, blocking, lighting and so on - but first... do we care?

More in the next post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top