Tipper Vs The Red Hornet

I'm going to do more detailed comments/criticisms on all the shorts later, but I just had to comment on this one now. This one can pretty much be summed up in two words - fun and hilarious (or three words... however you look at that!). Seriously, in most cases, the basis of a good film breaks down to if it is enjoyable to watch or not. For me, even though it lost momentum as it went on, this one was very enjoyable to watch!
More to come on the constructive criticism side of things, but I just wanted to let you know that I thoroughly enjoyed watching and had many laughs throughout! Our dog (Bootstraps) loved it as well!

-pastywhiteboy
 
Thanks Pasty, I look forward to your comments. :)

And thank you Jim, I thought it would be pretty funny since he's a dog and dogs can't write..., but he can fly a fighter jet. :)
 
I really enjoyed this. This film was funny. It was like playing "Firefox".
You have my full respect for your choice of work load. Thanks for many angles and choices of shots. How long was your render session, man!?
 
lol Thanks Matthew. To break it down, the average shot was rendered no longer than 6 seconds. I knew they would be cut down shorter with the exception of a few that I knew would be longer. For rendering, each shot was broken down in layers by objects in the frame.
1.) Tipper's ship
2.)Asteroids
3.)nebula background
4.)sometimes the engine glow (if the back of the ship was to the camera)

In real CGI work, the objects themselves would be rendered in layers for color, shadow, highlights, reflection, etc. but that would've taken way too much time. lol

Each layer took on average about 4 hours to render. So a shot with 4 layers in it would take roughly about 16 hours to render. A lot of time for a 6 second shot. lol

I would post stills but I don't know how. I would love to share so some people could save the images and play with compositing themselves. It is a lot of fun.
 
Tremendous effort for a short.

Just being honest it felt like I was watching someone else play a video game in the middle of your short. I'm not talking about the CGI it's mostly in editing and choice of shots used. The strongest parts to me were where you were cutting back and fourth from Actors/Dogs to CGI stuff. Maybe a paw on a joystick or something...flipping switches...when the dog was chewing the wire...that's what I'm talking about.

Now I'll just get pickey...

I would have chosen a different angle to shoot the oldest war hero. I got the joke, and it was a good one, it was just too simular to the first war heros shot. Possably a lower angle with more dramatic lighting.

Great fun to watch. Thanks for your entry.

Kip Kubin
 
Hahahaha this was great ..loved it !!!!!!!!!!
Glad your 2 dogs had fun doing this ..lol
The thing I like about this you gave us 6 min worth of entertainment !
Just where did you find the time to put this together?
Thanks for sharing .
Ian
 
THX-1138, you are right about the editing. Thats the main issue I've gotton from everyone. I do believe that adding more shots of the dogs and the Red Hornet actually doing stuff to cut too would have filled the seemingly empty areas. I have a longer version that does have more put in there and I'll post it on my website when the contest is finished. As far as the angle change on General Wilson Sr. I feel the angle has to be the same, but I would agree with a change in the lighting. Part of the joke is in how similar the two men are and changing the angle might affect that. The only difference I wanted to show was the eye patches. I actually had another actor who looked a lot like the first guy but older, but he wasn't available. Oh well.

Arlieman, Thank you for your comments. I'm glad you liked it. It did take a long time and I was editing right down to the last few hours of the FIRST deadline. haha. Then it was extended and greatfully so since I found some other issues to fix with it. :)
 
HagerNYC said:
lol Thanks Matthew. To break it down, the average shot was rendered no longer than 6 seconds. I knew they would be cut down shorter with the exception of a few that I knew would be longer. For rendering, each shot was broken down in layers by objects in the frame.
1.) Tipper's ship
2.)Asteroids
3.)nebula background
4.)sometimes the engine glow (if the back of the ship was to the camera)

In real CGI work, the objects themselves would be rendered in layers for color, shadow, highlights, reflection, etc. but that would've taken way too much time. lol

Each layer took on average about 4 hours to render. So a shot with 4 layers in it would take roughly about 16 hours to render. A lot of time for a 6 second shot. lol

I would post stills but I don't know how. I would love to share so some people could save the images and play with compositing themselves. It is a lot of fun.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be able to handle that. I'd freak out while waiting to see an image. Props
 
I had seen you replied with questions and have been sick the last few days, so not around much, but did want to come back and answer...

HagerNYC said:
EditPhish Thanks for your comments and honesty. Granted pehaps it could've been cut shorter, or as indicated above added dialogue for the actors/dogs to have to fill in seemingly empty spaces. I'm not sure which shots of the dogs you refer to that I held on them for too long. I was cutting to the beat of the music. Until the beat happenes, I don't feel the cut if you know what I mean.
Click to expand...

Totally understand cutting to the beat of the music, but that doesn't always work if it's not a music video... it leaves you on a shot for too long. That can be a downside when editing TO the music (as opposed to scoring after the editing). YOU (or whoever) as the editor are much more focused on the music than the viewer is (again, unless it's a music video).

HagerNYC said:
"but I also felt like I was watching a video game, not a movie... and ultimately, this is a flim contest." Are you saying I made a video game and not a short film with a begining, middle and end?
Click to expand...

I felt your story did have a beginning, middle and end, but the middle was just way too long and paced slowly... which made it a bit boring after a while (especially with cutting back to the cute dogs doing nothing but sitting there)... and then because of the nature of the CG, it LOOKED more video-game like than film-like.

HagerNYC said:
"Thanks for sharing it... You obviously have the skills to become a good CG artist." but not a filmmaker?
Click to expand...

Wasn't at all saying that. Based on this film though, I couldn't give you my opinion about whether you can become a good filmmaker or not... and I wouldn't want to... meaning, if I judged you on just one 6-minute-work, it wouldn't be fair... or accurate.

HagerNYC said:
Anyways, thank you for your honesty, I really am going back and looking at the cutting. I never liked this version anyways. My longer one has a little more action during the chase.
Click to expand...

You're welcome... and thanks for being open to it. JTyner and I have a lot to learn too, so you're not alone!
 
I really enjoyed this. It was very cute, I'm a big fan of the score you used, and the 2001 references really got me. As has been mentioned, eye-patch scene was great.

I do share a couple of EditPhish's concerns, though. It did seem like some shots went on a long time without a lot happening, and it *is* hard to judge a film that's 90% CGI given the categories we have and the idea that we're supposed to be shooting with the DVX. Not that that is a problem with the film itself, it just makes it tougher for me to compare it to the other flicks.

However, this CGI work was pretty flippin' amazing, and I never stopped enjoying the film. I think you've definitely got a really impressive accomplishment here.
 
This was one of the last films I watched and I think I've had a long day as I'm sure this was supposed to be humouros, I didn't find it amusing, maybe I will watch it again, graphics are good although i didn't like the choice of music.
 
Hey guys, thanks again for all your comments. I really do listen and take notes here. :) Goodluck to all in the festival.
 
This film really dragged on for me. While the CGI was all pretty good, I felt like I could have gotten just as much from playing "StarFox" on my N64.

I did like the eye patch gag you had regarding the general and his father, that was pretty creative.

Otherwise though, I was none too fond of this film. Sorry.
 
I just watched this for the first time because for some reason I had missed it when I originally went through the films. Personally, this is one of my favorites so far because it was original in your approach. I did enjoy the score, but when I'm filling out the ballot I have a hard time judging the acting. My dog actually watched this with me and maybe it is because I'm a dog person but I really loved this little film. It had the perfect combination of SFX, VFX, and humor to keep me interested. This is one of the few films I've seen where I didn't want to speed everything up. This was great and exactly what I think this festival needed. Brilliant original story and nice approach. I really enjoyed this.

Thank you very much for this submission.

Jeremy
 
Ok, i enjoyed this one and it made me smile the whole way through. The acting by the dogs were top notch and made me laugh everything they looked around when something was happening in the scene. The bone radar was sweet. It would have been cool to have them in a milk bone ship too.
 
Unfortunately all I can offer is a little bit of old-fashioned praise. You were going for cute and funny, and you hit the mark. I loved the slow zoom of the dog. This and dvxtrek were welcomed pallette-cleansers for the competition.

kudos.
 
Somebody in the general scifi fest started a thread wondering why Tipper didn't even make it to the top ten.

I thought about this. Gosh, I remember liking this film, but I don't even think it made my top ten. I started thinking why? I remember it being a huge effort.

I posted the following review in the above mentioned thread and I'm posting it here also.



OK, so I just did a search and reviewed this film.

http://www.youare.tv/watch.php?id=268

Where did this fantastic effort go wrong?

The short starts out great with lots of laughs.

But the second the 'dog-fight' begins between tipper and his nemesis, despite the great effects, the film falls flat. The pace becomes dead dull. Hey, maybe this would have been great on a big screen with the music blasting and 'sub-woofer' shaking the floor. But on my computer monitor these moments are far from the 'cat's meow.'

This was the moment for dramatic dialogue. John Hager missed a real opportunity to get our tails wagging and perhaps he was discouraged by the challenge of animating the character's mouths. This was the moment to explore the comedic, dramatic tension between Tipper and his goof off co-pilot. He could have taken a cue from any number of comedic duos whose comedy is built upon the tension between two characters. Pinky and the Brain; Danger Mouse and Penfold; Abbot and Costello, Laurel and Hardy, Hans Solo and Chewbacca, R2-D2 and C3-PO.

Sure he throws us a bone every now and then. The Red Hornet, peering over his ridiculous glasses which don't do a thing or the Little Rascals inspired moment when Tipper's co-pilot is munching on the wires of the control console. Other Scooby snacks include the moving bone on the radar screen and those moments when we're treated to Tipper's self satisfied smile . But its not enough. This was the time that the characters should have been shouting; fighting the enemy, fighting the inadequacies of the their own vessel and fighting with each other. There could have been some fabulously entertaining mayhem here, all brought out in the dialogue. If it where funny enough, the audience wouldn't even care if the dogs mouths moved.

There's nothing about this film that can't be fixed with a few wee wee pads and a rolled up news paper.

Unfortunately the director's leash may have been a little too long on the effects and a little too short on character development. But even the greats have fallen in this respect. Though not a comedy, Ridley Scott's 'Legend' comes to mind. An amazing film filled with amazing effects, cinematography, scenery, costumes and makeup and characters nobody could give a damn about. Some reviewers have even criticized his masterpiece, 'Bladerunner' for this short coming.

This was an amazing effort and I would encourage the director to revisit this short and rework it to its fullest potential.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top