Unemployment

The writing and the idea is very strong. Camera work is amateur. I liked the writing very much and so much so, as a cinematographer I think it has huge potential and I'd be attracted to a script like this. Wish I made this... because it'd look way better! Then again, it looks so low budget I'd probably not be involved with it.

Big props to the writer. Sometimes a little predictable but overall was great. The idea and spirit is there, some of the predictable moments could be tightened up, but I think most of the time the predictable-ness is caused by uninspired and cookie cutter shots. Again, the camera work is weak. Good moments and some funny jokes.

Eye lines are way off many times, crossing line without motivation or transition, over exposure many times, skin color tones change.... etc. Blah.

Would love to see this with a budget and better cinematographer... at least give the guy a light or two. jeez.

If the writer see's this comment, contact me because I'd love to see this get funding and a better crew. No offense to the crew who probably did the best they could with one consumer dslr and no lighting/ good equipment.

I think if improved on many fronts, could be really pitch-able to cable network, like FX or etc.
 
Last edited:
I think Ryan and I are on opposite sides of the hill here! To me it looks fine, not too different than a lot of comedies I see on TV. I'm just glad it was well written and well acted.

Then again, I'm a big fan of filmmakers like John Cassavetes.
 
Last edited:
The day everyone thinks that is good enough cinematography for television, is the day I quit this industry and just go sailing for the rest of my life.
 
Last edited:
You know, there's not a single thing wrong with that (or sailing), and definitely a place for great cinematography.

 
Looks like the qualifying word of "everyone" has saved Ryan from a life at sea.

It seemed it was going for a Ferris Bueller meets The Office type of feel. It wasn't great but it had moments. I think the guy who played Canada also wrote it and did the graphics; talented guy.
 
I really enjoyed this. Maybe a little long, but everything worked well.

I don't understand the complaints about the cinematography. It wasn't the best in the world, but it was far above the average low-budget short film I have seen. The only complaints I had were that it looked slightly flat at times and there were a couple moments when they let the background blow out, but overall I found it very refreshing to see a short film that allowed itself to have a bright, well exposed, colorful image in a time when most shorts seem to crave a dark, moody, super-contrasty, desaturated image.
 
Not a bad short, I like the white end titles and how they move in 3d space. I'm not a cinematographer but I think his skin turned green at around 5:05, is that because they were shooting under florescents? I'm not even sure if it's a noticeable "mistake" to the casual viewer, I just noticed that because I was reading on lights a couple of days ago
 
Deepfocus88 said:
I guess you don't have to worry about shooting the sequel then? :undecided
Click to expand...

Like I said. If I were approached with that script, I'd be very interested in it. I think it's a potential gold mine for quality comedy. I enjoyed the short, but mainly because of the writing.

What I meant my comment is I don't typically sign onto projects that don't at least give me the *basic* tools to do my job to a level of personal satisfaction. I'm not talking about my pay, or anything like that. I've been known to work for free on shorts which I really believe in. (Of course I get paid on many shorts that I equally believe in. It depends on the circumstances.)

I'd rather work for free and have some basic story telling tools such as basic lighting, ND filters, doorway dolly, etc, than have no lighting, filters or dolly and get paid. At the end of the day my name is on the film.

I really don't want to come off as snobby, although it's likely too late for that. As said in my first post, seems like there wasn't much equipment so the cinematographer did a decent job for what he had, although accurate and consistent skin tones would have been nice and possible to achieve, yet it wasn't... regarding proper or over exposure.... pick one and be consistent with the look. Over exposure can be a look, like the first half of Jarhead shot by Roger Deakins. But this film was literally changing from shot to shot. It lacked cohesive image continuity. And maybe the average person can't identify the changes but I guarantee you if everything was color balanced, exposed, and unified as an image style, the story would have come across more fluid, and forward moving. The story benefits... and it's one of the key jobs of the cinematographer!

I'd like to be involved with anything that has a base of decent writing. That wasn't 30Rock or anything, but I read a ridiculous amount of indie scripts every year, and I can tell you good writing is more rare than a good cinematographer. This film is actually a white whale. Rare. Better writing than cinematography. Usually short indie films are the flip side.
 
Last edited:
I edit posts all the time, usually within 60 seconds of posting... maybe a bit longer actually, after that I *usually* let what I say float out into the universe. I do it because of either grammatical errors or I re-read my post and notice that what I sound like is not my intention, so I go back and try to reword it as to make my intentions more clear. I usually seem like more of a prick than I mean to. :/
 
Last edited:
Saharanturtle said:
Not a bad short, I like the white end titles and how they move in 3d space. I'm not a cinematographer but I think his skin turned green at around 5:05, is that because they were shooting under florescents? I'm not even sure if it's a noticeable "mistake" to the casual viewer, I just noticed that because I was reading on lights a couple of days ago
Click to expand...

The titles were almost too good for the film! They were top notch and after seeing the quality put on screen, I was taken back by the jump in quality when those titles came up. Those were impressive.
 
Last edited:
How were they done, was the shot tracked by a 3d tracker and the titles attached to one of the points? I don't think it would look right if I were to just scale up the title with time as the camera moves forward
 
the writing was decent, a bit redundant, but I agree with Ryan on the shooting, especially the shot in front of the pool, I actually had to squint, I could see the reflection moving on his face as if the reflector was moving a slight bit. But other than the shooting issues it was cool, made me laugh from time to time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top