SHORT: What do you think of this mock commercial we did?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like the concept. Pretty funny - nice button at the end. As far as I can tell, the basic concept matters an awful lot in spec and real commercials as far as pitching yourself as a director. Bit of a red bull gives you wings type concept here.

Nice job with the zombie appearance without an Effects budget.

Some of the shots are dark or not stylishly lit. There may be more shots here than you need too. A lot of commercials are like 5 shots. There were some nice shots by the convenience store though, some better lighting on him there

But as a director, people will be judging you for your concept and how you string together a montage and a scene and direct the actors more than they judge your lighting
 
Oh okay thanks. The concept was one of the other filmmaker's concepts, but I chose some of the camera shots, along with him deciding some, and I did the editing, sound effects, and color grading.
 
Ryan, thanks for posting one of your videos.

Good:

  • The music sounded good, matched the genre, followed the action.
  • I can tell a good amount of effort went into foley --- which is noteworthy because it is rare in low-budget films
  • I agree with ahalpert that the hand bursting out of the ground looked good
  • Good locations

Could use some work:

  • The lighting was better than a lot of low-budget films but could be better if it was usually not frontal. Put it to the side or even have the key slightly behind the subject
  • The editing was a little choppy sometimes. For example, in shot 1 I want to read the sign, but I can't (People just naturally want to start reading text anywhere they see it. So either don't show text, or show it long enough to be read). Shot 2 was too short and too similar to shot 3. I think it might have been better to have used just one shot for that part. When I first started editing, sometimes I cut too quick too, because I knew the movie so well. For a first-time viewer, the shots are new, and the right length might feel too long to you. A good example of good editing (I think) is The Hunt for Red October. Turn off the audio on that movie and watch how long some of the shots are. But also there should be a musicality to the shots. That is, even when there is no music, there should be a proportion to them. This is hard to do at first. Some editors put down a music track temporarily and then remove it for the final film.
  • The acting could use more . . . motivation. I know this was a comical film, but: (1) why does the zombie emerge and then look unsure of himself before commencing the chase? Also, why is the hero running so slow? I would be sprinting. Instead it's obvious that he's letting the zombie keep up. I know that zombies don't sprint. So if the hero sprinted, he would get away. But there are ways. Let the hero trip and fall. Then the zombie can catch up. Something like that.
  • What's up with the guy's pants? There are chalky white splotches on the backs of his jeans. I suppose it is stylish among some age group, but. . . . when in doubt, costumes should be undistracting. Also, the zombie's shirt was not grungy enough. It looks like he shops at the Gap.

That's all I got. Thanks :)
 
Last edited:
I mostly agree with combatentropy, though the hand through the dirt came across to me as obvious CG. The sound effects/Foley in the mix were all over the place, either too much or too little, and never really sat naturally.

The grading washed out detail in the highlights and shadows, and enhanced the noise. The camera work was sometimes shaky, not in a good way.

“We’re all directors” just continues the conversation from your other User Films post that shows you don’t really understand directing. You also might want to revisit your reel... it has no identity. Some of it is your acting, some of it is your “directing”, some of it is ???. None of it really focuses on one aspect. Acting reel, directing reel, editing reel... these are all separate things.
 
Oh okay thanks. I couldn't bury a whole arm in the dirt, without it looking like it was obviously just buried but I can try to things like that in mind, next time. Thanks.

Was it a bad idea to co-direct with others, since it was not my idea, and the others wanted to direct a little too?

As for the audio being too big on sound effects and foley, is a large part of that maybe I concentrated on the footsteps too much and they sound too loud maybe Or how is it all over the place, so I know for next time :)?

And yes for next time I do a chase, I will just have the actor in the back try to run faster, and keep an eye on that.
 
Last edited:
JimS2 said:
Was it a bad idea to co-direct with others, since it was not my idea, and the others wanted to direct a little too?
Click to expand...

On a for-fun project like this, not at all. But this is just more for the argument that you are nowhere near ready to try and pull off a feature. You need more experience. Lots more. You don’t really know how to direct, so there’s no way you should spend any of your own (or worse, someone else’s) money on a feature film.

JimS2 said:
As for the audio being too big on sound effects and foley, is a large part of that maybe I concentrated on the footsteps too much and they sound too loud maybe Or how is it all over the place, so I know for next time :)?
Click to expand...

It’s a lot of stuff, Ryan. The can popping open could be pulled back just a touch; it was a little too hot in the mix. The can being thrown on the ground as well, and there is a strange and out-of-place sound that immediately follows that and is also too loud.

Foot steps are important. The issue is that they mostly get lost in the mix. They shouldn’t be loud, but they need to be just noticeable enough. In this skit, they’re mostly almost inaudible. Clothing movement is another important part of lending credibility to actor movement.

The sounds of the zombie crawling out of the grave are also just a little too hot for my taste, but the more glaring issue is that they abruptly stop, rather than trickle out with a few little dirt clods still falling off toward the end. It’s all, then nothing. There needs to be transition.

And again, this isn’t pain-by-numbers, so if you’re looking for “bring X down by -5dB and bring Y up by +4dB”, you aren’t going to find it.

JimS2 said:
And yes for next time I do a chase, I will just have the actor in the back try to run faster, and keep an eye on that.
Click to expand...

Zombies don’t run fast. People do. This is why it’s not convincing; it looked like you were intentionally trying to slow your pace for the camera. Jogging, almost, but with an awkward gate.
 
Oh okay thanks for the input. Since I am not spending any money on the project, is not going to come up off as for fun, or is it possible to do a project for no money and have it still come off as just as good as feature film material to see if I'm ready?
 
I thought it would be awful - but it was OK. Loads of the little things, but not embarrassing, and that's the decider for me with any product. I have a high cringe factor. I'm the guy who cannot watch the TV programme, let alone movie, where somebody is up to something, and the editing lets you know they're about to be caught. The wedding scene where the vicar says "does anyone know any reason why these two people cannot marry" and you know somebody is going to chime in "because they're married to me" or similar. If these come up, I have too leave the room. Silly, but I hate these cliff hangers.
 
Good effort this is what others are always saying you'll get better by actually filming projects even if they are short. Obviously the technicals are a little rough and if you didn't do much of the directing then what skills are you showcasing? Small point, I thought the hand was going to burst up from the ground and grab the can. But some ideas are easier to imagine and harder to pull off... Also feel it could have been tightened up:
the beginning grocery store scene is good, then arm coming up a grave, I would of added the ghoul drinking it, then finished with a wide shot of him being chased in the background with the product placement and voice over, "nothing wakes you up like xyz energy drink..." (lighter less horror movie tone)
 
Last edited:
Oh well it's just I didn't mind co-directing with someone else, who's idea it was, but should I mind and just stick to directing my own? Also since I want to direct, do I need to worry about doing the sound mix myself, if in the future, I would get proper sound mixers to do that and it will sound better then?
 
JimS2 said:
Oh well it's just I didn't mind co-directing with someone else, who's idea it was, but should I mind and just stick to directing my own? Also since I want to direct, do I need to worry about doing the sound mix myself, if in the future, I would get proper sound mixers to do that and it will sound better then?
Click to expand...
It's still better to do something than nothing even if you weren't the director, but someone is always going to want to know what was your contribution if you're using it for your reel. No one is going to know but if someone hires you and you can't pull it off...
 
Last edited:
Oh okay sure. Well what I like doing so far is directing, editing and recording audio. I don't know how to mix it or make it sound good later so much, and feel that would take a lot of learning time on it's own, where as I should probably stick to directing and editing, but I feel those would be my contributions, where as I would think it's probably a good idea, if other people do the other jobs. I might be able to do color grading as well, but still getting the hang of it.

Unless that is a bad way of looking at it?
 
Ryan -- look, I don't think you know what directing is. To be fair, a lot of people don't know what directing is, and they think they're a director when they're not. But think about it for a second, what do you think of when you think of a "director"? It's not someone who asks everyone else for their opinion and then is blown in a million different directions by various answers! A director is a "director", as in, the director is THE ONE PERSON ON THE SET who knows the whole story, start to finish. The one person who knows exactly what they're trying to accomplish. The one person with the ANSWERS, not the QUESTIONS.

The director has a story to tell. That director knows the story they want to tell. The director lives and breathes the story that they want to tell.

The job of a director is not to set a camera angle, or to tell somebody to stand in a certain position. The job of a director is to know the emotions they want to convey, and to know how the camera positions affect the way the audience will perceive the image. The job of a director is to know what emotions they want the audience to experience, and to choose the actors who demonstrate the ability to convey those emotions, not on how they look, not on whether they're free that day, but based on their ability to be a willing and effective contributor to the project in seeing the director's vision to life. A director doesn't pick what shirt the actor is going to wear because it looks good on camera; a director picks that shirt based on an innate understanding of who that character is, what clothes mean to a person, and what message that particular article of clothing sends to the audience. A director doesn't pick a camera angle because it looks "neat" or "edgy", they pick the camera angle based on how they want the audience to perceive the action and the actors, whether that's to enlarge them, diminish them, shield information from the audience, or reveal something to the audience.

The director has to already know all this stuff.

Your constant questioning is the exact opposite of what a director should be. Good directors can take ideas from their crew or others, but a good director will only do so when that suggestion helps enhance what the director is already trying to accomplish.

If you don't understand that, you cannot ever expect to be a good director. Which is okay, because frankly 99% of all the people calling themselves directors, actually suck. Which is why 99% of the films that get made, suck.

Whether you can be a director or not, that's only a question you can answer. But with decades of experience under my belt I do feel confident in saying this: you're almost certainly wasting your time pursuing directing. How do I know that? Because of your track record. You talk about it, you ask about it, but you never actually do it. That would not happen with a true director, because it is impossible to stop a good director from making films. A good director is driven by a passion to tell stories, to craft stories, to explore all the visual syntax and language of film to enhance their ability to tell stories. A true director doesn't ask questions on the internet, they're too busy drawing storyboards and filming shots. You've been talking about this for a decade. A real, honest-to-goodness director would already have 20 films under their belt by now. There would be no way to stop them, they live and breathe and die for telling stories. And any questions they had would be answered by making a film and trying out different techniques, and seeing what happens, and whether it was effective or not.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not telling you to just "go out and do it" (i.e., spend your money and hire actors and crew). That would be a terrible thing to do, and it would be criminally irresponsible of you to spend a bunch of money trying to make a "feature" film, when you don't even show a clear grasp of knowing what motivates people or what the whole point of filmmaking is. You're asking fundamental questions about what would motivate a character or not. You can't be at that level, and also spending money; that would be insane. If you don't innately understand motivation, emotion, arc, anticipation, reward, the Hero's Journey, and how Every Single Decision factors into expressing and conveying that to the audience, then you're not ready and you may never be ready.

Let me be brutally blunt. I have financed films for DVXUsers over the years. I would estimate that I've given various DVXUser directors somewhere over $100,000 to make their movies. I have been in a position to evaluate whether or not I think someone's ready for the next level, and I have actually put my money where my mouth is, helping guys like Jack Daniel Stanley, Mark Harris, Kholi Hicks, Noel Evans, Stephen Mick, and many others to make their films. It is my firm belief that you are wasting your time pursuing directing, and I think it would be a tragedy if people talked you into spending your money on making a full-length film. It would be wasted.

There is no shame in not being a director. I'm not a director, I don't have that skillset and I'm happy to admit it. I am a producer, and I excel at technical tasks. And maybe that's the kind of thing you should look at doing too.

But if you're serious about trying to make progress in film, then the ONLY thing that will help you is PRACTICE, over and over and over. And you will not get that practice by asking random internet strangers for advice. The one thing you must NOT do is spend your own money. And if you can't figure out how to make a commercial or short film without spending money, then that's further evidence that you don't have the skillset to be a film director.
 
He's making his own movie to get around the barrier of not being able to get hired on a professional set. But if you can't convince someone to hire you, you won't be able convince someone to fund you. Making your own movie is a plausible method to become a director only if you have the aptitude. Unfortunately he doesn't and he doesn't want to admit it. So we go round in circles on forums.
 
Last edited:
paulears said:
I thought it would be awful - but it was OK. Loads of the little things, but not embarrassing, and that's the decider for me with any product. I have a high cringe factor. I'm the guy who cannot watch the TV programme, let alone movie, where somebody is up to something, and the editing lets you know they're about to be caught. The wedding scene where the vicar says "does anyone know any reason why these two people cannot marry" and you know somebody is going to chime in "because they're married to me" or similar. If these come up, I have too leave the room. Silly, but I hate these cliff hangers.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay. Thanks.


:tongue:
 
Peter C. said:
He's making his own movie to get around the barrier of not being able to get hired on a professional set. But if you can't convince someone to hire you, you won't be able convince someone to fund you. Making your own movie is a plausible method to become a director only if you have the aptitude. Unfortunately he doesn't and he doesn't want to admit it. So we go round in circles on forums.
Click to expand...

I've been hired on professional sets before. I got hired just a few weeks ago for a project. Who says I have not been hired before?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top