What happens when you don't hire good people....

Chris Adler said:
Liam, I thought I explained it in my last post. Every video produced is for a specific purpose. The purpose of their video was to raise money and share a message, whatever that was. Improving production value wouldn't make a lick of difference when it comes to meeting either of those two goals. There is no minimum standard for music videos.

My use of the word "mindless" was because it seems most people here don't seem to take context into the equation when they're evaluating something like this. Funny you believe me saying that was attacking someone, yet you're fine with the rest of the thread attacking the creators of the video.
Click to expand...

Again, you are confusing strategy with execution. The strategy was to make a viral video using two Hollywood stars recreating a screen romance that first captured the public's imagination thirty-five years ago. The fact it has been a success is testament to the enduring popularity of Grease and the stars who played the central characters in the original movie. The strategy is genius. No doubt about that.

The fact that making a better film would not have made a difference is neither here nor there. We are judging the film on its merits. I think that is perfectly fair.

If the film was made by a class of eight-year-olds who'd won the job in a prize draw I'd still find it funny, but at least they'd have the excuse of being eight. This video was made by adults. Some of whom have experience and good connections. Sorry, no excuses.
 
No excuses because Liam says so? Get real. There are tons of reasons to make what they did, how they did. There is no reason for them to have spent extra time, money, and wasted resources to make Liam happy.
 
Now you are just being rude again Chris. No need to resort to childish jibes. I thought we were having an intelligent debate about it. Clearly that's not the case.

I will add, there are tons of ways they could have improved the film, none of which would have cost a cent or added extra time to job...
 
Last edited:
No, it's all subjective, Liam. What is the minimum level of quality they should have delivered for you to be happy? Do you think meeting that minimum level would have resulted in them raising more charitable contributions? If not, what's the justification for them spending more resource? Would it simply be to make you happy? If they didn't meet that minimum, should they simply have scrapped the project and not released anything at all? I'm not trying to be rude, I simply disagree with you. I don't think one size fits all.

Obviously there are many ways they could have improved production value, but that isn't always the goal of every project.
 
Last edited:
Chris, if you go back over my comments you will see clearly I've already answered all those points quite succinctly.

You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between a media strategy and the creative execution of a production. If the idea was to make a "homespun" video then I could understand it, but I'm sure that wan't the case. I have on several occaisions in the past been told not to make something look expensive or "editorialised" (too contrived), but that is a different matter. This is what it is.

It's not one size fits all. No one said it was. The point is they could have made a better video for half the money in half the time. Indeed, if the point of professional filmmaking is to only ever do the least amount of work to meet the lowest client expectation then we should all give up. Certainly, they'd be no point in anyone coming on forums like this in the hope that they might improve their technique. That is counter intuitive to me. My maxim in everything I try to do is "How do I make this better." I hope that is the attitude of all filmmakers. If it's not you shouldn't be one.
 
No, I do understand the difference. If they didn't creatively need to execute at a "higher level" then why do so? They have met their own requirements. Their goal wasn't to impress pixel-peepers, it was simply to have fun and raise some money.
 
What I am curious about is why you are so defensive, Chris. Did you shoot this or work on it? Are you good friends with either of them? Was it for your charity? Or are you just a huge fan of any of the before mentioned reasons....

You seem to be taking the criticism of JT/ONT's video personally. People said what they felt about the film and made some pretty concise points, and you are acting like it was your film they are criticizing, and you are vigorously defending it. If it were any other person.......the comments would not change. What they spent on it was not spent wisely. It could have been much better for the same amount or less. I don't care who it was that made the film, it wasn't great. I still cannot fathom where they spent that 12,000.... it was very amatuerish.

And, frankly, you should tone it down a bit and take a deep breath. And calling members who have issues with the video "pixel-peepers" when they have valid points is not going to endear you to the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
Doc, I'm not seeking your approval. And no, I had no involvement with the project at all.

I just find the comments very smug and in my opinion, they all miss the point of the project. They weren't trying to create an award winning music video. It was obviously a personal project they didn't want to spend much on (hence the budget when we know they could have paid more). I think they probably hit their mark of what they were after. Most of the comments around here seem to miss that point completely.

OLN and JT didn't submit the video here on DVX for critique, right? We all know there are things they could have done to make it better. My argument is that they didn't care because they didn't need to, or want to. There are things in EVERY movie that could be done to make them better. Is that really the goal?
 
Last edited:
Chris, then maybe you don't understand how by pointing out issues and critiquing other works, you hone your own craft. Learn from the mistakes of others. Such as this video. And the majority of people here understand what a budget of 12,000 can do for a 3 min project. And one of the reasons people are somewhat shocked at the poor level of film-making and having a modestly decent budget.

No, they didn't submit it to DVX, nor do they care about ANY of the comments here. But as film-makers, we have the right to discuss it amongst ourselves. And we don't care that they don't care. It is a valid project to be criticized because it is in the public's eye. If this was a home video for private use only....then you would be right.

But it isn't. It is out in the public. Just like any other vid/film/movie/song........and open to criticism. Like we do here all the time. There is nothing special or privileged about what they did, nobody is going to put it on a pedastal because of who it was or why it was done........ well almost no one.

Everyone is talking about it in the same light the talk about other videos, if they see something they don't like, they say it.
 
Last edited:
Critique is great, but look back through the thread. MOST of the posts aren't constructive critiques at all. Most comments are ripping on something to probably feel better about their own work. I don't find that constructive. And I guess I'm still the only person here who believes that the goals of the project should dictate the production value put into it. I thought for what they were trying to achieve with the project they probably met their goals. Maybe that's the real discussion to be had?

I guess what really bugs me are the comments that say there is simply no excuse or no reason to ever release something like that. That blows my mind.
 
rsbush said:
Liam,
I'm curious, why are you "sure" that wasn't their idea?
Click to expand...

Good question. Watching the video the first time I thought it was a spoof, then I thought it was a home movie, then I thought it was something cynical, finally I realised it was a well meaning, but naive and poorly executed video. The back story that Barry wrote earlier confirmed this. Touching story though it was. So, it's probably more accurate to say, I'm now sure that it wasn't intended as a pastiche. If it is and I'm wrong, I'll doff my cap and applaud the genius.
 
Doc Bernard said:
Everyone is talking about it in the same light the talk about other videos, if they see something they don't like, they say it.
Click to expand...

Please. Give the same level of response to any other video on here, and you'll get everyone on your ass faster than you can say, "That video sucked!"

How many times has there been really poor content posted for review here where no one gets even close to the level that has been represented in this thread?
 
Chris Adler said:
OLN and JT didn't submit the video here on DVX for critique, right? We all know there are things they could have done to make it better.
Click to expand...

The Wife has shot couple of actor weddings. Not anyone with a name that would be recognized... but actors just the same. The quality of what we did for them I believe was better than this, at least in the 'still' category. One couple the 'actor' rented a RV, had M/H people, had a 'crafts table', for a 4-6 hour Bridal shoot. That groom 'whated' stylized quality for his money...

The thing is, had he asked for a 'video' of the shoot, we probably would have given him a better product... that's because while we had worked almost exclusively in still photography, both the Wife and I have had an deep interest in moving pictures. The Wife took formal course work in Film for her BA, and I being the autodidact, have read/watched/talked about filmmaking for a very long time... The Wife decided after a few moving picture projects that stills were really her bag... but that's a different story...

In any case, we do not know the 'goals' of the clip, but it was produced for public consumption. Perhaps it met the goals of JT and ONJ. Perhaps they are at a point where they don't really care... and we can always look to the Star Wars Christimas show for an even greater pile of sh... stuff... that was intended for wide public consumption... as if George and Co. could give a damn about what we the public think...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
The quality of what we did for them I believe was better than this, at least in the 'still' category.
Click to expand...

Still, video, all the same thing, really. If you can take good pictures, you should be able to take good video is what you're saying?

Besides, plenty of people come on here claiming they deliver "the magic" and then the work they show is very amateurish in bad, so I don't think saying, "Well, I could have done better" really means anything.
 
I think it's pointless to attack someone's skill or ability by looking a video like this. The video itself wasn't anything that I was particularly fond of, however I made no assessment in my mind as to the filmmaker's capability or skill-level based on it. I only see what could be perceived as questionable creative choices, but skill-wise, nothing in this video made me think they weren't otherwise capable camera operators etc.
 
Gary Huff said:
Still, video, all the same thing, really. If you can take good pictures, you should be able to take good video is what you're saying?

Besides, plenty of people come on here claiming they deliver "the magic" and then the work they show is very amateurish in bad, so I don't think saying, "Well, I could have done better" really means anything.
Click to expand...

As I a moving from still to moving pictures, no shooting stills 'well', only helps a little in the moving pictures shooting... well unless you are shooting a tableau vivant...

In the current film under discussion, the shots of JT and ONJ dancing with the framing, would have made 'great' (sort of...) square stills... with a little cropping on top and bottom, and lopping off the excessive sides...

As 'moving pictures' the couple seems almost lost... like 'huh???'.

The Wife would give me no end of grief about shooting horizontal... the almost necessary standard for film making... rather than shooting vertical, which for a still is ok.

What this leads to is the composition of a horizontal shot needs to be 'filled' unless there's a specific story/mood 'reason' for having empty space...

This is just one example, and I don't have time for more, but that's sort of the idea I have in mind, when discussing transitioning to moving pictures from stills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top