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

Could it be that JT is trolling everyone, and intended to make a terrible video?

Think about it. If the video for this song had been average and unremarkable, would DVXuser really be discussing it? Would it have blown up on Reddit? Would it have 3 million views in three days? I posit that no, none of those things would have happened. Travolta's and Newton-John's fans would have eventually seen it, but I don't know if they're the kind of people who'd really find this on their own.

Regardless of the quality, people are talking about it and watching it.
 
if you fail to see how bad the video is, i encourage you with all my heart to continue making movies. being oblivious to how horrible something is the key to creating a masterpiece like "the room" or "birdemic".
 
Every video doesn't have to be a masterpiece. They don't all require a professional crew, professional editors, colorists, and composers. To claim that this fund-raising music video should have spent more money and taken extra measures to raise the production quality is short-sighted and pretty mindless. Grow up and stop being so judgmental. It's doing exactly what it was designed to do-- raising money. It wouldn't raise more if they took ten times longer to produce it and made the budget ten times bigger. What WOULD happen is they would have missed their window of opportunity.
 
Chris Adler said:
Every video doesn't have to be a masterpiece. They don't all require a professional crew, professional editors, colorists, and composers. To claim that this fund-raising music video should have spent more money and taken extra measures to raise the production quality is short-sighted and pretty mindless. Grow up and stop being so judgmental. It's doing exactly what it was designed to do-- raising money. It wouldn't raise more if they took ten times longer to produce it and made the budget ten times bigger. What WOULD happen is they would have missed their window of opportunity.
Click to expand...

One of the problems with that line of reasoning is that there are a lot of talented people who would gladly donate their time and gear to make something for charity. Isn't that what the 2 stars have done, and their friends/family? So were the people shooting it also donating their time, since it was supposedly also done by friends. This was supposedly done by a photographer who never really shot video before. Did that person get paid? (IMHO they shouldn't have, since they had no real experience.) Was all the money on equipment rentals? They certainly didn't get $12,000 worth of production value out of it.

I'm not saying all charity work should be done for free. Hell, one of my first professional gigs was doing a photo spread for the Salvation Army. (Shortly after, they hired me to produce a puff piece for an honoree of a big gala.) I got paid for both of those.

What I am saying is that for what they delivered, their cost should have been $0. Nobody's demanding a masterpiece, but for $12,000 they could have done much, much better.
 
it's for charity

166301_o.gif
 
So, why exactly does it look so cheap and amateurish while there are music videos made by unknowns with no budget that look pretty slick and cool?
 
Chris Adler said:
Every video doesn't have to be a masterpiece. They don't all require a professional crew, professional editors, colorists, and composers. To claim that this fund-raising music video should have spent more money and taken extra measures to raise the production quality is short-sighted and pretty mindless. Grow up and stop being so judgmental. It's doing exactly what it was designed to do-- raising money. It wouldn't raise more if they took ten times longer to produce it and made the budget ten times bigger. What WOULD happen is they would have missed their window of opportunity.
Click to expand...
Chris, please stop attacking people for expressing their opinion. Write something constructive. Tell us why you like the video and move the debate forward. Accusing people here of being mindless is just plain rude.

It strikes me you are confusing media strategy with creative execution. I've made lots of charity videos for little or no money. It's no excuse.
 
Last edited:
ugafan said:
if you fail to see how bad the video is, i encourage you with all my heart to continue making movies. being oblivious to how horrible something is the key to creating a masterpiece like "the room" or "birdemic".
Click to expand...

Has "Birdemic II" been released? I'm on the edge of my seat waiting here...

Just when you thought it was safe to troll Youtube....

 
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.
 
Last edited:
LOL, the discussions we see here. People getting butt hurt because others don't like a particular vid and have criticisms about it. Hilarious! This is a film-making forum, not a sewing circle.

And I am in the camp of it wasn't great. 12k for this? I have seen better student music videos made for much less.

Using the "purpose" of a video is no excuse for poor delivery. I.e.: "It's for a charity". You can definitely feel it was a rush job, with very little pre-production work.
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.
Click to expand...
I disagree completely, Chris. You improve the message by how it is packaged and delivered. And since this was for charity, wouldn't doing a better job on it been a priority? Yes, it was for a charity, but in my eyes, that makes this even worse because it felt like the production-aspect was not taken seriously. Like someone said, "Hey, we got to do something for this charity.....let's just slap something together and get it over with as soon as possible".

And, yes, using "star-power" made it doubly worse, because the perception I got was that it's was just the names involved that were supposed to make this a "high-value" production. Disappointing result because you could tell not much went into the film-making side of it.

Don't get me wrong....its great that they did it for charity and to raise money for them. But this is a film-making site.....we critique......well.......films. Not charities or the reasons people make films.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top