Luis Caffesse
Admin
John_Hudson said:
Here here!
Couldn't agree more.
:beer:
What makes a "Film?"
- Thread starter Future user
- Start date
Here here!
Couldn't agree more.
:beer:
Rick Meyer
Veteran
Its STORY ARC. STORY is the single most important part of the equation here, especially when you combine it with ARC.
Remember in 8th grade English class when the teacher would draw that pointy mountain on the chalkboard? On the lower left side was the Exposition, or intro to what story you are going to read or see. Then Rising action, which lead up to the Climax at the top of the mountain drawing. Then the Falling Action on the right hand slope of the mountain and finally the Denouement, or the resolution.
Thing is, each TYPE of storytelling follows its own set of story telling principals. But they all follow this STORY ARC model to some degree. Watch a sitcom. Nowadays, the characters introduce the episode's storyline before the first commercial break. The rest of the half hour is filled with all of the other elements in the Story Arc, but perhaps with less intensity because they gotta wrap it up in 22 minutes with commercials. In a half hour, the writers don't have nearly as much time to build to a gradual HUGE comedic payoff, like you might see in "There's Something about Mary" or "Wedding Crashers". Which is why a sitcom is usually filled with many funny situations and sharp one-liners, but the joke set-up/punchlines are in and out. A sitcom even contains a climax. It can be harder to spot than in a 2 hour feature film but it is definitely there.
Watch a made for tv dramatic movie and compare it to a feature film. They have many similarities, including STORY ARC. However, what sets these two molds apart are the limitations that must be catered to by made-for-tv movies. These movies need to have natural breaks in them so they can cut to a commercial. These movies are being shown on a non-theatrical TV in our living rooms, so sparkling imagery and brilliant cinematography gets lost in the mix. AND, these movies are essentially FREE to us. We decide to turn to that channel or not. Therefore, these movies are on extremely tight budgets. They can't throw 200 million dollars around to take us to fantastic locations or hire a huge special effects crew. So, the good made-for-tv movies, do the best they can with the constraints that they have to deal with. However, their STORY ARC, in a nut shell, is very similar to a dramatic feature film.
What's sad is that following common principals to good writing and storytelling seems simple. But as we ALL know, writing a good story is ANYTHING but easy.
Rick
Remember in 8th grade English class when the teacher would draw that pointy mountain on the chalkboard? On the lower left side was the Exposition, or intro to what story you are going to read or see. Then Rising action, which lead up to the Climax at the top of the mountain drawing. Then the Falling Action on the right hand slope of the mountain and finally the Denouement, or the resolution.
Thing is, each TYPE of storytelling follows its own set of story telling principals. But they all follow this STORY ARC model to some degree. Watch a sitcom. Nowadays, the characters introduce the episode's storyline before the first commercial break. The rest of the half hour is filled with all of the other elements in the Story Arc, but perhaps with less intensity because they gotta wrap it up in 22 minutes with commercials. In a half hour, the writers don't have nearly as much time to build to a gradual HUGE comedic payoff, like you might see in "There's Something about Mary" or "Wedding Crashers". Which is why a sitcom is usually filled with many funny situations and sharp one-liners, but the joke set-up/punchlines are in and out. A sitcom even contains a climax. It can be harder to spot than in a 2 hour feature film but it is definitely there.
Watch a made for tv dramatic movie and compare it to a feature film. They have many similarities, including STORY ARC. However, what sets these two molds apart are the limitations that must be catered to by made-for-tv movies. These movies need to have natural breaks in them so they can cut to a commercial. These movies are being shown on a non-theatrical TV in our living rooms, so sparkling imagery and brilliant cinematography gets lost in the mix. AND, these movies are essentially FREE to us. We decide to turn to that channel or not. Therefore, these movies are on extremely tight budgets. They can't throw 200 million dollars around to take us to fantastic locations or hire a huge special effects crew. So, the good made-for-tv movies, do the best they can with the constraints that they have to deal with. However, their STORY ARC, in a nut shell, is very similar to a dramatic feature film.
What's sad is that following common principals to good writing and storytelling seems simple. But as we ALL know, writing a good story is ANYTHING but easy.
Rick
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
It's not Story Arc. We're talking about what 'Makes film look like film'
We're talking about all things being equal; what is that tangible ingredient that makes a film FILM
We're talking about all things being equal; what is that tangible ingredient that makes a film FILM
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
It truly and simply is The five C's: camera angles, continuity, cutting, close-ups, and composition
The thing I have been trippin on lately is depth and the art of creating that kind of 3rd dimension within the frame.
It is not only lighting (more on that in a moment)
But it is creating depth:
Look at this classic drawing example. Look at the shades of dark and light, the highlight in the middle. Not just with light but in the manner you show the subject matter off; using perspective, using the right angle to create that depth............
Perspective by the way is probably the single greatest revelation in art (visual)
I think it's the same when composing shots; if shooting talent shouldnt we aim to create depth? Shooting just off frame so we reveal the actors entire face, but at an angle.
Now imagine using those principals (Which are rudimentary in example) but then learning the art of lighting. Look at these grabs; each kinf of have that APPLE DRAWING thin ggoing; the use of light (and shade) to create depth
The thing I have been trippin on lately is depth and the art of creating that kind of 3rd dimension within the frame.
It is not only lighting (more on that in a moment)
But it is creating depth:
Look at this classic drawing example. Look at the shades of dark and light, the highlight in the middle. Not just with light but in the manner you show the subject matter off; using perspective, using the right angle to create that depth............
Perspective by the way is probably the single greatest revelation in art (visual)
I think it's the same when composing shots; if shooting talent shouldnt we aim to create depth? Shooting just off frame so we reveal the actors entire face, but at an angle.
Now imagine using those principals (Which are rudimentary in example) but then learning the art of lighting. Look at these grabs; each kinf of have that APPLE DRAWING thin ggoing; the use of light (and shade) to create depth
Rick Meyer
Veteran
John_Hudson said:
With all due respect, I'm gonna have to disagree. To me, cinema and all forms of visual story telling is based on the (albeit, hard to duplicate) but simple principals, of that story arc.
I think that the execution of this story arc, and how it is accomplished is the distinct differences that he is trying to pinpoint.
In my opinion, the execution is predicated by the story arc which in turn is determined by the delivery mode (tv, 1 hour show, feature length drama, documentary etc.); This completely dictates the story arc.
Composition, angles, crane shots...these are all beautiful aesthetics that are most often seen in a feature length film because the story arc (which is unencumbered by commercial breaks, budget) allow them to be there. It takes money to make a beautiful film. But, it mostly takes know-how. And you give 10 great directors the same script, you are going to get 10 very different movies (which is why I love the BMW series).
Its not a crane shot that makes a film a film. It takes a good director to make a film. And he in turn, may or may not use the crane shot afterall.
Kirk Gillock
Rebel with a cause
John - Where do you find the time to do all this stuff? You actually make visual examples to support your theories. 
People would normally think that you got 13,000 posts by posting nothing but smilies. But, the post above proves the contrary. You are a huge asset to this site. (For the record, I did say "assET".)
People would normally think that you got 13,000 posts by posting nothing but smilies. But, the post above proves the contrary. You are a huge asset to this site. (For the record, I did say "assET".)
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
PK Gillock said:John - Where do you find the time to do all this stuff? You actually make visual examples to support your theories.
assET?
Like an ass-alien? LOL Tks PK! (I move quickly on a keyboard)
rlm7189
Content is King.
But are we not talking about the visual key? Are we not talking about what is it that makes one thing look and feel like a film and another resemble nothing of the sort?
I think we are; so Story Arc is'nt going to do it in this conversation.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Lmao!
Rick Meyer
Veteran
John_Hudson said:
All right, All right. I see. I stand corrected.
If we are strictly trying to isolate what looks "cinematic" then I would have to agree with you about the 5 C's. So, yes, if you take everything out of the equation, pertaining to budget, and type of narrative, then yes, films do lend themselves to utilize the 5 C's that we associate with having a "film-look".
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
In my opinion, here's the short answer:
TV: (35mm film)
Shooting schedule: 6-8 days per episode (one-hour drama)
FEWER vehicle/dolly/crane/Steadicam shots than feature films.
Feature Film (35mm film):
Shooting schedule: 30-90+ days
MORE vehicle/dolly/crane/Steadicam shots than TV.
The main difference is time/budget. Complex vehicle rigging, dolly track set-up, large Technocrane blocking, and long, complicated Steadicam shots (because you tend to see more set in a Steadicam shot, requiring more set dressing, background extras, etc.)--all these types of shots require far more set-up time and more resources from every department (camera, grip, electric, etc.).
TV: (35mm film)
Shooting schedule: 6-8 days per episode (one-hour drama)
FEWER vehicle/dolly/crane/Steadicam shots than feature films.
Feature Film (35mm film):
Shooting schedule: 30-90+ days
MORE vehicle/dolly/crane/Steadicam shots than TV.
The main difference is time/budget. Complex vehicle rigging, dolly track set-up, large Technocrane blocking, and long, complicated Steadicam shots (because you tend to see more set in a Steadicam shot, requiring more set dressing, background extras, etc.)--all these types of shots require far more set-up time and more resources from every department (camera, grip, electric, etc.).
Rick Meyer
Veteran
NBCshooter said:
That's exactly what I have been trying to say. However, I believe the time and budget constraints are determined by the medium, which goes hand in hand with the story or story arc.
However, I think John was pointing out that if all things being equal, WHAT is the almost intangible thing that makes a film look like a film and not a TV show? Not, WHY are things shot the way they are shot, which ultimately effects what makes something look like TV or film. Its confusing I know. It took me 3 posts to get it. Personally, I think we are all right but are just attacking the same question differently.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I have noticed that using aspect ratio's other than Academy lend a start to the equation. The leaner the better (2:40:1)
Can we agree?
Number 1
Widescreen Aspect Ratio
Can we agree?
Number 1
Widescreen Aspect Ratio
Rick Meyer
Veteran
I'll buy that.
But, I would also like to present that "looking like FILM" and "looking cinematic" are two seperate things. Take for example Fahrenheit 9/11 and STAR WARS: Return of the SITH. They were both shot on the same SONY HDC-F950.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is definitely a film; this contains a film structure. However, it does NOT look cinematic.
So what is it about these two visual styles of these two movie makers that seperates the two film LOOKS?
But, I would also like to present that "looking like FILM" and "looking cinematic" are two seperate things. Take for example Fahrenheit 9/11 and STAR WARS: Return of the SITH. They were both shot on the same SONY HDC-F950.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is definitely a film; this contains a film structure. However, it does NOT look cinematic.
So what is it about these two visual styles of these two movie makers that seperates the two film LOOKS?
Beat Takeshi
Two-Hip Shakur
One thing that hasnt been mentioned here is post-production. I think the number one thing that make a film look like its filmic and epic is that the color grading and whatever else is applied is top notch in a film for theatre release.
If you have ever watched raw footage it looks just as cheesy as any made for TV thing but after the post house finishes it looks amazingly sweet. If you watch the behind the scenes of Men in Black there is a section that shows how they did the car in the tunnel scene. The raw footage looks like ass but after they do the over lay of the finished footage you cant believe its the same. Of course after the ADR has been put in the scene feels even more real but just the color grading made a 100% difference. That was my apiphany.
I think it was Catwoman but I saw a film recently that looked like a music video the whole way through and it was so distracting and thats all i thought through out the movie. Thats another reason I think color grading is the number one element that makes up feel like we are in something big. Then comes music...
If you have ever watched raw footage it looks just as cheesy as any made for TV thing but after the post house finishes it looks amazingly sweet. If you watch the behind the scenes of Men in Black there is a section that shows how they did the car in the tunnel scene. The raw footage looks like ass but after they do the over lay of the finished footage you cant believe its the same. Of course after the ADR has been put in the scene feels even more real but just the color grading made a 100% difference. That was my apiphany.
I think it was Catwoman but I saw a film recently that looked like a music video the whole way through and it was so distracting and thats all i thought through out the movie. Thats another reason I think color grading is the number one element that makes up feel like we are in something big. Then comes music...
Future user
Well-known member
John, Rlm,
You are both on the right track here. My original question was meant to cover all aspects (hey PK I said ass-pects) of the cinematic and "film" look we all strive to achieve. Do freshman endeavors fall short of the mark because so often the acting is not up to the standards of a Hollywood film? Is it the novice actor then who destroys the "cinematic" feel? Or is it the arc? Do we, as writer/ director/ producer/ camera/ etc. miss the tempo and the pacing in our attempts to "make a movie" but not one almost two hours in length? John describes the technical art of lighting and composition. Is this element the key to creating the experience you shell out 8 bucks for at the local cineplex?
In the project I did camera on we wound up with shots looking like everything from 50's movies to someone's home video. I think it had as much to do with everything we've discussed (lighting, composition, acting, etc) as it did with the camera. But what I am looking for may be as simple as what someone stated in the reply about shooting on film.
So, is it possible to achieve the cinematic/ film look, feel, experience using the dvx (or any other video) camera. And if so, what is/ are the ingredients?
And as Aram mentioned, what is the overall imapct of music?
How much of our experience comes from the soundtrack?
Thoughts on sound anyone? Is it not also part of the "movie magic?'
You are both on the right track here. My original question was meant to cover all aspects (hey PK I said ass-pects) of the cinematic and "film" look we all strive to achieve. Do freshman endeavors fall short of the mark because so often the acting is not up to the standards of a Hollywood film? Is it the novice actor then who destroys the "cinematic" feel? Or is it the arc? Do we, as writer/ director/ producer/ camera/ etc. miss the tempo and the pacing in our attempts to "make a movie" but not one almost two hours in length? John describes the technical art of lighting and composition. Is this element the key to creating the experience you shell out 8 bucks for at the local cineplex?
In the project I did camera on we wound up with shots looking like everything from 50's movies to someone's home video. I think it had as much to do with everything we've discussed (lighting, composition, acting, etc) as it did with the camera. But what I am looking for may be as simple as what someone stated in the reply about shooting on film.
So, is it possible to achieve the cinematic/ film look, feel, experience using the dvx (or any other video) camera. And if so, what is/ are the ingredients?
And as Aram mentioned, what is the overall imapct of music?
How much of our experience comes from the soundtrack?
Thoughts on sound anyone? Is it not also part of the "movie magic?'
Rick Meyer
Veteran
Sound is huge. HUGE. I can sit through an old movie with horrible visual quality but if the sound is okay, I'll watch it. However, if the image is perfect, but the sound is garbled, I am DEFINITELY flicking the channel.