ah. good explanation. i've never thought of them to be multi-camera productions. actually, i've always assumed multi-camera productions are reality, soaps, sitcoms and live broadcast.
What makes a student film look like a student film?
- Thread starter Fahad
- Start date
ah. good explanation. i've never thought of them to be multi-camera productions. actually, i've always assumed multi-camera productions are reality, soaps, sitcoms and live broadcast.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Student / Amateur films
1. Compositions
Too many close ups. no sense of any world around us. Everything is a close up. Let the frame breathe.
2. Visual Language
No comprehension of the damn line. Zooming and dollying and pushes and pulls for no reason other than they can.
3. Sound
On locations sound sucks, no ambient sound added in post, no foley ... just some music.
4. Actors
Usually friends or even worse, horribly miscast talent. 20 year olds playing detectives or mobsters, girlfriends who can't act but are hot.
My thing with film is that you gotta have the following nailed
Talent
The second one notices an actor can't act. It's done. The audience is so removed from the film.
Sound
From the recorded talent, to room sound, to ADR, to ambient sound FX, to the score, to foley
Even the best DVXFEST winners lack this crucial ingredient. Sound is sooooooooooo underrated.
Everything else is even.
yes, even the story, and even the camera work (all things being equal)
I think of a film like Quarantine
Awesome sound
On par acting
The rest is reality shot camerawork and B Movie horror.
but it works wonderfully.
1. Compositions
Too many close ups. no sense of any world around us. Everything is a close up. Let the frame breathe.
2. Visual Language
No comprehension of the damn line. Zooming and dollying and pushes and pulls for no reason other than they can.
3. Sound
On locations sound sucks, no ambient sound added in post, no foley ... just some music.
4. Actors
Usually friends or even worse, horribly miscast talent. 20 year olds playing detectives or mobsters, girlfriends who can't act but are hot.
My thing with film is that you gotta have the following nailed
Talent
The second one notices an actor can't act. It's done. The audience is so removed from the film.
Sound
From the recorded talent, to room sound, to ADR, to ambient sound FX, to the score, to foley
Even the best DVXFEST winners lack this crucial ingredient. Sound is sooooooooooo underrated.
Everything else is even.
yes, even the story, and even the camera work (all things being equal)
I think of a film like Quarantine
Awesome sound
On par acting
The rest is reality shot camerawork and B Movie horror.
but it works wonderfully.
MSpencer
Well-known member
Not always a bad thing... Right?
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Ha
Not at all.
Not at all.
bruce southerland
Active member
Here's a list of some things that I think are usually missing in a student production(not
always though). The most important thing (since the story is everything) is the lack of a good story
with interesting/compelling characters that evoke some connection or emotion from the audience.
Good dialog is usually missing-dialog that seems real, that fits the character and propels
the story as well.
Directing-good framing/camera movement is usually missing. Also, the student director does not have the experience to "get" the performance out of the actors. They have not aquired the skills to communicate/manipulate what they need from the actors.(they're usually so caught up in the technical things, that this is usually ignored)
Lighting-Sometimes there is no one to light at all. The lighting person usually does not
understand the principles of lighting-and certainly does not understand the power of lighting to convey emotion.
Acting-actors with little or no experience, directed by a director with little or no experience.
All other technical depts.-lack of experience.
always though). The most important thing (since the story is everything) is the lack of a good story
with interesting/compelling characters that evoke some connection or emotion from the audience.
Good dialog is usually missing-dialog that seems real, that fits the character and propels
the story as well.
Directing-good framing/camera movement is usually missing. Also, the student director does not have the experience to "get" the performance out of the actors. They have not aquired the skills to communicate/manipulate what they need from the actors.(they're usually so caught up in the technical things, that this is usually ignored)
Lighting-Sometimes there is no one to light at all. The lighting person usually does not
understand the principles of lighting-and certainly does not understand the power of lighting to convey emotion.
Acting-actors with little or no experience, directed by a director with little or no experience.
All other technical depts.-lack of experience.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
If I had the chance to give any advice to student filmmakers, I would encourage them to take what they have, 20 something friends, parents with nice suburban tract homes and make a film about the drama of 20 something friends, who live in nice suburban tract homes. I think that if a student is using what they have, and being sincere, they can make a very good film, even with less than perfect technical expertise.
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
All I got to say is: Just because it's a "Student Film", don't blow it off just because of that.
The last 2 "Student Films" I worked, (one as a Producer, the other as tech advisor/armorer) were freaking amazing.
One of them is in the festival circuit and has been garnering some major awards and festival inclusions and has IMDB listing. The other (most recent) is set to hit the targeted festival at the beginning of next month. Extreme production value and assets involved in both.
Look, yesterday's definition of a student film is outdated.
The last 2 "Student Films" I worked, (one as a Producer, the other as tech advisor/armorer) were freaking amazing.
One of them is in the festival circuit and has been garnering some major awards and festival inclusions and has IMDB listing. The other (most recent) is set to hit the targeted festival at the beginning of next month. Extreme production value and assets involved in both.
Look, yesterday's definition of a student film is outdated.
i completely understand what you're saying. 'student film' is merely a generalization and conjures up a certain image in people's minds. but, yes, to be more accurate, the question should've been: 'what makes a bad student film look like a bad student film?'.
i only use 'student film' because most of them bring up a certain image in people's minds.
Drunk on the Moon
Carbonite Member
Complete lack of originality, boring static camera shots, a corny voice over by a nerd's voice, typical MUST HAVE GUNS in my student film, nothing with balls, nothing daring, conservative safe story, blah blah.
What you reckon?
What you reckon?
Drunk on the Moon
Carbonite Member
Then again like Doc Bernard said I''ve seen some pretty cool stuff by what you'd class as 'students'.
But to be honest, most student films I see I'm bored after 5 mins.........
But to be honest, most student films I see I'm bored after 5 mins.........
Drunk on the Moon
Carbonite Member
Actually, to be fair, about after 10 mins.
MSpencer
Well-known member
HAHA that is how it should go...
Pietro Impagliazzo
Well-known member
How can you even get past the first minute of bad sound and bad composited shots?
You sir have a high tolerance rate. :cheesy:
Even if it's not a multi-camera show the episode would still need to be written faster and the budget wouldn't be on par with a feature.
Even the best TV shows out there, the ones that don't look cheap in any way, is still quite easy to observe the schedule and cutting of costs here and there.
Paul Hudson
Vacuum Tube Member
I think it boils down to lack of meaningful life experiences, good and bad. These experience come from ones personal and professional life and when aged, stacked and combined it seasons film makers. This is something you can't buy from a camera store or a film school.
Doc, I don't think we're condemning "student films" as a genre. This is more about why the student films that do suck, suck. And certainly, many of these rookie mistakes go beyond true student films and pop-up in the efforts of first-time/wannabe film makers who aren't actually film students.
While quite a few items on the list are from lack of technical knowledge, or from lack of experience (both working and life), a lot of it has to do with those things that folks insist on including because they think said things are what will make them stand out as "talented" film makers. The reality is, everyone is doing it and it ends up blending into the crowd.
Shallow DOF is a perfect example of this: it's the Holy Grail of wannabe film makers who think that shooting everything shallow is what makes the film artistic.
Or how about the zolly (zoom/dolly)? Works great for an 80s teen angst film, or for a very tongue-in-cheek horror b-movie, not so much for other things. Though, I did use it in a boat commercial once...
Pietro Impagliazzo
Well-known member
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
Like others have said, a huge, huge issue in student films is audio.
To me, it is the single most obnoxious stamp of student filmocity. It's funny, we were actually talking about this in class tonight (first day of Fall).
You can easily get your hands on an "HD" camera; you can easily setup a tripod and shoot some people; you can easily throw shots together in an NLE. All of this might actually come out to look quite good, especially with a little practice.
But if the acquired audio is just complete crap - on-board camera mic, 8-bit, bad foley or lack of foley work - the film is crap.
Audio is the first thing a moviegoer digests. It happens instantly and is received instantly by our ears. A moving image, however, on a 40-foot screen, demands that the eyes move around somewhat to fully grasp what is in frame.
If the film opens with a beautiful establishing shot of a sunrise over a low-canopy valley, and we immediately hear the Doppler Effect of a jet passing overhead, the game is up, we know it's a student film, and our expectations are immediately set much lower.
As a student filmmaker, I found my biggest leap of success wasn't in writing better scripts, planning a better shot list, or strengthening my grip on Final Cut, but rather it was when I realized how good my audio sounded and how clean my soundtrack really was.
Audio just sucks you in a lot faster than video.
To me, it is the single most obnoxious stamp of student filmocity. It's funny, we were actually talking about this in class tonight (first day of Fall).
You can easily get your hands on an "HD" camera; you can easily setup a tripod and shoot some people; you can easily throw shots together in an NLE. All of this might actually come out to look quite good, especially with a little practice.
But if the acquired audio is just complete crap - on-board camera mic, 8-bit, bad foley or lack of foley work - the film is crap.
Audio is the first thing a moviegoer digests. It happens instantly and is received instantly by our ears. A moving image, however, on a 40-foot screen, demands that the eyes move around somewhat to fully grasp what is in frame.
If the film opens with a beautiful establishing shot of a sunrise over a low-canopy valley, and we immediately hear the Doppler Effect of a jet passing overhead, the game is up, we know it's a student film, and our expectations are immediately set much lower.
As a student filmmaker, I found my biggest leap of success wasn't in writing better scripts, planning a better shot list, or strengthening my grip on Final Cut, but rather it was when I realized how good my audio sounded and how clean my soundtrack really was.
Audio just sucks you in a lot faster than video.
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
jscottprice, I totally agree. And if the "leaders" on the student film realized how easy it is to get good sound....the quality of every "student" film would go up exponentially. Good sound is not that hard, if you understand the reqs. I have done sound going direct to camera, so having a plethora of gear is not a requirement. It all focuses on the boom op/sound engineer being given the same control as the Cam op. "No, let's do another take. We had an artifact halfway through" And giving that technician the same respect you give the cam-op. Look, I have been a cam-op on some pretty good stuff and a sound tech as well on others. Failing to give attention to both equally will end up biting you in the end. Good visuals/bad sound= Crap final product. (that's a period at the end)
Hey, people claim sound is half or more of the equation of a good film. Fail to give half or more to that aspect of production.........plan to fail. :thumbdown Fail to give visual the same attention as audio :thumbdown
Look you have two parts of the equation to a good "student film" Good Visual, and good sound. Fail in either area.......it's a waste of time, other than practicing for your next attempt.
Hey, people claim sound is half or more of the equation of a good film. Fail to give half or more to that aspect of production.........plan to fail. :thumbdown Fail to give visual the same attention as audio :thumbdown
Look you have two parts of the equation to a good "student film" Good Visual, and good sound. Fail in either area.......it's a waste of time, other than practicing for your next attempt.
Last edited:
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
Fahad, that is one of the things that just makes me scratch my head. Good sound is not that hard to get. It just takes training and....yes, intuition. Just like being a cam-op. Knowing where to go through-out the scene.
Sadly, most film-makers just focus on visual, then question why their film has only a handful of supporters. Shall I list examples from DVX alone? Sorry guys. About 75% of the films I review here.........have sound that sucks huge...well you get the idea (involves a large donkey). So, if you want to improve your chances, spend the same time and attention to detail on audio as you do on video. Damn, it's not THAT hard.
Most films....I can guarantee there is at least a 4:1 disparity between video and sound. and that's big mistake. If you truly believe sound and visual occupy the same space equally and work hand-in-hand, you would give audio the same time/respect/control you give visual. But.......ask yourself, "do you really consider sound as an integral part of the production?" Or just an add-on........... How did you act on set when dealing with sound/audio guys? ................. then realized in post "Oh shi#, if we could have only gotten what the boom op/mixer suggested"
How did you treat the cam-op in comparison to the boom op? Any different? If the answer is yes....you fail, big time in the film-maker test. Unless your film is a an MOS experiment.
Then.........you better be REALLY good on the visual. Most of the films I have seen here, well, sorry to all impacted by the following statement..... "they have a lot to be desired to keep my interest". Whether it is visual or audio, I consider myself to be an average viewer. I like Bay's stuff. I like Costner, Penn, Connery, Cruise, Travolta, Carpenter..... (what do they all have in common? Good sound)
Show me you are really trying to bring something to reality, you might get my interest. Not saying I am a wonder-boy in film. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am giving my opinion as somebody who goes to the movies when he sees something that interests him, but has no qualms about saying what others skirt around.
Too many film-makers give lip service to sound, but fail to back it up when it comes down to it. As a challenge, link me to what you think is "acceptable" for sound, using clips/shorts here on DVX.
Sadly, most film-makers just focus on visual, then question why their film has only a handful of supporters. Shall I list examples from DVX alone? Sorry guys. About 75% of the films I review here.........have sound that sucks huge...well you get the idea (involves a large donkey). So, if you want to improve your chances, spend the same time and attention to detail on audio as you do on video. Damn, it's not THAT hard.
Most films....I can guarantee there is at least a 4:1 disparity between video and sound. and that's big mistake. If you truly believe sound and visual occupy the same space equally and work hand-in-hand, you would give audio the same time/respect/control you give visual. But.......ask yourself, "do you really consider sound as an integral part of the production?" Or just an add-on........... How did you act on set when dealing with sound/audio guys? ................. then realized in post "Oh shi#, if we could have only gotten what the boom op/mixer suggested"
How did you treat the cam-op in comparison to the boom op? Any different? If the answer is yes....you fail, big time in the film-maker test. Unless your film is a an MOS experiment.
Then.........you better be REALLY good on the visual. Most of the films I have seen here, well, sorry to all impacted by the following statement..... "they have a lot to be desired to keep my interest". Whether it is visual or audio, I consider myself to be an average viewer. I like Bay's stuff. I like Costner, Penn, Connery, Cruise, Travolta, Carpenter..... (what do they all have in common? Good sound)
Show me you are really trying to bring something to reality, you might get my interest. Not saying I am a wonder-boy in film. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am giving my opinion as somebody who goes to the movies when he sees something that interests him, but has no qualms about saying what others skirt around.
Too many film-makers give lip service to sound, but fail to back it up when it comes down to it. As a challenge, link me to what you think is "acceptable" for sound, using clips/shorts here on DVX.
Last edited: