Will Turner
Well-known member
Sound is no1 in my opinion. You can have the best dialogue in the world but whats the point if it's hard to work out what they're saying?
YAyyyy:
- Thread starter mico
- Start date
Sound is no1 in my opinion. You can have the best dialogue in the world but whats the point if it's hard to work out what they're saying?
Jester2138
Well-known member
If it's no different from a regular Joe watching the film, why bother calling themselves "film critics?" Their whole job is based on the assumption that they are qualified to comment on films made by others. I believe the exact opposite. I believe that the very act of sitting and watching films day-in and day-out completely changes how you watch films. Here's the thing: I'm not making films for people who watch films every day. I'm making films for the regular Joe. So I don't care at all what some film critic on some blog says. The ONLY two things I care about are whether regular Joe's like my movie and whether I like my movie. If other filmmakers want to make films for film critics, fine - but I don't.
I would put sound very high up there - but not #1. Ever seen a picture-less movie? Not me, though I have seen silent films.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Okay here is why you sound naive saying some of this. First of all
- okay there are many types of film critic right? Some write in newspapers/the mainstream press etc, others are bloggers (among genre focussed or indie focussed websites) then you have the artsy critics (that write reviews in broadsheet papers... art magazines and luvies part of the festival scene etc.)
So none of them are important to your film? None of them are important for what they might contribute? So your horror movie gets a s*%t review on the biggest horror blog on the net - thats no problem is it? Because... you only make films for regular joes... so screw the critics...
but the mainstream critics are for the regular joes.... and the blogger crtics are for them + the fanboy regular joes (really important for a lot of indie genre flicks.)
I mean don't you get that?
Last edited:
Shawn Philip Nelson
Veteran
"Anything that gives broke would-be filmmakers the ability to make "real" movies is good. But the HD aesthetic isn't right for every story or for every storyteller."
I disagree. I think that the article completely misses the point. There is no "HD look", rather there is a prototypical way HD can look if you just expose properly and do nothing else other than maybe a color grade. This would be like bitching if everyone used the exact same Kodak Vision3 stock, everything would also be uniform.
The bigger problem is a big lack of people trying to really affect their image. I notice most indie filmmakers arent experimenting with things like
-filtration (Black Pro Mist, Classic Soft, White Frost, Antique Suede, Fog, Double Fog, Low Con, Chocolate, Tobacco...)
-Netting, rear and front
-Extreme focal lengths
-Antique imperfect glass
-Production design/art design/wardrobe
HD is the new film stock. Now layer on top of that your look. HD is merely a foundation.
I disagree. I think that the article completely misses the point. There is no "HD look", rather there is a prototypical way HD can look if you just expose properly and do nothing else other than maybe a color grade. This would be like bitching if everyone used the exact same Kodak Vision3 stock, everything would also be uniform.
The bigger problem is a big lack of people trying to really affect their image. I notice most indie filmmakers arent experimenting with things like
-filtration (Black Pro Mist, Classic Soft, White Frost, Antique Suede, Fog, Double Fog, Low Con, Chocolate, Tobacco...)
-Netting, rear and front
-Extreme focal lengths
-Antique imperfect glass
-Production design/art design/wardrobe
HD is the new film stock. Now layer on top of that your look. HD is merely a foundation.
Jester2138
Well-known member
Uh, yeah. Exactly. I'm here to tell stories to people. Where do critics enter that picture?
I won't like it if some big critic rates my film poorly and pre-emptively damages what commercial success the film might have had, but I don't give two sh**s about their actual opinion. I only care what my audiences think and critics are not my audience.
If I want feedback on the artistic merits of my film (beyond what the audience indicates) I'll go to people who I consider far more qualified to give that feedback - myself, my friends, and my personal mentors.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
There is no such thing as 'your' audience... There is 'thee' audience, that includes professional and amatuer critics with the power to effect 'the' potential audience who has not yet seen your film.
Also what is with the attitude against film critics, everyones a film critic now - from the supposed 'my audience' you presume loyalty from lol or the professional critic writing for a major site/paper. The only difference is that a prominent critic will have a readership of thousands - tens of thousands... (and the little critic - the every day joe on facebook may have oh... a 100 say maybe more... and their review will consist of 'x movie suckz' hehe.
Why wouldn't you want artistic feedback from people outside um... yourself... and your friends and your 'mentors.'
That sounds completely insane to me, it makes me picture a filmmaker with his hands over his ears going 'tralalalalaa nobodies gonna judge my work - **** em- i don't care iiiiim invincible' hehe...
I just fear for the day when your pet cat pookie and your nana gives you a bad review - what will you do then (go to Roger Ebert for a second opinion hehe?)
Also what is with the attitude against film critics, everyones a film critic now - from the supposed 'my audience' you presume loyalty from lol or the professional critic writing for a major site/paper. The only difference is that a prominent critic will have a readership of thousands - tens of thousands... (and the little critic - the every day joe on facebook may have oh... a 100 say maybe more... and their review will consist of 'x movie suckz' hehe.
Why wouldn't you want artistic feedback from people outside um... yourself... and your friends and your 'mentors.'
That sounds completely insane to me, it makes me picture a filmmaker with his hands over his ears going 'tralalalalaa nobodies gonna judge my work - **** em- i don't care iiiiim invincible' hehe...
I just fear for the day when your pet cat pookie and your nana gives you a bad review - what will you do then (go to Roger Ebert for a second opinion hehe?)
Jester2138
Well-known member
My audience is... the group of people I make films for. For example, I might make a film for teenagers, middle-aged men, college students, members of the military, residents of a particular city, pilots, swimmers, pre-teens, single-moms, or chimpanzees, to name a few. If I make a film meant for Louisianians, for example, and Louisianian's like it, I couldn't give a flying flip what Ebert thinks.
No, there's a difference between (as you stated) someone who calls himself an "expert" and writes for thousands or more and someone who never called himself/herself an "expert" and writes for a few dozen or hundred. The latter is who I care about more because they watch films with no pretenses and purely for their own enjoyment. They like it if they like it and they don't if they don't. Unlike film critics, they won't like a film more simply because it was shot in 16mm over HD or HD over 16mm.
I just won't go to film critics, or, for that matter, anyone who sits inside all day and watches one film after another.
I just fear for the day when your pet cat pookie and your nana gives you a bad review - what will you do then (go to Roger Ebert for a second opinion hehe?)
No, I'll make a better film. I would find my own grandmother criticizing my film FAR more devastating of a critique than an angry novella from Ebert...
Jester2138
Well-known member
Honestly, I find the general agreement with this blogger pretty ironic, coming from the site who's members keep saying over and over:
"It doesn't matter what you shoot it with, only that it's a good story and you're a good cinematographer."
Now, someone comes along saying more or less, "Guys shoot it on 16mm and it'll be better" and everyone's cheering him. I don't get it.
"It doesn't matter what you shoot it with, only that it's a good story and you're a good cinematographer."
Now, someone comes along saying more or less, "Guys shoot it on 16mm and it'll be better" and everyone's cheering him. I don't get it.
Egg Born Son
Veteran
I didn't read the article so much as saying that 16mm good/HD bad. More comparing the variety of looks in each format rather than a direct comparison of formats. The sameness of it all. Of course the same could be said of most the current big budget movies (the orange and teal debate comes to mind, convergance of cgi towards reality another blandness marker) and digital post is an obvious common factor there as well. Maybe its the easy access to tools that give you precise numerical measurements of every aspect of the process that is homogenising the production values. The same cause behind the music industry's trade from soul to slick. With pro-tools it's too easy and perhaps video contains the same trap (depending on your point of view of course).
Film being a physical process is going to result in a variety of looks whether you intend to or not, especially at the amateur level. Video production tends to go for only a handful of different looks and I haven't seen many attempts outside of them. You have video trying to look like video (found footage), video trying to look like film (most of us) and video trying to look hyper-real (those that can afford red etc). Can't really think of too many examples that look for a fourth option. My guess is that while the flaws of film can be exploited for artistic effect, the flaws of digital technology are unpleasant by their very nature and don't invite exploration. Or maybe there is just decades more experimentation to build on in film. My other thought is that the ease of technology invites a certain laziness. Copying scene files is a lot easier than dialling it in yourself. Not necessarily a bad thing - but is it freeing you up to devote attention to making better stories or just more stories?
The technology is an enabler to someone like myself. With a handful of dollars and a memory card full of Barry's hard work, I'm a lot closer to producing something for public consumption than I should be - a good thing? It seems like there's a lot less process of discovery involved in rising to amateur status. Like the reviewer, aesthetically I would like to see more film made at the indie level. But at the same time I have no intention of being the one to do it. It would be a fun experiment but the learning curve, cost and labour intensity don't gel for me and well, I'm not resisting the talkies! I am old enough to remember records though my collection is primarily CDs. And my nephew has never heard lossless music and doesn't miss it, mp3 is king. So it is a matter of time before noone misses 16mm, regardless of whether it actually has value or not. When I first got a digital tv I couldn't see past the pixels and the tv was too big for the room. Now I can't go back (or smaller!).
Film being a physical process is going to result in a variety of looks whether you intend to or not, especially at the amateur level. Video production tends to go for only a handful of different looks and I haven't seen many attempts outside of them. You have video trying to look like video (found footage), video trying to look like film (most of us) and video trying to look hyper-real (those that can afford red etc). Can't really think of too many examples that look for a fourth option. My guess is that while the flaws of film can be exploited for artistic effect, the flaws of digital technology are unpleasant by their very nature and don't invite exploration. Or maybe there is just decades more experimentation to build on in film. My other thought is that the ease of technology invites a certain laziness. Copying scene files is a lot easier than dialling it in yourself. Not necessarily a bad thing - but is it freeing you up to devote attention to making better stories or just more stories?
The technology is an enabler to someone like myself. With a handful of dollars and a memory card full of Barry's hard work, I'm a lot closer to producing something for public consumption than I should be - a good thing? It seems like there's a lot less process of discovery involved in rising to amateur status. Like the reviewer, aesthetically I would like to see more film made at the indie level. But at the same time I have no intention of being the one to do it. It would be a fun experiment but the learning curve, cost and labour intensity don't gel for me and well, I'm not resisting the talkies! I am old enough to remember records though my collection is primarily CDs. And my nephew has never heard lossless music and doesn't miss it, mp3 is king. So it is a matter of time before noone misses 16mm, regardless of whether it actually has value or not. When I first got a digital tv I couldn't see past the pixels and the tv was too big for the room. Now I can't go back (or smaller!).
It's not about 16mm vs digital. It is about visual blandness and bad cinematography, or at least lazy cinematography.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Exactly Razz! I mean jeez its so freaking obvious that I actually have to wonder for the sanity of a god responsible for creating those who seem so oblivious to that point that they actually miss it... Thanks for articulating it for those flopping around that point in wet fish confusion!
As for you Jester I reckon you occupy a magical film perspective on this issue of critique - its called la-la land! I don't think there is much more we can discuss! Just keeping my fingers crossed your gran gives your next movie 'film of the week' in her column
Jester2138
Well-known member
In regards to cinematography in general, I'd agree, but that's not what I got from the article. The author even started out by saying as soon as a 16mm film came on, he was relieved and liked it even though it was, in his own words, "ugly." He didn't mention the story, direction, or cinematographer at all - just that he liked it because it was 16mm.
Let's clean up the tone of this discourse, and stop making it about fellow posters.
Criticizing other participants here, name calling, and personal comments are not permitted in any direct or indirect form.
They end right now.
Familiarize yourself with the dvxuser.com guidelines for posting, and observe them.
"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor
First and only warning.
Criticizing other participants here, name calling, and personal comments are not permitted in any direct or indirect form.
They end right now.
Familiarize yourself with the dvxuser.com guidelines for posting, and observe them.
"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor
First and only warning.
I think he liked it because it looked different from the other films he saw. But I'm not sure that today's films are any more visually artless than films were when they were shot on filmstock. Plus the criticism that HD films tend to look alike, well, that's a gross overgeneralization. For the longest time, most larger-budget digitally acquired films were shot with cameras that had 2/3-inch imagers, with their attendant DOF characteristics. But many indie productions were shot on 1/3-inch cameras with nearly infinite DOF. Now many are shot on m4/3, APS-C/S35, or even FF35 -- from consumer 1/3-inch to VistaVision in just afew short years! These formats are all HD but have, in a gross sense (DOF), very different properties. Color correction and grading at the consumer level have all gotten more sophisticated. Sure there are trends ("I need a sensor the size of cookie sheet to get that wonderfully shallow DOF"), but I think what's being condemned as blandness could also be viewed as transparency.
Last edited: