Post 1 of 23
You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.
Post 1 of 23
Post 2 of 23
Post 3 of 23
Post 4 of 23
The second actor, Micheal, has long hair to which he (at first) refused to move out of his face. And, once I had the scene lit for Reese, and had done his shots, I didn't want to risk consistency of the scene by changing them for the actor Micheal.
Jazzmanian wrote:The camera work was pretty good, though the lighting in the living room was down a bit to the point of making it hard to pick everything out compared to the kitchen scene. (Of course that may have been intentional.) I'll confess, I really didn't get the humor portion of it discussed above, but that's probably just my own sense of humor (or lack thereof) showing.
Post 5 of 23
Is the joke not apparent to you, or does it just not appeal to you?Not apparent. If it didnt' appeal to me, I wouldn't have bothered commenting, since everyone's sense of humor is different. I understand the irony behind the situation. (It ties into an old line, "just because you're not paranoid, that doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.") And I got the fact that he *felt* like somebody was watching him, and in fact somebody *was* watching him. I just didn't get the humor from that. To each their own, though. Like I said, my sense of humor tends to run towards the dark so it's probably just me.
Post 6 of 23
Post 7 of 23
Post 8 of 23
Post 9 of 23
Post 10 of 23
Again, the editing and camerawork on here has no holes, yet we're seeing alot of 1's. Why? Surely the solid, good editing and camerawork account for more than 20% of a movie's rating, especially considering we're on an international, amateur filmmaking website where comedy may not hit everyone the right way.
Klut wrote:This wasn't good.
The filming and editing was good enough to make me give this movie a 1, but the rest of the film, I did not like at all.
It was boring, lame, and pretty meaningless.
And I thought you guys had started making good movies now...
Post 11 of 23
Post 12 of 23
Post 13 of 23
Don't be so pretentious. I'd hate to be the millionth person to say this, but not everyone thinks the same. Obviously, from the ratings, people beg to differ.
Ben wrote:The editing and camerawork on here has no holes, yet we're seeing alot of 1's.
Ben wrote:..When people take the time to make a movie, and frame the angles well, and edit it with proficiency and good comedic timing, I honestly don't think voting the second worst rating is fair...
Well, Ben, I think it seems Atom didn't take all the time in the world to make the great film you think this is. He took the time to make it, but doing it in 10 minutes isn't going to produce the best film here. The directing, framing, and editing is nothing special becuase... well, there's not much to work with.
Atom wrote:[This is] A quick little movie made in about 10 or so minutes
When you guys breathe down our necks waiting for a good response and we give you something you don't want, you complain. That makes us not want to vote on your films. Don't give me that crap.
Ben wrote:I'm not saying that we shouldn't vote on movies we don't like...
Post 14 of 23
Post 15 of 23
Thanks, that's kind of the point. I don't think many people understand that.
ther2kglitch wrote:This movie was stupid as hell.
Post 16 of 23
Post 17 of 23
Post 18 of 23
Post 19 of 23
Post 20 of 23
Post 21 of 23
not all of our stuff at atomic is meant to be critiquedThen not all of it is worthy of posting, surely?
Post 22 of 23
Post 23 of 23