You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Pain Killer TRAILER

Posted: Fri, 28th Jul 2006, 9:11am

Post 1 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

This is the trailer for our upcoming movie Pain Killer, which just got selected to play at the prestigious Sitges Film Festival in Spain in October. The film should be completed end of August.

The film is extremely violent and pretty intense. This is reflected to a lesser degree in the trailer. We strongly recommend only adult viewing.

For more information, please visit www.painkiller-movie.com

WARNING FROM THE MODERATORS: As JC says, this is a pretty extreme trailer for a very extreme movie. The trailer contains nudity, violence and strong language. If you are likely to be offended.....simply don't download it.


More Info
Posted: Fri, 28th Jul 2006, 10:26am

Post 2 of 78

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

While i don't necessarily like these kinds of film, i respect anyone bloody-minded enough to make one.

From the trailer alone, this looks gratuitously gratuitous (theres a sound-bite for the poster!) and although theres bound to be many who don't like this, I suppose there are always going to be some who this appeals to perfectly.

Within purely the FXHome spectrum of films, i suppose it is quite refreshing to see something shocking. Something with some serious meat (pun intended) to it. The last film i remember which made me think "Oh thank christ, FXHome does has some balls" was Feast Of Friends. This goes considerably further, but its still quite liberating to see films like this in what is otherwise quite a benign community.

Aside from the content, plot and violence though, I was a little puzzled by some of the post production work which seemed just not very good; or rather - way below the standard I'd come to expect from you. But then this trailer also confuses me because I'm lead to assume everything that comes from you is deliberately how it is - so is this film deliberately meant to be Bad Taste like in its production values? I can't really work it out.

Muzzle flashes look slapped on, sound effects lack any ambience or environmental blending. Some of the interior shots seem bizarrely lit. Also, all the shots used in the trailer feel incredibly chlostrophobic and tight - theres just no relenting. Of course thats possibly/probably deliberate, the problem is that it means theres also no variety, its simply uninteresting. But again, my opinions are as much a symptom of my disinterest in this genre as much as anything else.
I'm not such a fan of the grading either to be honest - to a layman such as myself, this seems similarly graded to the Nightcast teaser - everything has a dreamy, blurry sheen. I'm not sure its appropriate for a hard-hitting movie such as this - but like i say, perhaps the pulp-gore-fest look is deliberate?

All in all, i'm sure its going to be entertaining - i'll be sure to watch the full movie.
Posted: Fri, 28th Jul 2006, 1:00pm

Post 3 of 78

Jazzmanian

Force: 765 | Joined: 3rd May 2006 | Posts: 719

CompositeLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

That was a rough experience. I don't know if I was extremely pleased or horribly frightened. biggrin Seriously, I vascillated back and forth between giving it a one or a five. I wound up at a four.

Slick and professional to the extreme, but I guess that's what we've come to expect from you as opposed to those of us fan level amateurs with beginner equipment, so maybe you get judged a bit more harshly. cool

Violent to the extreme, but you warned us of that ahead of time and there's certainly a place for this type of film in our culture. I happen to like them when they're well done. The film itself was quite slick. Personally, I liked the grading and it had a very gritty, threatening feel to it. If that's what you were going for, well done. The acting seemed quite good... not over the top but not amateur in any way.

The film work in the trailer all looked quite good to me, but the one thing that threw me off, John, were the title overlays. I just didn't like them and they seemed to put a kind of amateur tint on what was otherwise a really professional looking trailer. The "Hot Tina" and the "Best Bud" for example, made it look to me like somebody took a big budget, professionally shot film and let a film student do the titles. The font and appearance looked kind of faded and plain, clashing with the film it was supposed to be explaining or adding to, and the wording just seemed... I'm not sure what the word is, but they just felt below the level of the film.

But even for that, I still had to give it a four. I will definitely watch this movie if it becomes available in my area or pick it up on DVD. Keep us informed how it goes at the festival and when it gets released for public consumption!
Posted: Fri, 28th Jul 2006, 1:58pm

Post 4 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Thank you for your valid and strong comments. That's part of what makes this community great: we usually get good, honest feedback and it is a rarity.

This film is the first film I shot that I did not write. It is quite a departure from what I like to do - hence why I decided to do it. We need to try different things in life and do things that challenge us. While I do make violent films, they have usually a much lighter fare associated with them. I did inject some humor in the film and those who saw the whole cut were very thankful for it because it is otherwise quite oppressive and depressing. It deals with very dark, very disturbing subject matters and was very hard to edit, even for myself who shot it - I did camera work as well on the film.

We set out to do a vigilante film that would be realistic - at least in terms of the motivations. For somebody to go to the extremes described by stories/movies like the Punisher or DeathWish and so on, we felt that the crime the person had to be victim of had to be so horrendous, so vile as to drive them to the very brink of madness... We got our inspiration from our very own Quebec biker gangs, reputed to be the most vicious and feared in the world... Some of the situations depicted came straight from the news...

Xcession wrote"Muzzle flashes look slapped on"

Really? They look fine on my end. If you could give me a time code for the shot you deem most innapropriate, I'd really appreciate. I am wondering if it is not a compression issue.

"Also, all the shots used in the trailer feel incredibly chlostrophobic and tight - theres just no relenting."

This is indeed intentional. In the final film, through the editing and visuals, I try to make you feel like the character... It apparently succeeded quite a bit... But it is definitely not for everybody's taste.

"I'm not such a fan of the grading either to be honest - to a layman such as myself, this seems similarly graded to the Nightcast teaser - everything has a dreamy, blurry sheen."

It is partially intentional because I do have such a treatment in some scenes but not everywhere. It appears to be a compression problem as other people have commented on it before - it appears to be a PC issue. Did you view it on a PC or a Mac?

Jazzmanian wrote:

"fan level amateurs with beginner equipment, so maybe you get judged a bit more harshly."

That's fine. smile But it still was shot with consumer equipment - Panasonic DVX-100, Sony VX-2000 and so on...

"The acting seemed quite good... not over the top but not amateur in any way. "

I think we really lucked out with this one. Best acted film I've ever shot... I'm hopefully getting the hang of it... It is usually one of my weak points... I'm more of a technical person. I don't really know how to handle actors... Sollthar will tell you... LOL!

"The film work in the trailer all looked quite good to me, but the one thing that threw me off, John, were the title overlays."

Interesting. People either love them or hate them. There seems to be no middle ground ie indifference.

Interestingly enough, as er-no and I found out, I used the same font than he used for his film Project One.

Last edited Fri, 28th Jul 2006, 3:56pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 28th Jul 2006, 2:32pm

Post 5 of 78

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Yeah i viewed this on a PC. I'm aware that there are various gamma/brightness issues with mac codecs cross-platform, I suppose that could be it. I tried fiddling with the brightness/contrast settings, but the fuzziness is definitely in the shots themselves. To put it into less relative terms: the shots of his girlfriend, where its all bright and fuzzy and vaseline-on-lensey...thats how the entire teaser appears to me. None of the colour edges are crisp.

Having looked again for muzzle flashes, i could really find what i was talking about before. I think most of the problem was the sound effects for the guns and perhaps it made me think there were weakness issues with the muzzles themselves. I dunno.

One issue i didn't really raise before was the fonts in use. I'd agree they do seem out of place.

The problem is two-fold. That font itself is unreadable at the best of times even when its completely motionless razz The size of the font is also a problem because it fills too much of the screen too quickly as it expands. Having space either side of text helps people read (which is why newspapers use columns with few words per line.) At the moment, the expanding font fills too much of the screen too quickly and in combination with the specific font in use, its simply unreadable.

At the moment "To avenge his love" looks like it says "To avence his love" razz
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 2:01am

Post 6 of 78

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

This..well...Don't take this the wrong way, but this looks seriously crap. And here's why:

It looks like one of the lame, low budget 80's Action films in every way possible. Now apparently there was money involved, but I honestly can't tell very easily. And the music is terrible as well.



However, I can't objectively "Rate" this trailer due to the fact that I personally *Despise* films like this. So, my opinion is Irrelevant I suppose.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 3:02am

Post 7 of 78

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

I don't really know how to respond to this. I don't like a lot of blood in movies, but I'm going to try to be completely objective.

This was bad.

The editing was off, the pacing was too slow, and the cinematography was an extremely mixed bag. Many shots looked like you just turned on the camera and recorded what was happening, whereas some closeups were pretty well-framed.

It looked like you just threw in as many shots of someone shooting a gun as you could, and most of them looked overly cheesy and bad. As if you told your actors to move their hands up and down and make the say "BAM! BAM! BAM!". Not that they actually did that, but the gunmen in the trailer were so cheesy and over-dramaticized-looking that that could've been the case.

As for the grading, we see great coherence and good gamma in alot of shots and completely random gradient maps in others. I left myself thinking "why?" by the end of the video.

I'm in agreement with Bryce on this one: this looks like a direct-to-DVD movie made in Mexico for a low budget, ones I see all the time in the little shops around my neighborhood.

Sorry man, I know you've spent time and money on this, and you tried, but this really doesn't look good or interesting to me. Recon was superb-looking, this.........isn't.

Sorry. I'm not gonna rate this because I, objectively, can't.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 3:46am

Post 8 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

T It looks like one of the lame, low budget 80's Action films in every way possible.
Erm...

Maybe you kids are too young to get it, but that's EXACTLY the point.

This is a throwback/hommage to films like Death Wish, the Exterminator, pretty much the whole Cannon line of films...

They don't make these films anymore and that's what I grew up on watching... It is MEANT to look that way...

But all is fair in love and war and everybody is entitled to his opinions.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 5:01am

Post 9 of 78

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

JohnCarter wrote:

Bryce007 wrote:

T It looks like one of the lame, low budget 80's Action films in every way possible.
Erm...

Maybe you kids are too young to get it, but that's EXACTLY the point.

This is a throwback/hommage to films like Death Wish, the Exterminator, pretty much the whole Cannon line of films...It is MEANT to look that way...
This is such an amateur thing to say, really. That's how it's MEANT to be? That's fine if you are referring to certain nuances of the film, or similarities in style and angle, but not the film in it's entirety. If the Cannon line of films had crappy, inconsistent angles, sloppy editing, and horrid titles; does that mean it should be your excuse to do the same? Superman Returns brought-up several of the same lines of dialogue, similar angles, end-scene/beginning-scenes, and even the same titles as the 70s version! But, that doesn't mean it can't learn from it, nor still not be a faithful adaptation of that style or genre. I can MEAN to have an angle with the camera inside someone's pocket for 3 minutes, that doesn't mean that it's entertaining, nor does it mean I can use that fact as a scapegoat for poor technicals.

I grew up watching Ninja Turtles and the original Batman, but that doesn't mean if I revive them 10 years from now in my own way, that I should add ridiculous Prince music or rainbow-color grading to something intense, just because that's how it was when I grew up. Because it's MEANT to be that way.

All-in-all, I.........erm..............don't want to beat around the bush here.............hated this. The editing was sloppy, with poor timing on cuts, an almost nonexistant sound-design, and bad music choices. The cinematography was so-so; great in places, but then ruined by other shakey or otherwise off-camera angles. The grading......well, it seemed like a haze over the whole thing, much like early 70s sitcoms that had vibrant colors that were muted due to the overly-lit sets and low-quality color film of the time. Not to mention, for a DVX100, it really only shows a miniscule ammount. About half of the shots seemed to have either too much light, or a lack-there-of, and alot of them seemed a bad wash of grain or contrast, or under/over-exposed. Camera settings! smile

Again, like others said, I'm sure I have a huge bias because I dread this genre and have come to expect a better project from you.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 5:47am

Post 10 of 78

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I'm going to have to agree. This was really really bad.. The editing, shot selection, grading, titles, music were pretty much all negatives to me. Half the time you couldnt even tell who these peoples names were because they appeared so quickly and cut to the next.

And the whole "its meant to be like that before your time stuff" is wack. I dont understand why someone would purposefully intend to make a *poopy* looking film, its beyond me -- especially at a professional level. Though I havent really been a big fan of your trailers in general because they just look randomly slapped together to me for some reason. Who knows though, maybe the film is good but from the looks of the trailer, I really dont wanna take the time to find out. confused
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 6:16am

Post 11 of 78

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

Let me back up my statement a bit. The movie looks like it has good production value: The car blowing up, lots of guns, more than one or two actors, blood effects; but they add nothing to the teaser. Rather, they're thrown in gratuitously, as if whenever you couldn't find the right clip to add in, you just added in a shot of someone shooting/getting shot.

As for defending this as being an homage to an 80's movie- I think you've taken our comments the wrong way. We're not saying we don't like 80's style shoot-em-up movies and any movies that emulate them; we're saying we don't like movies that remind us of bad 80's shoot 'em up movies. It's a good reference because it describes a genre that was a dime a dozen back in that day. Maybe you're not understanding the reference, it's an allusion to technical merit and quality, not genre. If you MEANT to make your movie lame and look low budget, well........I guess you succeeded. But why would you wanna do that?

It must be a Canadian thing, I guess. Us Americans must not get it. smile
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 6:20am

Post 12 of 78

Defeto

Force: 0 | Joined: 10th Sep 2004 | Posts: 25

Member

Dude. Hi. What's up?

...BUT ENOUGH CHIT-CHAT..

This doesn't look like it justifies the budget spent making it.

Now, obviously I don't know what your budget was.
But getting actors, blowing up cars, having a bunchload of guns and filming it all with two kickass cameras...
...and these are only things i could tell from the trailer. I bet the final cut has a lot more money-consuming qualities..

The thing about this is that your RECON project looked a loooot better in all aspects... and I even like the PainKiller genre more than the Sci-fi one.

Nice to see some intense effort being put into a film and all...
But... I'm a man who believes that every new project should exceed the previous one in, preferably, more than 3 ways...

This one failed in that respect.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 6:26am

Post 13 of 78

SyroVision

Force: 2130 | Joined: 1st Dec 2005 | Posts: 478

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Alright guys lets all kool down...

This is FXHome, anything can be uploaded here, ANYTHING and this is 10x better than alot of the films on this site (no offence to anyone in specific).

The director set out to make a R18+ Kill Kill Kill Movie with Nudity and Guns... id say he pretty much pulled that off.

Regardless of your high and mighty opinions on action films, if nothing else they are a useful medium on wich to rate other films.

The trailer was overall very nice in my opinion, the effects were nicely inserted, the grading, gave it the dirty feel.

It looked like some money was spent on the production, but maybe a TAFE or UNI allowd you to use their equiptment, In anycase the cinematorgrphy was lacking.

Overall when editing a trailer you have to edit to the beat of the backing music, Unfortunatly the backing music was pretty average, it sounded more like a "Battle Ambience" from a computer game as opposed to trailer/movie score.

Overall a very decent effort.

Peace.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 6:31am

Post 14 of 78

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Alright guys lets all kool down...
... Nobody was gettin out of hand..... eh
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 9:11am

Post 15 of 78

b4uask30male

Force: 5619 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 3497

Windows User

Gold Member

Quality looks great as it should, it doesn't look like a no budget film, it does have a good production value.
I think JC has chosen a tricky subject matter to film and although not my type of film at all he seems to have all the right bits in the film.
I mentioned to JC when I first saw this that it reminded me of the old 80's low budget films (as recon did) and John was happy that I "got it" (being old enough to remember those)
But his downfall seems to be not everyone remembers those and if they did might not have liked them.
I admire the fact that JC says it's not even his type of film but it was something different to try, I really like that, he could have played it safe and stuck with what he knows best.

I wonder JC, would you make another of these films or no you have done it move away from this type.

Either way, JC is where I (and i'm sure a few of us) want to be, a little money to spend on the film, reliable cast and some hot girls. wink
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 11:23am

Post 16 of 78

Jazzmanian

Force: 765 | Joined: 3rd May 2006 | Posts: 719

CompositeLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +5

This shower of negative (and I must say, at least in some instances, rather rudely put) reviews, the majority of which seem to be posted by one group of filmmakers/friends, caused me to go back and see if I've missed something. For the most part I'm not seeing it, but it seems at least worth dragging this puppy out into the light for a close and objective look. It's not unusual for any two given people to see a film (or trailer) quite differently and review it as such, but when that happens I like very much to be able to understand the other person's perspective and perhaps see through their eyes exactly what it was that put them off. This can help me both in future reviews and in my own work. I didn't get that from most of these comments. The purpose here is not simply to provide a fair and balanced review of John's film, but also so all the members who review films in the cinema can pick up some possible tips on what they are looking for and rating when doing so.

First of all, when anyone posts a review that simply says the filmmakers effort was "seriously crap" and "lame" and then goes on to give no specifics as to why the film was bad, the review is of no use to anyone, least of all the filmmaker. One would assume that if you're going to take the time to provide a review, you would be offering suggestions for improvements so their next effort can be better. Also, while I come from a background of reviewing literature as opposed to film, one of the cardinal rules is to always provide some positive feedback in addition to constructive criticism. This demonstrates balance and an unbiased, honest appraisal.

As to the negative reviews which did make the effort to provide some specifics of negatives, I'd like to ask for further clarification so the rest of us can determine if we're seeing the same thing and how the film could have been improved.

ben3308 wrote:

you just threw in as many shots of someone shooting a gun as you could, and most of them looked overly cheesy and bad.

...whenever you couldn't find the right clip to add in, you just added in a shot of someone shooting/getting shot.
This came up at least twice, and I have to ask... were we watching the same trailer? While I don't have a timecode on my QuickTime player, I just went back and replayed the film again. From the progress bar, the trailer is 70% of the way through before the first gun is fired. There are nine short clips in total of somebody firing a weapon. (Ten if you count the shoulder mounted RPG shot, which I thought was very cool.) Then they stop and go back to non weapons shots. Given the total number of clips in the trailer, it's barely ten percent of the total run time. Besides, it's a bloody, gore filled action film with a lot of gun violence in it. You wouldn't include this in the trailer? And please expand on how they looked "cheesy" specifically? I didn't get that. They were clips from gun battles. Looked pretty realistic to me given the implied budget, etc. I have most certainly seen far, far, far worse here in the cinema in terms of muzzle flash effects, sound and usage.

crappy, inconsistent angles, sloppy editing, and horrid titles

The grading......well, it seemed like a haze over the whole thing, much like early 70s sitcoms...
As to the comments about the grading, cinematography and editing, again... could you provide a few specific scenes and what was wrong? I'm sure that they were hardly all perfect, but for the various scenes included (e.g. indoor dark and bright, outdoor daylight, night, etc.) they seemed to hint at a film where the look and feel of the film shifted with the scenes being portrayed. Some of the more intimate scenes had the soft, blurry angelic look you'd expect for that type of shot, while much of the gore, violence and action was graded harshly with a dark urgent feel. Then again, this is a trailer (more on that below) so it's hard to pull the trigger on criticizing that too harshly for me.

And the framing? Again, can you point to a few examples for us? I did see one that stood out for me which left me scratching my head. The shot where the motorcylcle is pulling out of the alley was at an odd angle with the bike starting dead center in frame and then heading out like it's going to crash into the upper left corner. But aside from that, the majority of the shots were either ones with multiple actors who had to be fitted into frame, or (the majority) closeups which tend to be near center anyway to draw the audience into an impact moment.

There were an awful lot of closeups in the trailer, but I didn't assign negative marks for that because I got the impression that John was trying to show the intense, violent, "in your face" nature of the subject matter to the audience. Trailers are tricky to evaluate in any case. You're only getting a smattering of frames out of what is presumably a much larger product. I doubt the entire film was shot in closeups. (Of course, if it is, the final film will be getting a rating of one star. twisted ) But without having seen the finished product that seems like a weak basis from which to hurl stones.

As to the editing, pacing and choice of segments shown, again I do not see the grounds for such virulent criticism. The trailer took us from an initial scene of horrid violence setting the stage for a revenge binge, flashing back to happier times of the protagonist with his "true love", (ugh...sorry, John, but I make myself barf just typing that phrase tard ) and on into the vendetta which presumably follows. Seemed to flow quite well to me, portraying the story line the film will follow, if I'm understanding the plot at all.

So, once again... for those who are critical of the technical merits of the trailer, can you point us to some specifics, what was that horribly bad about them and how they could be improved in future efforts please? I've read many reviews in this forum, both positive and negative, which reflect many points of view and I've never felt compelled to ask questions like this. But in this particular case, it seems almost as if there's some sort of bias in the background to provoke such an onslaught of naysayers with no help provided to explain exactly why they think the film iso completely worthless when I definitely didn't find it to be at that level. True, I didn't love it, the titles definitely put me off as already noted, and the genre doesn't really run to my preferred taste, but it hardly seems to merit that kind of venom.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 12:00pm

Post 17 of 78

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

SyroVision wrote:

The director set out to make a R18+ Kill Kill Kill Movie with Nudity and Guns... id say he pretty much pulled that off.
Agreed. While not my kind of thing at all, this trailer seems to capture the old 70s/80s exploitation flick sensibility near-perfectly.

I suspect Atom and Ben's understanding of 'lame, low-budget 80s action films' is rather different to some of the rest of us that are a little older. While they see those films as specifically bad, and worthless, there's a whole bunch of older people that actually love that stuff - and not in an 'ironic' way, either: they genuinely love it. Modern youth audiences need such throwback films to be ironic or tongue-in-cheek, winking at the audience. Painkiller clearly isn't going for that approach, instead taking its genre head-on.

This is a very specific genre movie for a very, very specific audience. Clearly there are people commenting in this thread who aren't part of that audience - which is totally fine. However, to dismiss the film so thoroughly (and, as Jazzmanian points out, rather rudely in places) when it seems to have achieved exactly what it set out to do seems a little short-sighted to me.

There are two types of films/filmmakers. One that makes films for themselves; the auteur, those that need to exercise that creative muscle and make stuff to satisfy their own desires. The other is designed specifically for the audience, whereby the filmmaker himself becomes less important. Painkiller quite clearly falls into the latter type, and I'd say fits the bill rather well. I can imagine a particular audience absolutely lapping it up.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 12:08pm

Post 18 of 78

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I did see one that stood out for me which left me scratching my head. The shot where the motorcylcle is pulling out of the alley was at an odd angle with the bike starting dead center in frame and then heading out like it's going to crash into the upper left corner.
Which is my personal favorite shot of the whole trailer. So much to looking at something objectively. wink


While I agree that Recon2 is a different level to me too and this trailers visual quality does vary quite a lot, I think many here miss the point.

This is clearly a B-Movie homage with everything a B movie needs and everything those 80s B movies had, the good and the bad. Cleary it's not something intended for a larger audience, but for a specific audience that loves these kind of gritty, bit campy films in that style. There's nothing wrong with that, even though once might disagree with that artistic choice, it's still an artistic choice.
Surely you could take a B movie concept and handle it like an A movie, but clearly, this wasn't the intention with this trailer, so why jumping on it? Because you would have handled it differently?

I for one am very interested in the film and seeing how the film itself is handled.

I have a very high personal respect for what JC does and deals with with on a daily basis to make his visions possible. Everyone handles his stuff in his own way, and JC is well aware of what he does and choses to do so - unless many other filmmakers out there.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 12:58pm

Post 19 of 78

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Yeah back in my school days i used to deliberately hire out films like this with my mates.

The kind of...well...to be honest, f*cking awful slashes style films where every line had been overwritten, with some implausible killer with implausible reasoning (or no reasoning at all), terrible acting, terrible plot, no pace, no nothing, no production values.

Films like Maniac Cop, with classic lines like "She thought......he was a f*cking COP!!!" (that was the fulcrum of the entire movie, by the way).

Painkiller isn't a horror like Maniac Cop is, but its just an example of a huge genre of films which my group of mates found pricelessly hilarious and brilliantly entertaining. You laughed AT the film. That was the point.

Obviously, by creating a film where you're designed to hate it but love it at the same time, you've got to do exactly what the film-makers back then did: genuinely believe that its superb, without realising its utter drivel. And this is the crux of the matter - For JC to do that, seems unlikely at best. You can't simply turn off years of experience and knowledge. I'd say he has done a good job of it though, although it'll never beat the traditional ones.

I'm loathed to jump on the bandwagon of saying the kids "just don't get it" so instead i'll say that i think Ben/Atom/etc are just unfamiliar with the motivations of a director with more years or experience and nostaligia behind them. They're only 13 or something, so no beef; I think its simply an age gap.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 1:10pm

Post 20 of 78

Jazzmanian

Force: 765 | Joined: 3rd May 2006 | Posts: 719

CompositeLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

You've all now made me flash back to the film I was trying to think of which this trailer reminds me of. Does anybody else remember a simply gut wrenching slasher B film from the (I think) eighties called "I Spit on Your Grave" ? biggrin

(No, John, that wasn't a dig at you. It just takes me back to the days of those twisted, B films.) cool
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 2:34pm

Post 21 of 78

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

I suspect Atom and Ben's understanding of 'lame, low-budget 80s action films' is rather different to some of the rest of us that are a little older.
"Lame 80's Action Film" was just what the term I used to equate the quality of this teaser. I don't mean slightly cheesy, throwback 80 action flick. I mean bad, poorly filmed, even poorly edited action movie that is so cheesy it reminds me of a bad 80's movie. It was a descriptive term, no more, no less.

Does nobody else really not see how the editing of this is sort of....thrown together? And the angles are off for several shots. I'm sorry, but saying "it's not a mistake, I meant to do it that way" is a pretty flimsy excuse.

I can take into account that I might not be old enough to understand the director's selection of the genre/themes, I even said I couldn't vote objectively, so I wouldn't. But bad technicals are glaring, even with the best of excuses. Many shots had too much haze, WAY too much. Gradient maps were random and all over the place, but this could be due to how frenetically shots were cut.

Jazzmanian: read my review again. I commend the grading, cinematography, and production values, as well as substantiating my gripes. I even apologized for how harsh I might've been at the end.

As for the guns, as soon as you reach the point where someone starts shooting a gun, EVERYONE starts shooting a gun. And if that wasn't bad enough, they lack any kind of power. The sound effects are weak, the muzzle flashes look poorly composited, and the actors holding the guns.......well I mentioned earlier how I felt they were acting in that particular scenario.

You say provide examples, okay, I will. The pacing of the trailer is bad. It's two minutes long, yet it fails to keep me interested. Some lines of dialogue can't be heard, I have to turn my volume up. The trailer doesn't know where it wants to go: it shows everyone, then says their name (cheesy, too fast), but then tries to shows us some of the story. The music choice is bad. The clips shown are uninteresting for the most part. The IS a car explosion, but it's one fish in an empty sea.

The cinematography lacks depth in many, many shots. The rule of thirds isn't observed in alot of the shots, and many others are off-keelter. I don't have the file downloaded on this computer, so I can't give you specifics, but from memory there were quite a few of those shots.

The grading lacks general contrast and color. Many shots are have a gradient map of color on them that doesn't belong at all, or two sucessive shots have such harsh differences is grading it doesn't look right. Almost every shot has a haze that look unmistakably amateurish as far as grading goes.

Justified enough for you?wink

Like I said, I'm sorry if I was harsh, I didn't mean to be in the slightest. Just my honest opinion, and I even said I woldn't rate something I couldn't completely relinquish my bias on.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 3:04pm

Post 22 of 78

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

The grading lacks general contrast
Hehe, this starts to become almost funny. smile



Grading something for Internet use or DVD/Cinema market are two entirely different things. I'm sure you'll learn that too someday once you grow older and get some experience on the subject.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 4:11pm

Post 23 of 78

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -2

Sollthar wrote:

The grading lacks general contrast
Grading something for Internet use or DVD/Cinema market are two entirely different things.
Then grade for the internet. Adding a small contrast tweaks to this should be nothing, hardly any work. C'mon, now.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 4:35pm

Post 24 of 78

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

The grading is bad flat out. Nothing looks consistent, its a constant rainbow of diff colors that you are looking at with almost every other shot. I'm not a big fan of that.

Example from the shot where the guy gets shot in the head with the arrow.. I can list the diff graded general colors with every shot afterwards until the 3 guys are in frame with the gun pointed at the cam at 00:57 with the pink overlay.

(Red, White, Orange/Black, Black&White, Orange, White, Dark Blue, Light Blue, Green, Green Green, Orange, Blue, Greenish Blue, Green Blue, Green Blue, Orange, Yellow, Green, Green Blue, Gray Green, Gray Green, Black White with yellow tint, Black White with yellow tint, Light Yellow, Pink....)

If my comments seemed rude then.. well.. I really dont know what to say. The guy is pro, he knows what he did right (or in my case -- wrong ). So I'm not going to baby him and say stuff that he should've fixed, especially if its what he meant to do. It would have helped a lil before downloading if he put something about "Homage 80's film" somethin on the details. Also, sometimes if you are going to homage something, you'd most usually make it a little bit better than it was originally. Otherwise, with a film like this, you would basically be making for yourself. And from a professional standpoint (unless you are loaded with cash already and dont need to make any money) is not smart.

Somethings that I dont understand and im starting to realize about this site though is that some people can go around and make posts that are negative towards a film and get called out for it.. and some can do so and not get called out for it. I really dont want to get into examples and specifics so I'm just going to leave what I say about that.. at that, because thats a diff topic.

All in all, the trailer did do it for me. It really looked like alot of beginner stuff that you see on this site (minus the adults, gore and boobs -- which who among us dont have a prob with) I look forward to your next project but this just doesnt do it for me.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 4:44pm

Post 25 of 78

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

CX3 already shot some arrows at things I was trying to get at, so I won't, but here's my Bible-long post anyway:

First off, I commend you, Jazzmanian, for bringing up needs for justification. It's a nice thing for someone to do, who didnt even make the movie, to request justification in a sea of mirky reviews. (Not only on mine or Ben's part, might I add) Okay, well here we go:

Jazzmanian wrote:

crappy, inconsistent angles, sloppy editing, and horrid titles The grading......well, it seemed like a haze over the whole thing, much like early 70s sitcoms...
As to the comments about the grading, cinematography and editing, again... could you provide a few specific scenes and what was wrong?
Sure, I would gladly do so.

-Grading:
It's hard to make a mark on the grading and give you specific timecode, because as I said, it's one way throughout all the shots (the low levels of contrast), and inconsistent in other regards. (the glow ammount, hue/saturation of shots is very random). 00:27 in, theres an overexposed shot of men throwing the lead into the river. The shot is almost completely lacking any color, which would be fine, but it's a harsh contrast to that of the shots before, which display vivid, vibrant reds. This causes an inconsistancy in the trailer's color. In addition to this, the shot does lack a necessary level of contrast. A good example of the right way this could have been graded is the NightCast trailer, 00:06 in, there's a very b&w-esque, glowy shot of Harry's arm. Even though the shot has little color and lots of glow, it retains a necessary contrast, keeping a still very fine, dark, black. 00:40 in, there are the necessary adjustments to keep the blacks black, but then, in another moment of inconsistency, 00:42 in, there is almost zero contrast, and a heavily obvious difference in color and tone of the grading. This is a rookie thing to do. One thing I, again, commended NightCast for was keeping consistency for shots color, saturation, glow, and contrast. (Hehe...contrast wink )

I'm sure that they were hardly all perfect, but for the various scenes included (e.g. indoor dark and bright, outdoor daylight, night, etc.) they seemed to hint at a film where the look and feel of the film shifted with the scenes being portrayed. Some of the more intimate scenes had the soft, blurry angelic look you'd expect for that type of shot, while much of the gore, violence and action was graded harshly with a dark urgent feel.
Read part above.

Then again, this is a trailer (more on that below) so it's hard to pull the trigger on criticizing that too harshly for me.
Exactly, and that's why I feel it's necessary to critique so harshly. The trailer should be a representation of the film, and include a variety of shots, etc. from the full movie. While I expect the movie to be considerably better than the trailer (hopefully wink ), I've grown to accept and even like JC's stuff's edge, and for me to see things that scream 'amateur' and lack that 'edge', it's

And the framing? Again, can you point to a few examples for us? I did see one that stood out for me which left me scratching my head. The shot where the motorcylcle is pulling out of the alley was at an odd angle with the bike starting dead center in frame and then heading out like it's going to crash into the upper left corner. But aside from that, the majority of the shots were either ones with multiple actors who had to be fitted into frame, or (the majority) closeups which tend to be near center anyway to draw the audience into an impact moment.
Framing-(Note, I'm not referring to camera settings or movement/cinematics here, only framing)
I don't want to get too into this, but I'll gladly point out a few.

-00:35 is framed oddly, the lead in the center-left of the screen, with either too much headroom or too little foot-room, whichever way you would want to frame the shot, it's just not right the way it is.
-00:46 had poor handheld movement, and is at an odd angle for looking downward. It feels very amateur.
-00:47, there's a ridiculous ammount of space above the seated characters head, and he's center-screen! Again, an amateur thing to do.
-00:54 looks like 'point-n-shoot', and feels thrown-in.
-00:57, all three characters are lined up, and the middle one is centered. Centering someone in that fashion, at that certain angle, like I said, is a rookie move.
-1:02 Again, bad baaaaad handheld. I can't tell what's going on.
-1:06. WTF? Poor handheld, blurry image, no understanding of what's going on.
-1:43, Aside from the laughable acting in this shot, it's a strange angle that seems like it's trying to show the whole character's body for some reason, and it looks very awkward.

There are a handful more, but I thought I'd point out the glaringly obvious ones I immediately spotted without pausing on the frame.-

There were an awful lot of closeups in the trailer, but I didn't assign negative marks for that because I got the impression that John was trying to show the intense, violent, "in your face" nature of the subject matter to the audience. Trailers are tricky to evaluate in any case. You're only getting a smattering of frames out of what is presumably a much larger product. I doubt the entire film was shot in closeups.
This is true, but then why show such closeups in the trailer if they look bad when incorporated, and aren't understandable? Let's also not forget camera settings such as white balance and exposure, which seem to have been forgotten in the majority of the shots. There's no real need to point out the timecode for these, because they occur throughout the entire thing.

As to the editing, pacing and choice of segments shown, again I do not see the grounds for such virulent criticism. The trailer took us from an initial scene of horrid violence setting the stage for a revenge binge, flashing back to happier times of the protagonist with his "true love", (ugh...sorry, John, but I make myself barf just typing that phrase tard ) and on into the vendetta which presumably follows. Seemed to flow quite well to me, portraying the story line the film will follow, if I'm understanding the plot at all.
This post is getting so ridiculously long, that I won't begin to address the editing, as I'm sure CX3 has by now.

Edit: Yep, this is just taking me so long to write, he had time to do so also. smile

Sollthar wrote:

The grading lacks general contrast
Hehe, this starts to become almost funny. smile
Why? Someone can be a fan of higher contrast, but that doesn't mean they require it to an extreme for anything they watch. Contrast is something that goes hand-in-hand with color correction. If there is a lack of contrast, that's not a matter of taste as far as grading, it's a matter of not correcting the footage as it should be. You having your color correcting tutorials yourself, I assume you would understand what I'm saying. There's a difference between contrast for style and preference (e.g. grading), and contrast to give the image the necessary correction to make the image look as good as possible. (e.g. color correction)

Grading something for Internet use or DVD/Cinema market are two entirely different things.
This is somewhat true, but still a rather lame excuse for a lack of attention to something that should be an obvious and easy fix. And, why should you grade something differently for internet or DVD/Cinema use? The grading, in any medium, should reflect the direction of the film and the style wanted by the director, DP, and/or editor. Now, I understand that their are differences in need for grading in the different formats, but that is no reason to use it as an excuse for something IMO missed on the trailers, and easy to fix.

But, you're right, I haven't been through enough in filmmaking to get a full view of different styles/techniques in grading.


Again, these are just my opinions on the thing, but I believe they do have some basis, as I am somewhat knowledgable of camera framing and grading.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 4:58pm

Post 26 of 78

Garrison

Force: 5404 | Joined: 9th Mar 2006 | Posts: 1530

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

My old man is a fan of Charles Bronson's Deathwish... all of them. he would probably like this flick JC. It is for a specific type of audience no doubt.

Xcession... Oh my God, I forgot about Maniac Cop... I saw all of those too. A guilty pleasure I must say. That guy has the hugest jaw in Hollywood.

I commend JC for trying something different and specific as this.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 5:47pm

Post 27 of 78

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Someone can be a fan of higher contrast, but that doesn't mean they require it to an extreme for anything they watch.
You certainly make it appear that way though. I think it's funny because it has become so predictable that sooner or later, Ben or Atom will come up and don't like the grading. And again, you did. So it's funny to me. smile

If there is a lack of contrast, that's not a matter of taste as far as grading, it's a matter of not correcting the footage as it should be.
This is where you're wrong.
You LIKE the ultra high edgy contrast you use in your movies. It's what you find visually stimulating. But it seems you don't grasp the concept that there's other visual styles then that, and they're as valid as yours. People have different concepts of what a good image should look like. There's no law to what an image SHOULD BE.

There's a difference between contrast for style and preference (e.g. grading), and contrast to give the image the necessary correction to make the image look as good as possible. (e.g. color correction)
One makes for "style and preference", so a completely subjective view... The other makes an image "look as good as possible"... A good looking image? Isn't that referring to a subjective view again?

Your idea of a good looking image is different to others, as said. You really really really like the high contrast thing your applying to pretty much all your movies and I say nothing against that, it's your style and I can respect it for it regardless if I like it better with less contrast or not. I'm only saying, maybe you should learn to so the same?

And contrast is something that comes down to so many factors... Ever tried watching the same film on 10 monitors, 10 TVs and 10 beamers on the spot? You'll find you will get 30 different images output, if they're not perfectly calibrated, which your standard PC monitor or TV simply isn't...
And have a look at schwars pictures he posted in the NightCast thread conserning the TMNT playback on PC's and Macs... it's mad...

still a rather lame excuse for a lack of attention to something that should be an obvious and easy fix.
It's not an excuse, neither is it something that needs "fixing", because it isn't broken or wrong.
It's an artistic decision which you can disagree with if you want, no problem. But you're trying to make your personal artistic preference and you're idea of what an image should be into an all objective rule that can and has to be applied to everything, and that's the part I smile at.
Because you entirely missed the point of those rules then.

why should you grade something differently for internet or DVD/Cinema use?
Shortly put? Because computer monitors, TV screens and images projected on to a screen, either by a beamer or a projector look differently and therefore, for a similar result, it needs to be graded differently.
Same way sounddesign intended for playback in a big cinema or from a small TV needs to be remixed differently. In some cases, entirely differently.

It's different medias, therefore, different rules apply to them.

But, you're right, I haven't been through enough in filmmaking to get a full view of different styles/techniques in grading.
Which is perfectly fine. I'm learning new things every day and I expect I will learn new things still when I have 50 years of experience behind me.
And whith all those "rules" that are out there, you'll find that a Pirates of the caribbean quote is very accurate to them: They're not rules, merely guidelines... wink

Again, these are just my opinions on the thing, but I believe they do have some basis
I didn't say they don't. I never said some of the critisism here isn't valid. But it's not the point. smile

as I am somewhat knowledgable of camera framing and grading.
Aren't we all? smile


This is aiming at a target audience that genuinly loves that kind of film - Probably the like the type that watches Michael Dudikoff, Dolph Lundgren, Charles Bronson and Cynthia Rothrock movies all over again not to laugh at them, but because they actually really like them. Obviously, you aren't part of this audience. Neither am I for that matter, but I can accept it for what it is, not for what I'd wish for it to be.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 8:41pm

Post 28 of 78

Wizard

Force: 5941 | Joined: 18th Jul 2003 | Posts: 555

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Rating: +2

I have had to delete the last two posts for this topic, as they have been direct displays of aggression towards certain individuals of this site, especially the last one. I would like to remind the two members who made the posts in question, and every one else, that this section of the forum is not here to facilitate a means to insult others.

While I appreciate your difference of opinions, and your right to voice them, I have to maintain that this is a forum for constructive advice/criticisms, for those who upload their movies. I also understand that the points of view discussed in this topic are rather important to some, and the statements of others regarding this can be frustrating.

I ask that everyone keep the purpose of this forum in mind. Although the posts have generally stayed on topic, the two I have had to delete are directed more towards two individuals, and have been motivated primarily by feelings of resentment, and do not pertain to this movie, and certainly do not contribute to the movie.

I am not implying that you are to simply not voice your opinion, however, when it is in regards to a single individual, which may serve to only hurt or offend them, and is quite possibly intended to do so, please reframe from posting.

If you feel that what you wish to post is of importance, and may serve to benefit the individual it is targeted at, but at the same time does not contribute to the community, or the topic at hand, please try to use the private message system. That is what it is intended for.

Let's keep this civil.
Wizard.
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 10:04pm

Post 29 of 78

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

Dolph Lundgren.
Hahaha. I was just about to PM you, equating my view of this to that of the 1989 "Punisher" film with Dolph. Oh, and don't get at me again Solly, or like Big D the commie said in Rocky IV


I will destroy you. wink

Wizard, PS, I was gone so I didn't catch them, but I was wondering about the deleted comments. Please PM me. smile
Posted: Sat, 29th Jul 2006, 11:03pm

Post 30 of 78

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

It's DOOOOOLPPHHHHH wink

I was actually watching the Lundgren Punisher film while I was in canada shooting Recon 2 with some people from the crew. It's fun, in some strange way. smile


Well, we've made our points, now it's time to leave and give room for the new comments.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 4:51am

Post 31 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Wow! You disappear for 20 hours of RECON editing and look what happens!

Jazzmanian wrote:

This shower of negative (and I must say, at least in some instances, rather rudely put) reviews, the majority of which seem to be posted by one group of filmmakers/friends, caused me to go back and see if I've missed something.
When we set out to do the movie, we knew that it wouldn't please everybody as it has a very narrow focus and is destined for a specific niche audience. When you put something out in the open, you are bound to get some licks. Par for the course. I dish it out as well - although I always try to explain why as I feel like Jazz about it: there is always something good - even small - in every work and the bad needs to be explained to be useful otherwise its even more useless than the piece you are trashing to begin with...

I feel a lot of the comments seem to be tainted by a personal distaste for the genre itself more than anything - I commend those honest enough to mention it. Of course, there are a few exceptions to that statement as some people seem to feel it's just bad for bad sake. Which is fine by me. It's definitely not for everyone's taste and for those for whom it doesn't do it for them, well too bad. Or good for you - depending on your angle. You can't please everybody - especially not with something like this and we knew it going in. There's seem to be also definitely an age gap which seems to be at play here. What can I say? It's not a kids movie: I tried to give a fair warning about the content - and it was also emphasized by the moderators.

However, some people seem to be talking out of their posterior in many respects... but I won't get into it for the sake of not adding fuel to the fire... In the end, it's just opinions and you know what they say about them and posteriors... wink

Some points are valid, some are ludicrous and some are just misunderstandings for lack of information - some of the stuff makes more sense probably after seeing the film. Some people get them, some don't... You can't take everybody by the hand. I don't like when things are spelled out for me - like in a lot of modern trailers where you know the whole story of the film, complete with all the main plot points before the trailer even ends... Sorry, that's not for me.

Jazzmanian wrote:

for the various scenes included (e.g. indoor dark and bright, outdoor daylight, night, etc.) they seemed to hint at a film where the look and feel of the film shifted with the scenes being portrayed.
That's right. Exactly. The film follows a man who gradually abuses more and more drugs throughout his revenge spree and the editing and grading is used to convey his internal turmoil.

Jazzmanian wrote:

There were an awful lot of closeups in the trailer, but I didn't assign negative marks for that because I got the impression that John was trying to show the intense, violent, "in your face" nature of the subject matter to the audience. I doubt the entire film was shot in closeups.
Right again. The film does use a lot of close-ups to bring up the tension and as you put it, "in your face" but yeah, there's medium and wides too... And everything else in between. But for a trailer, I felt CUs were more effective - and in some case less disturbing while being more effective in others...

Jazzmanian wrote:

The trailer took us from an initial scene of horrid violence setting the stage for a revenge binge, flashing back to happier times of the protagonist with his "true love", (ugh...sorry, John, but I make myself barf just typing that phrase tard ) and on into the vendetta which presumably follows. Seemed to flow quite well to me, portraying the story line the film will follow, if I'm understanding the plot at all.
That's it in a nutshell - of course there is a lot of nuances and details that you can't put in a trailer.

ben3308 wrote:

the muzzle flashes look poorly composited,
You really don't know what you are talking about most of the time ben3308... but I love your grandstanding...

Just to prove my point: For the record, 99% of the muzzle flashes in the trailer are REAL. Hard to screw the compositing on that, isn't it? Only 2 were composited usign Alam DV with my special patented ALAM Muzzle Flash technique... Hey! Apparently it fools even those who designed the software!

That's why I asked Xcession where he thought he saw the bad ones because the Alam ones are undistinguishable from the real ones... At least on my end - that's why I thought it might be a compression issue. When he looked back, he couldn't find them again (see his second post on page one).

CONTEST to further prove my point: I'll give 10 force points to anyone who can give me the exact time codes where those 2 composites are... Good luck!

Each film has its style. The RECONS have their own specific look and style of editing. Every single film I made, short and long, had a different style. PK is no different. PK is a trashy, in your face flick. We are reflecting that in its treatment...

As for the film school purists, too bad if you are offended, but the rules are made to be broken... At least after you understood them... which some of you are still in the process of (no shame in that) and are easily offended when they are shattered (also normal and par for the course).

However, in the end, I must say that I think I have the last laugh. Because if the movie was as bad as some of you seem to think, do you really think it would be selected to play at one of the most prestigious genre Film Festival in Europe where it will premiere alongside David Lynch's latest film as well as Guillermo Del Toro Pan's Labyrinth? I think not.

But what do I know? I just make crap films and bad trailers as somebody else pointed out on another board just this week... wink At least, I have a lot of fun doing them... And reading the comments they generate, good and bad. For some reason, no matter what I do, it creates a turmoil, either positive or negative. In the end, I just want to make movies. My movies.

Sorry for all the fuss.

Last edited Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:12am; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:07am

Post 32 of 78

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

JohnCarter wrote:



As for the film school purists, too bad if you are offended, but the rules are made to be broken... At least after you understood them... which some of you are still in the process of (no shame in that) and are easily offended when they are shattered (also normal and par for the course).
This to me is Hilarious. I recall back on a certain thread for a certain film of mine where you were all "RULES RULES RULES" and persistently berates us breaking them. This is definately a strange thing for you to say considering all the crap you gave "The Hit"..
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:14am

Post 33 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

JohnCarter wrote:



As for the film school purists, too bad if you are offended, but the rules are made to be broken... At least after you understood them... which some of you are still in the process of (no shame in that) and are easily offended when they are shattered (also normal and par for the course).
This to me is Hilarious. I recall back on a certain thread for a certain film of mine where you were all "RULES RULES RULES" and persistently berates us breaking them. This is definately a strange thing for you to say considering all the crap you gave "The Hit"..
Yeah, that's really funny because I don't remember giving your movie crap. I remember trying to give you a constructive criticism - pointing out good and bad and why - which your egomaniac editor took in stride. And I did it after you requested an "honest review" from me via PM.

If you don't like my reviews, why are you constantly pestering me for them via PMs as you did for your latest effort? Talk to me about double standards again...

There are rules that can't be broken and some that can.

The rules we broke in PK are for a reason and I did it because I understand the rules and why they are there.

You obviously haven't finish learning about them since you do not use them to your advantage in the Hit... or in your other efforts. Instead, they look like glaring errors - and we are talking about a finished film with everything in context, not just shots in a trailer. Again, double standards...

Then you wonder why I don't want to review your stuff anymore...

The Hit had strong points and very bad ones. Just like this trailer. Grow up. Learn to take criticism. You dish it out, take it too.

Last edited Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:23am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:23am

Post 34 of 78

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

particularly since The Hit wasn't my latest film that I put on the net...


Anyways john, I'm not trying to argue here or call into question your ability as a filmmaker. What I was trying to say is that you seem ok with saying you can ignore rules but have a double standard about it with other films. But, since you've said "Just like this trailer" at the end of your sentence, Then It's clear you Don't have that double standard. So, As much As I dislike films like this, It's obvious this wasn't targeted at people like myself, so I've got no issue with it.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:26am

Post 35 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Read properly what I am saying - I said that we beroke the rules for this PARTICULAR film in order to illustrate specific plot points ie the INNER TURMOIL of a demented, drugged out man on a revenge spree. We did it throughout the film at specific moments for story reasons.

You can't pass judgement without ahaving seen the film.

I am also not syaing that it is something I do in EVERY film... Especially not action films which are specially sensitive to editing rules in particular...

As for your feelings for thsi aprticular trailer, I commend you for your honesty in mentionning your state of mind in regards to these kind of films in your statement.

I am not looking for a fight - I just hate being quoted out of context...
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:28am

Post 36 of 78

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

JohnCarter wrote:

The Hit had strong points and very bad ones. Just like this trailer. Grow up.
You grow up. The Hit had VERY strong points and SOME bad ones. If it were in the cinema I GUARANTEE you it would be number one or number two. This trailer was about 90 percent bad and 10 percent good. I think since you've made this film, and have edited the actual WHOLE MOVIE, you're basing your defense off of that.

Think of this from our point of view: we're watching the TRAILER, which, no matter how much you contest it, is pretty subpar. Regardless of whether or not that's the 'style' of the movie, I think the trailer should play it straight enough to garner a more understanding, wider audience.

After all, I was drawn in by Kill Bill's trailer, but when I went to see it I left the movie theater after about 20 minutes. The style of the movie was obviously conveyed in the trailer, but the flawed aspects, IMO, were left out. That's wht you missed out on on this one. You know what the final movie is like. YOU made it. YOU know that it's good. But we don't. So when all you have to show for the whole movie is a below mediocre trailer, people are bound to criticize the movie directly. You say we can't pass judgement on this before we see the entire movie, but that's exactly my point. That's the PURPOSE of trailers, to help us determine whether or not we should see the movie.

If we're all judging this trailer objectively, it's still fare pretty poorly, because it doesn't do what trailers are meant to do: it doesn't draw the audience in and make them want to watch the movie. Rather, it does the opposite. I wanted to see PK, and I'm actually reconsidering seeing it from what I've seen in the trailer.

Next time realize what you've given to us isn't what you're defending, and perhaps we can have less arguing.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:32am

Post 37 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

YAWN.

Another one who doesn't read properly...

I'm not defending the trailer vs the film - merely saying that my rules point applies to the film - it's pretty hard to make a case for that in the trailer, isn't it? Or is it a feat of logic too hard for you to grasp?

Ben, this remains your opinion. I can pile up quotes of people who love the trailer too... From other boards and such...

To each is own. It's definitely not your style or taste so why do you keep bothering?

As for the Hit, I stated my opinion in the appropriate thread. I don't think it is as great as you think. Big deal. It's my opinion. Who's is more valid than the other? The answer: neither. Except for Bryce because it is his film. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.

What's subpar for you is genius to others and vice versa.

For me the Hit is a good flawed effort. For you, it's damn near perfect. Big deal. Grow up too.

Last edited Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:35am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:33am

Post 38 of 78

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

My main point is in the second and third paragraphs of my post. Reread, perhaps.

I'm merely saying that you're not realizing what people are naysaying. We're criticizing the trailer, not the movie. The movie may break/bend rules, and that's okay, but trailers that break standard trailer pacing/editing rules become uninteresting and ineffective in doing so. The editing and cinematography criticisms are in the context of the trailer, not the final movie, and from what I've seen you post, you're defending both those technical aspects for the movie.

I'm not trying to continually stress how bad this is, and I'm very sorry if you've taken it that way, I'm just saying maybe you're taking everyone's criticisms the wrong way.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:39am

Post 39 of 78

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

You can't pass judgement without ahaving seen the film.
Heh, I wish it worked like that.

EDIT:
However, in the end, I must say that I think I have the last laugh. Because if the movie was as bad as some of you seem to think, do you really think it would be selected to play at one of the most prestigious genre Film Festival in Europe where it will premiere alongside David Lynch's latest film as well as Guillermo Del Toro Pan's Labyrinth? I think not.
Ego check man...

Last edited Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:42am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:40am

Post 40 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Ben, the point I am trying to make is this:

For you it may be that:

"trailers that break standard trailer pacing/editing rules in uninteresting and ineffective."

For others, it is not. I happen to feel that it is appropriate for this particular film - the effect of which can be fully grasped in the film itself, of course.

Obviosuly, it doesn't rock your boat. But you are NOT my target audience...

People in that audience said (not on this board):

James: "That looks awesome and fucking violent. I can't wait to check it out. I dug the music, it's a great trailer."

Which pretty much goes against everything some of you have been saying...

CX3 wrote:

You can't pass judgement without ahaving seen the film.
Heh, I wish it worked like that.
Again, I am only referring to the specific point Bryce raised - which I thought was clear in my initial post - but I guess not...

Last edited Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 6:04am; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:44am

Post 41 of 78

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

CX3 wrote:
Quote:
You can't pass judgement without ahaving seen the film.


Heh, I wish it worked like that.


Again, I am referring to the particular point Bryce raised - which I thought was clear in my initial post - but I guess not...
I was being serious tho hah. I really wish it was like that.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:44am

Post 42 of 78

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

All I was trying to say was perhaps you could've made the trailer appeal to a wider audience than the whole movie does; that's generally the case with most professional movies.

I can see why you'd avoid this, though, for the sake of not misrepresenting your movie. You have a target audience, and you matched it. I get that. I just think maybe you could've tried to make your target larger.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:45am

Post 43 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

CX3 wrote:

I was being serious tho hah. I really wish it was like that.
In that case, wouldn't we all? wink

Things would be much easier that way, wouldn't they?

ben3308 wrote:

All I was trying to say was perhaps you could've made the trailer appeal to a wider audience than the whole movie does; that's generally the case with most professional movies.

I can see why you'd avoid this, though, for the sake of not misrepresenting your movie. You have a target audience, and you matched it. I get that. I just think maybe you could've tried to make your target larger.
Ok. Now I get what you mean.

Here's why we didn't widen our range:

Because there's lots of things in the film we couldn't have done for a wider audience which would have been going entirely against what we intended in the first place. That is for me the raison d'etre of independant filmmaking: making films you'd like to see - or that you know a specific audience would like to see but for which the mainstream doesn't cater to...

The film didn't cost that much to make - car explosions are much cheaper than one would imagine - but the only way it is going to made its money back is if its target audience wholly embraces it - if we dilute it for general market, we may not get the same results as we do not have big budget, big stars or anything else of interest for a general audience for that matter... wink Hence the general audience won't care and the target audience will be angry at getting pablum instead of Tabasco...


CX3 wrote:

EDIT:
However, in the end, I must say that I think I have the last laugh. Because if the movie was as bad as some of you seem to think, do you really think it would be selected to play at one of the most prestigious genre Film Festival in Europe where it will premiere alongside David Lynch's latest film as well as Guillermo Del Toro Pan's Labyrinth? I think not.
Ego check man...
And read the line right after:

"But what do I know? I just make crap films and bad trailers as somebody else pointed out on another board just this week... "

It's called self-deprecation. It is a form of humor.

And it was to make a point. Some people obviously do think the film is good enough to be played alongside much better directors than I am so someone obviously sees some value in the project regardless of how appalling it may seem to you - they requested the movie originally based on the trailer.

It all goes towards the same point: opinions vary wildly. They only mean something when they directly affect you or your bottom line.

If my target market hated it, I'd be worried. They don't so far. Hence it's all good.

It doesn't mean that the experience of posting it here is not valuable as some comments, wether negative or positive, were very good and will be implemented in a future version of the trailer.

Getting feedback from people who dislike is more important to me than people who do - those who do like the idea or trailer or film are already sold to a certain extent. The dislikers may have insight that can help widen the net a little - at least to reel in the mild dislikers. But from the same token, I do not want to misrepresent the film to its audience and try to target people who will not like the experience at all. That would not be fair to us or the audience. Period.

And that is my point. Thank you.

Last edited Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:49am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 7:57am

Post 44 of 78

miker

Force: 386 | Joined: 30th Jul 2005 | Posts: 651

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Well then...

First and foremost, this isn't a lame trailer. As stated before, it targeted a certain audience. I think you did a good job at appealing to THAT specific audience. Unfortunately, I wasn't a member of that audience sad. You obviously have the skill to create the "futuristic/now-a-day" (or..whatever genre that is!) type action flicks (from what I see in the RECON trailers) that appeal to a much larger audience. It's nice to step out of bounds every once in a while and make something different.

I applaud you for exploring a new area and creating a film like the classics you love. Personally, I love classic horror films, and hope to re-create similar type films in the future. I know some people will think they are boring..and slow..but I don't care! I love em! A great way of farting a fresh scent from the past smile. Exploring new genre's, and attempting to re-create the type of movies you grew up to is a blast! Only if more people would try it!

Hope to see somethin from you in the Action Contest!

Best regards,

miker.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 8:13am

Post 45 of 78

Defeto

Force: 0 | Joined: 10th Sep 2004 | Posts: 25

Member

So... will you ever put PK up in the cinema?
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 1:57pm

Post 46 of 78

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +6

I'm sure this isn't what the forum used to be like.

There are a few people (well mostly it's 2) who seem to be causing a lot of trouble around FXhome these days - far more than we are willing to allow.

If the complaints against these people continue then we'll simply have to remove them for the good of everyone else. They know who they are and we have talked to them before. Sort your attitudes or just go away - this is getting very boring now.

Everyone else please enjoy the forums.

Last edited Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 6:23pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 3:25pm

Post 47 of 78

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Hahaha. This is absolutely ridiculous, schwar!

Please don't delete this, because I would really like for everyone to see it. Please. This really bugs the crap outta me.

What is your deal, do you have some sort of severe aversion for us? I haven't said anything terribly wrong, and yet all my posts have been -1'd. Now, I don't particularly care about -1s, but still. I gave reasoning to my critique. When Jazzmanian wanted reasons, I took the time to point out the timecode. When Sollthar gave me a rebuttal on contrast, I accepted it and gave a friendly picture of Dolph. And, if things couldn't get any more ridiculous, you -1 that!

YAWN.
What about this? What about JC's remarks back. He's a full-grown man, we're teenagers. Obviously some unnecessary angst goes in there somewhere, but if you had slapped mine or Ben's name on half of JC's comments, or anyone elses posts for that matter, I have no doubt they'd be -1'd. I ended my comments on a neutral note, and it appears Ben did also. So in the end, it's you who brings them back up, instigates a further argument. I know you're the owner, the head guy, everything, and I'm sure people are afraid to come to our sides to point out this bias, because of it. But, that doesn't change the fact that this just isn't right.


I hope you don't delete this, because I do have a general statement in here for everyone.



JC, I'm sorry I mucked up your thread abit, but I was asked by someone in this very thread to give reason to my comments; and I went on to do so. Now I notice you have not commented back severely on them, as with Ben's or Bryce's, so I take they might've given some insight, or do not come off as a personal attack (as they shouldn't.) Granted I don't like hardly any aspect of it, but it's great that you got PK into such a prestigious festival, and I hope it does well.

Now, moving on, I feel like a maniac in a sea of sane people here:

Is it just us? Is it just me?!?! What about CX3's comment,

CX3 wrote:

The grading is bad flat out. Nothing looks consistent, its a constant rainbow of diff colors that you are looking at with almost every other shot. I'm not a big fan of that..
what about Bryce flat-out calling it terrible?!?!?

Bryce007 wrote:

this looks seriously crap. And here's why:
It looks like one of the lame, low budget 80's Action films in every way possible. Now apparently there was money involved, but I honestly can't tell very easily. And the music is terrible as well..
Now, I'm not trying to get them in trouble or anything, but this is so ridiculous, I feel like it should be in Peewee's Playhouse! Surely someone must see how ludacris this matter of bias is. You want to ban me, my brother? For what reason? Our two different brands of 'tude come around every once in a while, but it's no different than any other person's.

Last edited Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 3:53pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 3:50pm

Post 48 of 78

Jazzmanian

Force: 765 | Joined: 3rd May 2006 | Posts: 719

CompositeLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I somehow feel like I started this mess back in post number 16 which has spiraled out of control and really made a muckup out of John's cinema thread which should have remained a disucssion of the relative merits of his PK trailer. For this, I would like to apologize to the forum members.

In my own defense, (what little of it there may be) I never meant to imply that either John or his film were perfect or above valid criticism. There were things about it that didn't really suit my tastes either. It just seemed to me at the time that there were a number of comments being made which heavily implied some severe faults in the trailer which I couldn't see, and I felt that the forum owed it to John to expand and specify on said criticism so that it could be of value, with what I felt was a reasonable and non-confrontational request that we all keep the reviews in a positive, constructive tone. (And this really can be done, even if you think something is absolute shite.) But more to the point, I do enjoy reading other people's crticisms of films, when they are specific and technical in nature, so that I can then go back and look at the piece through another person's critical eye and maybe pick up some things which I wasn't experienced enough to suss out on the first go. (And believe it or not, with the follow-ups, that actually happend with some of Bryce's comments.) It's always about the learning experience for me.

In retrospect, I probably should have just commented on the trailer itself and kept my mouth shut about the rest.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 3:56pm

Post 49 of 78

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Obviously this isn't your fault, Jazz, but it's still a very commendable thing to do to try and take the heat for it. As I said earlier, in commenting on your initial post, I hope I gave you the precise technical critique you wanted, and the timecode, and specific grading angles. Like I said then, it's a commendable thing, but's it's still not your doing.

I'd hardly say it's mine, though, because it's really only one thing:
The big chaotic mix of everyone. That's life, and we can all learn and grow from it.

Again, JC, I hope PK does well at the festival. You know I've still got a place in my heart for Recon 2. wink
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 4:00pm

Post 50 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom, I did not take anything personally and I am not offended by anything that has been said - well, except to some extent by Bryce saying that I said crap about his film which isn't true. For the record, once and for all, he PM'ed asking for an honest opinion and that's what he got. Check the original thread if there is any doubt.

Some comments regarding the PK trailer are valid, some are not in the context of the final film which of course nobody else can judge until they see the film. But I am not going to shoot shots differently just for the trailer whereas I need them in others ways for the story itself.

As for Bryce's convenient distrorsion of my rules statement, I will state it clearly once and for all again: When you are editing, there are rules not to be broken unless it is for effect. Bryce's movie the Hit breaks all kinds of rules to NO effect. When you get no effect out of it, that's what's called a glaring mistake. And I guess that pointing them out to his editor got him all fired up, while Bryce while pretending at the time to be gracious about the whole thing was also offended by my criticism which he now calls saying crap about his film... Now as presented earlier, I broke some rules for PainKiller film for effect. I need some of those shots in the trailer to tell the basic story effectively. Now I am not going to shoot different versions of the same thing jut for the trailer in order to please a handful of film school purists on a message board... It's hard enough to shoot a feature in 12 days... I think clarity of the storyline takes precedence over any other consideration. But that's just me.

Also I find it hilarious that I am asked to keep my ego in check when obviously some people around here have obviously MUCH bigger ego issues than I do... Then again, that's just me.

And also for the record, I did not complain about any of you to anyone. Neither did I rate down anybody. When you put something up for public consumption, you are bound to get burned as well as incensed. I totally understand and respect that and old enough to handle it. The exchange, while bordering on ridiculous at times, had some value nevertheless.

Last edited Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 4:31pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 4:10pm

Post 51 of 78

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

And at that, I must point out:

You took Bryce's comments as offensive, yet I was criticized and rated down.

You take it to be ridiculous for CX3 to tell you to keep your ego in-check, yet Atom was criticized and rated down.

Seems JC only had a problem with certain things, and even at that, he's a grown man, he can take it. wink Anywho, I'm glad we can all resolve this. You brought up several valid, good points yourself JC, and I respect that you took the time to throw down another answer personally to someone in the thread. Oh, and I think I've found the muzzles:

00:57, and 1:36
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 4:13pm

Post 52 of 78

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Rating: +2

The common factor across FXHome, when threads get out of hand, is, more often than not, people being too blunt.

In this thread in particular, more than 2 people have been less than courteous with their replies/posts. However you look at it and whatever your motives, this isn't conducive to a good forum atmosphere. Everyone knows this.

For future reference across all threads, no one cares for insinuation, insults and bald-faced put-downs. No one wants to be told anything they do is bad either, whether its true or not and whether you're going to thinly veil that as "being honest" or not.

Theres just no excuse for the tone of some of the posts in this thread - on all sides - no one is a better person for "just being how i am" or "being honest" or "clearing up [something]" or "giving you what you asked for" if its done in a disrespectful manner.

"This sucks, its just bad, i hate this/the genre/you, and this film is sh*t" simply cannot be made "honest" or "respectiful" by adding disingenuous words of encouragement or neutrality elsewhere in the same post. I think in general people need to reply a little less rashly and take more time to formulate their replies and thoughts, tailoring their posts to the people on the receiving end.

Last edited Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 4:20pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 4:18pm

Post 53 of 78

Jazzmanian

Force: 765 | Joined: 3rd May 2006 | Posts: 719

CompositeLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Oh, I almost forgot! I wanted to enter John's contest too on the muzzle flashes! I think I'm going on absolutely zero technical reason for my guesses, but hell... I'll play. I'm going to guess the third gunfire clip (guy in dark glasses) and the fourth (girl rollong on floor and firing from her side.) I don't have the exact timecodes, sorry. My player isn't displaying that way.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 4:25pm

Post 54 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Jazzmanian wrote:

Oh, I almost forgot! I wanted to enter John's contest too on the muzzle flashes! I think I'm going on absolutely zero technical reason for my guesses, but hell... I'll play. I'm going to guess the third gunfire clip (guy in dark glasses) and the fourth (girl rollong on floor and firing from her side.) I don't have the exact timecodes, sorry. My player isn't displaying that way.
You got one right. One of the gunshots from the girl rolling on the floor is an Alam gun fire.

Ben, the one at 1:36 is indeed one of the fakes. But this one is obvious... The one at ;57 is a real one...

No force until somebody find the other one... First come, first served.

ben3308 wrote:

You took Bryce's comments as offensive, yet I was criticized and rated down.

You take it to be ridiculous for CX3 to tell you to keep your ego in-check, yet Atom was criticized and rated down.
And for the record, Ben I did not rate anybody down in this thread... Check with the mods if you don't believe me... But I could really care less...
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 4:47pm

Post 55 of 78

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

For future reference across all threads, no one cares for insinuation, insults and bald-faced put-downs. No one wants to be told anything they do is bad either, whether its true or not and whether you're going to thinly veil that as "being honest" or not.

Theres just no excuse for the tone of some of the posts in this thread - on all sides - no one is a better person for "just being how i am" or "being honest" or "clearing up [something]" or "giving you what you asked for" if its done in a disrespectful manner.

"This sucks, its just bad, i hate this/the genre/you, and this film is sh*t" simply cannot be made "honest" or "respectiful" by adding disingenuous words of encouragement or neutrality elsewhere in the same post. I think in general people need to reply a little less rashly and take more time to formulate their replies and thoughts, tailoring their posts to the people on the receiving end.
I'm sorry JC but I do have to say this..

Xcession, you need to take a very long look in the mirror when it comes to the mess you just posted. For someone to earn the Simon Cowell of fxhome title takes a little of what you were talking about not doing above. I could pull up countless bits of posts from you towards just films that we've done. "Awwww, you glued a little bit of something to your forehead! thats so cute!" - Daywalker
You need to practice what you preach man...

Once again JC, i never got to say that I do respect the fact that u have the kahunas to do a project like this. Obviously not my area but it happens. And after seeing the work you put on Recon its obvious that you did a lot of these "style mistakes" on purpose because we know you can make otherwise.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 4:52pm

Post 56 of 78

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Xcession, you need to take a very long look in the mirror when it comes to the mess you just posted. For someone to earn the Simon Cowell of fxhome title takes a little of what you were talking about not doing above.
How extremely right you are, CX3. I intend to practice what i preach. Will you though? For example was "mess" short for message? I'm not sure. Seems a risky abbreviation at best, if it is one, and if not its just rude - especially given the fragility of tempers in this thread as a whole.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 4:58pm

Post 57 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

CX3 wrote:

Obviously not my area but it happens.
And it is your absolute right.

Thanks for your comment and your understanding. It is appreciated.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:05pm

Post 58 of 78

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

was "mess" short for message?
Yeah.. it was...? ha
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:16pm

Post 59 of 78

Jazzmanian

Force: 765 | Joined: 3rd May 2006 | Posts: 719

CompositeLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

JohnCarter wrote:

You got one right. One of the gunshots from the girl rolling on the floor is an Alam gun fire.
Bah. And this is why I gave up playing the lotto. I haven't won anything since a sixth grade spelling bee.

Ah well. Honestly I had no clue which ones were Alam. I was just trying to glom some free force and figured I'd take a stab in the dark. wink
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:17pm

Post 60 of 78

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

Please don't delete this, because I would really like for everyone to see it. Please. This really bugs the crap outta me.
In that case I better reply so everyone can see...

In the history of FXhome (some 5 years now) the only people who have been complained about more than a handful of times are Atom and ben3308. To make matters worse we often get complaints about those guys several times a week!

Their tone and ego annoys so many people that the mods have asked for us to consider banning both of them on many occasions. Beyond that we've had tons of comment from regular users put off posting on the forum due to their attitudes and asking for both of them to be removed. This spoils FXhome.com

We've had just about enough of it to be honest as we have much more important things to do. We (FXhome and the mods) have contacted them about this many times now.

FXhome should be a friendly place where people can learn, if they do not accept this and constantly set about upsetting and annoying other people I don't think they are welcome to remain part of the community anymore.

Last edited Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:28pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:28pm

Post 61 of 78

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

Then I only wish that people will face myself and Ben face-to-face. We all have private messaging, not just the mods. Like I said several times before myself: I'm a reasonable person. You don't like what I say, my attitude at that, come talk to me. Don't stab me in the back.

If you had some ammount of compassion, I feel you wouldn't post this message here, but rather PM me. We all have them, as I've just said, and putting it here is like grandstanding the message "Everybody hates Ben and Atom!". It's purposeful and rude.

I put something up I want everyone to see, it's to make a point of something. I'm done with this matter, and really, seriously I apologize to those I offend in the greatest ammounts. But not you.

A grown man that runs a business should have better sense and class to throw something back in the same way a 17-year-old does.

Sorry everybody, I didn't mean for everything to get this out of hand. I've had my gripe, and I'm done.

JC, I wasn't ever referring to you about the -1s. I don't even think we ever had any back-and-forth talking. I made my case on the project, and you responded. Like I said before, I hope it does well.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 5:42pm

Post 62 of 78

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

I'm not at all sure what compassion has to do with this? You think I should show you sympathy because you have so little respect for this community that we've built?

If you had actually listened to the MANY private messages the mods and FXhome had sent you then we wouldn't be in this position. You are therefore wasting our time and as "a grown man that runs a business" thats going to annoy me and the other people who work for FXhome. I actually have better things to do with my Sundays than read emails and message from people who are upset with your conduct on the website. If people are having a lot of trouble with your posting style, and we warn you about this many times, we do expect you to do something about it.

We have asked you both privately many times to sort out the attitude - this hasn't happened. We are now asking you both publically to try and become a better members of the community. In the end I'm in no doubt you both have a lot to give to the community and a lot to learn from it. If we can just work out a better way to communicate then I'm sure things can be better for everyone.

Last edited Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 6:03pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 6:01pm

Post 63 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

JC, I wasn't ever referring to you about the -1s. I don't even think we ever had any back-and-forth talking. I made my case on the project, and you responded. Like I said before, I hope it does well.
And I wasn't referring to you about it either. But your brother seems to think otherwise:

ben3308 wrote:

And at that, I must point out:
You took Bryce's comments as offensive, yet I was criticized and rated down.

You take it to be ridiculous for CX3 to tell you to keep your ego in-check, yet Atom was criticized and rated down.
Thanks for your well wishes. As you said, you said your piece and I answered and as far as I am concerned, that's all there is to it. Really.

Now if new people have comments about the trailer, good or bad, you are welcome.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 6:18pm

Post 64 of 78

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +3

I suggest we leave this for a discussion via PM first of all, this thread is really getting a bit out of hand and we don't wish for people to comment on the matter that aren't directly involved in it or make them feel they need to take either side of the argument.


Schwar has made his point public now and all of us mods stand behind him. This is a business site most of all and the fxhome team has more important things to do then sort out private battles.
Be ensured everyone involved is absolutely willing to try to solve this in a polite and fair matter if possible - if not, it will be solved authoritarian with the whole team of fxhome staff and mods behind the decision.


The rest will be discussed in private.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 6:40pm

Post 65 of 78

Defeto

Force: 0 | Joined: 10th Sep 2004 | Posts: 25

Member

ehm... So...will...PK be put up in the cinema?

My question got stepped on by all these speeches, it didn't really get answered.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 6:43pm

Post 66 of 78

Jazzmanian

Force: 765 | Joined: 3rd May 2006 | Posts: 719

CompositeLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Not to be the one to drag this discussion back... you know... on topic or anything, cool but I had another question for John which came to mind when I went back to review the trailer for the muzzle flashes and other items under discussion previously. Around 65% of the way through the trailer, there's a scene which comes right after the title "To Avenge His Love" where the (I presume) protagonist is kissing his girlfriend. This is one of those shots I referred to previously as having been graded in a kind of soft, bright, dream tone. The more I look at it though, I'm trying to figure out how you got there. Could you describe how that shot was done? Are the actors in front of a greenscreen and you composted them in front of that glaring light, or are they just backlit very strongly? (The edges around the girl's face for some reason look just a little softened and dampened when I freeze it, almost as if it was keyed.) And the lighting from the camera side appears to have been a softer, warmer glow type lighting which affects all of the girl, and the guy's face, but his chest looks a bit more in shadow. (Unless of course you added in the fire/orange type glow as as a graded ambient light effect in post.)

Anyway, I'm still just guessing here. How did you shoot that shot and buff it up in post?
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 6:58pm

Post 67 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

miker wrote:

It's nice to step out of bounds every once in a while and make something different.
Exactly. it was a new challenge for me on many levels and I embraced it for that. What I learned from it helped me improve in other areas.

miker wrote:

Personally, I love classic horror films, and hope to re-create similar type films in the future. I know some people will think they are boring..and slow..but I don't care! I love em!
And it's exactly how I feel. I love vigilante movies - I am an especially huge fan of the Punisher comics.

And while PK has scenes that are even too violent for my own taste, you can't learn or improve I think without challenging yourself to go in directions you do not like to explore. I think you learn even more about filmmaking and yourself for that matter in this way.

miker wrote:

Hope to see somethin from you in the Action Contest!
As I said, I'm in. I will most likely blow the deadline but I am planning something that I'll shoot in August. It'll be more mainstream... wink

Defeto wrote:

ehm... So...will...PK be put up in the cinema?

My question got stepped on by all these speeches, it didn't really get answered.
Yeah, I just saw that below Miker's comment. Sorry about that. PK is a feature length film which would be a bit of a strain to put up on a server - also we intend to recoup our budget - hopefully at least break even on it - so it will be available commercially on DVD.

As for Jazz's question:

We strongly backlit the window with blue corrected lamp and filled both the foreground and surroundings of the actors with candles to give it a warm glow which created an oddly interesting clash. Then in post, we applied a glow to emphasize the effect even more and then brought up the warm tones, causing the colder, white blue stuff to crush somewhat - hence the overexposed, dreamy, looks like a key look. Those shots are from flashbacks from the feverishly demented mind of our protagonist. Colors, lights, ambience, everything is either intensified or overblown because he is on drugs - painkillers or cocaine the whole time.

The idea we are going for is that his dead girlfriend becomes the single drive behind his actions, as reprehensible as they may be - and she appears to him as some kind of disembodied ghost when he starts to doubt himself. Everything he remembers of her is exagerated and seemingly too good to be true. He is using her and their life together to justify himself... And for it to ring true, it has to be better than life itself - at least in his own mind.

But obviously that's again something you'd feel more in the film but it had to be in the trailer to help whatever we can present of the story in the time allowed, make some sort of sense.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 8:11pm

Post 68 of 78

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sorry again for what the thread turned into, JC, but when were the fake muzzle flashes? Because to me, they seriously ALL looked a little off. Perhaps my palate is more attoned to movie over-dramaticizing rather than real life things? smile

But seriously, when were the Alam ones?
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 8:15pm

Post 69 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

But seriously, when were the Alam ones?
You and Jazz got one. (01:36)

I will divulge the other one - I am just giving it a little bit more time as I am curious to see if somebody else will find it out.

As I said, 10 force points to whomever points both Alam muzzle flashes.
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 8:18pm

Post 70 of 78

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Do real muzzle flashes have that sort of delayed look, or is it due to camera picking it up/computer playing the video back?
Posted: Sun, 30th Jul 2006, 8:35pm

Post 71 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I am not sure what you are talking about.

The flashes we used are real as in Hollywood blanks real - real guns rarely have muzzle flashes actually as I found out myself - along with Sollthar when we went to an actors gun training for RECON 2. The guy had the actors shoot real guns first before moving them to blanks.

Blanks are much louder than real guns and they have huge muzzle flashes whereas the real guns rarely had any flashes at all. Apparently, only automatic weapons and shotguns have any significant muzzle flashes - shotguns because of the wider aperture and automatic weapons because they fire so much so fast it hardly has a time to die down.

Flashes are really a small explosion - they usually last anywhere between 1 to 3 frames. and the effect, especially on progressive cameras - is a slow fade out or ghosting effect as the fire dies down, which I guess is what you are talking about. You get the same in multimillion dollar movies... Watch SWAT for example... You'll see a lot of those.
Posted: Mon, 31st Jul 2006, 9:29pm

Post 72 of 78

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I actually liked this quite a lot, I like the documentary look on it and the 80's feel to it (wasn't even born back then, but I like to watch movies from all time periods). The effects look great, the acting seems very good and not cheesy at all. This actually in a way reminded me of some of Paul Verhoeven's movies that had some sort of gritty look (like RoboCop and Total Recall) to both the cinematography, script and the whole movie themselves. I wish you good luck at the film festival, hope it gets a good response from the audience. Make sure you notify the community when it get's released on DVD (maybe with a Recon bundle wink) and I'll definently look into it.

Don't know what I'll rate the trailer though so I won't...let's say it somewhere between a 4 and a 5 for me.

Good luck!

EDIT: Hmm, trying to figure out where the other Alam muzzleflash is...they all look real to me smile But I'll put my guess into it being at 1:40 where the guy fires the automatic. Also, I watched it again and I must say I really like that last music bit with "It's gonna hurt!". I think it's well timed with both titles and the action.

Last edited Mon, 31st Jul 2006, 11:41pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 31st Jul 2006, 10:50pm

Post 73 of 78

Alex Reeve

Force: 470 | Joined: 3rd Oct 2005 | Posts: 364

MacOS User

Member

As someone who spent much of his teenage years watching the Cannon/Golan-Globus movies that inspired this, I really enjoyed the trailer. Nice to see some full on uber-violence and gratuitous boobies in the cinema. Completely derivative and tacky of course, but it wouldn't be an effective homage if it wasn't!

Can't wait to stick this and the 2 Recons on the shelf next to Samhain. wink
Posted: Tue, 1st Aug 2006, 2:31am

Post 74 of 78

shadu

Force: 90 | Joined: 25th Apr 2003 | Posts: 345

Member

It is difficult to give comment about this one JohnCarter because i don't like this kind of movie at all. Not my type. But the impression i have of it... hummm... Too long, too much. The rape scene seem well shot but for a trailer we don't need to see must of it, just some part could be better in this trailer.

If this movie is for a very small public do you expect to sell it very easily?

Bonne chance avec ce nouveau film quand même! J'espèere que tu aura assez d'audience.

Shadu
Posted: Tue, 1st Aug 2006, 4:26am

Post 75 of 78

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Phew! Glad to see some more people actually getting it... I was getting worried there... LOL! wink

But seriously, Redhawk, sorry to report you did not get it...

Cool that you noticed the Veroheven reference - he is my favorite director.

Alex:

Samhain... Ouch! That was a fiasco and a half... I can take my licks when I'm responsible for the whole thing but it's not the case with that film. I hate it with a passion.

Shadu:

I understand your reservations - your comments are duly noted, if only because you were more polite than most wink - and yes, we think we'll sell it fairly easily to that specific market.

Merci pour les bons souhaits.

C.
Posted: Tue, 1st Aug 2006, 12:29pm

Post 76 of 78

JoelM

Force: 560 | Joined: 7th Jun 2004 | Posts: 349

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Who else thinks the guy on the PK poster looks a bit like Tom Green?
Posted: Wed, 2nd Aug 2006, 3:53pm

Post 77 of 78

alpha54

Force: 830 | Joined: 26th Jan 2006 | Posts: 323

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Yeah, he does a bit!

And JC, I'm loved the trailer and I'm looking forward to the final movie - enough said! smile
Posted: Thu, 3rd Aug 2006, 7:51pm

Post 78 of 78

aldo78

Force: 400 | Joined: 25th Sep 2002 | Posts: 9

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

good good good
merci