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

SUPERMAN vs DESTRUCTOR

Posted: Wed, 23rd Aug 2006, 2:09pm

Post 1 of 29

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

SUPERMAN vs DESTRUCTOR is... well... it's a movie... with Superman in it.

No other way to really describe it... other than -

-It's a comedy
-It was filmed at a film camp at Penn State University as a sort of "final project"
-It was filmed in less than a 24 hour time period
-It was conceived in about an hour over dinner
-We think it's pretty spiffy

There were 3 guidelines all group's final projects had to follow.

1) A prop (Safety Goggles) must be used.
2) The line "I knew this plan had a flaw" must be said.
3) We must film a scene in front of a place called the Palmer Art Museum.

The movie was filmed at PSU, and edited there for the camp. The first version was rushed in the editing, but we kept the master DV tape from the shoot, I brought it home, and re-edited it, adding spiffy Donner-esque titles, and we, of course, filmed the final minute in front of my greenscreen.

And now i'll stop jabbering and listing and let you watch-

SUPERMAN vs DESTRUCTOR

Enjoy.


More Info
Posted: Wed, 23rd Aug 2006, 7:23pm

Post 2 of 29

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

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

SuperUser

Fantastic. You guys never cease to impress me.

Though overall the movie was very well edited/written/scored/acted, here are the parts that made me LOL:

The pencil voice over was genius. "Uhh....uhh...steps! oh no". And the use of the of wilhelm scream.

I loved the whole exchange at the museum.
"What is it?"
*long pause*
"It's kryptonite!"
"Ooooh s**t."
Plus the whole anti-climactiveness of the encounter was great.

The bits at the end where Evman was flying around were hilarious as well.

Really good stuff here. 5/5 easy
Posted: Wed, 23rd Aug 2006, 8:55pm

Post 3 of 29

Bryce007

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

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

All of evman's acting were funny. Mr. Pencil was WAAAYY overacting it, to pretty painfully unfunny results.

The Flying was also hilarious. Not sure why, but it just was.

Also of note was the great use of superman music.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Aug 2006, 9:07pm

Post 4 of 29

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

Well, this had some fun ideas in it. While it's still not my kind of humour, I can appreciate the ideas it has as being very clever in places. smile

Well, unfortunately, I have to disagree with Waser because mostly, the film is let down by a somewhat poor execution.

Now obviously, you have a clear idea of what you want, which is a great start! Now you only have to learn the technical basics to pull it off exactly as you want, both in filmic aspectes as well as in the acting - which you have good basics as well, as you deliver your lines with a clear style.
The film shows clearly, that you have the ideas (The shot with the great timing of stairway door - elevator door for example) and a somewhat basic knowledge of certain rules (editing, framing, panning, eyeline etc), but it shows also clearly, that you don't know exactly how and when to apply them and what for (on a sidenote, the wilhelm scream was indeed brilliant wink )

Would be cool to see your creativity for comedies been brushed up with a more knowledgeable execution.
If you can sort out these little mistakes and misuses, you could easily make something truly 5 starish. biggrin
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 12:12am

Post 5 of 29

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

Well, this had some fun ideas in it. While it's still not my kind of humour, I can appreciate the ideas it has as being very clever in places. smile

Well, unfortunately, I have to disagree with Waser because mostly, the film is let down by a somewhat poor execution.

Now obviously, you have a clear idea of what you want, which is a great start! Now you only have to learn the technical basics to pull it off exactly as you want, both in filmic aspectes as well as in the acting - which you have good basics as well, as you deliver your lines with a clear style.
The film shows clearly, that you have the ideas (The shot with the great timing of stairway door - elevator door for example) and a somewhat basic knowledge of certain rules (editing, framing, panning, eyeline etc), but it shows also clearly, that you don't know exactly how and when to apply them and what for (on a sidenote, the wilhelm scream was indeed brilliant wink )

Would be cool to see your creativity for comedies been brushed up with a more knowledgeable execution.
If you can sort out these little mistakes and misuses, you could easily make something truly 5 starish. biggrin
Could you elaborate a little bit?

I feel we did very well for the filming time.

On a side note, not to try to make up excuses, but we were on a three man group, and most of the time it was not me behind the camera. Basically the whole movie had a blue overtone because the camera operator forgot to set the white balance. I had to correct all of that in the grading, and he was also not very experienced. Since we were under limited time, I did not have time to realize or fix his mistakes.

What do you mean exactly by "the basics" how could we improve specifically.
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 3:04am

Post 6 of 29

Atom

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Loved it, although first I've gotta get this outta the way:

***************************************************

Evman wrote:

I feel we did very well for the filming time.

On a side note, not to try to make up excuses, but we were on a three man group, and most of the time it was not me behind the camera. Basically the whole movie had a blue overtone because the camera operator forgot to set the white balance. I had to correct all of that in the grading, and he was also not very experienced. Since we were under limited time, I did not have time to realize or fix his mistakes.
24 hours, eh? Excuses, eh? Did very well for the ammount of time, did you?

Evman wrote:

So we find out the makers of Gigli made it in only 24 hours... so it's all of a sudden worthy of the highest possible rating for a film simply because people... worked on it?
I'm not going to bring up any other previous posts, but you get the point. Try not to contradict yourself. I do it all the time and it makes me look like an ass.

*****************************************************

Okay, now to the movie:

I thought it was great. It had a solid plot point, fair acting, and a solid ammount of editing, grading, and cinematography. (still......not enough contrast. wink ) This, overall, is nice stuff, as always.

The Good

-Flying! Perfect.

-The entire sound-design as far as music was orchestrated almost perfectly with the picture. I commend you on how well the elevator/stair scene fits-in with the editing and music. That looks like it took awhile to get right

-The timeframe. For a solid, albeit a little too improv, 10 minute short, this excells for being done in 24 hours. 3 for the movie, pushed-up to a 4 for the effort within the timeframe

-Your acting. While Pencil retains his AI "Louis" overexaggerated brand of funny, you took a very interesting approach as an unenthused, omniscient-viewer-esque Clark Kent. It felt very natural, and worked perfectly. The language, I would watch out for a little, but the lackluster "Oooooh" and then the under-the-breath "sh!t" was perfectly timed, executed, and acted-out. Bravo.

-The pace. The pacing was another highlight. The awkward pauses could all be found, and they were quite funny, but they didn't detract from the pacing of the movie, in fact, they worked pretty well with it. Now, nowhere near as well as AI2 (probably on-par with AI1), but still. The talk in the beginning along with the montage-esque stairs and running all fit nicely.

-The costumes. Hey, they were awesome.



The Bad

-The camera settings. I understand you didn't have much control over this, but I'm speaking on behalf of the project, not you. For a GL2, if it in-fact was a GL2 or some other 3CCD camera, it didn't look like it that much. The exposure abd white balance wasn't terrible throughout the movie, but like I've said in the past, watch those levels. They're an easy fix, but you really have to do them while you're filming.

-Minus the music, the editing of the vocals was almost nonexistant. It worked as a gimmick for some of the movie. "Oh no! Steps! Ah!", but the rest of it, namely the low sound levels in the 'fight scene', pull me out of the film quite abit, and lower the overall quality of an otherwise well-scored/sound-edited short.

The Ugly

-Sadly, this goes to Louis' acting. It was almost embarassingly stupid and overdone. Generally, it's been funny, but for this it seems, to me, to fall flat. The character feels uninspired, like a lackluster clone of the character in the AI trilogy. (That's right, I said trilogy. I expect another one. wink )


Overall, a 4/5. Kudos on a successfull, and yes, "spiffy" project.
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 3:12am

Post 7 of 29

StarZ

Force: 0 | Joined: 18th Aug 2006 | Posts: 50

Member

overall i think its a 3/5 it seems average, yet funny
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 3:29am

Post 8 of 29

Mr Pencil

Force: 396 | Joined: 8th Jul 2004 | Posts: 367

Windows User

Member

Atom wrote:

Evman wrote:

I feel we did very well for the filming time.

On a side note, not to try to make up excuses, but we were on a three man group, and most of the time it was not me behind the camera. Basically the whole movie had a blue overtone because the camera operator forgot to set the white balance. I had to correct all of that in the grading, and he was also not very experienced. Since we were under limited time, I did not have time to realize or fix his mistakes.
24 hours, eh? Excuses, eh? Did very well for the ammount of time, did you?

Evman wrote:

So we find out the makers of Gigli made it in only 24 hours... so it's all of a sudden worthy of the highest possible rating for a film simply because people... worked on it?
I'm not going to bring up any other previous posts, but you get the point. Try not to contradict yourself. I do it all the time and it makes me look like an ass.
Well, he did say he wasn't trying to make excuses. All he's saying is that yes, we had some setbacks, and though we wish we could go back and redo all of our mistakes, we're not going to beg and bother for a 5. Heh, I wrote this in an hour at dinner, and I'm sure this could be MUCH better if I actually had time to practice my acting (lol i suck). But I am glad you guys are at least enjoying it.

This is to let everyone know here at FXHome that the De-Evolution team is not lagging and that we will continue to produce quality films until forever.
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 4:01am

Post 9 of 29

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'll refrain from posting about your first comment atom, cause pencil already fielded it.

That being said, thanks very much for your criticism and in depth analysis.

The movie is by no means perfect, and if we had any planning time at all outside of one hour we'd for sure have created a much more solid piece technically, with a better script... but I think what we have now is simply a fun comedy that you can get some laughs out of. We are not claiming that it is a masterpiece, but hope that you enjoy it anyway.
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 6:03am

Post 10 of 29

SyroVision

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

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I gota say, nice work. Obiously your guy a couple a guys wanting to make something in your free time and i respect that.

And i did laugh, so well done.

2.5 from me
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 11:15am

Post 11 of 29

Jazzmanian

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

CompositeLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Overall, I think the movie was well done from a technical perspective, and it was a pretty sizable project to pull off and wrap up in under 24 hours. Even though that's not really my kind of comedy, I still had to give it a 4 just for the level of effort and the polish on the final product.

At first I thought the acting was going to be really sucky and amateur level and it would get a lower rating, but it only took a little while to see that what you were really going for was a combination of deadpan delivery in some areas and some intentionally dorky parody in others. Once that sunk in, I got some laughs out of it and began enjoying it.

A couple of comments / suggestions. First, and this is probably just a pet peeve of mine, but one thing that drives me nuts when watching shorts is when people drag on the credits forever. If you're making a one hour, forty minute feature production, you have time to burn on long credit and title screens and people come to expect that and accept it. However, when your total runtime is 11 minutes and you use up a full 25% of that time on the opening credits, it's just too much and I find my hand wavering over the stop button. I know you needed part of that to set up the storyline, but I find myself enjoying short films more when the filmmaker finds a way to work some of the title text etc. right into the live action film, so we're getting fresh information and the story is moving along at the same time that the credit information is being delivered.

Also on the subject of length, I personally think that the film could have been edited a lot tighter. Particularly in some of the "travel scenes" in the dorm and on the way out to the museum. Don't get me wrong... I think most of those shots were filmed very well and the action kept moving, technically nicely done, but it just dragged the movie out a bit much for my taste. It was like, "Ok... so he's going to the museum to rob it.... and he's going .... and he's going..."

You get the idea. I mean, if that part had been an SFX spectacular where at least one of them was flying there through the air, or riding in the souped up "Destructormobile" or something, I could see it. But they were just jogging. Could have been a lot shorter I think.

Anyway, still a very nice film and some good humor. I enjoyed it. Nice job.
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 11:43am

Post 12 of 29

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

I thoroughly enjoyed this. I've never been a fan of your previous comedies, with American Idiots generally failing to keep me entertained - simply not my kinda thing.

This, however, was spiffy. The deadpan style of the whole piece really appealed, with the world-weary cynicism of the story and Clark in particular being particularly amusing, and nicely unexpected given the subject matter.

Contrary to popular opinion, I actually really liked Louis' acting. There were some small quirks to his performance that I found really funny - little bits like glancing back at the camera as he left his room near the start, as well as all the gesticulating and over-enunciation when explaining his plan at the start. Was that a deliberate attempt to mimic Kevin Spacey's OTT performance in Superman Returns?

Attention to detail was also appreciated - such as Clark having his cape/towel draped over his shoulder in the corridor at the end. In fact, the use of a large fluffy red towel as a cape was inspired. The mimicking of the classic Superman end shots was also brilliantly done - slightly rough compositing in places, but the result was great nonetheless.

As others have pointed out, some of the technical aspects could do with tightening up to give this a real pro feeling - though as you say, you were working to a very tight deadline and weren't directly in charge of the camerawork.

Nice one.
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 4:35pm

Post 13 of 29

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Jazzmanian - Thanks for your comments and I'm glad you enjoyed it. The opening credits were an homage to the Superman films, so if you haven't seen any of them, it would not make sense.

Tarn - I'm really glad you liked it, thanks for your comments.

Can anyone point some specific examples of dodgy camera work/editing or whatever else you felt was lacking in the technical dept.?
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 5:39pm

Post 14 of 29

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

Hey, yeah. I can elaborate on what basics I was talking about, if that's what you want. First of all though, I'll start with what I thought you did exceptionally well: The use of music. It's really well edited and placed throughout.

Now, to the things I thought could be improved:

- The first three titles on the intro are far too long and excedting the average title length.

- As mentioned before, the intro taking up the first 2:24 of your film, which is only 11:46 in total, of wich another 1:20 go the endcredits, is a bit ridicolous.

2:24 - the first shot starting with a shakey handycam after such a "linear" opening is a questinable choice. While I do not see a justification for handycam in the shot at all, if you want it to be like that, it would be better to start it off static, then begin with the movement immedeately.

2:26 - Continuity mistake in editing. He has already lifted his head, in the next shot, he's down again, not moving. Plus it's cutting to a static shot again, in retrospect to my first comment, this makes the "mistake" and unconscious use of handcam/static pretty obvious

2:32 - Is a so called "jumpcut", which is unjustified here. Jumpcuts are used to focus on a specific new detail from the same camera angle which... the new shot doesn't offer. So you would have had to change the angle or not used the jumpcut in the first place (plus, this shot remains badly framed throughout).

2:38 - The pan and the zoom are a good idea, however, it's executions has a bit of a letdown since you obviously "miss your target" while panning and then pan back, just for about 5 frames. (Yeah, this is nitpicking, just trying to point you into the direction smile )

2:41 - The following shot is framed really badly. First, it's a medium shot from his knees to his shoulders, which is a weird framing to begin with - unless of course, the important thing happens within this space. Which it doesn't. He's moving.
Second, the eyeline is a weird choice too, set at the waist.

2:44 - Now this is a good framed shot, letting him walk into correct rule-of-thirds framing is a good idea. BUT the shot sets up the line. D is facing left, so you establish the line like this: D facing left, the room is left, the hallway is right. Whoever looks AT him has to face RIGHT then.

2:52 - Unfortunately, S is facing left too, which is crossing the line. You can decide to cross the line at that point if you want of course, setting up a new line, but then you have to remain at the new line.

2:53 - Just to say: THIS is an appropriate use of a jumpcut. You cut closer because this is more intimate then before.

2:57 - this shot shows unfortunately, that you have crossed the line again, back to where it was before, which shows you're not aware where your line is.

3:06 - The shot starts nicely framed, but then the panning is both wobbly and too late. Plus when Clark is sitting down, he leaves the frame, but yet, the frame remains the same. Then the camera starts correctign this by panning down, which immedeately leads to a cut (making this ALSO an editing mistake, since you aborted a movement impulse by cutting at that point)

3:33 - The framing here is good until D leans forward a bit, then it's off, leaving half of the frame for headroom (which is WAY too much)

3:48 - That's just a personal thing, while the idea of "duude SHHSHH, be quiet.. SHHHH" while S isn't even blinking is really good, the acting leaves a lot to be desired, plus the cut is a bit too late.

4:04 - Thats a great shot idea. Good chosen eyeline, good framing, gets across what you want to PERFECTLY. smile
Allthough, he's facing the camera straight, which is a bit difficult concerning the "crossing-the-line" rule again. For that to work together seamlessly, you would have needed a shot of S looking straight too. But he still faces left, which makes this a, let's call it "semi-mistake"

4:23 - This cut comes WAY too late. He's already left the shot and yet, we remain looking at the empty wall for way too long. Not a good pacing decision there. Plus it would work better if the next shot starts immedeately when the door opens, making for a much quicker pace and sharper editing.

4:52 - another line problem. Clearly you establish D as running to his RIGHT. Which means, anyone looking AFTER him has to face Right him, anyone looking AT him from BEFORE him is looking left.

4:55 - looking left, which is the wrong direction.

5:00 - that's just a mediocre framing there at the beginning. So is the next one. And still your eyeline seems to be pretty low.

5:20 - The timing in that shot with the two doors is the best thing about your whole film really. It LOVE that. It shows so much attention to detail and a good sense for movement. It's great! great! great! biggrin

6:00 - Good idea with the zoom. Allthough the zoom simply misses, ending up in a bad frame (top half of image is empty), then later to be corrected. Which makes it less.

6:14 - The shot hat D running from left to right, while the next shot... see the problem? Yes, another crossing the line problem.

6:30 - is another greatly framed shot imo. (allthough it might not work too well on a TV seeing the safety areas)

6:38 - Wilhelm scream. Hilarious. smile

6:47 - look at the faces. D turns, faces left... Next shot... the line has changed again... sad

7:18 - "oh shit", heh, that one aactually made me giggle. wink

7:25 - That's another part where it shows that partially, you KNOW what you're doing. Going back from the closeups to a medium shot is not only justified, but also applying language correctly.

7:46 - D faces left again... since S is also facing left, filmlanguage wise, they're not looking AT each other, but rather looking at the same thing. (You set S's line at 7:35 when he's pointing LEFT to the camera)

10:00 The flying part is fun, despite some rather obvious compositing. smile





So, that was what I could spot quickly and put my finger on precicesly. The "problem" is, your film clearly has parts which show you have an understanding of these rules and know how to get your ideas across. But this makes all the parts where poor execution or wrongfully applied rules occur even more obvious (To someone who can read them of course. These are all mistakes only someone will see who knows what to look at).

Why I'm judging this maybe a bit harder on you then on someone else is the same reason, why some people apply a harsher system to my stuff: You reached a certain level where you can only improve by looking at those rules clearly and applying them correctly. And since I think your work is very creative and witty (I can look way past the fact I simply don't share the kind of humour) and you also seem to have grasped certain things and have the necessary FEEL for your stuff, you could improve immensly if you now learned how to actually correctly CRAFT your movies.

So simply put, the reason I'm nitpicking is because I believe you have what it takes to get to a new level. wink


PS: In case you've missing it. Check out my filmlanguage guide, it might help you on the way - http://fxhome.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23797
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 6:00pm

Post 15 of 29

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

You spelled "Villain" wrong in the opening.

Other than thought, it was perfect. I LOL'd throughout. Corny wink at the end was a great way to end it.
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 6:02pm

Post 16 of 29

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar, thanks a million for taking all that time to post so much about our film, we really appreciate it.

I hate to make everyone think that I am just making up excuses, but as I said, I was not the camera operator on 85% of the shots (ironically enough, the few shots you mentioned were good were mostly mine razz ).

Again the long opening credits were a stylistic decision to mimic the classic Superman films. It was an homage, and be thankful I didn't use the entire 4 minute plus Superman Theme for that. biggrin

Unfortunately, a lot of the editing problems you mentioned were influenced by the sometimes bad camera angles/movements, which, as I've already stated, niether Mr. Pencil or I had very much control over.

Again, I really, really, really hate to give excuses, but I guess my only cover is that I know the movie is not perfect and I am not claiming it is.

razz
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 6:12pm

Post 17 of 29

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

One thing that can sometimes work when you've got a crossing-the-line issue due to faulty footage is simply flipping the shot in post - ie, mirroring it. Obviously this can sometimes cause continuity issues (particularly if there's text in the shot), but otherwise it can get you out of a tricky situation.

Not a habit to get into, of course, but it's still worth remembering/considering. I agree with all of sollthar's comments by the way - any chance you might do a re-edit of the movie with some of his stuff taken into account? Tightened up in the way he suggests, this would be lifted to another level. Obviously framing issues can't be corrected much, but the crossing the line stuff might be fixable with some flippage.

On the other hand, was the movie filmed 16:9 or 4:3? If it was filmed 4:3 and you cropped it for this version, then you might have enough free space top and bottom to re-frame some of the poor shots by shifting the from up or down.

Anyway, good stuff, with more control over your technical aspects on your next project I imagine it'll be great!
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 6:18pm

Post 18 of 29

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

One thing that can sometimes work when you've got a crossing-the-line issue due to faulty footage is simply flipping the shot in post - ie, mirroring it. Obviously this can sometimes cause continuity issues (particularly if there's text in the shot), but otherwise it can get you out of a tricky situation.

Not a habit to get into, of course, but it's still worth remembering/considering. I agree with all of sollthar's comments by the way - any chance you might do a re-edit of the movie with some of his stuff taken into account? Tightened up in the way he suggests, this would be lifted to another level. Obviously framing issues can't be corrected much, but the crossing the line stuff might be fixable with some flippage.

On the other hand, was the movie filmed 16:9 or 4:3? If it was filmed 4:3 and you cropped it for this version, then you might have enough free space top and bottom to re-frame some of the poor shots by shifting the from up or down.

Anyway, good stuff, with more control over your technical aspects on your next project I imagine it'll be great!
I could get away with some flipping, but a lot of it probably not, since things like my hair part (which I don't usually have there) would flip back and forth.

It was shot in 4:3, so there is some room to fiddle with it, and I already corrected a lot of poorly framed shots that way, but most of the ones that are still bad are horizontal imperfections which can't be fixed with the vertical room I have, or were just so off center vertically to begin with, even with fixing in post, they still looked bad.

God if only I could have used my own camera and equipment for this, and been in more direct charge of the cinematography, it could have been a lot better. (sequel/prequel anyone? razz )
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 7:26pm

Post 19 of 29

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

Great to hear you think it's useful! I hate to post that kind of "nitpicking" really cause it's sooooo easy to look at someone's film pointing out things that aren't right yet and sooooooo difficult to get them right yourself too. smile

Unfortunately, a lot of the editing problems you mentioned were influenced by the sometimes bad camera angles/movements, which, as I've already stated, niether Mr. Pencil or I had very much control over.
Yeah, that's a usual problem. I don't see this as an excuse rather then a "reason". The problem with these rules is, you need to be aware of them and sort them out prior to filming, not in post - as lots of things simply can't be fixed anymore.

And to be honest, I learned most of these rules and got a feel for them during EDITING my Film NightCast, mainly because I had to correct a lot of things we had filmed wrong because too little preparation went into those. So one could make an entire list of things that are wrong with it. We cross the line a couple of times, made crucial lighting errors etc. But that's why it's a whole learning experience.

The ideal way to avoid these is thinking about them in preproduction, maybe write them down or draw a storyboard or so. (And yes, I should do that too, so I don't have to try fixing my things in post either) wink
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 8:50pm

Post 20 of 29

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:



The ideal way to avoid these is thinking about them in preproduction, maybe write them down or draw a storyboard or so. wink
Our preproduction time consisted of an hour over dinner, while we brainstormed for 15 minutes, then Louis scribbled down the script in the remaining time whilst eating an ice cream cone. razz Then we were filming for the rest of the night.
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 8:52pm

Post 21 of 29

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

Which is why I suggest thinking about that too. biggrin
Posted: Thu, 24th Aug 2006, 11:13pm

Post 22 of 29

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

whys it rated 15+
Posted: Fri, 25th Aug 2006, 12:57am

Post 23 of 29

ben3308

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

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

They say "sh!t" pretty blatantly a few times. That, and the thematic elements are a little "too intense". wink
Posted: Fri, 25th Aug 2006, 2:05am

Post 24 of 29

Bryce007

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

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

It's rated 15+ because if you're older than that you probably won't like Mr. Pencils acting.

And also because they use harsh terminology for Fecal matter.


Btw the way, the thing that stuck out the most about this was the shot with the elevator, hands down. when I saw it I was like "Hmm..YES".
Posted: Fri, 25th Aug 2006, 3:02am

Post 25 of 29

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:



Btw the way, the thing that stuck out the most about this was the shot with the elevator, hands down. when I saw it I was like "Hmm..YES".
Yeah, we had this whole complex counting thing worked out, where i was supposed to count till like 8 seconds or something... but in the end i just said screw it and opened it when i felt like it... one take... perfect.
Posted: Fri, 25th Aug 2006, 3:18am

Post 26 of 29

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Sollthar wrote:

Great to hear you think it's useful! I hate to post that kind of "nitpicking" really cause it's sooooo easy to look at someone's film pointing out things that aren't right yet and sooooooo difficult to get them right yourself too. smile
Sollthar, you've taught me more about editing in the past 3 days than I have ever learned on any sites. (I hadn't read your FAQ until yesterday, and then your tips for effstops and evman enlightened me as well). Even if you aren't perfect, at least you can recognize how to be which will help all of us in the end.

I loved Pencil's acting. I thought it was perfectly ridiculous.
Posted: Fri, 25th Aug 2006, 8:10am

Post 27 of 29

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

Yeah, the 15 rating (which evman recommended himself, I believe) was for the moderate language as well as the scenes of mild peril.
Posted: Sat, 2nd Sep 2006, 9:27am

Post 28 of 29

SlothPaladin

Force: 2900 | Joined: 30th Nov 2004 | Posts: 637

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

This was kind of funny but you really overused the word dude. That bothers me on the same level as over using F---, it just gets old.
Posted: Wed, 13th Sep 2006, 4:54am

Post 29 of 29

FXhomer6590

Force: 0 | Joined: 25th Mar 2006 | Posts: 4

Member

Where did u get the stock footage of the sky and clouds.I been looking for something similiar.?