SPARE TIME KILLERS
Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007, 9:16am
Post 1 of 28
|This is a trailer for a Grind house film that im still working on called Spare Time killer. |
effects use are as follows, Muzzle flashes, partical effects, from fx lab cameras used Canon XL2 & JVC GR-HD
stock footage flames, some animation.
The story line is not clear yet but as you could see
these two killers are more in geting something to eat
then getting there intended target.
Music by 4 local bands in L A and los vegas' which happen to be friends on mind.
The intro score song the BAT LORD with undertaker,
NO DICE with hot road Bar, BADLUCK BANITS bring my baby back, THE VERMIN from los Vegas eating glass,
the sound track for fire fight scene,THE VOLCANICS the baron,for the ending score. All of these bands have signed a release form
plus there consent to use these songs for this trailer.
Property of API.
tell me what you think? i want constructive feed back
from you my fellow film makers' see you in the movies!
Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007, 1:02pm
Post 2 of 28
It seems you've got a good idea of style but its really only an idea and far from a mastery.
The location was great, The two killers look great, the titling was better than average and the soundtrack was pretty cool.
Unfortunately, even when combined these factors don't make this movie watchable.
If you're going to give your killers Tarantino-like banter, you badly need to get a boom mic, general external mic, or learn ADR. Without one or more of these, your dialogue, while quite good at points, will fall flat. Without it in this movie, you're effectively making a feature out of something which is barely present and therefore fails to create any impact.
Your Chop Shop location was brilliant and appropriate, but you missed the opportunity to give it character or set the scene, so the location was all but wasted. Showing the mechanic (is that what he was?) snorting coke gives him character, but lends the scene as a whole, nothing.
The effects, i'm afraid to say, we're pretty bad. There was some interesting stylising in places, like giving guns tracer bullets but given the missed opportunities everywhere else i'm inclined to think you didn't do it deliberately and the style was a lucky result.
Styles aside, the effects were still rather nasty. The muzzleflashes failed to blend, the fire wasn't tracked into place and was too opaic and the sound effects were inappropriate and slapped on top.
Part of the problem with the success of the effects was the camerawork, which seemed to be more incidental than planned. The bottom line is that tracking effects onto footage requires a locked camera, but more generally you need to lock more and plan shots, period. The angles were confusing, the composition was unclear and meaningless and the positions of anyone around the chop shop was equally hard to determine.
Lighting was also noticeably non-existent, but with all the issues above I suspect you get the point by now.
If you were to correct the abundant technical failings, I suspect this would actually be quite good, so i'll give it a 3.
Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007, 5:15pm
Post 3 of 28
Rock n Roll. I love it. I have a couple people I want you take out for me.
Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007, 6:04pm
Post 4 of 28
First I would like to say I have absolutely nothing against anyone using the F. word when it helps to set the tension between two people in a scene. But just like special effects it should be used sparingly for maximum impact.
There are numerous sources for gun sound effects, but I do feel it is very important to make absolutely sure that the sound affect matches the gun if you're holding an oozy then please make sure that the sound affect is a high-quality recording of an oozy.
Or at least a rapid fire fully automatic machine gun. For me personally the number one thing that can turn me off quicker than anything to a film is, bad color balance. The florescent lighting in the Chop Shop caused everything to have a green Hugh specially the flames of the fire this totally spoiled the mood of the scene.
The muzzle blast having that Green Hugh made me think well if they were shooting sulfur coated bullets maybe I would believe it then.
I also agree that it should have been shot on a tripod. At the very least a steady Cam. Shooting this freehand gives the impression that there is someone else there but mainly it is just distracting.
Better luck on your next film.
Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007, 7:44pm
Post 5 of 28
people thank you for that constructive, insite, criticism' but keep in mind that this is a "B" Movie' thats why the efffects were off and the sounds lighting were off have you ever seen a 70s b flick ? they were never well made check a flick called BAADASSSSS by indie 70s film maker mario van peebles who made black exploitation flicks just to name a few water mellen man who then went indie
to make is first film about a black hero in the 70s
you guys a grate keep up the good work
YOU ALSO COULD FIND ME ON http://www.myspace.com/promobandnetwork http://www.myspace.com/aguayoproductionsyahoocom
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 12:26am
Post 6 of 28
I'm afraid the age-old excuse of "its meant to be bad" is just invalid. While i can totally see what you've tried to create, my point is simply: You failed. To pastiche something, requires possibly more whit and talent than is needed to create the very work your satire is based upon. You need to know your subject matter inside and out and evidently you don't, else this would have been genius, like I said.
B-movies are one alphabet letter short of being A-movies because they lack the Je Ne Sais Quoi which makes them 'A' material, yet still contain key ingredients which make them instant classics. Your movie conversely, lacks too many things to make the B grade and doesn't contain anything innovative, crude, funny, unique, sexual, depraved, honest, cruel or inhumane that could possibly make it a B-movie classic. You're much further down the alphabet, in the zone where no kudos is gained from doing things badly.
I've got to stress this point, since its repeatedly used around these parts: Doing something deliberately bad, still requires you to be deliberate. What you've done appears undeliberate and unplanned.
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 12:36am
Post 7 of 28
I agree with xcession on everything he's written in this thread. So there's no point for me to repeat it.
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 2:25am
Post 8 of 28
Wow, Christopher Walken's son is in this???
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 2:28am
Post 9 of 28
This movie actually looked promising until the shooting started. I like the 70' style but the effects was not convincing at all. You need to work more on that one for sure...
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 2:31am
Post 10 of 28
Christopher Walken's son is in this???
Nah, just a publicity stunt
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 8:00am
Post 11 of 28
what i really want to here from you guy! "and some of you did"
maybe some insite on a better story line, lighting was helpful
as for muzzle flashes i dont care what fake CGI is use in fact
this proves my point' as for my self i actually fired real guns real assult rifles at one time or another' what they all have in common
are moving parts subtle smoke, blowback action, shall casing
ejecting and gun recoil, splite second flashes plus' it a waste of time to replicate these
actions. On my next video youll see way better and more convincing gun play with my plug firing guns.
These guns look and fires, blow back, recoil, eject shell casings, like a real gun plus the on the gun clip you ll see the bullets' smoke and flashes that go with it' but most importantly safe. close ups are a real problem with fake toy guns even with airsoft like the ones used in this video with these other gun i could show the killer
loading and unloading a clip that detail in it self sell the gun play.
now im not saying go out and buy these gun they could be expensive
but bottom line to make a good film you need realistic props
that work like the real deal' if you would have seen what i described
above on this video you would have said a differnt comment .
Now is far as the lighting the shop lights were a problem
plus a wasnt aware that i could use Composites with FX LITE
this is really the first time i used this product with all effects considerig i had it for more then two years but its still a very good product. Also' i need to upgrade to pro for HD all my format is HD
MT2 format here were the problem lies ' i have to down size it to
avi 720x480 from 1080x720 plus i notes that with any upgrade
you still have to use AVI the problem with that it uses to much space
one min clip would take up to 2 gigs
let me also add buy the time in upload these videos to the net
i have to reduce then down to 512kb for you to view it plus
the sound is also degraded to 96kb mp3 format
guys please negetive comments to your selfs
like is suck or that fall way below b film
i need your insite to make a better film
and to use this product right
xcession if you work for FX that wasnt cool
your suppost to help FX member not chop them down
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 8:09am
Post 12 of 28
aguayo wrote:xcession if you work for FX that wasnt cool
Just to clarify: Xcession does not work for FXhome.
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 8:15am
Post 13 of 28
christopher walken son yes he is but out of wedlock
its along story very personal and i cant say sorry
i could say his name it kirk ramage his mother maiden name
and you wont find any articals on the subject kirk found out
5 years ago that he was his real dad
and i think i said to much on the subject
maybe he is maybe he,s not you deside
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 8:47am
Post 14 of 28
I'd reply, because I think some of your unstructured mind-spool was directly at me, but I can't read it.
Last edited Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 9:09am; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 9:08am
Post 15 of 28
xcession reply: I'd reply, because I think someone of your unstructured mind-spool " looks like we have condescending. know it all
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 9:26am
Post 16 of 28
aguayo wrote:people thank you for that constructive, insite, criticism' but keep in mind that this is a "B" Movie' thats why the efffects were off and the sounds lighting were off have you ever seen a 70s b flick ?
Bear in mind that grindhouse b-flicks are for a fairly niche audience. There are lots of people that will have seen 70s b-movies, but they won't necessarily like them - lots of people will just consider them bad movies. Similarly, going for the same style won't guarantee universal praise - some people simply won't like it. That's just the way it goes.
This film had potential, but I agree with the others that the technical aspects need to be tightened up, particularly the sound work. Even old b-movies still have relatively high quality technical aspects, in terms of sound, editing, framing etc, otherwise people wouldn't watch them.
One thing I loved about this was the location: fantastic! Loved all those old cars lying around in bits, it was really quite remarkable and felt quite surreal at times. The location could have functioned as a character all of its own, if you'd taken time to establish it a little further - maybe a few lingering, tracking shots of the cars before introducing the mechanic, for example. That would also have established the 3D space of the place before the shoot-out began. It felt almost like you were so familiar with the place you didn't feel the need to show it as anything special - whereas, for me, the location was the most interesting thing in the film, and I wanted to see more!
Interesting use of muzzle flashes, I actually quite liked their stylised appearance. The wobbly fire composite weren't so good though, and also spoilt the old 70s-vibe, as it's unlikely they'd have been able to do composited fire elements in the 70s! Back in the day I imagine they would have used real on-set pyro stuff.
Definitely a step up from your previous work, and with some more attention to the technical details you could knock out something really fun.
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 9:51am
Post 17 of 28
tarn: thanx for your comment
Last edited Thu, 19th Jul 2007, 6:48pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 9:53am
Post 18 of 28
Tarn doesn't appear to be instigating anything. His reply was helpful, honest and complementary.
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 10:19am
Post 19 of 28
aguayo wrote:tarn: stop instigating
What? Did you even read my post?
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 10:22am
Post 20 of 28
You seem to have gone rather wild aguayo. Tarn's post seems fine to me. Remember that some people are going to be harsh (Xcession often is very blunt) but it sound like other people have really liked it. I'll try and watch it later on...
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 2:28pm
Post 21 of 28
It has a unique style to it. I do agree that you could benefit from cleaner audio, and I do not like the language, it wasn't nessecary and the sam thing could have been said with choice other words.
The story seemed shallow, almost nonexistant, why were the hit men coming to the shop (obviously to do a hit, but why?) What was the argument between the two people in the shop about?
Dialoge is an important aspect of any film, but the main part of the film is the visual, show the viewer what they need to see, and tell them what you can't show them. Trackless dialoge detracts from the flow of the film.
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 6:03pm
Post 22 of 28
What? Did you even read my post?
aguayo wrote:tarn: stop instigating
Geez man. Tarn's post was constructive and had compliments! I thought you were asking for constructive comments on how to make your film better WHICH IS WHAT HE DID!
As for the rest of the comments you do not like, well welcome to the real world and FX Home Community Forum.
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 8:01pm
Post 23 of 28
thanx every one for your feed back
hope to here from you soon
tarn: thanx comment/feedback 'sorry about that" instigating does not apply:oops:
Helios9k: thanx for your comment /feedback
schwar: thanx for your comment hope to here from you soon Xcession : thanx for your comments /feedback no hard feelings
Sollthar: maybe he is walken son who knows?
Garrison: thanx for stop n by
Meetle : ill have to play with the FX software some more to get it right. Thanx for stop n by keep in touch
again! thanx every one for taking the time to view my video
and taking the time to place your comment
Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007, 10:01pm
Post 24 of 28
your right a about the "f" word being used sparingly'
since there were no script written for this video the actors were free to add live there rolls' in which i think they did quite well.
This is just FX trailer test ' but spare time killers, is a film im currently working on. A script is always needed to define the character you
want your actor to portray. Depending on the film you make
the "f" work some times has to be change as a clever remark
but in real life people dont think when there angry' the "f' word
is commenly used almost in all its context forms amaganible.
Clever made and memorable dialogue is needed in exchange for the f word in a rated G flim. My film on the other hand is not rated G.
One or two of my actors will be widely using the F word in there character' the other actors on the other hand will be using more clever and memorable qoate for there character.
and that was a spare time moment
my names is carlos thanx for stop n by
Posted: Sun, 22nd Jul 2007, 4:17pm
Post 25 of 28
I think that even though it was a B movie, a lot of stuff could have been better.
Also, didn't degrade your footage!
Posted: Fri, 3rd Aug 2007, 8:08pm
Post 26 of 28
This was okay. A lot of issues with technical aspects. Actually, to be frank, everything technical was pretty horrible. As in, it warrants a 1/5.
But production design is there with the interesting actors, locations, props, and costuming, so I'm going to give this a 2/5. I know you could do better if you put more thought into what makes a B-movie. For example, The Last Boy Scout is a great B-movie by Tony Scott, and all technical elements are still very, very good. I can understand degraded grading choices to get that "look", but as far as shooting poorly: that doesn't fly.
Posted: Sat, 4th Aug 2007, 12:07am
Post 27 of 28
This was borderline unwatchable for me. Not only was the script painful to listen to, but the technical side was....was it even There?
Also, the point of using a forum is to converse with other people. If you can't communicate in a way that barely anyone can understand, I think you might be missing the point a bit...
Posted: Sat, 4th Aug 2007, 12:24am
Post 28 of 28
Fun little film, definitely keeps in line with the Grind House type feel.
Loved the cheesy gun effects, the shoot out worked great, though the explosions and the fire just seemed way too tacky, sorry. Also the conversation at the end just seemed to be quite repetitive.
Other than that great fun to watch, reminds me of a Takashi Miike type movie.
Oh yeah, 6 mins is way too long for a trailer, this seemed like a full short film of it's own.