Live It Up (Official Music Video)
Posted: Wed, 5th Jan 2011, 10:13am
Post 1 of 53
|This is the official video for the new track "Live it Up" by Shod B. featuring M. Taylor.|
From the new album "The Full Body Experience", the video was shot exclusively in the downtown area of Dallas, TX by Atomic Productions. DJ services and video shoot hosted by Joe Rich of MTV3.
'Live It Up' by Shod B. featuring M. Taylor
Album: 'The Full Body Experience'
Directed by Ben Adams
Video Production: Atomic Productions
Music Production: The Shooters
Hair & Makeup: Devon Williams
DJ/Host: Joe Rich of MTV3
Editing: Andrew Adams
Practical Effects/Production Assistance: Ben Haschke
Gaffer/Production Assistance: Naeem Munaf
Posted: Wed, 5th Jan 2011, 10:29am
Post 2 of 53
There's some really nice lighting going on in there and it looks brilliantly and awesomely high profile in stills, but to be honest, I couldn't watch it all the way through as the wobblyness of the camerawork made me feel a bit dizzy - truly.
I just really thought you had everything here to create stunning visuals with good attention to light, cool sets and props, an eye for framing, but somehow, they're hard to bear for me and feel like such a missed opportunity. The editing is definately solid, as usual, though feels a bit uninspired and "one in a thousand" to me as it does what seem obvious to do with that kind of shots, that kind of music and that kind of video.
All in all, this feels like less then the sum of it's parts to me.
It's good, but it does have that "it could have been more" vibe to it.
The song reminds me of another song from the 80s. The theme is very similar, but maybe that's the idea.
Posted: Wed, 5th Jan 2011, 4:22pm
Post 3 of 53
Ah, well glad you gave it a chance at least!
The frenetic pull and glitz of it is, indeed, something we were sort of going for
in most ways. And the quasi-shaky, light-spilling jitter throughout some shots are a part of that.
Shooting this with explosives on rooftops in busy downtown Dallas (on the 4th of July, no less) and with numerous extras and hired help/DJ/makeup/etc., we had to plan out quite a bit. A large part of that was deciding to follow a strict 'champagne' color-scheme and theme to the whole thing (actual champagne included, haha)- so everything from the costuming to lighting to staging to people are a reflection of that.
For some people that works, and they loved it. Others get annoyed or tired from it- and the sort of 'faux regal' black-and-white-and-gold-christmas-lights-style theme.
So in that respect, sorry ya didn't like it. This was the first of our larger music videos to be produced, and it our personal (and most of our client's) favorite's to watch. The story element is safer than we've now attempted and worked on, but 'Live It Up' was by far the highest-energy and most fun to work on- and I got control over every aspect of aesthetics and production design/costuming/everything, while Ben got freedom in cinematography.
Doesn't sound spectacular, I know, but that's more flexibility than any of our other recent works- and it's nice to go back and watch and see where we made our decisions.
Shame about the editing comment, though. I really tried to be inventive and snappy in that field on this one.
Posted: Wed, 5th Jan 2011, 4:27pm
Post 4 of 53
I didn't notice wobbly visuals myself, but that's always a fairly individual thing.
Something I thought worked really well in this is that your visual palette and style seems to match up really well with the artist himself. His look - hair, face, etc - seems to fit naturally into what's going on and the general styling of the piece.
I think that matching of elements works better here than in Deja Blu, where the artist himself seemed a little incongruous in the setting (although I'm having a really hard time putting my finger on why that is). In Live It Up the 'champagne' visuals match with the slight builds of the artist and featured artist and the softness of the voice work.
Not sure that makes any sense.
Anyway, I liked it!
Posted: Wed, 5th Jan 2011, 6:00pm
Post 5 of 53
Yeah, I am particularly sensitive to jerky motion, especial with high shutter settings. I assume this was DSLR shot? It had that "handheld with DSLR" look to it I'm just not very fond of. Combined with some frameblending, I find verry irritating. Despite the fact the colors, light and composition is great, as Tarn said.
But it's certainly on a high technical level. Then again, who are we kidding: You guys know full well what you're doing on a technical level and are among the best filmmakers on this site, no doubt about it. The rest is style and personal artistic preference. And I enjoyed the sexual water innuendo one more myself.
It's great to hear you can do a series of music videos like this and get your work out there. Well deserved. And I bet these guys would have to look hard to find a team who can delivet that kind of thing for what was presumably not a very high budget. I know they would around here.
Posted: Wed, 5th Jan 2011, 11:02pm
Post 6 of 53
The seemingly wobble/shutter/ghosting issue is (from what I gather you're commenting on) entirely down to rendering/transcoding from us using a new program to transcode the day it was due (July 15th) to go to the people at MTV3. We were on a deadline, and we were having rendering issues with un-transcoded footage; so we got new software, transcoded piece-by-piece offline, then brought the project file online with the new footage and rendered out. To our dismay, there was some 30/24p issue wherein the transcoding program wasn't set to do true 24p, so the resultant 24p render was ghosty and at time difficult to watch.
As I said, though, we were on a schedule (and a strict one) to get the video to the people we needed to get it to (and part of that was uploading to our YouTube that same day) so our YouTube copy is ghosty. My roommate, who loves the video, caught wind of the un-transcoded copy of the final render, and remarked, "it's like a totally different video!". Not sure if that's totally true, but that may give credence to some of this perceived shakiness. Truth be told, the majority of the video was shot on tripod or monopod.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 3:06am
Post 7 of 53
I gave you a star for the effort. I know how music videos are to produce, but I take points off for the music itself. Your chorus sounds just enough like "I'm a maniac, maniac on the floor and I'm dancin' like I never did before." to get you sued. Remember, copyrights extend for 50 years AFTER the author's death. "Maniac" was in the 80s and the author is still alive. The precedent set by the Michael Bolton lawsuit is that all the judge/jury need do is to deem that it sounds enough like "Maniac" and the music in your chorus is identical to it. Great cover art though!
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 3:49am
Post 8 of 53
The 'Maniac' similarity is entirely purposeful, and the artist are completely aware of copyright and precedent for such. The song is entirely recorded on their own, though, and the beat is an original creation that is in no part 'sampled'. But even then....
Clearly, though, you haven't listened to any
sort of hip-hop/rap in the past 15 or so years- as it is all a reflection of the decades before it, with limitless samples and chord/tone/tune/pitch similarities. This is how music is made these days, and copyright is vaguely ever a factor. It sounds like an ignorant conclusion, but it is the truth. And the more I work in the video end of the music industry (most predominantly in Texas
music, too) the more I see and accept it.
Hear the same pitch-shifted 808 beat in Far East Movement's 'Rocketeer', Justin Bieber's 'Somebody To Love', and Black Eyed Peas 'Dirtybit'? That's because it is the same beat
- not even a 'lift' of similarity from all the tracks, which are all very current/recent.
I thank you for your comments, but maybe you
aren't in-the-know as much as you might think, anymore. And telling me about getting sued is silly, as I'm not the artist and it is not my work. The sum of the parts in the music video are, and I'm the music video producer.
Oh, and finally- this aired on MTV networks. It had to go through a lengthy process of review and censorship before it was allowed to be played. No copyright issues ever arose. And I'd consider MTV to be about as public, exposed, and 'big time' as you can get
with music and music videos. If they don't stop you, and no music label comes at you afterward- I think you're pretty safe.
Have you ever heard of MGMT's song Kids
? Hip-hop group Chiddy Bang literally copied the chorus and coyly named their rehash of 'Kids'
- 'Opposite of Adults'
- and the music video for it has double the number of views
of MGMT's, and the song has been downloaded on iTunes more times than 'Kids' as well. And nobody has stopped them.
So, I guess I have to ask: what do you have to say to that?
I'm not saying it is correct, now. It's frustrating in some regards, for sure- but it's also quite intriguing to see how communal and shared the music creation and production experience is becoming. Dr. Dre ripped the beat directly to produce 'The Next Episode', never paid royalties, and it has been one of his best-selling songs for the past 12 years.
And the precedents set go on and on. That's what copyright in music has become these days. 'Maniac's' semblance to 'Live It Up' is just another step in that- and it'll likely never have any hassle or issue with copyright.
And this all being said, still- why only one star? Because you "think
" you know copyright? Because to chalk the music video production up to comprising only one star with the other four going expressly to the music itself, to me as a music video producer, I dunno- feels really demeaning. Worsened by the fact I generally think you're wrong.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 8:01am
Post 9 of 53
FXhomer, thanks for watching and for your comments. My only request is that you perhaps withhold your ratings until you may have the full story on videos such as this. We're the creators of the video, not the song, and moreover both are cleared for legal commercial distribution - and the video has in fact aired on MTV.
So I can assure you we're not going to be sued.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 9:27am
Post 10 of 53
I've removed 32915's one-star rating as his reasoning doesn't really make any sense, a) given the fact there aren't any copyright problems with the music and b) you guys didn't actually have anything to do with the music, and this music video itself shouldn't be judged on that basis.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 11:58am
Post 11 of 53
FXhomer32915 wrote:I gave you a star for the effort. I know how music videos are to produce, but I take points off for the music itself. Your chorus sounds just enough like "I'm a maniac, maniac on the floor and I'm dancin' like I never did before." to get you sued. Remember, copyrights extend for 50 years AFTER the author's death. "Maniac" was in the 80s and the author is still alive. The precedent set by the Michael Bolton lawsuit is that all the judge/jury need do is to deem that it sounds enough like "Maniac" and the music in your chorus is identical to it. Great cover art though!
I gave you a minus 1 for completely missing the point, and failing to read the description of the video, in which it names "Shod B. featuring M. Taylor" as the artists.
Getting back on topic though, the video seemed to fit the genre and the song very well. I did also note the unsteadiness of the camera, but I figured it was deliberate, trying to convey the energy and vibrancy of the party.
The green tint on the folks coming down the stairs ~2:38 was a little odd, the sci-fi part of my brain was briefly wondering if aliens were involved.
Sparklers and champagne everywhere was a good finish, must have been fun to film!
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 12:13pm
Post 12 of 53
Absolutely excellent production and without doubt as good as any ,if not,
better than a lot of MTV vids.
Even though music vids are not my "thing" ,an old age problem
but the quality of your work is superb.
Well done all of you.
Success in the future awaits.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 12:18pm
Post 13 of 53
Erm, I have a question...
If someone critiques the choice of music for a film, is that invalid critisism since it was a film composer who did it and not the filmmaker? If so, some of the critique I got for "Art" would be totally invalid then.
Or does that only go for music videos?
And if so... Is it invalid criticising the music in a music video because that's not made by the posters of the video? What if they had to use a building to shoot in they didn't make too? Am I not allowed to critizize that either?
Imo, a video doesn't need "back story" for everyone, as much as people love to give it. It needs to stand on it's own. And in a music video, the music is part of that video. It's not like anyone HAD to make the video to it and had no choice. They could have always said "I don't like the music / have issues with the music" and not make the video. They didn't. They took the music and made a video too it which makes the music part of the video they created and hence I totally don't understand why it's so clear in everyone's mind that critique on the music in that video, which is unquestionably part of it, somehow "makes no sense" or is "completely missing the point".
And since when is it fxhome policy to delete votes for "not making sense" or somehow define what kind of critique is "missing the point" and what isn't? What is one allowed to judge videos on?
Can I also have some votes on my video deleted please, as I think they're clearly missing the point - and some didn't even offer an explanation so I'd like to have those removed as well - you can never be sure...
Sorry, but I don't quite grasp what's happening here - despite the fact I don't share FXhomers comment. (well no, I share it. But I think there's more to the video then the music. But I also believe there's more to some other videos that people don't see or fail to acknowledge. But getting votes deleted for that? Dodgy territory if you ask me...)
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 12:34pm
Post 14 of 53
Sollthar wrote:They took the music and made a video too it which makes the music part of the video they created and hence I totally don't understand why it's so clear in everyone's mind that critique on the music in that video, which is unquestionably part of it, somehow "makes no sense" or is "completely missing the point".
By completely missing the point, I mean that 32915's comments (and seemingly, his rating) are directed mostly at the copyright issues surrounding the lyrics of the music. Since neither Ben or Atom wrote the lyrics, I can't see how this should reflect on their work. They made a video to accompany the music, so critique of the video plus how well it relates to the music, is the point, at least where I'm concerned.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 12:39pm
Post 15 of 53
I get that this is your opinion and I can totally understand as well as share it, but what I don't get is how that warrants another opinion being deleted for "making no sense" (which basically is another term for "I don't agree with" here).
I also wouldn't say that the copyright issues are what make this video - allthough I did comment on the familiarity of the tune. But if FXhomer thinks it's an issue he wants to base his opinion on, how can he not be allowed to do that?
Person X might judge videos from a completely different point of view then you. Fxhomer here seems to come from a film school / business perspective. Given, not many on fxhome have that and that's also fine. We might disagree on each others perspective or not comprehend it even. But to forbid having it is what I have an issue with. It's not like FXhomer wrote total gibberish. He took the time to explain his thoughts and I understand them, though also think he's missing some points. But it's not up to me to decide when an opinion on a video becomes valid enough to warrant a vote. And neither do I think it should be up to anyone else.
Having an unconform or unshared opinion is not breaking any laws.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 1:10pm
Post 16 of 53
Here's the crux of the matter: What makes this debate a bit bizarre, and why I'm surprised you even brought this up, is that 32915's objection wasn't based on the song's quality or his personal opinion. It was based on its legality.
He voted a '1' because he mistakenly thought a copyright breach had taken place. That isn't the case whatsoever, so I removed the '1'. Presumably if 32915 had been aware that there aren't any legal problems he wouldn't have voted in that manner in the first place. He can now re-vote from an informed position if he wishes.
So, really, from that point of view your post sets up a bit of a straw man argument that isn't directly related to 32915's comment and vote.
As for your other points, which raise very interesting (if not entirely relevant) questions...
Sollthar wrote:If someone critiques the choice of music for a film, is that invalid critisism since it was a film composer who did it and not the filmmaker? If so, some of the critique I got for "Art" would be totally invalid then.
No, of course not. In that case, the music was chosen and/or created for the project.
Or does that only go for music videos?
I'd say so, yes. There are exceptions (that Kanye epic video recently, for example, where it looks like it was all conceived as a single thing), but generally the music and the music video are entirely separate entities. The musician makes a piece of music, then the marketing people come in and find a team to make the music video, which is then created as a separate project entirely.
In this case, Atom and Ben have nothing to do with the music whatsoever. They were hired to create the video, based on a song that already existed. The song itself is not a creative part of the music video project - although it did of course still impact upon it.
And if so... Is it invalid criticising the music in a music video because that's not made by the posters of the video?
Not at all. You can criticise the music as much as you like.
The job of the music video is to create something good regardless of the music itself, though - whether it's a great song, a terrible song, or anything in-between.
What if they had to use a building to shoot in they didn't make too? Am I not allowed to critizize that either?
That's a very different case. If the building was chosen for the production, it is inherently part of their creative process. They might not have built the structure itself, but they didn't design and build the camera they used either. But they did explicitly choose to use those particular elements.
Imo, a video doesn't need "back story" for everyone, as much as people love to give it. It needs to stand on it's own.
I agree with this partially. But I also don't want to completely disregard context.
It's like criticising a bad story in a 30 second VFX test. It doesn't require a "back story", as you call it, it just requires a simple understanding of the medium that you're watching. Otherwise you'd criticise a novel for not having images, or a movie for not letting you choose the conversation path and shoot the gun yourself.
Videos can't all be watched and critiqued as if they exist in an equal space, because they don't. Context is important.
And in a music video, the music is part of that video.
It is. But the creators of the video have no control over the creation of the music, that's the point.
The context, in this case, isn't just the music video itself, but the venue in which it is being seen. Watched on MTV it's more of a singular item. In that context, the music is far more important than the video. Seen on FXhome, presented by the directors of the video, the video is the main thing.
To pick a random analogy: if I was in conversation with the visual effects team from Transformers 2, I wouldn't spend the entire time complaining about the film's awful script. It's irrelevant to them. That's why it's perfectly legitimate for bad films to still win technical praise. My opinion of the script is still valid, it just isn't in any way relevant or useful.
It's not like anyone HAD to make the video to it and had no choice. They could have always said "I don't like the music / have issues with the music" and not make the video. They didn't.
This seems like a separate argument again, I'm not sure that it's really connected?
If Ben and Atom (or anybody else) want to direct music videos they can't only go for songs that they like. They're trying to do this as a professional career, not as a hobby, so they can't just stick to their favourite songs and genres like with Barbie Girl.
Especially at this point in their careers - to turn down songs because they didn't like them would be suicidal. They need to earn a reputation first, which will hopefully then give them more freedom to choose their projects.
Besides, surely part of the challenge as a music video director is to create an amazing visual experience regardless of the song itself. Making an amazing video to a lacklustre song is perhaps even more impressive than accompanying a great song.
Of course, this is all rather hypothetical, given that, as I understand it, they both really like
this kind of music.
They took the music and made a video too it which makes the music part of the video they created and hence I totally don't understand why it's so clear in everyone's mind that critique on the music in that video, which is unquestionably part of it, somehow "makes no sense" or is "completely missing the point".
I've seen many, many superb music videos that accompany songs I don't like. I've also seen terrible music videos to songs I love. In both cases, the pieces are separate. A bad music video doesn't make me dislike a good song. Similarly, a song I don't like won't stop me from appreciating a great music video. The music and the video, while interacting with each other, are created by completely separate teams.
Complaining to music video directors about musical quality doesn't really serve any purpose.
And since when is it fxhome policy to delete votes for "not making sense" or somehow define what kind of critique is "missing the point" and what isn't? What is one allowed to judge videos on?
It's not FXhome policy. It was a judgement call I made as a moderator and an individual, just like when you lock, delete or otherwise moderate topics on the forum.
Whenever unfair or illogical votes have been pointed out to me, if I agree with the complaint I'll act accordingly. That's been the case for the last 10 years, there's nothing different about this. You're perhaps not aware of this because votes have never been particularly important to you, but for others they're an important metric that means a lot, so I always look into a vote issue when requested.
In this case Ben and Atom received a 1-star rating on a newly released movie (which could easily knock it out of the top 10 and prevent it from being seen by others) based on an aspect of the project that they had no control over whatsoever, and a complaint which was factually incorrect (that the song breached copyright).
But getting votes deleted for that? Dodgy territory if you ask me...
But it's not up to me to decide when an opinion on a video becomes valid enough to warrant a vote. And neither do I think it should be up to anyone else.
Having an unconform or unshared opinion is not breaking any laws.
This isn't about censoring an opinion. 32915's opinion was that he liked the video, as far as I can tell from his comment. His rating was based on a misunderstanding, not an opinion.
Let me try to be as clear as possible:
1. 32915 voted based on an incorrect factual assumption, unrelated to his actual critical opinion of the piece.
2. This fact has now been corrected and clarified by Ben and Atom, so I have now removed the vote.
3. 32915 can now vote based on his opinion without being affected by the incorrect factual assumption.
It's a fairly simple incident, really, and doesn't go anywhere near censorship as you're trying to imply for some reason. I'd have thought you'd know me better than that!
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 1:57pm
Post 17 of 53
Sorry if I came off wrong. I didn't mean to imply anything negative and I do know you well enough to have no doubt you acted on the best of intentions as always!
But I do still believe it's dodgy territory and I just tried to illustrate that with polemic examples. No offense intended at all, sincerest apologies if I came across that way.
I'm just not sure this was based on a misunderstanding. It could very well be just a different interpretation of legalities, or different knowledge - wouldn't be the first time MTV or musicians had lawyers coming at them, that I know for a fact.
But I don't know that nor am I particularly interested in the legality of this video. But FXhomer quite obviously was, has his opinion on it and just because someone else think differently doesn't make his opinion invalid imo. Legality is also a ground to have different opinions on.
My knowledge on music legalities is certainly not enough to make my own call, so there could be a lawsuit against the musician coming - or everything could be allright and we all life happily ever after - or no one could be bothered. I certainly don't know. Do you? You can savely say what FXhomer said was an incorrect assumption and is legally (not even going into "morally") perfectly fine ground?
In this case, Atom and Ben have nothing to do with the music whatsoever.
That's where I guess have a different view. They posted a video to music they chose
to make. While I know and understand the professional moneymaking flim flam behind working on music videos, ultimately you still can
choose whether or not to do a project and ultimately create a symbiosis, where your video and the music inseperatebly linked together. At least that's the way I see it. I've done my fair share of commercial stuff myself and some people critiqued me because they hated the show I did the logo designs for - I had nothing to do with the show apart from designing it's visual appearance. But such is life. I did choose
to make that show.
Everything you do is a choice
as far as I'm concerned.
Context is important
Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you said really apart from my different understanding mentioned above.
And I also think the 1 star rating based on what could be a dubios and not very open minded opinion is unjustified, but I don't think anyones rating needs my or your justification.
Anyways, sorry to have made this a bigger issue then it was.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 2:32pm
Post 18 of 53
Sollthar wrote:My knowledge on music legalities is certainly not enough to make my own call, so there could be a lawsuit against the musician coming - or everything could be allright and we all life happily ever after - or no one could be bothered. I certainly don't know. Do you? You can savely say what FXhomer said was an incorrect assumption and is legally (not even going into "morally") perfectly fine ground?
No, I can't. But I also can't safely say that you're not going to be arrested tomorrow for rape and murder. That doesn't mean I'm going to treat you as such, though.
The important point, for me, is that people are innocent until proven guilty. If a case is brought against Atom and Ben or the musician, that would then be a different situation.
Currently there is no such case and no indication of such a case pending, so there is nothing here except hypotheticals and conjecture. Passing a judgement (as 32915 did with his vote) based on either of those is deeply unfair and - to quote your earlier post - 'dodgy territory'.
Otherwise we may as well vote a 1 on every single film in the FXhome cinema, just on the off chance it might have a copyright claim levelled against it at some indeterminate point in the future.
But yes, thanks for clarifying your position, it's appreciated.
Last edited Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 4:36pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 4:19pm
Post 19 of 53
Look, guys, to clear things up: we have the rights to sample the musical scale from 'Maniac'. Lawyers, other producers, people at MTV locally and nationally have all looked at it. If there was any doubt, relinquish it - we have the rights; and by far with more certainty as the creators, who have had it approved for commercial distribution, than some guy who simply doesn't have the facts.
As for content, I do indeed believe that if the music is awful and causes the viewer displeasure, the viewer has a right to vote based on the equivocal 'back story' that the video creator somehow chose to produce such a video for such a song, and the context of the song choice is therein something the video creator can be held liable. However, independent of what you think of the song 'Live It Up', I think there's little denying that the video to it is not well produced and appropriate for the song. I say this with such conviction because, in terms of 'looking like the real thing', I think Live It Up is our best production yet. Our aim is very often for the direction, cinematography and editing to match up in our short films so that it truly 'feels like a movie', and most of the time we get pretty close.
With Live It Up, then, we had the rare opportunity to help out some friends (M. Taylor having done the music for No Rest for the Wicked), exercise some creative liberty, and really 'prove' ourselves in the more 'professional' music video market. With Live It Up, the focus was production value and verisimilitude. It had to seem real, like a real video you would see on MTV or the like. And, on the merits of direction, cinematography and editing (the things we have always emphasized as being our focus) I think we succeeded.
Keep in mind, if you would bear subjectivity, that this is a video by Ben and Andrew Adams of Atomic Productions. Our goal is always to use production values to help sell the 'feel' of anything we create. We want it to be stylish, and we want it to feel anti-homevideo. I don't think Atom myself has ever made any secret of the fact that our professional focuses are editing and cinematography, respectively. As a duo we can capably direct/produce stuff but our individual talents lie in the two primary visual departments.
So, with Live It Up, just consider that what we really wanted to do with it was have the cinematography and the editing establish it's credibility as a legitimate music video, and not some no-charge production provided by friends of the music artists. From there, production design and direction plains big role in styling the video, and they give it it's appropriate feel, it's je-ne-sais-quoi. Or so I like to think.
Thanks to all for commenting, rating, and watching the video; and for engendering discussion. We always appreciate that.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 4:35pm
Post 20 of 53
ben3308 wrote:However, independent of what you think of the song 'Live It Up', I think there's little denying that the video to it is not well produced and appropriate for the song.
I can deny it! I thought it was very well produced and appropriate.
You might want to edit that double negative.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 9:14pm
Post 21 of 53
First of all, Atom, MTV is not responsible for producers violating copyright laws. The producers/artists are solely responsible for their own actions. Secondly, just because no one has come forward to complain doesn't mean you're in the clear. The tune in the chorus is clearly the same as in "Maniac" which is a clear violation if you do not have clearance in writing from the author and the governing organization, e.g., SESAC, BMI, ASCAP, etc. If and when they come forward and file suit, those responsible (including you, who conveniently put in writing that you knew better and did it anyway) can be fined up to $25,000.00 for every copy and for every day they've been out and accessible, but in case you still think I'm ignorant of the applicable laws, I’ll do the research you should have done and notify the governing organization and I’m sure they’ll have their lawyers contact you with information as to where you can send the check. Just because a “rappers” base their “rap” on earlier music (nice way of saying they rip off other artists) doesn’t change the copyright laws. You’re still in violation and you can still be sued. Lastly, this forum is for you to render your opinion on the videos, not your opinion of my opinion. I’ll thank you all to keep that to yourselves in the future. Sorry, Solthar, but the jabbing and sparring over my opinions is getting a bit out of control.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 9:37pm
Post 22 of 53
I know the battles over your opinions are a bit out of control and I also think you're being a bit cornered for it in a way I don't think much of.
While I also often don't share the same views as you and have talked to you before about the tone your posts sometime have I don't think that applies here and I disagree with how your posts are being treated and still disagree on the decision that your vote was deleted. You made a point that, as far as my limited knowledge of copyright goes has grounds. The rest is up to lawyers to decide should the case evrr come up. Not us. You're allowed to have your opinion, even if it's unpopular or wrong.
Your opinion might be debated, but deleted? No.
Then again, try to understand you're coming from a very very different world then the filmmakers of FXhome or even the employes. So your opinions might appear a bit alien to them. Having had my share of the world you come from might make me a bit more open to what you have to say then others. And I'm sure ben and atom did their research as well and made their points clear.
As for your threat: this is the kind of tone Im talking about that isn't welcome. I get you havent been treated quite nicely or fairly in the past. But I hope you wont be "that guy" just to make a point. Things like these certainly dont make you look better.
Lets ne friends here, please.
Last edited Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 10:12pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 9:43pm
Post 23 of 53
Guys, we shot this on July 4th, over 6 months ago. We have done our research and gotten the permission we need for distribution, including consent in writing.
Moreover, even for our worse efforts - the referential 'Barbie Girl' - we received permission from the band Aqua to non-commercially distribute the video on YouTube. Contrary to what I must assume is popular belief, we customarily know what we're doing, here.
Assume we've done our research and are cleared and okay. Please. Christ, people, is there no other copyrighted work on this website? Sollthar, anything ever copyrighted in anything you've done?
Seriously, the first video we make that goes national on television (MTV3 locally and then MTV nationally) which leads to another video of ours (Deja Blu) landing nationally and we get the third degree on whether or not we have the rights to our own content; inclusive of threats from some no-name user here who wants to see us get sued.
If this is the way videos on FXHome will be treated in the future (threats of lawsuit) then we won't be posting such videos here anymore.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 10:21pm
Post 24 of 53
FXhomer32915 wrote:but in case you still think I'm ignorant of the applicable laws, I’ll do the research you should have done and notify the governing organization and I’m sure they’ll have their lawyers contact you with information as to where you can send the check
, don't comment on or rate my materials. I know we put it on here as a 'public forum' for open viewing and discussion, and such prejudice shouldn't be mentioned or allowed. But you truly disgust me sometimes, and I in no way value your opinion- and can do without it.
That may sound harsh and assy- but then again, you've never really said anything to make me feel you deserve otherwise.
FXhomer32915 wrote: this forum is for you to render your opinion on the videos, not your opinion of my opinion. I’ll thank you all to keep that to yourselves in the future.
. This forum is a place for discussion
, and there's a big difference. One that you, quite clearly, can't discern. And that's why I continue to personally have contention with you, and hopefully I've made that adamantly clear.
Ben's right. It's been a while since we've posted stuff on here, but if we're to be met with malicious threats, we'll simply stay away even longer- even as much as we love this place. Because that's just not worth it. We do things professionally now- as of the past 9 or so months- and get paid and go through legalities and so forth. And just to put stuff on here
takes some work and talking to people. But it's something we're happy to go through because, hey, we like you guys and wanna show you our stuff. We like the discussion, the showcase, etc.
But it is
work to get to do. And if it's just gonna be a poo-poo fest of threats and misinformed, holier-than-thou legal-citation that even vaguely
jeopardizes our jobs to any farther-up that might stumble across this forum while Google searching. Well, I can do without that, now.We do this for a living
, FXHomer32915. You teach. That's what you do
, and we know that. I may not offer you any validity for it at all, but I know that- to you
- that means something in the form of authority and experience and cursory knowledge.
produce music videos. That's what we do. That's our profession
. I think
we know what we're doing better than you do. Hearing sameness without knowing any of the legal precedent that went into the video, and foolishly assuming it's just some no-name novice attempt liable to get sued just makes things worse.
I could sue you
right now for defamation of character. Anyone
can sue anyone
. That option is always open for anyone anytime. That doesn't
, however, mean that there are strong enough grounds, legal precedent, or validity to such accusations- and, in most cases, no motion is taken over the opportunity cost of actually suing. Woe is the world, it's a risk everyone takes in making any action every single day. And even then- this is cleared for copyright
. It wouldn't have been allowed to air if it wasn't, it wouldn't be allowed to get shooting permits if it wasn't, and it wouldn't have had to be cleared before being put on this very website
if it hadn't been.
But even in talking about that, what's equally bizarre is how lengthy and adamant you
have been, Sollthar
, on opposing Tarn. At least in so open (and rather irrelevant/inappropriate) of a forum and place. It's sort of insulting in a way, to carry on like that about ratings and moderator validity and choices. Surely this is the exact sort of offhand talk and tangential conversation that you repeatedly
mention to me should be handled and express in private messaging- in this case from you to Tarn? Maybe look back over this and reconsider your actions and words, as I think they misrepresent your true thoughts and ideas the way you claim FXHomer32915's do. Very strange, I've found this whole plethora of comments, in that regard.
But, alas, for all of you guys- I'm sure you knew that.
But I'm sure you knew that.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2011, 11:36pm
Post 25 of 53
I didn't bring up the copyright issue Ben and as I said, I don't even care about that aspect of your video. I've no doubt you did your best in clearing all the rights necessary. As I also said, my knowledge about detailed copyright laws is limited. He thinks this breaks copyright, you say it doesn't. Not sure how turning this into a fight with legal threats and namecalling is going to help anyone.
I know I broke some laws in my early videos and I'm sure there's some obscure laws I have never heard of I broke too. There always are...
FXhomer is just one guy on the internet. Let him have his opinion guys. What is it to you anyways?
I apologize for going off topic, I must have somehow swallowed the whole deletion of the vote wrong and didn't mean any harm or disrespect to Tarn or you for it. I just disagree with deleting a vote for missing the point. Might have completely misread what happened though.
Now back to your music video...
I certainly hope you'll keep posting your videos. I myself always look forward to seeing your work even if I'm not particularly fond of this video, but I thought the other one was really cool and since you guys keep getting better and better at what you do I'd love to see more. I'm sure is almost everyone else on this website.
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2011, 12:20am
Post 26 of 53
Wait- are you serious? You don't see how instilling additional doubt into an already preposterous and factually incorrect assessment can perpetuate it and make it worse?
And then to say 'he thinks you broke copyright' and 'you don't think you broke copyright'. That's just......incredibly
, incredibly insulting. And wrong, how can you not see that?
It's not a subjective 'thought' of whether we did something or didn't. That's about as ridiculous as me going and saying 'I think you completely stole the story for 'Art'', and you 'think you didn't'.
It's not a matter of contention. Either you did or you didn't- it's ridiculous to act like a subjective robot of a person and treat it as completely open to interpretation. Some things are clearer than that.
But ah, I'm being emotional, aren't I? Well sometimes that happens when I feel the validity of my ability or profession being threatened or called into question. Like I said, we do this professionally. As it is with any professional work, it is best- as a consumer or viewer- to assume all copyrights have been covered. I don't go into Terminator Salvation in a tussle over the fact that they use Sony Vaios for fear they're 'breaching copyright', after all.
You're free to disagree, but I think your cold approach and inadvertent assistance to FXHomer32915's argument is damaging, and I don't think you realize it.
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2011, 12:50am
Post 27 of 53
Sigh... I don't recall ever hearing the words insulting and offending thrown at me as much as when I come into contact with you...
That's about as ridiculous as me going and saying 'I think you completely stole the story for 'Art'', and you 'think you didn't'.
I'd say "I wasn't aware of it", not "I didn't". But who knows...
Anyways. Not sure there's much point in pushing this any further. As you correctly stated, I should have never gotten into it in the first place. Maybe I'm not making myself clear very well today, had a really stressful week and just followed it all on my iPhone until this very minute. Maybe my way of thinking is just by nature insulting. Maybe I just don't care as much as you about random opinions on internet forums. I really don't know.
Sorry. In any case. Honestly.
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2011, 7:49am
Post 28 of 53
Bottom line, guys. My post wasn’t meant to be insulting. I gave the video one star because the music was copied, not composed as an original. I’ll concede the argument on the copyright and my example was not a threat, it was making a point. MTV, unless they own the rights to “Maniac” does not have the authority to grant permission for you or anyone else to use the music and they are not responsible for any copyright infringement. The rights must be purchased through the governing organization that controls the rights to it, e.g., ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc., and they don’t just give it away because some guys want to make a video for fun. The music in “I Am Sam” was all Beatles, but they were covered and not the original recordings because that doesn’t cost nearly as much, but even then, it was more than half the budget of the movie. It’s expensive, which is why, as an independent, I don’t use production music for my soundtracks because I just plain can’t afford it. My comments are not intended to insult anyone, but I do, out of respect for the artists, tell it like it is. I have no problem with someone covering a song legally obtained, but I don’t respect any artist using existing music under new lyrics and calling it a new composition and the same goes for film remakes. I don’t care if it’s Steven Spielberg, if it’s not original, I don’t respect the effort. That’s just my opinion. It’s not meant to insult you, but to explain why I vote the way I do. I cannot consider anyone an artist if all they’re doing is copying someone else, any more than anyone who reproduces a print of a DaVinci dares to call themselves an artist. I’m not saying you didn’t do a good job on the video, I’m saying it’s based on someone else’s work and not something you developed on your own. You have the right to disagree with my opinion and I invite you to do so, but my opinion is not going to change even if it’s deleted and even if you tell me not to vote on your work. I feel the same way about any video depicting lightsaber fights. It’s not an original idea; it’s a tired idea that was first conceived 30 years ago. Someone copying that as if it’s going to knock our socks off the 430th time we see it does not impress me. FXHome software is incredibly versatile and is capable of so much more, but no one wants to put in the time and work necessary to fully realize its potential, save for a few very talented individuals. “Dawn of the Ted” is a great example of someone thinking outside the box. I assume it’s all original and respect the effort putting it together. The video work, direction and story line are first rate and got three or four stars out of me. I don’t remember the actual rating I gave, but I was impressed and I expect it won’t be long before we begin seeing “Ted” videos between films in the theaters. However, it took work and a lot of hours and long days to accomplish, which most of the producers here aren’t willing to put in and I don’t give kudos to people who don’t deserve it. At the very least, that would taint the rating system and reduce its value to nothing, which is not fair to those who deserve the stars. Bottom line, it’s my opinion and I call them as I see them. If you don’t agree, I respect that, but do so because you have a difference of opinion, not because you don’t like me. Give me the same respect I give you. Just voice your opinion without trashing mine. Solthar, I’ve been working on taming my tude down a bit here based on your objection. I appreciate your candor and hope my future posts won’t be as poisonous.
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2011, 8:27am
Post 29 of 53
And, thank you for the attempt at clarification. Your rationale, and the conclusions you make to get to it, are still frustratingly 'missing the point' in my eyes, but I can appreciate the fact that you've tried, at least, to outline yourself and perspective.
I do, however, want to note that the music- once again- isn't copied. It is entirely original, recorded by the artist, with lyrics written and performed by the artist.
If you're to 'assume' everything in Dawn of the Ted is copyright-safe, why not this? They're all just assumptions, after all, I guess is my point. You know nothing of the legal background of this, and if you're not to take my word that 'copyrights have been cleared', well, then what am I to give you?
Your words used to be 'this will never sell because ______'- but I have a feeling we sort of stopped you in your tracks with this, as we did sell it- and it went to MTV. From there, the argument became 'well sure, this will sell- but you'll get sued because ______'.
I'm not sure you mean to, but you create this absolute and supreme air of dissatisfaction. And what's more, it varies widely. You like Hula Hoop for it being a parody, and are willing to ignore downfalls in it because it's a parody, and yet give Inebriation one star for not having a story. You mention Dawn of the Ted here- a brilliantly executed and hilarious little film- but one that quite clearly has a well-told rehash of an old story with materials and themes (and the title a play on previous work. Then go onto say how even the smallest inkling of use, no matter how good the execution, earns no respect in your book.
Now, I could understand that- your logic, in many ways, is sound. But the way you implement your own rules, the way you call things, is entirely contradictory to this. Nonsensical, even.
And honestly, I'm just trying to figure it out. You've set in your head that this is 'Maniac'. Well, it's not. Sure, it sounds like it- but it's all original. But what about likeness? Well, that's all been checked off with the appropriate parties in talks and papers that did not include myself- and when it came to us to produce, and then MTV to broadcast, we were given the 'ok' for copyright. From there, it is my place to trust what was given to me.
Like I said- I don't know why you think you know better on this matter, but I understand what you're trying to say. However, not knowing the details behind production (and not bothering to ask), you can't really make a judgment on such background issues.
And seriously: Did you read or click any of the links I mentioned far earlier in response to your initial post? Three of the hottest, biggest artists right now are using the exact same beat on popular songs. They're from competing record companies. Nobody is in lawsuits or being sued.
This is how music is these days. At least professional music.
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2011, 10:33pm
Post 30 of 53
Last post on this, guys. Understand what I mean by “copying other’s work.” Telling a story in a different way is not copyright infringement. Telling the same story in the exact same way would be and I don’t respect any artist telling another’s story and seeking credit for it in any way. For example, “The Lion King” is just a rehash of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” but told in a different setting and in a different way. “Avatar” is a rehash of “Pocahontas,” but told in a different setting and in a different way. Both required talent and work aside from just copying the story line and both are great accomplishments. The “Live It Up” chorus music is “exactly” what was written for “Maniac” and, therefore, required no talent or work aside from changing the lyrics. That is not deserving of any award or recognition. I understand, from these most lengthy posts that your part was just producing the video. That I misunderstood and apparently upset you by mistakenly judging you with the author of the song, but that doesn’t change the copyright issue. To clear up some obvious misconceptions from a few of the responses, “Rape or Murder are criminal offenses. Copyright infringement is a civil action. “Sony Vaio” is a trademark and a totally different thing, but just as easy to violate. If your singer were to walk around drinking a “Coke” without first getting permission to do so from Coca-Cola, everyone involved is violating trademark law. A few other points, just because MTV took it and you sold it doesn’t clear the issue. Selling the product is a copyright issue, should it be determined one exists. Michael Bolton sold his song too, which was what started the suit and, again, just because no one has come forward with a complaint doesn’t mean you’re in the clear. Every person or entity involved in the purchase, transfer, production and/or distribution of the material has the responsibility to verify there are no infringements taking place. To say that no one came forward is not an affirmative defense to a civil action and the longer it’s out there, the greater the damages that can be assessed. Bottom line, I’m not involved so I don’t really care other than I cannot and will not respect any so-called artist who copies another’s work and claims it as his or her own. That’s my opinion and “deleting” it will not change it. As far as the video, aside from some of the choppy images, it’s reasonably good. I could see granting you two stars, but let’s face it; it’s not Oscar material. Now, let’s put this one to rest and respect my opinions as I respect yours and agree to disagree.
Posted: Sun, 9th Jan 2011, 1:32am
Post 31 of 53
FXhomer32915 wrote:The “Live It Up” chorus music is “exactly” what was written for “Maniac” and, therefore, required no talent or work aside from changing the lyrics.
and "Live It Up"
Now, I know there is some copyright liability to be had just initially, sure- even though I'm telling you it's been covered- but really listen to them. Listen
It's not the same song with the lyrics changed. Sure, the pitch-shifts bear semblance purposefully. I'm not at all denying that- it's supposed to have an air of 'Maniac-ness' about it.
But the music, the chorus line, the tone, and the musical scales- it's all original
. It was created by the artist. The instrumentation, the pace, the scales- it's all very different
. It took time to produce and create. It was not a matter of requiring 'no talent or work aside from changing the lyrics'.
That's just insulting to the artists. Really.
As with everything else: I get it. You know some stuff about copyright. Congrats!
The problem here, is that you still seem to be completely missing my point. Trivializing my understanding of what copyright is
(explaining product placement, seriously?) just makes me angry- but you've obviously been bruised by this conversation and are, admittedly, trying to communicate your points more-appropriately and clearly. So I'll leave you be.
Just know that you aren't understanding what I
am saying. I understand what copyright is- I just wish you would take my word for it and assume I know what I'm talking about when I say we have cleared copyrights. You don't see action short films on here with the subhead in the description reading 'DON'T WORRY GUYS WE CLEARED COPYRIGHTS FOR THE GUN SOUND EFFECTS WE USED'.
Although, just because I'm interested- what is this about?
I could see granting you two stars, but let's face it; it's not Oscar material.
Two stars? Okay, well that's pretty low in my book- but okay, I could accept that. I'm just wondering: Why? What is your grading scale for music videos? How do you decide that something like this is deemed 'sub-par/mediocre', as a 2-rating might suggest?
And Oscar material? It's a music video- it was never expected to be such, and I should hope you see and judge and grade it on a scale reflective of what it is.
Am I upset by your ratings? Yeah, of course I am. You've significantly brought down every rating on all of my recent videos by given them all piss-poor 1 or 2 stars. But I know that's a matter of tact and opinion, and with all good there is some bad. When Inebriation wasn't #1 in the Top Ten when it was released, and I could attribute that to you- yeah, sure, I shouldn't
care about that. I should be able to not hold ratings up in my head as some big thing that they (really) aren't. But that sorta gets to me.
My point here, though- is that I can still deal
with that. What I still, still
- in trying very hard
to understand, truthfully- can't figure out, is why and what statements like 'Oscar material' and 'granting you two stars' mean. You've said, *sooooo graciously
* that you're willing to 'give me' that last post- so I doubt you'll respond, but I'm just curious. What do those things mean to you? How should I take them?
Honestly, just interested.
Posted: Sun, 9th Jan 2011, 2:59am
Post 32 of 53
All the "Oscar" reference meant is, if we hand out 5 stars for every project, the rating system means little to nothing so we have to keep it on the ground. No insults intended. Your video is good, but I can't pin stars on the song for the reason previously stated. However, that's just my little pet peeve. I feel as though you’re reading it as saying, “it ain’t all that” and that’s not what I’m saying. The video work, i.e., direction, lighting, etc., is good, even first rate as music videos go. My only beef is with the song. The stars were for the video work. Check my rating of Deja Blu. I’m not a rap fan, but that one won me over in a big way. Did you do that video as well?
Posted: Sun, 9th Jan 2011, 4:10am
Post 33 of 53
Aha, well that makes more sense. And I agree, to an extent- you can't rate everything on some high pedigree- but I also believe the compass for 'what _____ deserves what ____ star ratings' varies dependent on context and work. But that's all a matter of preference I suppose. Just nice to see it practiced, I guess.
And yes, I also directed/produced 'Deja Blu'- which also aired on MTV and premiered on BET. Both videos are part of a recent string of professional music videos my brother and I have been doing these past few months. Really exciting stuff.
We've got a few more in the can we want to put up here, we're just checking on timing and clearance from the labels/artist because of (surprise, surprise) copyrights and our allowance of minor distribution rights. Look for some more stuff soon, though- and thank you for the clarification.
Posted: Sun, 9th Jan 2011, 4:37am
Post 34 of 53
Well received and I appreciate the professional response. I'm not a big fan of MTV, but I'll look for your next vids on FXHome. I'm buried in the first draft of a television pilot I'm pitching SyFy so I'm not logging on as often, but I promise to look for your new stuff and also to temper my ratings with a bit more professionalism and to better justify them to try and prevent any further misunderstandings.
Posted: Sun, 9th Jan 2011, 6:02am
Post 35 of 53
Are these videos going to be airing on MTV anytime soon? If so, let me know. I'd like to watch them on the tv.
Posted: Sun, 9th Jan 2011, 6:27am
Post 36 of 53
I'm not certain, actually. 'Live It Up' had MTV airplay last summer/early fall, and 'Deja Blu' premiered on BET in November before we were allowed to put it on our YouTube. The MTV airing for it is still pending- waiting on promotions or something- stuff I know nothing about- just had to get MTV's people several
copies in multiple formats. (picky people about those codecs) Waiting on official premiering there details, I'll let you guys know.
Another one we've yet to release will likely have airplay as well, though I don't know the details and exposure it'll get just yet.
Posted: Mon, 10th Jan 2011, 9:25am
Post 37 of 53
Glad to see things appear to have calmed down in this topic. I still find the conflict over the last couple of pages very, very strange but it looks like calmer debate has now prevailed.
ben3308 wrote:If this is the way videos on FXHome will be treated in the future (threats of lawsuit) then we won't be posting such videos here anymore.
That'd be a real shame, to change your posting preferences based on a single person's opinion/comments. I for one hope you keep posting.
Posted: Mon, 10th Jan 2011, 10:24am
Post 38 of 53
Not my favorite kind of music video or music, but that was very pro. And with that kind of music, I understand that that kind of thing is pretty much requested/expected. I really liked the set design, and great cinematography/editing as always. Look forward to see what comes of your recent works. Fo' stars, as the content didn't do much for me but the execution was pretty spot on, save a few camera movements that were so-so.
Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2011, 2:43am
Post 39 of 53
Please don't take it that way, Ben3308. My ratings were posted with a different goal in mind that I now realize doesn't really apply here. My future ratings will be with that in mind. When placed under that template, I realize my ratings were unnecessarily low, which I understand unfairly cost a few contestants the placement they deserved. For that, I apologize and can only strive to make up for it by carefully ensuring my future votes are cast as FXHome intended. You’re obviously a very responsible producer intent on distributing quality entertainment and Heaven knows we need more of those, so please don’t let my past posts dissuade you from posting your work as that would be a tremendous loss to your audience and I don’t want that on my conscience.
Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2011, 3:05am
Post 40 of 53
Thanks for your clarification and for your subjectivity. I would not have responded so sourly had I not been angry that you made comments about what these boards were 'meant for' - when, if you know me or Atom on here, we're vehemently anti-'use of copyrighted materials' and are often meticulous in our insistence on using 100% original content.
This is slightly different for our demo work, which we mainly post on FXhome as a 'hype' factor that we think people here enjoy; but by and large anything we do, even for fun, is using music and content that we either create and own or have licensed to us (or the parties involved), and Live It Up is no different.
The thing, too, that I think made this so frustrating was that, as mentioned, 'Live It Up' is one of my most proud 'looking like the real thing' accomplishments to date, and rightly so - it was picked up locally by an MTV3 affiliate and consequently went to the right people where it aired nationally. This airing, too, gave use credibility as music video producers and we've now shot a half-dozen other music videos as a result, the first of which has itself aired on BET and is set to air on MTV and MTV2 (the Chalie Boy 'Deja Blu' video).
So, I suppose, it's kind of like, "well, if there was any video you wanted to 'call something on' in the FXhome cinema, I can't believe this is it" and that's what was so frustrating. It seemed as if, because you only focused on not just the music, but the legality of the music, rather than the video, you had largely 'missed the point' - and had chosen to miss the point on (from what I can assume) is one of the smaller group of videos on here with cleared usage rights.
Anyhow, glad we could clear this up, as I've always been mystified by your ratings. Notably, too, had you not rated my own 'Inebriation' in the 1/5 range it would have been the highest-rated film of 2010 on this website.
But bygones are bygones, as the saying goes.
Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2011, 3:17am
Post 41 of 53
I think it was kind of pointless to give the video one star, while trying to make a point. The Atom Brothers are responsible for the video, not the music itself. Plus, the people you are trying to make your point across to will probably never have seen your post.
Fxhomer, (no offense.... but) you give a lot of reviews that are very brutal. Nothing like, "I think the story could have been improved and the acting could use some work, but nonetheless try again, you'll get there." All you do is post harsh reviews on everything, even things made by kids. It's as if you are trying to discourage them from a hobby. Ben and Atom have posted harsh reviews when appropriate, but know when not to be so rude. I think most people can decipher between the too and actually understand what the person is asking for: A review on the effect/video/etc. If you wanted to post purely on your thoughts and views on the music, do it elsewhere.
Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2011, 3:31am
Post 42 of 53
Duly noted, Ben3308. I think I went in grading the videos here as I grade my students’ films when the work here is not done with the same goal in mind. My students always start my class thinking “cool scenes” and SPFX are what makes great films and my jobs is convincing them that that couldn’t be farther from the truth and story is everything. Talk about frustrating, but I understand that is not the goal of the FXHome videos and that some are just guys (or girls) playing around with the cool new software they just bought and being told your stuff sucks is not a real character-builder so, hopefully, I can keep that in mind for my future ratings and offer my sincere apologies for any damage I caused you, Atom or anyone else here. That wasn't my intention.
Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2011, 3:47am
Post 43 of 53
2xZProductions, I've conceded the point. My purpose for those reviews was misguided. I have since been "schooled" as to the purpose of the forum and ratings. I recently gave a stellar rating to one of the videos based largely on the acting of one of the participants and was subsequently told, in his thank you note, that I had raked his former video over the coals, which I didn’t remember, but was a bit humbled by it. He is 15 years old and one of the most talented natural actors I’ve ever seen and got me thinking I hadn’t given him a fair chance by grading him on the one video and not on the body of his work, so I’ve revised my method of judging the entries. I thank you for your response and hope this is the end of this thread. Regards.
Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2011, 4:06am
Post 44 of 53
Thanks again for the reasoning. I'm not expecting you to judge Atomic Productions work on any mediocre scale, as we do like to hold our own standards against professional work in many aspects. Just keep in mind with us, for instance, that our focuses as filmmakers (and film students at the University of Texas) is editing and cinematography; with minor emphasis on directing actors and production design.
So when we, for instance, make something, if our story is not as considerate as The Shawshank Redemption, it's likely our efforts were funneled elsewhere into technical departments, which we are pursuing professionally and collegiately.
It's also why we've enjoyed making music videos lately, too, because we get to take our marketable technical skills and apply them, across the board, to such projects - going even further to include little elements of direction and production design within the videos.
Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2011, 12:45pm
Post 45 of 53
FXhomer32915 what school do you teach at. A good friend of mine Don Renake attends film school somewhere in Texas. I know Texas is a large state I was just wondering.
Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2011, 1:50am
Post 46 of 53
I'm a freelance teacher. I don't teach any accredited four-year film courses.
Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2011, 1:06pm
Post 47 of 53
FXhomer32915 wrote:I'm a freelance teacher. I don't teach any accredited four-year film courses.
Another quick question, Your web site seems to still be down, is there any other place I can check out some of your film work?
Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2011, 9:54pm
Post 48 of 53
Might I inquire then too, FXHomer32915- if there's a place you predominantly teach at? Or is your work more sporadic than that. As I am from Texas, live in Austin, have multiple friends in Houston, and grew up in Dallas- I'd be interested to know if by chance myself or someone I know might've crossed paths with you.
Posted: Wed, 26th Jan 2011, 6:48pm
Post 49 of 53
Check it out. The new Ghostface Killah video is totally ripping you guys off. Ghostface Killah - 2getha Baby
If you guys invested in some proper stabilization (I think the shakiness of the handheld stuff in this video is the only
drawback), you could easily be competing with things like the Ghostface video, which I saw posted on Gorilla vs Bear this morning. The only thing that makes the Ghostface video better is that the shots are silky smooth. And the song, but that's a discussion for another time.
Posted: Wed, 26th Jan 2011, 8:39pm
Post 50 of 53
Yeah, the ghosty render of Live It Up makes the smoothness of the camerawork look really jittery, but it really is mostly a rendering problem; I have a pretty steady hand.
Moreover, however, I've netted an indiSLIDER, battery grip and heavier lens since this shoot, so will likely be more steady in the future.
Posted: Wed, 26th Jan 2011, 11:30pm
Post 51 of 53
(The Chosen One: that’s not my web site. They just host an email account for me. For the past two years I've been doing projects for law enforcement, e.g., "Shoot, Don't Shoot" video scenarios and other training films for the state and some local colleges. The projects are contracted out to me and, therefore, don't belong to me and, because they are aimed at law enforcement training, I am prohibited from posting or otherwise distributing them anywhere. I am, however, developing a television pilot, which will be pitched to SyFy among other networks, which I cannot post because, if they buy it, it will no longer be mine to post and posting it before pitching it could jeopardize the sale. As I have stressed more than once, this is a business and business comes first. FXHome is just a playground and, while I still use some of the FXHome products for speed and convenience, most of my work is done using the Adobe CS4 Master Collection.
Posted: Wed, 26th Jan 2011, 11:49pm
Post 52 of 53
Oh you fancy, huh?
FXhomer32915 wrote:I still use some of the FXHome products for speed and convenience, most of my work is done using the Adobe CS4 Master Collection.
Posted: Thu, 27th Jan 2011, 9:21pm
Post 53 of 53
Hey, Atom. What’s up? No, actually I got lucky with that one. A friend bought it and realized it wasn't something he could just "pick up" and sold it to me for a third of the price, but I'll tell you, it's amazing how well the FXHome software stacks up against the Adobe suite. While it in no way is as versatile or as powerful as Adobe’s Master Collection, feature for feature, FXHome's Vision Lab is capable of competently going head to head so well the untrained eye can't separate the two. As I said, I still use the my Vision Lab for some jobs because it’s easier and faster and does the job just as well.