Posted: Sat, 12th Oct 2002, 1:31pm
Post 1 of 54
|What is RedFruit? Basically, its an action/thriller. |
The concept: things going boom and guns going bang. | The Plot: NONE.
That's the beauty of this project. You don't have to worry about some mumbo jumbo crap story that hollywood has plagued you in. You just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Not happy? Want a plot. Fine. I'll pull one out of my ass like most action writers...let's see. Stiletto, an assassin who's always in control, is going after something very special and important. Lo and behold, Daugherty and his team are also there and mean to stop him...but Stiletto is prepared...as usual.
Last edited Sat, 12th Oct 2002, 3:23pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Sat, 12th Oct 2002, 1:59pm
Post 2 of 54
Nice, a really nice little movie. as u said your self. no plot, but i liked it..
But hey. couldnt u take away that red thing on the shotgun?!
keep ut with the good work..
Posted: Sat, 12th Oct 2002, 2:08pm
Post 3 of 54
Hi ( you'll hate me by the end of this )
some good camera angles
speach sound was low,
a bit too much camera movement for the lenght of the film.
I found it brought nothing new to the ( running shooting ) section ( i was doing the same thing 15 years ago, but without the mussle flashes )
I told you, that you would hate me, but if it had a little something else ( i'm not talking about story, but something that would brake the mold, something new we have not seen before.)
Anyway sorry, please don't hate me,
I'll show you my old films if you want.
Posted: Sat, 12th Oct 2002, 2:17pm
Post 4 of 54
Yes...YES...YES we all wanna see b4uask movie.
Posted: Sat, 12th Oct 2002, 2:18pm
Post 5 of 54
SHUT UP ADA!
Posted: Sat, 12th Oct 2002, 2:21pm
Post 6 of 54
I have hundreds of films with me and my mates running around shooting, they all look the same,,,, they are boring, i'll put them all on 1 vhs tape and post it to the poor people that want it.
( they have no fx ( eg: alam )
Posted: Sat, 12th Oct 2002, 2:51pm
Post 7 of 54
Meh, don't care too much if you made hundreds of films like this...not really. I had fun making it and everyone else I know had fun watching it.
the sound was weird...well duh, i mean it is an 8 min clip that i have and tried to compress it for everyone to view.
either way, there is a professor from a place called Ryerson University(here in toronto) and he is showing to a production studio name Fourth Floor (who do some Nike ads) and thinks i have a good chance of getting an apprentice thingy there.
I'm sure if you saw this in its full glory on a SONY XBR tv, you would diffrent thoughts.
Oh, and for camera movement...maybe you enjoy boring still shots. I don't, and think that's what makes Kubricks' films kinda boring.
Posted: Sat, 12th Oct 2002, 3:12pm
Post 8 of 54
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAA!! I was the first person of the public to ever see this movie!! Even ask Cypher himself.. I was the first person to view this film, and let me tell you, it is the best..... I already reviewed it for Cypher when I watched it, so I cant really do it again because it was so good. Bye and awesome film
Posted: Sat, 12th Oct 2002, 4:17pm
Post 9 of 54
i knew you would take it the wrong way.
Right your actors had a few lines to say at the start, ( the music was loader and made it hard to hear) (I'm not telling you this because i don't like you or anything, but because it's true.
( in fact the first film i put on here you done a run down on the pros and cons, I never took it any other way than helpful )
The camera was never on a tripod ( not a bad thing ) but you did have it moving too much nearly ever scene was following or chasing, or swinging. ( but that's just me, i've entered contests and was told the same things years ago, I've found old people ( over 40 ) don't like watching films with jerky or moving camera work ( it can cause fits in some cases ) not saying yours does.
As for the running, well, we have all gone out with mates one and took a camera and filmed, came home and edited it.
If you made the bad guy an alien, or robot, or the good guys are from a different time or under cover police, sas, Elite force, but all you had was (block your ears ) 2 guys shooting and chasing another.
ew all have done that.
hands up anyone that has not done that.
please don't take offence to this, i never have on your comments about my films.
Posted: Sat, 12th Oct 2002, 10:24pm
Post 10 of 54
Since malone seems reluctant to add this information(don't know why
), ill just add it here:
Official RedFruit Site
Quicktime 6 Required
Posted: Mon, 14th Oct 2002, 3:47am
Post 11 of 54
Hey cy, I really enjoyed yer flick and thought it was just rite for the style you were aiming at. it was different and didnt use a tripod or any of that hoakey stuff. Not really for balding guys I think...More for the new generation of filmgoers...but say what ya like i guess. lol
Posted: Mon, 14th Oct 2002, 6:19pm
Post 12 of 54
Unfortuneatly, fortune vomits in my shoes once more as I couldn't hear it. No sound at all, beggar. My computer said something about it needing extra software, it also said that the software was unavailable, so why I ask you, did Quicktime make it so it needed extra software that doesn't exist!!!! There's a big design fault there see if you can spot it. It does look good, type of thing I make except mine has a dirty great plot, that doesn't always make sense and most of the scenes contain nothing but DIALOGUE!!!!!! shock, horror what was I thinking. I need more bloodshed damn it. Keep up the good work.
Posted: Mon, 14th Oct 2002, 7:11pm
Post 13 of 54
Do you have quicktime 6
? I know it won't work for 5 because its MPEG4 audio, and quicktime 5 didn't have support for it.
just download QT 6 from apple and it'll work fine.
EDIT: heh, i don't remember. i'm not gonna post and leave it at 777 for now...ill just edit this post lol
Last edited Mon, 14th Oct 2002, 8:28pm; edited 2 times in total.
Posted: Mon, 14th Oct 2002, 8:19pm
Post 14 of 54
Ah that sounds about right. Cheers for the technical advice. I notice that you last post was your 777th, did you get freaked out when you'd made 666 posts?
Posted: Mon, 14th Oct 2002, 10:13pm
Post 15 of 54
I thought the shaky camera work, really worked. I normally don't like shaky stuff, but I like fast stuff, and that was fast. Like I said there was no sound, but it was good, is it just me or did one of those guys fire only about 2 shots from a rifle before it ran out. I thought it was good, although that slick lookin guy with the shades in the miltary uniform shoulda been the assassin. Less shorts next time please. It disturbed me. Couldn't tell entirely what was goin on, as the cam work coupled with the lack of audio, proved to be quite a combo. Either way, just added to the chaos, which is after all what it's all about. Parts of the fights looked a little rehearsed. But can't go wrong really, well done, bravo, and I'll see you on the beach... No wait, wrong film.
Posted: Mon, 14th Oct 2002, 10:33pm
Post 16 of 54
the guy with the shorts (he's wearing shorts for a reason) had more than 2 shots...but i ended up cuting them and just adding sound in some places because it was just to much jumping between 3 actors in different areas for more than what I have now. (get QT 6, then you can listen to the original score too!
as for the shorts? well, i wanted to hammer into the audience from the beghing "oh, he's gonna die" and i think the shorts bit gets that across well...so you figure he's gonna get shot...but not the other....
understand my reasoning? i hope so
Posted: Mon, 14th Oct 2002, 10:44pm
Post 17 of 54
I read ya, loud and clear. Clever use of shorts. Well done.
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 9:26pm
Post 18 of 54
Ah, finally online!
The movie was a cool shootout and the Gladiator Score went pretty well with it... The Editing was very well done, but I didn't really like the camerawork... You really should try to use a tripod or at least someone with calmer hands as the cameraman...
But it was very entertaining!
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:03pm
Post 19 of 54
I'm working on getting it so I can hear it. I'm imagining it with the as mentioned Gladiator score. Music like that works better than anyother in an action film, more powerful, that was one of the matrix's failings, it's lack of powerful music. But seeing a film without sound, is like viewing a Van Goch with half the colours missing.
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:05pm
Post 20 of 54
Yeah... zimmers scores are always a good choice for heroic action...
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:11pm
Post 21 of 54
Zimmer's good. Mancina's good too, he did Con Air, Speed, Speed 2, Assassins and loads more, I think his best work was the main theme to Bad Boys, the bit that plays as the opening titles appear over various shots of Miami. I may very well steal that for my film.
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:14pm
Post 22 of 54
Actually, i need to correct you Sollthar...that is not Zimmer's Gladiator score. You remember the gladiator score from the version you viewed over a month ago. This is actually an original score made by a fellow name Mark S. Affeld for this project. I told him though that I would like a gladiator-sounding score...and i guess he achieved that perfectly
to see more of his works, you can see his page at www.mp3.com/djscore
ya, the camerawork...most people here don't like camera's with motion (like this film), i on the other hand, can't stand many tripod shots...i mean look at kubricks films...that's what makes them somewhat unwatchable for me (like Full Metal Jacket). I think the camera work in this was phenomonal along with the editing(you would agree too if you saw the raw footage). But that's just me. Don't worry though, RedFruit 2 had some tripod shots in it...tho it is a car chase lol...so there are steady shots, but shots that are even more shaky.
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:20pm
Post 23 of 54
I know Mancina... he works together with Zimmer (they're in the same studio called "media-ventures" - Harry Gregson Williams is one of them too)...
Oh.. that version is different? Actually I watched to version you gave me a couple of weeks ago... Is this one any different? Or just the audio? Whoops... sorry....
i don't mean still shots. im not a fan of big still tripodshots either... but the movement has to be smooth. Not shaky. Smooth movement needs a special installment, noone can move smoothly just by hand... A shakey picture isn't the same as a moving picture... One is pro, one is not...
(Except you want to do it as an artform like the "dogme" movies - but noone watches them..)
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:23pm
Post 24 of 54
Alot of motion in the camera is fine, as it adds loads of energy, makes it more exciting. However if the camera, is real shaky and you have to think for about 10 seconds to figure out what just happened, 'cos it was too shaky to see. Well, that's not so good. Better like that, than just straight boring shots, that make it stale.
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:25pm
Post 25 of 54
Yeah... You can move your camera... In an actionscene it will be BETTER if you move your camera. But not like this...
Search the internet... There are devices the smooth the cameramovement. I have used on of this in a TV production. Their awesome... They're like a back-back. You can even run with those and the picture isn't too shakey still... great stuff...
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:26pm
Post 26 of 54
Believe me, if i had a steady-cam rig, i would DEFINETLY use it...but i'd like a crane more...i think crane shots are the nicest most of the time.
I don't think the camera in this was that shaky that you have to think about it for 10 seconds like saint said...i wanted a completely handheld feel though, one where it feels like you're with them.
You guys ever see Tigerland? most of that movie is simply handheld on 16mm cams...and it's phenomenal, fits perfectly
sollthar...so you DIDN'T see the newer version that is up? what a shame, its significantly better and some parts reedited (like the fight scene)...that would explain the non-5 star rating from you
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:28pm
Post 27 of 54
Damn... Im sorry... My mistake.... *blush*
Ill download the new one...
STEADYCAM!!! That was the name! Right... Thats what I meant... you should buy one of these... thei're awesome... :9
I've seen Tigerland... Didn't like it though...
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:30pm
Post 28 of 54
That wasn't a personal attack, saying that I had to sit and think for 10 seconds after each shot. Believe me I never think about anything for 10 seconds. I thought it was good, I was just saying that, that's what they can sometimes feel like.
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:31pm
Post 29 of 54
ya, steadycam. the proper ones are in the thousands. I know i can build one only for $50 in materials...but i'm too lazy.
how did you not like Tigerland????
"Was that the count?"
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:37pm
Post 30 of 54
I didn't like the camera... honestly...
And I thought that main character was an asshole...
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:40pm
Post 31 of 54
ur talking about tigerland right? not my main character being an asshole i hope (and the camera) lol
well, that's my style, i like that type of camerawork
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:44pm
Post 32 of 54
lol... no, I meant Tigerland... That guy from tigerland...
The best example for camerawork I like is "what lies beneath"... That was veeeery creative... Had some great and very complicated shots in it...
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:53pm
Post 33 of 54
I've been meaning to see "Tigerland". Joel Schumacher isn't it? I don't like him if it is, he lost me when I saw "8mm" dire film. Just appaling. And I like almost everyfilm ever made. Cranes are good, I want a Steadicam. I made a makeshift one out of a tripod, a piece of cloth and my jacket pocket, doesn't really work as well though. That's what I love about this, the ingenious ways round every problem. Incidentally, I think John Woo's cam work is perfect. I like the cam work that accompanies Jerry Bruckheimer productions. Also Hardboiled is a perfect example of action editing. If you're interested.
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 10:56pm
Post 34 of 54
Yeah, John Woos camerawork rules! Right!
But with Woo its not just the camera... its all movement... The actors, the colors, the debris, the muzzleflashes... everything... His actionscenes are more a ballet than anythign else... beautiful...
Posted: Wed, 16th Oct 2002, 11:15pm
Post 35 of 54
Wow a fellow Woo fan. If you see my film, I'm sure you'll recognise a few tributes and influences in there. I watched Hardboiled for about the 600th time today, I also watched Once a Thief and Blackjack, 'cos it was my day off. John Woo's a genius. You're right everything is perect in his films.
Posted: Thu, 17th Oct 2002, 12:03am
Post 36 of 54
I hope your talking about his older films...like the old-school hong kong film, not his more recent ones, namely Mi:2 was which quite depressing to see, and Windtalkers, which stands as one of the worst films ive seen in the last few years. Too much bu****t in it, like he cage is effectivily able to drop a guy, take off 6 shots, and effectively kill the 6 men attacking him which a wounded leg. Plus, it makes the vietnamees look really dumb cuz they keep running up and trying to stab rather than shoot.
I don't like his camera style. I call him close-up man (he has too many closeup's ie, shoulders up) and zoom-man cuz he overuses the zoom on the camera (yes, we know its there John) there is one shot in windtalkers that starts off long (about 200ft or so) and zooms in at a moderate pace to Christian Slater and I could puke if I see it again.
Anyway, sollthar, you watch the NEW redfruit yet?
Posted: Thu, 17th Oct 2002, 1:00am
Post 37 of 54
Didn´t see Windtalkers yet... But its on my list...
MI2 had beautiful scenes in it. The film itself wasn´t too impressive. But the camera there is very good, as usual.
Yeah, I´ve seen the new version now. The titles are cool and the sound fits well (it isn´t as cool as Gladiator though)...
The editing is the best in the movie I think. Really well done. The camera is okay, but it could move more smoothly.
Posted: Thu, 17th Oct 2002, 1:04am
Post 38 of 54
there were only a few shots that were cool in Mi2...and zimmer's music once again was great in a few places. the biggest problem with mi2 was simply the masks...does hawk have a mask maker in his bag or what????
.....still only give it a 4....?
Posted: Thu, 17th Oct 2002, 5:26am
Post 39 of 54
very good work, top notch stuff i thoughorly enjoyed watching it. Though i do have a few things which were not the great.
-nice sound effects (although some were out of sync)
-nice sound track went very well with the movie
-interesting camera angles (but it made me queasy at bits from all the bouncing around)
- but to bad i cannot quite give it a 5 because there was no plot but, very nice action movie a very solid 4 (if i could 4 1/2)
Posted: Thu, 17th Oct 2002, 6:11pm
Post 40 of 54
I think Woo's Hong Kong films are his best, although I cannot see why people have such a hatred of his Hollywood efforts, sure they aren't as good, but they're still better than all the other action films America churns out. I thought M:I-2 was rathere excellent actually. But anyway back on topic, I cannot download that new quicktime thing my computer don't let me. Otherwise I won't be able to see the new one with sound either. Any ideas why I can't get it?
Posted: Thu, 17th Oct 2002, 6:18pm
Post 41 of 54
no, it should download fine. odd.
Posted: Thu, 17th Oct 2002, 6:25pm
Post 42 of 54
Ahh, the mystery that is my computer.
Posted: Fri, 18th Oct 2002, 3:19pm
Post 43 of 54
good job overall. really cool
looking forward to your next project
Posted: Fri, 18th Oct 2002, 4:15pm
Post 44 of 54
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.....All the "stars" did a great job.
The pace (editing)was superb,music and effects were handled with style.
I agree with "sollthar" about camera movement in general but in this movie ,pushing the boundries a little I think, it worked fine.
I'm from the old school of film making so don't get p....d at the following.
Just because its "fashionable"to throw the camera about like a swinging handbag does not mean it will improve your films.
Most of the action is supposed to happen in front of the lense not behind it.
Camera angles,type of shots, focus work etc.etc.etc.
Then u can run amock with your editor to creat whatever u wish.
I know u know all this but I get the feeling u think camera "style" is very
important........it is'nt.......just use the right tool for the job.
A five star movie .
Posted: Sat, 19th Oct 2002, 6:49pm
Post 45 of 54
to me, next to the story, camera style is next. i find that if camera is very good (well, for what my "style" is), the acting can become much better than it is (along with editing). since this really had no story, camera is first for me
Posted: Sat, 19th Oct 2002, 7:43pm
Post 46 of 54
In case there's any doubt "cypher"...I thought your applied camera style
for "Redfruit" was perfect (it could have been excellent if you could afford
the proper equipment.......but who can...we have to make do with what we've got).
Its just that in recent times there's been a up-close and personal style of
handheld (as if) in the Hollywood Block busters..."Private Ryan" and lots of others etc. which without doubt have enhanced the movies no end but
only if used with care and restraint. I don't think I'd like to see a longish
movie with loads of up-close h/held shots unless I had an empty pop corn
bucket with me.
Posted: Mon, 21st Oct 2002, 10:32am
Post 47 of 54
but i'd have to agree with davlin there. GIVE US A STEADY SHOT!!
The camera is essential for the story to be told, as well as dialogue. Watch the film without any sound and see if it still stands up. The camera is crucial and it needs some thought from the director/cinematographer and cameraman as to what the audience is told visually from each shot. Watch some films and freeze frame certian scenes. Analyse what each shot is telling us, just from the camera, and how is it building tension, e.t.c.
Some shots where really nice... some were a bit too hyperkinetic. The editing is good and it flows quite well.
If you don't want to include a plot then that isn't nessecary, as i think that poor sound can really let a project down.
Posted: Mon, 21st Oct 2002, 11:26am
Post 48 of 54
By the way, someone (i think their name is "the great one") is trying to create a steadicam by him\herself.
It's some post somewhere.
Should be good.
Posted: Mon, 21st Oct 2002, 6:21pm
Post 49 of 54
Hey Monkey man, you seem to really know what you're talkin about, it'll be good to have you around.
Posted: Mon, 21st Oct 2002, 10:30pm
Post 50 of 54
hey, nice job. good use of angles and editing techniques.
This movie would have benefitted greatly from some color correction. The green is so vibrant, it almost overwhelms you, and gives it a strong home-movie look.
The muzzle flashes didn't really match the scene. They were bright white, and clearly defined, yet you were filming on a bright day. this would make the flashes more of a blur of light instead of a strong imprinted flame. Next time, I'd recommend putting a light effect, or lens-flare on it, and if the camera is moving, like it was in this movie, add a motion blur, if you have something like After Effects.
Also, In some scenes, Stiletto sounds a bit funny...
Posted: Mon, 21st Oct 2002, 11:35pm
Post 51 of 54
Lol, stilletto doesn't actually say anthing throughout, cept for a few grunts
and i did color correction...a s**t load of it. the difference between the raw and edited is like night and day. I used gamma correction, and put up the contrast brightness VERY high, because i wanted a sorta bright, slightly unrealistic green look. It looses it in the compression, maybe i should put up a screenshot of RAW and EDITED with color correction, and you'll be able to see it clearly. Interested in see it?
the muzzle flashes, again, i wasn't really going for realism. real muzzle flashes don't even show up on every shot, but i wanted everything to be apparent.
oh, and doing it in AE would take too long...that's what Alam's for
and its one scene beleive it or not, one long scene in the area, which ofcourse can be broken up into segments. the next "scene" is the car chase.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Oct 2002, 2:52am
Post 52 of 54
I guess something is lost in the compression. Do you think you might of accidentally made it too much like home video? It is possible, you know.
Ah yes, the wide world of color correction.
Did you do the color correction before or after you added alamdv. I find it's best to do the color correction before.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Oct 2002, 3:39pm
Post 53 of 54
I used alamdv for only like 5 frames of each flash, and added the same color correction on it, so the flash has a lot more contrast and brightness.
And no, i didn't put too much, it looks amazing when there is no quality compression loss.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Oct 2002, 5:19pm
Post 54 of 54
You know if it's outside during the day, the muzzle flash most likely won't be there, it'll just be a load of smoke. Only when it's dark will you get a big bright muzzle flash and then you need to shine a light breifly over the firer, so the flash will look like it's affecting the surroundings. Also if you can brighten the frame with the muzzle flash when you edit, it'll help match the flash into it's surroundings so it won't stand out too much. Doesn't always look good, like I said, just shine a light onto the actor firing the gun. Also before you add the flashes, watch your footage, note the light and surroundings, then watch footage of a real gun being fired in a similar light and surroundings, note how the flash looks in the real footage then try to recreate that for when you add the flash. Sometime's there'll be no flash just loads of smoke like in "Reservoir Dogs" the bigger the gun, the more smoke. Shotguns and some revolvers produce sparks. There's not always a big flash of light. Hope this'll give you some ideas for how to make them look more realistic.
p.s. This is not a personal attack, yours looked alright.