Trailer for my first FILM project! - check it out!

[Bryan Wilkat]

here's another clip of the same flick,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96cYks-Z0EE

[Brian Duke]

Originally Posted by Bryan Wilkat

michael, i watched that clip you posted, the first thing i noticed was that the lighting was really nice, and the framing was generic (not necessarily in a bad way) but what i did notice was that ive been trained into cutting so that the subjects move from shot to shot, back and forth amongst the thirds of the frame, and in the clip it often cuts and your focus is left in the center of the frame, it wasnt a big deal really, but it was one of the only things that i could pick on! heh.

Are you referring to the clip he posted of my film, or his? If its mine I'll be very upset. I don't like negative feedback..... kidding of course.

[Bryan Wilkat]

heh, sorry brian, yes i was speaking of your film, but as i noted, it was difficult to pick out anything negative from what i saw! overall great work! again, the lighting really stood out, did you light it yourself or was that all on location lighting?

[Brian Duke]

Originally Posted by Bryan Wilkat

heh, sorry brian, yes i was speaking of your film, but as i noted, it was difficult to pick out anything negative from what i saw! overall great work! again, the lighting really stood out, did you light it yourself or was that all on location lighting?

I had a gaffer and a couple of grips to light it. We had a crew of about 15 people and yes it was on location. A lot of the work was done in camera and in post. Don't worry, you can pull my work apart and if you make a valid point I will probably make changes. Its just 45 sec out of a 85 mini feature film.

d

[Michael Pulcinella]

Originally Posted by Bryan Wilkat

michael, i watched that clip you posted, the first thing i noticed was that the lighting was really nice, and the framing was generic (not necessarily in a bad way) but what i did notice was that ive been trained into cutting so that the subjects move from shot to shot, back and forth amongst the thirds of the frame, and in the clip it often cuts and your focus is left in the center of the frame, it wasnt a big deal really, but it was one of the only things that i could pick on! heh.

and out of curiosity i'd like to know what you think of these two trailers:

http://www.liberatedfilms.com/film-6...%20-%20Trailer
and
http://www.cinemovies.fr/fiche_multi...hp?IDfilm=1982

i dont know if you've seen that movie, if you havent, dont worry, most people didnt like it(lol). but i happen to be a fan of his and remember when the trailers came out that i watched them over and over, and i was totally fixated on the fact that i couldnt figure out what the hell it was about! i guess thats sort of how i'm justifying my trailer with the lack of story embedded in it! :)

Upon second viewing I see what you mean about Brian's clip. In his defense it does say that it is a rough cut so maybe some of those cutting problems will get fixed, although I didn't find myself too distracted by them. The main reason I wanted you to see it was for the framing and for you to realize that you had someone with some skill giving you advice. This was at the point that I thought that you were being dense and not listening. I know now that's not the case.

I have not see The Brown Bunny, but I have heard a lot about it. You are right, those trailers are not your run-of-the-mill trailer that tells almost all of the story. They are both quite obscure but I think they both still bend the rules rather than break them.

The first trailer is a "teaser" in the truest sense of the word. It doesn't show much of the film but instead capitalizes on the controversial publicity that TBB had gotten and teases us with the idea that "THEY don't want you to see this". The assumption is that the viewer already knows, or will be compelled to find out, what is so controversial about TBB and will go to see it based only on that. The "story" being teased in this case is the media's story about the film.

I was unable to play the second trailer from the French website but I believe that I found it on Google. The one I watched had a split screen with an endless road trip on one side and a drug party gone wrong on the other.

I see now what you were going for with your trailer and you weren't as far off the mark as I thought. And yet I still think yours is too vague. You don't think that the second TBB trailer tells a story?? It sure does! Not as much as most Hollywood trailers for sure, but there is certainly enough there for me to get a good idea what kind of a world I will be entering into if I watch this movie. I know that something tragic happens, drugs are involved and that someone is running away from or toward something. It's subtle, that is true, but brilliant and compelling as well. I can see why you were drawn to it.

[Bryan Wilkat]

i believe at one time i saw another trailer for BB that was again, only long takes of him driving, with jump cuts and shaky bad framing... i couldnt find it though...
anyways, the other trailer with the party scene doesnt really show much of the film at all, it tells you that something bad happens but not what, to who or why it's relevant, in other words it's extremely vague.

it's sort of ridiculous that we've debated so long about content and my trailer specifically, cause when you see the whole film you'll finally understand why i couldnt show more than i did, the story is uber simple and could easily have been given away in the teaser by showing one crucial shot, and without that one shot there is no story, it's just a guy walking and running around. hahahah.

(and i hope you didnt get the impression that i'm a newb to the whole filming thing, even though i'm young, i've been studying in film for the past 5 years and i've been filming for the past 6-7. so i'm well aware of what constitutes good and bad within the art of it all. this was just my first attempt with actual film and we were encouraged to be experimental when it came to framing shots, etc.. thats why we didnt double, triple and quadruple check our composition, etc... (and either way i appreciate your actions in terms of criticism and that you were just trying to help out))

and brian, what camera did you shoot that with? it sorta looks like the hvx?

[Michael Pulcinella]

Originally Posted by Bryan Wilkat

i believe at one time i saw another trailer for BB that was again, only long takes of him driving, with jump cuts and shaky bad framing... i couldnt find it though...
anyways, the other trailer with the party scene doesnt really show much of the film at all, it tells you that something bad happens but not what, to who or why it's relevant, in other words it's extremely vague.

it's sort of ridiculous that we've debated so long about content and my trailer specifically, cause when you see the whole film you'll finally understand why i couldnt show more than i did, the story is uber simple and could easily have been given away in the teaser by showing one crucial shot, and without that one shot there is no story, it's just a guy walking and running around. hahahah.

(and i hope you didnt get the impression that i'm a newb to the whole filming thing, even though i'm young, i've been studying in film for the past 5 years and i've been filming for the past 6-7. so i'm well aware of what constitutes good and bad within the art of it all. this was just my first attempt with actual film and we were encouraged to be experimental when it came to framing shots, etc.. thats why we didnt double, triple and quadruple check our composition, etc... (and either way i appreciate your actions in terms of criticism and that you were just trying to help out))

and brian, what camera did you shoot that with? it sorta looks like the hvx?

I realize all those things now and I don't want to give the impression that I am still beating you up about your trailer. I think you've established what your limitations were and we can move on from there. But I also feel that this has morphed into an interesting and productive conversation about vague vs explicit trailers in general and I'm enjoying talking about it with you.

[Brian Duke]

Originally Posted by Michael Pulcinella

Upon second viewing I see what you mean about Brian's clip. In his defense it does say that it is a rough cut so maybe some of those cutting problems will get fixed, although I didn't find myself too distracted by them.

Hey Michael,

I was trying to understand what Bryan was talking about with the cutting, but i am not sure I understand what both of you are saying. Can you guys be a little more specific so i could poteentially fix any problems, if there are any.

Thanks

[Brian Duke]

Originally Posted by Bryan Wilkat

it's sort of ridiculous that we've debated so long about content and my trailer specifically

Bryan,

Please don’t take it as we were trying to beat you up. In fact you don’t have to take anything we say to heart, but I will say this; I have seen people post here without ANY feedback and complain, and people that when they get negative feedback complain too so its hard to win here LOL

Personally I would welcome it cause its hard to find honest people around, or even harder, people that can articulate how to improve the film.

Originally Posted by Bryan Wilkat

and brian, what camera did you shoot that with? it sorta looks like the hvx?

I used the JVC HD-200 with the Mini35 adapter. But like I said, a lot of “in camera” and post work to get it look like it does.

[Bryan Wilkat]

heh, well to be honest, i think i'd rather get negative criticism, it's more amusing to talk about, as we can all see by this thread! you know, it's nice to get good feedback to but what can you say besides "thanks"? you know what i mean?


anyways, brian, basically what i meant was in regards to this:
visual the screen as being divided into three vertical rectangles, from left to right. you've got on the left part one, in the middle part 2 and the right part three. follow? good.
now hypothetically, if your opening shot has a subject in the middle of the frame (part 2). then you'd want your next shot to move the viewers attention to another third of the frame, either screen left(part 1) or screen right(part 2). and by doing so you keep your viewers attention by making their eyes bounce their attention from quadrant to quadrant. in simpler terms, make the viewers keep their eyes moving.
i happened to notice in your trailer you had a few cuts where my eyes stayed locked in the middle of the screen although the angle, person and shot had changed. (it's not necessarily an undesirable effect, and if you think about it, it's the essence of the jump cut, right? but when you're not jump cutting its visually appealing to jump back and forth across your frame.)
does that help?


on a side note, did you guys see that trailer for the bob dylan movie? i really liked it, i'm guessing the film will shift through his life and the actors change as he ages, though it would be cool if there was no correlation between actors and years, though that would be confusing..haha

[Bryan Wilkat]

by the way brian, that setup sounds amazing. i'm freakin' jealous! haha

[Brian Duke]

Originally Posted by Bryan Wilkat

heh, well to be honest, i think i'd rather get negative criticism, it's more amusing to talk about, as we can all see by this thread! you know, it's nice to get good feedback to but what can you say besides "thanks"? you know what i mean?

That’s what I have been telling everyone forever. How can you improve on ”great work”? I want people to point out every flaw there is so I can FIX THEM. Isn’t that the point of filmmaking; to improve your film and make it the best film possible? I think so. Of course its nice to hear that you succeeded, but I don’t want to hear it if it isn’t true. I sometimes post and get no feedback. There are only really a few on these threads that actually take the time out to watch the film and give some constructive criticism. That’s why I say you should welcome feedback, regardless of what it may be. Most don’t bother watching it, or even leaving feedback. Most times its because they don’t like it and are probably afraid to tell the person. Then again, how many people truly appreciate honesty about themselves or their work or art? Most people take it as a personal attack, which it is far from.

Originally Posted by Bryan Wilkat

now hypothetically, if your opening shot has a subject in the middle of the frame (part 2). then you'd want your next shot to move the viewers attention to another third of the frame, either screen left(part 1) or screen right(part 2). and by doing so you keep your viewers attention by making their eyes bounce their attention from quadrant to quadrant. in simpler terms, make the viewers keep their eyes moving.

I think I understand you. You basically mean that you should keep subjects in different parts of the frame to keep the viewer more interested and engaged, correct? Never thought of it. I usually just frame and compose the shot how I feel, but it is certainly a valid point that I will keep in mind. Although I do think I have a lot of that already.

Originally Posted by Bryan Wilkat

on a side note, did you guys see that trailer for the bob dylan movie? i really liked it, i'm guessing the film will shift through his life and the actors change as he ages, though it would be cool if there was no correlation between actors and years, though that would be confusing..haha

I haven’t seen it, but I heard it was not good.

[Michael Pulcinella]

I'd like to add to Bryan's post about the cuts in the clip.

What he's talking about sounds a lot like something I read in the book "The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing Film". In it Murch explains that we as editors must be aware of the focal point of our screen as it moves about and be sure to have it move smoothly throughout the frame as the cuts happen.

In other words, if our compostition leads the eye to the upper right corner of the screen to watch someone speak and then we cut to a car speeding away, ideally the car should begin in the upper right before moving across the screen.

To me this seems like a very restrictive "rule"; a rule that is broken on a regular basis. On my first viewing of the clip I found the cutting to work well with the dialog and the energy in the room. If my eye was forced to jump around the screen at any point I didn't notice it.

Now that I think of it, the rule may apply less to Youtube because of the small size of the screen. In a theater with a Cinemascope screen that fills our vision one could produce whiplash in an audience if the editing constantly forced them to shift their gaze from one side of the sceen to the other! On Youtube the screen is so small that we can easily follow the cuts no matter how the focal point moves. Maybe Murch's "rule" was developed for the big screen and doesn't hold as true for a clip like this.

Just my 2 cents.

[Brian Duke]

Originally Posted by Michael Pulcinella

I'd like to add to Bryan's post about the cuts in the clip.

What he's talking about sounds a lot like something I read in the book "The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing Film". In it Murch explains that we as editors must be aware of the focal point of our screen as it moves about and be sure to have it move smoothly throughout the frame as the cuts happen.

In other words, if our compostition leads the eye to the upper right corner of the screen to watch someone speak and then we cut to a car speeding away, ideally the car should begin in the upper right before moving across the screen.

To me this seems like a very restrictive "rule"; a rule that is broken on a regular basis. On my first viewing of the clip I found the cutting to work well with the dialog and the energy in the room. If my eye was forced to jump around the screen at any point I didn't notice it.

Now that I think of it, the rule may apply less to Youtube because of the small size of the screen. In a theater with a Cinemascope screen that fills our vision one could produce whiplash in an audience if the editing constantly forced them to shift their gaze from one side of the sceen to the other! On Youtube the screen is so small that we can easily follow the cuts no matter how the focal point moves. Maybe Murch's "rule" was developed for the big screen and doesn't hold as true for a clip like this.

Just my 2 cents.

I second that, and I will add that essentially you edit a movie until the cuts feel right for the pleasing eye, but also to move the story and performances too. Sometimes crazy confusing cuts can make an impact. This is not the case with my clip though. I have been pretty good at advancing in my editing skills, (still have more to learn), but I do cut as i feel right.

The points you guys made are certainly good and I am going to be more aware of that in the future. Watch some of the newer "documentary style films" like 21 grams, and Bourne Ultimatium. Those films all jump the line, jump cuts etc, but they still work, very well.

[Michael Pulcinella]

Originally Posted by Brian Duke

Those films all jump the line, jump cuts etc, but they still work, very well.

I think that sometimes a certain kind of jump cut is the new "rule"!