Had a chance to talk to and watch some footage from a DOP working on a (for Australia) big budget feature with lots of driving. They mainly used a process rig (car on trailer with lots of camera mounts all over) but for night scenes used simtrav (black outside with moving LED lights, someone rocking the back bumper). What I thought was also interesting, for a few forward shots they mounted a drone to the bonnet (note it was a $150,000 drone with an FS5, still, nice image, and a Mavic Pro or similar should also work).

Paul - that was a good vid. Did the pace car had any four-wheel drifts? Bet everybody was having fun.

Ryan - For me, at least, one thing that kinda turns me off when watching a movie is to see something that is fake. (Exception: for example, when watching Antiques Road Show and they find a counterfeit.)

Back in post #793 there were a car clip example of people talking. In the clip example, I think the second one, there was one spot where the driver was looking at the passenger for ~4 seconds. This is a very long time while driving and he's lucky he didn't have an accident. When looking sideways it is natural to turn the steering wheel toward the direction one is looking.

The "devil is in the details". An option might be to have the driver stop for a traffic light or something. In fact, there could be a lot of conversation at that point. Locally there is a major intersection can provide a couple minutes!!!! As a director one can pick an intersection that fits the need in the script.

Another challenge: how to do a stop and go without being a distraction in itself?

They would've have hard mounted the camera onto the car body on "French Connection". No, you don't need lens or camera stabilization for car shots if you've got good car mounts. However, the rolling shutter on some CMOS sensors may not take kindly to all this if you've got excessive vibration on the roads and fast moving backgrounds.

https://cinephiliabeyond.org/william-friedkins-the-french-connection-the-seventies-peak-of-cinematic-excitement/

You'll have to test the Selens car mount to see how well it handles various focal lengths, that's part of the pre-production on a film.

Oh okay, it's just I will have to purchase the Selens first, before I am able to test it, unless some buyers allow tests first of course, and give you the option of returning it, if you don't like the tests. And I will be most likely shooting with a camera that has a sensor around CMOS size... If the background is moving fast, will the audience notice, as long as they are looking at the actor, and not the fast moving background?

CMOS is a sensor type, not a size. Regarding rolling shutter artifacts, it depends on how much vibration etc is occurring and how prone your camera is to them. They can cover the whole image. it may not be an issue, but worth testing before shooting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter

Test equipment like car mounts before using them on a feature film. Reshoots cost more in the end.

Oh okay, I was told that full frame sensors are worse for rolling shutter, if that's true, and that CMOS was better for it, unless it's still bad?

Let's not drift into rolling shutter. It's covered in depth elsewhere and like everything, is a thing that should simply be considered in your preproduction planning. If a shot is needed that means it's a problem, sort it. We do this whenever we consider what we're shooting. Telegraph poles, street lights and passing buildings offer snags to be solved, but that's one of the DPs roles.

Yes, rolling shutter is open to much "I was told" in this particular case, get your DP to test the production camera when testing your camera mount.

CMOS sensors are very common these days, even the Arri Alexa has one, as do full frame stills cameras. However, rolling shutter varies with each camera model and if it's been reduced as part of the design of the camera and its sensor.

So, "and that CMOS was better for it" is nonsense, it's a characteristic of all CMOS sensors, it's how well it's controlled in a particular camera that matters.

Oh okay, I was told that the larger the sensor, the more noticeable the rolling shutter is, if that's true.

Since so many filmmakers and DPs have blackmagic cameras now, are those ones good for rolling shutter?

If we really MUST discuss rolling shutter, maybe a new topic would be best Ryan - this one has already changed direction quite a few times.

Yes, rolling shutter is a whole new area of discussion.

Note that there are full frame high end digital cinema cameras, so the sensor size itself isn't the deciding factor, it's the read out speed that matters.

Oh okay thanks for the advice. Well, trying to keep on topic, I could do the shallow DOF instead of deep if shallow is better in some ways, it's just it would be shot like High and Low, but with a shallow DOF, which means if I have say four characters in a wide shot, then I would have the camera team, racking focus between them in the wide, as oppose to them all being in focus at once. Would that look worse?

It's personal taste, although with shorter focal length lenses you either need to be shooting at wide apertures or using full frame cameras to have a noticeable;shallow DOF effect. There are no rules, you have decide before you start filming, that's what the camera tests are for.

Lots of lenses on wide have noticeable shift when focus is changed - In a wide, I personally hate pulling focus with a shallow image. I'm probably alone in this, but in a wide shot, I want too be able to choose what I look at, and out of focus just doesn't work for me.

Yeah I think I see what you mean, are you saying you prefer the out of focus background on CU and OTS shots, rather than a wide, where it's racking focus between multiple characters?

I asked a couple of other filmmakers about it, and they said that deep focus works in movies like in Citizen Kan, cause it's in black and white and they have total control over what the background looks like. Where as in my situation, I am going to be shooting in real locations that I am not allowed to paint. So an out of focus background is key, cause you don't want the audience to be distracted by colors you are not allowed to paint over or change. Is that true do you think? For example, one short I worked on way before, a couple of viewers pointed out how they were distracted by a green car in the background, which I couldn't control whoever parked there. They said maybe it should have been out of focus more to hide it. So therefore, maybe shallow focus in wide shots is better, when dealing with uncontrolled colors?

Even that short I posted on here, before, the wide shots looked like a home video camera to me, and I think it was because of the deep focus, so maybe deep focus looks like home video with color, but looks cinematic in black and white more so? Come to think of it, in color movies, the background is almost always more out of focus, compared to older black and white movies, so is that the reason?

Or is it better to shoot with a deep focus wide, so you can choose who to look at, but then recolor the uncontrolled background in post, which would take more time, cause you have to rotoscope out the background from the actors in Da Vinci, or something like that?

Surely you mean deep depth-of-field?

Yes sorry deep depth of field.

Black and white doesn't enter into it, but lighting is a key part of shooting deep focus or even shallow DOF. There are colour feature films that have pretty deep focus, the reason why your films look like video is probably because you're shooting video using REC 709, which always tends to look like video. Even with a shallow DOF it still looks like video.

The background colours will still be there with a shallow DOF and not many dramas can afford to repaint their locations. If the colours are distracting find another location with better decor, since the most you can generally do in practice is move the furniture around or hang a few drapes in real locations.

A shallow DOF isn't the answer to poor art direction.

If shooting dramas either shoot log or RAW, which allows you more colour correction in post, if you wish to avoid a video look.

Oh ok but the short film was shot in log and it still looked like home video though.

You also need to add all the other elements. 16mm film looks like home movies if you don't do all the other stuff. Of course, some high end films intentionally make themselves look like home movies.

THE TREE OF LIFE Official HD Trailer - YouTube

For example, one short I worked on way before, a couple of viewers pointed out how they were distracted by a green car in the background, which I couldn't control whoever parked there. They said maybe it should have been out of focus more to hide it. So therefore, maybe shallow focus in wide shots is better, when dealing with uncontrolled colors?

So because you can't remove a green car, you should have blurred it? You really must get better friends because this is complete tripe Ryan. Why is green annoying? No idea but a blurry green blob would surely be even more of a problem because people will want to know what it is. Where on earth has this uncontrolled colour thing come from? Monochrome works because of the mood it creates - the lack of colour has an impact on the viewer. The impact is very variable, depending on content. Old black and white war films do NOT look like Citizen Kane! It isn't the lack of colour, it's the creative look. If your frame has eye drawing elements in it then fix it - don't try to treat it to do a repair. I really cannot imagine doing all the prep, then getting to a location and having a shot where something in it means an entire rethink of the style.

This is just wrong Ryan. Where are these silly ideas coming from, and why don't you reject them as complete poppycock when these people come up with such stupid ideas.

There's rather a good youtube clip about Doctor Who - a very popular long running series over here and in the clips you see things going wrong because people cut corners and didn't think about the problems. Really obvious stuff. Mistakes in the shoot that wrecked the story in the edit, special effects that got a bit out of hand, and even leaving critical story wrecking bits of set in the back of the shot that when they came to edit it, ruined everything. They even forgot to close off a street and in the background you can see members of the public walking past the set, stopping and looking at the actors and Daleks. They even had an explosion and then expected the Dalek operators to try to manoeuvre the, over the top of all the debris on the floor.

If the BBC can get things so wrong - then you can be forgiven to. Here's the clip link - quite long, but so full of mistakes that really should have been thought of before they shot.
https://youtu.be/9ZW3uzI-tRU

I wonder why this car was so distracting. Unless the film was set in another era I have to think people being distracted by any car of any color in the background means you lost them with the story at that point.

My low budget, “didnt realize it til too late” solution would have been to desaturate or alter the color in Resolve. Uniform saturated colors lend themselves well to this type of treatment unless something of a similar color that you DONT want to affect crosses through them.

I don't think the same green beetle distracts from the car chase in "Bullett", it's talking point after people have seen it numerous times, but not on the first viewings.

Bullitt (1968) - San Francisco Car Chase Scene (4/10) | Movieclips - YouTube

If something like the colour of a car in the background is distracting, there's something wrong with your action.or story at that point. That's unless the car is modern car in a 1960s scene, Green is hardly eye catching, a bight red or pink car might worth consideration as a distraction but not green.

Using a shallow DOF on mid day exteriors is a relatively recent phenomenon, since in the past the standard set of neutral density filters had 0.9 as it's densest, so with f16 being a sunny day (100 ASA tungsten film with 85 conversion filter) that gives you f8. You could get denser ones (eg a ND 1.2 for f5.6 or pack more ND filters in - which can be limited by your filter trays and how much extra glass you want to put in front of your lens - with 100ASA stock, an 85ND9 and a ND9 get f2.8 on a film camera, these filters being part of a standard filter package on a film), but after a certain point you can't see much through the optical viewfinder and today you'd need an extremely dense ND filter if your camera has an ISO of 800 to 2,000 in order reach the shallow DOF stops. With latter you need IR correction with a number of cameras.

Usually, if something in the background is going to be distracting, you frame it out of the picture.

Oh okay thanks, but I usually don't know what audiences will find distracting in the background until later. Sometimes in public places, certain things are impossible to frame out though. But it was a bright saturated green car for sure. Do you think that maybe if something is distracting color wise like that, that I should rotoscope out that one object and color it differently in post?

I don't think I have ever done anything like this. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Surely as we've said, the scene should be interesting enough to keep people's attention on what the Director planned?

This is frankly a bit silly!

Oh okay, it's just I was also learning to use Da Vinci Resolve and some colorists separate the background from the actors and color the background separately, so I thought maybe this was normal practice. Well I could count on the script and acting being interesting enough, that not having full color control over the background of the locations is not an issue then?

I asked the person before what was distracting about the green car, and he said it's because that color seems out of place thematically. He said that each color in the background has to mean something, if that's true. So could that be an issue with uncontrolled colors, is to look at if they fit thematically?

In an ideal filmmaking world on a controlled professional set? Yes EVERYTHING in the frame from colors to set design to wardrobe etc. is supposed to be deliberate and therefore meaningful.

HOWEVER you and other low budget filmmakers are almost never working on that type of set/production. You’re working with whatever location you were able to get and sometimes it is what it is. Sometimes there are green cars that dont fit.

If you want to change that, you’ll have to shoot only on locations you can completely control.

Paul and a lot of the folks here dont understand the issues you run into because they dont work on no budget, basically “just for fun” stuff; they only work in a budgeted professional world.

Ive been where you are many times and basically, everything you ask about comes down to, you cant get pro results with non-pro resources and budgets. You have to either learn to live with the (sometimes extreme) compromises or completely rethink your approach. Cant control background in exterior locations? Dont use that location. maybe dont even use exteriors at all. Now that problem is solved.

You are getting into a higher level of skills than you probably have with the Resolve, because you can do something doesn't mean that it's done to any great extent because of budgets etc.

I don't know what the colour of a background car has to do with the theme of your film, since given the level of control you have on your budget is pretty minimal, there's a point where the real world comes in and you have to live with them because you can't control it. Plus there's also a certain level of BS can come from some people.

If you want to get a meaning of green try this: https://www.bourncreative.com/meaning-of-the-color-green/

Oh I was just told by a couple of test viewers before who were also filmmakers that colors matter, and not every color is going to go with the look and thematic feel of your movie, so you have to watch for unwanted colors therefore.

In an ideal filmmaking world on a controlled professional set? Yes EVERYTHING in the frame from colors to set design to wardrobe etc. is supposed to be deliberate and therefore meaningful.

HOWEVER you and other low budget filmmakers are almost never working on that type of set/production. You’re working with whatever location you were able to get and sometimes it is what it is. Sometimes there are green cars that dont fit.

If you want to change that, you’ll have to shoot only on locations you can completely control.

Paul and a lot of the folks here dont understand the issues you run into because they dont work on no budget, basically “just for fun” stuff; they only work in a budgeted professional world.

Ive been where you are many times and basically, everything you ask about comes down to, you cant get pro results with non-pro resources and budgets. You have to either learn to live with the (sometimes extreme) compromises or completely rethink your approach. Cant control background in exterior locations? Dont use that location. maybe dont even use exteriors at all. Now that problem is solved.

Well my former film school professor looked at some of my work and he said that you have to have complete control of the location and be able to paint or make any changes you want to, because when you release your movie, you are not going to be able to explain to audiences, that you didn't have the control. Audiences are not going to want to hear any excuses like that, nor are you going to be able to tell everyone that. Does he have a point?

As for not shooting exteriors and only interiors, that is also a problem because interiors you do not have complete control over either, if no location owners will let you repaint even.

With low budget films all you can do is your best. Pick a suitable location and go with it, if someone parks a green car in the location, you'll just have to work around it of it can't be moved.

If the car is near by and obvious in the frame it may be more important than if it's parked way up the street, however, it being an Aston Martin or a Ferrari in a working class area would be more important than its colour.

I would usually more attention to its make and model than its colour, since that says something about the owner. A green car is pretty nondescript colour unless it's a military type 4 x4 vehicle

Given the questions you're asking here, they may possibly be pulling your leg.

ah..... one of those Professors. I often think some very famous Directors would sit open mouthed at their lectures, and all the arty-farty claptrap that they have wrapped in educationalist theorems and jargon. My least favourite sessions were on semiotics. I'm firmly convinced that most examples given in the lectures were actually accidental and the creators didn't incorporate these features deliberately, but just as part of the narrative, and the educationalists seized on them as theory.

This sentence sums it up for me. "you have to have complete control of the location and be able to paint or make any changes you want to, because when you release your movie, you are not going to be able to explain to audiences, that you didn't have the control." I think he lives on a nice fluffy, safe cloud somewhere where there are no sharp edges or real life issues.

Possibly.

To reiterate what Brian said.

Ok, you don't have complete control of those locations...could be cars in BG outside, can't paint inside...on your low budget, you will then have to find locations that already fit your needs--i.e. the interior already looks close enough to what it should that it wouldn't require painting, maybe just set dressing. Exteriors...I dunno...don't shoot into deep backgrounds you can't control? That's really all you can do. Or risk having these issues again.

The car used in Dr No wasn't a grand stylistic decision on colour and model, they wanted Bond to drive a sports car and the only one available on the island was a blue Sunbeam Alpine. It was hardly a huge creative decision. it was a practical one.

Dr. No - Car Chase Scene - © Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. - YouTube

...Well my former film school professor looked at some of my work and he said that you have to have complete control of the location and be able to paint or make any changes you want to, because when you release your movie, you are not going to be able to explain to audiences, that you didn't have the control. Audiences are not going to want to hear any excuses like that, nor are you going to be able to tell everyone that. Does he have a point?...
This professor’s statement reminds me of a quote usually attributed to Yogi Berra:
“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice it doesn’t work that way.”

If and when time, available resources, and money don’t matter... well, that would be different. Realistically, only a very very few people with lots of credibility get to throw money at problems to make them go away.

On the other hand, holding to one’s creative vision is always important, as is knowing when you’ve achieved it. Or when you’ve compromised it, and whether that compromise is significant in the storytelling. That’s true in any level of work, whether student projects, weddings, production services, indie films, streaming reality shows, or high budget features.

Which is, Ryan, an interesting way to look at your many threads and posts that ask for this crowd’s confirmation of what others have told you.

What do *you* think about the green car?

Well I didn't really notice the car being a problem until others pointed it out, then I kept looking at it that way.

That could mean it wasnt a problem but then again weve had similar discussions on here where something didnt bother you and folks here criticized if. You could post a screenshot and get better feedback here.

Yeah and that's just it, is I feel I need to learn what is acceptable and not acceptable to most viewers. I don't feel like treating everything as a case by case basis and wait till you see what works and what does not, after it's shot is best, and feel I have to know before shooting.

Ask yourself one question. Why don't you know? You've been doing it for a long time now Ryan.

In films everything is case by case, there's no standard template, you have to use your creative judgment on the scene you're filming, If you're shooting near to a green (or any other colour) car, is it going to be distracting in the frame? The same can happen with any other movable objects you may find on a location,

You can't plan everything in advance, a director has to think on their feet, you may suddenly be refused a location, so you may need to quickly find an alternative. An actor may be sick, so you need to find a replacement. The camera might develop a fault that takes time to fix, so you lose half the shots you're were planning because you don't have enough time left. Which ones do you need to tell the story?

As Paul says, you have to ask yourself the question "Why don't you know?".

We seem to often have to say quite negative things to Ryan, but in fairness, now I'm getting on I am noticing that it's sometimes me who is now left behind in some ways. I now spend most time managing - so planning, preparing, organising, that kind of thing, but I have always prided myself that come push to shove, I could do the jobs any of the people working for me do. However, things have moved quite fast, and being spread across disciplines that are evolving very fast, I cannot keep up. I now have two of my people that I could not replace with me, or at least, replace them with me doing as well as them. I would now do an acceptable job, but not as well as them - and it really wrangles in my head. I just do not have time to get up to speed enough to be at the top of the job role. I could cover, but that's it! In my real role, it doesn't matter. I don't have the need to be able to do their job, but I have always been able to, and probably this was why I got many of my clients - somebody suggested me as a good solution.

I don't like not being on the mental list of good at X, and good at Y any longer. I've always prided myself at being good (but not exceptional) at loads of things. When the phone rings I say yes, then ask what the job is. Now I have to be careful. I now have to say no to some, and pass on the names of the people who I know can do it. I really don't like this.

Ryan worries me because he's at the bottom and wants really badly to climb the ladder, but using this analogy, is afraid of heights.

Look at the great Directors. Try to understand their personality, their background. There's a good tale about George Lucas, who wanted to make movies, and had so much pressure not to, but he persevered and went from being considered a bit of an idiot with what was near to obsession, to an amazingly respected individual in quite a short period of time. Another good one to study is Gerry Anderson, the Thunderbird creator. He wanted so badly to make movies he took the puppet offer as a 'stop gap', and had a terrible time convincing producers to let him use real actors. With a couple of exceptions, he's still after his death, known for Thunderbirds - yet he did make a real, big budget movie that only the fans know about. Reading his history of dealing with the money people is very sobering. Constant and unrelenting battles with money, and what he considered interference. The Producers wanted to sell to the US - a very important market, so his casting got interfered with, inserting American actors, then even having to fire established characters and use a new Director who just didn't get it - ruining in his words, a second series. There's some great history to read about this guy that would be relevant to Ryan I think. No money, high standards, terrible interference in the art elements and his requirement for very high standards from the team.

In films everything is case by case, there's no standard template, you have to use your creative judgment on the scene you're filming, If you're shooting near to a green (or any other colour) car, is it going to be distracting in the frame? The same can happen with any other movable objects you may find on a location,

You can't plan everything in advance, a director has to think on their feet, you may suddenly be refused a location, so you may need to quickly find an alternative. An actor may be sick, so you need to find a replacement. The camera might develop a fault that takes time to fix, so you lose half the shots you're were planning because you don't have enough time left. Which ones do you need to tell the story?

As Paul says, you have to ask yourself the question "Why don't you know?".

Oh okay, but is there any standard guidelines then, on how to make a movie? Or is everything we are taught online and in film school, not be relied upon, if everything is case by case?

I suppose the question really links to the quality of the film school, and clearly you have been fed very selective information on the movie industry, as have many of your advising friends.

You have a NEED for guidelines. We, on the other hand find them useful, until there is one that just won't work, when we discard it as not applicable. More like if THIS happens, do THIS, unless we know better, when we simply ignore it. Of course occasionally, or regularly depending on your skill or plain bad luck, it comes crashing down. That's how it is. Remember that skills audit I suggested months ago? Did you try it and learn anything?

Over the weekend at a party of all things, a young guy came up to me and started to ask me questions about my career. Very odd really, but somebody had obviously fed him some stories. We chatted for quite a while and he said "So basically, should I do what you do and lie?" He had missed the point. I'd told him that when the phone rings and somebody asks if I can do something I always say yes. If I have stood next to a guy who is using a particular bit of kit I've never ever touched, I watch intently and take it all in, and probably ask a few questions about things I cannot see, or work out. Next time somebody asks if I'm happy with using an old Vinten Plover, I say yes. Never touched one in my life, but I understand the common parts and can adapt. That's how I got my very first TV cameraman job. That job got me another, and that another. The idea of saying no - which would have been the correct answer never occurred to me! That's what I have done all through my life and I have enough confidence and perhaps smugness when it goes well to deal with it. Jump in, both feet is my Moto!

Oh okay, I feel I've had the opposite experience some people say I need to learn when to say no.

Yes - but with the greatest respect, you are a novice at it, and I'm a grumpy old done it all - however, when I was 18, I started saying yes.

Oh okay, but is there any standard guidelines then, on how to make a movie? Or is everything we are taught online and in film school, not be relied upon, if everything is case by case?

There is a basic cinematic grammar, but how you use the vocabulary is up to you and you knowing if your target audience understands it and the emotions this conveys to them.

Unless you're making a soap opera, each scene will be directed, performed and shot on a case by case basis, otherwise you are painting by numbers. As the director you need to know how the scene fits into the whole, not on the basis of shots, but in the emotional "journey" (over used word these days) of every character within the film.

Genres often have conventions, it's how you subvert and hide your use of them that prevents your film from becoming cliche ridden.

When I was seventeen, I decided to apply for a job with Singer sewing machines as a salesman. I was young and confident and secured the job. I had to go on a residential training course and learn how to sell the way that Singer wanted me to. It involved learning a script of what to say and how to respond to various questions. We were all required to learn the script off by heart, which was written by a top Singer sales executive. We also learned how to use and service the machines. At the end of the course, we were given intensive training on the brand new innovative 'Touch and Sew'machine which was due to be released, then after testing, we were sent back to our base shops.

A week later, I became the first in the UK to sell the new machine and indeed sold the first six. After 3 months I was the top UK salesmen and was invited to London to demonstrate to all the new trainee salesman exactly why I was the top man. I was sat in the centre of the training room with someone pretending to be an interested customer and told to start my sales routine. I started by asking where they had been on holiday, then about their pets and started talking about my own interests. After 5 minutes I was stopped and told that it was completely irrelevant and to use my sales patter. I replied that I sold the machines by building a relationship with each customer as each customer was different, long before I gently introduced the new machine into the conversation. I also pointed out that I couldn't even remember the script. I was immediately told that the best people in the company had developed the sales script and would I please start using it. I responded that I never used it, and used my own initiative. At this point the proceedings were stopped and I was taken from the room and severely reprimanded for ignoring company policy. That was followed by a written reprimand to my area manager, at which point I immediately resigned.

Absolutely nothing to do with film making, but the point is that you use rules and guidelines as just that- guidance, but every circumstance is different and you have to adapt yourself to the demands that are presented to you. If you only ever do what you have been told is best, you will never develop your own creativity and get yourself noticed.

Roger

That's exactly it, Roger! You KNEW you were right, and the fact that you sold loads was the evidence. Clearly the other people only thought they knew better - good for you. I've done similar take a stance things.

Oddly - in my pantomime role, the company owner knows I break all the rules, and took me to one side and said "Your show took 1.5 million last year. I don't care if you break the rules if you can do this again". Next day one of the senior people sent me stacks of new rules and processes, which I will ignore if they don't make sense, and put into action and use them if they do. If I mess up badly, then I deserve to be fired - that's how it works. Like the boss of McDonalds. Or not.

Rule: Look at every element in the camera’s frame.

Not a rule: Green cars are bad in backgrounds. It’s situational.

Rule: Step back and try to see each element with fresh and objective eyes. Sometime its called the grandmother test, that is, what would my grandmother get out of this scene?

Not a rule: If I like it, if I understand it, it’s good.

I really appreciate what Paul and Roger wrote of their experiences in the last few posts. Me too.

The question I ask myself is: As a life-long learner, can I learn fast enough to stay ahead of the needs of the role or project?

With musicians and music, the saying is “Play to the crowd” or audience. Expanding on that a bit further, one wouldn’t (normally) sing opera in the local pub or play country-western/hip-hop (etc) at the Vienna Opera.

A couple years ago we went to an Elvis impersonator performance in Vienna and it was amazing. Almost as soon as the event (three of them) was announced they were essentially sold out and we got two seats for the last one and my wife sat behind me and I had women on each side. Fantastic stage performance before several thousand people. The performance was very much like those from Las Vegas and the audience ate it up, ending with the encore “Johnny B. Goode” where he walked the aisles with all the ladies coming unglued. Hey, we’re talking 50 years since the real Elvis and his stage presence lives on. Play to the crowd!

With advertising as with video, or movies, it would be something similar. Who is the audience? What will they accept? The Sci-Fi buff wants good animation where as the Saturday morning kid watching cartoons, not so particular. The weekend mechanic trying to figure out how to get the lawnmower running by watching YouTube vids wants the meat about how to fix it but image stabilization with the presenters smart phone (using dumb stabilization, or even with green cars in the background) will continue to watch if the content is there.

Speaking of green cars, a vintage XK120 Jaguar in British racing green is cool so that would be a distraction (for me). Getting back to the thread title about deep focus, I would focus on the Jag. (Sorry actors, but then its not my movie)

Content is king so how the story goes is very important. Scene to scene, does it flow? They’re only a matter of seconds long so there shouldn’t be a lot of time to get too distracted.

Same in live music, if you’re playing something and make a mistake with a note, just keep the rhythm going and don’t miss a beat. If the rhythm changes it will be really noticed.

Got a kick reading everybody’s comments. “No Problem” Paul, Risk taker Roger, and Professor Seth who is still learning!

And there’s one more thing …
Way back when I was talking with a guy who was in the Army about his experience with a major field inspection with a large number of platoons (or whatever they were), and he was in charge of one of them. It was a full dress type of inspection and all the platoons or battalions (whatever) were out on the parade ground in full attention. Everybody lined up in orderly rows looking their best. As luck would have it, it started to drizzle then rain. He ordered his platoon to put on their rain gear and none of the others did. No, he didn’t get reprimanded, he got an at-a-boy (or something like that). What was the rule? Stand at attention. Did he keep it? Well, it’s your call.

Even politicians play to the crowd.
Risk taker Roger did but in one case audience #2 was also listening.

When I was seventeen, I decided to apply for a job with Singer sewing machines as a salesman. I was young and confident and secured the job. I had to go on a residential training course and learn how to sell the way that Singer wanted me to. It involved learning a script of what to say and how to respond to various questions. We were all required to learn the script off by heart, which was written by a top Singer sales executive. We also learned how to use and service the machines. At the end of the course, we were given intensive training on the brand new innovative 'Touch and Sew'machine which was due to be released, then after testing, we were sent back to our base shops.

A week later, I became the first in the UK to sell the new machine and indeed sold the first six. After 3 months I was the top UK salesmen and was invited to London to demonstrate to all the new trainee salesman exactly why I was the top man. I was sat in the centre of the training room with someone pretending to be an interested customer and told to start my sales routine. I started by asking where they had been on holiday, then about their pets and started talking about my own interests. After 5 minutes I was stopped and told that it was completely irrelevant and to use my sales patter. I replied that I sold the machines by building a relationship with each customer as each customer was different, long before I gently introduced the new machine into the conversation. I also pointed out that I couldn't even remember the script. I was immediately told that the best people in the company had developed the sales script and would I please start using it. I responded that I never used it, and used my own initiative. At this point the proceedings were stopped and I was taken from the room and severely reprimanded for ignoring company policy. That was followed by a written reprimand to my area manager, at which point I immediately resigned.

Absolutely nothing to do with film making, but the point is that you use rules and guidelines as just that- guidance, but every circumstance is different and you have to adapt yourself to the demands that are presented to you. If you only ever do what you have been told is best, you will never develop your own creativity and get yourself noticed.

RogerGreat story. I'll take two! ;-)

We may never have heard this great story if it wasn't for that green car. Maybe the green car should get the lead in Ryan's movie. Reminds me of Columbo's what make was it?

Reminds me of Columbo's what make was it?


1959 Peugeot 403 Cabriolet.

For more info, see https://www.cartalk.com/blogs/jim-motavalli/columbos-car-it-was-rare-and-ratty-1959-peugeot-403-cabriolet

Fully agree, Roger told a great story!