Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?

[Brian Drysdale]

You keep asking questions that no one here can answer. You seem to want precise details to things that should be thought out by you on long walks or where ever you keep running this stuff through your mind, keep rewriting these scenes.

[Greg Smith]

A split screen will give him the chance to use two different star filters at the same time! Woo-hoo!

[John Nantz]

Just checking in and the drama continues. Heck of a lot more interesting than what the news media has to offer.

Pete - you did good, my man!

Originally Posted by Pete Cofrancesco

#635
huh?
When I read your posts it’s like pinball game of random ideas.

Disclaimer: Have to say I'm no advocate of split-screen so here's my take.

Don’t need no split screen if one writes the score [Edit: script] right.
Take a cue from the Big Bopper and his rendition of Chantilly Lace when there is only one person talking but we know what the conversation is about.

This script writer … er, lyricist, was able to write a conversation in such a manner that we know what was said (Edit: communicated) even though we only know only one side of it. Not only that, the lyricist did it in such a manner so it would fit the measures and stanzas in a song. Not given the constraint of musical requirements surely one can come up with a one-sided conversation where the viewer understands what was communicated.

The Big Bopper had a one-sided conversation in his popular song: "Chantilly Lace"

Hello Baby
Yeah, this is the Bib Bopper speakin
Do I what?
Will I what?
Oh baby, you know what I like!
What’s that, baby?
Pick you up at 8 and don’t be late
But baby, I ain’t got no money, honey
Oh, alright, honey, you know what I like

Perry Mason had one-sided phone conversations in his famous long-running detective programs.

One does not necessarily require both people to be viewed in a split-screen to know what the conversation is about. Basically, a two-way conversation can be understood even if we only hear one side.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, I just thought it would be fun to watch two characters in a cat and mouse game come to merge in timing on a split screen, when I thought about how this would play out.

[Brian Drysdale]

Fun and thriller don't really go together, you can't put things in for fun, even in a comedy. There has to be a driving 2+2=5 reason for doing so.

[Ryan Elder]

Well maybe fun is the wrong word, but I have lots of fun watching thrillers, so if thrillers are fun for me, can they be fun for others? My reason for doing so, is that the audience is going to wonder if the cop is going to in there in time, before they destroy all the evidence and escape out the back yard, which the cop cannot legally go into as of yet. So that is the reason why I wanted to show both simultaneously to see both timings converge.

[Brian Drysdale]

Have you checked if this is correct? Following in hot pursuit is usually different to doing a search after the event and getting back up is to ensure that they don't escape out the back and having safety in numbers.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh well I talked with a cop and went through the scene, and wrote it to his specifications so I thought it was all good based on what he said.

[Brian Drysdale]

Sometimes bending the rules works better dramatically, it shows if they're someone who follows the rules or will push them as far as possible. The latter is not unusual in dramas.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

Oh well I talked with a cop and went through the scene, and wrote it to his specifications so I thought it was all good based on what he said.

1. You are always taking directions from people who have no filmmaking knowledge. “He told me...” or “I was told...”. You’re the writer/director, you should be the one deciding how to tell your story.

2. 99% of all movies both people are not shown at the same time and it seems to work. Either we hear the conversation and observe the effect it has on the receiving party or we can’t hear what being said, which invites the audience to speculate what’s being said. You seem to have a habit of trying to show and tell everything which eliminates any intrigue.

3. Split screen is often distracting and confusing. We don’t experience the world this way. You haven’t given any compelling reason to use it other than it’s just another cinematic device you want to throw in.

At every opportunity you are trying to insert unusual cinematic devices that call attention to themselves. You’re more concerned trying to show off how unique you are than simply telling a story well. This heavy handed approach is what one would expect from a film student.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Pete Cofrancesco

1. You are always taking directions from people who have no filmmaking knowledge. “He told me...” or “I was told...”. You’re the writer/director, you should be the one deciding how to tell your story.

2. 99% of all movies both people are not shown at the same time and it seems to work. Either we hear the conversation and observe the effect it has on the receiving party or we can’t hear what being said, which invites the audience to speculate what’s being said. You seem to have a habit of trying to show and tell everything which eliminates any intrigue.

3. Split screen is often distracting and confusing. We don’t experience the world this way. You haven’t given any compelling reason to use it other than it’s just another cinematic device you want to throw in.

At every opportunity you are trying to insert unusual cinematic devices that call attention to themselves. You’re more concerned trying to show off how unique you are than simply telling a story well. This heavy handed approach is what one would expect from a film student.

Oh okay thanks. To address those points:

1. I thought I should do police research when writing unless I should not then...

2. How was I shown everything exactly? The conversation is only being heard through the cop's radio. You do not see the other people. So how was I therefore, showing too much?

3. Even though people do not experience the world that way, it's a movie. Does a movie have to be portrayed exactly how people experience the world? I didn't intend to show off, I was just trying to find the best way to tell that section of the story. I don't have to do it, but it just seems strange, cause I didn't think I was breaking any cinematic rules by doing so.

[Paul R Johnson]

I thought I should do police research when writing unless I should not then..

That is NOT what was said Ryan - you really must get the hang of reading what people say.

You do research - but you seem to lack a filter - taking in information and analysing what it tells you.

Of course a real police input is handy - but you are not making a documentary. It's drama. Many movies take on consultants from specific industries that will feature, and they often get really angry because their viewpoints are often ignored. You make a movie about special forces, so you talk to special forces people - then go off and make a movie and dropping all the boring stuff and focussing on the shoot up at the end.

You take everything as black or white - never any grey, and this is throttling you.

[Brian Drysdale]

Writers research the world they're creating, why would you even think for a second they wouldn't?

Know your world is one of the tenets of writing.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, I can see that. I guess the reason why I may be more black and white is because the audience feedback seems to me. The audience feels that either something is right or wrong, with no grey area it seems, so maybe that's why I see things black and white more.

I did actually did write think about writing it, that maybe the cop decides to go in without having the most probable cause cause he felt people may be in danger, but I was told that if he did that he would be fired, and no one is going to believe he would risk his job like that, and not be be fired after, so I wrote it so he doesn't. But I can change it back then.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

I must have missed where you laid out how you are using split screen...something about a police conversation over the radio. But that's not really important, all I do know split screen is almost never used. I'm sure you could dig up two or three outliers out of the ten of thousands of movies but what would be the point? Split screen isn't necessary but this is a recurring thing with you trying break convention when you haven't even make one successful feature film. Its pointless arguing with you because once you get something in your head it's impossible to dissuade you. Is it possible to use split screen? Yes. Is in necessary or appropriate? Most likely not.

Doing research is fine, but movies almost never follow what happens in real life, especially when it comes to action-crime genre. The general audience does not know or care about real police procedure.

It's amazing that out of all the countless approaches to telling a story you latch on to one that everyone here can agree that is bad. This coming from a group of individuals who rarely agree on anything.