-
Hail Caesar
And from the other guys 🙂
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/video/pro-video-tools.html?trackingid=WB99JRH2&mv=email
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
36 Replies
-
I enjoyed the film a lot, but all the inside stuff about Hollywood probably didn’t grab the general audiences. This article does make me wonder how thing might have evolved, had Apple went farther down the FCP7 road. I am happy with X but whether it will ever have much impact on Hollywood is a big question.
-
[Claude Lyneis] “I am happy with X but whether it will ever have much impact on Hollywood is a big question.”
Have a look at Tim’s WTF article.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Oliver Peters] “And from the other guys :)”
You mean Adobe? Those guys? You’ll note Tim’s piece was not written by, or commissioned by Apple. It was written by, um… Tim. 🙂 Pretty unbiased author I’d say.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Charlie Austin] “Pretty unbiased author I’d say.”
Well, it was very biased in the sense that I believe that objectivity is a lie, and to the extent that there may possibly be such a thing, it is to be rigorously avoided. LOL I stated my bias, that I think the WTF guys are up to something that really intrigued me, and I wrote from the perspective of my own enthusiasm with THEIR enthusiasm.
But I also wrote about THEIR biases, which include a love of risk and a desire to touch everything, that made FCPX a good choice for them. Not every director rolls that way. At the other end of the spectrum, I can imagine directors who care every bit as much about the same production issues who don’t care specifically how their teams approach it. “I pay U ppl to figure that out.” Maybe it’d be the post supervisor or the editor or somebody like that.
It certainly gets fuzzier when you have directors like Ficarra-Requa and the Coens who also edit…
My directors cut of the article also included a brief (FOR ME) compare and contrast with David Fincher’s bias to not just pushing post forward onto the set, but pushing cinematography back into post, eg, reframing every single shot. I’d have been stupefied to see him NOT gravitate toward Premiere and After Effects. Completely organic choice, completely reflects his bias that multiple iterations of THE FRAME is a good idea.
The Coen brothers are also one of a kind, so to speak. I was working at Avid when they did their first project on FCP, which caused some consternation. Raising Arizona was a team favorite — I was odd man out preferring The Big Lebowski (BUT THE DUDE ABIDES) — and my boss’s wife had actually written a book about the Coen brothers. But when I heard their workflow, I said, “Wow, Media Composer would have been a spectacularly bad fit for them.”
Of course, the next thing I said was, “The only thing worse for them is Final Cut.” LOL I’m surprised that they stuck with it as long as they did. Everything about Premiere for THEM makes vastly more sense to me.
You may recall that, as enthusiastic as I was, and am, about FCPX, I’ve said loudly and often that the greatest favor Apple may have done the industry is to help more people understand that Premiere is a better fit for them than FCP was in the first place, and certainly the better fit going forward.
It’s remarkable to me that workflows as different as Finchers and the Coens (and for that matter Tim Miller with Deadpool) can be accommodated so organically within the Creative Cloud, which is why, as engaged as I’ve personally been by FCPX since I first saw it, I’ve also said that I think it’s inevitable that Adobe wind up with the biggest slice of the pie. Compelling tools, compelling combinations, enormous flexibility, all the stuff you see in articles like this…..
….which might reflect your priorities, and which might not. But the “originated from Adobe”-ness or “originated from Tim”-ness of it is ultimately irrelevant. The most relevant bias to watch is the bias of the people portrayed IN the article, not the employer of the author.
This is actually a theme I’ve hammered many times in this forum over the years, that what appears to be a technical choice is actually a reflection of personal style. THAT’s the value of articles like these to me. The more biased the better. What are these people trying to do?
Of course, the idea that we’re kidding ourselves when we fail to talk about technology choices as a reflection of personality is pretty Freudian. I think “objective” is a lie we tell ourselves to preserve the illusion of rationality.
Whereas Siggy and I feel that rationality is only useful when applied to puncture the illusion of rationality. LOL Be specific: HOW am I kidding myself. LOL Speak aloud the unspoken forces that have driven previous decisions in hopes that the next one might actually be a little more rational, which can’t ever be taken for granted.
Being rational is hard precisely because it’s unnatural, and more often than not, self-defeating, because it gets conflated with objectivity, which doesn’t exist.
So THERE’s the task. Identify the biases of the subject of the article, identify the biases in yourself, and ask, “Are the forces that drove those choices similar to the ones that drive mine?”
It’s only when you align your inner forces with your outward choices that you can approach balance, and after that, happiness.
THAT’s what struck me talking to Glenn Ficarra. He’s a happy guy. We laughed a LOT in that conversation. FCPX was the right fit for him and his partner, and the rightness of that choice touched everything they did, including location scouting and screenings for suits. LOVE it.
I’m also gratified that Fincher and the Coens took the advice I would have given them about using Premiere that they could have saved themselves a lot of time if they’d asked me for. LOL
And now I shall reveal my true choice for the new name of this forum: FCPX or Not: Group Therapy. LOL
-
Yes! Please! Apple FCPX and the Making Of Whisky Tango Foxtrot
Not meaning to suck attention away from the thread topic, which is the rightness of Premiere as the choice for the Coens (see my post below, where I also note how organic a choice it was for Fincher and Tim Miller), but, to speak to your point, Claude, I 100000% believe that X has the potential to move the needle in Hollywood more than FCP ever could, for reasons I discuss in the article.
Now, whether or not it actually WILL, we’ll see. 🙂
-
I’ll have a WTF article myself coming up as well.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
So if I hate the movie, do I get to blame Premiere? 😉
Always made me laugh at Avid marketing: “all the award winning films cut on Avid…” What about the one’s that suck? Must be FCPX that those were cut on!
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
Tim’s WTF article underlines that it takes innovative film makers to adopt FCPX for a feature film. From what I have read, the number of Hollywood movies has dropped from 700 a year to 350 a year in the last 10 years and this has made it difficult for independent film makers. Hopefully, their approach of cutting the number of days shooting will open up the possibilities for more films per year.
Can’t wait to see Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
-
And my story for DV:
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
And my story for DV magazine/CreativePlanetNetwork:
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up