-
Hail Caesar
-
[Oliver Peters] “And my story for DV magazine/CreativePlanetNetwork”
Great article, thanks Oliver!
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Claude Lyneis] “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.”
Probably not. From a technical standpoint it probably has never been cheaper or easier to make and distribute a movie than in the past few years. The big reason the number of movies has dropped is because the studios were cranking them out at an unsustainably high rate. There is only so much free time people have and there are more movies, books, TV shows, webisodes, video games, songs, web sites, social media platforms, etc., than ever before all duking it out for those small slivers of free time.
The old adage was everyone in Hollywood had a screenplay (all you need is a typewriter). Then it changed to everyone in Hollywood has a movie (DV and desktop NLEs). Now it’s changed to everyone in Hollywood has distribution (YouTube, Netflix, etc.,). The market is supersaturated with content these days because making content (regardless of quality) is so easy. In 2000 about 3500 films were submitted to Sundance. In 2014 about 12,000 films were submitted. 300 hours (hours!) of new content is uploaded to YouTube everyone minute!
The hurdle these days isn’t getting your movie made, it’s being able to rise above the fray and successfully monetize the movie you made.
-
Weird, but so much fun reading Tims article about X in Wisky Tango and the contrast if that to Oliver’s piece about Caesar. Talk about different mindsets! For so many, many months of debate here on the Cow I kept failing so spectacularly to understand many of the reasons I got so frustrated when my sparring partners kept focusing on the minor stuff like the magnetic timeline differences and arguing points like “ALL software uses metadata so what’s the big deal?” … And I kept having the powerful feeling that it was my personal inability to communicate it properly that was driving so much of my angst. Thanks Tim for helping me see (in retrospect) that part of the reason the debate got so messy, was that I just couldn’t do even a half decent job of seeing the scope of the changes the X approach was starting to allow. I knew there was a shift. One that was helping me work faster and smarter – but couldn’t always put it in context or really, even get it in focus. Reading this actually helped. So too reading about the Premiere approach. What a difference in tone and outlook. Kinda stark, actually. And interesting that fine films can be made with such different approaches. New tools gain power when they suggest to the user, new techniques to leverage them. And traditions rock for those who value that – including, it appears digital foot pedals! Who saw that coming?!? I’m in Florida at the moment returning from a week on a corporate shoot and it was HUGELY different (and more efficient!) than anything I’ve shot before thanks to X, Lumberjack, X-Rite … and having a keyword strategy in advance and understanding HOW modern shot logging can work – it’s just SO MUCH easier now. And my camera and sound crew (mostly Disney veterans from Orlando) kept making notes.
Change is exciting. Which is nice, cuz I don’t think it’s slowing down anytime soon!
Great article. The change we’re expecting isn’t always the real change happening. This brought that home to me again.Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
This seems appropriate to this thread. The Coens’ approach to the reverse shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UE3jz_O_EM
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.comSome contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
That was terrific!
-
Great piece!
-
Absolutely. And makes me think about how easy it would be in X (and maybe Premiere and AVID?) to just do multi clips with the reverses bundled together by dialog lines and manage the options via keywording. Instant options always ready at a click. Should be a joy to work if it’s prepped with intent.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bill Davis] “makes me think about how easy it would be in X (and maybe Premiere and AVID?) to just do multi clips with the reverses bundled together by dialog lines and manage the options via keywording.
“That really seems like overthinking how to do the edit :). They are already “bundled together” by virtue of how the takes are named. And often reverses aren’t even filmed/recorded at the same time, depending on the production and the director. If these were shot 2-cam, then it makes sense, however, the point of the essay was that Deakins frames between the actors, so a 2-cam production isn’t viable.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “If these were shot 2-cam, then it makes sense, however, the point of the essay was that Deakins frames between the actors, so a 2-cam production isn’t viable”
Yet.
Who knows how long it will be before there are cameras that act like binaural mics capturing reverses from a single point that allows “live” two shot performances in real time? Why necessarily shoot these sequentially any more? Sure that may still be the directors preference. But what if it’s not? Think of all the continuity problems it will solve with elements like changing location light over reverses shot hours apart? And as cameras get more sentitive, and the “existing light with minor enhancements” trend gets more popular – wouldn’t concurrent reverses benefit from being captured simultaneously when that fits?
Wasn’t part of the point of this discussion that shooting traditional reverses – in the traditional fashion, should be an OPTION, not a requirement?
Or is there something special about the Cohen’s employing a camera position more inside the scene that precludes using new technology to make that easier, rather than more difficult?
Honestly asking.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bill Davis] “Sure that may still be the directors preference. But what if it’s not? Think of all the continuity problems it will solve with elements like changing location light over reverses shot hours apart? And as cameras get more sentitive, and the “existing light with minor enhancements” trend gets more popular – wouldn’t concurrent reverses benefit from being captured simultaneously when that fits?”
Precisely because it is the director’s choice. These choices are often made to control lighting in a creative fashion. For example, if you study Robert Richardson’s lighting (Tarantino’s DP) it almost never comes from the direction of a natural, logical source. So using existing light might be technically viable, but it isn’t creatively viable for everyone unless that’s what the script calls for.
[Bill Davis] “Or is there something special about the Cohen’s employing a camera position more inside the scene that precludes using new technology to make that easier, rather than more difficult?”
Right now, physical proximity. Remember, you aren’t shooting this with an iPhone or GoPro, although you could if the script called for that look. But remember that even if you shot both sides simultaneously, you probably wouldn’t use the take that’s in-sync anyway, due to performance choices. Part of it is also letting the director focus in on each little element.
From my vantage point as an editor, I’ve cut small films done single camera and dual camera and generally you don’t get equal use out of both cameras. Maybe – and this is a big maybe – I get 25% utilization of the shots in that other angle. I usually see better results on single-camera shows, unless it’s reality TV.
Take two-shots as another example. You’d think that would a no-brainer as it’s all in one shot. However, for years now, editors have been combining different takes to composite a new two-shot because Actor A is better in one take and Actor B better in another. Or to adjust performance timing. That’s done regardless of the NLE software used. So it’s not a matter of whether new technology can do this, but rather whether or not it would be that beneficial to the process.
I post-suped and graded a small indie film that had 76 VFX shots. These were for all kinds of little fixes, but one that’s relevant to this discussion is a shot of the hero couple with a ferris wheel in the background. The take the director liked best din’t have the ferris wheel moving. A simple composite of another take put in the moving ferris wheel. That sort of stuff is done all the time these days in editing dialogue performances, whether it’s for objects or several actors performing.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up