-
In-Action Story on FCPX and Focus
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “[Andy Neil] “Be careful that you don’t equate experience with skill. Clearly Jan has the skill to cut a feature film. It was just not quantified (in IMDB credits). There’s no magic amulet required for cutting a film. The same skills are required for editing a good story whether it’s on TV, film, or the web. ”
This is a truly extraordinary claim. Are you really saying that the “skill” of operating the kit is all that it actually takes to cut a feature film?
“No, clearly that’s not what he’s saying! He’s saying that Jan could be a great Editor WITHOUT the IMDB Credits
-
[Steve Connor] “No, clearly that’s not what he’s saying! He’s saying that Jan could be a great Editor WITHOUT the IMDB Credits”
No, sorry, I don’t get that either.
I don’t see how can you be a great feature film editor without a reasonable amount of experience as a lead editor on drama even if it’s only TV … which is clearly not the case here.
Sure, there’s an element of natural talent to being a great editor, but experience is a massive factor that can’t simply be discounted.
Anyone who’s ever cut drama will know that you keep learning and you keep getting better – the more edits you make the better editor you become. It really is as simple as that. I’ve never seen anyone who can cut immaculately without first having the experience, although I’ve seen a lot of beginners who were very impressive out of the gate – there are always gaping holes where their experience lets them down. Talented experienced editors just are better than talented novices and there’s no getting around it.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “No, sorry, I don’t get that either.
I don’t see how can you be a great feature film editor without a reasonable amount of experience as a lead editor on drama even if it’s only TV … which is clearly not the case here.
Sure, there’s an element of natural talent to being a great editor, but experience is a massive factor that can’t simply be discounted.
Anyone who’s ever cut drama will know that you keep learning and you keep getting better – the more edits you make the better editor you become. It really is as simple as that. I’ve never seen anyone who can cut immaculately without first having the experience, although I’ve seen a lot of beginners who were very impressive out of the gate – there are always gaping holes where their experience lets them down. Talented experienced editors just are better than talented novices and there’s no getting around it.
“Perhaps they’ll call you next time Simon
-
[Steve Connor] “Perhaps they’ll call you next time Simon”
They darn well better 😉
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “Are you really saying that the “skill” of operating the kit is all that it actually takes to cut a feature film?”
If I didn’t know you on this forum, Simon, I would assume you were just trolling. Of course that’s not what I said. Here’s my quote again:
[Andy Neil] “The same skills are required for editing a good story whether it’s on TV, film, or the web”
Translation: If you want to tell a good story, you need to understand character, pacing, plot, tone, theme, etc. This has nothing to do what you cut on. The difference between you and me is that you seem to think you have to have at least 10 IMDB credits on your resume before you’re qualified to do that kind of editing.
[Simon Ubsdell] “OK, so what was so vital in terms of their workflow that meant it was so completely unachievable in Media Composer or Premiere that the only option was to hire a novice in order to be able to cut it in FCP X?”
Again, you’re going off the reservation with your assumptions. Nobody said anything about this workflow being unachievable in another program. Only that the directors obviously believed that FCPX was the BEST option.
[Simon Ubsdell] “I’m not sure I believe this. I’m sure there are plenty of experienced editors who if approached would have agreed to get sufficiently familiar with X to be able to take on this job and do it very well.”
Well, I’m not so sure. I work in TV and I have a hard time convincing my peers to even look at FCPX. I think you underestimate both the reticence in Hollywood for FCPX and the “grumpy-old-manishness” of experienced film editors. Of course, this is conjecture on my part, I could be completely off base so who knows? I only know a few film editors and none very well. But the idea that FCPX is not a professional tool still sits like a festering sore over a lot of editor’s opinions.
[Simon Ubsdell] “There is a desire on the part of X enthusiasts to claim that it is so ridiculously complex that it takes years of dedicated training to achieve anything like proficiency.”
Who are you talking to that says anything of the sort about FCPX? Pretty much every single person on this forum and others who you would classify as FCPX enthusiasts, are constantly talking about how easy it is to use. We all agree that it’s different and may require a different approach, but that’s not the same thing as calling it complex. It’s FCPX dis-enthusiasts who think X is some weird, mythical creature that can’t be understood.
[Simon Ubsdell] “The notion that all experienced editors are resistant to FCP X and therefore the only editors who can be employed to use X are those with assistant-level editing experience seems pretty far-fetched.”
Wow, you must really have something against this editor. He went from inexperienced in film, to novice, to assistant editor as your replies have continued. I’m an experienced editor. I have over 15 years experience in broadcast tv. I even have two film credits. And I like and use FCPX. So clearly, I’m not saying that experienced editors can’t or won’t learn FCPX. You, on the other hand are suggesting quite adamantly that if you don’t have IMDB credits to your name, you must be a newb to editing in general. You’re so shocked that experience has taken a backseat in the editing workflow for this film, but you seem to have no care for skill or talent or any of the other things that make an editor. Credits are the only measure by which you seem to judge Jan’s abilities. Let’s hope he doesn’t get regulated to “intern” on your next reply.
Andy
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos
-
[tony west] ” quoted the director of the film. If you have a problem with the quote then you are calling him a liar.
I don’t see you as having any standing to do that.
I’m sure he doesn’t need you to tell him his craft at this point in his career.”
Wow, Tony. You certainly read between a lot of lines that I don’t even think are lines. I don’t know what you thought Oliver was saying, but I’m pretty sure he wasn’t saying it.
-
I have said it before in previous posts about Focus and Gone Girl that the modern NLE market is unlike Avid Vs FCP at the Cold Mountain moment. That represented a change when a highly respected and credentialed editor dared to do it very differently.
That isn’t what is happening here and so we seem to be arguing about the relative importance of this film for X or Gone Girl for Pr. Sure it is important for both but both tools are perfectly capable editors and it really isn’t ground breaking or radical to find that there are currently five mature NLEs that comfortably do the job and suit high end workflows. (Avid, Legend, X, Pr, Lightworks)
More radical would be someone using Vegas or Resolve to do a $50mill feature. Even then that would not be a Cold Mountain moment. I doubt such a moment is possible again.
-
[Chris Harlan] “Wow, Tony. You certainly read between a lot of lines that I don’t even think are lines.”
OK, here is what I see. The director is speaking about his personal experience with this product on his film.
This is this man’s personal experience. If you doubt his experience and figure, for example he had a horrible experience but is saying that he had a great one, that would be like someone claiming he is lying about his experience.
Kind of like that quote that Bill posted from somebody saying that Apple had paid them to use it for the film.
If a person is claiming that he is not being truthful about his experience what is the evidence to back that up?
-
[tony west] “If you a person is claiming that he is not being truthful about his experience what is the evidence to back that up?”
Tony, I just don’t understand how you read my reply in a way that indicates I ever said I doubted what the director was saying about his personal experience as it related to him. That interpretaion just seems very weird to me.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “But yes, from an aspirational POV, it’s certainly true and the real point that Apple is promoting.”
So is it baloney or true? That broad-based comment is off base. Again, looking at Avid’s marketing, it is aspirational as well. Avid sells MC and a desktop or laptop as the tools the “pros” use in Hollywood. No on talks about the supporting cast. Should we ask what 3rd party or finishing options all these award winning movies used beyond MC? Did they use the 15 year old Symphony color corrector and Avid FX for the finish? So if one is baloney, so is the other.
[Oliver Peters] “I asked for a show of hands for prior experience. About 3/4 had some experience – mostly FCP 7 or Premiere. A few (3 or 4 per group) were “other” – Vegas, iMovie, etc.”
So basically you have a sample that are predisposed to track based editing. Of course they find X quirky and strange. I certainly don’t think you can draw any conclusions from what could be a tainted pool. Of course they try and force X to do things the “track way” and then get frustrated. I teach 9 months out of the year to students who mostly have no experience in editorial and I find the opposite. Comparing my teaching of Legacy to X, X is learned so much faster with far fewer issues.
[Oliver Peters] “I got plenty of visceral negative responses to using FCP X and Macs, in general.”
See above.
[Oliver Peters] “The elegance of the FCP X interface is also a curse. Because you can open and close panels as needed, students tend to be confused. “
Really? I don’t see this at all. If anything, the elegant interface gets out of the way of telling the story. Of course, my students are required to complete the Lynda.com “FCPX Essentials” class in the first three weeks of the 15 week semester. That probably gets them ahead of the game and less confused. You can set that up pretty easily.
[Oliver Peters] “However, when asking what they would have preferred me to teach (if the option would have been available) the overwhelming comment was Media Composer, when there was a preference.”
Makes sense as they want to be “Hollywood”. My kids, who are advertising master students, have never heard of Media Composer. Sad but true. We have to remember that Hollywood is a niche market. High profile, but niche. Is there a reason you can’t teach MC?
[Oliver Peters] “Honestly for me, this story isn’t important because of FCP X, per se, but the overall workflow. Granted, a lot of that was facilitated by X”
No, this is an FCPX workflow story. How can it not be?
[Oliver Peters] “In both the case of “Gone Girl” and “Focus” the editorial teams went through quite a lot of testing to make sure they didn’t jeopardize the film. They provided valuable feedback to Adobe and Apple (I hope) that will benefit us all. That’s a good thing.”
And in this we agree! 🙂
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up