OT: editing holds in focus that made no sense.

[Nikolas Bäurle]

I’m pretty sure that someone of power made a decision to do it that way, either a producer or director. Perhaps the editor sugested it for more “feeling”, or the director had a hissy fit since no one agreed with him, and perhaps he said something like ” ….but Mamet did it!” And then the editor probably rolled his eyes, but kept his mouth shut for fear of being forced to use Avid the next time.

But why this focus on Focus? Aren’t bad movies made all the time on all sorts of high end equipment and a bunch of hype to go with it? And I’m pretty sure words like great, awesome, perfect and wow were probably heard on the sets of Twilight or 50 Shades as much as on the set of Focus, or even Sharknado.

Focus will probaby be one of those films our collective memory will eventually forget, when we try to explain to our grandchildren, that our generation made better movies then their generation, and why the magnetic timeline is so much better than that new interactive 3d timeline.

“Always look on the bright side of life” – Monty Python

[Scott Witthaus]

[Nikolas Bäurle] “And then the editor probably rolled his eyes, but kept his mouth shut for fear of being forced to use Avid the next time.
“

That’s exactly right. It’s all because it was cut on X. Cut on Premiere, this never would have been a problem. Cut on Avid, the scene would have been magic. But, since it was cut on X, the same scene is problematic. Damn little non-professional software killed this epic….

😉

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter

[Michael Phillips]

One would need to go through the contracts on any film to see who had the right to the final edit. Sometimes it’s the director, rest of the time the studio. Rarely, if EVER, does an editor have final edit on a studio feature unless they are also directing and negotiated for that right. I’ve worked on DGA type films where the director had final edit if the film scored a minimum of “_______” at a test screening. Many editors I know speak to their rule of threes if they don’t agree with the direction of a scene or a cut is taking; suggest the change three times over the course of postproduction. If the third time is a still a no, them you let it go, you’ve done your job. It’s easy enough to show them the change these days. It’s the director’s choice in those scenarios.

There was one amusing story when Kevin Tent paid Alexendar Payne $75 to keep a dissolve in the cut because he believed in it. Of course this was based on their long term relationship and trust working together, and was all in jest when Alexander said, “put your money where your mouth is.” If I remember correctly Kevin offered $50 and Alexander got him up to $75. Kevin paid him and the dissolve stayed. I have to ask Kevin which film that was as I’ve forgotten since he told me that story.

Michael

[Douglas K. dempsey]

haha, I love that story Michael! I’m not working on features, to be sure, but every project is a collaboration, even when it is a short documentary my wife and I are making. At some point, the argument becomes, “you’re not making it better, you’re just making it different.” Then it’s negotiation and bribery to keep a cut or dissolve you want, over the wishes of your partner! We have also tried it out on third parties, only to discover they don’t notice of don’t care, one way or the other. As I said, “not better, just different.”

Doug D

[Dean Neal]

Of course Aindreas…

After you assumed that the FCPX Hollywood Movie was deemed vapourware and as we Aussies say ‘Bulldust’…

…you now decide to tear apart the subsequent, released movie that you railed against as non-existent!

LOL

I dig your edit chops and your wily sense of humour… but I have one question for you:

“Why have you invested so much time… deriding FCPX?”

I mean… aren’t we all creatives? Don’t we delight in producing positive content?

😛

Dean…

Dean Neal…

[Tony West]

[Douglas K. Dempsey] “We have also tried it out on third parties, only to discover they don’t notice of don’t care, one way or the other. As I said, “not better, just different.””

Indeed Douglas. Would love to delve into the collaborative conflicts topic with you if you were n my town.. I have run into this myself, and I agree. Most people don’t even notice the small things you are battling over. They are just watching the show in front of them.

[Scott Witthaus]

[Dean Neal] “”Why have you invested so much time… deriding FCPX?””

This should be interesting to see answered….maybe business is slow?

😉

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter

[Aindreas Gallagher]

habit. Same as everyone else here. I don’t come back that often either?

It’s entertaining to kick as software because it deserves it. Apple came up with a lunatic piece of software that some decided was the second coming because its insanity allowed for no other interpretation. FCPX had to be the word of god, otherwise it was largely ridiculous. It’s no clothes or ermine and silk.

weren’t media and events the second coming? Until Apple realised that was the height of idiocy a few years on. FCPX is pages and aperture and motion and shake – it’s all the things that apple finally never had to care about, and on this forum there are all the adherents left on the rocky lifeboat of apple pro-apps laughing heartily and pretending they’re not on a couple of planks of wood well out in the sea a mile from shore or cupertino.

I’ll kick the raft because I’m annoyed what became of the professionally inclined apple, that it was reduced to the raft.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics