-
Reconsidering FCPX in Hollywood
-
So is Premiere making any REAL inroads into Hollywood editing? I’ve seen the PR around the movies that HAVE been cut with it, but it doesn’t seem like it’s done a great deal better than FCPX so far.
-
“MUST: Must have edited network promos and have examples. I.e. you watch the entire show, and with our creative directors, come up with the best direction for premise trailers. We cut everything from social content to full length broadcast specials.”
Do promotions producers in the US really pay for editors to sit and watch the show with them?
I made promotions for around 15 years on and off for the BBC and we certainly wouldn’t have done that. We were very happy for editors to have ideas, and for them to edit quickly, but we were the producers. The editors at the BBC were a precious resource – the good ones anyway – and would be off doing something completely different as soon as we went away.
Bernie
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “If FCP X is self-evidently the best product at the best price with the best support (and so on), then market forces tell us that it should be the de facto choice everywhere, including Hollywood.”
Group think is a powerful phenomenon that can overpower just about every other consideration.
[Simon Ubsdell] “Perhaps the efficiencies of FCP X just don’t have enough of a practical appeal in every day terms within this sector.”
Take this with a grain of salt. But I think the Hollywood world has a complicated relationship with “efficiency”. The financial incentives are to only be as efficient as others doing the work are, and not significantly more efficient. Let’s say hypothetically, you can cut a feature 15% faster on FCPX. Well that means you’ll get paid less for the job. Note that turnaround times and speed are two different things. One can maintain turnaround time by condensing hours working at the project while still earning the same amount of money.
All this to say that I question “efficiency” as the primary motivating factor in the Hollywood world.
-
[Steve Connor] “So is Premiere making any REAL inroads into Hollywood editing? I’ve seen the PR around the movies that HAVE been cut with it, but it doesn’t seem like it’s done a great deal better than FCPX so far.”
In general, that’s true for the studio films. Except, of course, the users and films are much higher profile. (I don’t mean that to disparage in any way the work done by the “Focus”, “Whiskey” teams.) However, if you look at other numbers, like Sundance entries, Premiere Pro is strongly represented. I’m also pretty sure you’ll find a lot more smaller shops (that cut TV shows) in LA that are running Premiere over FCPX.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Brett Sherman] “All this to say that I question “efficiency” as the primary motivating factor in the Hollywood world.
“While I agree with this statement I don’t think has anything to do with padding prices.
In a feature film any efficiancies produced by better timeline handling is trivial to the task at hand. On top of that feature film workflows already utilize many sorts of database management to organize the footage, dwarfing the abilities of FCPX ( or any other NLE) in that matter, especially with films dealing with large amounts of CG. Any modern NLE will do the job as long as it contributes to the “comfort” of the editor and director, and maximizing their comfort is where the efficiencies truly lie. Which is why Hollywood is often a technological backwater as far as editing goes – films were still being cut on upright Moviolas long after everyone else had switched to flatbeds because that’s what certain editors were comfortable with.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
[Steve Connor] “So is Premiere making any REAL inroads into Hollywood editing? I’ve seen the PR around the movies that HAVE been cut with it, but it doesn’t seem like it’s done a great deal better than FCPX so far.
“
Its used alot for marketing Hollywood features and TV – and alot of TV shows and indie films are using it.
Seems like Hollywood features have slowed down though. For example Deadpool 1 was done on Premiere – number 2, back to Avid.
-
[Bernard Newnham] “Do promotions producers in the US really pay for editors to sit and watch the show with them?
“Not that I know of – I think the post was implying that you’d watch/ breakdown the show on your own (and yes, be paid for that time) – and then discuss with the creative director the best ways to move forward.
-
[Tony West] “Because they don’t know what they are talking about. They are working with a program that is working for them and they don’t have a reason to try something different.”
Thats my point – and thank you for punctuating it.
Editors need a reason to switch – a bunch of people saying “hey look its faster”, month after month for the last 7 years obviously hasn’t made a difference to them or overridden the bad rep it got at the start.
-
[Neil Goodman] “For example Deadpool 1 was done on Premiere – number 2, back to Avid.”
Different editor and director.
OTOH:
https://www.provideocoalition.com/art-cut-billy-fox-ace-brave/
https://www.provideocoalition.com/aotc-mindhunter
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
Editors are notorious for resisting change. And notorious for poo-pooing things outside their own comfort level and workflow. Perhaps this is the reason Resolve, as an editor, fades into the distance after each “incredible” NAB. Looks good in demo mode but who is actually going to leave their Avid to use it for heavy lifting? Not many, I would bet.
So we have about a half a dozen editors here (out of what, maybe 3 dozen consistently active members in this forum?) that question the acceptance of FCPX in Hollywood. I highly doubt Apple cares. They see a great big world outside of Hollywood and the US where the product seems to be doing better than the rest.
I would also bet that “collaboration” is another high “volume” topic that most editors have no need for. Personally I am grateful that I don’t have to collaborate with anyone on my storytelling work, but that’s just me. My collaboration needs are in sending out work to CC and audio. That’s what I want to be seamless and still edit in X. Just my humble opine. Hollywood has theirs, as we can tell.
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up