Simon Ubsdell
6
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Andy Neil] “To break that outdated notion that one way was better than another, someone had to make the decision to use Avid regardless of the people he’d be able to work with. Decide to go with the system and then find the people willing to join the revolution. “
Yes, this is clearly the thought process involved here.
But am I really the only person who is a bit stunned that the technology was put before the talent in this case?
Clearly the view was that the advantages of FCP X were so overwhelmingly convincing that finding an editor skilled in the craft of feature film editing was not considered to be of importance.
It’s the exact equivalent of a feature film production saying that a hypothetical new innovative camera is so much better than every other camera that’s come before it that it has to be used even though the only person who can be found to drive it has never shot a feature film before. The camera is so outstandingly good that a DP’s knowledge of lighting is just not needed.
Is it true to say that FCP X is so far superior to any other NLE that the editor’s actual experience becomes a distant second in the creative process?
That’s quite a claim.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Andy Neil] “If they made an equipment decision (which I’ve now said multiple times), and it’s fine and not unusual that they did so (as evidenced by all the equipment decisions that get made all the time in film, then it’s also not unusual that they went with an FCPX editor even if he had no film credits to begin. So, no, I don’t find it an unusual choice.”
We’ll have to agree to differ here. I think you’re absolutely right that the decision was made to cut the film on FCP X and then a suitable editor was looked for.
This to me seems an extraordinary decision.
In the normal course of events it’s surely the case that the director and/or producer will first of all look for the editor whose track record tells them that s/he can best tell their story and the choice of NLE is virtually irrelevant in the scheme of things. Who wouldn’t consider the talent first and the kit later – if at all?
It would be equally bizarre to decide on the camera before hiring the cinematographer.
The presumption here that I find strange and revealing is that the editor’s skillset is less important that the kit he’s cutting on – which is a point that I think we’re agreeing on.
You don’t find anything odd in that – I do.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Andy Neil] “Productions make equipment-based decisions all the time, there’s nothing wrong with that. And feature film experience is no metric for editing talent. Mediocre films are cut all the time by mediocre film editors. “
Why, in your estimation, did they not go with an editor with some feature film experience in this case?
It could well be true that as you say there are many mediocre feature film editors but I don’t see that as an argument for going with someone who’s never actually edited a feature film editor at all (until now).
This is a big-budget Will Smith movie – I’m not sure when a Will Smith movie was last edited by a complete tyro.
For example, Hughes Winborne who cut Seven Pounds has 33 feature editing credits, Steven Rosenblum who cut After Earth has 24 credits, and so on.
Surely you’ll admit this is an unusual choice in this case?
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Walter Soyka] “It’s Not About the Tools, It’s About the Talent Or Not: The Debate.”
This does seem to be a particularly remarkable and high-profile example of the tools being considered more important than the talent. I wonder whether this is where things are ultimately trending with the film-makers taking far more control over the creative process and sidelining the specialist talent.
Maybe this is a great thing – but then again maybe it’s not. I genuinely don’t know – though you’d have to say it comes down to whether the film-maker has the requisite natural talent.
Of course, neither Ficarra not Requa has a single editing credit to their name if we can believe imdb, which makes it even more interesting.
[Walter Soyka] “Alternately, Feature Film Workflows Are Irrelevant to the Broader Editorial Market Or Not: The Debate.”
Oddly, the importance attached to the “Cold Mountain moment for FCP X” disregards the fact that feature film editing by no means represents the most complicated editing process for all that it is esteemed as the pinnacle of the profession. There’s no particular reason why you shouldn’t very successfully be able to cut a feature film on iMovie – the media wrangling would be a bit of a pain but then in Hollywood circles no-one cares about that, since it’s the job of the support staff to make happen whatever the creative team wants.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Andy Neil] “One, they needed a seasoned FCPX editor for their film. Most of the studio film editors out there (hell, maybe all of them) don’t work with FCPX and probably don’t know how to use it. There may be a few out there but you also have to coordinate on schedule and such. So perhaps they needed to look outside of the usual suspects to find an experienced FCPX editor.”
This is the part I find really interesting. They thought it was more important to cut on FCP X than to draw on the talent of an experienced feature film editor.
Am I the only one who thinks this is quite surprising? Is the convenience of the software more important than the experience of the editor as this decision clearly implies?
I’m sure Jan Kovac knows what he’s doing and goodness knows everyone deserves a break but I’m sure he’d be the first to admit he’s not on anyone’s A-list of feature film editors. His highest profile job before that was “editor: syndication version” on three episodes of Curb your Enthusiasm.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Robin S. Kurz] “So you’ve seen them? Or you know that no one with skill in that area put them together? Because otherwise those seem like a lot of fairly random presumptions, no?”
“The directors were happy enough with the animated opening credits — created by editors using the standard text tool in Final Cut Pro X — that they decided to use them in the final movie, which is extremely rare for a high-production feature film.”
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Brett Sherman] “Really? For some productions, overwrought title sequences distract from the movie. I personally eschew any fancy-pants lower thirds for my videos. I think they are just terrible. That’s not to say there isn’t a place and time for fancier graphics, but it doesn’t need to be all (or even most) of the time.”
I totally agree about simplicity being preferable – in principle, and where it is appropriate.
The point though is that very, very few editors actually know anything at all about design or typography and even where simplicity is the object, or rather especially where simplicity is the object, a real understanding of design and typography will make a big difference.
It seems curious that one wouldn’t want to access the knowledge and expertise of someone skilled in this area …
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
This was not really an observation about FCP X so much as an observation about this project.
The directors didn’t feel that an experienced feature film editor would have anything useful to offer. That’s a bit surprising.
Equally they didn’t feel that an experienced titles designer could bring anything of value. That too is interesting.
What was interesting about the Cold Mountain moment was that a legendary feature film editor made the choice to use FCP – what’s striking about this case history is that it’s the directors’ choice, because they wanted to minimise the input from the editor and maximise their own.
Maybe this is a healthy development, but it’s certainly worthy of comment – perhaps even more worthy of comment than whether keyword collections are a superior organizational tool.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Noah Kadner] “For the folks who’ve been curious about how this went:”
One rather curious aspect of this production for me is that this is the very first feature film of any kind that the Editor Jan Kovac has cut, acccording to his imdb entry.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5552644/
Even his TV work is not especially extensive.
Clearly the decision to use FCP X for Focus was driven entirely (?) by Ficarra and Requa and their desire to be extremely hands-on with the edit.
Although it’s great to see X being used at this level, it’s a very unusual case history.
I was also very struck by this:
“The directors were happy enough with the animated opening credits — created by editors using the standard text tool in Final Cut Pro X — that they decided to use them in the final movie, which is extremely rare for a high-production feature film.”
Why would you not want a graphics expert to do the titles for a movie of this scale in a dedicated graphics environment? Bizarre.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Robin S. Kurz] “Oh yeah… Motion is one of the COLOR difference matte-rs. “
Surely all Difference Blend modes return a color image from a color input and not grayscale, or am I missing something?
As I’m sure you know, purists recommend a different method (rather than using the Difference Blend mode) for optimum results in building a difference keyer:
1) Subtract Layer A from Layer B.
2) Subtract Layer B from Layer A.
3) Add the result of Step 1 and Step 2 together.
The function is as follows: (abs (Ra-Rb) + abs (Ga-Gb) + abs (Ba-Bb))
where R= red channel, G= green channel, B= blue channel; and a is Layer A, and b is Layer B.
Obviously these are functionally the same, in principle – this is just the long way of writing a difference function.
The good news is that in Motion there is no “difference” between these two methods and indeed you can verify that by subtracting the result of method 1 from the result of method 2.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com