Timothy J. allen
Forum Replies Created
-
Randell,
Maybe I should have put the word “actors” in quotes? Actors are paid to be believable, but that doesn’t mean that those in front of the camera will always do so.… and I do believe there IS such a thing as bad actors, just as there are bad directors, bad editors, etc.
Andrew Kimery is correct though – after all this discussion I agree that the spot would move some pillows. If it does, it’s done it’s job.
The original post was about pricing. That question varies depending on how much it costs the producer to create the spot. That’s affected by a myriad of factors, such as geographic location. I wouldn’t charge $25 k for production of it, but then again, I don’t live in NYC or LA. If I did, I might.
-
I haven’t taken the time to run my magic spreadsheet, but I’m fairly certain that my charge for this would be much closer to the $10k mark than the $25k one.
I’m also assuming a huge cost savings by using non-union actors (not-so-professional). Of course, it’s way easier to criticize work than to actually do the work, so I really don’t mean to be harsh.
I understand that there is a purpose for this style of production and it’s not all about art. Nice compositing, by the way. A bad key would have not only been distracting, it would have endangered credibility of the production.
Unfortunately, something else made it seem a little less than authentic. The spot lost me at 28 seconds when the woman let a slight smile slip when her head dropped. Credibility is absolutely vital for this type of ad, so you need actors who are truly sincere and believe in the product – or actors who at least could convince you that they really use it.
Those don’t.
Well, there is the shot right after the one I mentioned – at about 31 seconds) where the woman is smiling in comfort. She seemed to really enjoy the comfort of the pillow.
Enough about the b-roll… I’d be less judgmental about the on-camera testimonials if I was convinced that I was seeing real users of the product, since some (real) people just act different on camera because they are nervous.
All this said, I have to admit that I’ve done my fair share of corporate videos where we have to use employees on hand as “actors”, due to budget and deadlines. We all probably KNOW better than to do this, but sometimes that budget and the deadline actually is more important (especially to the client) than whether I’m convinced that the two businessmen shaking hands in the shot are really entrepreneurs that are happy to be doing business with each other.
Sometimes I try to educate the clients on points such as this. Sometimes I don’t. We all pick our battles, I guess.
The important thing is to step back and ask “After it’s all said and done, will this video achieve what it is intended to achieve?” Even ask “Will this decision lead help produce a product that will achieve the goal of the client?” That question can guide most if not all of your decisions while producing the spot – even the so called artistic decisions.
-
I take both approaches – depending on my intent. If my intent is to “find” the authentic story, as in a documentary, I tend to go with Grinner’s approach. Actually, even with that type of show, I won’t always put it all on the timeline. If I watched the footage as I was capturing, sometimes I’ll edit a first cut in the bin then throw it on the timeline.
On the other hand, ff I have a specific message and feelings that I need to push to the viewers (per client request), I use Mark’s route to get there. Since music is a powerful motivator, that’s the time I can start with a piece of music that evokes a certain feeling and build soundbites and visuals around it.
Does that make the first approach more ethical? 😉
I spent my first few years in broadcast TV editing graphics-heavy 30-second spots. I remember working through the night on several projects, only to re-render the next morning – after the client decided to change a price or feature a different product altogether. It was only after I learned to “make the cake” before I put on the “icing” that I got comfortable projecting how long edit sessions should really take.
-
Digibeta is about 2:1 compression, but it’s not the same flavor or type of compression – so that’s not really comparing apples and oranges.
Having said that, I agree with you completely that using 2:1 compression in Avid is perfectly acceptable for editing commercials. How you light the scenes will be much more visible to viewers than whether you captured the footage at 2:1 or uncompressed.
-Tim
-
… and another vote for the “freeze frame and cut the background out from them” (Usually with a color tone effect thrown in for good measure)
It was cool the first time I saw it… and still cool the 30th, but I’m ready to steal a new idea now for a transition now.
(Maybe I’ll go back to the lens flares.) 😉
-
Zen Koan for the day:
If a creative services business uses the word “creative” in their name, does that mean they aren’t really that creative?
😉
-
Mick,
Welcome! It’s great to see you post. It sounds like you’ve done your homework. All of us here wish you the greatest success.We’d also love to hear how it’s going from time to time. Please don’t hesitate to continue to tap into this forum (and the others at the COW) if you ever want to bounce ideas off of a group of peers.
You probably won’t be reducing your work hours, but at least it won’t always feel like work. 😉
-TJA
-
The “tangible expression” of the concept can be copyrighted, but not the concept itself.
For example, I can’t copyright the letters of the alphabet, but I can get a trademark for a font that I designed. (the tangible expression of those letters)
The issue introduced is “how broad does that protection cover the concept”? A large portion of intellectual proerty lawsuits are about that issue.
Obviously, it would be ludicrous to enforce a protection of any “circle representing a ‘close-mid back rounded vowel’, but you could enforce your typeface representation of the letter “O”, if it doesn’t infringe on other’s intellectual property protection filed for the letter “O” as represented in their font or typeface.
With me so far?
I could copyright a script about “a man who escapes his captures and goes on a quest to prove his innocence”, but unless I’m very specific about how the story plays out, I’m not going to be able to claim infringement by any of the hundreds of other treatments and scripts with similar concepts. The more details you include, the better protection you have, but the more you paint yourself into a corner with your concept. The key is having a clear vision and being able to express it well enough so that people can easily identify your concept as unique.
-
Steve,
Yes, those are fairly common descriptions of those job titles. What complicates it as far as copyright law goes – even if the people working on the project agree on that description of their respective roles, the descriptions don’t nail down who the creator of the content really was, it just shows that it was a collaborative effort. So – how do you divide the money from the intellectual property ownership?Some could argue that it’s the Editor that “brings all the elements together” on the tangible expression of the product – which is actually the only thing that can be copyrighted anyway. This is especially true if the Editor contributes his or her own “creative expression” to the work, rather than just assembling an EDL. (That argument isn’t that strong if the final product is a clear expression and result of a Producer’s or client’s “vision”.)
It occurs to me that copyright protection is probably a key reason that film jobs have been traditionally divided up into such specific roles in Hollywood, where there is a lot of money at stake when it comes to questions regarding who is the “creator” of the tangible expression fo the product.
None of it think that it’s the duplication house… do we? 😉
-
The problem with posting contracts is that laws vary state-by-state and country-by-country.
I might help offline, but I wouldn’t publish my own companies contracts publicly on the internet for several reasons. The most important is that I don’t want someone using it and then blaming me for whether or not it’s enforceable in their location and situation.
The reason I pay an attorney isn’t so much for drafting the agreement, but rather drafting an enforceable agreement AND standing behind it and being able to knowledgeably defend it if, or when, the time comes to debate the agreement in court.
In my opinion, Bruce Bennett hit the nail on the head with his answer. I have shelf full of books about copyright law (for both video and music), but if I have questions about copyright law, the first place I go is http://www.copyright.gov, to pretend I