well, the opportunity of having your wife review stuff is pretty good i guess. but i probably still wouldnt have entered to win the prize. it sounds great, but sould i have won, i would have had to gracefuly decline for two reasons: one, i cant afford the time away from school; two, im too old compared to the others who need that oportunity and would be taking away from them.

anyway, i never send things to people when they are unfinished or if im unprepared. in fact, i never let people read my first drafts. not until i have a second, complete draft do i start sending it out to people to give me comments and critiques. im working on 2 things right now; one is on its 4th draft, and needs maybe 1 or 2 more revisions, and the second is on its 1st draft and i think it only needs about 2 revisions. anyway, i wont talk much about my work here until my copyrights come in. one stereotype about filmstudents that i admittedly do fulfill, is that of being paranoid that people will steal my work; and rightfully so, i think..

quote:

---

one stereotype about filmstudents that i admittedly do fulfill, is that of being paranoid that people will steal my work; and rightfully so, i think..

---

That's fine...

Although, I'd be more worried about other 'new guys' trying to steal my work/ideas than people in Hollywood (not saying that's "not" what you're talking about... just saying). I can't remember the last time I've heard of Hollywood (meaning someone like my wife -- and people she works with) trying to steal works from film students etc... or trying to steal works in general.


Most film students (and noobs) that are paranoid are paranoid about someone "in the industry" stealing their work. It's rare, extremely rare, but keep in mind you don't want to send material to bottom feeders (who knows
what they'd try). They aren't really "IN" the industry anyway... so. Copyrighted script, standard release form, and you're good to go...


Which reminds me: A lot of the scams involve people who talk up who they've worked with etc. Always ask who their clients are "RIGHT NOW" (that's all that matters in Hollywood, what you are doing "right now", so you wanna get your material to people that can make calls for you) . You'll find many people with impressive talk/clients lists, but when you dig deeper you sometimes find that they are actually pretty far removed from people that make decisions. And in fact not legit. And those are the types you're likely to encounter "first".


Again Baloo, disregard what you already know, or what doesn't pertain to you...


BTW--- who's the screenwriter you know, I'm curious if I or my wife knows them... who knows, my wife might represent them (you could always e-mail me if you don't wanna say here)



Jay

im not worried about you stealing my stuff jay. or your wife. id only be worried about other people on this site. but i guess im not exactly paranoid. its just in the back of my mind i guess.

Cool....

ok I cant stop laughing about this post...

Listen to Nota Mano as usualy, he^s smart

first of all, Once upon a time sucks. The cinematography is bad, the stroy sucks and...oh ok I stop. We all know I dont like Hi def, DV or anything else than film.

Yet, I totally disagree that it is more difficult to shoot a 35mm film than a good looking DV film. I would not say that I have much experience. I just finished my sophomore year at film school. I did shoot a LOT of 16mm reversal film (both color and B&W...I shot probably around 40 shorts). I also shot some 16mm negative films and I shot a 35mm short with an arri 3 camera. I played around with a panavision 35mm cam for some tests. I also have some experience with MINI DV.

After two years, I must say that the most difficult task was to shoot the 16mm reversal films. There is absolutely no room for mistakes. Right behind 16mm reversal, there is MINI DV. In my humble opinion, shooting 35mm was a cakewalk compared with shooting mini DV. Besides lighting, you just point your spot meter at the actor/landscape/whatever, figure out the F-stop and thats it. If you make mistakes, the grader will correct them (as long as they are in a certain range obviously...). Personally, I had WAY more trouble shooting mini DV. There is just too much technical stuff I dont know much about.

Shooting film and understanding the basic concepts of the camera and a lightmeter is in no way more difficult than understanding the MINI DV cameras. Both are just different media and both are equally difficult to master. I once explained to a freshman how his seconic lightmeter works. The next week, he shot a short on film that was PERFECTLY exposed. It was his first try with reversal film and he succeeded.

The most important and difficult things are Lighting the scene, mood and tone, the compositions and colors. This does not change for MINI DV. Setting a correct F-Stop is an easy task compared with the subjects mentioned above.

as people mentioned before me, a good film is all about story and the way the story is told. On a student level, it does not really matter if it is shot on 35, 16 or mini DV as long as the result is both artistic and highly entertaining. I worked on 25k shorts shot on super 16 and on 50 dollar no budget films. Often, the no budget productions were way more entertaining than the pretentious upper class films ( I dont want to say I hate big budgets...I have to selll my brother to finance my next short...

I also have to say something about people who tell me how much they know. At my school, I often meet people who know EVERYTHING about their craft (Especially, DP`s....). I went to my first cinematography class and I felt stupid because of the lack of knowledge I had. Everyone knew all these technical terms and lights I never heard of. I felt embarassed to show them the films I shot. Guess what. Their stuff looked bad. It was 08/15 film student stuff. Basic lighting, perfect exposre but lack of creativity and imagination. Knowing everything about a craft does not equal talent. It just helps fulfill the ideas we have. But if we lack the ideas, all the big words wont help.

Too many people told me hundreds of times how good they are, how much money they invested in their next film. Some of them say the truth but I am highly amused when I see their result.

Go to the NYU or USC film festivals. The top 10 films usually rule...but then there are hundreds of REALLY crappy films (all shot on film by the way...and most with 10k+ budgets)...then go to a small indie festival and compare some no budget DV films...they are mostly way more entertaining than the NYU/USC crap (and hey, I am probably the BIGGEST NYU fanboy on this planet)


my 2 confusing (as usual) cents to this topic

"Some of them say the truth but I am highly amused when I see their result. "

should be: "some of them say the truth but I am often highly amused about the result too.

sorry about my bad english. Every time I chill In europe with my friends, I forget all about this language

quote:

---

Basic lighting, perfect exposre but lack of creativity and imagination. Knowing everything about a craft does not equal talent. It just helps fulfill the ideas we have. But if we lack the ideas, all the big words wont help.

---

youre right about DP's knowing a bunch of crap. its kind of scary. anyway, the other thing youre right about is that most of them wat to make their own films, and when they do, they are crappy- mostly because they know nothing about story or how to interpret it to screen. any idiot can use a light meter and set an f-stop. making it look professionsal is another thing. yet making it look professional and also having a good film is very tough. thats why film is such a colaborative effort. i will be the first to admit im not the most knowledgable about photography, but i do know a lot about story, screenwriting, and directing (as ive taken a lot of classes on both, and had a lot of experience in both. yet, i would never dp my own project. i bring in a real dp for that. and sound is a whole nother matter. i absolitely know nothing about sound. thank god i have an excellent sound guy. they say here ar csun that the difference between a good film and a mediocre film is the sound. i agree with that.

I must totally agree with your last posting.

here are the 6 most imprtant films in film history according to baloo (in chronological order- note only 3 are american):
1.A Trip to the Moon - 1902, Melies
2.Birth of a Nation - 1915, Griffith
3.The Battleship Potemkin - 1925, Eisenstein
4.The Jazz Singer - 1927, (WB-director unimportant)
5.Citizen Kane - 1941, welles
6.Breathless - 1960, godard

Yo, Baloo! What happened to film after 1960? I feel like I'm back in freshman year.

Anyway, your "I love film, hate DV" attitude is at expected as next years list of romantic comedies... Better or Worse? I don't know, don't care. With the right people behind the camera, you wouldn't be able to tell film from video. Now with the fps being manipulated to fit that of the film industry standard, transferring to 16mm or 35mm isn't so bad.

Also, point and shoot has always been done, video didn't start that. Haven't you seen the old 8mm home movies of the day? Same thing... (now, a better quality image! HA)

Okay, as far as ego is concerned, I don't care. I haven't seen any of your work. You could be a badda$$ DP, but have no story sense at all.

I like DV because I'm a poor Son of a b!itch that lives in Alabama. Not a film dominated state I might add.

I would shoot a feature film on DV. I liked 28 days later, I liked Once Upon a time in Mexico. (I'm referring to the look - I liked the storys as well, though).

I don't think you're above digital video. If you are, I'm sure you're not above digital editing... are you?

I read most of the post on this because I thought it would be funny to read the conversation between a group of people who have such great film careers that they still find time to write on a STUDENT films website.

Please, don't take that comment the wrong way. I really enjoy and appreciate the input from the pros that speak here.

Here's something nonrhetorical. If you're not willing to accept change, you won't make it in life or the film industry. I'm about to buy a G5 and upgrade from XL1 to XL2, I don't feel shortended in any way. I could easily buy a bolex 16mm camera and do the same thing, but I don't want to. Woo!

Oh! I almost forgot....
Hi, I'm Chad Davis, and I think DV is good enough.

I haven't seen a reasonable arguement from baloo that film is a better medium for students/young directors....


-C. Davis awaits for the day when we all watch DV movies at a theatre who receives a steady transmition from a satelite... It's all goin' digital, baby. Like, love. Live the 0100101101!! and the 2.

here's some important films according to me:

1. Workers leaving the Lumiere Factory
(possibly the first to ever actually film)

2. Man with a Movie Camera
(put all of Eisenstein's ideas to work and made it not boring)

3. Napoleon
(expanded on Eisenstein's ideas of montage by having three screens involved in one film)

4. The Great Train Robbery
(had intercutting before people thought of it, and moved the camera)

5. Citizen Kane
(marks the culmination of everything film had to offer at that point)

6. Jaws/Star Wars
(mark of what film could offer in the future in terms of money, effects, power)


but this list is just as worthless as any other, and probably won't do anyone any good.


i mean really, the jazz singer was a MISTAKE. Lang, Hitchcock, Welles all showed the real power of what sound could do for a movie.

stop putting so much into ur posts guys. no one reads them once they exceed parameters for "short story"

baloo, i have written, directed, and shot 3 of my own shorts and worked extensively on 9 others. these were done on 16mm and trust me when i say that i know exactly what you mean by the challenges of film. even though i'm only 18 i have a pretty good film education because an early birthday allowed me to get into and complete an adult NYFA film course which i throughly enjoyed. now hopefully knowning this information you will not think me some kind of noob who defends his daddy's video camera because it's all he has. i'm looking at digital filmmaking the opposite of the way you are. while film does look better and is more artsy and classic and whatnot i see dv as having more control, no longer do i have to deal with labs and wasted time and insane amounts of lighting and permits and such. i feel i have much more flexibility with a dv cam because people put aside the "glitz" of making a movie and i can easier get to barebones filmmaking and really work on what counts, the story. story is everything the audience doesn't really give a damn how much you spent on your movie or if it looks film-like if they enjoyed it. at the end of the day all that matters is them, not your film education, not your money, and not film. no one can refute that, yes film can be INCREDIBLY difficult to work with(i've learned that the hard way) but that isn't what making movies is about, its about emotion.

I enjoyed this thread

hi, new on this site, and i foubd your talk to be quite interesting.. yes, film is good, authentic, its the ultimate dream come true.. but the process of the realization of your dreams does not give you the money to buy film, and make your film... with all respect to you being a film purist, DV is the next big thing.. agreed, that it can never natch up to the 'real'
thing, but DV is going to rock the film world in the coming decade... once post-production becomes cheap and easily accesible, DV is here to stay... anyways, leave my talk if you find it baseless, but i guess the time to get ready for DV will soon come.. anyways, thanks for reading till here... goodbye

quote:

---

while film does look better and is more artsy and classic and whatnot i see dv as having more control, no longer do i have to deal with labs and wasted time and insane amounts of lighting and permits and such. i feel i have much more flexibility with a dv cam because people put aside the "glitz" of making a movie

---

Labs are just about dropping film off and getting it developed. It's about the same as mastering a DV tape, you need to drop it off at a post house that does mastering.

To shoot DV or film, you need permits.

To shoot DV or film, you still need to light.

Even Robert Rodriguez, the champion of digital and do-it-yourselfism says it, you still have to light. Not just to make it look good (a video camera needs just about as many footcandles as 500ASA film to get a very good quality image onto the tape), but because lighting is part of telling your story.

how can you not love DV? i love it, especially if you have cam features that make it look like film...very inexpensive and great to make your first films on.

btw, i think story and substance matters most- i've seen huge budget 35mm films that suck.
*cough* Pearl Harbor *cough*

also:

quote:

---

im not a robert rodriguez fan. ive never seen any of his movies.

---

how can you judge him, based on....nothing?

boloo
who the hell u think ur?do u think ur going to be next scorsese?don't dream too much man..don't worry this is not ur fault this is every wanna be filmmakers old dialoges says i hate digital filmmaking i want to make 16mm,35mm or even 70mm movies lalala...man prove urself first then talk..
ON EVERY STEET THERE IS NOBODY WHO DREAMS OF BEING SOMEBODY... ringo..

baloo, i see your point with the whole film thing, however

(1) do you ever stop to think about 20 years time. at the current rate that is the lifespan of 'film' as the dominant medium. HD is comming, and coming fast. post is now pretty much completely HD, from offline, online, compositing and grading. Go to a leading post house and you can see proof of this. Go to the avid website, you can see proof of this, go to the discreet website, you can see proof of this. Dont go on the defencive but film is slowly going out.

(2) Your opinion that film is the only decent medium is f###$$$ crap. I personally take offence, and as a cinematographer I immediatly think less of you as a filmmaker. People CHOOSE a different medium to you to produce their films. If you think that quality lies in whether you use film or not you philosopies are all wrong. You have got to use formats as you need them, and as they are applicable. I may shoot one scene on Super8, the other on HD, another on DV and finally print it out to 16mm after grading. This would give me a better result that shooting on the one medium the whole time.

(3) yes their is a prestige to film... but does that make your film any better... NOT NECESARILY.

(4) yes their is a look to film... is this always non-replicatable, and totally required to make the film better... NO.

(5) I dont go to sleep every night going 'wow I shot on film today, im so proud'

(6) Do people go home after seeing a film going 'gee i bet they used Kodak 16mm, 500ASA, Tungsten Balanced filmstock' or 'that was crap cos it was shot digitally'... UNLESS THEY'RE LIKE YOU

Mate, please open your eyes. Cos your opinion is realy naive. Not to say pointless, but naive and unaccepting.

my list of important films:

1. The Story of the Ned Kelly Gang (1906) THE first ever feature film in cinematic history... Australian Produced.

2. Citzen Kane- Welles 1941 Master piece, awsome for it's time, great story telling.

3. Pcycho- Hitchcock 1960, explains itself.

4. A Trip to the Moon- I'll concede that one. V. Important early film.

5. 2001: A Space Odessy(1968)- Kubrik -revolutionary film.

6. Fight club- Fincher(1999)- Why do they all have to be older movies.