It's OK. I found it.

Okay, I'm expecting to get flamed on this, but here goes...

I watched the film. Less than a story, it was more like a visual joke--it had a punch line. Overall, I thought it was nicely done--good camera work, great graphics, cool props, etc. However, there was one exception. That one exception prevented this piece from being far better than it is now. It's one that should concern every one of us in this forum. Editing! Owning Vegas does not an editor make.

The pace of this little film dragged horribly. It started dragging from the very opening. Most of the cuts, not all, there were a few exceptions, came too late. This impeded the flow. The audience, at least this one, was moving ahead faster than the film itself. I kept thinking, "Cut it! Come on, let's go. I got your point, let's move on." That is a big no-no in the world of film/video. Even over the course of 7 minutes, it was very frustrating to watch. One can only imagine how excruciating this would be over the course of a feature-length film!

Films, not unlike musical compositions, have rhythm. This little film, like so many others, lacked this one (often overlooked) element. These filmmakers have great potential. My advice to them would be to trim, trim, trim. Tighten it up!

J--

VC - Understood - Grazie

I Think its Amazing when you think If this was shown twenty years ago these Guys would become HIT Film makers. The only thing that is different in todays World is a budget of Zilcho.. I think to make entertainment of this calibre for NOO OOOOO Monet Is Flabbergasting.

I do understand Jays point on Editing

BUT I Myself make loads a allowances for Not having even a million Dollars in fact not even the interest on the interest for a day on a million.

VERY Good work. Reminded me a little of peter sellars for some reason.

Mark said, "... I Myself make loads a allowances for Not having even a million Dollars..."

Mark, I agree with you. On the other hand, and I guess this is at the heart of my comment, once one has the tools, good editing doesn't cost anything!

J--

Perhaps .. But its Possible that not enough footage is taken because of price time constraints who knows says the ole 29er shAKING WIV FEAR AT the dugin defences mayhap awaiting

No seriously I did say Jay. I could understand what you mean. Budget must obviously be an issue.

"ME"

I might take the best shots I had and perhaps stretch them a little too long cause they were the best ones.

I Might have had a choice twixt good shot showing.. OR mixture of bad shots with good shots and Excellent editing.

This of course is all Hypothetical Hence the fact Im prepared to make Allowances..

Give me five Secs while I put me Helmet on. Please dont repeat a sentence I may have said here its SO Courtroom Scary..

Best wishes

mark 3939

Mark, I didn't explain myself very well. I'm sorry.

What I said has nothing to do with shooting enough "coverage." It had nothing to do with time or budget constraints during shooting. Under these conditions, budget is not an issue.

What I was referring to was the footage that was used--the cuts--the juxtaposition of the shots themselves--the timing of the cuts. Almost every cut could have been made sooner--some by a frames, some by seconds. That's what I meant when I referred to pacing and rhythm. This, in part, is at the very heart of editing.

Using more of a shot than is necessary because one is enamoured with its beauty, or because it was so hard to caputre, or whatever the reason, is simply suicidal. The project must come first. All other considerations are of no importance whatsoever. As has been said so many times before, to be a good filmmaker (i.e., writer, director, editor, etc.) you have to be willing to kill your babies! If it doesn't work, it doesn't belong.

"Excellent editing" cannot save "bad shots." If I have a choice between a good shot and a bad shot, why would I choose the bad in hopes of "saving it in post"? You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

No, I don't think it's "hypothetical" at all, Mark. These are facts that are self-evident. They have grown out of 100+ years of cinema editing. Anything less is simply making excuses for poor editing (work habits). Those who profess to be filmmakers, or want to be filmmakers, have the responsibilty to learn what good filmmaking consists of and how to achieve it! Once they do, they must deliver it.

J--

Well Put Jay ! I could not have said it in such a meaningfull way. My simple way is still. Purely.. that If you do not have enough quality Footage. Then to stretch IT is of course not professional..

A trade off Then..

I sometime ( The amatuer that I am) have made a decision to sacrifice quality in ONE AREA in return for somat good Pn another.. Your Babies as you eloquantly refer to the refusal to give up good footage for the sake of continuity. And I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments that you have to be cruel to be kind.. If you could see what I have thrown out. Anyway I maintain as is my right to an Opinion which I Know you agree.. That in less than ideal situations compromises are sometimes made on a small budget those compromises can sometimes be apparent and on a non existant budget will most certainly be allowable. This is my Opinion only. and Im also basing this on a film project not setting out to be sellable or used for general public entertainment but as a means to get graded for work done and a learning aid for others to see Please dont think. "I think" this is up to Public release standard However it is my belief though. Its not far off and If these Guys had a Budget or spent a bit more time THEN

Of course this is no excuse for sloppy editing, IF The pace is the reason for not tightening certain areas. i KNOW You only show what is neccesary then move on, Not linger.. The viewer soon loses interest and starts questioning the "Tech side" instead of involvement in the film. OF COURSE You said it. So it must be noticeable.. Allowing clips to go on to long. Shortening clips that needed more. One bit I noticed was the Clip in the SILO when the Camera.. travelling up the wall to where the scientists were inside. Was a photo and because of the static nature the editor decided to cut the sec the camera arrived. Not very satisfactory, But apart from this I was quite happy with most of the editing. Some tightening could add to the pace and excitement. For me alone. Nothing was really distracting here. I liked the lingering on the masked man. Gave it for me Anyway a kinda lighthearted comedic, almost peter sellars feel.

Anyway Im always ready to listen to your Opinion and Intelligent Observations. I am perhaps a little more easy going on the editing side in amatuer levels. For me there is a fine between encouragement when you know something is going in the right direction and the armchair critics who want to descredit others work to look good..And you have not crossed that line. THIS is not anywhere near levelled at you Jay. So do not think any double meanings are on the agenda. Merely looking at some of the thoughtless character assasination that goes on in the media specially and Im ashamed TO SAY our British Press.

The Worlds worst.

Maybe it dragged some, but I liked the movie. I thought it was imaginative and the quality was very good.

Of course, I was having a glass of wine while I watched it download and play. I'll watch another by that team......

I didn't mean to give anyone the impression that I didn't like the film, that it was not imaginative, or of poor quality.

J--

I hate ninja flicks

I Just rewatched the Film and was even more impressed second time round. Sorry Jay gonna have to completely part company with you on this one. For me the editing was spot on. In fact the measure of a good film is not noticing the joins and second time round I had more of a handle on what the film was about

WHEEEEeeee "EXCELLENT"

fOOTNOTE TO cYANIDE Its Not a Ninja Movie. Not how I would know one anyway. There is a Masked Man and there the Similarity ends

Like you said, Mark, you're entitled to you opinion.

J--

Jay OK I know we disagree But would you Give it a second Viewing Like I did You may see it differently.. You may not.. Did you see Bad Boys I I ?
There is a scene where the Family are all Eating Dinner in the gARDEN Worst Case of Editing I have ever scene seen Of course its Intentional..

Mark, I watched the video no less than three times before I posted my original comments and a couple more times afterwards. I've been in this business, in one form or another, for nearly 30 years. I've also taught film production and post production techniques (including editing) on the college level. Therefore, at the risk of appearing awfully boorish, I'm confident in my assessment. (Now if that doesn't draw a flame or two, nothing will!)

As I mentioned in another thread here, Hollywood has proven time and time again that just because you have the biggest, most expensive tools, you are not guaranteed a well-made, hit movie!

As I said earlier, and I mean it from the bottom of heart, you are entitled to your opinion. I have no problems with that. Just because you and I disagree, that doesn't lessen you in my estimation, and I hope it doesn't lessen me in yours!

J--

Certainly wont draw Flame comments from me. I would further add I respect your Professional Opinion and Im glad you do mine. There is no way having an opinion would lesson you in my Estimation. You put your Points across very well and lets be honest every one has a different Opinion.

Who the hell would I be to expect everyone to be like me.. GOD . Hmm I think Not

Its the diversity that we all have that brings originalty and without that Life would be really Miserable So Jay you carry On and dont listen to flame comments. Sorry If you think Im getting at you If you were here with me right now Id be making you a Cup of Tea as we have a Discussion.

Wish I were there!

By the way... make mine herbal! ;o)

J--

. . and all I said was "Go see . ."

. .it's a great forum . .. and it's the people that "Make It So!"

. . Mine's a Sainsbury's Morning Tea with milk and sugar . .thanks Mark!

. . Grazie

Grazie, for the first time on this forum, you just contradicted yourself!

The Gym yesterday and sugar in your tea today. Dear, dear dear. I just hope it was low fat milk.

You may need to explain "Sainsbury's" for the non-Brits.

Alan

Ho! . .I have one fan at least - " . . for the first time on this forum, you just contradicted yourself!. . " . .blimey! What do you think of me?!?!? . . I have sugar in my tea! AND milk! woaaaah!!! . .and guess what tomorrow I'm going to the Gym again! . .Why? 'cos I love it ;-)

Explain Sainsbury's? . . Nah .. I think I'll let you do it . . .

Grazie

Good for you Grazie You should look after yourself Well done ! Just one Piece of advice dont train and drink tea Cause you will ____It

I was curious what is a Sainsburys anyway :)

On behalf of Grazie, who was missing from this forum until late last night without a good excuse, and is at the gym today so we may not hear from him until much later, Sainsbury's is considered to be an up-market supermarket/hypermarket (Wal-Mart, Carrefour etc).

He probably wears his trendy editing hat whilst sat in Sainsbury's sipping his tea with the obligatory little finger at 90 degrees to the cup (best china of course).

You bump into much nicer clientele on this forum!

Alan