BtL Trailer

Ashley Wing · February 7, 2007

Hello,

I'd like some feedback on the trailer for my short feature which is being released shortly. I'm still learning. Feedback on the grade, cinematography, edit and if the trailer is doing what it's suppose to be. Looking back I don't think I explained enough in regards to the story. Trailers are just so hard to get right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd8Q2KnoP-w

Thanks in advance

Ashley

Lee Maisel · February 7, 2007

Man! That looks AWESOME!!! Great Job!! Can't wait to see the whole feature!

(did you use fxhome stuff for the effects/keying/color etc?)

Ashley Wing · February 7, 2007

Man! That looks AWESOME!!! Great Job!! Can't wait to see the whole feature!
(did you use fxhome stuff for the effects/keying/color etc?)

Thanks

I used a combination of programs to bring the film together. Fxhome's Visionlab studio was used to composite all the effects, the Grade was a combination of magic bullet and Visionlab. Cinema 4D was also used to create extra planes and tanks.

Ashley Wing · February 12, 2007

Any more to comment?

Cole Webley · February 12, 2007

What did you shoot it on?

Francesco Bonomo · February 12, 2007

I hope I don't sound too brutal

THE GOOD:

the vfx are very cool, the explosions look real.

THE NOT SO GOOD:

- total absence of the any hint to the story, but you already know that.

- personally, i didn't like the music

- vfx aside, it has a very amateurish look to it, especially in framing and editing. The first thought that came to my mind was "it looks like it was shot in someone's backyard", don't know why.

So, in the end, the trailer doesn't really do what it supposed to do, i.e. making someone want to watch the movie. I'd change the music, re-cut the trailer, and put some different shots: there's no progression, no arc, it looks like there's only one location, there's no introduction to any character. There is no interior shot, nor a night shot (or at least something that doesn't happen at the same time of the other shots). I'd add some dialogue from the movie, or insert some cards (although personally I don't like them). You should approach it as if it was a 90 seconds film, rather than a selection of things that belong to a bigger picture.

Hope it helps. Good luck

Ashley Wing · February 12, 2007

I hope I don't sound too brutal

THE GOOD:

the vfx are very cool, the explosions look real.

THE NOT SO GOOD:

- total absence of the any hint to the story, but you already know that.

- personally, i didn't like the music

- vfx aside, it has a very amateurish look to it, especially in framing and editing. The first thought that came to my mind was "it looks like it was shot in someone's backyard", don't know why.

So, in the end, the trailer doesn't really do what it supposed to do, i.e. making someone want to watch the movie. I'd change the music, re-cut the trailer, and put some different shots: there's no progression, no arc, it looks like there's only one location, there's no introduction to any character.

Hey Francesco,

No don't worry about being honest it's good to get constructive feedback :)

I'm aware of the lack of story in the cut, what concerns me is your comments about the framing and being shot in someones backyard. At this point there's no way I can correct this, it was shot on location in Devon, UK. It could be because there's nothing to relate location wise in the trailer and it all looks a bit samey. Which shots in particular had bad framing? Was it the odd shot or was it the overall impression your getting from the trailer. We didn't have a budget to shoot the movie, we used the canon XM2. Although this doesn't excuse poor filmming.

Cheers

Ash

Edited February 12, 2007 by Ashley Wing

Francesco Bonomo · February 12, 2007

I'm aware of the lack of story in the cut, what concerns me is your comments about the framing and being shot in someones backyard. At this point there's no way I can correct this, it was shot on location in Devon, UK. It could be because there's nothing to relate location wise in the trailer and it all looks a bit samey. Which shots in particular had bad framing? Was it the odd shot or was it the overall impression your getting from the trailer. We didn't have a budget to shoot the movie, we used the canon XM2. Although this doesn't excuse poor filmming.

Hey Ash, thanks for understanding my words, most of the times people would have responded in a different way, I'm glad you saw my post as constructive feedback.

As for my comment about the backyard and the bad framing, it could have something to do with the editing of the trailer: sometimes even good composition, if taken out of contest, can be ruined in the editing room. In fact, I went back and looked at the trailer, almost shot by shot, and I have to say I don't really see anything wrong with the framing per se, so I guess it's how those shots are put together. I look forward to seeing a different cut of the trailer.

Jamey Johnson · February 13, 2007

If you were to open the trailer up with some of the visual effects or even the shot of the truck, it would help. Establish the scene and some production value before you introduce the shots of the soldiers by themselves.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Jamey Johnson

James Steven Beverly · February 13, 2007

Hey Francesco,

No don't worry about being honest it's good to get constructive feedback :)

I'm aware of the lack of story in the cut, what concerns me is your comments about the framing and being shot in someones backyard. At this point there's no way I can correct this, it was shot on location in Devon, UK. It could be because there's nothing to relate location wise in the trailer and it all looks a bit samey. Which shots in particular had bad framing? Was it the odd shot or was it the overall impression your getting from the trailer. We didn't have a budget to shoot the movie, we used the canon XM2. Although this doesn't excuse poor filmming.

Cheers

Ash

Ashley, I would TOTALLY disagree with Francesco's acessment of your trailier, in fact I find his acessment somewhat bizzar. The "story", if any trailer has one, is stated right at the beginning "All we've got to worry about is getting back in one piece" the you proceed to show what they face in their attempt to do that. You can't expect more than that from a trailer. The framing was interesting and exciting. It DOES NOT have "a very amateurish look to it, especially in framing and editing" NOR did it look "like it was shot in someone's backyard". When was the last time you saw a tank in someone's backyard for Christ's sake? (Where did you GET the tank by the way?) I loved the shot of the soldier in the bush with the rifle. I also love the shot of the soldier in a standing there with the strange look on his face and of course, the tank. The land looking samey helps to add to the fact that they may not know where they are or how far they have to go which in my opinion adds to the tension. The acting is good,the people seem right for the parts, the costumes are authentic looking the footage seems well shot and deciently lit and the story seems intriquing and most of all, the trailier made me want to see the movie and THAT'S ALL a trailier is suppose to do! In fact IF the trailier does that, THAT"S the MOST it can do. If I had one critic, it would be that at the end you have them opening a door where we don't know what lies behind it which set up a moment of anticipation. I whould have probably had an explosion of gunfire and men yelling a beat after you fade to black and possibly let it continue through the realese date then go silent before the date fades, that way the audience is wondering did the die , who got shot, what happens next. I think it mght add more immediacy and impotence to find out what happens next, but that's just what I would do. Over all this thing looks unbelievible and shows some REAL talent there. Do you have distribution yet? I would really like to see the film. B)

Edited February 13, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

Francesco Bonomo · February 13, 2007

Ashley, I would TOTALLY disagree with Francesco's acessment of your trailier, in fact I find his acessment somewhat bizzar.

the beauty of disagreeing...I guess in the end it's just a matter of taste :D

The "story", if any trailer has one, is stated right at the beginning "All we've got to worry about is getting back in one piece" the you proceed to show what they face in their attempt to do that. You can't expect more than that from a trailer.

I won't argue with James' analysis, because it'd be pointless, but I disagree on the "story" statement: a trailer has to be approached as a mini-movie, and if you take a look at all the best trailers they all feel like there's a story, an arc, there.

Some trailers go way too far and show you pretty much everything that happens in the movie, others can make you want to see the movie badly by not showing anything. As I wrote before, I'm not sure the problem of the trailer is the framing, but I'm sure the editing could be greatly improved.

James Steven Beverly · February 13, 2007

I won't argue with James' analysis, because it'd be pointless, but I disagree on the "story" statement: a trailer has to be approached as a mini-movie, and if you take a look at all the best trailers they all feel like there's a story, an arc, there.

NOOO.....a MOVIE or a CHARATURE has to have an arc, a TRAILIER has to put asses in the theater seats. There was a very interesting example I saw reacently of the original trailier for John Water's "Pink Flamingos" that didn't have a single frame of footage from the film in it and it was HIGHLY effective. TRAILIES are sales tools, nothing more and whatever does that is what makes a trailier successful.

Francesco Bonomo · February 13, 2007

NOOO.....a MOVIE or a CHARATURE has to have an arc, a TRAILIER has to put asses in the theater seats.

arc refers to the structure, so it can be applied to a trailer as well.

I'm not arguing over the nature of the trailer, but it has to have a structure. In a way, you could say that from a certain point of view a movie has to fill theater seats as well.

A trailer has to create anticipation, and there are thousands of way to do that: editing a trailer as if it was a mini-movie, including a mini-arc, is just another way to come up with a 90 seconds story that would make the audience interested in the subject matter.

James Steven Beverly · February 15, 2007

arc refers to the structure, so it can be applied to a trailer as well.
I'm not arguing over the nature of the trailer, but it has to have a structure. In a way, you could say that from a certain point of view a movie has to fill theater seats as well.

A trailer has to create anticipation, and there are thousands of way to do that: editing a trailer as if it was a mini-movie, including a mini-arc, is just another way to come up with a 90 seconds story that would make the audience interested in the subject matter.

I am quite familure with the definition of the term arc with reguards to film. A trailer does not nessesarilly have to tell a mini story to create enough anticipation or intrigue to entice an audiance into buying a ticket. Some trailers do, do that, but many do not. David's " The Astronaut Farmer" is one that takes the "mini-movie" approach to selling the product, my example of "Pink Flamingos" is one that does not. Neither is more or less valid a way to sell a film than the other and for you to state diffinatively that the only way to sell a film, which is ALL a trailier is suppose to do, is buy creating a "mini-movie" OR that it even HAS to have structure as you define it, is utterly absurd. There are a meriad of ways to approch a trailier and a "mini-movie' is only one of them. You seem to be determined that the ONLY way to sell a film is to follow what YOU percieve as "the rules" when in actuallity there are no rules. YOU didn't find the trailier interesting enough to want to see his film while I and at least one other person who has seen the trailier on the other hand can't wait to see it. Does that make us wrong and YOU right? I don't think so. Maybe YOUR the one who needs to open his mind to alternitive sales techniques.

Francesco Bonomo · February 15, 2007

YOU didn't find the trailier interesting enough to want to see his film while I and at least one other person who has seen the trailier on the other hand can't wait to see it. Does that make us wrong and YOU right? I don't think so. Maybe YOUR the one who needs to open his mind to alternitive sales techniques.

I never said anything like "I'm right, you're wrong", I was just expressing my point of view, and I never ruled out alternative ways to cut a trailer. In fact, I did write:

A trailer has to create anticipation, and there are thousands of way to do that: editing a trailer as if it was a mini-movie, including a mini-arc, is just another way to come up with a 90 seconds story that would make the audience interested in the subject matter.

Maybe you should read my words more carefully, before accusing me of being close-minded.

Goodbye.

James Steven Beverly · February 15, 2007

You wrote this:

"THE NOT SO GOOD:

- total absence of the any hint to the story"

"there's no progression, no arc,..... You should approach it as if it was a 90 seconds film, rather than a selection of things that belong to a bigger picture."

And finally this:

"I disagree on the "story" statement: a trailer has to be approached as a mini-movie, and if you take a look at all the best trailers they all feel like there's a story, an arc, there. "

Note this statement in particular:

"a trailer has to be approached as a mini-movie"

I would call THAT fairly definitive and Yes, I'm sorry to say, pretty close minded. When you're critiquing someone else's work and they may have some insecurities (and in this case, unfounded insecurities) about it, you have an obligation to state you opinions as opinions not as facts. An "I would have done it this way" might have been a better approach. I read every single word you wrote, Francesco, and I have to say IN MY OPINION, you were totally off the mark here.

Edited February 15, 2007 by James Steven Beverly