George Ebersole

Well here's the thing that's been weighing on my mind. I was in post with a guy who works locally, and during the editing session he blurted out "Because you don't want to work for it!" I can't even remember what I said that triggered the reaction, but it was like out of the blue. As a guy who's held down a couple of jobs at once, all the while writing on the side, and who freelanced while going to school, I took real exception to the comment. But I didn't know how to react. I was really dumbstruck by this. Another time way back in the 90s I was working at an electronic's retailer after I had left the industry. And someone else, another associate producer or director type, came in asking for some BNC connectors or something (I can't remember). I asked him what he was doing so I could help him more, but he blurted out "I know what I'm doing!" It's like I've run into that on occasion, and I have no idea where it comes from. It's like some people, regardless of the industry, are waiting to pop off the first chance they get. I don't get that.

Thanks Dave. I ask this because I've seen it happen, but it's always, or usually, been a director trying to get control over the set; i.e. lots of people talking and he needs to get things rolling. But occasionally I'll come across someone who just shouts out an accusation or an insult for no reason whatsoever. I was wondering how common that was.

Anyone? Does anyone have an experience of witnessing someone lose it on a job? Is there ever an approrpriate time to do so?

I think this is going to be my last post on the topic, but as a die hard Star Trek fan, I think I can safely say that the fandom of Trek was very much alive before Star Wars came out. We just had so little other material to enjoy. A few sci-fi 50s and 60s classics, but a lot of it was junk, though not for the same reason that todays very technically competent scifi is junk. Trek just had the misfortune of not hiring Kubrick's team to do their space shots. Trek wasn't intentionally designed to look "cheesy" (an over used term). In fact the production team went out of their way to make the show convincing. So what it lacked in space shots, it made up for with other effects. And the effects' shots were passable, though not sterling. My story is that film was a second career option for me. My first love is science and engineering, and particularly stuff related to space technology and all sorts of planetary science and astronomy. There were a few issues that required I resort to the arts, ergo film. And one of the few first thoughts I had after I saw Star Wars was why no one took those production values (not just the SFX, but also the shot design, lighting, sets and so forth) and inject them into a slightly more serious scifi film. I loved Star Wars as a movie and just pure fun. But it was standard movie fare, and not something a bit grittier. I now see the opportunity to make something with a bit more teeth, but, like you, I don't think it'll have staying power. When I was a boy your typical Star Trek fan was college age or much older. Kids who liked scifi like me, were rare. Today the model is turned on its head, and now all scifi films, even interstellar, are made for younger audiences, or audiences who, very bluntly, aren't as smart as audiences in previous generations. But I think that's more an audience shift than an actual demographic truth. In other words the old scifi guard of older people who liked science and fantasy have been pushed away by the younger teenage generation, specifically males, who know little else. In short, I think you can make a good sophisticated scifi film that will be grasped by all, and do it on the cheap. I think a couple posts back you said that an all green screen production wouldn't work, and yet before Lucas and his team shot a single frame of the prequels, there was a little show called "The Starlost" which was essentially a chroma key production. "Darkman" in the early 90s was also the same. A little indy film called "Darkstar" was able to make a cult classic. But you have to have the drive. Regrettably I'm on the outs of a scifi franchise that I wanted to bring to the big screen because of some real world harassment I suffered over the last ten-plus years, some of which I touched on in the scam-phone call thread. If this was 2005 or 2006, I probably would have called your bluff and cranked something out in a weeks time. But I'm just really soured on just about everything to actually go shoot something. On a final note, Rogue One, I think, was a Disney necessity. I thought it was unique and inventive. I didn't fall in love with it, but thought it was okay. Unlike Lucas's first Star Wars film, this one truly was aimed at teenage boys and girls, verse the 1977 film which had cross generational appeal. But I've told that story. Broken record; way back in either 1990 or 1991 I worked a Sun Micro industrial where Kevin Pollack did his Captain Kirk / Shatner imitation in a Trek parody. The soundman there gave me the number of some supervisor up at ILM, and told me to give him a call to see if had an opening. As a young 20-something I was scared-s___less because it was a dream come true at that time. My goal was to work for the SW grandmaster, see how he went about getting spectacular production values and great shots, and apply those techniques to a series of shorts distributed via computer. As usual, I chickened out. But now some 25+ years later, I'm just burnt out on all the rotten crap on the screen. Big screen and YouTube alike. So, my motivation is a bit lacking. But, like I say, if you know where you can improve stuff, go for it. Show us what you got, kid :D

Well, we part company here, because if that were the case, then you'd not have ever seen "The Road Warrior" ("Mad Max 2") and whole host of other stuff. If you look at the old 1960s Star Trek TV series, their space shots were iffy and so-so. That series came out after Kubrick's 2001 a Space Odyssey, and yet the Enterprise doesn't look anywhere convincing verse the shots of Discovery in Kubrick's film. I think Lucas just wanted to set his story in "space" because that's what he liked. But he need not have, and the cinematography for the live shots, to me, holds up. It's exact, well staged, captures the environment and lets the actors act, as opposed to relying on rapid cuts, lots of action, juvenile dialogue and whirling CGI shots. I'll be honest. Like you I don't like shakey cam. I hate CGI. I think there was far more characterization and intimacy that struck a good careful balance in the 1977 Star Wars film. It was classic film making. You'll never see that again not for want of it, but for a lack of people skilled enough to execute the same. I'm almost tempted to stake your $5000 to see what you can do, but like I say, after seeing those abysmal previews before Rogue One ... I don't know. I'm really put out by that junk. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2? Where the big strong alien makes fun of the heroes sexual desires? A Transformer's movie that goes back to the middle ages? huh? In that regard I'm surprised Rogue One got made.

Do you mean the Boston area?

No offense, but I disagree with you on the production side of things. I think if you look at footage of today's hot FPS games like "Call of Duty", "Battlefield", "Counterstrike" and so forth, you'll find a lot of shot similarities between them and "Rogue One". It's therefore my belief that there was a fear that Star Wars was or might be losing its standing in media with popular youth culture. Because otherwise I really can't see anyone being inspired to artistically make this film for the sake of itself as a profit driven film unto itself. All that being said, and in response to your many reasons of why you won't be able to shoot a short, I do have some money, gear and time to shoot a scifi short either in my condo or on a stage. But, for me personally, seeing the really horrible previews of films for teenage boys that accompanied "Rogue One" ... it's really soured me on the genre, and therefore I just don't see anyone today, young or old, buying into a fun or semi-serious scifi film. If we look at original 1977 Star Wars, you could shoot that film on a shoe-string by doing away with a lot of effects' shots. Don't do the opening space battle. Don't do the fire fight at the beginning. Start with C3PO and R2 wandering the desert, then have the Jawas pick them up in a tractor trailer rig dressed up as some offworld exotic vehicle in place of the sandcrawler-- just keep the entire movie on the desert planet. No death star, no space dogfights, and so forth. Luke would have to bust Leia out of a prison on the world, and instead of the death star maybe the desert locals have to take down a super tank terrorizing the desert or something. It's the same story, you're just keeping it on one world. After "Star Wars" came out I was really elated because I thought maybe there would be more of the same coming to both movies and TV. Well, kinda-sorta, although it took forever. And perhaps like you I had a desire to take those filming techniques and translate them to something that had more punch to it. Things might have headed that way in the early 90s, but trying to come back to the industry after ten plus years of being gone ... I'm just burnt out. You, on the other hand, seem to have some real passion for the subject. Which is why I suggested it. Me, I grew up a Star Wars aficionado, and a die hard Trekker / Trekkie. I kind of understand both those properties a bit better now, and the production and story telling techniques that I learned from them I wanted to apply to some of the scifi books and games I grew up with. I'm not really passionate about that though, so it's not going to happen. But someone who does ought to try and find a way to make it work. I guess that's all I'm saying. I started a thread in the off topic area expressing some concern for the genre because of films like "Tomorrowland" and "Guardians of the Galaxy" and so forth. And just thinking about it now I'm fairly convinced that studios are convinced that the genre is or needs to be strictly tailored for teenage boys. Which is why you'll never see another "Alien" or "2001 Space Odyssey". I think Lucas said many years ago that "Star Wars" was essentially a childrens' film; an update of the Flash Gordon seriel format, but with a soap opera story skeleton. I personally think that that's why it appealed to so many people. These days ... I saw "Rogue One" and shrugged my shoulders at it. "It is what it is", to coin a phrase. Who knows? Maybe we'll see more spinoffs. Either way you're not going to see what you want unless you shoot it.

Well, I think you'll find that through history trends come and go, and then occasionally someone tries to revitalize them. You had a whole laundry list of things you didn't like, which is why I thought maybe you might consider producing a short with things that you actually do like. My opinion is that this film was made to update and rope in the young male gaming crowd who are increasingly gravitating away from scifi films and just films in general, because they want to be part of the fantasy and not just watch it. However, I think if you're story is good enough, then all the props, sets, costumes and extras you want to spend money on, probably aren't needed, and you could produce your basic story and show us, Disney, and even George Lucas how it's done. My other personal opinion is that the golden age of scifi cinema in the 80s (starting with SW in 1977) is petering out. But that doesn't mean you can't still make good scifi stuff. I wasn't overjoyed with Rogue One, but nor did I hate it. I understand the techniques and how and why it was shot the way it was, but I feel no need to respond to it. You, however, seem to have a lot of angst pent up in and against this film. So maybe you can show us your production.

Tyler Purcell; have you thought of producing your own scifi pic? You seem really dissapointed with this film.

Thanks Giray. I was thinking of something like an old Toyota, but the Tacoma or Tahoe look like just the thing. I don't want a real big truck, and honestly I don't want an SUV. I was wondering what everyone else around here drove to haul gear in. Thanks again.

Well I guess I'm just stupid then. When I was looking at the menu I thought I deliberately chose a standard screening, but when the previews started rolling some of the images got blurry. I got really angry because I had to grab a pair of glasses.

I guess my only other complaint about Rogue One is that it was in 3D. It really didn't seem to add anything to the experience. After a while I forgot about it. The movie might as well have been traditional flat 2D. As for IMAX, well, the film might as well have been presented via a 35mm print. I saw an IMAX "laser projection" showing last night, and given the 3D effect, to me, it seems like the money could have been spent elsewhere. Not a bad movie, and okay in some respects, but I felt like someone was trying to "wow" me as opposed to telling a dazzling tale in a galaxy far far away.

It could be worse. At least they didn't shoot it on a Fisher Price PXL 2000. Then where would you go see it? *tongue inserted into cheek*

Yeah, that's the sense I got. It was purposefully shot differently to update the feel of the films to keep the property fresh for a younger audience. It was different. This film felt like it was, again updated, to appeal more to the Call of Duty / Battlefield / Counter Strike younger gaming audience. Lots of combat footage with an almost gamer like perspective. I sort of shrug my shoulders at it. I think if your film's story is compelling enough, then you don't need to borrow too much from other media. But then again games have surpassed films as primary entertainment venues, so you get this Star Wars' film that has a kind of unique blend of traditional film making, some newer film making techniques, and some gaming perspectives. It did seem over the top here and there, but I think that was again to give some impressive visuals to a younger generation who came to be wowed by SFX. Just me.

Tyler, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel. My little preamble here; I was bitter when the film started, largely because of a half hour of just horrible previews for films like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, or the new Transformer's movie, and something else that my subconcious is trying to block to keep from having an anneurism. And one more thing before I launch into Rogue One; and that is the Ray Harryhausen films are still much better films unto themselves and when compared to today's plethora of scifi fantasy sequels for teenage boys. They're better paced, more compelling stories, and good themes people need to connect with and ponder. Rogue One; I saw it tonight at the San Francisco SONY Meteron. I thought it was decent. To be honest I had misgivings in the begining because it looked like the thing was written by a comic book author, and not by a professional screenplay artist. I had to fight off some sleep for the talkier parts, and I think I caught about five or minutes of snooze time before the fist X-Wing strike. My overall reaction is that I think this was the Star Wars prequel that people wanted back in the early 2000s. It wasn't too heavy, but had some dramatic moments. I think of Lucas shooting style for the original film, and it strikes me that perhaps he had the right formula balance for that movie. I don't have too many thoughts on the characters. It's Star Wars for a younger generation, and I think that's about all I can really say about it. I would have shot it differently, and maybe even had some story and plot tweaks here and there. Having played the X-Wing and Rebel Assault games, I truly thought this was going to be about the famed "Rogue" squadron, but none such was the case. I'm just puzzled as to why Disney made this film. I hope they're not trying to prepare today's teens and 20-somethings for something ominous. I have to admit, I did crack a smile when the X-Wings arrived on scene and started shooting up the place.

And yet another reason I'm kicking myself for not buying a Canon.

Yeah, I thought it might require some post work, but I thought maybe someone had figured out a cheat or a workaround to get the same thing in camera.

For mosters and time lapse shots there's an effect where falling water or water rushing over rocks gets all fuzzy, blurry and in general cool looking. Has anyone tried to achieve this with digital video? If so, how did you do it?

I don't watch television anymore, except for shows I grew up with. To much "reality" junk on.

I guess there's no serious thoughts on this. Everyone drives a Ferrari or something to gigs.

Bought it none too soon, only now the creek is is like the Mississippi during a flash flood, all brown and rushing down stream, carrying logs and other flotsam and jetsam. Too much water, and it's all brown and muddy.

Dude at Mike's camera called it a "rain sleeve".

Interesting. I wonder if I should get a camo one. Since I moved to the forested coast region I've seen more dear and coyotes than ever before, and I'm wondering if maybe capturing some wildlife images might be worth doing.

Stupid question, but what are the bar extensions for that stick up off the bumper at the very corner of trucks. I see that a lot on all kinds of trucks, but have no clue as to what they're there for.

Phil ... now that's a man's truck​, but I'm afraid the people at the local Walgreens and Safeway won't appreciate your recommendation very much. A couple years back I gripped for a guy who packed a gib crane into one of those things. Hell of a time yanking it and putting it back in.