George Ebersole

Stardust memories is one of my favorite Woody Allen films, although here he's using it as a device to show this woman's bipolar state. It has a point. When I see young film makers use it in a YT venue, it's more or less their acceptance of a shortcut in conveying info. Here's a sample of pop-media aimed at post grads. I'm not the target audience here (I just grabbed the first thing that came up in the search field); https://youtu.be/6nG0kWk7n_c?t=15 I guess if you can make something out of it, then good for you. And I guess it's generational in that regard. But I can't help but feel that this is akin to writing verse writing well. You can convey data appropriately, or economically, and jump cuts used today strike me as being economic but explained away as being a style.

Here's another one, very detailed, very sharp, lots of color.

My first two film instructors were Joe Price and Richard Williamson, both of whom had done a lot of golden era Hollywood productions; Cleopatra, Ben Hur and so forth. Sometimes as supporting cast, other times as assistant crew. They were pretty dogmatic on jump cuts, and I think August Coppola at SF State also frowned upon it. However, I do seem to recall one exception was for documentaries, and I do seem to recall that Breathless and 2001 were two exceptions they mentioned, as per Dave's post earlier up in the thread. To me it's jarring, and all the stuff I ever worked on, mostly corporate video, it was a technique that was never used ... maybe one rap video for a guy out of Oakland. But for all the stuff for Autodesk, Chevron, Apple, Intel, Del Monte, Adobe, and other big name clients that I ever worked on, I never saw one jump cut. Interesting.

Quite possibly.

Thanks for the replies; I guess, and I can certainly see the intentional effects it's supposed to have. But most of the time today, specifically in online media (I've never seen it used in contemporary feature films), it's usually a talking-torso in a lockdown, where the whole video is essentially like this; sound-bight edit, sound-bight edit, sound-bight edit. Born in the 60s, coming of age in the 70s and 80s, it's just jarring to me, and annoying a lot of the time. But I guess that's the style. Weird. I did not know the French pioneered it. And I never noticed that 2001 jumpcut until you pointed it out, Dave. Very interesting. It's like the two things I really hate most about contemporary film making styles are shaky cam and jump cuts, yet everybody uses them. Oh well. I guess I'm just an old fuddy duddy. Thanks all! :D

Way back when in 85 or thereabouts, one of the first things I learned from a couple of vets was that you never jump cut. And yet these days, it's like well over half the media uploaded are filled with jump cuts. To me it's annoying as anything, and I'm wondering how it got pushed and carved into mainstream visual media. Any opinions to help enlighten me are welcome.

There's actually a minute or two minute version of this, and it took me forever to find it. That, and it doesn't have all the shots that impressed me with the earlier version; *major edit, I found the right video* This may sound naive, stupid, vapid, and otherwise ill-informed, especially from a grip/AD who quit over 15 years ago, but if I were to shoot a feature, I would want to experiment with this level of color saturation. There's just something about this kind of look that I think could translate to genres other than promotional spots.

There's a recent Hawaiian Airlines ad that's hit my YouTube stream recently. Very clear, lots of slow mo shots, it does not look digital (though I'm uncertain about that). Wish I could find a link to post it here.

Why would that be a bad resume? Most work is through referrals, not by people cruising your IMDB entry.

Not to beat a dead horse, but Amazon also got rid of its product discussion forums as well. Wow. Either forum activity is hurting sales, or they're getting threatened with law suits by various parties, or maintaining the forum is cutting into costs. But, again, the film discussion that did take place there is all gone, unless you want to comment on someone's review. And even then, like I say, you have to hunt around for those now. Maybe I shouldn't be venting here, but again back in the day information and opinion was free flowing. I remember when Amazon was still just an online bookstore, and an independent owner run operation where the founder packaged books for shipping to customers. I remember those days. And being an indy book store owner had values regarding sharing knowledge with all people. That's what good indy bookstores are all about, aside from just being a simple business. And I guess that's what really has me both outraged and shrugging my shoulders. I'm going to write that SOB a letter.

Well, let's see, early in my career I helped setup the SFX shop for Look Who's Talking, I interned on "Midnight Caller", I did some PA work on "Eat a Bowl of Tea", cleaned up Spielberg's "Innerspace" apartment set (drove it to the dump in Colma) ... a few other feature related things here and there, but I can't remember them all, and I've never gotten a credit for any of it. So ... BFD. Especially since IMDB's decided that keeping a positive product spin on Amazon studio products is more valuable than providing a place where people can go look up details on films. I think MS had a movie site at one time ... I wonder if their forums are still up.

I think I'd like to add that when I used to see documentaries shot on 16 in either 70s or 80s there was a sense and filtration process that what you saw was what you were getting. 16 was extremely grainy at the time, but even so, if the information was accurate or if the drama was compelling enough, then you cut the film some slack. Anybody as old as I am will remember the old National Geographic specials that used to air on indy TV stations. All shot on 16, and the images were grainy, but this was before drones or body cams, so it was pretty rare that you saw anything from the top of Mount Everest or the ocean environment with Jacques Cousteau. The flip side is that now we can go deeper into the oceans, and send drones to get shots that would be ultra expensive with a helicopter. I think what we've "lost" is that filtration mechanism that used to exist where you really had to be good at what you did in order to keep getting calls back for more work. Now everyone can upload their "masterpieces". Whatever.

Don't hold back Tyler. Tell us how you really feel. I guess I'm a "wannabe". Features are and were rare in the Bay Area, so most of the work up here is corporate video. There was and still is a strong indy presence, with "rock" videos ranking second in terms of non-industrial work. But I can't post all the industrials and commercials I worked on back in the 90s on my profile, and, like you say, if you're working, then you don't need this website. But as a film fan I liked the forums for discussing the creative and artistic aspects, and just discussing films themselves. But now you can't even do that. And the pro site puts on the pretense of providing box office numbers and contact information, but like you say, you don't need it. I know it's not the 90s anymore, but when the net was first building itself beyond universities there did seem to be an unwritten ethic of being honest and upfront with information, and explaining loopholes and lack of data for whatever the subject was. That's all gone now. There's always been junk online, ever since my friends and I Were cruising pre-net BBS in the early 80s, but now it's like 80% or more of the net is garbage. And now this happens. I'm pretty angry about it.

I bought a pro subscription some time back when I was making a real earnest effort to get back doing camera ops again, but it's like for all the stuff I've ever worked on in years past, I only got one feature credit to my name. Well, okay, once I start working again regularly (not going to happen now) I can develop a portfoliio again and update my profile. But it's like now I'm almost at the point where I want my entry removed because that site is so bad now. Here's the thing I don't get. They kept expanding the forums, over the last five to six years. And then they shut them down? Just yesterday I heard that Amazon and other retailers state in a KCBS news piece that they want more consumer participation in terms of reviews, but now they effectively blank out the reviews unless you hunt around for them. I shrug my shoulders at it now. I probably won't be buying a hell of a lot more off of Amazon anymore. And I'll probably cancel my IMDB pro account in the coming months ... depending on how things go. I'm just one guy in a sea of hundreds of millions. But if other people are as frustrated as I am, then maybe they'll just shut down that aspect of the business, or revert back to the way it was. Whatever. I'm sorry I invested so much time and energy into a forum held by a private company driven by the desire and need to make more cash. I love business and free markets, but I think there's a time when you need to recognize your public duties.

If the content is good enough, then I tend to ignore some of the visuals. Not always, but I do cut some films slack if the story and presentation is strong and rich enough. .... I want to say that eventually electronic engineering will be able to emulate and present imagery as well as the photo-chemical process, but I think improvements in stock will continue as well, so much that sharper photo-imagery may outdo electronic engineering, but whether audience eyes will notice or appreciate it to the point of keeping up demand for film, to me, is an unknown. There are some films that have content or image quality that makes me wish they were shot with a better stock. Rarely do I ever conclude or desire a video image for anything I've seen. In the end it's all what's appealing, and no amount of nostalgia factor is going to sway any market for a long term trend in an industry. just my two bits. I really need to get off my ass and shoot something myself.

The IMDB has removed the link to user reviews on film entries. Amazon, who owns the IMDB, has removed the old format where you can see a user's reviews and how many people thought it was helpful. It's my personal opinion that now that Amazon is in the content provider business that they don't want to risk negative press from their consumers reviewing their products. Removing the forums last year was a major blow to people like me. Hardly anyone uses "alternate forums" to discuss movies. This forum is more pro-technical oriented, so discussion of films doesn't skew to themes, stories, and other creative factors beyond stock, lens, and camera selection. Facebook is not a good forum for discussing films. Nor is twitter. Well, the IMDB is a private company owned by another private company, but there was a time when the IMDB was just a fan site. And I guess when fan sites become commercially viable you get this kind of thing. I'm thinking that if I get any of my project completed, that I won't be listing them on the IMDB, and if listed there, I'll issue a letter drafted by my lawyer to remove said information. Typically I'm not a big 1st amendment guy, but my adopted family fought under Washington to found this nation, and I take things like this to heart. Multimedia is gamed enough as it is. In retrospect this was inevitable, but it would be nice if on occasion a private company that relies on interaction could treat some of their services as a public trust. That's probably too much to ask. Thanks for reading.

Well, I guess I confused some things. Thanks.

Sorry if this isn't the appropriate area to post this question, but I recently got my bluray special edition of "Streets of Fire", and the image looks a little grainy, though still very clear. The back of the slip cover said the film was transferred at 2k resolution. I thought all films were scanned at 4k, released with a lower resolution for the DVD market, and then re-released at full 4k for the bluray market. I actually thought I read that here on this forum. Can someone clarify? Am I not remembering this correctly?

"Stardust Memories" "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" to name a couple

I notice it more on YouTube and Vimeo, not so much on major feature films.

I used to play a lot of games when I was a kid. And when I was in middle school I thought I might be able to take some of my gaming experiences and put them up on the big screen. I actually wanted to be a scientist, but was intrigued by the idea of story media from games put on the big screen. I was harassed and hounded to get off games throughout my life up until 2007 (if you can believe it), and the year before last at DundraCon in Pleasanton in the east bay (next to Livermoore) I spoke with the screenwriter for the first three seasons of Babylon-5. His description of porting gaming experiences to screenplays is now standard practice. A thing which I first conceived of way back in 81 (though I'm sure I wasn't the only gamer to do so). And is in fact what I had been trying to do for the last ten years. So, given all of the interference in my life, which I've tried to keep off of these boards, I'm not really a happy camper. I had people suggest I sell my house and enroll in the Art Institute of San Francisco's film and TV program, I had some DP here suggest I buy a book on set operations (when I actually worked as a grip and PA for ten years), and a number of other things that are annoying. I'm typically not very egotistical, and when I hear some advice that I've heard before I usually smile and thank that person before moving on. But I've had enough. I had a lot of people helicopter parenting me from a distance (people I didn't know about), even people who were deeply embedded in the entertainment industry who, not only had no knowledge about games, not only had no knowledge about editing software coming out onto the market in the late 80s and early 90s, they had no real knowledge of camera technology and the future of independent films and media distribution via the net. If you are ever contacted by someone and asked to help me, don't do it. Like anybody else I appreciate the helping hand if genuinely offered, and I think that's where I'll end this tirade. I don't think I'm going to make much of myself in the local indy scene, but it'll be my own industry that sees whether I succeed or fail. That's pretty much all I want. Sorry for eating up your time and wasting space on this forum for this post, but I felt it needed to be said. Thanks to all the regulars who know me via this forum who have been helpful.

No, but it looks like a hand grip for an old still camera. Something out of the 50s or earlier.

I shrug my shoulders at it. I remember coming across the IMDB in the mid to late 90s. They barely had any films listed, and I begged off joining for that alone. Then in 2000 (or maybe a year or two before) I joined, but it's like the list was only slowly growing. You might find Star Wars, but you wouldn't find Gone with the Wind listed--it was that kind of site. Then one other guy and I started using the message boards, which were dead. We were the only ones using them. In fact my profile got showcased by the IMDB site staff as an example of how other users can exchange messages on the various forums. And after that it was pretty cool talking movies. But the last few years before the forums shut down ... it was like the barbarians had stormed the gates. I'd occasionally file a report maybe once or twice a month for real abusive posters. But man, when the elections came around and the new Ghostbusters hit the screens ... it was like a stadium sized convention of the worst people posting the worst comments you'd ever read in your life. For all my punching holes in this film, I do have to say that the film going experience was infinitely better than in previous years. There was security, the seats were nice and comfy ... no one was talking in the theatre, no one was using their cell. And the movie, for a movie, was okay. It was a little slower, which I appreciated. No over-confident teenage or twenty-something characters spouting on-the-nose dialogue, no put-down humor, no machinegun editing ... it was a film for an older crowd. I'm glad for all that. I'm just sorry it wasn't a smarter story.

Very interesting. Many thanks mister Mullen.

Just as a side note, I looked up Edward James Olmos character, and found this; Gaff (Character) from Blade Runner (1982) The content of this page was created by users. It has not been screened or verified by IMDb staff. ALERT: All Character pages will be turned off on Dec 6th 2017. Please see the IMDb GetSatisfaction Character announcement for details.