Max Field

 

The flip side is.....I created Against The Wild, it's my work.  All you've done here is rip off the work of others, and tried to pass it off as your own.  It's not just illegal, it's not at all in keeping with what this community is about.

 

R,

Well if you also claim that Woody Allen's first feature was also just a "rip off" then we just have to agree we come from two very different places. I know many communities that hold his film as a clever improvement to whatever he was editing/dubbing over.

 

I'm afraid I have to agree with Bill on this, I fail to see how this markets you as a creative person with any skill?

 

R,

Think we're jumping into firm subjectivity here. I've built a fanbase with projects like this going into that, people with clout to employ have found these very entertaining and pulled the trigger on me. On the flip side I could show "Against The Wild" to that same fanbase/circle and they'd say the same thing you're claiming about my cut: "uncreative, boring, etc".

I personally don't claim this about your work but I simply ask that you acknowledge there have been many new audiences emerging since you decided on your target audience years ago.

Comedy/video/film is always evolving, you've considered that it might evolve into something that isn't your cup of tea, right?

Legal issues aside (and Richard is absolutely right with the scenarios he brings up,) what exactly are you trying to sell yourself as with this?...

Joke writer, ADR director, and sound designer. I've done shorter things like this (as portfolio pieces) in the past and catch a decent amount of employment.

I feel like people are assuming I'm trying to get this a distribution deal for some reason..

 

If you're are Sony and you have suits on retainer...... The answer is obvious, they would bring suit against you just for target practice.

See that's what I would assume too. However the internet has sprawled things out to the point where huge offenders aren't getting slammed with lawsuits like you would expect. If it WERE to happen, Youtube for instance would be a VERY different place than what it is right now.

 

It's the rights holders reaching you PERSONALLY that should be a concern, and they can.

 

R,

Well put it this way, let's say you have twice the cash in your bank account right now and you see someone just throwing up a random no-profit thing goofing on Against The Wild 2 using the footage. Are you going to write a C&D/digitally remove it? Or go through with an elongated court case and thousands in legal fees?

 

Hmmmmm, I think you need a course in basic film copyright. What you're doing is illegal and you can easily be sued.

 

Youtube relies on the producers of the content to send in take down notices. A job I must personally do each week, because a-holes around the globe keep uploading my movies to YouTube. YouTube does not delete the accounts of these people or punish them in anyway, they are simply allowed to flaunt copyright laws.

 

So you're on very very thin ice my friend.

 

R,

I'm completely aware of all of this, and there will come a point where I take things like this down. The law versus the law's enforcement are two very different things though. I could show you a load of people doing exactly this who faced, at the very most, a channel getting banned. If my Vimeo gets banned I can make another, really not concerned with an account on the internet.

However, I can't help but to wonder how long your video is going to stay online -- the copyright owners might not find your work amusing.

In order for it to get taken down, it would need to gain enough momentum for a representative to see and report it. I'll take that as a bittersweet resolve knowing it gained enough momentum to reach that point. Youtube on the other hand automatically removes things in seconds.

Due to a lack of budget, I took the Woody Allen approach and decided to dub something in a comedic sense, having the entire project rely on editing, screenwriting, and audio mixing/directing. I finished this in just under 3 months.

I shipped it out to a few friends on VHS tapes for some added aesthetic. What you see on Vimeo is a rip from those tapes.

If any of you had 45 minutes of free time, It'd be a great help for me to see if people outside of my usual demographics found enjoyment out of my current output.

Thanks.

I broke their legs so they basically need to be in my audio kit if they want to survive.

It's 4 in the morning and I'm giving up on life. So mine:

-SM57

-SM7B

-AT4047

-MKH416

-Neumann KMS-105

-Neumann TLM-102

-Blue Kiwi

-EV 635a

Was curious to see what microphones the other video guys have in their collections? Could be educational for discovering a new tool for the arsenal.

I'll post mine later.

Thanks.

What're you charging for the 35 prime? Is there any aberration?

also have for sale set of lomo standard speed lenses F18-28-35-40-50-75-100-150 (sell as a set and separately)

prices and photos on request dimaturaev@gmail.com

thanks!

What are the close focus distances on them? And how fast?

Unless you NEED the brand to be Nikon/vintage:

Have you considered a Nikon-F mount Bower cine? 16mm is only $280. T2.2 is creeping on the fast side.

I'd like to get into a series with the story structure of GoT but the elves/dragons/fantasy vibe is something I just cannot get into.

Asking price?

By the way: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligary (1920) is only 67 minutes long...

I was more addressing film students kidding themselves into thinking something is entertaining solely because it's old, not so much addressing run time. Maybe the Marx Brothers had it right with Duck Soup's length all along.

Blame games, social media, youtube.... Everything that has made sitting down and passively watching any 2 hour feature film seem like a chore.

I feel like other markets encroaching on a movie's entertainment value, both mindful and mindless, would be beneficial for the medium. Features going from 90-130 to 60-75 by cutting out all the fluff seems to be a better product. Very few titles merit a 2 hour plus run time.

Sat down to watch Poltergeist for the first time in my adult life with a couple friends.

I felt it was like 7/10 but one of my friends absolutely hated it. They aren't into film studies or anything like that, they just look to be entertained. I asked why they felt it was so boring and the clearest answer I received was "Any movie made before 1985 is boring and slow". Before you make assumptions; he isn't fond of Transformers/blockbuster action things either.

In the back of my mind I could sort of understand where the notion of old being boring comes from, the pacing and attempted level of engagement feel significantly different than modern releases. I can't sit down and watch Cabinet of Caligary even with synced sound and quicker edits.

Some film course I took had a blurb on how MTV's music video era influenced cinematic editing, but there has to be more to it than JUST the cuts.

What are your takes on this specific evolution?

Thanks.

 

Better not watch Sausage Party then.......

I have no idea how someone can go from writing the near-perfect Superbad to haha food funnies.

Sorry I sort of implied only 16mm use for those dark city parts. But yeah not the entire feature. Clean 16mm doesn't look all that jarring to me. For example there's 16 shorts on Youtube that aren't necessarily done by masters but at the same time don't feature the amount of artifacts one would expect.

So I just saw Suicide Squad in its 9th or so week of running and thought parts of the film could have really benefited from some added grime-like aesthetic.

If you've seen it, a lot of the interaction took place in a dark, rainy, deserted city. Shooting on 16mm instead of 35 could've given a little more creative punch to this block buster (maybe save a tiny bit of budget as well, although that'd depend on their take ratio).

I've seen major features like The Big Short switch between shooting methods (digtal-to-35) to establish various environments and eras, does anyone else feel even the big action flicks could benefit from that area of creativity?

Is there a reason that might be a horrible idea for those productions?

Thanks for any input.

Thanks for replying, do the codecs for MacGo also affect the color in a completely separate editor? Or is that exclusively within the player?

Clouds looked nice on it. Overall natural look, I should get one for myself.

But I can't believe you revealed the horse's funeral, that's spoiling the movie!!

Question to all the Windows familiar guys out there.

Just saw this article stating that people on Windows machines need to uninstall Quicktime

http://blog.trendmicro.com/urgent-call-action-uninstall-quicktime-windows-today/

However I cannot edit without Quicktimes codecs, and can't figure out a way to ditch the program and keep the codecs.

What are some alternative codec packs which can be installed to read prores files without the Quicktime being installed on the machine?

Thanks in advance.