Why I miss Santo.

[Douglas Hunter]

There is an acceptable compromise between the wideness of high budget comedy shows and the closer proximity required if the same comedy concept were to be done low budget.

 

It sounds like you don't really understand how the conventions work or how directors select shot size. The decision of how close or wide to shoot comedy (something I deal with every day) for instance is not based on the medium at all. I think some earlier posts tried to claim that the set was part of the funny. This is rarely the case. Sit-com humor is often physical in nature, you need to see people throwing their arms in the air or to see that someone is hiding behind a door when some one else enters the room.

 

So in comdey (and in everything else) the decision about shot size is based on the style of the comedy, and what the audience "needs" to see to get the joke. Another example, some comics, even when playing in a large venue do a lot with the punchline of a joke with their faces, so even with really physical comedy we might go in for a MCU on the punchline because in that case the MCU is the very best shot for the joke. Watch a sitcome and notice that on the punchline of a joke or a gag, or in the reaction to a joke or gag is about the only place you see a MCU, because that is where they work and convey the necessary information.

 

Remember directors and producers are not really thinking about format when they choose a specific shot, they are thinking about what shot works best to make the joke funny. If a script had a very intimate style of comedy, such as lovers teasing one another, or the actors are going to do a lot of face acting, then go in and use a lot more of those CU's because in that situation they are going to work. But imagine if the Lucy Ball show was shot in a lot of CUs, in that case a lot of the humor would be lost.

[jacob thomas]

Because once again the point I make is not addressed. If one has to spend money on the set and the background and the wardrobe and the actors and on on on, they won't be shooting super-8. If they were shooting on super-8 the background would be minimized and the actor or actors would be maximized.

 

There is an acceptable compromise between the wideness of high budget comedy shows and the closer proximity required if the same comedy concept were to be done low budget.

 

 

The point is not to show the "budget" spent on the set and back ground (as you keep suggesting), the background in friends usually has very little if anything to do with the comedy in the scene. The comedy doesn't come entirely from the face and facial expression but the interaction between the actors in space and their body language.

 

Of course this has all been covered.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Because once again the point I make is not addressed. If one has to spend money on the set and the background and the wardrobe and the actors and on on on, they won't be shooting super-8. If they were shooting on super-8 the background would be minimized and the actor or actors would be maximized.

 

Of course, I am now realizing this has all been covered.....so...why did I post? :D

 

There is an acceptable compromise between the wideness of high budget comedy shows and the closer proximity required if the same comedy concept were to be done low budget.

 

Whats your point again? :)

 

ok, I get.."If they were shooting on super-8 the background would be minimized and the actor or actors would be maximized." Hence more close-ups.

 

Does this mean there'd be more cuts, to follow the body comedy/action..? There'd have to be, right?

 

 

 

My point being, you'd lose the nuance of the action/comedy in the actual cut.

[Alessandro Machi]

It ALL relates to the budget, to imply otherwise is absurd. The higher the budget, the more the actors are surrounded by an environment that complements them. The lower the budget, the more sparse or undetectable the background becomes.

 

Different directors will handle the same scene differently, to imply that every director will handle a scene similarly is absurd. I'm acknowledging that a comedy shot in Super-8 has to delicately balance the framing to make it work whereas in a larger format It's pretty much all good. Use a wider shot, it shows off the actors extremities and physical comedy, use a closer shot, it allows for the actors facial expressions to be filmed.

 

The point is as the budget becomes lower there is generally less to show off in the surrounding area. An ensemble comedy such as Friends devotes very little frame area to the faces of the actors, so if one tried to film a Friends type of comedy in Super-8, the compromise would be to go with smaller ensembles so that one can keep a decent percentage of the frame on the actors. But that doesn't imply extreme close-ups or facial close-ups either.

 

Clerks really didn't have a lot of physical comedy of the kind that could not be captured in Super-8, and the new Black and White super-8 stocks would allow detail to be seen in the background to help capture the mood of the location.

[John Hyde]

It seems we are moving away from the topic... our fond memories of Santo!

 

Alex, do you have any thoughts on the emptyness we all feel now that Santo is gone? Perhaps you have some kind, healing words to contribute.

Edited September 7, 2006 by John Hyde

[Maulubekotofa]

Clerks would still suck in super 8mm. Sorry. The subject of this post is lame too. Please close this thread.

[Douglas Hunter]

It ALL relates to the budget, to imply otherwise is absurd. The higher the budget, the more the actors are surrounded by an environment that complements them. The lower the budget, the more sparse or undetectable the background becomes.

 

nope, the higher the budget the more money you have to hire good people to decide what the background / environment should be. Sometimes big budget shows have very sparse background because that's what best complements the story. Its about the story. Producers don't spent money for the sake of spending money, not if they are good anyway.

 

Different directors will handle the same scene differently, to imply that every director will handle a scene similarly is absurd.

 

Have you watched any TV lately? specifically comedy? Do you work in TV? I do. The range of choices is limited, and most directors know what works best for what kind of gag so there is actually very little diffference from show to show director to director. We are talking about TV here after all. Even in the Dramas, once the show's look is established, no producer is going to let a hired gun come in a mess around with how the show is shot. That's just the way it is. No director could walk onto the set of ER for example, and say, "lets not do this one in fluid masters." The fluid master is the show and every director hired to do ER knows this before they walk on set.

 

Back to comedy, look at any 5 cam multi-cam set up. they are almost always the same. With an experienced crew the director often doesn't need to give framing instructions to the camera ops, they already know the shots because for the most part it is standardized.

[Alessandro Machi]

nope, the higher the budget the more money you have to hire good people to decide what the background / environment should be. Sometimes big budget shows have very sparse background because that's what best complements the story. Its about the story. Producers don't spent money for the sake of spending money, not if they are good anyway.

Have you watched any TV lately? specifically comedy? Do you work in TV? I do. The range of choices is limited, and most directors know what works best for what kind of gag so there is actually very little diffference from show to show director to director. We are talking about TV here after all. Even in the Dramas, once the show's look is established, no producer is going to let a hired gun come in a mess around with how the show is shot. That's just the way it is. No director could walk onto the set of ER for example, and say, "lets not do this one in fluid masters." The fluid master is the show and every director hired to do ER knows this before they walk on set.

 

Back to comedy, look at any 5 cam multi-cam set up. they are almost always the same. With an experienced crew the director often doesn't need to give framing instructions to the camera ops, they already know the shots because for the most part it is standardized.

 

No one is arguing that a show does not develop a signature look and feel and that a new director can walk in and change it. But there are over a 100 shows that try to survive week after week and they won't necessarily copy each other verbatim, although we've all seen our share of formulaec clones.

 

An independent filmmaker won't shoot the way a regular televison show is shot because they aren't doing multiple cameras and they have less money to spend. I gave the example of Friends simply to illustrate that not much of the film frame is devoted to the actual faces of the actors so if someone tried to do something like Friends in Super-8 they would have some wiggle room, don't be as wide as they are on Friends, but don't do ultra close-ups either.

 

The multiple camera television shows don't usually have any of the cameras in very close because that camera angle will interfere with all the other cameras trying to get their own shot, if the show is instead done with one camera, that one camera can get very nice medium close shots from the waist up that reveal the actor and the some of the background.

 

I've worked on a live event where four video cameras were on sticks away from the stage and during rehearsals my camera was used as a rover to get shots from up close to the stage. The director loved that camera position the best simply because it felt real and up close, and it showed off the performers and the background in a terrific way, but that camera position could not be used during the actual show because it would be in the way of the other cameras and the audience.

 

Most multiple camera shoots are done for expediency and because it's easier to match action and salvage the best performances of the evening, shooting with one camera and getting closer on in has it own advantages as well.

 

Saying that a multiple camera shoot will always garner a better result than a one camera shoot is inaccurate.

 

--------------------------------------------------

[John Hyde]

What about Santo? What about the actual topic? We need to talk this out! Only then can we begin the process of healing. Alex? Anyone?:(

[Alessandro Machi]

What about Santo? What about the actual topic? We need to talk this out! Only then can we begin the process of healing. Alex? Anyone?:(

 

I talked about Santo several pages ago. Santo briefly created a signature with the "J____zoom" word he invented along with a definition of the word. Most people found the word a bit offensive and bordering on being racist. That was the latest in a string of "J____zoom" incidents, including the ultra crazy time Santo tried proving to us that "J____zoom" was an actual word rather than one Santo invented because Santo could google it and find the "J_____zoom" word listed, on topics found here and started by Santo.

 

In my opinion it was a bit creepy because it seemed like he was serious about his google expedition, and if he wasn't serious it wasn't very funny. So after that google escapade Santo then created his own signature with the "J____zoom" word in it and I presume that is what got him banned.

 

Kind of like a moth smashing into the front end of a big old lens because it sees the reflection of a light on the front element, Santo was drawn to the word "J____zoom".

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

I think santo left on his own, taking with him the ancient art of "sophomoric debate", never to be seen again!

 

He wasn't "banned" to my knowledge. Who knows? I don't care if he was...My healing process started when I read that he unregistered... :lol: :lol: :lol: hehehe, good riddance.

 

BTW, its funny how you use the word blunt to descripe his debate style in opening this thread....

 

As in opposite of sharp... As in opposition to, incisive, insightful, intelligent, informative!!!!

 

"Blunt", as in "Clumsy".....

 

HAHAHA :P

 

Actually, I learned a little from the guy.... :D

[John Hyde]

Alex,

 

Petty arguments about the j Zoom aside, don't you truly miss the times we had with our old friend Santo? I could always count on a friendly retort from gool ol' Santo. Even if he lacked all logic or intelligence, he always fought back on all of his points to the bitter end.

 

Remember the good times that you and ol' Santo had? Remember the 10 bit transfer arguement? A true CLASSIC! Pages and pages of endless forum bable to comb through every night. On and on, you guys just kept going, never giving an inch!

 

Come on Alex. Don't you miss your ol' pal Santo just a little? When you finally admit this, we can take the first step in healing. Time to come out and tell why you miss Santo. :)

[Alessandro Machi]

Alex,

 

Petty arguments about the j Zoom aside, don't you truly miss the times we had with our old friend Santo? I could always count on a friendly retort from gool ol' Santo. Even if he lacked all logic or intelligence, he always fought back on all of his points to the bitter end.

 

Remember the good times that you and ol' Santo had? Remember the 10 bit transfer arguement? A true CLASSIC! Pages and pages of endless forum bable to comb through every night. On and on, you guys just kept going, never giving an inch!

 

Come on Alex. Don't you miss your ol' pal Santo just a little? When you finally admit this, we can take the first step in healing. Time to come out and tell why you miss Santo. :)

 

The ten bit discussion is a crossroads moment in the evolution of the entertainment industry.

 

Eventually, 20 bit will be the standard and we may all have a laugh about 10 bit versus digibeta, but until then, what you call "endless forum babble" is actually a pertinent issue about how the entertainment industry deals with the auteur who creates completely on their own terms insider their own computer versus the Hollywood workflow method that requires standardization that the high end video formats presently provide.

[Stuart McCammon]

I am going to take over for Santo and insist that we transfer all pictures to cave walls, because that's how the Neanderthals did it and 250,000 years of history can't be wrong!

[Douglas Hunter]

No one is arguing that [snip] . . .

Saying that a multiple camera shoot will always garner a better result than a one camera shoot is inaccurate.

 

someone isn't paying very close attention.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I am going to take over for Santo and insist that we transfer all pictures to cave walls, because that's how the Neanderthals did it and 250,000 years of history can't be wrong!

 

That was the Cro-Magnons.

 

The Neanderthals sprinkled flowers and ochre on bodies being buried.

 

I once caught part of a Discovery re-enacted documentary showing the neanderthals schlumping around with pelts draped over them while the Cro-Magnons shaved their heads and wore leather jeans and lots of body paint. & stood around in cool poses.

 

Which one would Santo be? How damp can the cave walls be? Limestone or granite?

[Chris Graham]

knew something was up. so did this guy get banned or did he just cut out?

[Alessandro Machi]

knew something was up. so did this guy get banned or did he just cut out?

 

When this topic eventually runs it's course, can we start a "Why I don't miss Santo thread?".