Jump to content

Tired of hearing "Film is Dead?" Well So Are We!


Recommended Posts

I wonder who shot this juvenille, inane production. Probably wasn't you.

I thank you and professionals at Asylum studios for cluttering up Netflix with garbage like this.

Here's what people are saying on IMB of your most recent work.

MV5BMTgxMjU5NzYxN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDQ0

 

"This movie is one of if not the worst I have watched"

"I'm curious as to who bank rolls movies like this?"

"This absolute turd sandwich of a movie featured horrible effects, worse acting and a dumb story that had really nothing going for it."

 

Ouch, Stuart. hey, I bet the average prostitute has more self-respect than you do.

 

Looks like the "2-head shark attack" movie was shot on 35mm.

 

Yeah, plot sucked, story was ludicrous but the images sure looked good!! Can't blame the cinematographer for what the writer did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In thinking before the pressing the button, that also includes casting actors who you know will add something extra, give you a positive surprise in each scene. They may come from Craigslist or where ever, but you've auditioned them and others and made a decision. Of course, you could be wrong and they might have been on a roll during the audition, although call backs can help the final selection.

 

Thinking involves using taste and sensibility and taking on board that reality doesn't always exactly match what's written on the page. It also involves knowing that the new line an actor has come with is better than the one scripted or realising that the tone of the new line throws off the sub text of the scene.

Yeah but finding that kind of talent especially coupled with sex appeal, is difficult enough to find when you're dealing with professionals, let alone wannabes you find on the net. I said earlier in this thread that finding people who can actually make a movie let alone one that can make a GOOD movie is a difficult process, finding actors that can keep you mesmerized while they're on screen is damn near impossible. If they have that quality, they're movie stars and rich because they're rare and very few people have "IT" and most of those that DO have "IT" don't have it for their entire careers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Christopher Sheneman

Yeah, plot sucked, story was ludicrous but the images sure looked good!! Can't blame the cinematographer for what the writer did.

When the title is "2-Headed shark attack" you can pretty much blame everyone involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but finding that kind of talent especially coupled with sex appeal, is difficult enough to find when you're dealing with professionals, let alone wannabes you find on the net. I said earlier in this thread that finding people who can actually make a movie let alone one that can make a GOOD movie is a difficult process, finding actors that can keep you mesmerized while they're on screen is damn near impossible. If they have that quality, they're movie stars and rich because they're rare and very few people have "IT" and most of those that DO have "IT" don't have it for their entire careers.

 

That's why you need to spend a lot of time auditioning, there are people who have an it factor, if only for one film. It being your film is the only one that matters, even better is finding the actor on the way up and being able to spot them. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

When the title is "2-Headed shark attack" you can pretty much blame everyone involved.

 

I worked on that :angry:

 

*EDIT*

Not really, I hadn't read the rest of the thread, and thought someone was making up a B-movie title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder who shot this juvenille, inane production. Probably wasn't you.

I thank you and professionals at Asylum studios for cluttering up Netflix with garbage like this.

Here's what people are saying on IMB of your most recent work.

 

"This movie is one of if not the worst I have watched"

"I'm curious as to who bank rolls movies like this?"

"This absolute turd sandwich of a movie featured horrible effects, worse acting and a dumb story that had really nothing going for it."

 

Ouch, Stuart. hey, I bet the average prostitute has more self-respect than you do.

 

Looks like the "2-head shark attack" movie was shot on 35mm.

 

 

Loathed as I am to post in this thread, I wish to speak in defence of 2 headed shark attack.

 

Firstly for the people who are complaining that this movie isn't of the same standard as Lawrence of Arabia, I would suggest that the title "two headed shark attack", might have been a clue to what you were letting yourself in for if you were paying attention.

 

Clearly as you suggest it was shot on 35mm, and for all I know looks lovely.

Obviously it is a very low budget Asylum production, and respect to them for making a bit of an effort in that context.

I would point out that mainstream Hollywood pumps out plenty of movies with huge budgets that are worse than the Asylum stuff. I suspect the movie RIPD to be the latest of such films.

 

It's very easy for people out in the states to be smug about such things, but here in the UK I know I and many others would love to get to make an Asylum type production with an actual budget.

 

I say good luck to Asylum. Low budget movies like this can be a great training ground for up and coming directors. Theres a long history of great film makers getting their start on B movies. Francis Ford Coppola being one that instantly springs to mind.

You can't expect to start at the top. That's not the way of the world.

 

I also wish Stuart and everyone who worked on 2 headed shark attack, good luck in their future work.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ouch, Stuart. hey, I bet the average prostitute has more self-respect than you do.

 

 

 

You will find that there are a lot of sex workers out there with self-respect fighting hard to bring in the money to feed their families.

 

It's not self-respect that is the problem there, but a society that doesn't have a respect for them as human beings.

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ouch, Stuart. hey, I bet the average prostitute has more self-respect than you do.

 

Looks like the "2-head shark attack" movie was shot on 35mm.

 

As a working DP, I'm used to the fact that not every job I do is necessarily going to be high art. There are many things that I've shot that I would never watch. My self respect is usually tempered by the fact that I have bills to pay. It's a hard fact of life that there's a lot of dross out there and occasionally you have to take work you don't want. You'll find that out for yourself, should you ever progress from trolling around on internet forums and get a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 



Yeah but finding that kind of talent especially coupled with sex appeal, is difficult enough to find when you're dealing with professionals, let alone wannabes you find on the net. I said earlier in this thread that finding people who can actually make a movie let alone one that can make a GOOD movie is a difficult process, finding actors that can keep you mesmerized while they're on screen is damn near impossible. If they have that quality, they're movie stars and rich because they're rare and very few people have "IT" and most of those that DO have "IT" don't have it for their entire careers.


I agree with your POV and therefore tend to be much more forgiving of actors like Tom Cruise who take a lot of flack because they aren't Marlon Brando. Seems to reason that if somebody could do it better that person would have his jobs. I think part of the problem is most people only watch what's on at the local multiplex and perceive acting as easy, but anybody who watches even Tom Cruise's worst movie versus a low budget film full of untalented actors will instantly see the difference. As you wrote it's not an easy job. Either you've got it or you don't.

That said, a man reputed as one of France's greatest directors, Robert Bresson only used professional actors once. Hated the experience and only used non actors for the rest of his films. He couldn't just pick anybody off the street so I'm curious what he did to be able to select the right people and then how did he get the performances out of them?

Granted, set design, cinematography, the script etc. all these other things have to come together too to make a great film. Nobody should be fooled into thinking all they need is a digital camera, a good pasta recipe and Craigslist to create a quality movie similar to Robert Bresson. Edited by Pat Murray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AS Stuart says, as a working DP you work on a wide range of productions. There are films to keep the bank manager happy and others that give deep satisfaction. Check out some A list cinematographers and you'll find some films that served a purpose at the time.

 

Re the film itself, I can see how it could be pitched for a certain market. Not all films are art, some are just for Friday night with some beer, watching a rehash movie It sounds rather ike "Shipwrecked" http://www.channel4.com/programmes/shipwrecked with a rather hungry mutant shark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contrary to what you keep saying on these boards, digital has not democratized filmmaking. Before cheap HD cams there was cheap 16mm and Super 8.

 

It is the distribution of films that needs to be democratized and the internet has helped to some degree.

 

 

 

This is so very true. Many people are making movies on film or digital, but the crux of the matter is getting your work seen and distributed to a wide enough audience to be able to make a modest profit on it so you can keep making new movies. The major distibution channels are still controlled by very few media corporations. That has changed somewhat , but it's still difficult to get wide distribution for modestly budgeted , independent films . Steven Soderbergh recently gave a talk on why that is the case:

 

http://www.deadline.com/2013/04/steven-soderbergh-state-of-cinema-address/#more-486368

 

 

I hate these conversations. This kind of argument with any other artist wouldn't hold up as well. Would you tell an illustrator that Illustrating digitally is what he or she should be doing. "Hey buy a mac, and make your art digitally. Those paints and paint brushes are expensive, and then you have scanning fees." Isn't that a moot point? If an illustrator has chosen paint, watercolors, colored pencil, charcoal, or whatever inspires that artwork, who are you to question that?

 

 

 

I also agree with Alan's point. This is a false dilemma and these conversations never really matter to the creative person who has chosen to work in a certain medium . My full time job is in animation and I'm involved in these type of conversations (traditional animation vs. digital/CGI) all the time on animation forums and blogs that I frequent. The "death" of traditional hand drawn animation is constantly heralded (seems like somone proclaims that "fact" every 6 months or so for the last 20 years) and in terms of the current mainstream Hollywood animation industry it probably is "dead" (or at least in deep hibernation -- insert obiligatory "suspended animation" joke here -- ) and yet great hand drawn work continues to be made , mostly in Europe and in Japan and Korea . The advent of photography itself was supposed to be the death of traditional painting and illustration. And it certainly changed thing , as did the advent of digital graphic design and illustration programs which supposedly allowed any untrained person be their own graphic designer or illustrator . And yet people still do illustration in traditional media , as well as tradtional fine art painting and sculpture . This "traditional" vs. "digital" debate is tiresome and pointless (to the creative person) I hope to live to see the end of it . There are multiple ways of making art and capturing images , so who is to dictate that one form of expression or a set of tools is "dead" and everyone ought to just move on and embrace whatever is the New Thing ?

 

 

 

.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

In thinking before the pressing the button, that also includes casting actors who you know will add something extra, give you a positive surprise in each scene. They may come from Craigslist or where ever, but you've auditioned them and others and made a decision. Of course, you could be wrong and they might have been on a roll during the audition, although call backs can help the final selection.

 

Thinking involves using taste and sensibility and taking on board that reality doesn't always exactly match what's written on the page. It also involves knowing that the new line an actor has come with is better than the one scripted or realising that the tone of the new line throws off the sub text of the scene.

 

I will certainly agree with you there Brian. I was speaking more specifically of on set once all of that has been done-- the times you just have to go on gut for a certain shot here and there.

 

Certainly let me know if you wind up in SM James, I can probably skip down there for a drink or two.

 

 

As for actors, as Pat mentioned, sometimes non-actors can work. I know in my distinguished directing career (lol) in film school the 3 movies I made all used a non actor, and good friend of mine. It worked the best out of the bunch, but that's just because I knew him and when I wrote the things that freshman year, I wrote it so that he well, firstly, woudln't have to say anything, and secondly, just had the same mannerisms he always had. I am sure, if I ever were to direct again (very unlikely) , and wanted to get performances out of non-actors I'd go the same route; looking for folks who just "are," for lack of a better way of saying it.

 

My only major caveat to David's animation mention is that with film specifically as a medium, you are dealing with a company which makes a product which needs to be sold in order to make it work. With painting, illustrating, and sculpture, you're not beholden to the financials of corporations-- at least not to the same degree as there will almost always be pencils and paper, paint and canvass (or even plywood if you'd like) and marble in the ground along with chisels. When you get to talking about film negative stock, well whether or not that still exists is based primarily on whether or not it remains economically feasible to produce it and use it which relies a slight but upon economies of scale. Were I ever to draw, and ran out of things with which to draw, I could in theory grab a rock and a burn a branch-- but I certainly couldn't very easily make color neg in the back of my truck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Christopher Sheneman

As a working DP, I'm used to the fact that not every job I do is necessarily going to be high art. There are many things that I've shot that I would never watch. My self respect is usually tempered by the fact that I have bills to pay. It's a hard fact of life that there's a lot of dross out there and occasionally you have to take work you don't want. You'll find that out for yourself, should you ever progress from trolling around on internet forums and get a job.

Is internet trolling worse than filming garbage? Good luck paying your bills, Stuart. You probably have a lot of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

You'd be surprised, but there are people wanting to shoot film regardless of not having money to feed the crew. That doesn't just apply now, but held true in the past, although the films did get made.

 

The careful was referring to the shooting ratio, award winning films have been made with extremely low 35mm shooting ratios.

 

I had some female producer across the bay ask me if I would work for food. If I knew her, then maybe. Otherwise no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Christopher Sheneman

Mr Sheneman i dont think you are a very nice person . Be good if you found somewhere else to post your bile.

 

Maybe you can mine your own business, Mr. Holland? You know how to do that? Or at least get your facts straight before posting on my character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

As a working DP, I'm used to the fact that not every job I do is necessarily going to be high art. There are many things that I've shot that I would never watch. My self respect is usually tempered by the fact that I have bills to pay. It's a hard fact of life that there's a lot of dross out there and occasionally you have to take work you don't want. You'll find that out for yourself, should you ever progress from trolling around on internet forums and get a job.

 

work is work. I used to help shoot a series of marketing videos by some company from whom I wouldn't send my worst enemy. They were mercenaries shooting late night infomercials out to snag old ladies paycheques with the hint of riches if they'd just buy their book. The thing was totally legal, if slimey.

 

Where I helped make sure the stage had sandbags, nets and whatever else, and even helped setup the dolly, I wasn't there in front of the camera telling people to buy into the dude's plan or pyramid scheme or whatever it was. It was money and experience.

 

I worked a number of rock videos, one rap video with a known crack dealer, lots of corporate stuff about health care progams for employees, ride share, or why Safeway and other big chains should buy company-X's canned food. Even a few low budget projects. None of it was high art, but I worked on something, and I didn't mind the work.

 

The one thing I don't want to shoot is porn, even though SF and Pasadena are (or were) the two big hubs in America for the industry. I kind of draw the line there, but I have to admit that I did consider it last year when things were tight financially...but I never did (thank goodness).

 

The other thing is that you have to make your own opportunities too. I've been trying to make some art by taking advantage of the Bay area's natural beauty for a small five minute period piece. That fell through, so it's onto something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Please don't associate my living in Pasadena with the industry. . . . Though it supposedly worked for Wally Pfister.

 

I too have done quite a few shoots which are nowhere near high art (such as "thinking putty," which was just silly putty with other stuff in it, as well as countless music videos and infomercials and cooking shows. High art, no. But you learn some things you can apply later on. Especially when you're working without the appropriate budget)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Christopher Sheneman

Actually I don't, but thanks for the good wishes.

 

Best of luck to you too, doing... what is it you do again?

 

Stuart, just apologize for calling me an internet troll and I will do likewise for calling you a camerawhoreman and we can be friends again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

It really depends on the stage your career is at and it works best if you know the people involved.

 

That's very true. I started off by working for free. One of the first things I ever did was haul set pieces from "Inner Space" to the Colma dump. I did the same with some model pieces for "The Running Man" from some place called Colossal Studios (it's where portions of the luge miniature were shot). All done for free by me. That's what you do when you're starting out, and that's what I did.

 

But the lady in question called me like five years into my career, and where things were tight, and there were some family issues going on, I just couldn't bring myself to do it unless it was something I really wanted to work on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...