My first premiere was a smashing successs!

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: Greyd
No offense dude - but the movies werent that great.

Let me be a little more constructive.

1) Acting is not the greatest. Includes voiceovers for "Fisted."

2) I like the "twists" but they are not developed enough or as "clever" as they could be. Kinda like the movie the Cube. Interesting movie with interesting twists,etc - but just missed the target.

3) All black and white can be overused.

If you want to get better and make great movies you need ot be able to take criticism and use it effectively to shape yourself.

 

[EyeMWing]

Interesting from a technical aspect. There were quite a few shots I've never seen done before. Content wise there's not much to comment on.

And I understand that you probably edited this on a mac, but please, dear god, don't distribute in freaking Quicktime.

 

[pulse8]

WTF is everyone's problem with quicktime? It's a great format. Ever seen the trailers in this format? They are great looking.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: pulse8
WTF is everyone's problem with quicktime? It's a great format. Ever seen the trailers in this format? They are great looking.

The fact that it is overall a more inefficient format. I've done significant testing and MPEG4 Quicktime (Which this is not) and MPEG4 DivX/XViD yield the best looking results for the least space. MPEG2 is more efficient than non-MPEG4 Quicktime.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: pulse8
WTF is everyone's problem with quicktime? It's a great format. Ever seen the trailers in this format? They are great looking.

The fact that it is overall a more inefficient format. I've done significant testing and MPEG4 Quicktime (Which this is not) and MPEG4 DivX/XViD yield the best looking results for the least space. MPEG2 is more efficient than non-MPEG4 Quicktime.

So you are aware that there are difference codecs for Quicktime? And that the standard Quicktime codec, Sorenson3, will yield fantastic results that just about any moron with a computer can view? (Unlike DivX/XViD) I don't disagree that it may not be the most space effecient codec, but it's definitely one of the better widely used codecs.

Also, mpeg2 is not a format designed for internet use so it isn't even relevant to this.

 

[rezinn]

Originally posted by: welst10
Don't mean to crap your thread, but I find this short film better in many ways.

I downloaded this and watched it twice and my download of the swallow one isnt even 1/4 done yet.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: pulse8
WTF is everyone's problem with quicktime? It's a great format. Ever seen the trailers in this format? They are great looking.

The fact that it is overall a more inefficient format. I've done significant testing and MPEG4 Quicktime (Which this is not) and MPEG4 DivX/XViD yield the best looking results for the least space. MPEG2 is more efficient than non-MPEG4 Quicktime.

So you are aware that there are difference codecs for Quicktime? And that the standard Quicktime codec, Sorenson3, will yield fantastic results that just about any moron with a computer can view? (Unlike DivX/XViD) I don't disagree that it may not be the most space effecient codec, but it's definitely one of the better widely used codecs.

Also, mpeg2 is not a format designed for internet use so it isn't even relevant to this.

Well, did you USE sorenson ($89 @ the store) ?! Using quicktime =! sorenson!


Anyways,


As for your film, I really did not enjoy it. The voiceovers are absolutely terrible (unbelieveable), the acting/movements are quite crude (unrealistic), the lighting throughout all the films is absolutely wretched (too bright and wrong lighting for each scene....try to use bolder hues), and finally, the topic is the worst part of all. The film in no way attempts to do anything other than protray the Loraina Bobbit incodent of the 90s.

Create a plot, fix the errors that need fixing, smoke a few joints this time, film it, and come back.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Well, did you USE sorenson ($89 @ the store) ?! Using quicktime =! sorenson!

It's not my film and I didn't make the Quicktime. I'm well aware that quicktime doesn't equal sorenson, but sorenson is a standard codec with quicktime and it's also probably the most widely use quicktime codec.

That said you can encode sorenson files with the standard version that comes with the free version of quicktime. You don't have to buy it in the store.

I just think it's stupid how all these people are putting down a perfectly fine format. (Although, the encoding done in this thread sucks.)

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: rezinn

Originally posted by: welst10
Don't mean to crap your thread, but I find this short film better in many ways.

I downloaded this and watched it twice and my download of the swallow one isnt even 1/4 done yet.

That starwars thing is "Epic"


back to the OP....


Basically, that film clearly identifies itsself for what it is...a shictk value film. If you are interested in keeping the audience out of the loop, then make sure your film effectively mirrors emotions such as discovery and shock due to suspense.

I feel that you concentrated on shock value over making a good film. I see no suspense.


For example, what is the point of showing the knife rack as you have done? Are we the idiotic faction of the population that expects EVERY detail to be maticulously explained to us?! Perhaps show the knife with a knife missing or ....well, I've said enough.

Challange your viewers that much more and you will reap that much more in praise


good luck.

 

[rezinn]

Now that it finally finished, I have to say it was pretty well done. Some of the acting sucked, though.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: pulse8
WTF is everyone's problem with quicktime? It's a great format. Ever seen the trailers in this format? They are great looking.

The fact that it is overall a more inefficient format. I've done significant testing and MPEG4 Quicktime (Which this is not) and MPEG4 DivX/XViD yield the best looking results for the least space. MPEG2 is more efficient than non-MPEG4 Quicktime.

So you are aware that there are difference codecs for Quicktime? And that the standard Quicktime codec, Sorenson3, will yield fantastic results that just about any moron with a computer can view? (Unlike DivX/XViD) I don't disagree that it may not be the most space effecient codec, but it's definitely one of the better widely used codecs.

Also, mpeg2 is not a format designed for internet use so it isn't even relevant to this.

I see more customer boxen with DivX installed than with Quicktime installed. Maybe it's a sign of the times. Maybe it's a sign that Apple spends way too much time trying to sell you Quicktime Pro when you're trying to download the shit. I don't know.