Xixax Film Forum

This Spring, I'll be shooting my "real" movie.  By which I mean that this is my first honest attempt at making a great short film that I'll be taking to as many film festivals as possible.  There's about $10,000 put into this movie (mostly equipment).  My "practice" technical run-through movie was Poof!, for those who may have seen it.  Uh, this next movie is nothing like that.

What Poof! showed that I could do is make a film that didn't have the standard awkward pacing, terrible sound, and ugly, cheap photography that has become synonymous with short, independent films.  Poof! looks and sounds pretty good, which was my only main concern while making it.  That movie barely had a screenplay, but still managed to become fairly popular among those who've seen it.  If you're interested in seeing it, AIM me and I can send it in a Quicktime MP4 file (33 MB, 10 mins).

This next movie has a screenplay, and will definitely be made.  It will look and sound better than Poof! because I have much better equipment now, as well as much more practice and a more solid crew.   The screenplay is in its fifth draft, with the tentative title of Thomas Edison (it's... not about Edison, if you were wondering, but the name ties into the movie).

I need your help, fellow Xixaxers.  Please PM or AIM me for the screenplay--24 pages long--and give your thoughts.  I want to make this the best movie that I can, and no one knows movies better than this group.  Criticize it as harshly as you'd like, and hold it to high standards, because only that will help me in making it as solid an effort as I want it to be.

I will not be cutting corners or glossing through the important parts of the filmmaking process.  This won't be a quick run-and-gun shoot.  We'll be taking our time and getting it right.

This is a dramatic short film about a serious situation--a death--in the middle of nowhere that unleashes hidden thoughts, buried emotions, and tough questions between two people.  It's a character study with the central philsophical question: "If Edison had killed somebody when he was eighteen and had never gotten the chance to become Thomas Edison because he was imprisoned, and the person that died wasn't going to make anything of himself anyway, so that the world was robbed of both that dead 'nobody' as well as Thomas Edison, what would be the greater loss?  The loss of life or the loss of a man's chance to contribute greatly to science and society?"

Please please PLEASE help me out here.  I think I have a pretty good screenplay here, but I'd do as much as I have to to make it better.  I can't post the screenplay on here because I don't want random people skimming through it--I need people who are seriously willing to help to read it.  Please PM or AIM me for the script.  Thank you.

EDIT:  Available in Word Doc file or PDF.  Indicate your preference, please.  (Thanks Kotte)

Oh right, and you can also ask for it by replying to the thread.  Actually, that's probably better because it'll keep the thread alive.

Also, the thoughts on and suggestions for the movie should go in here, too.

Thanks!

Send away

SPOILER

I'll be 100% honest. Anything else would be a waste.

I really like what you're saying with the story. It asks the questions I'm dealing with myself.

The danger here is the trap of pretentiousness. They're 18 years old. I'd be much more interested in seeing this if they were 20 years older. I don't really believe what Alex is saying (see Dawsons Creek).

I feel there's way too much dialogue. I'm confident you can cut at least 30 or 40 per cent with a heavy re-write.
If you feel there's nothing to cut it would work alot better as a Stageplay than a Screenplay.

When Paul woke up I was so hoping Alex would come to the conclusion that Nicole would serve him better dead. Paul coughs. Nicole is about to tell Alex. Alex, from 10 feet away throws a big rock in her head. She dies. Alex notice Paul's not dead. I would have enjoyed the irony.

The story's important here so I tried not to think about formatting too much but there are some errors.

'We see', 'we hear' is not a good thing to write.
Instead of 'she is playing' you should write 'she plays'
Questions in the action is not a good way to deliver a character's thoughts. Never write stuff into a screenplay that cannot be shown on screen.
You refer to the movie once '...since the start of the movie'. Not a good idea.

You're directing it so formatting doesn't matter too much but If you ever intend to bring in people other than friends or sell it, formatting is very very important. If you can afford it, get Final Draft. It kills. I love it. You never have to think about formatting again.

The film falls into melodrama quite a bit which is totally fine but I've learned amateur actor handle this poorly. I'm mainly thinking about how Nicole cries over Paul's body and how she runs her hands over him. This is very very hard for an actor to pull off believably (even Naomi Watts misses a few beats in 21 grams). Keep it as subtle as possible.

Directing advice. Instead of having them look straight into the camera catch it from another angle or have them look just outside the frame. Straight into camera shots are old and a bit gimmicky.

These are my two cents. God, I hope you see these things as my opinion not as rules or anything. I really enjoye what you're saying with the story.

Good luck!!

I should say I agree with everything kotte said.  He's the man, he seems to know what he's talking about here.

If anything, you've overwritten this script a great deal.  That's not a negative comment, but it says something about what can be put on the screen.  Only write what you can show.  Too much description just fills the page, and will get you into a hole.  Since you're shooting this yourself, it doesn't matter TOO much, but this is stuff you should be telling the actors in your directions to them.

If you haven't, read Boogie Nights (the deleted scenes on www.ptanderson.com are really good, too), and listen to the Boogie Nights commentaries.  Hard Eight, too.  Read the Magnolia screenplay, and listen to the secret commentary.  It's accessed the similarly to the Pulp Fiction one, except you need jelly.  Apple works best.  It's a bit of a cliche here but I can't think of any other source that's been so helpful for me (maybe others can).

In the first Boogie Nights commentary, PTA talks about working with Macy, and how he sticks to the script verbatim.  Also, how he is able to write something like "Beat." in a certain context, that, because of that context it conveys PARAGRAPHS of information.  You need to condense this, and use action words, instead of passive verbs.  Each paragraph should be as short as it should be.  No needless elaboration, the main idea, and maybe a couple sentences more.  People don't like reading big blocks of text.  I realize you wrote this for yourself, so it isn't much of a concern now.  But it will be.

Page 2, for example, was a bit hard to get through because of its repetition.  You go to great extents to describe everything about what Nicole is feeling, when a few lines, and some apt direction would have sufficed and made it easier to read.

A screenplay is your blueprint, your architecture.  Like kotte said, again, thoughts, questions, these things don't work here.  Condense it.  Pick up The Screenwriter's Bible by David Trottier.  It seems you have a general grasp of format, but that book, and Final Draft, will go a long way to solidifying all of that.

Dialogue is/should be very telling.  Page 12, "Nicole shakes her head with disappointment."  Period.  The end.  None of the rest of the paragraph is necessary.  All that is implied, and the dialogue, if well-written, will carry it.  The actors will pick up on that.

Page 17 is the heart of the script, where things start to get interesting.  I wish you would've gotten there sooner.  Trimming the script will help that a great deal, but also, remembering that this is a visual media will help even more.  Write what can be shown, without using "We see" or anything like that.

Another example:

NICOLE: Now you're comparing yourself to Thomas Edison?
(Actions...)
ALEX: No!

Delete those actions in-between.  They are more internal and are all implied anyway.

"Nicole truly loves God, and Alex truly despises the idea of God."...  Again, it's obvious from the dialogue, which, really is a good thing.  So that can be deleted.

ALEX: Seatbelt.

Again, you can delete most stuff that comes after that.  It's implied, so that part is well-written, just overwritten.

Keep looking for passages like this to trim as much as you can.  Good luck.  Break a leg.

I'd like to read it.

I would also like to read it.

me too - if you could email it to planet_schmanet_@hotmail.com that'd be great.

Me too, although I may not be too speedy in my feedback -- you can send a Word file to davidpatricklowery@gmail.com

I'll do my best.
You can either AIM me or email me.

I'm going to write reactions as I read the script...


Nicole sees this and she snaps her venomous fangs at Alex, as a mother snake would protect her eggs from harm.

NICOLE: STAY AWAY!

Is Nicole turning into a hysterical witch stereotype?

NICOLE: get away from us...

Great line... revealing... I think it works...

I think you're going to need a lot of music for this scene... that or some very interesting silence... because it feels very brooding and delicate, like In the Bedroom or something. All this introspection and dread could be a complete disaster or a great success. I think you could do a lot with the blood... when/where it gets on Nicole's face, if Alex has any on him, stuff like that...

Nicole lifts her head out from Paul's shoulder.  Only through her face do we see the weight of her loss.

You're going to be so dependent on actors for this scene to work. I hope you have some one good for Nicole.

Suddenly, a small mud clump hits Alex in the back and bursts apart.  He immediately snaps out of his trance and turns his head to look at Nicole, whom he knows threw the clump.

Nicole is standing, also worn out.  She's looking right at Alex, clearly trying to pick a fight.

Alex turns back to face away from Nicole, trying to ignore her.  He attempts to return to his thoughts.

I love this moment. It's so funny and so tragic at the same time. It's like Nicole is back on the playground. Is that the only way she knows how to deal with this?

NICOLE: God, Alex.  You should be in more pain.

I don't understand where this is going. Why is Nicole focusing on Alex's emotional depth? She's not over Paul's death yet. To be honest, it seems like the screenwriter isn't sure why his character isn't in more pain.

ALEX: I know you, Nicole.  You're a stupid girl, living in your own little bubble.  You think what people tell you to think, and you have no ideas of your own and I'm asking: why should I care what you think when your ideas aren't your own?

NICOLE: Why are you talking about me?

This is awkward. Maybe you could simplify this. I'm starting to turn against Alex because I don't have any evidence to support what he's saying. And Nicole's indirect reaction makes it more awkward.

ALEX: Because you're mindless and you don't appreciate things.  You drift from phase to phase, fad to fad, whatever's popular and you've got no real center, no ideas of your own, nothing to contribute.  You don't think I realize that I was just a phase?

The connection between her unoriginality and his being deceived is a little tenuous at this point. I don't get it. It seems like Alex is rambling, and I may lose interest in his argument soon if he doesn't make a coherent point.

I'm not sure this dialogue approach is working. You seem to have constrained yourself to one setting and one time for a purpose... Is it this dialogue? I think you could open up to a more visual approach to express what you're trying to say, but maybe you'd have to break up your story chronologically. Cause right now it's pretty hard to believe they're having a self-interested life philosophy conversation. I'm not sure the transition between thinking about the dead guy to thinking about their own futures was convincing enough. Maybe a few days need to pass.

Also, I think you've taken Alex's side, but I definitely haven't. There's not enough to go on.

ALEX: Well... some people are just... more important than others.

Well, I guess I take back that last point. Did you intentionally weaken Alex's argument so you can break it down now, or were you really on his side before?

NICOLE: You're wrong.  If you don't see how hard God is working, then I feel sorry for you.

I think the God talk has gone on too long at this point. Maybe you could trim down some of the dialogue. Make it shorter. I have a hard time believing that they're not interrupting each other more.

Alex gets into the driver's seat and Nicole into the passenger's seat.

Wouldn't she get in the back seat with Paul?

I loved the twist. I would almost say it would make more sense for Paul to stand up where he was lying in the woods and come up behind them when they're having their God conversation. It would deprive us of the great car scene, but it would get rid of the action between (which I didn't like), and it would be a more visual way of discovering that he's alive. It would be an even more surprising finisher (for the audience).

Also, I disagree with this...

Quote from: kotteDirecting advice. Instead of having them look straight into the camera catch it from another angle or have them look just outside the frame. Straight into camera shots are old and a bit gimmicky.

I think you should go for the direct shot. It's perfect for your story. And maybe you could end with a shot of Paul looking right into the camera.

Thanks guys.  Great help so far.  Most of these comments are definitely in my mind and a lot of changes will be made.  Mostly the dialogue will be changed.  Hopefully I can make it more realistic.  I don't feel it's beyond their age (I'm 19, and I wrote it.  These words could definitely come out of their mouths), but a lot of it is beyond their abilities at this very moment after such an event.

I'm also rewriting it in actual screenplay format, removing the excess description (I was writing out the description more like a short story for those who don't normally read screenplays, but Xixaxers are much more sensitive to that, and I agree that it would be better if made sparser).

But I agree on a lot of the key criticisms that many of you have, and so the next draft should be much stronger, and should better for the both of us.

I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm glad you left all the descriptive, prosaic stuff in -- normally, I jump all over that, as Kotte and Ono did, but I won't for two reasons:

1.) You're directing it yourself, so yeah, it's not that big of a deal.
2.) In being so descriptive, you've demonstrated that you know EXACTLY how to direct this. You've described the perfect approach for the material, and had you left it out, I would have been unsure as to how you were going to handle it; I would have written a much more critical response, full of warnings. But thanks to your excessive breaking of screenwriting rules, I think I can safely say that you have the blueprint for a pretty amazing short.

And since you seem to have such an astute concept of how to make this film work, the only risk you face is with the actors, who are going to have to be top notch.

I think some of the dialogue could be cut, but I'd also consider waiting until you begin rehearsals to settle on a finalized draft. Work it out with the cast, and make it sound realistic. Stuff that sounds excessively wordy on the page can work fine when performed well, and vise versa.

I don't think it's similar to Dawson's Creek at all. The characters are smart, but they're not pretentiously so. The dialogue in this is closer to something in I Heart Huckabees, actually. That they get in such a heated philosophical conversation is the only thing that is perhaps a little unrealistic, but that's the point of the film, and in that context it works fine.

A few more notes:

I disagree with Kotte on the ending; the lack of irony is a beautiful thing. Don't change a word of it.

I too liked the clump of dirt thing that JB mentioned.

I don't think you should use any music. Just natural sound FX, like wind blowing, crickets, stuff like that. It'll be far more evocative (and Bergman-esque!) that way.

The repetition of 'Give Them Their Space' was the point when I realized you knew exactly what you were doing, and when I realized this piece had the potential to be brilliant. All in all, your descriptive passages are very well written and communicate with clarity - something that's important for actors.

I loved the Space-man Thing dialogue, although I'd cut out the line later on where he explicitly references exploring deep space.

I'm rendering some massive files at the moment and my keyboard is sluggish as a result, so I'll stop typing here and just say: make sure your cast is perfect, and I look forward very much to seeing the finished film (and, if you post rough cuts for feedback, commenting on those as well).

I really want to make this a great movie, and I want to take my time with it.  I've pushed the shooting back to Summer (instead of Spring) to be able to focus completely on it (without worrying about school and that junk).  From now till then, I'll be working on the screenplay and doing as much of the pre-production as I can fit in.  But mainly this extra time will help me to gather my thoughts more, let it live in me for a bit more.

As I was writing it, I definitely realized that I would need very solid actors.  I'm not going to just be casting friends, so don't worry about that.  I realize that if the actors are bad, the movie won't work.  Trust me, I won't make this movie with actors that I don't believe could do it well.  I'll push the production back further if I have to.  Just know that when I do make this movie (and I definitely will), I'll be prepared to make it the best movie it can be and that I can make.  I've made several quick movies, but I'm at the stage where I'm ready to put my all into a movie with which I feel I can be truly judged as a filmmaker with.

Thanks a lot, everybody.  Every evaluation and comment and suggestion is driving and inspiring me more, and I appreciate it very much.

I'm with Ghostboy, I believe you can make this a good short. There are different ways you can read and appreciate a script.

Take what you want from my comments but I so want it the characters to be older, much older. That would set it apart right away...

there's not really anything that i can say that hasn't already been  said. I liked what you were saying with the script. But i feel that you need to make the transition from hysterical to phylisophical a little more smooth, other than that, great job!

kotte, why do you feel the characters should be older?

Quote from: mehicophylisophical

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nutmusic.com%2Falzo%2Fimages%2Fphyllis_diller.jpg&hash=9bcb9ad8cb7f61c623c0dcd491fc6d587aaf2f5e)

Quote from: mehicokotte, why do you feel the characters should be older?

I don't know. When I envision them as 18 I see over-acting, under-educated, wanna-be Sean Penn with a touch of Del Toro and a bit of Pacino.
But seriously, after reading it a second time I got a sense of how much more fascinating they would be with a few years and a bit of life under their belt.
And I've seen too many shorts with too many hysterical teens...

cinephile: ahem, sorry i meant to put fyllasoficul, my bad.

kotte: good call. but i feel it would really depend on the casting. For some reason i really can't picture it in my head with anyone older and alot of the dilaogue seems very 'teen-angst'

Quote from: mehicocinephile: ahem, sorry i meant to put fyllasoficul, my bad.

I meant to say "file-a-booster."  My bad.

Quote from: mehicofyllasoficul

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nutmusic.com%2Falzo%2Fimages%2Fphyllis_diller.jpg&hash=9bcb9ad8cb7f61c623c0dcd491fc6d587aaf2f5e)

I hate it when actresses wanna be Al Pacino.

i hate it when actresses try and be vin diesel.

AN UPDATE:

This movie is starting to get into official pre-production (not counting the screenplay).  I'm starting to hire crew and planning out how to practically execute things.

I am currently re-writing the screenplay.  This will be the last written draft before auditions (which will be in a month and a half).  After that, I'm sure there will be a few more changes, but they won't be written.

I've been letting the movie live in my head for the past few months, just letting things develop in there as I take in comments to this fifth draft that you guys read here.  I'm very excited because I believe that I've got a lot of really great ideas that will help take it from a B-level script to an A-level script.  I'm going to make a lot of changes that I think will take care of a lot of the concerns that the readers have had, as well as please me more.  So in a few weeks, I should have a brand new draft that I really think will be a 100% improvement over the last draft.

Everything is on schedule for shooting in mid-July.

Here's the new, sixth draft of Thomas Edison:  [LINK REMOVED because it's an old draft]

I lied--this won't be the last written draft, but it's close to it.

I'm looking for really heavy criticism of it.  I do believe that it has been much improved upon, it's much, much easier to read, but I know it's still not perfect.  I know you guys can help.  I'm relying on Xixax a lot and am giving it (along with the individuals who help out by reading and commenting on the script) a big thanks in the credits because I know that there's no group (that I have access to, anyway, heh) who knows more about movies than this one.

I've hired four crew members (four people that I'd trust with my life), and at the current stage, all we do is get together and tear into the script, so I am certainly used to criticism and I never take it personally, so please be hypercritical of it!

Nothing is too small or too big to point out, whether it's positive or negative.  Tell me everything.  Even if you truly think that the entire premise is terrible and should never be made into a movie, make sure that I know that.

Remember, I'm looking to make it a great movie, not just a decent one.  Help me do that, please!

At the end of your comments, I'd also like the letter grade that you'd give this draft, as well as the grade for the potential of the final movie, given a lot of work and good execution (It helps to know that I'm not wasting everybody's time if I know that we're working on a potentially fantastic film).

Thanks a bunch!

dude your sig is doing coke:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyberfilmschool.com%2Fmschool%2Fpics%2Fsneeze.gif&hash=e7ec6144e7ab4e778a726c958d1d32bb0a6aa762)

FINAL DRAFT (http://www.geocities.com/matt35mm/ThomasEdison-Final.pdf)--Click To Download (PDF File, 21 pages)

There will be more changes that evolve naturally during the rehearsals and production, I'm sure, but this will be the final written draft.  If you'd like to read it, I'd love to hear your thoughts.  Like I said, there's room for change, so don't be afraid to give any input or tell me what areas may need some tweaking.  Everything helps.

Audition applications begin this week.  Actors apply, I send them the script and info about the production.  In about three weeks, the auditions will actually take place.  Things are on track and going well for this movie--I'm doing a surprisingly good job as a producer so far, it seems.

What I said before pretty much stands but you did a good job revising and reformatting. Though to be frank I'm not even sure I know anything about formatting anymore (Kill Bill littered with 'we see...' etc).

with very good actors (you'll need very good actors to pull it off) this can be really good. Your script is something that, handled poorly, will fall a long way flat on its face.
Take you time with casting!!

And Good Luck!

PS. Keep us posted...

Quote from: kottewith very good actors (you'll need very good actors to pull it off) this can be really good. Your script is something that, handled poorly, will fall a long way flat on its face.
Take you time with casting!!

Oh trust me, I know.  You don't know how much time and effort I'm putting into casting (and everything else).  And no one knows better than I do how precarious the whole thing is--but I DO have very solid confidence in myself as a director, so I'm feeling good about it all.  But don't worry--no shortcuts on this movie.  I simply would not make this with actors that I feel would crap it up, or do anything that would crap this up.

That's why I feel that I'm doing a pretty good job as a producer, because I'm building the most solid foundation that I possibly can to make this film on.  Like I said--no shortcuts.  I'm doing everything that I can to guard against all of the things that could crap this up.  I am going for broke--nothing less than the best we can do.

Thanks, Kotte!  Everything helps.

i only skimmed over the previous comments so i'm not really sure if i'm bringing up things that have already been brought up.

the dialogue in and around page 8 seemed a little off to me.  i like the fact that it is never revealed what exactly happened (by that i mean the actual events) to paul, but you are clearly going out of your way here to not mention anything.  i'm not saying you should spell things out here but i think maybe there could be, maybe some small revelation of something concrete.  ok i really lost my train of thought and i'm not sure if any of that made any sense. it's kind of a small detail.

i liked the end, but if it were me making it i might consider ending it a tad earlier. like maybe with the three-shot and nicole putting on her seatbelt. i'm not really sure why exactly, but it feels more right to me to not have alex notice that paul is awake.

anyway, i think it'll turn out great.  good luck.

Quotei only skimmed over the previous comments so i'm not really sure if i'm bringing up things that have already been brought up.
 
the dialogue in and around page 8 seemed a little off to me.  i like the fact that it is never revealed what exactly happened (by that i mean the actual events) to paul, but you are clearly going out of your way here to not mention anything.  i'm not saying you should spell things out here but i think maybe there could be, maybe some small revelation of something concrete.  ok i really lost my train of thought and i'm not sure if any of that made any sense. it's kind of a small detail.
 
i liked the end, but if it were me making it i might consider ending it a tad earlier. like maybe with the three-shot and nicole putting on her seatbelt. i'm not really sure why exactly, but it feels more right to me to not have alex notice that paul is awake.
 
anyway, i think it'll turn out great.  good luck.

I'll think more about that section around page 8.  I didn't intend to go out of my way not to reveal what happened (and I do know what happened, I did develop that part), but I'll look into how I can make it come off more naturally.

The ending, however, will probably stay the same.  I get what you're saying, though.  Obviously, however, Alex would see Paul as soon as he looks in the mirror (he wouldn't drive for a long distance without seeing him), and it's a moment that I quite like, and I like the final shot as it is in my head.  Of course, if I discover otherwise in the editing room, it wouldn't be difficult to cut to black a bit earlier.

Thank you very much for reading it.  I keep saying everything helps, and it's true.  All of these comments will certainly be in my mind as production goes on.

And since this is a new page, I'd like to add the link to the screenplay again:

FINAL DRAFT (http://www.geocities.com/matt35mm/ThomasEdison-Final.pdf)--Click To Download (PDF File, 21 pages)

Please read it and comment.  Thank you all very much.

i think your ending works fine, that's just how i think i would do it if it were my film.

It has come to my attention that W. K. Dickson, not Thomas Edison, shot that "Sneeze" film that I had as my signature for a while.  I was horribly misinformed.  Dickson worked for Edison, and was the real driving force for the motion picture camera, which I think Edison saw as an mildly-interesting accompaniment to the phonograph.

So anyway, that explains why good ol' Fred Ott's not in my signature anymore.

And I would still like some more comments on the screenplay from anyone who has read it or has thought about reading it.

Thanks!

I've just been storyboarding and organizing a few things here and there, and it's still coming along pretty well.  I have some pretty nice sequences drawn out for it.

First six pages of the storyboard for the opening.

The pictures are big, so I'll just link you to them, but I'd really like for you all to check them out and tell me how it's playing out so far.  The notes I've written aren't super clear, so I'll write them out here below the link.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg65.echo.cx%2Fimg65%2F2694%2Fopeningsequencepage14li.th.jpg&hash=fc075c85f42f9880f7bc1db627b5f1bfcf559988) (http://img65.echo.cx/img65/2694/openingsequencepage14li.jpg)
WRITTEN:
#1: LOW ANGLE: First shot.  HOLD for a long time.
Rustling is heard.
SAME SHOT CARRIES INTO...

#2: Alex turns his head back.
CUT TO:

#3: Nicole gets up and runs...  SLIGHTLY HIGH ANGLE, DOLLY IN
SAME SHOT CARRIES INTO...

#4: ... runs past CAMERA.
CUT TO:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg65.echo.cx%2Fimg65%2F7175%2Fopeningsequencepage27ob.th.jpg&hash=510f75184ab0c7bab896519a05da97c91d24231d) (http://img65.echo.cx/img65/7175/openingsequencepage27ob.jpg)
WRITTEN:
#5: No big reaction.  TIGHT CU on eyes.
SAME SHOT CARRIES INTO...

#6: CAMERA PANS LEFT AND TILTS DOWN as Alex turns his head slowly back down to see...
SAME SHOT CARRIES INTO...

#7:  Paul.
CUT TO:

#8:  POSSIBLY CLOSER, BUT STILL WIDE-ISH.  Nicole runs up and shoves Alex down.
CUT TO:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg65.echo.cx%2Fimg65%2F6243%2Fopeningsequencepage33ua.th.jpg&hash=9b796bdb3670582a61e0a9490d53880717509c62) (http://img65.echo.cx/img65/6243/openingsequencepage33ua.jpg)
WRITTEN:
#9: Paul's not moving.
CUT TO:

#10 HIGH ANGLE.  Nicole's hands all around Paul.  Touching all over in a hyperaware state.  Paul's not moving still.
CUT TO:

#11:  ... reality begins to sink in...

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg65.echo.cx%2Fimg65%2F2809%2Fopeningsequencepage47ov.th.jpg&hash=10e9103b11350598e4f6c18afde53e909154237d) (http://img65.echo.cx/img65/2809/openingsequencepage47ov.jpg)
WRITTEN:

#12: STRAIGHT ON CU-TIGHT.  Reality sinks in.
CUT TO:

#13 Nicole lets her head fall onto Paul's stomach.  HOLD, then very slowly DOLLY OUT...
SAME SHOT CARRIES INTO...

#14 ... DOLLY OUT to back of Alex's head.  Alex is watching quietly.
CUT TO:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg65.echo.cx%2Fimg65%2F7379%2Fopeningsequencepage53tg.th.jpg&hash=bdf2e1fe2df519685c8d88a5b14a13120a08ce43) (http://img65.echo.cx/img65/7379/openingsequencepage53tg.jpg)
WRITTEN:

#15: Alex looking at Paul and Nicole.
SAME SHOT CARRIES TO:

#16: TILT UP AND PAN RIGHT, following Alex as he stands up and steps backwards away from Paul and Nicole.  HOLD.
CUT TO:

#17 (directly below #16): Paul is still not moving.
Then CUT TO:

#18 (not drawn): A CU of Alex looking from Paul to Nicole.
Then CUT TO:

#19 (bottom left): Nicole is crying with a lot of effort.  No tears.
CUT TO:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg65.echo.cx%2Fimg65%2F5149%2Fopeningsequencepage66cx.th.jpg&hash=c7e853f0949a4a903d7a77e629cb7051ce9e487a) (http://img65.echo.cx/img65/5149/openingsequencepage66cx.jpg)
WRITTEN:

#20:  Alex watches silently.
CUT TO:

#21: OVER NICOLE'S SHOULDER.  She touches Paul's face, nose, lips.  Then reaches to the back of Paul's head.
CUT TO:

#22: INSERT-NICOLE'S POV.  Her hand returns with some blood, then goes back to fix Paul's hair gently.
CUT TO:

#23: Nicole lifts Paul into this position as Alex silently watches.  Some blood gets on Nicole.

THAT IS ALL SO FAR.

Let me know how it's playing out so far.

Quote from: matt35mmFirst six pages of the storyboard for the opening.


Let me know how it's playing out so far.

The actor playing Alex seems to be a bit lost in this role...his performance is scattered and he falls emotionally flat in some key opening moments...conversely, the young girl playing Nicole is way over the top...the overacting probably due to her inexperience, insecurity, or whatever else fucks up novice kids tackling heavy material...the boy playing paul is spot on though...he plays dead very well...i couldnt see him breathe or anything...nice job there

all in fun, matt...all in fun

hey, didnt the clippers come from san diego?  they almost made the playoffs...

shoot for the stars

I loved the script. But when I think about it playing as a short film, it may turn into an entirely different beast based on performances.

Alex shouldn't be emotional at all. This is a character that exists in his head. He's even convinced himself that he's not responsible, and worse, he doesn't really care if he is responsible. I think he's a person who's never "in the moment" -- just lost in his delusions of grandeur. His non-emotion would work in perfect contrast to Nicole's emotion. I'm thinking of Kevin Spacey or Edward Norton at their coldest opposite an emotional Julianne Moore.

If you go with this route, Alex isn't sympathetic at all, but he has the most to say. Almost like a villain monologue-ing.

I'd flesh Nicole out some more in some ways. She's acting as an audience to Alex as the centerpiece. Nicole is critical. She's the only trigger to his emotions and probably the "cause" of this whole debacle. But she doesn't seem to be nearly as developed as Alex is.

The drama surrounding the question of Thomas Edison can't be weak, because that question is so strong it can easily overwhelm everything else.

And I like Gold Trumpet's ending, which is a very interesting way to end this -- but depending on how it's handled, may come off funny. Either way, the ending has to be just right or it may come off as "twist!" It definitely ends with a pop rather than a fizzle, though.

Quote from: MeatballAnd I like Gold Trumpet's ending, which is a very interesting way to end this -- but depending on how it's handled, may come off funny. Either way, the ending has to be just right or it may come off as "twist!" It definitely ends with a pop rather than a fizzle, though.

What is Gold Trumpet's idea for the ending?  I can't find it on here.

Sorry, I meant Jeremy Blackman. :shock: The reveal of Paul being alive while the tension is still up and they're in the woods seems to work really well. The audience is still squirming in their seats. When they're already in the car and are about to drive off, I think the audience would feel a bit more relaxed because Alex and Nicole have already come to a mutual decision.

while ending in the woods would certainly be more dynamic, i like that it ends in the car. i like that little moment between the two of them.

If I was casting: Alex is the Thomas Edison question, in a way, the actor gets it and he nails it. The actress who plays Nicole has to make the drama real. It's like a balancing act, in my opinion. She's the anchor, he's the kite. I don't know.

:saywhat:

I'm almost thinking Bill saying "Do you think I'm sadistic?" in such a calm, sadistic way while Beatrix is bleeding in her wedding dress on the floor of the chapel-kind of dynamic.

Yes, there should be some dynamic stuff between the two characters.  It will be quite a balancing act, I agree.

The ending, however, will not be changed.  The ending is not intended to be shocking, nor is it really much of a twist.  It should almost feel like the natural sequence of events.  It will be pretty low-key.

Paul's awakening does not really mean anything to the movie--it's the reaction to that from the two characters that I'm interested in, and that moment that it gives them in the car.

My crew and I will be shooting, I think, a joke alternate ending for the DVD, however, where Paul and Alex start laughing and say, "We got you good, Nicole!"

And the Thomas Edison idea is not really what makes Alex's character.  The question comes out of this guy's philosophy, and the situation and mental state that he is in.  It would not be enough to nail the Edison question.  One would have to nail everything before that and show that idea coming out of all these things from Alex.

As far as atticus jones's concerns go: I am glad that you are concerned.  It shows that you care, that this movie does interest you, and that's excellent.  However, no comments can really be made about the actors until actors are cast.  I will not cast less than incredible actors.  The process of finding those actors, however, is mine to deal with.  This is a learning experience, and one that I don't mind fumbling around in, as long as I end up with good actors.  I might start here, find nothing, and extend my search all the way to LA before I find the right people--and if so, that's fine, because I'll still end up with the right people.  This is my decision, and you're just going to have to trust that I have good enough taste in actors and understanding of acting (I have studied acting a bit, and I've acted a bit on stage and in competition as well) to make the right decisions.  Like I've said before, if I did not have that ability to judge acting talent, then it wouldn't matter where I looked, because I still would've ended up with mediocre actors.  You'll have to take my word for it: I will cast excellent actors.

Anyway, the storyboards?

When I reference "the Thomas Edison question", I'm talking about Alex's obsession with making something of himself... not specifically the situation of T.E. killing a man. Sorry, I realize now that I totally messed up the details.

I got a little overzealous because I really like the script. My mind gets going with ideas of how I would make it. You know best though, man.

Joke alternate ending.  :yabbse-thumbup:

Well, I've acquired the licensing rights to use "No Limit On The Words" by Songs: Ohia (from the album Ghost Tropic) in Thomas Edison.  I'm excited!

I won't know if I'm going to use it until I cut it all together, but it does play out very well in my mind.  I contacted the record company informing them that I was considering using this song, and they checked with Jason Molina, who OK'd it (the company co-owns the rights with the artists), and gave me the license for free.

All they want is two copies of the final product--one for the company archives and one for the artist.  So that means that MAYBE my hero Jason Molina will end up seeing this movie.  That.  Is.  Awesome.

That's the biggest new development.  Everything else is going well and on track.  I'll continue to post more when we start auditions (in May).

this was a really good script, nice job :)

my thoughts

- beginning is going to be a bitch, you want to pull the viewer in without it being cliched... you need them to be IN the situation without building up to it. A long slow fade-in might work
- Are you doing this color or B&W? I can see it either way.
-Although Nicole is definitely the "right" person here, make sure that Alex portrays his view so the audience can sympathize with him a bit (he IS the protagonist right?)
-Rain could be a nice possibility, though blood and daylight contrast nicely too.
-the ending conveyed hope to me a lot, like they'd fought through the storm and everything could be okay. It might be nice to add a bit about what happens to Nicole and Alex (I don't really give a shit about Paul =p), or you could possibly develop their relationship in another short, b/c I'm REALLY interested in them.
-As for the Alex-noticing bit, I think it can be good or bad depending on how it's acted. I think that it's important, just don't overdo the drama. I'd possibly go for a more relieved look? If you(he) pull(s) it off you get a cookie.

Very beautiful.

What setting are you doing? Secluded woodsish? Might be cool to make it look somewhat like the woods in Mean Creek right after they drag his body ashore.

*bravo*

Quote from: Brazoliangethis was a really good script, nice job :)

my thoughts

- beginning is going to be a bitch, you want to pull the viewer in without it being cliched... you need them to be IN the situation without building up to it. A long slow fade-in might work
- Are you doing this color or B&W? I can see it either way.
-Although Nicole is definitely the "right" person here, make sure that Alex portrays his view so the audience can sympathize with him a bit (he IS the protagonist right?)
-Rain could be a nice possibility, though blood and daylight contrast nicely too.
-the ending conveyed hope to me a lot, like they'd fought through the storm and everything could be okay. It might be nice to add a bit about what happens to Nicole and Alex (I don't really give a shit about Paul =p), or you could possibly develop their relationship in another short, b/c I'm REALLY interested in them.
-As for the Alex-noticing bit, I think it can be good or bad depending on how it's acted. I think that it's important, just don't overdo the drama. I'd possibly go for a more relieved look? If you(he) pull(s) it off you get a cookie.

Very beautiful.

What setting are you doing? Secluded woodsish? Might be cool to make it look somewhat like the woods in Mean Creek right after they drag his body ashore.

*bravo*

Thank you.  I'm glad that you enjoyed it.

The opening sequence has been storyboarded up there.  And it will be in color.

I wouldn't say that Nicole is necessarily the "right" person here.  Hopefully there's no real right or wrong in the philosophy.  The action that she wants to take is perhaps the better one (compared to Alex's just wanting to run away from the whole thing), but her reasons for it aren't exactly because she's more mature.  I hope that I have indeed given Alex enough (perhaps more than enough to say).  Neither is the protagonist more than the other.  There are no full character arcs; nobody REALLY learns any lessons.

Alex will probably have just about no expression when he sees Paul in the mirror.  I mean, what could you possibly think when the guy whose death sparked all these drama was looking back at you through the rear-view mirror?  I wouldn't know what to think.

The ending is very open ended.  I did not intend specifically for it to be hopeful, but if that's what you get out of it, that's just fine.  And yes, the setting will be secluded open woods-like.  Not near a creek, though.

Thanks again for reading it.  The movie will be even better, I promise.

yes, sorry for not reading the rest of the thread first, that was pretty stupid

storyboards look good.

I do have to say though, it DID feel like there was resolution, at least to me.. between Alex and Nicole, almost a rekindling of the relationship? but who the fuck am I to judge, it's your movie :) :-D  can't wait to see the finished product

Just reposting the link to the FINAL DRAFT (http://www.geocities.com/matt35mm/ThomasEdison-Final.pdf) here so that no one misses it.  Every reader's comment helps me.  It keeps me conscious of what to be careful about, no matter how small a detail.

And there are storyboards on the previous page.

Thanks guys.  All this has been very helpful.

I finally read the new draft. It's still great, and it's been so long since I read the original version that I didn't really notice the changes, aside from the more subtle screen directions.

I think it's a wonderful script, still, and, like everyone else says, it'll be a brilliant film if you can pull it off. The toughest part will be sustaining the last leg of their conversation, before she goes back over to Paul; finding the right mixture of anger, fear, etc. to keep the context realistic while still allowing this philosphical discussion to take place. I'm sure rehearsals are going to be a real workout.

The only other things I can think of are: be careful about music, and don't be afraid to let things play as long as they need.

Quote from: GhostboyThe only other things I can think of are: be careful about music, and don't be afraid to let things play as long as they need.

I'm definitely not afraid to let things play out.  During rehearsals, dialogue will be stripped away--whatever changes we make, the end result will be less dialogue, because there's still too much, and it's still too neat.

There is no music for the majority of the movie.  Just at the very end there will be a song called "No Limit On The Words" by Songs: Ohia (download it and listen to it--lemme know if you think it works as well as I do).  I've already acquired the license to use it.  Other than that, the soundtrack will mostly be dominated by the quiet natural sounds from the location--tree leaves rustling, birds chirping, and that's about it.

I'm glad you liked it so much.  I really believe that I am a better filmmaker than a writer.  This screenplay was a result of hard work, but it's still perhaps somewhat limited (most of that has to do with the dialogue, I think).  I'm not saying it's bad, but I think it's in the actual filmmaking that I can make it as transcendent as I want it to be.

Thanks a bunch for reading and reviewing it.  Oh, and I'd like to know what you think of the storyboards (on the previous page).  They're only of the beginning sequence.

any chance you can submit this to the xixax dvd if one gets made?

Sure, I'd certainly consider it.

So I've finally casted the two parts.  We're still picking a Paul.

The two actors are pretty great, they get the movie, they get my direction, and I think it's gonna turn out really, really well.  The movie is going in a more poetic (but hopefully not pretentious) and less-is-more direction.  Gonna cut out tons of the dialogue and work with the actors on making new dialogue that still gets across the same points but in a better way.  It's good that they GET the movie, because that's gonna be put to the test when they have to be creatively involved in the re-write, basically.

It's all going tremendously well, everyone.  That's all there is to say about it.

for future reference:

the past tense of "cast" is "cast"

your neglected deference:

so you cast high school students from san diego...

and now you are giving them permission to "make new dialogue" because they capital G E T your script?...


yes indeed, it sounds as if things are going "tremendously well"

poor come on sense:

if they "GET" the script...why the re right? re tore ick ...pull ease know re pligh

ball bustin my friend...go make your movie...i think your idea is groovy

actually was discussing your premise with a deepee last night...will probably be working with him soon and we were shooting the cinematic shit...your dookie came up...

for what its worth

later

Whatever you do, don't allow yourself and your cast and crew to fall into the "gee shucks, we're all making a movie, ain't it great" mentality. We've discussed this before, and I know you hate it. And that's your worst enemy right now. It's cool that everybody is getting your script, but when you're on set, don't let it devolve into a fun loving community event.

Oh God yeah, I know.  I was recently in a stage production where this was the case and the result was a total lack of direction in the shows.  Thanks for the advice.  I won't let this slip into that territory.  I'm a muthafuckin' director--I'll muthafuckin' direct.

And atticus jones... I love you, man.

Any developments? Or is the project shelved because of summer and college?

Quote from: meatballis the project shelved because of summer and college?

or because you handed your life work over to children?

We're in rehearsals.  That's been going on for a while.  It's going very well, I think.  We'll start shooting in mid-August.

College doesn't start until mid-September, so it's not an issue.  I'll be editing up there, but shooting should only take 5-7 days.

I think the situation is fucking perfect for the discussion that takes place.  It makes me jealous, honestly, that you found this moment in the woods to place all the fears of growing up, all the fears of messing up.  You wrote a smart, clever, and ballsy script.  It also hits really close to home for me.

I think it's awesome you're using Songs:  Ohia too.  Molina is your hero?  What do you think of Magnolia Electric Co?  Nevermind we'll just talk about the script.

You've already addressed the issue of dialogue, which would be my nitpick.  There is a chunk of it that comes off as forced and a chunk that comes off as juvenile, but there is also really witty and perceptive dialogue in the midst.  I'd be careful about what you keep and take out though, I think that being a little sloppy will make your characters a little more their age, you know.  Saying the wrong things right is important.

Also, I think the dialogue swells the tension effectively.  Impressively, even.

Quote from: matt35mm

The two actors are pretty great, they get the movie, they get my direction, and I think it's gonna turn out really, really well.  The movie is going in a more poetic (but hopefully not pretentious) and less-is-more direction.  Gonna cut out tons of the dialogue and work with the actors on making new dialogue that still gets across the same points but in a better way.  It's good that they GET the movie, because that's gonna be put to the test when they have to be creatively involved in the re-write, basically.

This sounds great.  And this is obviously the most important thing you have to work on.

Jonny come lately over here says good luck to you, Matthew.  I think this will make a quite lovey short.  As you've stated above, you already know what you're doing with the dialouge, but I really do hope you trim it to the most possible point.

My big 35mm 'real' short film was a very similiar situation.  The premise was a young man who comes back to his motel room and finds a suicidal girl with a gun in her mouth.  He spends the night attempting to convince her not to kill herself, opening up to her pouring his own life and heartache out while at the same time trying to figure out the question that haunts him: How did she get in his room?  Anyhow, the first draft was 21 pages as well and cluttered with dialouge.  In the end, I got it down to 15 and it was still too much.  It's a difficult matter, but when two characters are in one place and are doing mostly talking the entire time, it will get boring no matter what the subject or situation entails.  I don't want to get into films like Reservoir Dogs or Glengarry GlenRoss or what have you, those films worked for different reasons.  I've read your script and it reminds me of what I went through on my own short.  And I truly hope your casting pays off.  With mine, the male lead was perfect.  He and I worked very closely on rewriting the dialouge, mostly chopping what was repetetive.  This truly paid off and his performance was nearly flawless.  The female lead was so good in her audition.  She cried on cue- everything.  It was very hard working with her during the shoot cause our time was so restricted and her performance had quite a few weak spots.  It's the absolute worst when you know you didn't get what is needed from a performance, but you are forced to move on because of that God awful thing called time.  Luckily, we fixed most of it during editing.  But obviously don't count on that.

Focus on that poetic approach, Matt.  I know you are cause I get a sense of the type of films you are going to make, Mr. Malick, but this is a story and setting where it is going to pay off quite beautifully.

PAN UP to the top of the tree, lingering on the dancing sunlight coming through the leaves.
Hey, it's okay, DGG stole this too.

Good things.

Quote from: POZER
when two characters are in one place and are doing mostly talking the entire time, it will get boring no matter what the subject or situation entails.  I don't want to get into films like Reservoir Dogs or Glengarry GlenRoss or what have you, those films worked for different reasons.  

the different reasons:

ed harris, tim roth, jack lemmon, steve buscemi, alec baldwin, al pacino, etc.

over written dialogue requires highly skilled actors much like over weight women require highly skilled lovers

Actual shooting starts on Thursday the 18th.  But we all went out and did some test shooting, and here's two images from that.  Keep in mind that these are not shots from the movie, and the actors are not in costume or makeup (although their costumes aren't really all that different from these).  The shots were just quickly lit, not quite how the final movie will be lit.  But it does give you an idea of how the actors look and what the location is like.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FTestShot1ofAlexComp10000010_1.jpg&hash=51eae94ad05c570786504baa18658a55a67f2fec)

Alex.  I'm not quite sure if I like the framing of Nicole in this shot; I'll have to work on that.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FTestTwo-Shot-NicoleComp10000321.jpg&hash=2903b412c9f1eb2202ab017af5368475221a8e04)

These are really just to show you guys that, yes, this project is actually moving forward.

We did some sound tests as well, and it sounds absolutely great.  I'm looking forward to the first day of actual shooting.  Again, this is mostly to show you that we're actually getting work done, and not a respresentation of how the final movie will look.

EDIT:

I realized that you can't really tell what the actress looks like from that photo, so here's her headshot.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FKelly.jpg&hash=4f30d7ffb6379b9f72c3db4e6486b988b6d31ac0)

Quote from: matt35mmI'm not quite sure if I like the framing of Nicole in this shot; I'll have to work on that.

Yeah, over-the-shoulders like that tend to look best when the person whose shoulder it's over is flush with the edge of the frame.  In other words, shove her over six inches to the right.   :yabbse-smiley:

EDIT:In hindsight, I think you were referring to the second image... in which case, having her stand on an apple box ought to do the trick.

Quote from: polkablues

Quote from: matt35mmI'm not quite sure if I like the framing of Nicole in this shot; I'll have to work on that.

Yeah, over-the-shoulders like that tend to look best when the person whose shoulder it's over is flush with the edge of the frame.  In other words, shove her over six inches to the right.   :yabbse-smiley:

EDIT:In hindsight, I think you were referring to the second image... in which case, having her stand on an apple box ought to do the trick.

No, you were right the first time.  I was talking about the first image, the over-the-shoulder.  I agree with you, I think I should frame her more to the right, and either have them stand closer together or use a longer lens to get their heads to be closer to the same size (her head looks much bigger than his in that shot).

As far as the second shot goes, it's fine.  Perhaps I should shift the camera a bit down, but basically, he's meant to be towering above her.  She's meant to look tiny, and that's their natural height difference which works for the movie anyway.

Thanks for taking a look at the stills!

Here you go, the first four official captures from the movie.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FFirstShotAlexHover-2.jpg&hash=633c4f995d7f89e1ab6ede22701f2a388654cde5)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FAlexCrying.jpg&hash=4e1276173db8f802b2d9e3a3faf9dd8aeb12885f)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FNicoleBloody.jpg&hash=af666107c50074d534e9f5c92939b6cf2e01e609)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FNicole.jpg&hash=042310bf142eabd0fb4922179961a03eb949ccc1)

I'll post more in a few weeks.  Lemme know how you think it looks so far.  Thanks.

Your compositions look very nice.  To what extent will you be color correcting in post?

Quote from: killafilmYour compositions look very nice.  To what extent will you be color correcting in post?

Heh, my first reaction was 'these will be great with some color correction!'

Have you finished shoot already, Matt? If so, congrats. How do you feel about it at the moment? Also, cut a demo/trailer together! Inquiring minds are curious!

Quote from: killafilmYour compositions look very nice.  To what extent will you be color correcting in post?

Thank you.  Those pictures have been color corrected to some extent.  Looks vary from computer screen to computer screen.  But these were just color corrected just as stills, and not as the final movie, and they have not been corrected to match all the other shots yet.  They do, however, look approximately the way I want the finished movie to look.

I will be doing a lot of adjustments such as color correction in post, to every single shot, to get the right look, mood, and match to the whole movie.

Quote from: GhostboyHave you finished shoot already, Matt? If so, congrats. How do you feel about it at the moment? Also, cut a demo/trailer together! Inquiring minds are curious!

Nope, I haven't finished shooting.  As I continue, I'll post a few more pictures up, perhaps, although the whole movie takes place in one spot, so they won't look much different than these.

I feel good about it, however.  Everything is cutting together very well.  The only problem has been that there is a helicopter noise in the background.  Something was going on and a helicopter was circling nearby all day.  But I feel that I can mix the sound very well, still, with what I've captured.  There's really only one scene that's affected by that and if I determine that we should reshoot it, I have an extra day to reshoot that.

Perhaps I will cut together a trailer when I finish shooting.  I'm glad you guys think it looks good.  Especially from the people who've read the screenplay, I'd like to know how you think it's looking based on that.

Nice little sneak peek.
From one who's read it, I think it's looking right on from what I see here.  The lead actor has a nice sinister look of sorts going on in his eyes in that first shot.  From these images, it appears you've got the look of the characters down.
You really can't go wrong with the setting you chose.  Judging from the backgrounds of these shots, it looks like you picked a nice area with a variety of natural set decoration.
The colors came out quite nice.
So far, good job, God right, can't wait to see the final product.

Here's a few more pictures.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FAlex.jpg&hash=8390ad37aa05a3e9db07a5a5f66331df768b3c78)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FNicoleHoldingPaul.jpg&hash=9dca43a17f51b0dadb648157c76a50de22a7e67d)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FNicoleHoldingPaul2.jpg&hash=c6ce15be79179611a14bf277dd80722274aa557a)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FInCarNicole.jpg&hash=d7bc45fb3992ecb635207316deb3665796f9e2fb)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FBloodhand.jpg&hash=800a5b5ad880520ffc2b813370338b09d4833690)

Hope you find them interesting.

Don't show us too much. It'll make some of your passion for it go away.

Like Hemmingway said, you should talk about the project as little as possible when it's in the making. You write it in the air and it'll take your interest away.

But maybe we´re completely different.

Oh give me a break with all that malarky.  Everyone shows images beforehand, it sparks the interest doesn't spoil it.  

Consider me intrigued, Matt.

Quote from: kotteLike Hemmingway said, you should talk about the project as little as possible when it's in the making. You write it in the air and it'll take your interest away.

I interpreted what he said as if you just talk about it then your interest goes away.  That is, if you wrote it in the air instead of on paper, by the time you sat down, you wouldn't feel like writing it again (on paper this time).

I don't know if that's the same thing as showing you what I've already done.  This is effecively meant to play as a trailer, since I haven't cut a trailer (I may or may not).

At least, I don't feel particularly disinterested in the project anymore.  Actually, I'm getting more excited as I see it come together (since I'm in editing right now).  But I can understand the point of keeping the whole thing under wraps until it's ready to be shown full-on.

Quote from: POZER!Consider me intrigued, Matt.

Oh goody!

Then we are different. :)

You haven't written it in the air but you are close to showing us everything.
But perhaps not, hope you have some great stuff you won't show us.

Is that car in motion? if so how did you mount the camera?

Quote from: GamblourIs that car in motion? if so how did you mount the camera?

No, it's not in motion.  But there are little camera mounts you can buy that mostly just stick onto the side of the car, which I guess is safe if you drive under like 35mph.

I'll just repost all of the pictures for this page.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FFirstShotAlexHover-2.jpg&hash=633c4f995d7f89e1ab6ede22701f2a388654cde5)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FAlexCrying.jpg&hash=4e1276173db8f802b2d9e3a3faf9dd8aeb12885f)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FNicoleBloody.jpg&hash=af666107c50074d534e9f5c92939b6cf2e01e609)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FNicole.jpg&hash=042310bf142eabd0fb4922179961a03eb949ccc1)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FAlex.jpg&hash=8390ad37aa05a3e9db07a5a5f66331df768b3c78)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FNicoleHoldingPaul.jpg&hash=9dca43a17f51b0dadb648157c76a50de22a7e67d)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FNicoleHoldingPaul2.jpg&hash=c6ce15be79179611a14bf277dd80722274aa557a)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FInCarNicole.jpg&hash=d7bc45fb3992ecb635207316deb3665796f9e2fb)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FBloodhand.jpg&hash=800a5b5ad880520ffc2b813370338b09d4833690)

Thanks for the responses so far.  I might cut a trailer later on (if I can think of an interesting trailer to cut, since the movie takes place in one spot, mostly.)

Quote from: kotteYou haven't written it in the air but you are close to showing us everything.
But perhaps not, hope you have some great stuff you won't show us.

Does that mean that the stuff I've shown so far isn't great?  (just kidding)

You guys aren't just a standard audience, though.  You're Xixax and I'm showing you guys this stuff to use all of your combined knowledges and experiences and particularly skilled eyes to help me see what I can't see with my own eyes.  When you make a movie, you're so deep into it that you just can't see what it looks like anymore to fresh eyes.

So that, plus the whole hoping it gets you all interested thing, is the purpose of showing these pictures.

Over all, I like your shots very much. With some propper post-work they can be great.

There really is just one thing about those last shots that I don't like, and something you can't do anything about: The guy looks like he's working hard to keep his eyes closed in the first two as opposed to the last.

But you know, don't worry about it. They story will engage us, we won't notice.

Quote from: matt35mm(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FFirstShotAlexHover-2.jpg&hash=633c4f995d7f89e1ab6ede22701f2a388654cde5)

this shot reminds me of I'm Not Scared. make em all look like this and u've got urself a winner.

Here it is, the trailer for the movie.

A couple of shots are not quite how they'll appear in the movie, but they're fine for the trailer.

Download the large size, if you can.  Of course I want it seen in fairly high quality, although they're all quite compressed (I need to learn compression better).  They're all in Quicktime.

Large (http://www.turtletowfilms.com/thomasedison/video/edisontrailerlarge.mov) (20 MB)
Medium (http://www.turtletowfilms.com/thomasedison/video/edisontrailermedium.mov) (11 MB)
Small (http://www.turtletowfilms.com/thomasedison/video/edisontrailersmall.mov) (4.5 MB)

Enjoy.

Awesome, I'm so glad you posted this.

I know it's sort of pointless to critique a trailer when you're still in the process of cutting the film, but I'll do so anyway:

1. It starts off beautifully
2. It goes down hill once she says 'he's dead'
4. It ends beautifully.

I think the problem is that the trailer is so gentle in its style that, when the male character (I forget his name, sorry) starts to yell, it feels awkward and 'actorly' - it seems out of context, because that moment hasn't been allowed to build properly the way I think it will in the film.

I'd suggest (and again, this is silly, making suggestions for a trailer for a short, but still) cutting out all the incidental dialogue after she says 'he dead' and putting more voice-over through the whole thing, like you do at the end. That works wonderfully, and I think played over the majority of the trailer would make for some really nice juxtaposition.

I hope that makes sense, and in any case, thanks for giving us a glimpse, and I can't wait to critique the whole thing!

I agree completely with Ghostboy (including it being pointless to critique) and I would add that while I'm a huge fan of dissolves and use them a lot myself, I find most of the ones in this trailer to be a little akward.

There are a couple that are almost beautiful except for the fact that they clip off too soon instead of completing a smooth dissolve.

I see a lot of potential in this...in you to be honest. You have a lot skills you need to keep working on.

Your actors does not. I did not like them at all.

Take this for what it is. Critique of a trailer. I promise you I will apologize if I feel different when I see the finished film.

Thanks for the comments.

Quote from: GhostboyI think the problem is that the trailer is so gentle in its style that, when the male character (I forget his name, sorry) starts to yell, it feels awkward and 'actorly' - it seems out of context, because that moment hasn't been allowed to build properly the way I think it will in the film.

I know what you mean.  In a way, I almost did this on purpose to make it feel like a real trailer, since real trailers do that.  Everything's out of context.

Quote from: RegularKarateI'm a huge fan of dissolves and use them a lot myself, I find most of the ones in this trailer to be a little akward.

There are a couple that are almost beautiful except for the fact that they clip off too soon instead of completing a smooth dissolve.

I don't use many dissolves in my regular work, but felt it fit the trailer-form better.  I don't think there will be any dissolves in the actual movie.

I did the dissolves that way on purpose, though, and they were quite a pain to achieve.  I don't like super smooth dissolves, really, as in the kind you get from a non-linear editor.  It's too smooth, too mathematical.  I tried to make my dissolves look more chemical--the way it's done with actual film.  I did this with Magic Bullet, which emulates the way film dissolves, with the brightest spots in the picture holding on longer and then snapping off.

They're just two different styles of dissolve and I prefer the Magic Bullet one.

Quote from: kotteI see a lot of potential in this...in you to be honest. You have a lot skills you need to keep working on.

Your actors does not. I did not like them at all.

Thanks for the complements on me.

As for the actors, the way I cut the trailer makes the acting look worse than it is, with bits and pieces out of context.  But if you don't like them at all, that's not really going to change with the final film.  I do feel that watching the whole film, you come away with a better overall performance from the actors, though.

For one thing, both of their performances are quite toned down (this was my direction), but I chose the most "actorly" shots because, like I said, I was just cutting it like regular trailers are cut.  I think a lot of people are impressed by screaming and yelling.  Interestingly enough, I probably juxtaposed the quietest and loudest moments of the film all in there at once, which I think it what makes their performance seem a lot more melodramatic than it would be in the full movie.

However, that might not be what it is that you don't like about them, I don't know.  This is my first trailer, so I'm learning as I go along.  I think the actual film will be a lot more assured in its direction and assembly, but I'm not going to bother re-editing the trailer.  It's just a tool to give people the gist of what's in the movie, and to show them that some effort was actually put into this (i.e. it looks and sounds pretty good).

Quote from: kotte
Your actors does not. I did not like them at all.

Your grammer skills does not.  I do not like them at all.

Quote from: POZER!

Quote from: kotte
Your actors does not. I did not like them at all.

Your grammer skills does not.  I do not like them at all.

Your spelling skills does not. I did not like them at all.

Question: Did anybody actually think that the middle with

"You probably think that the biggest tragedy is that you won't get to contribute so greatly to society."

"God, Nicole, I was gonna do something with my life!"

"That won't make a case in court"

(She walks away)

... did anybody actually think that was an actual scene from the movie, in that it plays in the movie like that?

I assumed that people would realize that this was just bits and pieces to sum up a point, but I guess that's just because I'm so familiar with the script.  A surprising amount of people seem to think that these three lines are actually said like that in the movie.  That's my fault.  I'll keep this in mind for future trailers.

I shouldn't have cut it so smoothly that it seemed like those lines actually belonged with each other.  If you do look at it as an actual scene from the movie, of course it's retarded.  He wouldn't scream, and she wouldn't just say that and walk away slowly.  ... I thought people would just realize that.  I think the trailer works a lot better from the perspective of someone who's seen the whole movie.

If this was your problem with the acting, blame me.  I don't feel like re-cutting the trailer at this point (although I MAY after I give it some time).  I'd still say the majority of the trailer comes across the way I wanted it to.  And it looks and sounds great.

Quote from: meatball

Quote from: POZER!

Quote from: kotte
Your actors does not. I did not like them at all.

Your grammer skills does not.  I do not like them at all.

Your spelling skills does not. I did not like them at all.

tooshay.

Quote from: matt35mmQuestion: Did anybody actually think that the middle with

"You probably think that the biggest tragedy is that you won't get to contribute so greatly to society."

"God, Nicole, I was gonna do something with my life!"

"That won't make a case in court"

(She walks away)

When I was watching the trailer after reading kotte's post, that was actually the part that I agreed with him on.  But really, it looks really good.

intro and endo was real nice.  Reminded me of George Washington....maybe the name has something to do with it....

i think subtle is the key....dont try to give away the story but merely the vibe...i think if the audiences likes what it sees theyll be curious to see more...

the scene you cut in the middle, after she says "you probably think....

yeah I could see where some confusion could set in, since its cut like a real scene but doesnt make too much sense dialogue wise.

Go with what kotte says and cut a trailer using more vo and images...

I have some technical questions for you: are you using the century optic 16x9 adaptor...those stills look like there 2:35:1....are you putting a larger matte over it in post?  What was this shot with, vx or gl?  

Were you using automatic focus...the stills, although composed very well have the hard electronic look...when shooting dv I generally try to zoom in as much as possible and use manual focus...it takes that hard edge away, and allows a much shallower depth of field

I can imagine you are probably eat, sleeping and pissing this film....i commend you....this film will have some heart and guts to it....our critisicm is just that, dont take it personal...take a day off if you need to sober up from that moviemaking high...sometimes it can make you go crazy! good luck md

One of the BEST trailers I've seen in a long while is the one for JARHEAD.  Check it out if you haven't.  To me, that is a PERFECT trailer.

I agree, change up the images, vary the setting if you can.

And man, I'm sorry, I'm trying to be constructive... the part where the guy throws the rock...it's hilarious, which isn't good for this trailer. It's just weird, who actually throws a rock in anger? and if they do they'd try to do more damage than crushing dead grass. I think it ends pretty well...if you took out the sound of the guy crying at the end, it could have a little more power, i think.

I disagree, I like the rock throwing bit.  You should change up the color and speed and do three or four quick jump cuts-- wait, no just leave it.

I'm not trying to deconstruct this too much, but how is the rock throwing good?

Quote from: GamblourI'm not trying to deconstruct this too much, but how is the rock throwing good?

I'll agree with you.  I think it's the fact that he's just standing there during the dissolve.  It's ackward.  If it cut/dissolved straight to him throwing the rock, actually in swing, I think it would work better.

Quote from: mdI have some technical questions for you: are you using the century optic 16x9 adaptor...those stills look like there 2:35:1....are you putting a larger matte over it in post?  What was this shot with, vx or gl?  

Were you using automatic focus...the stills, although composed very well have the hard electronic look...when shooting dv I generally try to zoom in as much as possible and use manual focus...it takes that hard edge away, and allows a much shallower depth of field

I can imagine you are probably eat, sleeping and pissing this film....i commend you....this film will have some heart and guts to it....our critisicm is just that, dont take it personal...take a day off if you need to sober up from that moviemaking high...sometimes it can make you go crazy! good luck md

16X9 adapter + in camera electronic 16X9 and then very slight cropping in post to make it 2.35:1.  Those stills are close to 2.35:1, but the final film will be, yes.

I don't mind the large depth of field, and with the anamorphic lens, you can't zoom in very far without it blurring.  The focus was a blend of automatic and manual.  I've personally chosen to embrace the medium I'm using, though, so I have little desire to lessen the depth of field.

I'm actually taking a relaxed approach to the editing, and it probably is making it better by giving me some perspective.  So the film will be better edited than the trailer.  With college and everything, I'm just taking my time, editing a little bit each day.

I'm not going to re-edit this trailer.  I'm considering having someone else (more proficient with trailers) edit another trailer after I finish editing the film.  I've learned a lot by cutting this trailer, though.  Namely that I'm not a trailer cutter.

Quote from: GamblourAnd man, I'm sorry, I'm trying to be constructive... the part where the guy throws the rock...it's hilarious, which isn't good for this trailer. It's just weird, who actually throws a rock in anger? and if they do they'd try to do more damage than crushing dead grass. I think it ends pretty well...if you took out the sound of the guy crying at the end, it could have a little more power, i think.

You and my roommate are the only two people who've said that to me.  Hmm.  I've never found it to be funny.  MAYBE it's less funny in the movie?  It works for me, though.  I like awkward moments sometimes, and they fit certain situations more than constant seriousness.  It's all about feel, and it feels better than him trying to do more damage, or not doing anything at all.  He's a kid with a lot of nervous energy... so what's he gonna do...?  He throws a rock, and feels stupid afterwards.

...............................................:yabbse-thumbup:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi18.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb133%2Freinholdmessner%2Fthomasedison2.jpg&hash=c2cef3db3ca3c8518ff5b58b3d6a3357f4a1eef2)  (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi18.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb133%2Freinholdmessner%2Fthomasedison1.jpg&hash=453dc719a34584819887d4140793cc7fb8a19ad5)

There is something wrong if you need to sell a short film with a trailer.

Why focus so much on a trailer...

I don't think he's trying to sell the short film with a trailer...he's just trying to give us a taste of the film, which is something some of us (including myself) requested.

Marketing wise, trailers for short films are somewhat pointless (just like opening credit sequences in short films) - but if you have people waiting to see the film, a trailer is a handy way to show off what you've done before you finish post production.

Quote from: GhostboyI don't think he's trying to sell the short film with a trailer...he's just trying to give us a taste of the film, which is something some of us (including myself) requested.

Marketing wise, trailers for short films are somewhat pointless (just like opening credit sequences in short films) - but if you have people waiting to see the film, a trailer is a handy way to show off what you've done before you finish post production.

You're right.
I appreciate sneek-peeks too but it seems useless to spend this much time discussing the cutting and pacing of a short film trailer.

But you know, now it sounds like I'm completely against it. I'm not...it's been an interesting discussion but now I wanna see the film.

I've already said that the trailer won't be re-edited, so yes, take all this discussion as just an interesting look-see into what works and doesn't for a trailer.  But my focus has been the film, and I've only spent a few days cutting the trailer and that's it.  The rest has been just a learning process.

But yes, I am using it to sell the movie.  I'm not beating around that bush.  I want to generate interest, and the trailer at least does that, regardless of the awkward bits of bad cutting I did to it.

Alright, it's been a month since your last post on this.  What's the latest with the film, Matty?  
SOrry, but you've generated our interest.

ALMOST DONE!

Just color correcting/magic bulletting at this point.  Should be finished up this weekend.

man i love the first shot in that trailer...very rashomon.  can't wait till your done.

Well.  I'm done.  And Xixax was specially thanked.

Just one or two teeny changes later to smooth out some things that few people would notice, but it's pretty much done.

Stay tuned as I determine how you can get your very own copy of Thomas Edison.  I also dunno if I should put a couple of clips up here or something... we'll see.  Maybe clips of a short film is too much.

Can't you just show us the whole thing?   Clips would be good at the very least.   

If you wanna post the whole short or parts of it is up to you...as long as you don't make a DVD. I just hate it when filmmakers put one short on a dvd and then try to sell it (!).

YEAH, THE NERVE OF SOME PEOPLE. (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=1582.0)

Quote from: onomabracadabra on November 14, 2005, 03:02:06 AM
YEAH, THE NERVE OF SOME PEOPLE. (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=1582.0)

And with that you mean...?

I just dislike it...collections I like but one short on a DVD...no.

I mean, if you dislike it, so what?  Don't buy it.

Matt, it worked for Ghostboy, it'll work for you, too.  I say, definitely put it on DVD.  Sell it.  Send copies to everyone, everywhere.  Make money, put it to your next project.  And more importantly, you get your work out there, seen.

This thread has been building up to the final product dammit, and this is where I'm gonna view it!  If you want my feedback then you best be putting here!!!

:yabbse-grin:I kid, I kid you, Jerry.   

Quote from: matt35mm
Thomas Edison (Coming Fall 2005)
Directed by Matt Latham (that's me)

:finger:

Quote from: matt35mm on November 13, 2005, 06:33:44 PM
Well.  I'm done.

You should see a review on here in the coming week.

whats the song in the trailer?  And please just post the film for the love of god

 :-D :? :| :sleeping:

Sorry for putting "coming Fall 2005" in my signature before.  I never intended to just dump it on the internet once I was finished.  It's currently being considered at various film festivals, has had its premiere(s), and now I'm just waiting to see how it does at film festivals while I finish up a good-looking DVD for it.  The DVD will not be a bare-bones DVD, it'll have various special features and perhaps other shorts.

I'm not saying you'll have to buy it, but you will have to wait.  I haven't decided yet whether the internet is a proper way to show it.

Oh, and the song in the trailer is "No Limit On The Words" by Songs: Ohia.  Legally acquired, and featured in the film.

Don't worry about us, Matty.  We're just messin' with ya cause we're eager to see it.  You're one of our filmmaker brothers y'know.  When it's ready, it's ready.  Nobody rushed Kubrick or Malick or... say, does your last name end with ick?

Quote from: pozer on December 29, 2005, 06:57:58 PM
Don't worry about us, Matty.  We're just messin' with ya cause we're eager to see it.  You're one of our filmmaker brothers y'know.  When it's ready, it's ready.  Nobody rushed Kubrick or Malick or... say, does your last name end with ick?

QuoteMatt Latham (that's me)

Ham.  Which puts him in the same category as... let's see... John Badham.  Did anybody rush John Badham?

Quote from: matt35mm on December 28, 2005, 01:50:19 PMI'm not saying you'll have to buy it, but you will have to wait.  I haven't decided yet whether the internet is a proper way to show it.

:? Yeah, that will so ruin your career.  Get over yourself.

My filmmaker side says congrats on the professionalism youve carried throughout this movie.  Not only was it a good script but, well fuck, you actually came through and produced it-- which alone is a great accomplishment within itself. 

Dont mind the others here...

But with that said, its life will probably be alot longer if you were to post it on the internet, for thousands of people to see, rather than waiting for people to buy it on its originally medium, a dvd.

Anyways good luck with the film festivals..cant wait to see it. md

Matt gave me a copy of this last month. Like the script, it's quite good. Pretty smart, pretty well executed. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the short film that I sold here a few years back. However, whether or not Matt has a behind-the-scenes documentary to rival mine remains to be seen!

The one thing I was most worried about when reading the script for Thomas Edison was that its formal potential wouldn't be realized. Luckily, for the most part, it has; the first five minutes of the film in particular are just about perfect, full of long, quiet implicit moments and some outstanding editorial choices. The 2:35:1 composition here is good as well(the overexposed cinematography looks a bit video-ish sometimes, but generally serves the film well enough).

The other thing I was worried about - a worry shared by others - was the acting. I have a feeling this wil be a divisive issue amongst those that see this, but for the most part, I felt both performers are on point. They never come across as WB-ish (I think I remember someone expressing such a worry a few pages back). If anything, they're guilty of over-acting sometimes and being stitled at others, but the fault isn't entirely theirs (as I'll get to in a moment).

Those of you that read the script (or the criticisms of it here) may find, as I did, that the somewhat redundant nature of the dialogue is the chief problem with the film. The film is largely made up of an argument which, impressive as its points may be, starts to feel prolapsed at a certain point; this fault is exacerbated by the staging of the sequence; it's a long series of mostly static cross-cuts that gradually dampens the performances, draining them of a bit of their energy. Matt worked himself into a corner a bit there, but, as he did in the script, he pulls the film out of this minor rut and ends it as well as it began.

And as I mentioned above, the argument between the two characters is indeed impressive (incidentally, it's somewhat similar to the one Jonathan Rhys Meyers has with Scarlett and the landlady at the end of Match Point).  It's good stuff nonetheless - thought provoking and expansive in intellectual scope. Could it have been tightned? Probably. But the film is complete, and while it's not a masterpiece, it is a very strong and thought provoking piece of work.

great review...

congratulations to anyone who has a creative idea...sets a course of action...executes a plan...and has the nuts to present them bulls to the bears...

in this case matt you are in good company...

did i say greight review?...

i refuse to believe the acting was on point...and i havent seen it yet but am willing to state how WRONG i might be after viewing...its just that i am a stubborn old goat when it comes to these things and to believe that local high school kids from san diego can bring sick truth to a worthy amatuer project (no offense intended) such as this would put my fragile world/ego on tilt...

i wanna say you should have taken my offer to help cast this in l.a. because i bee leave i could have stirred you in the ryte die erection...

but dood...you rocked it...you rolled it...now show it to me...set me free

tah mas eh dis sun...i used this as a meditative mantra few years back...blew my dim bulb white open

Thanks GB.  Glad you liked it.

I learned a lot from making this movie, and will apply the lessons to the next.  For what it's worth, my confidence level and faith in my own abilities has been growing exponentially since the making of Edison.

The next movie might be a feature, we'll see.  I'll be collaborating with xerxes on it.  And it may be shot in or near L.A., so Atticus, I might take you up on your offer, if it's still available when I'm casting.  It'd be low-budget (perhaps around $30,000, depending on the script, of course), but hopefully enough to pay SAG minimums (under their limited exhibition prices) with a couple actors and a small (non-union) crew.  Anyway, I'm ready to make a leap in ambition.

As for the distribution of Thomas Edison, I'm waiting to see how it does at festivals.  It will be online at some point, but that depends, again, on the festivals.  The DVD, however, should be out in a few weeks (I'm working on some special features for it).

A good review and a congrats from Atticus Jones (who is a gentleman in his own... hyper-bizarre way)!  This turned out to be a pretty good birthday.

Happy Birthday, Buddy!!!   :multi: :multi: :multi:

Quote from: matt35mm on January 17, 2006, 11:55:01 PM
Thanks for emphasizing SOUND, which just ain't nuttin' to fuck wit'.

Speaking of which...did you do any adr on Thomas Edison?  It seems with low budget dv films, adr seems like the best way to get the most polished audio.  But it is also a huge pain...I would be afraid it would come out cheesy.  Any thoughts Matt?  Mic recommendations? md

Quote from: md on January 18, 2006, 08:03:20 AM

Quote from: matt35mm on January 17, 2006, 11:55:01 PM
Thanks for emphasizing SOUND, which just ain't nuttin' to fuck wit'.

Speaking of which...did you do any adr on Thomas Edison?  It seems with low budget dv films, adr seems like the best way to get the most polished audio.  But it is also a huge pain...I would be afraid it would come out cheesy.  Any thoughts Matt?  Mic recommendations? md

ADR should be reserved for the very few lines that you couldn't quite get on set, either because of sound problems, or you didn't like the performance of the line, or you just forgot to record that line on set that day.  This is what I did with Edison, which has, I think, 2 ADR lines, each of which are very short.  Try to loop (another word for ADR) dialogue that's being said off screen or in wideshot, rather than in a close-up, so that you never see anything out of sync.

It is not a good idea to ADR a whole movie, because, as you said, it would be cheesy.  I've seen short films do that, and it's always awful.

The best way to get sound for any production (including low budget DV) is to get a decent boom mic.  Different people record a little differently, and my preference is to record just about everything with the shotgun boom mic.  I then record background noise with an omni-directional, shorter microphone.  You could get these mics for around $100.  Of course, you get what you pay for, but a $100 shotgun mic is FAR superior to on camera sound or ADR.  Then make some sort of makeshift mic boom (I use two golf club shafts, which works really well, as they're light and sturdy).  I used a $750 shotgun mic for Edison, which I found to be a great improvement over the $200 mic I shot Poof! with.

I say sound ain't nuttin' to fuck wit' because people are very attentive to what they're hearing.  With the picture, you could mess around with it or even call bad camerawork a "style."  But if people hear sound, and it doesn't sound like what they hear in real life (there is sound design, which plays around with sound a little, but usually leaves dialogue alone!), especially with dialogue, they cease to buy into the movie.  Very few people can take a movie with poor sound seriously, whereas many people can take crap camerawork well enough.  It's been a while since I've seen Blair Witch, but I believe if that movie had terrible sound, no one would sit through it.  My guess is it originally had poor sound, but the distributor (Artisan) cleaned it up after they acquired it, before putting it in theaters.

So basically, if you had, say $1500 to spend on equipment, don't buy a $1500 camera.  Buy a $1000 camera, a $300 shotgun mic, and spend the rest on other equipment (you will generally need additional equipment and cables to hook the mic up to either the camera or a separate sound recorder), or as contingency (or you can pay the actors and crew, which is what I'd do).  Most people think image is everything and splurge on expensive cameras without giving a thought to sound.  They're wasting their money.  Buy a mic.  And do some research on sound recording techniques.

Try to record the best audio you can on set, and minimize use of ADR.  SOME ADR is fine (inevitable, even), which is why major films also have ADR and sound great.  Just be careful with everything.  Sound is a delicate thing, which is another reason not to fuck wit' it.

Good luck with your movie.

What mics did you buy?  Got a link?  Ever used wireless lapel mics?  Recommendations for those?  I'm in agreeance about the whole shotgun mic thing, but there are some shots you'd just need to use other mics for, like a wireless, so that's why I'm asking.

I have a Sennheiser K6 with ME 67 (long shotgun) and ME 629 (short omni) capsules.  I think that totalled somewhere around $750 when I bought it (I think it's around $250 for each of the 3 pieces).  I also had to buy a $150 XLR attachment to the GL-2 to be able to plug them in.  But it all works very well.

I have used a wireless lav once.  The sound was fine enough, but I still haven't figured out how to not have any rustling noise short of not having the actors move at all.  I don't own any wireless mics, though.  I'm sure I'll have to use them someday... but at this point, I just try to creatively figure out how to record the sound with what I have.

Quote from: onomabracadabra on January 18, 2006, 01:41:21 PM
What mics did you buy?  Got a link?  Ever used wireless lapel mics?  Recommendations for those?  I'm in agreeance about the whole shotgun mic thing, but there are some shots you'd just need to use other mics for, like a wireless, so that's why I'm asking.

what time of shots can you think of when you need a wireless?  I try and use a shotgun for anything, cause it's the only thing i really have access too.  It works pretty good but it can be a problem.  JUst the other week we were shooting a scene where we trucked with the two characters down a hallway in one continuous shot but it was impossible to mic.  I can't effectiveli use a boom because the shotgun always makes noises.  i might have try to the golf club thing cause the way i'm doing it right now, I just have to have the shotgun in a stationary position.  it's a problem.

  we're gonna have to reshoot the scene now cauase the audio sucks.  i tried a take with just the camera mic and  most people wouldn't even notice, but i do.   i hate that little hiss.   if audio wasn't an issue in my movies then everything would be so much better.   i have every camera angle and the way the actors should be saying their lines in my mind, but its so hard to figure out the other stuff.  audio and a consistent lighting/white balance (i might need to start a thread for this discussion) are the two downfalls of my movies.  the downfall of most amateur movies. 

if everything goes well shooting a scene,  i will have audio of the dialogue and then some sounds of just the room.  i use a stationary shotgun mic for both.  but it makes it almost impossible to do a shot where the camera is movign.   damn, i hate having to worry about audio. 

i dunno i'm blabbering.   

Quote from: JimmyGator on January 18, 2006, 01:41:21 PM
the downfall of most amateur movies. 

id generally say, story, structure, script and acting.  Its easy to make dv look nice (ha), its hard to write a good script. 

When watching Dazed and Confused, I could have sworn a majority of that was adr, although it could just be me.  Thanks for the advice guys....i have my hands on a pd170 and a nice shotgun mic from the place I work...I just need to finish the script.   

well yeah i would agree.  for me though, i'm pretty confident in my abiltiies as a storyteller.  even though i don't show it on these boards, i'm a pretty good writer.  especially for my age.  i've seen enough movies to get a feel for structure and pacing, an aspect i think a lot of young people don't really focus.  in terms of how i want thinings to look, i know exactly what i want.  i just don't know enough about cinemtography.  my white balance is always inconsistent.  i'm not good enough with final cut pro to manipulate footage so that there is a consistency.   i can do audio, it's just a pain in the ass.  i really need an assistant.  i wish i could just write and storyboard the movie.  the rest of the stuff can be a pain. 

Quote from: JimmyGator on January 18, 2006, 06:13:33 PM
i just don't know enough about cinemtography.  

Or even how to spell it.  Good thing you're a good writer though.

Quote from: pozer on January 18, 2006, 06:28:36 PM

Quote from: JimmyGator on January 18, 2006, 06:13:33 PM
i just don't know enough about cinemtography.  

Or even how to spell it.  Good thing you're a good writer though.

be fair i wrote that quickly i know how to spell it.  if you want to get technical, you're not very good at quoting things.     :)

People use Lavs for all kinds of shots.  Long, super wide, characters running, characters in the middle of a crowd, multiple characters in a scene (ala most Altman movies) and ect...  Pretty much whenever you can't use a Shotgun or when you're trying to capture individual tracks.

You can find boom poles for pretty cheap.  That would elminate any rustling of the mic itself.  I just looked very quickly over at B&H Photo and they had plenty for sub $150.  Then in post you have programs like Sound Soap to help out.  The main problem I've encountered while filmming projects with friends is that we're always wearing too many hats and people over look simple stuff.  Like the Mic/Line switch.  Good mic placement is also key.

I didnt mean you personally Jimmy....but if the writing is good, then hire a cinematographer/dp and a skilled editor.  How old are you btw.

Quote from: md on January 18, 2006, 10:19:41 PM
I didnt mean you personally Jimmy.... How old are you btw.

oh god don't get him started..

http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=7959.msg197065#msg197065
http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=545.msg207610#msg207610

Quote from: JimmyGator on November 05, 2005, 09:38:51 PM
SPOILERS
Sixteen--the age where your old enough to start having your own opinions but not yet old enough to form them. 

You answered it for me.You remind me of ebeaman....whatever happend to him.  sorry in advance for the thread hijack

Quote from: md on January 19, 2006, 11:29:01 AM

Quote from: JimmyGator on November 05, 2005, 09:38:51 PM
SPOILERS
Sixteen--the age where your old enough to start having your own opinions but not yet old enough to form them. 

You answered it for me.You remind me of ebeaman....whatever happend to him.  sorry in advance for the thread hijack

i am sixteen (and a half), but just so u know that quote was in reference to the squid and the whale, not me.  unless u just feel that that quote applies to me as well. 

Anyways...Matt, did u ever post poof! on here?   what's it all about?

Quote from: JimmyGator on January 19, 2006, 01:02:06 PM

Quote from: md on January 19, 2006, 11:29:01 AM

Quote from: JimmyGator on November 05, 2005, 09:38:51 PM
SPOILERS
Sixteen--the age where your old enough to start having your own opinions but not yet old enough to form them. 

You answered it for me.You remind me of ebeaman....whatever happend to him.  sorry in advance for the thread hijack

i am sixteen (and a half), but just so u know that quote was in reference to the squid and the whale, not me.  unless u just feel that that quote applies to me as well. 

Anyways...Matt, did u ever post poof! on here?   what's it all about?

Poof! thread (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=6388.msg146971#msg146971)

search function (http://xixax.com/index.php?action=search;advanced)

there's also a search engine near the top of your screen, no matter where you are in the forum (www.xixax.com)

told you so:

Quote from: Hedwig on December 21, 2005, 09:38:30 PM

Quote from: Pubrick on December 21, 2005, 09:20:08 PM
my christmas wish is for newbs across the internets to become self-sufficient.

Quote from: JimmyGator on December 21, 2005, 09:32:44 PM
my christmas wishes are to stop making myself look like such a newb and to redirect pubrick.

both of you should wish for something you might actually get.

i was kinda just trying to this thread back on topic and talking about matt's work.   the links don't work either. 

Quote from: JimmyGator on January 19, 2006, 01:17:58 PM
i was kinda just trying to this thread back on topic and talking about matt's work.  

forgiven, but only because of your avatar.

gmail quote of the day:

"What you are will show in what you do."
-Thomas A. Edison

I've decided that a DVD isn't necessarily warranted in this case.  I can't come up with enough extra features to make it worth more than the shipping, so I plan to just post it up here.

A DVD will be available for those who would prefer to own it and willing to pay something like 7 bucks for it.

There's a few things that I have to do before I can post it, so it will be a couple of weeks, probably, but stay tuned.

There's a million things I could say, so that makes for a million things that I won't say.

Have at it.

Thomas Edison (http://www.turtletowfilms.com/thomasedison/video/edisonwhole.mov) (82 MB) (Requires Quicktime 7)  You can right-click to download or just watch it on there (it's a little faster to just watch in there, because you can watch it as it loads).  It's 23 minutes long, total running time.

Soon, I'll put up the joke alternate ending that goes along with it, too.

If there's demand for it, I'll put up a higher-resolution version.  Also, if anybody really wants a DVD of it (there aren't really any features other than the alt-ending)... we may be able to work something out.

Enjoy!

The cuts are compelling.  They reminded me of Ozu, but not in a derivative way, and faster, like Ozu late to work and drinking a Dr. Pepper.  And what'd you shoot it in, beause it looks really nice.  Extra lighting, or a bunch of guys standing around holding white boards?  The line 'I never meant for it' came off exceptionally well.

Fuck I gotta go.  I'll finish it later.

Quote from: Losing the Horse: on March 24, 2006, 12:49:15 PM
what'd you shoot it in, beause it looks really nice.  Extra lighting, or a bunch of guys standing around holding white boards?

Thanks.

GL-2 with anamorphic lens + Magic Bullet.

Lit simply with reflectors.

Finally got to watch this.  Nicely done.  For a first film, one could definitely do worse.

I gotta admit: when I read the script, I was in the minority and didn't like it too much.  But it seems as if you've ironed out a lot of the things I thought would be problems.

My first impressions as I watch the film: Kelly is a good actress.  Wade on the other hand is not.  I wanted to laugh when he threw a rock into the trees.  When he stumbled away and collapsed to the ground, it seemed so robotic and plotted.

Pacing.  I want to say, maybe, there's a little bit too much silence/contemplation/crying/whatever.  More talk needed.  But maybe there's a reason for this, for the pacing you have established.

I thought you should've used a tripod more.  There were certain handheld shots that shouldn't have been, though that's just my personal aesthetic preference.  Also, zooms.  Generally a no-no.  Just another personal preference, though.

The conversation seems to go in circles a bit.  Maybe that's part of the point, too.  But still, some cutting could've been done.  The film was ~22 minutes.  Maybe it could've been 15.  As with the silence, I would have liked things to take off faster.  With short films, that's the idea.  Pack in as much as you can as soon/fast as you can.

And here's a challenge for a director: shot/reverse-shot is fine to an extent.  But the more I think about it, the more I can't imagine them having this argument standing in one spot.  They should be pacing, frantic.  Now, I know this is hard for coverage/blocking's sake, but it should be considered.  Think of that for next time.

When all was said and done, you created a really admirable film, all things considered.  The last scene, and especially the last shot, were chilling.

I don't understand why you got the rights for a song if you weren't going to use it for more effect, though.  Just a few guitar strums, then the vocals don't kick in until the credits roll.  Just my take on it, but I'm not familiar with the song anyway.

Congrats.  You got it done.

Quote from: onomabracadabra on March 30, 2006, 04:53:43 PM
Finally got to watch this.  Nicely done.  For a first film, one could definitely do worse.

I gotta admit: when I read the script, I was in the minority and didn't like it too much.  But it seems as if you've ironed out a lot of the things I thought would be problems.

My first impressions as I watch the film: Kelly is a good actress.  Wade on the other hand is not.  I wanted to laugh when he threw a rock into the trees.  When he stumbled away and collapsed to the ground, it seemed so robotic and plotted.

Pacing.  I want to say, maybe, there's a little bit too much silence/contemplation/crying/whatever.  More talk needed.  But maybe there's a reason for this, for the pacing you have established.

I thought you should've used a tripod more.  There were certain handheld shots that shouldn't have been, though that's just my personal aesthetic preference.  Also, zooms.  Generally a no-no.  Just another personal preference, though.

The conversation seems to go in circles a bit.  Maybe that's part of the point, too.  But still, some cutting could've been done.  The film was ~22 minutes.  Maybe it could've been 15.  As with the silence, I would have liked things to take off faster.  With short films, that's the idea.  Pack in as much as you can as soon/fast as you can.

And here's a challenge for a director: shot/reverse-shot is fine to an extent.  But the more I think about it, the more I can't imagine them having this argument standing in one spot.  They should be pacing, frantic.  Now, I know this is hard for coverage/blocking's sake, but it should be considered.  Think of that for next time.

When all was said and done, you created a really admirable film, all things considered.  The last scene, and especially the last shot, were chilling.

I don't understand why you got the rights for a song if you weren't going to use it for more effect, though.  Just a few guitar strums, then the vocals don't kick in until the credits roll.  Just my take on it, but I'm not familiar with the song anyway.

Congrats.  You got it done.

Thanks.

It's my second film, actually.

Did you read an earlier draft or the final draft?  I've posted several drafts in the thread.

I'm going to give away my analysis of my own direction, which is probably a mistake.  I SHOULD let the film speak for itself... but will analyze certain parts to communicate what I've learned, and also so that everybody knows where to put the blame for what they didn't like.  (On me)

It's been interesting to hear people's reactions on the acting.  Regarding that, let me say this: blame me, not them.  Kelly is more skilled and experienced than Wade, but both performances were equally hollow.  Again, to be clear, this is my fault.  They were fantastic, and put their trust in me fully.  No one could ask for more from them in that respect.

The reason that the performances were hollow was because I overdirected, and directed on-the-surface things.  Every inflection, beat, etc. was dictated by me, but I gave them nothing to hang anything truthful on.  IF they were very well trained, they would know simply to ignore half of my directions and work on the characters' inner lives in private.  The parts that feel "robotic and plotted" feel that way because they are.

The film should be as long as it is, I believe.  Otherwise, the final scene wouldn't have had the correct effect--we needed to spend a little more time than we wanted with the characters to get that feeling of "it's been a long day," which is a major element in that last scene.  The reason it feels so long and dragged out is due to my blocking and camerawork, as well as my direction for the actors.  Because I allowed them no truth--no genuine attachment to the words I wrote--that whole middle section come off as dead.  Time-wise, the pauses and silences should have been as they are, but because there's nothing real going on underneath the words, it feels dead.  The dead space is what makes it feel dragged out, not the actual length of the scene.  I'm come to see that pacing has a lot less to do with actual timing than it seems.  Certain minutes fly by, and certain minutes drag--but each minute is exactly 60 seconds.

Since shooting Edison, I've studied a lot about acting and directing actors, and have developed my process much more.  Even before directing another film, I can tell you that I am 3 times the director that I was, because you learn and grow by doing, and I've learned and grown a lot from Edison.

My feeling on the film is that the beginning and end are successful, and the middle is not, due entirely to my direction.  That's my summary.  Yes, the beginning could have been better, because I could have helped the actors to make it more real--I just think I happened to do a fantastic job of cheating through editing and camerawork.  From now on, though, I'm a lot less interested in cheating.  The end is definitely the best, and came out just as I wanted it to.  My direction for the actors was simple (i.e. "it's been a long day"), and thus, it was the best directed moment of the film.  So I'm not surprised that most people are telling me that it's the strongest scene in the movie (and I'm glad it ends on the strongest moment).  I am definitely proud of that last scene--I think I did that all right.

As far as the comments on style go, I'm fine with the choices I made, except for a few moments.  I suppose zooms must go under personal preference, as you said, since I disagree with the idea of "generally a no-no."  It implies some rule that I didn't follow.  But if you say that you didn't feel that they worked in this particular movie, then I can accept that criticism more.  I'm happy with how I used them in the film, though.  I'm also happy with the handheld work, except for a very un-smooth transition from a stationary camera to handheld that's jarring for me every time I see it.  That said, I could have designed the camerawork a lot better, especially in the middle (we had to do it quickly because of the sun and shadows from the trees above, but that's not a good excuse to not plan it better).

I'm fine with analyzing my choices and discussing this film in detail, actually.  It probably ruins the movie a little by not letting it stand on its own, but I know that I love reading and listening to everything that directors have to say about their own work.  But I won't be talking about the next film at all.

Thanks again for the comments.  I hope most of you are enjoying the film.  If there are any technical problems with playing it, let me know.

Quote from: onomabracadabra on March 30, 2006, 04:53:43 PM
The film was ~22 minutes.  Maybe it could've been 15. 

definitely.

i don't think it's a fair excuse to say silence and nothing happening for long periods of time is intentional and therefore OK. something has to engage the audience first to make us sit there through the endless silence and nothing happening. it felt like it took 10 minutes to learn anything about the characters beyond one of them being injured.

as a rule, i think death or killing or any of that crap in short films is itself harder to get away with than murder. and this is no exception. that's my personal preference though. it remains a stock plot device in countless student films so someone, somewhere must like it.

congrats on making it.

EDIT: this was written while matt posted just before me. so i don't know if he covered any points i made.

Quote from: Pubrick on March 31, 2006, 12:35:18 AM

Quote from: onomabracadabra on March 30, 2006, 04:53:43 PM
The film was ~22 minutes.  Maybe it could've been 15. 

definitely.

i don't think it's a fair excuse to say silence and nothing happening for long periods of time is intentional and therefore OK. something has to engage the audience first to make us sit there through the endless silence and nothing happening. it felt like it took 10 minutes to learn anything about the characters beyond one of them being injured.

as a rule, i think death or killing or any of that crap in short films is itself harder to get away with than murder. and this is no exception. that's my personal preference though. it remains a stock plot device in countless student films so someone, somewhere must like it.

congrats on making it.

EDIT: this was written while matt posted just before me. so i don't know if he covered any points i made.

I pretty much agree with you on every point.  I sort of covered the length issue in my previous post.  Basically, I agree that something has to engage the audience.  I wouldn't have changed the length, I simply should have made the silence more engaging.  IF I had succeeded in a genuine sense of what just happened in the two characters, the fact that they don't speak that much for the first 7 minutes wouldn't have been an issue.  After months of watching the film over and over and analyzing my work on it, my official opinion is that it shouldn't have been shorter, it just should have been a better 23 minutes.

And I agree that the whole killing thing is difficult to do, and pretty much shouldn't be done.  I cheated and used the impression of it to spark certain ideas, but it doesn't really make a difference until the end, does it?  Even before I wrote the script, I felt that killing and stuff was overdone in short films as well.  So I'm not the someone, somewhere who likes it.  I was a little surprised that I wrote out the situation, too.  I kept with it because I was trying to do something different with that "stock plot device."  I promise I was trying to make something different.  Whether or not I made a valiant (even if not all that successful) attempt at that is up to you.

Thanks for watching it, though.

Quote from: matt35mm on March 31, 2006, 12:18:39 AM

It's been interesting to hear people's reactions on the acting. 

The reason that the performances were hollow was because I overdirected, and directed on-the-surface things.  Every inflection, beat, etc. was dictated by me, but I gave them nothing to hang anything truthful on.  IF they were very well trained, they would know simply to ignore half of my directions and work on the characters' inner lives in private.  The parts that feel "robotic and plotted" feel that way because they are.

I think someone earlier in the thread suggested casting experienced actors out of Los Angeles...

I looked for you in Berkeley and had a tough time trying to figure out which one of the fan boys wuss you...enjoyable evening ntl

Quote from: atticus jones on March 31, 2006, 03:20:39 PM

Quote from: matt35mm on March 31, 2006, 12:18:39 AM

It's been interesting to hear people's reactions on the acting. 

The reason that the performances were hollow was because I overdirected, and directed on-the-surface things.  Every inflection, beat, etc. was dictated by me, but I gave them nothing to hang anything truthful on.  IF they were very well trained, they would know simply to ignore half of my directions and work on the characters' inner lives in private.  The parts that feel "robotic and plotted" feel that way because they are.

I think someone earlier in the thread suggested casting experienced actors out of Los Angeles...

I looked for you in Berkeley and had a tough time trying to figure out which one of the fan boys wuss you...enjoyable evening ntl

While experienced actors would have been able to do better due to ignoring half my directions, they still would have suffered due to the other half of my directions.  I gave not only too many directions, but bad directions as well.  This is something that I'm working very hard on rectifying right now.

As for Berkeley:  I considered painting "matt35mm" on my chest, but later decided against it.  I was this smug short guy on the left:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa385%2Fmatt35mm%2FMeAndPT.jpg&hash=a75773a8cfefdfc53dc9d3f12d843067bebae70d)