Matt Pacini's Movie

[blue demon]

I would like to see a website dedicated to the mistakes Matt Pacini made so that others won't make them! That would be great.

But don't you have to admit Mr. Moviestuff that going out and shooting a feature film on a film stock you haven't even tested a cartridge of, just because some people on a web board told him to, is pretty incredibly stupid? Would you do something that stupid?

I don't believe, that by any stretch of the imagination, Matt Pacini can call anybody a moron just before he makes an admission like that.

[MovieStuff]

Originally posted by Reality Check:

But don't you have to admit Mr. Moviestuff that going out and shooting a feature film on a film stock you haven't even tested a cartridge of, just because some people on a web board told him to, is pretty incredibly stupid?

<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Matt would be the first to agree with that statement, I believe, (and has, in fact). But, Ektachrome looks fine on a small editor. It's after it's telecined or blown up big on a screen that it looks awful. Sometimes mistakes are made and we learn from them. Matt was new to the process and didn't know that there were people like Alex that give out bogus information just to see themselves in print on the web. Matt thought that information in forums could be trusted because everyone seemed so helpful. Alex seems helpful, doesn't he? See, it's an amazing illusion sometimes....

Originally posted by Reality Check:

Would you do something that stupid?

<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">I've done much worse, my friend. It's the nature of the beast. But then again, trying and failing is always better than talking and not trying.

Originally posted by Reality Check:
Matt Pacini can call anybody a moron just before he makes an admission like that.

<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">I think that Matt has the right to call anyone a moron that only talks about doing things instead of taking chances and forging ahead, no matter how foolish it may seem. I also think that its better to have used Ektachrome, realize it's awful, and admit the error than to keep recommending it due to a lack of any real experience.

[Alex]

In case anyone wants to see how foolish Roger really is, take note the response button letter "R" is shot on Super-8 Ektachrome film.

The Ektachrome Matt used is in his feature is not the current Ektachrome that I have raved about. Matt's film was shot SEVERAL years ago, yet Roger is comfortable with the completely false implication that somehow I influenced Matt to shoot Ektachrome.

The new Ektachrome is rated at 125 rather than 160, and it's a newer formulation, so of course it will look better, AND THE NEW EKTACHROME WASN'T AROUND WHEN MATT MADE HIS FILM!

Roger's comments are so laughable and fly in the face of my description of how I made the Alphabet Song, which was a very adventurous, challenging and experimental film project THAT WON AWARDS, ALL OF THE AWARDS WERE GARNERED THIS YEAR! Roger would rather keep heaping up heaping portions of nonsense rather than accept the fact that I have make the best rebuttal of all to his stupid points, a 10 page Super-8 website that you should find interesting.

[MovieStuff]

Originally posted by Alex:

The Ektachrome Matt used is in his feature is not the current Ektachrome that I have raved about.

<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">As usual, a distinction without a difference. All Ektachrome is **** in super 8 unless you don't mind it looking like super 8, which you obviously don't.

[blue demon]

"Matt would be the first to agree with that statement, I believe, (and has, in fact)."

Mr. Moviestuff re: Matt Pacini was incredibly stupid shooting most of the interiors of a feature in a film stock based on advice he received on a web board without any of his own testing first.
_____________________________________________

Great, now we're getting somewhere.

"And why would I scan something at 300dpi, that is going to be used at 72dpi anyway?
This is idiotic.
The film was telecine'd onto Digital Betacam."

Matt Pacini
____________________________________

Here's another quote from this Matt Pacini character, this time describing why the images on his ebay ad looked so awful and drew remarks from Alex and the Reality Check.

I've sold only a single item on ebay. To upload a quality image of it was remarkably easy.

For Matt Pacini it would have also been remarkably easy. Seeing as his film has had a quality scan to digital beta and he claims parts of it "look terrific", why didn't he simply take some choice frames from it in this format - or if he edited in miniDV, take one from that source - make some mpegs, and then when it came time to upload the images, just use those? He could make the mpegs of any size he wished - I never had to adjust my image - and the display box on the ebay ad would simply display it at what ever number of pixels it does at maximum quality.

Instead it looks like he chose the worst possible quality images, didn't use any reasoning power to deduce
single [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]
maybe, just maybe it is in my best interest to try and make the stills from my movie look their best so that people will take it seriously?

Let's get one more thing straight, Matt Pacini. Any lunkhead **** for brains across the U S of A can get together his buddies and shoot a "feature" just like you did. Thousands have just like you and it's hardly a big deal for you walk around thumping your chest over. Any **** wad can have their own "Ed Wood Moment". All that takes is a credit card and a lot of stupidity.

[blue demon]

One more point while I'm at it and we're setting things in perspective here:

______________________________________
"Matt's movie has lots of problems, to be sure. In fact, if you REALLY want to know what all is wrong with the movie, ask Matt, himself. He's pretty disgusted with the whole thing, at this point, having made every mistake there is to make and he knows it better than anyone."

Mr. Moviestuff
_____________________________________________

Hold on here. Is this true, Matt Pacini? You are pretty disgusted with the whole thing?

In your ebay ad you call it a "good movie" and sing its praises.

Which is it? A good movie or a disgusting one?

Is this discrepancy between the description of the movie on one web board - this one, there must be others from the sounds of it - to the ad that Matt Pacini put on ebay for it, really a very different than his situation for his infamous super duper pooper scooper 8 camera?

It makes one start to wonder if Alex wasn't a little justified in warning bidders on that camera. I didn't think he was before, but now I see that Matt Pacini's description one place and his description elsewhere is pretty different.

Or is Mr. Moviestuff putting words in Matt Pacini's mouth?

[blue demon]

Oh, I just looked over my other post and I made a booboo -- it's JPEG not MPEG.

Better get that straight so that Matt Pacini gets his notes straight from the web board.

[blue demon]

Why??? Because somebody gets pissed off when a **** starts calling people names? We were discussing a publicly displayed advertisement and our opinions of it and Alex's potential critique of the film being made available to the public, when this Matt Pacini comes on and starts something.

Matt Pacini has a lot to learn when it comes to accepting criticism when it comes to putting his film projects out for public scrutiny.

Hint: You shut the **** up and take it.

That's the way it is if you want to be a film professional. Any kind of professional for that matter.

The only thing that makes one wonder is why some individual who manufactures some kind of home movie tranfer machines is hanging around on a web board taking shots at people he's never even met. Why is this individual defending this Matt Pacini's behavior? And running down the web board moderator?

But I do have to ask again, Mr. Alex, why not ban this Mr. Moviestuff person, anyways?

[Matt Pacini]

Alex, I mean RealityCheck, I mean Alex, oh I get so confused Alex, you taking on two characters like this.

I don't know if this should be considered multiple personalities, or public masturbationn.

Anyway, you make assumptions, and as usual, they're wrong.

Those pictures on ebay OBVIOUSLY are not "photo shoots", they are actual frame grabs from the movie.
Duh.

And I used both Ektacrhome Stocks, so again, you're making assumptions you know nothing about.

I've said many times on hostboard, that ALL Ektachrome looks like crapp, as Roger correctly stated, and I've said many times before that one should shoot tests, etc., and also exactly what Roger said here;
Everything looks great on the monitor, on the editor, it's when you project that you're screwed.
I did not have the funds to shoot a few rolls, telecine to DigiBeta, hire a theater & video projector to screen, and that's why I've consistently told newbie filmmakers to ignore Alex' assinine advice saying how great Ektachrome looks, because he has no idea what he's talking about.

(I'm pretending to speak to Alex' alter ego, RealityCheck here, who obviously, is Alex himself, because nobody on this board pays him any attention anymore.)


Matt Pacini

[Alex]

Sorry Matt, but I don't know who Reality Check is.

I'm totally confused now. Are you saying your pictures on the ebay movie sale ARE from the movie?

And I'm not totally sure about this, but I think the new ektachrome Super-8 stock has only been out for 3 years max, so it sounds like it wasn't around for your film shoot.

If somebody knows when the new Ektachrome film stock was actually released, I would appreciate knowing.