standards

[GREATwarEAGLE]

on the subject of criticism...

Everyone has their own criteria for what constitutes high quality vs. poor quality. Of course we all look at plot, character, acting, editing, etc. But we have different ideas of what to look for specifically concerning these elements.

But there also seems to be different standards when critiquing a profesional feature length film vs. an internet short like the ones posted here.

Many positve comments are usually, "good editing on the action" "hey nice composition" "that shot had great lighting"

Yeah, these are all good. But you look at any direct-to-video movie or any given Hollywood flop and you'll find all these "good" things, too.

These are not the things that make a film "great." They're the little technical things that should ALWAYS be there.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 09, 2004 12:05 PM: Message edited by: GREATwarEAGLE ]</font>

[MatJimMood]

Most of the people on this board are more concerned with the technical side of filmmaking so the main focus of criticism is on the technical side.

Its a lot easier to give advice on editing, lighting, compostion etc., than it is to give advice on storytelling and plot. I guess we've just got to remember that we are all learning how to use film techniques to tell a story. The little technical things should always be there but those are the skills that we are developing and the main reason people post here.

[belovedmonster]

I dont understand your argument GREATwarEAGLE, it is becos these things are there even in the worst movie ever released that its the first thing to get criticised in movies that dont have them. Entertainment is a luxury until the movie is at least watchable.

[Generic Skinhead]

I'm not so sure people around here are more interested in the technical side. It's just that the scripts/films on here are generally weakest in the narrative/acting departments, so you point out what the person did well, which tends to be the technical side.

Personally I'm also unsure about putting up my stuff on the net. I'm not enthusiastic about going to the trouble of lighting a really nice piece of super 16 only for it to be compresssed and pixelated and just about watchable on the net.

Everyone tends to write their own stuff, which I think is a big mistake. So few people can do it, and even those who can need to do extensive research in the area. I think of myself as a writer, but the stuff I've learned in just the last few months has been a real eye-opener. It's an on-going process and you have to take a lot of criticsm even if you're really good.

I've written eight drafts of a six page short over the past four months. It's been tedious at times, but the feedback along the way allows me to be more critical of myself and to become a better writer.

Anyway, I find the reviewing on here to generally be fairly accurate. I'd say that 90 percent of people I've ever met are completley incapable of taking criticism despite what they say. Its really tough, and without trying to sound trite, the truth does hurt at times.

Being able to see your own limitations is perhaps one of the greatest filmmaking and life skills I can imagine.