Printable View
60 Second Movie Hour has added it's first submitted film to the website. And it is made by none other then this very message board's own member, "miker". I hope all of you will visit the site and watch and rate his movie, "Dupe". It is a slightly twisted, and entertaining scifi short.
Click here to watch Dupe!
Beau
I have descided to become a critic.
That was a complete waste of 60 seconds of my time.
Quite frankly I'd rather watch an episode of Dr. Who from the 1970 for entertainment and realism.
Oh well, make sure you save your film in a format that'll be compatible in ISO formats in the year 2112, so we can laugh at it then.
Mind you if it was a comedy Very Well Done!!!!!!!!!! You made me laugh
Is your review towards "Dupe" or towards the entire 60 Second line up of movies?
Dupe is a different 60 second movie, I assure you. It may not be as strait forward as the other movies, but then again it was cut from a 12 min. movie to a 60 second one. Personally I don't think it is as bad a Dr. Who, although the budget was probably the same. Which is still bigger then any of my movies. [img]wink.gif[/img]
I invite everyone to submit their own film, whether you liked Dupe and want to make something similar, or whether you hate it with a passion and want to prove that you can do better. We would love to see a 60 second movie from any of you.
Beau
good contrustive criticism there machead, I like the way you avoid the subject of exactly why it was a waste of your time and instead make comparisons to other stuff in a somewhat abstract fashion.
you are a rubbish critic so I can safely ignore your comments so far.
and, although not a comedy per se, it is definitely supposed to have a comedic element. did you not notice the staple of every good science fiction movie, the colander?
ah well, a quote from a great (even though the corporation he left behind may not be so great):
"All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me. . . . You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you. "
-- Walt(er) Elias Disney (1901-66),
so kick me properly, so I may learn.
I didn't think it was bad at all. I liked the diffuse glow you used in the shot where the protagonist meets the greasy guy. I would like to see the full version before I give any serious criticism, or praise.
I think 60 second movie site is good, I think I was wrong to critisize the production of the film, good production values require good budgets. I think the editing is awful. It makes no sense there are no links from one scene to another. Your film was never intended to be 60 seconds long that's why it does not work. Its also a Zombie movie, in my opinion the lowest common denominator in the realms of film making.
In fairness I was very rude initially, and should have been somewhat more sensitive and costructive with my critism. I sincerely oppologise
Hey there.
The reasons I think Mikers movie shouldnt be up there is because its not a "60 second movie" its a 60 sconds worth of a much longer movie.
Its not even a trailer. It seems to be a bunch of random stuff.
"Its also a Zombie movie, in my opinion the lowest common denominator in the realms of film making."
Go look at the work of a guy named George A. Romero.
Despin out.
i find it interesting that ppl either 'get it' or find it utter drivel.
personally i think the editing's okay, but, then, that'll be because edited it.
i think not understanding the editing shows a primitive in the realm of film language IMVHO.
for example, i remember seeing some docco about editing and expostion waybackwhen.
basically it said that a person not used (overexposed!?) to modern media and editing would not understand the concept of time compression in editing.
one rule of editing is that you can compress time but not expand it (well).
another is to cut on a movement, however small.
and to test if your editing ***** , watch your movie with the sound off -- any badly jarring edits will jump out at you.
next time you watch some adverts -- really analyse them -- do they give a fsck about continuity and scene changes? do they?! and yet they manage to pack so much into 30s ...
i realise that my 60s film is not something to get too excited about, but at least i have some (more) work out there.
i am intending to at some point when i get time/organised do a specific 60s movie -- but I warn you, all my stuff is weird and likely to be totally misunderstood, but i like the fact that my work (even editing it seems) is open to interpretation, just like any piece of art.
http://cluscon.dynu.com/~honeypot/filmog/index.htm
(or, 'Do you want to know more?' link)
also, believe it or not, i try to design all my most recent shorts to have three acts, rather than just a first act like most short-films have. but that's whole different discussion.
Hey there.
Who, so far has "got it" ?
"i think not understanding the editing shows a primitive in the realm of film language IMVHO."
In a word. B*LOCKS.
Your editing is not THAT advanced mate. There is a difference between montage/time cuts and what you did.
"one rule of editing is that you can compress time but not expand it(well)"
I dont know where you heard that. Ever heard of Hitchcocks "there is a bomb on a bus" theory?
Sometimes editing is ALL about extending a moment. How many movies have you seen a timer with just 10 seconds to go be streched out to build tension. Thats what editing is all about.
At the end of the day you have butchered what may well be a fine short movie to get it at the 60 second mark. It didnt work. Get over it. To start going of on a tangent about adverts and music and cutting on a move is just pointless.
I look forward to seeing your actual 60 second movie.
Despin out.
extending a moment is not what i meant by expanding time.
we've all seen an explosion extended, or even the ten second timer trick -- these are tools to heighten drama or thrills/suspense -- but when was the last time you enjoyed a bad cut on someone opening a door so that it appears to almost be opened twice?
they extend time in the latest bond movie through the use of slo-mo and (gah!) bullet-time. IMO that really *** and will date the movie badly. that may not particularly be anything to care about in a commercial product, but it will happen.
the ppl who have 'got it' so far have been viewers watching with no preconceptions of what it, or i, am about.
and i'm always 'over' my productions once they're complete, i see no point in getting precious about my work. but i do like to recycle my old stuff from time to time, simply because it's cheap.
i also think that the shortcomings of the 60s piece also prevail in the longer version -- an audience are not spoon-fed what they expect and so they reject what they see.
perhaps if i had more guns and explosions and a ten second timer it would all be more enjoyable. it probably would. but then i'd be doing what 95% of what all other filmmakers are doing. and before you retort with "but it's a zombie movie", well, it most definitely is not intended to be, although i can see why it may come across as such.
at the end of the day, it's just another dumb short lost in the depths of the internet which ppl will either like or not, or more likely never even get to see it! but it has more chance of getting seen than the miniDV tape i have sitting on my shelf ...
i apologise, i thought this was a discussion forum for independent filmmakers. the sooner others post their completed work, the sooner we can discuss that!