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!
In a well edited film you do not notice the editing.
I feel it bizaar that Miker preaches to us mear mortals the art of editing. Just pull your film OFF the web site it does not work as a 60 second short. You've made a mistake and except it, don't justify it. I'm not just a critic I'm a viewer, you make it sound like you need a double first in law from Cambridge to understand your film(or more likely a mind reader), if so continue to make your films for a very very very minority audience, who may understand it, but all the same maynot still enjoy it.
I have not seen any George A. Romero films Despin and unlikely to see any. I have expressed my opinion and you have expressed yours, I don't expect you to like what I like. I think we understand the editing process though.
Phaethon diffuse glow is an aesthetic that's like saying I liked the film because the lead star was very attractive, and as for wanting to see the completed film i beleive you just did.
I think its great that Miker is pioneerrinng his own film genre. I will refer to it as 'Film Miker Noir' from now on. And to think I thought you were a technical geek.
despite the editing though...with the plot and such,it's not exactly bad for a movie to not make sense. like miker said earlier, it allows an interpretation on any basis. kind of like when you go to a therapists office and he holds out those little cards with pictures on them and asks ,"what do you think?" or "what do you see?"...some filmmakers or artists are more concerned with metaphors and imagery, which in some cases give a piece a more in depth feel
What are you all on about?
It seems perfectly well edited to me, although I
have seen the original (full length) before - so perhaps that helps to understand it. This is a well cut down version of that story. Incidently the full version doesnt explain much more.
Its short and distinct, although I think the full (10 min?) version is better - it has more time to create an atmosphere, it does retain the sinister edge of the full thing.
Of course something written as a 60s peice is likely to be better than something written as a 10 min peice and then cut down.
Anyway at least people are talking about it. I dont see many other people posting their work up to be seen. Perhaps this forum is full of movie watchers and self styled critics with too much time on their hands rather than film makers.
blah blah blah
Wow, a heated discussion! As long as it gets hits to our site, any publicity is good publicity. [img]smile.gif[/img]
We accepted Mike's movie because we felt it was a nice departure from our current films. It added a nice variety to the lineup. It was darker, more menacing, sureal, and open.
Our films may be more cut and dry, with the explosions and 10 second countdowns... Perhaps we are that other 95% of filmmakers. [img]wink.gif[/img]
Anyway, it's causing a discussion, and what else could we, or a filmmaker, ask for? That's why we uploaded it, and that's why we're gonna keep it on the site. I hope this discussion spawns more submissions to our site - they're always welcome!
Beau (and Casey)
"extendng a moment/time"
AMERICAN BEAUTY
does this - they show the same event, with quick cuts, happening more than once in the fantasies Spacey has of whats-her-face.
THE OMEN
When Gregory Peck's friend is decapitated by the truck going in reverse with the sheet of glass. As it happens, they cut to several different angles, repeating the decapitation.
For the record the site Url is now
http://www.60secondmovies.com/
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My original comment refers to doing this unintentionally ... a bad cut. You can lose frames (compress time) and ppl generally won't notice - but if time is repeated, ppl will notice because the edit will jar. So it's something that can be used sparingly for sure, so long as it is intentional. Intential expansion of time usually involves more than 3 frames, whereas a bad jarring cut will be noticable with 3 frames, sometimes less. 3 frames because the bad cut was probably unintential.Quote:
Originally posted by GREATwarEAGLE:
"extendng a moment/time"
AMERICAN BEAUTY
does this - they show the same event, with quick cuts, happening more than once in the fantasies Spacey has of whats-her-face.
THE OMEN
When Gregory Peck's friend is decapitated by the truck going in reverse with the sheet of glass. As it happens, they cut to several different angles, repeating the decapitation.
I see.
I'v noticed how you now always put my posts in quotes. Is this incase I edit what I say so that you have proof?
Thats funny.
Chill out, dude. It's not Alex you're talking to.
I got lost in the end but the rest of the editing seemed ok [img]cool.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Talkin to me, andyblaa?Quote:
Chill out, dude. It's not Alex you're talking to.
i can't get to the bloody site, something wrong with my connection or something.
nice to see i'm not the only one to get 'constructive' criticism!
Its down atm.. but be sure to use the new Url I posted
Yeah I was talking to you, GWE. Why do you wanna make something of it? [img]graemlins/grrr.gif[/img]
And relax.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's nothing personal. I do it regularly, usually to show my reply in context. Maybe you just ask more questions than anyone else.Quote:
Originally posted by GREATwarEAGLE:
I see.
I'v noticed how you now always put my posts in quotes. Is this incase I edit what I say so that you have proof?
Thats funny.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I still find it difficult to be subjective about it even after a year. I'm not kidding myself that it would ever win any awards and it does lack 'zing' (zest?). But I do think someone could work out what was going on from the exposition I presented (I could be wrong of course). Also there is zero continiuity, relying instead on the cuts to carry the rhythm. I didn't see anyone point out all the continuity errors?Quote:
Originally posted by Vlad the Impaler:
I got lost in the end but the rest of the editing seemed ok [img]cool.gif[/img]
Maybe I am speaking bollocks, but I don't care. If I was channel hopping and I came across Dupe I would like to think I would sit there and watch it because it is different (not necessarily because it is better, and not because I know it would only be 60 seconds long :lol [img]smile.gif[/img] . If I was channel hopping and saw lots of guns and bullet time: NEXT!
That's why going to the cinema is special, because you make time to do it. So what's on had better damn well be worth watching.
[/RAMBLE] [img]graemlins/sleepy.gif[/img]
i personally couldn't really get into the film myself. had nice production values from what i could see though and the acting was pretty good.
perhaps the proper length version would captivate me more.
(just a query but the talk about your editing style means i would like to ask about crossing the line in the opening dialogue)
anyway nice one miker
Okay I must have miscontrued your tone. It just sounded a bit arsy to me, like you were taking the piss because Miker had quoted what you wrote and implying he didn't trust you.
And the relax was for me because I was just taking the piss. It's a Harry Hill quote. He's an English comedian and I neglected the fact that you wouldn't have remotely heard the comment before.
Whoa, well-ard smilie usage.
Duck and cover.
"chil-out"
"relax"
What in my posts makes you think I need to chil and relax? Cause I asked miker a question?
It's another problem with tone on the internet.
Okay. So we settled that. Group hug. [img]graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/boy_hug.gif[/img]