NEW V TRADITIONAL (Courtesy of Roy who's idea it is)

IAC General Discussions
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Re: Post subject

Post by billyfromConsett »

Roy wrote: This whole thread I thought was to ascertain what the man in the street made of these New methods, and not particularly what Film makers thought of it.
I only entered the fray because it was stated that audiances had accepted the new Look. And I still say that only a small proportion of the middle to elderly aged general audiance are not disturbed by hosepiping Zooms and an excess of Hand held cqmera shots. Roy
The thread keeps going off your intended track - possibly because of who reads it. (not the man in the street)

As far as I'm aware, cinema is popular these days, with, as has already been stated, young people - teens to mid 20's maybe.

Massive budgets, special effects, action, and good looking actors/actresses being order of the say. A storyline doesn't always get a mention, apart from media reviewers who usually slate the cinema-goers for causing a number of these 'blockbusters' without actual plots, to break all financial records.

Take the latest Pirates of the Caribbean. From a marking perspective in terms of film quality, it ain't gonna get put in there with the classics. But it has hit the intended targets in the money stakes - and that's what it's all about.
Peter Thomlinson

Re: New V. Traditional

Post by Peter Thomlinson »

billyfromConsett wrote:

It might apply here (definitely at club level) when we do things like interview people in a noisy area. If the film-maker is successful, you hear somebody talking, without the ambient noise bossing the shot. Mr Judger-Watcher will hear the interview without maybe fully appreciating the work of miking that inverview. The experienced judger-watcher, like yourself maybe, would appreciate that audio skill and give it a mark. Maybe that's what it can boil down to - experience.
I find it awful these days when you get such interviews carried out by "professionals" like the BBC (TV and also radio as well) where the interview has been done by a busy road, in a noisy factory, or a huge noisy crowd of people, or whatever, and you can hardly hear the content. There was a time (long gone) when that would have been unnaceptable to the BBC. It is just lazyness, saving on time and money, and sheer incompetence. They are also happy to use mobile phone interviews where the audio quality is appalling, as well as mobile phone footage. It seems to me that often the "amateurs" (us) have become the "professionals" and the BBC and commercial TV and radio wallers are now the "amateurs." And I also HATE the way things are sometimes shot where actors who are sitting say at a table on the pavement are picked up by a camera(s) across the street and people and vehicles pass and block out the view. That is really bad film making, in my opinion.

In the music world (well, serious classical music) it would be unthinkable for auditions to be judged by anyone but musicians, and usually by experts on that particular instrument. One of the things I criticise over the music examination system here (called the Associated Board) is that often a pianist will be examining a string player at a certain grade, or whatever, and visa versa. The Board argue (and some of their examiners) that they have been trained (and that's a dubious qualification) to judge on general musical levels, and not on expert knowledge on a particular instrument. To that I always say something like *****cks!

I think it is always important for actors to be given recognition and due praise for their work in a film, simply because good acting will make or break a drama, be it on a professional or "amateur" level.
If our films should take the technical side and acting for granted, then some people might simply not bother to really work on something, cos they'll be no thanks fot it, which is not exactly what our clubs want. Most of us have that little bit of ego that needs stroking when they get it right, even by a judge! Though if they're not entering competitions, their argument is fine for them, but not for all.
I have to say that sometimes judges are not very good "judges" of acting, or directing. Quite often they have no clue at all, and only look at the technical side of the actual film making.
User avatar
FILM THURSO
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Thurso
Contact:

Post by FILM THURSO »

Don't take the technical or acting sides for granted (only the audience do that) just don't worry about it so much. Make your films and do the best you can and never stand waiting for anyone to say thank you. You'll only feel the cold hands of dissappointment. Be welcoming to bad reviews and low/no audience turn-outs. When you have a success it will feel all the better but always put your heart into what you do.
User avatar
FILM THURSO
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Thurso
Contact:

Post by FILM THURSO »

Perhaps the BBC hasn't time nor money to spend on clearing a street to get a clean soundtrack after a terrorist attack. I think we should accept the sound on the news at least whether we like it or not as the news teams face dangers to bring us these bulletins. It costs money to set things up and you don't get so much for your pound these days. Aunty has to be frugal with the license money. We've got to be practically minded for many of the situations they record in. There aren't many businesses today that would stop their factory for the press.
Peter Thomlinson

Post by Peter Thomlinson »

FILM THURSO wrote:Perhaps the BBC hasn't time nor money to spend on clearing a street to get a clean soundtrack after a terrorist attack. I think we should accept the sound on the news at least whether we like it or not as the news teams face dangers to bring us these bulletins. It costs money to set things up and you don't get so much for your pound these days. Aunty has to be frugal with the license money. We've got to be practically minded for many of the situations they record in. There aren't many businesses today that would stop their factory for the press.
Can't agree with this at all as I'm not asking for street clearances but just the old BBC standards where they would find a quiet corner to do an interview. And who said anything about terrorist attacks? I'm talking about normal interviews, so I don't think your comments have anything to do with my previous post. There is plenty of money with the BBC, probably too much in fact, as a lot gets wasted. Have you ever worked for the BBC? I have.
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Post by billyfromConsett »

I think the BBC have had to go with the flow- they do have real competition these days, and the need to be there when breaking news stories are happening means to me that if they don't get a any kind of bulletin out, then their competitors will.

So they've axed in many cases quality of sound to at least be there with the rest of their rivals.

I think their news reporters are pretty good, and the Panarama news docs are usually worth watching.

So hip hip hooray for the BBC.
User avatar
FILM THURSO
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Thurso
Contact:

Post by FILM THURSO »

Yes Mr Thomlinson, sir. I've worked with the BBC twice! (I also do pro-theatre, radio and film) Whilst money is wasted it's not unique to the Beeb but it remains that whatever the news item, there is so much going on and so much preasure to get the bulletins ready that something has to give even for normal interviews. Filming schedules have always been tight and financially restricted. I say again, you get less for your pound nowadays.
Post Reply