• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Dialog with a Robot

I'm making a short where I have having a discussion with AI that is on a computer screen. Normally when two characters are talking, you would do an over the shoulder shot of who is talking. Can I still achieve this same technique when I am talking to the TV/robot?

I want the audience to have a perspective that the robot is aware, and so I was thinking an over the TV type of shot when I am talking but I think it looks weird. Does anyone have any idea of a good way to achieve this shot?
 
Personally, I think an over-the-tv is fine. Don't forget about a beside-the-tv angle. If these don't work out with your story, then you could also get creative with mirrors in your sets if the typical angles don't look right and you need the computer to appear to be looking at the actor without actually angling the computer screen away... if that makes sense.

Incidentally, I am finishing up post on a short with computer-inhabiting AI at the moment. I actually didn't have a single OTS-style shot from the computer. One thing I did was cheat both actors and screens towards the camera just a bit, so you could see both the computer screens and the actors. I can PM you a screenshot if you want.

(Slightly off topic: personally, I hate OTS and shot-reverse-shots for conversations because they are overused and boring, but that's just one of my little quirks)
 
Yeah, I would appreciate if you could send me a picture of how you did it. The idea about mirrors is interesting. The TV I'm using is mounted to the wall, but I could cheat by using a different TV to get it in the shot.

I agree that OTS shots are over used, however, I feel like audiences are use to them quickly understand what you are trying to convey.
 
ProfAnon: Sent you a message. I didn't post it publicly because the shot isn't done yet.

however, I feel like audiences are use to them quickly understand what you are trying to convey.
Exactly. If you're basically showing something audiences have seen so many times they have literally become conditioned to expect it, then why are you showing it? (sort of a general question I ask myself about everything).

Sweetie: First I stay away from static conversations at the writing stage, if possible. If I have one, I like long takes in wider angles showing both people, close ups, pans, actors moving into or out of the frame. I mean, I'm not going to never use OTS or shot-reverse-shot, I just stay away from it as a crutch for not coming up with something more interesting.
 
If you're basically showing something audiences have seen so many times they have literally become conditioned to expect it, then why are you showing it?

You're showing it to get a conditioned response! An equally valid question to ask yourself is; Why do it differently, What are you trying to achieve by doing it differently? If it's just to look different and/or to avoid what audiences are used/conditioned to, then what you're likely to end up with is maybe more interesting cinematography but at the expense of good storytelling. In other words, more interesting cinematography does not necessarily mean a better film, it can just as easily mean a worse film. At the end of the day, OTS, other common dialogue shot types and other not so common shot types are just filmmaking tools. There's a strong likelihood that the use of not so common dialogue shot types, wider angles and/or movement, will occupy more of the audience's attention and therefore distract/disengage them from the actual storytelling.

Normally when two characters are talking, you would do an over the shoulder shot of who is talking. Can I still achieve this same technique when I am talking to the TV/robot?

Technically it's relatively easy (as already explained), aesthetically it's not so simple if, as you've described, you're trying to create the the POV/perspective of the AI. The perspective of a character, any character, is defined not by what a camera would see but by what that particular character would perceive and perception and reality are two different things! What an AI or robot would perceive would be significantly different, I would imagine, than what an average human would perceive, in what way/s it would be different and how you achieve an audience appreciation of that difference/s is the tricky part, much more so IMHO than exactly which type of shot you use to draw us into the AI's POV.

G
 
You're showing it to get a conditioned response!
This is my point, and it's boring. Or, in nicer terms, it's not as interesting as it could be.

An equally valid question to ask yourself is; Why do it differently, What are you trying to achieve by doing it differently?
Yes, these are the questions everyone should ask about everything they do with film. (And, really, everything else is life--though, in film, there's no risk to making something different to try out an idea, whereas I would more cautious about walking backwards all the time to see if it's more comfortable).

If it's just to look different and/or to avoid what audiences are used/conditioned to, then what you're likely to end up with is maybe more interesting cinematography but at the expense of good storytelling.
Yes, you will almost certainly end up with a less traditional story if you think through your actions more thoroughly, because a lot of behavior is quite ridiculous if you abstract it a bit (Eg: 3 times a day, I shove organic matter into a hole in my face, down my gullet, where it stews in acid until... well, you know). Everyone has a level of originality that they find optimum, from mildly disliking sequels to thinking it's lame to use cameras because someone already has.

In other words, more interesting cinematography does not necessarily mean a better film, it can just as easily mean a worse film.
Agreed, good and bad are entirely subjective, as is interesting, for that matter.

At the end of the day, OTS, other common dialogue shot types and other not so common shot types are just filmmaking tools.
Agreed. That's why I said I'm not going to never use them, though I do dislike using OTS as a crutch for when I can't think of something more interesting to do.

There's a strong likelihood that the use of not so common dialogue shot types, wider angles and/or movement, will occupy more of the audience's attention and therefore distract/disengage them from the actual storytelling.
This assumes traditional storytelling and narrative is the goal, which in my case it sometimes isn't. Just another one of my little quirks.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from making films I wouldn't make, of course. If everyone shared my filmmaking philosophy, we'd all be doing the same different things and then I'd be forced to use OTS just to break to monotony!
 
The farther you move away from traditional narrative techniques the smaller your audience becomes. If you want to have an emotional impact on the largest possible segment of your viewing audience, then you use "common" techniques that the viewer has already been trained to respond to. This is not a "right" or "wrong" concept, it just is.

So long as your doing what you want to do with intent, and you understand the implications, then you should go that way, however, you should expect that not everyone is going to get it and your chances of success are diminished.
 
Back
Top