Michael Bay is a hack compared to the kid who made "Panic Attack."
... The Kid? It's a Grown Man, and he's not new to the industry.
... And Michael Bay a Hack in comparison?
Well............................. .. . . okay.....
My point is that you chose a terrible example to illustrate what constitutes a "bad" short film. I like the movie. Still do.
The consensus is that it's a bad short film, if even that. A VFX Reel. So you like it... cool. It doesn't change the majority vote, which you can get a feel for right there in the Comments.
You're one out of thirty so far that view it as an actual narrative short film. High art? Nothing to do with it.
and good enough to have gone massively viral -- unlike anything you or I have done, since we're both posting here instead of being too busy making our next Hollywood movie masterpiece.
You're making assumptions without any info and they're dead wrong.
Just because I'm posting here doesn't mean I'm not busy. This is 2011, multi-tasking surged in 1999. Those who succeed keep up with the planet via the internet. Again, no offense, but I don't feel you're speaking for yourself.
Too many filmmakers -- always ones who haven't yet made it big -- are elitist snobs about other people's work. It's a tiresome, boring, cringe-inducing attitude. I haven't read enough of your posts to know if you're this kind of person, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
And too many against elitist snobs the same. I stay on the fence: just because I feel that you don't need a good short to succeed doesn't make me an elitist or opposite of. But, if we were actually judging things on someone's post, I'd say your immediacy to deflect, defend and passively-attack is pretty apparent.
In your opinion the short is a good one. In mines it's not much of a short versus a VFX test.
That's fine by me. Hopefully, that's also cool with you.
But it's often harder for certain people to support indie filmmakers by pointing out what they did right. "Panic Attack" is the perfect paradigm of how to make a short that gets Hollywood's attention. Bravo for that guy. You can see the hard work and sincere effort that went into it. "Panic Attack" isn't Kubrick -- it's simply fun, which is all it was trying to be. And it succeeded, which is not an easy task.
Give it props where props are due. Is that so much to ask?
AT the end of the day, the work is out there and just like any other major production it should stand up on it's own two feet. As a filmmaker (working) it's cool that this guy (who isn't new to any of this) got himself a VFX spectacle to show and made a deal of it.
It does not mean that it's good, great, or anything close to it. It just shows that he can see a project through from start to finish and garner some attention from the public, regardless of a complete lack of story, character building, etc.
Wait... sounds like... Michael Bay.
