archived-videos Guy Series

FCRabbath · Apr 2, 2012

Hey guys,
A small little mission of ours was to make little viral style comedies for youtube and comedy festivals.
Hence the birth of the GUY series. Would love your thoughts.

INTERNET GUY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13ExuZdDFyk

DEAD GUY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-6W9sX9f8w

STORY GUY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvhkTk9HuHg

BLESSED GUY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPqeYyKKww8

DOOR GUY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3krgSFS4U0

VOLCANO GUY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HQ1HQnKuBo

COLD GUY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YuWtzhO1gA

Main Channel - http://www.youtube.com/fcrabbath for our other works.

Most are 50 seconds long.
Cheers,
FC

MileCreations · Apr 2, 2012

I've been following you on YouTube as you release them, my favorites are probably Dead Guy, Door Guy and Blessed Guy

I noticed you jumped around a little with the 180 degree rule, especially with the latest, Internet Guy. Was this intended? I can't remember if it was in the other ones

GuerrillaAngel · Apr 2, 2012

FCRabbath said:
viral style

Care to explain what sets apart the viral style from the non-viral style? :weird:

FCRabbath · Apr 2, 2012

GuerrillaAngel said:
Care to explain what sets apart the viral style from the non-viral style?

Nothing to really explain, just certain elements that make certain videos viral. Such as short, funny, and share friendly. Something that doesn't need to be explained in length.

rockerrockstar · Apr 7, 2012

Internet Guy video say "This video is private".

Watched them all I think the mail box one was the best.

GuerrillaAngel · Apr 8, 2012

FCRabbath said:
Nothing to really explain, just certain elements that make certain videos viral. Such as short, funny, and share friendly. Something that doesn't need to be explained in length.

Okay, these may be what viral videos have in common - increasing your odds one would say- but a true viral video can't be made -- they just happen. If one sets out to "make one" then it's not a viral video -- if it takes off, it's from your marketing efforts (although there is some luck involved with that, too).

FCRabbath · Apr 8, 2012

GuerrillaAngel said:
Okay, these may be what viral videos have in common - increasing your odds one would say- but a true viral video can't be made -- they just happen. If one sets out to "make one" then it's not a viral video -- if it takes off, it's from your marketing efforts (although there is some luck involved with that, too).

I said "Viral Style" meaning what they have in common to be placed onto a style. I'm sorry the words selected was not to your liking, and I don't think it should be read more into it.

that1guyy · Apr 8, 2012

FCRabbath said:
I said "Viral Style" meaning what they have in common to be placed onto a style. I'm sorry the words selected was not to your liking, and I don't think it should be read more into it.

Agreed. People over analyze everything unnecessarily. Good shorts though!

GuerrillaAngel · Apr 8, 2012

I said "Viral Style" meaning what they have in common to be placed onto a style. I'm sorry the words selected was not to your liking, and I don't think it should be read more into it.

It doesn't have to be to my liking. But it is somewhat of a PR stunt that raises eyebrows. This can be good or bad depending on your intentions. Since you stated it in a film making forum, naturally questions like these will arise.

People over analyze everything unnecessarily.

They do, huh? Well, let's quit analyzing and shut the forum down because us filmmakers all completely agree about everything and anything. I had a reason for asking and this IS a discussion forum. Thank you. . :rolleyes:

trueindie · Apr 8, 2012

GuerrillaAngel said:
It doesn't have to be to my liking. But it is somewhat of a PR stunt that raises eyebrows. This can be good or bad depending on your intentions. Since you stated it in a film making forum, naturally questions like these will arise.

They do, huh? Well, let's quit analyzing and shut the forum down because us filmmakers all completely agree about everything and anything. I had a reason for asking and this IS a discussion forum. Thank you. .

Hey Guerilla, I think he just created this post to share his videos with us. He didn't mean much when he said "viral" video. He was just saying that "style", because they have certain things in common, such as length, comedic in nature, etc., etc., meaning that's why he didn't make a 30 minute short, so to speak. We've all thought of how to make viral videos, and he was just subconsciously expressing that 'kinship' with us fellow filmmakers. That's all I took from what he said.

Let's not debate "how to make a viral video" on this thread. The man is sharing his videos. Let's let him do that.

and by all means, let's rip apart his work...

GuerrillaAngel · Apr 9, 2012

trueindie said:
and by all means, let's rip apart his work...

Okay, I watched Dead guy . . . 4 sec logo, 4 sec title, good, good . . . contents, well mostly not my thing, probably others might get a kick out if it. As for the camera sliding technique -- its not really working here. It's going in one direction from one angle and in the other direction from a different angle. It doesn't cut together well -- jarring, really. Anyone notice this?

trueindie · Apr 9, 2012

GuerrillaAngel said:
Okay, I watched Dead guy . . . 4 sec logo, 4 sec title, good, good . . . contents, well mostly not my thing, probably others might get a kick out if it. As for the camera sliding technique -- its not really working here. It's going in one direction from one angle and in the other direction from a different angle. It doesn't cut together well -- jarring, really. Anyone notice this?

I actually liked this camera technique. I've actually thought of doing it myself. I like my camera moving if I can do it. So I've thought of putting movement in my over the shoulder shots and I've thought about how to achieve that if the camera slides and switches at the same time, but I've never DONE it. But what he did is exactly what I was thinking of doing. So I actually got a kick just out of the technique itself.

If you watch again, both cameras are actually going in the same direction, until about the 20 second mark. If I could do it, maybe I'd slide slower so that I had the same direction for a longer length of time, instead of bringing the camera back. But for all I know, maybe he DID want to bring the camera back. Maybe he DID want to throw us off. I don't know. All I know is that I got the story.

Watch his other stuff. Watch his channel. He is always experimenting. The difference between his experiments and, let's say my experiments, is that his experiments are way better.

That's no reason for you not to critique his technique or his storytelling. But saying the sliding technique does not work is not good criticism, in my opinion. You have to say 'why' it doesn't work, AND what he needs to do instead to achieve the effect he may be going for. If it's just an aesthetic and you just don't want the camera to slide, that's your aesthetic and not about good or bad technique. I like blue, maybe you like green, but one is not right and the other is not wrong.

Your critique should be directed at helping all our fellow filmmakers become better, and have a better understanding of what works, what doesn't work, and let the filmmaker decide what s/he can live with even if it doesn't work for some.

cheers,

GuerrillaAngel · Apr 9, 2012

The golden rule of editing is that the audience is not suppose to notice the edit. I noticed it and here we are discussing it. It needs to be fixed IMO and he likely doesn't want to hear my fix which is why I yielded the floor to others.

What I've learned here is NOT do the sliding techniques except for perhaps on longer takes. IMO low budget filmmakers (editors) don't need this additional matching complication in post while trying to put together a feature film.

----------

The OP is submitting to festivals so we're talking of a higher level of criticism here. If the mismatch was intentional, I'd say it was more of a blunder if one is hoping to get into a high tiered festival.

(Just to make sure we're talking about the same film it's "The Dead Guy")

The noticeable mismatch edits are at :12 and :14. The later one you mention has them both going in the same direction and it works. At :26 however, the camera stops moving and there's a noticeable jar. The edit that follows also works because it's a still shot to another still shot.

Throwing cutaways in at :12, :14, and :26 might be the fixes. Or he can just let it slide!

------
----------

trueindie · Apr 9, 2012

GuerrillaAngel said:
The golden rule of editing is that the audience is not suppose to notice the edit.

This is actually not a bad rule. I happen to agree with it in most instances. But there is no rule that HAS to be adhered to all the time. You may think there are. I don't think so. I can break a rule anytime I want to and it really doesn't have to be 'fixed'. If you don't want to break the rules, don't break them. But if other people want to, they should be able to.

What I've learned here is NOT do the sliding techniques except for perhaps on longer takes. IMO low budget filmmakers (editors) don't need this additional matching complication in post while trying to put together a feature film.

You're not going to have this 'additional matching complication' if you think things through before hand. It's going to be a little more complicated, but the sliding shots make your stuff look much better. I find it only mildly more complicated and actually super exciting to figure out how I'm going to edit my sliding shots. So it's not really a big deal for me as I do my own editing.

(Just to make sure we're talking about the same film it's "The Dead Guy")

The noticeable mismatch edits are at :12 and :14.

They go in the same direction. They go in opposite directions on the screen, because they are supposed to. But they actually go in the same direction with respect to the room, just from opposite sides of the 180.

The later one you mention has them both going in the same direction and it works. At :26 however, the camera stops moving and there's a noticeable jar. The edit that follows also works because it's a still shot to another still shot.

The one I mention, at :20 is actually out of match for me

Throwing cutaways in at :12, :14, and :26 might be the fixes. Or he can just let it slide!

I think he's going to let it slide