archived-videos I, Creator -- A 4 Minute Preview

Cracker Funk said:
This is going to be difficult for me to say, without sounding like an A-hole. Please know that I'm not trying to chop you down or discourage any future work.

In my opinion, a movie has to acheive a certain aesthetic to be taken seriously by most audiences. The cinematography needs to be professional-quality; the acting, audio, everything needs to be professional quality. Without acheiving that, I believe most audiences just won't take a movie seriously. They might watch it, but they watch it knowing that they are watching something ameatureish and I think they kind of giggle inside at the comparatively poor production values. It is for this reason that I believe a low-budget production will be most effective if it keeps things light and fun.

Speaking of your movie in particular, you might think my idea of giving it a "Laser Cats" treatment is crap, but actually I mentioned that because you kind of already have done that. "I, Creator" does not have the aesthetic of "Terminator". It has the aesthetic of "Laser Cats". I'm not just talking about cinematography, but props, costumes, locations, everything. Instead of letting that be a detractor, you could use it as a strength, have some fun with it, ramp up the tongue-in-cheek humor to level 10.

For "I, Creator 2", you're talking about having it take place in a spaceship and then on a distant planet populated by Amazon women. You can't really think that any audience is going to take that seriously, do you? I'm not saying don't make it. I'd love to see it. But me, personally, I only want to watch it if you make it fun, take advantage of the inherent humor that already exists in a low-budget futuristic sci-fi.

I see no reason why you can't tell the same story, with the same interesting characters that you've created, while making us laugh at the fun of it all.
Click to expand...

The reason we are looking to up the budget is to give it better production values where it will be taken seriously. A good movie about a planet of high tech Amazons is an untapped market.

The producers of Smallville had a steep road to climb to make a better Supergirl in Season 7 when the Supergirl movie with Helen Slater was done really bad and campy.

I still expect the sequel to be campy, but it will turn peoples heads when they see how much better is can be than the first.

Most Indie movies are of the B-movie caliber to begin with. What makes them interesting are unique characters and an original story. In making a science fiction movie, some basics must remain in tack like making a story with social values like THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL.

These days, Hollywood forgets about this as the red meat and turns out "eye candy" movies that are all action and special effects with no story.

I, Creator is its' own production with it's own look. As the filmmaker who did the animated titles for me said, it has a comic book style to it. That's okay with me. The Wonder Woman TV series looked campy and like a comic book and became popular.

There is a difference in the look of Terminator Salvation and Terminator: TSCC too. That's because of budget.

By the way, the working title for I, Creator 2 is I, Creator 2: Herstory. It should have some of the look and feel of a Star Trek movie made for TV and a Greek mythology movie. Action movies and Science Fiction have a greater global appeal than a comedy because viewers don't have to understand the language like a comedy to enjoy the visuals and the action.

The real fans of Indie movies will take them seriously. You just need to get a better idea of what's out there like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Mhecb6fMg

Besides, making the original I, Creator put me into contact with better DPs. I have one lined up, if we can get the sequel off the ground.
 
Last edited:
When people see the movie I, Creator, they will like Gail Storm as well as Angela Bruno. Gail is as powerful as she is misunderstood by humans in the movie like Star Man was in the title movie. Angela's unique way of trying to blend in with humans and her perception of humans makes her character interesting. In a lot of ways, Dr. Robert Bruno has a lot of the ways of Dr. Victor Frankenstein. He is afraid of his own creation. But, unlike Frankenstein, he sticks by her longer giving her the right like of guidance.

An interesting story element is the way Angela and Gail realize humans are their gods. So, they wonder why humans are afraid of them. That is shown in the 4 minute preview. It gives the story a feel for Frankenstein that way.
 
Cracker Funk said:
This is going to be difficult for me to say, without sounding like an A-hole. Please know that I'm not trying to chop you down or discourage any future work.

In my opinion, a movie has to acheive a certain aesthetic to be taken seriously by most audiences. The cinematography needs to be professional-quality; the acting, audio, everything needs to be professional quality. Without acheiving that, I believe most audiences just won't take a movie seriously. They might watch it, but they watch it knowing that they are watching something ameatureish and I think they kind of giggle inside at the comparatively poor production values. It is for this reason that I believe a low-budget production will be most effective if it keeps things light and fun.

Speaking of your movie in particular, you might think my idea of giving it a "Laser Cats" treatment is crap, but actually I mentioned that because you kind of already have done that. "I, Creator" does not have the aesthetic of "Terminator". It has the aesthetic of "Laser Cats". I'm not just talking about cinematography, but props, costumes, locations, everything. Instead of letting that be a detractor, you could use it as a strength, have some fun with it, ramp up the tongue-in-cheek humor to level 10.

For "I, Creator 2", you're talking about having it take place in a spaceship and then on a distant planet populated by Amazon women. You can't really think that any audience is going to take that seriously, do you? I'm not saying don't make it. I'd love to see it. But me, personally, I only want to watch it if you make it fun, take advantage of the inherent humor that already exists in a low-budget futuristic sci-fi.

I see no reason why you can't tell the same story, with the same interesting characters that you've created, while making us laugh at the fun of it all.
Click to expand...

Food for thought: If the very first PLANET OF THE APES was still just an idea, would you think people would take it seriously?

A good part of it's success is the presentation. Humans stuff like animals in a museum, apes treating humans like wild animals, a planet of apes, and astronauts who are rfom Earth getting trapped on this world mistaken as the human animals?

A better DP and the way we present the scenes will make it more acceptable. I also want to budget a dedicate sound person to operate the sound equipment, which I did not have a budget for in the original.

Science Fiction and Action just so happen to be more universal than comedy because they depend on visuals and comedy and dramas depend on language and audio. When languages are translated, they can loose their humor.

Do you really need to know the language to appreciate this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Mhecb6fMg
 
Last edited:
Ok I do not want to sound like a jerk, but that was way to corny for me to watch. I mean I really am wondering what you spend 20k on? The robotic type eye thing at the beginning looked awful. I'm sorry to say it so bluntly, but if I was watching your movie as a viewer I probably would have turned it off after that.

Maybe you should try being a one or two man crew and working with actors you don't have to as much because I'm awed that you spent so much money. I've made many shorts with my friends with $0 and 0 cents so I know how to shoot no budget, for me 20k is like a kid in a candy store money. I could make 20 awesome shorts with 20k. I'm sorry to be so harsh man, I'm glad you like your work, but sometimes you need someone to bring you back to reality because when you love a project it's hard to take a look from the outside perspective.
 
Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC said:
That is a first. No one has had problems understanding the dialogue in the 4 Minute preview before.

The feature had audio problems. And, it got fixed up. I have several people giving me feedback on the remix version right now.

So, I can understand problems with the FX/dialogue/music mix. That was made prior to the remix. Essentially, the dialogue volume went up and converted from stereo to mono. And the FX and music went down in volume. Sony Vegas recorded the dialogue from the tapes in stereo.
Click to expand...

I can hear the over-done noise suppression that the "mixer" chose to put on the overly hissy radio lapels you used, and it tore up the intelligibility of the dialogue.

It sounds like the "mixer" (I put in quotes because I think you got jipped) overused Izotope RX and I can hear the digital artifacts left by it. Ask him, I bet this is exactly what happened.

The dialogue in the 4 minute sample sounded dull, lifeless and thin and I could barely understand it.

Secondly, why would dialogue ever be recorded in stereo?

That's like saying "My camera-man used 2 cameras to shoot this with and we just superimposed the 2 pictures on top of eachother in Sony Vegas and turned the brightness up."

It sounds like you got swindled, man...
 
Last edited:
Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC said:
If you heard the raw original audio with all the distortion, you'd agree it is MUCH better even in the 4 minute preview.

The audio continues to get better. It won't be great audio. But, it will be MUCH better than before.
Click to expand...

lol.

The audience only hears what's in the theaters. They never hear the original tracks. No matter how much "better" it is from the original tracks, I still think whoever boom oped for you should pay you back the money you payed for his "services".
 
Myth, I am not sure what you are going for here - feedback or a debate?

You made a feature, which to repeat what TheOpusFuller said is no small feat. I am in agreement with him on that and salute you for your efforts and achievement. I disagree with him on the point that just because one has not made a feature they have no say in this one way or the other.

I don't want to judge without seeing the whole movie but from what I've seen you could have gotten way more production value out of the final output with a $20 K budget. I guess that's where Craker is coming from and I happen to agree with him on that. It was an observation, one that I thought you asked for when you posetd on here.

You appear to be defending your movie way too much with all these counter-posts to the observations of others. I get asking for input from your peers but it's coming off as if you are looking for more and I am not sure why. If you keep posting and defending your work like this it could discourage others to give you the feedback you seek and could most certainly use. Let your work speak for itself. Some will like it and some won't. Not much you can do about that with a limited budget.

In the end you made a feature...a feature and that in itself is something to be way proud of. I hope you take our feedback in the good faith that it is being offered and use some of that info in future features (man I love saying that).

Good luck.
 
L.I.F.E. said:
Ok I do not want to sound like a jerk, but that was way to corny for me to watch. I mean I really am wondering what you spend 20k on? The robotic type eye thing at the beginning looked awful. I'm sorry to say it so bluntly, but if I was watching your movie as a viewer I probably would have turned it off after that.

Maybe you should try being a one or two man crew and working with actors you don't have to as much because I'm awed that you spent so much money. I've made many shorts with my friends with $0 and 0 cents so I know how to shoot no budget, for me 20k is like a kid in a candy store money. I could make 20 awesome shorts with 20k. I'm sorry to be so harsh man, I'm glad you like your work, but sometimes you need someone to bring you back to reality because when you love a project it's hard to take a look from the outside perspective.
Click to expand...

In the final version I added more animation to those effects.

When you graduate from home videos to bigger productions, you'll see where the money is spent. Sorry to be so blunt. But, those are the facts.

The new shotgun mic, cables, and zoom recorder alone will cost a good $5,000. I already said 1/2 of the $20K went into buying new equipment to upgrade from mini DV to HD.
 
ROC said:
I can hear the over-done noise suppression that the "mixer" chose to put on the overly hissy radio lapels you used, and it tore up the intelligibility of the dialogue.

It sounds like the "mixer" (I put in quotes because I think you got jipped) overused Izotope RX and I can hear the digital artifacts left by it. Ask him, I bet this is exactly what happened.

The dialogue in the 4 minute sample sounded dull, lifeless and thin and I could barely understand it.

Secondly, why would dialogue ever be recorded in stereo?

That's like saying "My camera-man used 2 cameras to shoot this with and we just superimposed the 2 pictures on top of eachother in Sony Vegas and turned the brightness up."

It sounds like you got swindled, man...
Click to expand...

No, it's just the way Sony Vegas Pro digitizes the audio--in stereo.

The wireless lapels recorded with lots of audio dropout, audio distortion, and sometimes with no sound at all.

Since it recorded in two channels, usually one channel had all of the distortion or most of it. I took what was salvageable from each channel.
 
Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC said:
In the final version I added more animation to those effects.

When you graduate from home videos to bigger productions, you'll see where the money is spent. Sorry to be so blunt. But, those are the facts.

The new shotgun mic, cables, and zoom recorder alone will cost a good $5,000. I already said 1/2 of the $20K went into buying new equipment to upgrade from mini DV to HD.
Click to expand...

Ha! Really graduate from home movies to bigger productions? And here I was thinking i'd be nice and give you some perspective because thats what you do in a forum when someone posts their work. You give critiques...If I post something and you'd like to critique it I'd be glad to hear it, but don't come at me like your better than me.

My "Home movies" are in fact better than your feature, so what does that say about you? Oh yea, and I spend $0 dollars on mine while your out 20 grand. Sorry to be blunt, but those are the facts.
 
Last edited:
Cracker Funk said:
This is going to be difficult for me to say, without sounding like an A-hole. Please know that I'm not trying to chop you down or discourage any future work.

In my opinion, a movie has to acheive a certain aesthetic to be taken seriously by most audiences. The cinematography needs to be professional-quality; the acting, audio, everything needs to be professional quality. Without acheiving that, I believe most audiences just won't take a movie seriously. They might watch it, but they watch it knowing that they are watching something ameatureish and I think they kind of giggle inside at the comparatively poor production values. It is for this reason that I believe a low-budget production will be most effective if it keeps things light and fun.

Speaking of your movie in particular, you might think my idea of giving it a "Laser Cats" treatment is crap, but actually I mentioned that because you kind of already have done that. "I, Creator" does not have the aesthetic of "Terminator". It has the aesthetic of "Laser Cats". I'm not just talking about cinematography, but props, costumes, locations, everything. Instead of letting that be a detractor, you could use it as a strength, have some fun with it, ramp up the tongue-in-cheek humor to level 10.

For "I, Creator 2", you're talking about having it take place in a spaceship and then on a distant planet populated by Amazon women. You can't really think that any audience is going to take that seriously, do you? I'm not saying don't make it. I'd love to see it. But me, personally, I only want to watch it if you make it fun, take advantage of the inherent humor that already exists in a low-budget futuristic sci-fi.

I see no reason why you can't tell the same story, with the same interesting characters that you've created, while making us laugh at the fun of it all.
Click to expand...

I agree with the production values I see in the film it reminds me of more of a spoof comedy of a sci fi film versus a serious film. I think you are correct thinking that is where this film should be headed. It is lacking the production values to be taken seriously as a sci fi film.
 
Last edited:
Kosh said:
Myth, I am not sure what you are going for here - feedback or a debate?

You made a feature, which to repeat what TheOpusFuller said is no small feat. I am in agreement with him on that and salute you for your efforts and achievement. I disagree with him on the point that just because one has not made a feature they have no say in this one way or the other.

I don't want to judge without seeing the whole movie but from what I've seen you could have gotten way more production value out of the final output with a $20 K budget. I guess that's where Craker is coming from and I happen to agree with him on that. It was an observation, one that I thought you asked for when you posetd on here.

You appear to be defending your movie way too much with all these counter-posts to the observations of others. I get asking for input from your peers but it's coming off as if you are looking for more and I am not sure why. If you keep posting and defending your work like this it could discourage others to give you the feedback you seek and could most certainly use. Let your work speak for itself. Some will like it and some won't. Not much you can do about that with a limited budget.

In the end you made a feature...a feature and that in itself is something to be way proud of. I hope you take our feedback in the good faith that it is being offered and use some of that info in future features (man I love saying that).

Good luck.
Click to expand...

As the budget goes up, so will the production values.

Defending it? Art is subjective. When I see it from a different POV, I point it out.

When I agree, I point it out. ROC is correct that the sound mix is off. Congratulations on pointing that out. Some others before tried to simplify the problem as just ADR the whole movie. There's more to the audio problems than that. Filmmakers I've known for years were sent beta copies of the movie to help get things in the right direction. A lot I have discovered on my own. And very essential things have been pointed out to me by the filmmakers with the beta copies and what they pointed out is getting fixed from their input.

A Theater? Really? Think of the small screen. They are closer to the budgets people work with here. In TV shows, production mistakes slip through the cracks. With small productions, filmmaking is a learning process with a student crew.

I did spend a few thousand dollars on stock footage. That's around $4K to $6K. That's back in 2009 for the movie. The atomic blast in the end is one piece of stock footage purchased for the movie. 90% of the movie prologue is stock footage, which makes a great impression of how ET Cyborg Gail Storm came to Earth creating an outer space adventure.
 
L.I.F.E. said:
Ha! Really graduate from home movies to bigger productions? And here I was thinking i'd be nice and give you some perspective because thats what you do in a forum when someone posts their work. You give critiques...If I post something and you'd like to critique it I'd be glad to hear it, but don't come at me like your better than me.

My "Home movies" are in fact better than your feature, so what does that say about you? Oh yea, and I spend $0 dollars on mine while your out 20 grand. Sorry to be blunt, but those are the facts.
Click to expand...

Art is subjective. So, you don't like your baby attacked. Welcome to the entertainment field where you are dealing with artists and artists are thin-skinned. Everyone likes to think their films are the greatest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top