Upvote
0
in a vacant building (2004)
- Thread starter don patterson
- Start date
Please feel free to make comments or suggestions, etc. (good or bad) on 'in a vacant building'. Love to hear 'em all. Figured if I am going to make comments for others, (only trying to help) others should have free access to make comments about my stuff too. I am not a know it all. Laughing. For better or for worse, story telling is just a passion...
Last edited:
One suggestion: If you want us to watch your movie, tell us something about your movie. Is it a comedy, a drama, a horror, a documentary? What's the dramatic premise? With a whole universe of content one click away, why should we spend our limited attention on yours? Intrigue us! Entice us!
okay...
I did not want anyone to have a 'previewing commentary'.
It is a 'ghost' story, dig, the title is IN A VACANT BUILDING. Whoops, said too much already...
I understand what you are writing, The Lone Banana. Too often, filmmakers go to some (great or small) lengths to bias their viewers with too much information for fear of negative comments. I prefer to have viewers go in to view my work somewhat blind. With no spoilers. No preconceived notions ((idea or opinion formed before having the evidence for its truth or usefulness). I want honest positive or honest negative comments, though, I PREFER negative comments. This is how I have learned to 'see', 'hear' and tell a story better.
I am not putting your suggestion down, not at all. Just my history. I'd rather people take a walk on the wild side & go into viewing & hearing something with NO idea what they are walking into. I do it with almost every movie, book, art, etc. I WANT to be surprised! Even a bad movie has much one can learn from! You, know? WHAT NOT TO DO?
Laughing, I even took on the main (acting) character in The Haunted Movie (2004) 96 min., not for vanity, but to better understand what an actor goes through when in front of a camera.
I like to discuss more after one views, explain what I was going/trying for and learn how that could have been improved...
I take full responsibility for every production I do. From script to scream...
P.S. This version is without the original soundtrack, (created by a friend, Mark Dickinson and band OTHERS). I will be putting that version up or create a link later. I tried to keep audio clean so dialogue could clearly be heard and scrutinized.
I was half-expecting that you would reply as you did. I suggest that you have missed the point. I further suggest that this attitude toward promotion harms rather than helps build your audience. Why are you trying to dupe us into watching your movie, rather than trying to make us want to watch your movie?
Last edited:
I watched about 5 minutes but it's VERY slow - feels like it could/should have been 15 minutes max rather than 26 minutes.
The lighting where the young women are supposedly in the abandoned house is MUCH too bright and took me right out of the scene.
The sound isn't terrible - I've heard worse - but not great either. A bit fuzzy in spots, and some solid post production sound work
could have done more with sound effects.
The lighting where the young women are supposedly in the abandoned house is MUCH too bright and took me right out of the scene.
The sound isn't terrible - I've heard worse - but not great either. A bit fuzzy in spots, and some solid post production sound work
could have done more with sound effects.
Thank you for your 5 minutes... but I am curious by what you mean with 'much too bright' for an abandoned house and are you referring to the audio as 'a bit fuzzy in spots'. Could you explain that further? And what sound effects would have done more to advance the story in the first 5 minutes (the only part you watched)?
Not being nasty, I appreciate that you gave it 5 minutes. I just do not know what you are criticizing that made the first 5 minutes so VERY slow....
Was it "did they remove the bodies from the basement" comment from one of the two workers that were preparing to set-up the house for removal? The 'two young women' waking up in a vacant building unsure of 'their' night before and how they got in a vacant building? The two women searching their location for answers to their predicament? Whoops, was that the first 5 minutes you viewed?
Please explain further, I would like to learn from you where I could improve. Like I said - before, I learn from others... but your comments strike me as very indefinite & unclear.
But either way, thank you for your five minutes...
Why would you be half expecting that I would reply as I did? I do not know you.
You say that I am trying to 'dupe' you into watching my movie? I do not understand what point you are trying to make. Please explain further what you do mean? I did NOT promote IN ANY WAY (in a vacant building). I put it up for perusal for anyone that would have a curiosity to watch it. Without trying to market anything. I thought this was an open forum for members to offer their films for for viewing & community commentary. Laughing, I do not care to promote anything, to market or to gain any audience. If you don't want to watch it. Don't.
So why attack me for being open and honest?
Should be shadowy and dim, creepy not bright. I wanted squeaky floor boards, squeaking doors.
And re @The Lone Banana 's comment, without putting words in their mouth:
there's SO much content these days, no one is going to spend 26 minutes watching your short unless you really
pitch it well and give us a reason to give you our time. That may sound harsh, but it's true, and we all face the same issue.
Attachments
Last edited:
"Shadowy and dim", is the way you should make YOUR ghost story.
If you went further than 5 minutes into the short film, or watched the whole story, you would discover that the brightness in a vacant building IS a part of the story, although the basement is dark and creepy (that scene takes place at night).
There are twists and there are twists in that 26 minutes.
The brightness of death IS a factor throughout the entire production. WE did not want the viewers to miss anything...
Also, you mentioned it was boring. Hmmm. That was an interesting tell. We felt there was no wasted dialogue. The dialogue contributes to the pace of the story in details for plot points and arcs of the main characters. With in a vacant building, as with almost all my/our work, I usually have a round-table read-through by cast before the actual filming. I like all the actors to give assistance in the development of their characters - and then all actors are greatly encouraged to ACT as they see, think and feel their characters would react in the story and with each other. Yes, there are retakes. BUT everyone is contributing... not just the dumbass behind the camera(s).
Are there weak spots in this short 26 minute, no budget indie? Of course there is! The short indie was shot over 20 years ago (in DVcam BEFORE HD prices dropped). It was a very quick production with very limited funds. 0 dollars as a matter of fact! Although I brought breakfast and bought lunch across the street at the local diner until the cast felt I should not.
NOTE: I also did many more such productions over that 14 year span, as well as several BASEBALL instructional projects, two feature length indies and a lot of trailers for the many scripts I loved to write. I learned from every project as did the cast. No production was perfect, but I should add, the cast stayed with me on many such projects and we all had a lot of fun as we all learned a lot about creative film making.
I recommend all who have an interest, view it. If you have NO interest, thats fine. Laughing, I will be removing in a vacant building shortly. I may replace it with another in a vacant building copy, with the music soundtrack (from fellow musician Mark Dickinson and his group Others, very original and sinister). Or one of the many other projects WE did for the passion and love of creating something new.
Depends on the interest. If there is none... that's fine. Just sharing. No commercials. No money in my pocket...
Attachments
Poop... looking up at my response, sadly, gave too much of 'story' away. Oh, and I was the (dumbass) person behind lights, camera and action...
The Journey I also did a lot of music videos in that time period... All different types of music from alternative to rock to country, to help fellow musicians get seen AND HEARD. For free. Was one of many learning experience. had to edit, forgot the s in experiences...
Last edited:
Yeah, you're behaving exactly the way I've seen eleventy-squillion other self-entitled amateurs. But you've done me a favour; I'm blocking you so I don't have to encounter you again. Speaking generously, I'm sure neither of us will be missing anything.
I’m going to disagree. The sound quality (or lack thereof) completely took me out of the story. Not the singular distraction for me, but still.
And yes, post-production sound was desperately needed. But then there’s this:
Was this all on-camera mic? The last and worst place to put a mic for dialog. And if you have to strip away the music to make sure the dialog is intelligible, that says something about the dialog recording. As it is, DX is incredibly inconsistent based on proximity to the camera, and whether actors are facing the camera or have their backs to the camera. Again, distracting.
The missing soundtrack may help the energy and pacing, and it’s entirely possible that much of the dead space in the version posted here, doesn’t feel so dead. No pun intended. Of course, without some serious cleanup (or, dare I say, ADR) on the DX, making a cohesive mix may be extremely difficult.
I’m with Mara: I want to hear sound design. I want to hear the footsteps. I want to hear creaky floor boards. I want to hear the house moving as its own character.
Street traffic runs constant throughout the show, and it sounds exactly the same inside the house as outside. Inside, it should sound muffled by the walls, and much softer under the dialog. The other issue with this is that there’s no separation, not only between exterior and interior of the house, but of the tension of the story (such that it is). Treat them as separate realms. Keep the backgrounds subtle, almost imperceptible, inside the house to give that sense of entrapment and isolation. Backgrounds overall should be an element of sound design that isn’t overtly noticeable in the mix, but if muted from the mix, the absence is obvious. It’s a delicate line to tread.
It seems this upload was digitized from tape. There are glitches, both in picture and in sound. When the man in the black suit first walks into the attic, there’s a section where all the sound all comes from the right channel. That happens a few times. If this is a more recent ingest from tape, those glitches can often be fixed with another ingestion pass. These glitches are also distracting from the viewing experience.
Sound is half the picture, and making a movie sound like a movie requires more than just dialog as it was captured, and some music. It has to start with clean DX recording, but after that… post sound design and editing come from world building under the DX. Sound effects, Foley, backgrounds (ambient tracks), music/score… all of these things need time and attention, and the re-recording mix at the end has to ensure that all those pieces fit together. For a no-budget film on a short timeline, and especially if you’re doing all post yourself, you’re probably not going to get to as polished an end point, but you can get a good way toward that.
Aside from sound…
I made it 10 minutes in, and it was a struggle getting that far. I scrolled through the rest. Missing soundtrack aside, the pacing is slow and the acting is flat. The camera angles are flat, and the lighting (which I agree is too bright) is also flat. There was nothing, visually, to build tension where tension was needed.
It seems that much of this was shot with existing light, and occasionally some supplemental light was added. It was the latter that stuck out like a sore thumb. It leans toward tungsten, when everything else coming in was indirect daylight. The artificial light was harsh, subjects lit directly from the front, and at a competing Kelvin with the ambient light. For a house that’s supposed to have no electricity in the story, the use of artificial light conflicts with that idea, visually speaking.
Actors walking in front of blown-out windows expose shortcomings both in lighting and in the camera’s image capabilities. Typically, windows would be knocked down either by a covering of ND gel or by scrims or nets outside. If needed, artificial light is used to bring up the ambient level of the interior, allowing exposure to be pulled back as well.
Blooms from these windows just off-camera create haze in some shots that degrade the images, and this is where the lens needs to be flagged off to avoid such issues. But overall, the lighting was, as I said, flat; it was harsh, with no contrast, and the colors are all washed out. Negative fill can keep light from bouncing off walls onto the actors, increasing shadow and contrast. Yes, abandoned houses like that can be bright in real life, but narrative isn’t real life. You say the brightness inside is part of the story. Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean it can’t have some contrast and some emotion.
The basement scene? Marginally better, but the light often just looks like a light was pointed toward the actors, not very well motivated.
Shadows, contrast, dynamic range… these are critical elements of cinematography.
And last for this post, I have a hard time getting into narrative work when it looks like video (29.97/60i). 23.98 is what viewers are conditioned to recognize as “a movie”. I get that you shot on DVCam, but there were 24p DVCAM and miniDV cams out at that point.
Perhaps none of this is even relevant for a 20-year-old production, but you asked for feedback, good or bad. You say you’ve done indie features since this. Interested to see what your more recent work looks (and sounds) like.
Last edited:
Thank you. SPOILERS ahead.
Very good in depth analysis. VERY GOOD! THIS is what I was hoping for in comments. Again thank you, AcousticAl.
Not giving excuses for flaws described above. Just an explanation.
Yes, DVcam is dated & was limiting in 2003. We/I have done a lot more in 24p since that was shot. At that time, our attempt was to give a 'reality sense' by using DVcam with a 'news' look, not film. Who would have thought in 2003, that 48p was on the horizon? Technology has changed since 2003/2004. Surprisingly, 'flat' was actually what we were looking for in the imagery, we were experimenting as well as learning parameters. Once again, I do not know it all, I am a permanent student of film, always hope will be. I just love the 'ideas' thing., the learning process while doing. Making something from nothing, letting the cards fall where they fall and learning when picking up those cards. Played a lot of 52 pick-up in my life.
Sound came from 3 separate (at that time Professional grade - large & bulky) DVcam cameras with external mics. My equipment for professional (event) work. Yes I made money as a pro. The lighting used were used to create that flat impact, was our hope to enhance that all were DEAD in the vacant building without saying it (part of our twist later in the project). Whether it succeeded or not... we wanted to find out by doing what we did.
We also wanted to push the idea of the building being in the center of a busy small town, (at that time) we wanted to increase the sound of traffic, not diminish it and never pause it. Distracting? Yes, but that was kind of our goal at the time.
Live and learn. We had very little time inside the building and no budget... but we were experimenting with visual and audio ideas (with limited technology and personnel). We never stopped learning!
Last, we were not trying to market anything, just trying to put ideas from paper to film and learn while experimenting with a long list of 'ideas'. We were trying to do some thing different in 2003/2004. Most experiments fail most of the time... I just try NOT to make the same mistakes over and over and over. I have made many mistakes. Laughing. But I have sure learned a lot!
I strongly appreciate your comments. I did add a music video somewhere in this forum column. Was done in 2002. If others care, I can put up more work... none is flawless. But if there is no interest, I am fine with that too.
I do what I do to learn (in writing, music, film and fine art). If I can save others time and capital by showing what mistakes I have made, perhaps others can gain. Not marketing anything, not trying to force anything on anyone, its the only reason I put 'creative' work up on any forums (on IndieTalk since 2003). Stagnancy is death for me. Sorry, too many words... guilty. Nothing is simple.
And thank you too, mlesemann. Saw your comments after responding to AcousticAl. You are right. Can't say otherwise. I do not fear putting up projects -- but would never 'force' or market anything on anyone. I have so many projects over the past 60 years (maybe that is not such a 'good' thing '?' - but I hope it is). I appreciate all comments and criticism that have weight. And that is why I come back to IndieTalk every few years, many on this forum have weight. (I do not fear failure, just continue to stumble, learned a lot over the past 74 years... (but look forward to the next 74).
Dude come on. That's the only house you could shoot in and the traffic noise became a problem.
No need to defend a 21 year old film, it was a learning experience. I'm glad you're back and happy to see you are traveling the world.IndieTalk Founder,
Who would expect a 'haunted house' to be in the center of a busy little town? The amount of traffic is repeatedly mentioned in the dialogue. Note that there is a small post office next door from the front porch. Within the opening dialogue the two characters state that they are removing stuff from the building, before demolition, to expand the post office. That was when the bodies were found in the basement prior to the opening scene. I had to record ambience from Hamilton Road in downtown Gahanna, Ohio to get that much traffic noise and add later, for the traffic was no where what the audio sounds like in the story. Millersport 20+ years ago on a Sunday was not noisy, much more quiet. I do not know why you would think the sound level of traffic inside the house would have been made up by me. I do not lie or make stuff up. If you listen to the traffic, it does NOT cut off and change with every shot. I am not 'defending' myself of anything... when I state something, it is true.
If 'sound quality' is a question mark, give a listen to the music video I put up? The Journey
When we shot that short, we were doing exactly what I explained above. This is not a 'defense', it is exactly what I said we were going for. If it sucked, sorry. I thought I was contributing to the forum.
Understand, I have had access to MANY, many locations we could have used at that time. Laughing, NOW, the next haunted house I shot in was in Bangs, Ohio. Totally different story with different needs. See photo below. NOW that story required dark rooms (large and small), long creepy hallways, and extremely quiet with NO traffic any where nearby. The golf course who owned the building gave me endless hours there, had a larger crew and cast. But that... is a different story, a different project.
Who would expect a 'haunted house' to be in the center of a busy little town? The amount of traffic is repeatedly mentioned in the dialogue. Note that there is a small post office next door from the front porch. Within the opening dialogue the two characters state that they are removing stuff from the building, before demolition, to expand the post office. That was when the bodies were found in the basement prior to the opening scene. I had to record ambience from Hamilton Road in downtown Gahanna, Ohio to get that much traffic noise and add later, for the traffic was no where what the audio sounds like in the story. Millersport 20+ years ago on a Sunday was not noisy, much more quiet. I do not know why you would think the sound level of traffic inside the house would have been made up by me. I do not lie or make stuff up. If you listen to the traffic, it does NOT cut off and change with every shot. I am not 'defending' myself of anything... when I state something, it is true.
If 'sound quality' is a question mark, give a listen to the music video I put up? The Journey
When we shot that short, we were doing exactly what I explained above. This is not a 'defense', it is exactly what I said we were going for. If it sucked, sorry. I thought I was contributing to the forum.
Understand, I have had access to MANY, many locations we could have used at that time. Laughing, NOW, the next haunted house I shot in was in Bangs, Ohio. Totally different story with different needs. See photo below. NOW that story required dark rooms (large and small), long creepy hallways, and extremely quiet with NO traffic any where nearby. The golf course who owned the building gave me endless hours there, had a larger crew and cast. But that... is a different story, a different project.
Was planning on sharing what I have learned over the past 25 years as a low/no budget film-maker. Guess I am 'boring'. Sorry. My goal over those years (since 2000) as technology advanced, was to take chances, try for new ideas and learn. Story-telling has always been my main interest, "from script to scream". Guess I made the mistake that some might have an interest. Leaving stuff up (that is currently up), but I will be permanently leaving IndieTalk in a week (started here in 2003). I'm done. Guess I am a square peg trying to fit into a circle hole. Will not bore anyone, anymore and not respond further on any forums. Wish you all the best.