What I'm saying, AudioPost, is that I don't think it's fair to judge a movie entirely based on ONE aspect. For me, the trailer for Take Shelter works tremendously well. First time I saw that trailer, I went out and watched the movie the very same week.
I don't judge by one aspect, I judge by two; the visuals and the sound, and how they work together to tell a story. There are many elements which go to make up the visuals, like there are many elements which go to make up the sound (music, dialogue, foley, sound design, ambience, hard effects, etc., etc.). Most of the visual elements in the trailer are decent or good for the budget, whereas the sound ranges from barely mediocre to dreadful because it's almost completely devoid of any artistic merit.
Yes, sound design is incredibly important. So is music. And cinematography. And writing, and acting, and editing, and set design, and coloring, and I think you catch my drift. It is extremely rare for a movie to nail ALL possible aspects, artistically and technically. I don't think any film is necessarily made or broken by any ONE of these aspects.
I would have to disagree with this. Over the years, I've seen plenty of people walk out of the cinema and demand their money back because the sound was too loud or too quiet. I've never seen anyone demand their money back because the set design was too colourful or not colourful enough. So yes, a film can easily be destroyed by just ONE aspect, the sound alone.
I'm not talking about nailing sound, I'm talking about a basic level of competence which is frequently lacking in indi films and would not be tolerated in other areas of film making. The problem is that much of what is created with really good sound is invisible or rather, it's only perceived sub-consciously. Let me use Foley as an example: Many indi's just use library footsteps, some go to the next level and pay for some cheap foley so at least you get the sound of the right shoe on the right surface but all we have achieved so far is just a basic level of technical competence. There's a whole other layer of artistic skill which you virtually never hear in indi's. A really good Foley Artist will design a gait or walk specifically for the personality of each character. The audience and even the majority of directors, producers and editors will never be consciously aware of this foley artistry but it turns out that humans are incredibly sensitive to the timbre and timing of footsteps and can tell a great deal about a person (film character) from their walk. Most people don't consciously analyse the sound of other people's walk, it's just information which is automatically added to all the other sensory information which is used by the brain to build a perception of the person. Remove this information (or fail to include it) and it feels wrong, destroys the suspension of disbelief that the film maker has spent so much time, effort and money trying to achieve with the visuals. This is just one example from one specific area of audio post, there are countless other examples across all the sound disciplines. I guarantee you, behind every famous villain or character in modern film there is some high quality sound! The very fact that so much of what is done in audio post is only perceived subconsciously is what makes it such a powerful tool. But it also means most film makers are just as unaware as the audience of the true power and possibilities of sound. This is why, IMO so many film makers say they appreciate the importance of good sound design but their actions demonstrate that except for blatantly obvious sound effects, intelligible dialogue and right sounding bit of music, they've really no idea what good sound design actually is or how it can be used to enhance the story and therefore grossly underestimate it's importance. Let me give you a few names of directors who are especially well respected in the audio post community for their use of the full potential of sound: Leone, Speilberg, Tarantino, Cameron, Scorsese, Hitchcock, Coppola, Kubrick (and others). Any of these names sound familiar to anyone? If so, do you think it's just a coincidence that those directors who place the most importance on sound are pretty much the same directors most respected by the public and the film community?
Going back to the trailer, you say it works "tremendously well". IMHO, you are only saying this because you are not aware of the full potential of good sound and what a difference it would make. If I played you the same trailer with good sound first and then the trailer as it is now, I guarantee you would say the current trailer is unacceptable garbage!
Going back further, to the OP, by far the biggest difference between low budget indi films and higher budget commercial films is in the quality of the sound disciplines. Notice that I didn't use the phrase "the most blatantly obvious difference" because it's apparent that to most indi film makers it's not "obvious" because it's designed specifically to not be obvious! As I said before, I blame the film schools for not giving aspiring film makers at least a basic understanding of the potential of sound.
G
