archived-videos Rough Edit of Scenes

ussinners

ussinners

As I’m gearing up for the reshoot, I took footage from the original and edited it together. I’ve seen a few areas that I can improve on. But, if anyone has any suggestions on what I can do better I’d love to hear them.

Things I know already:

The sound isn’t bad, but it’s not perfect. You can hear everything. I don’t do sound design, and this is a rough edit for review. So, it’s not perfect.

*The one thing that’s hard to hear is the incoming message near the end. It is suppose to be a woman. But, we never got far enough to shoot those lines. So, it’s a male actor who was at the shoot.

There’s no color correction.

If you were flipping the channels and came across this on a movie channel (with corrected sound and color) how far would you get before switching channels?

One last thing: There are money shots, but for internet publication I’ve just included extreme CUs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RwubVnk5ow
 
Upvote 0
Whatever that opening image sign is... can't read it. Train station?
The zoom out is a bit long.
The walk to the car is long. It can be cut out, actually. Just have him pull up to the curb, he opens the door for her, and off they go.
@ 0:44 interior of car needs white balance. Interior is more important that what's out the front window ahead.
@ 0:47 camera not level with passenger side door window, as well as in subsequent shots.
These two actors know their lines and deliver them very well, especially considering the long take.
The bouncy cam is pretty distracting. Need to secure that tight as possible and/or re-engineer your out-of-car-window camera support system.
@ 2:37 remind driver not put his left arm up so high on the steering wheel. Not above the 8 o'clock position.
@ 3:19 What is going on with the male's voice when he turns toward the forest? It phases from fine to robotic then back to fine again. Is that a mic auto gain thing or what? (PS, I don't think she'll be kicking boxing anyone with those heels).
@ 3:51 white balancing against that bright window is a giant hassle I know. I remember from the director commentary on SKYLINE the one scene where the couple enter the host's apartment from the relatively dark hallway was one of their most technically difficult shots because of the backlighting out the condo windows. I think their solution was to just dump a ton of artificial light inside the hallway. You might consider that and placing at least one or two bug screens on that exterior window to cut down that contrast.
Between 4:05 and 4:06 is a non-contributory yet distracting flash cut. I guess it's supposed to communicate that she's moving from the bedroom's entry to a locked doorway inside the room. If the actual setting allows, consider just making it a single track from A to B then C. Obviously she's snooping. The eventual discovery of the correct door is... dorky. Screwwit. Women snoop. Forgo the "missed" first door. Just have her snoop, discretely. :)
@ 4:17 Watch the white balance.
For the bench scene I'd keep a simple L-R two shot going and ditch the 4:54 straight-on 90° shots. And I'd have him sitting there reading the instructions for the zapper as a prop rather than springing it out of his back pocket. Very creepy. Predators try to NOT scare off their prey. I don't know any women that wouldn't have big mental alarms go off at that.
I like his accent. It's very easy to understand while still being interesting.
@ 7:04 Dolly in shot is great (nice to see something off the sticks), but it abruptly stops @7:09 (Did I see it even pull back an inch)? Time the entire shot for a dolly in or edit the cut before it stops.
@ 7:19 No 1970's zooming in, please. ;)
@ 7:55 & 8:07 Female is centered. Observe rule of thirds, at least. Even better would be to keep Male (in this series of cuts) on the left side of the frame and have the female (in her intercuts) on the right suggesting an intimate visual pairing, which seems to be the goal.
@ 8:30 I like the creative use of the back window to halo her hair (and block that [expletive] light!). I'd tighten in the shots as the conversation gets more intimate and personal.
@ 9:03 I think the blocking in this scene is about as good as it gets, and I have mixed feelings about what I'm about to suggest. On the one hand - THAT is a NORMAL mature female body. Most of them look that way, and it's a pretty nice one at that. On the other hand - THE SKIRT makes her look like shes begining her second trimester. She's got a nice round ass on her. Get her in a hip hugger dress so that the line goes more across and less "U" shape. Get those sides down. (I personally don't give a sh!t. Girls come that way. They're not all Olympic volleyball players. Deal with it). Or just zoom in a little more to make it a non-issue, as I suggested above for increased intimacy.
@ 9:12 I ABSOLUTELY LOVE the window lighting effect!
@ 10:11 Quit with the perpendicular shots. No more 90° shots.
Between 10:19 and 10:30 did you have to shoot those as pick ups at a later time? Otherwise, since the (hideous) prior scene established they are in the same room together, to maintan that the face shots would benefit from traditional Over The Shoulder shots with the other person framing the opposite side.

This is Lifetime Channel fare, which I don't "do", so I would flip right on through this PDQ.

GL!

kinglis said:
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I didn't understand it, but I didn't feel any real conflict in the story.
Too much dialog too...
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure this is a 10minute cut of a greater piece, so it's not really a contained 'story' per se.
The conflict was that the third person never showed up for her job, so Nancy can have her opportunity to play casting couch for the director. (I think she got those roles reversed)!
And I agree, waaaaay too much blabbing.
Most RomCom features would have covered this much ground in under half the time.
But I think this is going to be a horror movie, in which case they usually cover more ground faster, as well.

Kinglis, if you were in her position and the "Director" pulls out of his back pocket a stun gun would you be alarmed or cool with it, because he's the director of a horror movie and all?
Suave or not-suave?
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I didn't understand it, but I didn't feel any real conflict in the story.
Too much dialog too...
 
Thanks Rayw for the comments. I don't work the camera, and I know nothing about actually shooting angles and such, so it's good to get feedback like that. The more I know, the more command I can have on the set regarding set up and stuff.

I enjoy dialogue driven scripts. I like my actors to talk and talk a lot. Dialogue has been lost for many years. Natural dialogue is practically non-existent. This is a ten minute sequence right in the middle of the movie. So, you should be completely lost as to what is really going on. Even with that, it's simple to understand, an actress travels to a director's house to audition and ends up getting the role.

It's funny you mention her stomach. The day she got the role (directly after the body check), she said "I gained ten pounds for my last role" (yeah right) "I can lose it if you like." I said "Yes. Please do." When I said that, she said "Really? I don't see her as in shape." She was just given the role not a half hour earlier. God, I should have known from that.

It wasn't just that I think she'd look better on camera. But, if she was actually able to flatten her stomach, comments like yours couldn't happen. It's just common sense. She just didn't want to.

Which comes to her costume. She refused to go shopping with me. She wouldn't let me pick out her costumes. She just wouldn't answer e-mails, or would say "I only have an hour to do it". It was excuse after excuse.

Things came to a head when we were shooting in NY and she wore the following outfits. I distinctly told her NO JEANS. I took 5 photos from this shoot and passed them around to friends. Not one person picked her as the lead.

So, that purple dress was bought the day before we shot. That was the best we could come up with in a limited amount of time.

Jane the blond in the photos, we had all her costumes picked out in one night a week after she was cast. The lead, had 4 months and always looked like a slob. That was just one of the reasons that she was fired.

But, damn can she act.

226759_1704005725116_1387178015_31450823_5612349_n.jpg
223589_1704003045049_1387178015_31450811_5248916_n.jpg
 
I don't really have much to add, constructively, but I did find it really engaging. I didn't find it too dialogue heavy at all (but I rarely say that about films). Looking forward to seeing the finished film!
 
kinglis said:
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I didn't understand it, but I didn't feel any real conflict in the story.
Too much dialog too...
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but I think it's actually not "too much dialog" versus "not very effective dialog"

They're just talking. In the way that I just talk to my friends about enjoying pizza or video games. It's not exactly screen conversation, and even though this is out of context, most of the time you're supposed to be able to have a scene stand on its own.

So, the dialogue not being engaging makes it seem like too much dialogue.

Won't say anything about the rest, if anything--not from a filmmaker's perspective but from an audience's, the way it's cut right now makes it even less interesting.
 
Kholi said:
I agree with this, but I think it's actually not "too much dialog" versus "not very effective dialog"

They're just talking. In the way that I just talk to my friends about enjoying pizza or video games. It's not exactly screen conversation, and even though this is out of context, most of the time you're supposed to be able to have a scene stand on its own.

So, the dialogue not being engaging makes it seem like too much dialogue.

Won't say anything about the rest, if anything--not from a filmmaker's perspective but from an audience's, the way it's cut right now makes it even less interesting.
Click to expand...

I agree with this...
It's like I don't complain when Woody Allen has his long dialogs (or do I have to say even monologs)
 
rayw said:
Kinglis, if you were in her position and the "Director" pulls out of his back pocket a stun gun would you be alarmed or cool with it, because he's the director of a horror movie and all?
Click to expand...

I'll be cool with it... but if he tries to kiss me, I'll be alarmed. So I'd probably slap him.. :)
 
Pssh, Tarantino does that all the time. Unfortunately I can't watch it as my video player is kinda messed up, but as far as dialogue goes, you can have your characters say anything about anything as long as it does a one of a couple of things, introduces character, adds to character, entertains, pushes story along. If its a movie about guys busting their friend out of prison, a convo about how one characters likes fries and the other doesn't can probably be cut, unless it does what I have written above.

Useless dialogue isn't always useless. Remember the rule is rules can and most often should be broken.
 
kinglis said:
As viewer of a film, the worst for me is when the dialog "pushes story along"... and as a future filmmaker, I'll never make this mistake (hopefully) :)
Click to expand...

At least you're conscious of this. Where's my virtual high five hand when I need it.

Don't want to derail the thread but to think that Tarantinos dialogue is "just talking" strikes me as odd.
 
Kinglis and Kholi, (I'll leave that pairing alone, for another day... )

What do you guys mean by a negative connotation of dialog "pushing [the] story along"?
Five bucks says I probably just don't understand the term, but shouldn't all dialog contribute to thus "push" or move the story forward?

Could you cite an example or two?

I don't care for filler dialog, either.
It irritates me almost as much as filler inserts, shots and frames.
"Chop! Chop! Move this sh!t along, boys and girls"!
 
Dialogue that moves the story along is called exposition. It's not exactly the worst thing on the planet, and is useful. But, too much exposition sounds like too much exposition.

Inception is a great and very recent example. Good actoring and directing can dampen the effects of too much expository dialogue, but it will still be noticeable. Sometimes you just have to do it.
 
kinglis said:
When the dialog is just explaining/telling me about the back story.. Instead of evoking emotion in me :)
Click to expand...

Kholi said:
Dialogue that moves the story along is called exposition. It's not exactly the worst thing on the planet, and is useful. But, too much exposition sounds like too much exposition.

Inception is a great and very recent example. Good actoring and directing can dampen the effects of too much expository dialogue, but it will still be noticeable. Sometimes you just have to do it.
Click to expand...

Gotcha.

Thank you, Lady and Sir.

Yeah, that's totally lame but all too prevalent, even among "expert" writers and directors.

I wonder how much of it has to do with the mental demands an ignorant audience places on the story/director or if there sometimes really isn't a better way around the pothole other than just stomp right through the muddy mess?

It seems invariably a percentage of the audience doesn't understand without a little exposition while the remaining percentage groans. I imagine it's a tough balance, likely hinging on pre-release focus group surveys - for those so fortunate enough to afford such. ;)


It seems like the farther away from reality a story gets (sci-fi/fantasy) the more it's required to fill in gaps.
 
rayw said:
Gotcha.

Thank you, Lady and Sir.

Yeah, that's totally lame but all too prevalent, even among "expert" writers and directors.

I wonder how much of it has to do with the mental demands an ignorant audience places on the story/director or if there sometimes really isn't a better way around the pothole other than just stomp right through the muddy mess?

It seems invariably a percentage of the audience doesn't understand without a little exposition while the remaining percentage groans. I imagine it's a tough balance, likely hinging on pre-release focus group surveys - for those so fortunate enough to afford such. ;)


It seems like the farther away from reality a story gets (sci-fi/fantasy) the more it's required to fill in gaps.
Click to expand...

I agree with all you guys regarding the exposition but to hate dialogue that "pushes a story along" is a strong emotion for a small component of film. What else do characters talk about if not the story that centers around their current situation? You can write dialogue that does push story forward without exposition. In fiction screenplays, characters will discuss their situation, their feelings depending on the characters they're interacting with, or their back story which is what I meant by pushing a story forward. Again you can give back story without exposition, you drop it in subtly. Like a man's on a trip prompted by the loss of his wife, he won't come out and say his wife died that'd be too much exposition but in a conversation about how women are always nagging with the guy on the plane next to him, it might come out. Its like in Tarantino, when Vince talks about being in Amsterdam and the "royale with cheese". We now know from that conversation that had nothing to really do with the story that Vince was in Amsterdam.

I'm not suggesting writing "on the nose" I'm suggesting careful writing of dialogue to push story and back story isn't bad, if done correctly. The audience will always have questions, even inception, how exactly did that machine that put them in dreams work--never explained. But because the whole dream world was a new thing to audiences, they had to explain at least how the dream world worked-they took an entire scene with the chick from Juno when the cafe starts exploding. Its about the character as well, I think as long as there's a reason to explain then its fine because its part of the character to explain.

I think you guys are preoccupied with the rules. Sometimes characters explain things. And like i said in my earlier post, dialogue is there to push story, develop character, and keep the audience in the moment. The emotions aren't evoked from the dialogue, its the acting and the story that evokes the emotion. If Neeson, was a little more upbeat about leaving in Schindler's List and his workers were a bit less saddened, although saying the same lines, I wouldn't have had the same emotion-basically cried at that scene.

I know this is long but here it is in conciseness. Acting brings out the viewer's emotion not dialogue. Dialogue, before its a produced movie is just the glue that hold the story together. Dialogue serves the following purposes: push story,(not explain story), develop character. The audience will always have questions its your job to make them as minimal as possible. As far as exposition goes, if you have a character who explains as part of one of his traits then ONT for that character is perfectly fine. ex. a scientist would probably explain things about a new world to an ignorant crew. But remember too much of anything is never good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top