# What do you guys think?



## Jefflev (Nov 16, 2006)

Hey Guys,

I made this stupid little film a year or two back, and it seems as if a lot of people actually like it. I only got to film the first half of my script...so the second half of the movie's kind of lame. The stories about this low-life high school student who's about to get kicked out of high school, and the only chance he has of graduating is too put on an awesome show. Yup that's about it. Just curious to get some reactions. Here's the link:

Putting On The Ritz


----------



## Jefflev (Nov 16, 2006)

ur totally right! that character is lame- shoulda hired denzel. But thanks for the feedback, glad you enjoyed. And also, you are again right about the actual show- I had planned this whole thing with this awesome show and what not, but because of time and budget- I wasnt't able to shoot it. There is actually a cult of ppl who hate this movie because they were so excited to actually see the "ritz"- and it just never came. Sorry about that. I'll be making the second one once the studio approves of my $40 million budget for part deux- and once they approve of it- i'll shoot the ritz first. 

Anyways- Glad you liked it!!
Anymore takers???


----------



## tomorrowsNIGHT (Nov 16, 2006)

Eh... I find myself only complimenting the opening credit sequence and some of that one character's absurd laugh. The rest just didn't seem developed at all. I have to disagree with David when he complimented the editing. Quite a few times you cut during dialogue or something.

It wasn't terrible. I don't know, with student films, the majority of students who do them like film only enough to tape their friends being stupid. I didn't see attention to any artistic aspect of film in this. But, for what is was meant to be, it was fine.

Good luck in the future, put up some other work.

Tyler


----------



## Jefflev (Nov 16, 2006)

BOO! No kudos for you! Just kidding- Yes of course this has no art in it at all- that's the point. But you are wrong about the story developement- i feel it was set up pretty nicely in the fact that it was entertaining- which is the point of filmmaking- it's to entertain. And don't let anyone else say different! But thanks for the input you speildberg you.


----------



## funkbomb (Nov 16, 2006)

> But you are wrong about the story developement- i feel it was set up pretty nicely in the fact that it was entertaining


You can't honestly expect to get away with asking for opinions and reactions and then tell somebody theirs is wrong...if you ask "what do you guys think?" expect to get what people think, and either take them gracefully or leave them alone completely.


----------



## Jefflev (Nov 16, 2006)

no my friend...this is an active discussion- would you like to add some input? I'm not shutting people down- just looking for reasons my friend.


----------



## tomorrowsNIGHT (Nov 16, 2006)

> they do it because that's what they love and if you have an idea, you feel the most effective way to portray this idea is to get your camera out



Jeff you put this in another thread. I think that you are much more on target with this statement, rather than simplifying film to one use. For example, if books were only meant to entertain, I'm sure a majority would agree that damned Nathanial Hawthorne would have never had the Scarlet Letter published. 

I like to think that if I do film, I'd like to think it had some inevitable meaning to it all. But that's just me. Defining film for everyone based on your standards is pretty ignorant. Come on! Lol.

Good luck with all endeavors.

Tyler


----------



## Evan Kubota (Nov 16, 2006)

> which is the point of filmmaking- it's to entertain.



No.


----------



## Palm Tree Armada (Nov 16, 2006)

> I'm not shutting people down


Really? Telling someone their opinion was wrong sure sounds like shutting someone down to me, but I digress.

The main problem I see with this film is the editing. It's almost a parody of itself. It seems like a funny idea, but remember that whenever you do a comedy with a bunch of friends, its always going to end up about half as funny to strangers.


----------



## funkbomb (Nov 16, 2006)

Well, in that case...I hope you can take my comments in a helpful light. I don't mean to be condescending in what I say next: I found this work to be the same old poorly filmed amateur video I see all the time from high school TV class. The cuts were erratic and jumpy, the music was cliche and overused, the acting was nonexistant, as was the camerawork. Ultimately, this was worse than a lot of films I've seen to date.

Now before you go telling me I'm wrong, I'd just like to share a few helpful bits of advice for the next time you go do a project.

--Don't shoot into windows. In fact, avoid shooting into direct light at all. Video has a poor latitude and if you shoot into light you'll be blowing out your image and loosing detail, like you did when you filmed the (vice?) principal. Close the blinds and use artificial light if you have to.
--Take continuity into consideration.
--Use an external mic.
--Move the camera more slowly.
--Think about the edits you make. Have a purpose for each cut. Why cut when there's no reason to cut? Why does the audience want to see this person, or this shot? Is there something you're trying to tell them? An emotional reaction a character is having?
--Use a tripod most, if not all, the time. Without a steadicam or some kind of stabilization, handheld shots with small minidv cameras are going to look bad and translate that you're just kids with a camera, which is exactly what happened here.
--Think about the audience. I have a feeling you did this for a bunch of your friends at your school. "Hahaha look at Brandon and Justin and Tom and Tim dance to that rap song, goshdarn they're so funny." Not that funny. 
--You've got a minute of credits at the beginning and then another minute and a half at the end. Of an 8:15 movie in length, that's almost a third of the TRT. People don't need to see that. But that's semantics, and of course completely up to you.

I know its annoying to hear criticism but I tried to make it as constructive as possible. We're all here to learn...



> Originally posted by Evan Kubota:
> quote:
> Originally posted by Jefflev:
> which is the point of filmmaking- it's to entertain.
> ...


That's a whole 'nuther can of worms to open, but in summary, Evan is right.


----------



## titaniumdoughnut (Nov 16, 2006)

Impressive, most impressive, but you are not a troll yet. Watch the attitude, Jefflev.


----------



## tomorrowsNIGHT (Nov 17, 2006)

> --Use a tripod most, if not all, the time. Without a steadicam or some kind of stabilization, handheld shots with small minidv cameras are going to look bad and translate that you're just kids with a camera, which is exactly what happened here.



All other advice was genious. I just don't really agree here. I think you can stylistically use shoulder cam shots and freehand shots to your advantage. A shot too still just seems awkward IMO. So much of cinematography and film is appreciated because it depicts how the eye works. Depth of field, textures, richness, etc. I think SOME degree of camera motion is also necessary most of the time. If you watched my film, "Ticket", the only tripod shot was the wide shot that had both the truck and the cop car in it as the cop walks to the truck.

But, yea, your comments were right on.

Tyler


----------

