|
|
All the news now and in your digital future
Sons of a Gun Teaser
Posted by Gregory O'Toole
|
Re: Sons of a Gun Teaser September 26, 2006 10:38AM |
Hey Greg - great pacing in the two minute trailer. Great shot choice and really nice timing. The whole story is tied together and summed up really well. I liked it a lot and I would definitely watch the doco given the trailer.
I was forced to download it to my computer though - it wouldn't play on your site in Firefox. I reckon that would put people off who didn't have a vested interest in seeing it.
I was forced to download it to my computer though - it wouldn't play on your site in Firefox. I reckon that would put people off who didn't have a vested interest in seeing it.
|
Re: Sons of a Gun Teaser September 26, 2006 10:46AM |
Same situation here as Jude. Clicking on the trailer links gives me a page of jibberish code. Only CONTROL-clicking and going to "Download Link to Disk" works.
I think your trailer is 90 per cent there. The main content works very well. I get an idea of what these people are like, and they're hilarious, and you wisely concentrated on their interactions and verbal patterns. The music choice is also good. I just have three main reservations:
1. The titles design looks kind of bad. The motion looks undesigned and amateurish, and so does the text layout. I'd simplify the movements. For example, you have a phrase on the screen, and one word you want to emphasize. Only make that one word move, and make the moves shorter and subtler. That will achieve the effect you want without the words flying all over the screen as if you had stray motion keyframes somewhere on the title. I'm not hot for the font, either -- it looks more suitable for a video presentation than for a feature film. The layout of your final super looks fine; I'd look into the supers in the body of the trailer. Possibly get rid of the overuse of outlining and the flaky colours. I know the actual film has a weirdo factor to it, but right now the titles don't look professional or fitting.
2. You say four men live there. I saw a lot more than four men. How does each character relate? What caused them to start living with "Dad"? If it's some program for mentally challenged people, how did it come about? Is there an "institutional" character -- eg. a doctor, a politician, a nurse -- who can put in a short word about how this situation came about? I needed a "way in" for the story. Once you get us there, you're home free.
3. You have a very clear separation of voice-over and silent parts. Maybe a little too segregated. The overall length is fine, but I feel like certain parts can flow a little more between segments. Right now the pacing and structure are a little jerky.
www.derekmok.com
I think your trailer is 90 per cent there. The main content works very well. I get an idea of what these people are like, and they're hilarious, and you wisely concentrated on their interactions and verbal patterns. The music choice is also good. I just have three main reservations:
1. The titles design looks kind of bad. The motion looks undesigned and amateurish, and so does the text layout. I'd simplify the movements. For example, you have a phrase on the screen, and one word you want to emphasize. Only make that one word move, and make the moves shorter and subtler. That will achieve the effect you want without the words flying all over the screen as if you had stray motion keyframes somewhere on the title. I'm not hot for the font, either -- it looks more suitable for a video presentation than for a feature film. The layout of your final super looks fine; I'd look into the supers in the body of the trailer. Possibly get rid of the overuse of outlining and the flaky colours. I know the actual film has a weirdo factor to it, but right now the titles don't look professional or fitting.
2. You say four men live there. I saw a lot more than four men. How does each character relate? What caused them to start living with "Dad"? If it's some program for mentally challenged people, how did it come about? Is there an "institutional" character -- eg. a doctor, a politician, a nurse -- who can put in a short word about how this situation came about? I needed a "way in" for the story. Once you get us there, you're home free.
3. You have a very clear separation of voice-over and silent parts. Maybe a little too segregated. The overall length is fine, but I feel like certain parts can flow a little more between segments. Right now the pacing and structure are a little jerky.
www.derekmok.com
|
Re: Sons of a Gun Teaser September 26, 2006 11:13AM |
I'm watching the shorter one.
> Could you be more specific here?
Some little things:
- With the "montage" of guys in the beginning, try thinking about how judicious use of overlapping dialogue (having some characters "stepping on" the previous guy's shot, for example) can give the impression of the scene moving faster without actually sacrificing beats.
- Cut tighter after "Dad" says his piece. There's some air.
- Stay longer when the guy uses the tap water to swallow the pill. Hilarious.
- I think when I felt the pacing slowed down was during the part with the "silent" shots. It might just be a simple matter of mixing the music up higher, but I also think the cutting can be tighter. Look at how long it takes for us to get the shot. I think you can shave half a second off most of the shots without losing any visual information. In a trailer, you don't ever want to wait for a shot to be over -- you want people to move on to other things. Things like staying on a shot to absorb it are more for the actual filim itself. In a trailer, you don't want people to get the whole picture -- you want to leave them wanting more.
- Finally, I don't feel a sense of mounting tension, rising action. The pace of the end is about the same as the pace in the beginning. Try implementing a rhythm that builds. Make a statement with the rhythm of the shots. There is a sense that these guys aren't self-pitying wusses; they have a pretty good time living together, and their chemistry is a playful one. Match that with the visual style.
Overall, though, you've presented the film as a film I'd want to watch. Primary mission accomplished. Smooth out the presentation to look more professional (which would also help get you bids, hopefully) and you're done!
www.derekmok.com
> Could you be more specific here?
Some little things:
- With the "montage" of guys in the beginning, try thinking about how judicious use of overlapping dialogue (having some characters "stepping on" the previous guy's shot, for example) can give the impression of the scene moving faster without actually sacrificing beats.
- Cut tighter after "Dad" says his piece. There's some air.
- Stay longer when the guy uses the tap water to swallow the pill. Hilarious.
- I think when I felt the pacing slowed down was during the part with the "silent" shots. It might just be a simple matter of mixing the music up higher, but I also think the cutting can be tighter. Look at how long it takes for us to get the shot. I think you can shave half a second off most of the shots without losing any visual information. In a trailer, you don't ever want to wait for a shot to be over -- you want people to move on to other things. Things like staying on a shot to absorb it are more for the actual filim itself. In a trailer, you don't want people to get the whole picture -- you want to leave them wanting more.
- Finally, I don't feel a sense of mounting tension, rising action. The pace of the end is about the same as the pace in the beginning. Try implementing a rhythm that builds. Make a statement with the rhythm of the shots. There is a sense that these guys aren't self-pitying wusses; they have a pretty good time living together, and their chemistry is a playful one. Match that with the visual style.
Overall, though, you've presented the film as a film I'd want to watch. Primary mission accomplished. Smooth out the presentation to look more professional (which would also help get you bids, hopefully) and you're done!
www.derekmok.com
|
Re: Sons of a Gun Teaser September 26, 2006 09:43PM |
I don't know that I agree that there wasn't enough setup for the story. I felt quite confident that it was being handled by someone who knew how to tell a story, and that's getting kind of rare.
I was going to suggest some colour work, but it sort of reminded me of 'Titicut Follies' - one of my favorite docos - very verite, very 'real' - and I think the DV look even kind of helps in this.
There was a moment of sound - when he was being arrested - that felt out of place.
The major thing I was thinking was that someone was there with those guys, capturing what they did and constructing their world on tape in a way that lets me understand what life is like for them. And it's mad and sad and funny and vunerable and out of control all at the same time. That's all that really matters. The rest is window dressing. Important, yes, but not imperative. I'd still see it, no matter what the graphics looked like. Which is not to say that you can't make it better, just that you did the hardest thing right already.
I was going to suggest some colour work, but it sort of reminded me of 'Titicut Follies' - one of my favorite docos - very verite, very 'real' - and I think the DV look even kind of helps in this.
There was a moment of sound - when he was being arrested - that felt out of place.
The major thing I was thinking was that someone was there with those guys, capturing what they did and constructing their world on tape in a way that lets me understand what life is like for them. And it's mad and sad and funny and vunerable and out of control all at the same time. That's all that really matters. The rest is window dressing. Important, yes, but not imperative. I'd still see it, no matter what the graphics looked like. Which is not to say that you can't make it better, just that you did the hardest thing right already.
Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.
