|
|
All the news now and in your digital future
Editing Reel Comments and Criticism
Posted by jkerfeldKC
|
Re: Editing Reel Comments and Criticism October 19, 2009 09:31PM |
I think this reel needs a lot of work.
First of all, the structure is bizarre. You do have some more "sizzle" content in the rest of the reel...so why would you choose, as your first "content" shot (after your name card), a drop-dead boring low-budget local-news-style shot ("Come on, we need some soul"
? You're immediately putting yourself firmly in the amateur category with that. The sound is also frighteningly noisy, obviously needing post-production work. To have it open your reel just skews the viewer's perspective in all the wrong ways.
The storytelling is fatty and uncertain. Rhythmically speaking, you have way, way too many music-only montages, but they still aren't punchy enough, with lots of ambiguous shots. The sports shots work the best because they have some velocity. The effects shots didn't build to a satisfying climax; just lots of dead-to-music cuts, and the music wasn't cut very well either; most of the music peters out unsatisfyingly.
The Corporate section is completely misnamed. That's not a corporate reel; that's a news segment, or a PSA.
The overall pacing of the reel feels really slow. Not enough interesting material, and not even close to tight enough.
I would kill the last segment about the sculptor entirely. The guy has no energy, and the piece is uninteresting. Also, you have pixellations (corrupt clip?) over that sideways dolly over his glass works. And you have a flash frame around 2:00.
Did you also do all the effects and graphics on these shows? There are some fundamental problems -- for example, that lower 3rd around 2:07 needed to be at least four times longer just to be legible. If a graphics expert saw that, I think they'd conclude that whoever had done that lower 3rd doesn't understand how to edit graphics; this is really, really basic stuff.
Honestly, I think you need to either pick your materials better, or build up your works some more to put some muscle in there. I see enough material for maybe a two-minute reel, and there was only one segment that I found entertaining. Sorry if this is harsh, but a weak reel is worse than not having one at all. If you don't have enough substantial material for your reel, then pick your strongest work and just show that as your reel.
www.derekmok.com
First of all, the structure is bizarre. You do have some more "sizzle" content in the rest of the reel...so why would you choose, as your first "content" shot (after your name card), a drop-dead boring low-budget local-news-style shot ("Come on, we need some soul"
? You're immediately putting yourself firmly in the amateur category with that. The sound is also frighteningly noisy, obviously needing post-production work. To have it open your reel just skews the viewer's perspective in all the wrong ways.
The storytelling is fatty and uncertain. Rhythmically speaking, you have way, way too many music-only montages, but they still aren't punchy enough, with lots of ambiguous shots. The sports shots work the best because they have some velocity. The effects shots didn't build to a satisfying climax; just lots of dead-to-music cuts, and the music wasn't cut very well either; most of the music peters out unsatisfyingly.
The Corporate section is completely misnamed. That's not a corporate reel; that's a news segment, or a PSA.
The overall pacing of the reel feels really slow. Not enough interesting material, and not even close to tight enough.
I would kill the last segment about the sculptor entirely. The guy has no energy, and the piece is uninteresting. Also, you have pixellations (corrupt clip?) over that sideways dolly over his glass works. And you have a flash frame around 2:00.
Did you also do all the effects and graphics on these shows? There are some fundamental problems -- for example, that lower 3rd around 2:07 needed to be at least four times longer just to be legible. If a graphics expert saw that, I think they'd conclude that whoever had done that lower 3rd doesn't understand how to edit graphics; this is really, really basic stuff.
Honestly, I think you need to either pick your materials better, or build up your works some more to put some muscle in there. I see enough material for maybe a two-minute reel, and there was only one segment that I found entertaining. Sorry if this is harsh, but a weak reel is worse than not having one at all. If you don't have enough substantial material for your reel, then pick your strongest work and just show that as your reel.
www.derekmok.com
|
Re: Editing Reel Comments and Criticism October 20, 2009 09:08AM |
Jordan, one of the best pieces of advice I ever got in film school was this:
"Show Don't Tell (SDT)."
This, in fact, came from a tough-as-nails screenwriting teacher who would blow a raspberry whenever we were in a read-through and got to a part that was badly written. And that three-letter acronym was what she'd write on our drafts whenever we tried to use dialogue for exposition, instead of using action.
In your case, having someone say "We need some soul" doesn't convince us your work has soul. The fact that the shot looks amateurish only reinforces the opposite.
There are "brain" responses to visual works, and then there are "gut" or "heart" responses. Telling us something verbally makes us think, judge and criticize. Looking at an evocative, emotional or beautiful situation makes us feel without meaning to. And therein lies the power of visual media, like music. The best results should be intangible; the viewer shouldn't even be aware of what's making him/her feel (it goes all the way back to Aristotle's concept of catharsis).
If you can make the viewer feel something, they will then be willing to follow you. That's why 99 per cent of commercials don't invoke the product name until at least halfway through; they seduce you first with music, human situations, rhythm and visual appeal first, then they sell you the product. Show the glistening food first, make the viewer hungry; then sell the restaurant.
www.derekmok.com
"Show Don't Tell (SDT)."
This, in fact, came from a tough-as-nails screenwriting teacher who would blow a raspberry whenever we were in a read-through and got to a part that was badly written. And that three-letter acronym was what she'd write on our drafts whenever we tried to use dialogue for exposition, instead of using action.
In your case, having someone say "We need some soul" doesn't convince us your work has soul. The fact that the shot looks amateurish only reinforces the opposite.
There are "brain" responses to visual works, and then there are "gut" or "heart" responses. Telling us something verbally makes us think, judge and criticize. Looking at an evocative, emotional or beautiful situation makes us feel without meaning to. And therein lies the power of visual media, like music. The best results should be intangible; the viewer shouldn't even be aware of what's making him/her feel (it goes all the way back to Aristotle's concept of catharsis).
If you can make the viewer feel something, they will then be willing to follow you. That's why 99 per cent of commercials don't invoke the product name until at least halfway through; they seduce you first with music, human situations, rhythm and visual appeal first, then they sell you the product. Show the glistening food first, make the viewer hungry; then sell the restaurant.
www.derekmok.com
|
Re: Editing Reel Comments and Criticism October 20, 2009 04:58PM |
Flash frame at 2 mins.
Lower third at 2:30 is out of action/title safe for tv bound work.
The follow through on your name card looks wrong. Either end with your name horizontal or do something else. Don't tilt it slowly to the left.
Totally agree with Derek on the first shot. Bad to start with that. Her posture is awkward, the shot looks low budget.
Need some work on the opening montage. That still photo of the girl is really obvious, and I don't know what that is. The cuts feel like glass. It may cut to a beat in the music, but it's not cutting to the rhythm of the visuals. The interview shot of the lady must go. It looks wrong to see her sitting there moving her mouth in a music montage. The ending feels too abrupt.
You do have some nice shots- the CU of the sunglasses, the girl flinging her hair back, the guy with the safety goggles, etc.. I'd take a good look at those projects and find some other shots to use.
>but that I can do "stories" as well--which apparently are, as you put it, slow in pacing.
"Slow" isn't a lack of energy. I'll axe that scene too.
You need to interest the viewers. The sports bits are interesting. I don't agree with how it was cut, the rhythm doesn't gel. But it has the most amount of action and movement. The rest is up to you.
You need to rework this thing. You may have enough for a 30 secs to a minute and a half to showcase your work. You could push it to 2 mins. No more.
www.strypesinpost.com
Lower third at 2:30 is out of action/title safe for tv bound work.
The follow through on your name card looks wrong. Either end with your name horizontal or do something else. Don't tilt it slowly to the left.
Totally agree with Derek on the first shot. Bad to start with that. Her posture is awkward, the shot looks low budget.
Need some work on the opening montage. That still photo of the girl is really obvious, and I don't know what that is. The cuts feel like glass. It may cut to a beat in the music, but it's not cutting to the rhythm of the visuals. The interview shot of the lady must go. It looks wrong to see her sitting there moving her mouth in a music montage. The ending feels too abrupt.
You do have some nice shots- the CU of the sunglasses, the girl flinging her hair back, the guy with the safety goggles, etc.. I'd take a good look at those projects and find some other shots to use.
>but that I can do "stories" as well--which apparently are, as you put it, slow in pacing.
"Slow" isn't a lack of energy. I'll axe that scene too.
You need to interest the viewers. The sports bits are interesting. I don't agree with how it was cut, the rhythm doesn't gel. But it has the most amount of action and movement. The rest is up to you.
You need to rework this thing. You may have enough for a 30 secs to a minute and a half to showcase your work. You could push it to 2 mins. No more.
www.strypesinpost.com
|
Re: Editing Reel Comments and Criticism October 20, 2009 05:50PM |
I think what you are missing in the Sizzle trailer/teaser is the sizzle!
Make a glossy enticing piece that leads people to want to view more of the programmes that you edited together. If you have strong audio content that really says something, then cut it in - if not leave it out.
Once you have hooked them - you can always give people access to separate clips of the best sequences from those you edited (make sure you have the rights/permission to show them!).
I know what you are saying - but what about the different styles of editing. Well this is a promo piece, an advertisement of you! People want to see lots of high quality images cut well together (by you) of the sort of stuff you worked on, any famous faces? Any famous shows? Any cool graphics?
You are missing the point! Are you not editing this series of cool, amazing, funky, mesmerising, well timed images? Hmm?
...if you don't do a good job then no-one will be bothered about the actual programmes!
My advice? Take a few days to look at the best film trailers, the best TV Trails for programmes, the best Channel "Showreel" style season content trails and see how they lay it on thick and tease the audience.
Then come back - keep all the choice cuts, throw out all the garbage, start cooking again and make that bacon sizzle!
For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]
Make a glossy enticing piece that leads people to want to view more of the programmes that you edited together. If you have strong audio content that really says something, then cut it in - if not leave it out.
Once you have hooked them - you can always give people access to separate clips of the best sequences from those you edited (make sure you have the rights/permission to show them!).
I know what you are saying - but what about the different styles of editing. Well this is a promo piece, an advertisement of you! People want to see lots of high quality images cut well together (by you) of the sort of stuff you worked on, any famous faces? Any famous shows? Any cool graphics?
Quote
While I've heard this kind of input before, how is one to show how one edits?
You are missing the point! Are you not editing this series of cool, amazing, funky, mesmerising, well timed images? Hmm?
...if you don't do a good job then no-one will be bothered about the actual programmes!
My advice? Take a few days to look at the best film trailers, the best TV Trails for programmes, the best Channel "Showreel" style season content trails and see how they lay it on thick and tease the audience.
Then come back - keep all the choice cuts, throw out all the garbage, start cooking again and make that bacon sizzle!
For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]
|
Re: Editing Reel Comments and Criticism October 20, 2009 06:30PM |
> It always came across to me that pretty pictures strung together is good for cinematographers or
>directors but not always editors.
Directors need to sell content too, unless they're a commercial director, and for that, it needs to be picture perfect.
>a spectacle of pretty shots strung together in a somewhat logical fashion, keeping it at 2 minutes
>max.
2 minutes, that's what you seem to have in your reel. You may not have the content to float across 4 minutes and still keep the viewer excited, but I could be wrong, because I'm not seeing the rushes.
> I suppose I don't know what the reel is selling, so perhaps that's why it comes across as confusing.
It's an editing reel. It's to sell the craft. So when I look at it, I need to see flow, invention, rhythm, impact, a good visual story, good shot selection, good shot arrangement, etc..
Everything has visual rhythm- a drama piece, a documentary, etc.. Don't bother trying to incorporate everything. If it doesn't fit, it goes out or goes somewhere else. It doesn't have to all fit in. Point is, at the end of it, you need to feel excited about it.
>how is one to show how one edits?
See it as this- You need to give them a piece and they need to go "wow".
www.strypesinpost.com
>directors but not always editors.
Directors need to sell content too, unless they're a commercial director, and for that, it needs to be picture perfect.
>a spectacle of pretty shots strung together in a somewhat logical fashion, keeping it at 2 minutes
>max.
2 minutes, that's what you seem to have in your reel. You may not have the content to float across 4 minutes and still keep the viewer excited, but I could be wrong, because I'm not seeing the rushes.
> I suppose I don't know what the reel is selling, so perhaps that's why it comes across as confusing.
It's an editing reel. It's to sell the craft. So when I look at it, I need to see flow, invention, rhythm, impact, a good visual story, good shot selection, good shot arrangement, etc..
Everything has visual rhythm- a drama piece, a documentary, etc.. Don't bother trying to incorporate everything. If it doesn't fit, it goes out or goes somewhere else. It doesn't have to all fit in. Point is, at the end of it, you need to feel excited about it.
>how is one to show how one edits?
See it as this- You need to give them a piece and they need to go "wow".
www.strypesinpost.com
Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.
