|
|
All the news now and in your digital future
Re: Promo for 60s surf documentary
Posted by newptfot
|
Re: Promo for 60s surf documentary February 02, 2010 02:53PM |
For a promo, you need to shorten it. It feels like you're doing a documentary on a documentary. A good promo to me, makes me want to watch the whole film- it's supposed to tell what the film is about, as well as raise questions.
The overall edit can be tightened. There are some points with dead air.
4:24. Bad point to cut. You cut to the guy when he jerked backwards. You can trim the cut a few frames later.
Around 4:54, there are some bad cuts.
If this is online quality, some of the source footage needs to be dealt with. There are interlace issues on quite a few of the shots.
3:19, the fade in/out is too fast. Feels like a glitch.
www.strypesinpost.com
The overall edit can be tightened. There are some points with dead air.
4:24. Bad point to cut. You cut to the guy when he jerked backwards. You can trim the cut a few frames later.
Around 4:54, there are some bad cuts.
If this is online quality, some of the source footage needs to be dealt with. There are interlace issues on quite a few of the shots.
3:19, the fade in/out is too fast. Feels like a glitch.
www.strypesinpost.com
|
Re: Promo for 60s surf documentary February 02, 2010 03:22PM |
- With any film, especially a promo, you should seduce the viewer first by establishing a tone and feel. Why open on talking heads? If you're talking about Newport, why not show it first, rather than have some people talk about some place I've never been, on a topic I don't know? Besides, since the guy only says "Newport", how do I know it's not Newport, Rhode Island, or Newport, Wales? Flip the surfing footage, and use some of the soundbites as voice-over.
- Fatty cutting on the interviews. Tighten it up. For a promo, we don't have the patience to listen to all the hems and haws of these guys. In fact, I'd shave it down to two or three soundbites, and make sure to keep the last one ("We'll always be livin' it"
. It's the only truly spiffy one of the bunch.
- Way, way too much surfing footage. You need maybe a quarter of what you used. You're far too indulgent with your own footage.
- Weak voice-over guy. Sounds like one of the filmmakers. Weak enunciation and clarity.
- As I watch along, I'm already bored at the two-minute mark. Far, far too slow. Pick only the juicy bits. You should not be giving exposition. You should be giving flavour and entertainment. Show us some "heat and energy". I'm hearing all these people say how great it was, and I'm not seeing any of it from the images.
- Why are the surfers interesting? I don't find them interesting. What's going to make me remember them, say, the way I remember R. Crumb's brothers instantly from watching 30 seconds of Crumb?
- Don't use Copperplate for titles...instant marker of an amateur design, like Papyrus or unmodified Lucida Grande.
- I wouldn't even think about strypes' comments about the aesthetics of the cut points yet. Your structure isn't sound, your pacing isn't tight, and this feels more like a collection of shot selects for the actual editing, with all the fat intact. Come up with a tight content cut first before you judge any of the cuts -- because the way it stands now, you're going to want to cut out about 65 per cent of the shots just to make it tighter. So it can be a waste of time smoothing out the cut between A and B, because neither A nor B may end up in the cut.
www.derekmok.com
- Fatty cutting on the interviews. Tighten it up. For a promo, we don't have the patience to listen to all the hems and haws of these guys. In fact, I'd shave it down to two or three soundbites, and make sure to keep the last one ("We'll always be livin' it"
. It's the only truly spiffy one of the bunch.
- Way, way too much surfing footage. You need maybe a quarter of what you used. You're far too indulgent with your own footage.
- Weak voice-over guy. Sounds like one of the filmmakers. Weak enunciation and clarity.
- As I watch along, I'm already bored at the two-minute mark. Far, far too slow. Pick only the juicy bits. You should not be giving exposition. You should be giving flavour and entertainment. Show us some "heat and energy". I'm hearing all these people say how great it was, and I'm not seeing any of it from the images.
- Why are the surfers interesting? I don't find them interesting. What's going to make me remember them, say, the way I remember R. Crumb's brothers instantly from watching 30 seconds of Crumb?
- Don't use Copperplate for titles...instant marker of an amateur design, like Papyrus or unmodified Lucida Grande.
- I wouldn't even think about strypes' comments about the aesthetics of the cut points yet. Your structure isn't sound, your pacing isn't tight, and this feels more like a collection of shot selects for the actual editing, with all the fat intact. Come up with a tight content cut first before you judge any of the cuts -- because the way it stands now, you're going to want to cut out about 65 per cent of the shots just to make it tighter. So it can be a waste of time smoothing out the cut between A and B, because neither A nor B may end up in the cut.
www.derekmok.com
|
Re: Promo for 60s surf documentary February 02, 2010 04:05PM |
> because the way it stands now, you're going to want to cut out about 65 per cent of the shots
>just to make it tighter
Yup. That's why point 1 came before the rest of the points... It needs restructuring, before you work on tightening the cuts. Also, you need to get rid of the interlace problems on your source footage. That's too distracting.
One thing to keep would be the guy doing the backflip, as well as maybe the parties. Not the whole segment though, just bits. Basically show Newport as fun, show the surfing side, some of the characters. And get soundbites, not full-on interviews.
www.strypesinpost.com
>just to make it tighter
Yup. That's why point 1 came before the rest of the points... It needs restructuring, before you work on tightening the cuts. Also, you need to get rid of the interlace problems on your source footage. That's too distracting.
One thing to keep would be the guy doing the backflip, as well as maybe the parties. Not the whole segment though, just bits. Basically show Newport as fun, show the surfing side, some of the characters. And get soundbites, not full-on interviews.
www.strypesinpost.com
|
Re: Promo for 60s surf documentary February 02, 2010 04:37PM |
> One thing to keep would be the guy doing the backflip, as well as maybe the parties. Not the
> whole segment though, just bits. Basically show Newport as fun, show the surfing side, some of
> the characters. And get soundbites, not full-on interviews.
Even more importantly...you need a central narrative. Just "fun" isn't enough to sustain a film. Especially since surfing is one of those things that's more fun to do than to watch. At the end of the day, documentaries like these tend to be character-driven. Do you have any conflict whatsoever? If you had to describe the characters/players, what are they? What's each one like? Why should we care? Just the prospect of watching a one-hour (let alone feature-length) documentary about guys flailing around water makes me want to go watch a Beckett play.
www.derekmok.com
> whole segment though, just bits. Basically show Newport as fun, show the surfing side, some of
> the characters. And get soundbites, not full-on interviews.
Even more importantly...you need a central narrative. Just "fun" isn't enough to sustain a film. Especially since surfing is one of those things that's more fun to do than to watch. At the end of the day, documentaries like these tend to be character-driven. Do you have any conflict whatsoever? If you had to describe the characters/players, what are they? What's each one like? Why should we care? Just the prospect of watching a one-hour (let alone feature-length) documentary about guys flailing around water makes me want to go watch a Beckett play.
www.derekmok.com
Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.
