This is topic my trailer for Desperado in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005030
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-11-2007, 12:05 AM:
I haven't made a trailer edit in quite some time. I've done edits for the Matrix films & video game, Bad Boys II, and some other random unfinished projects (The 5th Element)... but the best edit I've done, by far, was for Desperado.
I made this back in August of 2003... it's not as perfect as I'd like it to be (there's some abrupt audio cuts), but not bad enough to go back and redo it. I made this using Adobe Premiere 6.5 and the DVD for the film. I think it's worlds better than the official trailer, and with a little smoothing out could even work as a real one.
I'd love to get your feedback, since you guys see trailers all the time in your profession (I do too, but that's just because I'm a trailer junkie). I'm hoping to get inspired again sometime soon to put together another good trailer... it's really tough for me to force something like this, which is why I'm not sure if I could ever turn it into a profession, but you never know!
Looking forward to your thoughts. (Oh, and the email address on the opening card is totally outdated haha)
Here's the link: http://srv14.movie-list.net/strube/trailers/desperado-strube-trailer-640x360.mov
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-11-2007, 01:13 AM:
Okay, and we're doing this why? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
(Btw, this should be in the random video thread...)
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-11-2007, 01:29 AM:
quote:
Okay, and we're doing this why? [Confused]
How do you mean? Making trailer edits was a hobby of mine I'd like to restart again sometime soon. Trailers + movie theatres + the film business + film handling are pretty closely related.
I figured the random videos thread was mostly for stupid crap found on YouTube (in crap quality), I thought something like this that a member made is a bit different.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-11-2007, 04:30 AM:
It's not bad, but it really does look like a typical forgetful movie trailer since it so closely imitates everything we see week after week. In other words, nothing stands out.
I'm sure you know this, but the dialogue is buried at the first of the trailer.
I would recommend you be careful about not showing anything from the last 2 reels. That does in fact partially give away the ending and lessens the movie's impact since the audience will have seen those shots.
At least you didn't do the stupid stinger after the title. Twister started that crap and it seems like almost every trailer uses it these days. For your lack of using a lame stinger, I will give you a thumbs up on the edit.
Now here is a trailer that doesn't ruin the movie.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-11-2007, 10:36 AM:
quote: Mark Strube
How do you mean?
For what purpose does it serve? The movie isn't new and you're not affiliated with that show. It can't be sold, or used in conjunction with its promotion...
I don't understand the reason for doing this.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 04-11-2007, 11:54 AM:
What's the "stupid stinger"?
BTW, I absolutely detest trailers and typically try to avoid watching them when I can. They are far too long these days, have too many cuts, give away way too much of the movie.
A good trailer should wet your appetite, not give away all the surprises, good moments and important lines. It should be like this: brief and in Hungarian.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-11-2007, 12:43 PM:
quote: Michael Schaffer
They are far too long these days
Trailers are much shorter today than they were in the '70s and earlier. I ran plenty of 3-minute and longer ones back in the day.
I agree with you that they give away too much. I remember one of the best trailers ever: It was a teaser for "Gremlins." All it was, was sound efx, narration, and a pool of water that gradually drained away to reveal the movie title. But when it was over, you just knew you had to see the damn movie.
As for Mark's reason for doing his trailer, I think that would fall into the "hobby" category.
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-11-2007, 01:24 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
As for Mark's reason for doing his trailer, I think that would fall into the "hobby" category.
You've got it! ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
I'm certainly no editing master, so the fact that you said it's passable as a standard trailer makes me happy. I still think it's much better than the official trailer, though. If any of you have the Desperado DVD, take a look at it.
quote: Brad Miller
I would recommend you be careful about not showing anything from the last 2 reels. That does in fact partially give away the ending and lessens the movie's impact since the audience will have seen those shots.
Agreed. The Spider-Man 3 trailers lately are a perfect example of this. I feel like I've already seen the whole movie. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-11-2007, 01:28 PM:
The stingers can be found on EVERY horror movie trailer these days. You have the entire trailer as normal, complete with stupid flashes to black, negative switches, flashes to white, overused sound effects, etc. Then at the end it gives the title and you think it's over...but no, they have to SCARE YOU with that last stupid 1/2 second clip of the evil bad guy while they play a shriek loudly through the soundtrack.
It's retarded, and I even see it on comedy trailers these days where they think they can get that last laugh. LAME!
Anyone remember back in the mid 90s when every Fox trailer started off with some clips and then they realized "oops, we forgot to put the Fox logo up, let's throw that in real quick and then get back to the trailer". Needless to say that style did not flow well at theaters that cut off green bands. That little bit started with the trailer for Speed. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-11-2007, 01:29 PM:
I kind of like the quiet stingers. Not the ones that try to scare you or make you laugh, but the ones that give you that one last fade-in of a cool scene or something. I think I remember one of the Tomb Raider 2 trailers using this.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-11-2007, 03:14 PM:
Stingers are pretty lame. And that's because most movie makers in Hollywood have no clue on how to really scare audiences anymore. Most horror movies are just bullshit. Why should I give a shit one way or the other if some cardboard quality character with D-cup tits manages to escape a slasher or not? Since the characters and storyline are crap, they resort to attempts at startling the audience. And that's even more lame. Stingers are doubly lame for imitating the worst qualities in shitty horror movies.
The really bad thing about 2-3 minute trailers is they'll often feature many of the best or most expensive moments in the show. Chances are you'll remember at least a couple of the high priced camera shots and wonder when they're going to show up in the movie. If the images are from points late in the story you end up figuring out exactly what's going to happen for the rest of the movie.
For instance, consider the recent Casino Royale release. There's a bunch of images in its trailer that are taken from the final action set piece near the end of the movie. They even include shots of Vesper Lynd under water in the elevator. That shot alone is enough to give away the entire 3rd act of the movie to people who hadn't already read Ian Flemming's novel. When Bond and Lynd are smooching on the beach late in the story, you realize, "when it that elevator under water shot going to happen?"
I tend to prefer teaser trailers which show the viewer hardly anything at all from the movie. Some of the best ones are short in length, simple yet graphical on the visuals and leave a great deal of mystery left as to what may be in the movie.
Total Recall had a very good teaser trailer (in 70mm 6-track Dolby no less) that tied into the imagery on its teaser poster.
I liked the teaser clip for Goldeneye which simply features the shadowy figure of Bond walking into a white studio and blasting letters off the screen until all that's left is "007".
Jurassic Park had a decent teaser trailer just featuring a mosquito preserved in fossilized amber. Spielberg and Universal correctly avoided showing hardly anything of the CGI dinosaurs until the movie had been in theaters for awhile.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-11-2007, 03:59 PM:
quote:
I tend to prefer teaser trailers which show the viewer hardly anything at all from the movie. Some of the best ones...leave a great deal of mystery left as to what may be in the movie.
Amen, brother, amen! The Goldeneye and Jurassic Park examples are superb! I also like trailers that don't show ANY scenes from the movie, ala Hitchcock films, The Jerk, and It's a Wonderful Life quote: Mike Blakesley
As for Mark's reason for doing his trailer, I think that would fall into the "hobby" category.
Why not just cut your own stuff?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-11-2007, 04:00 PM:
quote: Mark Strube
Agreed. The Spider-Man 3 trailers lately are a perfect example of this. I feel like I've already seen the whole movie.
I like to think that our audiences here have a bit of an advantage. We don't get all the various versions of the trailers, since we don't play all that many films on the break. Often, the only version we have is the original "teaser" that comes out 6 months or more before the movie. Therefore we don't give away the entire story by showing three or four different trailers over a few months. To keep the boredom level down, I'll run a trailer for a while and then leave it off for a few weeks....the Spider-Man 3 trailer is back on this week, but has been off for the past month.
I remember the Goldeneye trailer Bobby mentions above...that was the only trailer we ever had for that movie!
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-11-2007, 05:12 PM:
quote: Tim Reed
Why not just cut your own stuff?
I guess you just won't always understand everyone's hobbies. I certainly don't understand the thrill in coin collecting or model trains. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I really can't describe it... sometimes I'm watching a favorite movie and I envision in my head how I would've cut the trailer for that movie. (It especially helps if the official trailer for it sucks.) This is just one of the rare cases where I actually managed to really apply my ideas and it turned out pretty well.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-11-2007, 09:34 PM:
I guess not.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-11-2007, 09:43 PM:
Well Mark, I was with ya until you dissed model trains. ![[thumbsdown]](graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
World's Greatest Hobby
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-11-2007, 10:29 PM:
Well, model railroading was one of my passions way back.
Always wanted to model a narrow-gauge logging line (Shays were so cool!) in HO scale.
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-11-2007, 10:34 PM:
I have to go with Mark on this one. I don't see what's so weird about cutting trailers. As to why someone would wish to cut something other than their own, editing's a lot more fun when you have the footage to work with. Ask anyone who's taken an editing class, which is more fun? Cutting a scene from a student film or cutting a scene from a professional film?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-11-2007, 11:34 PM:
quote: Mike Schindler
I have to go with Mark on this one. I don't see what's so weird about cutting trailers.
I tell you exactly what's weird about it: you're farting around with someone else's creative work and doing so without any kind of purpose. It's essentially creative masturbation without actually being creative.
What's the point in coming up with just another movie trailer for an old movie, especially when that new hobbyist trailer doesn't really do anything new with the material?
Actual movie trailers are advertising tools. Even though some are kind of cool, they really are nothing more than that. Just a marketing thing. A bunch of them lift music out of other movie soundtracks like it's freaking clip art. When you really break down things, most movie trailers are sadly lame. That goes especially for most modern movie trailers that have over-used all the damned whoosh sound effects and phrases like "get ready for the ride of your life." If I didn't like movie theaters so much I'd be tempted to leave behind a log of shit on the floor when seeing that kind of crap on the screen!
I can see the point in creating a spoof of a movie and compacting that down into movie trailer form. That can be entertaining and pretty damned funny.
The same goes for different takes on a movie poster. I've seen plenty of graphics geeks waste hours of time coming up with their own version of a movie poster for something that was already released months or years ago. Fucking lame! If you're going to invest hours of time in that sort of thing, at least give the viewer some legitimate reason for looking at it.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-11-2007, 11:48 PM:
Cutting one from a well shot student film would be and is my preference.
The major problem with working with footage that is owned by others is the legal nightmare of copyright issues. It is illegal and simply a pain to have your hard work appreciated by more than just a few friends.
Its nice to see that Mark is developing skills that are needed in this industry. I would love to see foyer video walls used more effectively!! The better the trailer, the better the business.
The responses in this thread have been very constructive and a great read! One of my personal favorite teaser trailers of all time was for the original Alien movie. Less can be so much more!
As for critism of whether this would ever be of use as a cinema employee, as mentioned in another thread a while ago. From my own experience it can, one of my favorite pet projects a few years ago was creating a voice over, welcome to IMAX CD in dolby suround, complete with 30 minutes of specially composed music, use of sound effects ect and was used by the entire chain of Australian Imax theatres at that time. Its fair to say that millions of people experienced it!
Mark, I suggest you go out and find some student film makers and take this skill to where it is really needed!
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-12-2007, 12:36 AM:
Bobby! ROFL!!! quote: Mike Schindler
editing's a lot more fun when you have the footage to work with. Ask anyone who's taken an editing class, which is more fun? Cutting a scene from a student film or cutting a scene from a professional film?
That's just it... he DOESN'T have the footage and he's not cutting a scene. A scene and a trailer are two entirely different things. And Bobby covered the latter very well. He articulated exactly what was going through my head (except for the leaving a log part). ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Therefore, if given the choice of working from a DVD of a movie for no reason at all, or a student film... I'd take the STUDENT FILM. There are many more opportunities to be substantively creative in that arena. It can be a challenge to make something coherent, unique, and/or emotionally moving out of all the daily footage, and tremendously satisfying after doing so.
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-12-2007, 01:36 AM:
Now this thread has certainly gotten interesting... I definitely wasn't expecting it to go down the road of critiquing my reasons for doing this in the first place.
Offering editing help to student filmmakers isn't a half bad idea though...
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-12-2007, 03:02 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
you're farting around with someone else's creative work and doing so without any kind of purpose. It's essentially creative masturbation without actually being creative.
The purpose is to develop certain skills or techniques which can be used on other works. How is it not being creative? Was the original trailer cutter or poster designer not being creative?
quote: Bobby Henderson
Actual movie trailers are advertising tools. Even though some are kind of cool, they really are nothing more than that.
And actual movies are money-making tools. Who cares? That doesn't mean they can't be good.
quote: Bobby Henderson
When you really break down things, most movie trailers are sadly lame.
All the more reason for someone like Mark to say, "Hey. I could do something better. Let me try that."
quote: Bobby Henderson
If you're going to invest hours of time in that sort of thing, at least give the viewer some legitimate reason for looking at it.
I've made a lot of movies over the years, and I wouldn't dare show them to anyone, because they all suck. But each one is better than the last, and some day, I might make a good movie. The amateur filmmakers I know don't make movies to show people. They do it for the process.
quote: Tim Reed
A scene and a trailer are two entirely different things.
Right. Both exercise different creative muscles and show off different talents. There's a lot be learned by cutting trailers. Stripping a story down to its essentials, working within very precise time constraints, quickly grabbing the audience's attention, telling a story using non-linear techiniques, etc.. Cutting trailers can be a great way to try out new ideas and then apply those ideas to something that does matter.
quote: Tim Reed
Therefore, if given the choice of working from a DVD of a movie for no reason at all, or a student film... I'd take the STUDENT FILM. There are many more opportunities to be substantively creative in that arena. It can be a challenge to make something coherent, unique, and/or emotionally moving out of all the daily footage, and tremendously satisfying after doing so.
Tim, I don't know what student films you've been cutting, but the one's I've cut leave very little room for creativity. Most are so poorly shot that cutting them is nothing more than a laborious process of assembling footage into something semi-coherent. And while you're right that it's a challenge to do so, that's not what most editors want to do.
When you have the footage you need to do whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, whether that's a scene or a trailer or something else, it frees you up to make creative choices instead of creative solutions. And that's why I would much rather cut a trailer for a pre-existing good movie than cut a student film.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-13-2007, 05:50 PM:
quote: Mike Schindler
Most are so poorly shot that cutting them is nothing more than a laborious process of assembling footage into something semi-coherent. And while you're right that it's a challenge to do so, that's not what most editors want to do.
You'd rather move shots around from a DVD than work on something tangible?! You must have a lot of free time.
I don't think too many guild members are working on student films, anyway. Regardless, it depends on who's doing the work. If you've got someone who just wants to assemble "by the numbers" and not actively solve creative problems in the process, then yes, you are right.
At the very least, a student film has the promise of a life ahead of it.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-13-2007, 06:26 PM:
quote: Mike Schindler
The purpose is to develop certain skills or techniques which can be used on other works. How is it not being creative?
Simply put, that movie is not your creation. It's somebody else's idea and finished work.
If you really want to develop video production skills in the most effective manner the very best thing to do is edit footage you videotaped. You learn a lot more about both shooting and editing when you do that. You quickly find out certain types of footage cut a lot better than other kinds. It makes you think more professionally about shot lists, shooting schedules, lighting and matching shots, how your shots are going to cut together and how it will work into the finished project.
You can't learn all those things anywhere near as effectively by playing around with footage that has already been cut into a finished motion picture.
quote: Mike Schindler
Was the original trailer cutter or poster designer not being creative?
In light of the average quality of today's movie trailers, no, I can't say that guy is actually being very creative. But creating a new movie trailer can be a creative endeavor. Some trailers have footage that is newly created for just that trailer. At the bare minimum, the person who creates the real movie trailer is a professional getting paid for the work. The finished work is serving a marketing purpose. And that trailer editor is starting with a lot more footage than what a hobbyist will get from a DVD.
The marketing arm of a motion picture production has access to the talent in the movie. They have access to all sorts of other resources. They can do more than just throw in footage from the movie alone.
quote: Mike Schindler
All the more reason for someone like Mark to say, "Hey. I could do something better. Let me try that."
Actually coming up with something "better" is a big problem when you don't have all the resources that are available to the actual movie production's marketing department.
In addition to that, I have to bring up a very important point:
Movie trailers, like the movies themselves, are created by many people not just one.
One single person in hobby-land is not going to out-do the finish quality coming from a large team of people with different, yet highly focused talents. There's lots of different creative demands for a movie or just its movie trailer. It takes more than just having a good concept and decent editing scheme. You need specialists from all sorts of areas to make it look and sound professional. Everything from the sound mix to the on-screen lettering and graphics has to be produced well. If you just leave all the work in a real movie trailer to only one guy the end result will very likely be just mediocre, if even that.
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-13-2007, 08:14 PM:
quote: Tim Reed
You'd rather move shots around from a DVD than work on something tangible?! You must have a lot of free time.
What do you mean by tangible? Regardless, cutting a trailer is more than moving shots around. Certainly, that's part of it. Cutting together a non-narrative work allows for all sorts of creative abstract juxtapositions, or what have you. But just like cutting a movie, it's also about sifting through an excessive amount of footage to find what's needed. And when you take into account that the ratio of available footage to runtime is roughly 10:1, and that you're not working off of a script, it seems to me that cutting a trailer allows for a substantial amount of creativity. I wish I did have the time to cut trailers, but unfortunately, I can't say I do.
quote: Tim Reed
I don't think too many guild members are working on student films, anyway.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Most of the guild members I've known spend most of their time logging footage, as opposed to editing.
quote: Tim Reed
At the very least, a student film has the promise of a life ahead of it.
That would be a reason to cut one, but the odds of anyone outside of the filmmakers watching it is so low that that can't be the deciding factor, especially if that's your only source of material.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Simply put, that movie is not your creation. It's somebody else's idea and finished work.
Yes, but the trailer you are creating is a new work. That finished movie is the equivalent of the raw footage you receive as the editor of a movie.
quote: Bobby Henderson
If you really want to develop video production skills in the most effective manner the very best thing to do is edit footage you videotaped.
But we're not talking about video production skills. We're talking about editing skills. And as an editor, I believe it is more educational to cut stuff that you haven't shot, because you don't enter into it with any preconceived notions. Hell, when I'm cutting a movie I don't even like to go on set.
On the flip side, if we were talking about video production, I'd argue that it's best not to cut your own footage, because an editor can bring a different perspective to your footage which you may not have seen.
quote: Bobby Henderson
One single person in hobby-land is not going to out-do the finish quality coming from a large team of people with different, yet highly focused talents.
So what? You should just admit defeat and give up? Besides, I don't think that's true. Someone who completely embodies the spirit of the single person in hobby-land is DESPERADO's own director, Robert Rodriguez. And Mark's trailer, while not stupendously mind-blowing, is certainly on par with what's out there today in the real world. Nothing in that trailer suggests that it's not professional. If you were to tell me that it played in theaters, I wouldn't doubt it for a second.
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-14-2007, 01:49 AM:
I'm glad you see this more from my perspective Mike. I've loved trailers since I was 10 or 11 years old, even before I had the internet. I used to set my VCR to record them from the pay-per-view promo feeds that the local cable company got every week early in the morning (and didn't scramble). I would even make my own tapes of recorded movies, adding those trailers to the beginning of the tape. No clue why, I guess I liked the idea of putting together a little presentation.
But back to the trailers, they ARE creative. Some are more derivative than others, while others are very well put-together pieces of work, that are capable of evoking emotion in the viewer in a matter of minutes. Just because something is a marketing tool or commercial doesn't mean it's not an art. The same applies to the movies themselves... with both movies and their trailers, some are more marketing/commercial and less art, but this certainly isn't always the case.
When I started doing these trailer edits, I didn't go in intending to learn different aspects of film production. I'm certainly very interested in that, and I'll probably try some of my own one day (I have a high def camera collecting dust), but this was purely for my love of movie trailers. I had (and still do) visions of one day working for one of the many trailer production houses... maybe starting with simple TV ads or something of the sort.
If I pursue this, having a little portfolio of self-edited trailers that I did just for fun, at home, by myself... certainly can't hurt my chances. Does this clear up my perspective a little better?
For those that are interested, here's a few more of my better edits.
This is a TV spot I made for Bad Boys II, before the movie was released. I used footage from all the different trailers, and was lucky enough to have one of them in 5.1, so I was able to single out the dialogue and re-cut it to my liking, adding my own music mix in the process. Link. Note this wasn't really an exercise in creating something better than the existing marketing campaign... one of the music tracks in there was even already used in one of the trailers. It was more to see if I was capable of cutting a TV spot, with the very short time constraints. Granted, it would be more of a challenge going from a full movie.
Finally, this is a trailer I made for the video game "Enter The Matrix." Note that the text graphics are borrowed from the existing trailer for this game. Here's the backstory - awhile back, before the two last Matrix movies were released, but when all the trailers for Reloaded, Enter The Matrix, and The Animatrix was available, I put together what I called The Matrix Megatrailer. It's far from perfect, or even really "good" but at the time there were loads of people putting Matrix edits like this together, so mine stood out since it was a bit more professional. The president of Shiny Studios, the company working on the Matrix game, caught wind of this trailer (it was making the rounds, an insane number of downloads), was impressed by it, especially when compared to other fan edits out there, and asked me if I'd like to do something like that for their videogame. I couldn't have any new footage, but I got a load of links to existing raw game footage and interviews that were available online. What resulted a few days later was this. I even had to add my own sound effects since the game footage had either no audio or unusable audio (I forget at this point)... for that I popped in my Matrix DVD and found sound FX that would work for the footage. I did the same for most of the last half of my "Megatrailer." Sadly, the president of Shiny told me it couldn't be used as an official trailer since it didn't have any new footage (go figure, exactly what I wanted in the first place)... but it was still cool to be noticed like that.
(If you're curious about the megatrailer, here it is. I'm not particularily proud of it, especially since the two opening "segments" are lifted from existing trailers with minor changes made, but I suppose it might be fun to watch. I especially like how my "siezure cut" emulation of the original Matrix trailer turned out... that was a lot of edits.)
Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 04-14-2007, 03:06 AM:
Poor Poor Mark. You get blasted everytime you open your mouth. I don't have your same morbid curiosity for movie trailers, but I must say, if its your hobby....then it's your hobby. Have fun with it.
For my critique, I don't see any genius here...you take pieces of movie trailers and edit them together to make your own trailer. Ok. So?
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-14-2007, 03:50 AM:
I didn't really see a "blasting" here but okay. Your sarcastic pity is appreciated, but unneeded.
quote: Frank Dubrois
For my critique, I don't see any genius here...you take pieces of movie trailers and edit them together to make your own trailer. Ok. So?
That was only for the Matrix megatrailer and the Bad Boys II tv spot. (Also, as I stated earlier, the megatrailer only uses portions of existing trailers... there's large segments, especially the footage from the first movie, that were entirely edited by me.) The Enter The Matrix video game trailer was edited from a lot of in-game footage, interviews, and only a few snippets from the actual existing promo trailer. The Desperado trailer was wholly edited from the movie itself. Show me a trailer for Desperado on DVD that has all that footage and dialogue and music in it (and that's in widescreen) and I'll show you a very, very shocked expression. The thread title mentioned nothing about genius, so your false hopes aren't my problem.
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-14-2007, 09:22 AM:
Frank, what's morbid about Mark's curiosity for trailers?
People keep on asking Mark, "What's the point?" But really, what difference does it make? He says it's just a hobby. Obviously, it's already started to pay off because he's getting noticed and making connections. But even if he weren't, who cares? He's bettering himself. I spent last night sitting on the couch watching the White Sox beat the Indians. It was a lot of fun, time well spent. But did I gain anything from the experience? No. It was pure entertainment. Before bashing someone for how they choose to spend their free time, maybe we should look at how we spend our own.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-14-2007, 01:04 PM:
What ever people do for their own hobby is fine as long as they're not hurting themselves, anyone else or doing something illegal.
But when you want others to check out something made from that hobby, you're going to have to deal with criticism -even if it is pretty hard to digest.
My freshman year in art school (what we called "foundation year") was a pretty brutal transition. So many of my classmates, and myself, were all very used to the glory of being the most talented artists in our various high schools. When we got to art school we were met with this message: "Hey. Guess what? Your work is shit!" Various teachers as well as other classmates would pile on the criticism, often making very valid points in their arguments. I'd feel like a worthless idiot after that, but it made me try harder to come up with more creative solutions to visual problems.
quote: Mike Schindler
Yes, but the trailer you are creating is a new work. That finished movie is the equivalent of the raw footage you receive as the editor of a movie.
No, it isn't.
quote: Mike Schindler
But we're not talking about video production skills. We're talking about editing skills. And as an editor, I believe it is more educational to cut stuff that you haven't shot, because you don't enter into it with any preconceived notions. Hell, when I'm cutting a movie I don't even like to go on set. On the flip side, if we were talking about video production, I'd argue that it's best not to cut your own footage, because an editor can bring a different perspective to your footage which you may not have seen.
I don't buy that at all. It sounds a little like, "close your eyes and use the force, Luke."
Any camera person is shooting in blind ignorance if he doesn't realize what kinds of footage actually works in post production. Usually such conditions are not allowed to persist in any professional environment because anyone who has ever worked in a TV station or video production crew often has had to wear "multiple hats" and learns, whether he wants to or not, about what kinds of camera moves to make.
The same goes for editors. Just about any professional editor has picked up a video camera or film camera and shot his own material at some time or another for cutting purposes. Filmmaking is a very collaborative endeavor and you'll only benefit by knowing the perspective of as many crew members as possible.
Certain editors move from that job to directing movies. Start Baird is one name that immediately comes to mind. Or some guys end up doing both jobs, like Robert Rodrigquez. I don't normally agree with that practice on major productions, but I imagine Rodriquez has very specific ideas in his mind on how he wants the movie to play and if he has the time and drive to do both demanding jobs then more power to him.
quote: Mike Schindler
So what? You should just admit defeat and give up?
Yes. Because it's a complete waste of time.
It's not "art," it's not a new idea and it's not even something you would be able to use as a "reel" to get any kind of video production job (due in a large part you're dealing with copyrighted work owned by someone else).
I'm certainly not going to put artwork into a portfolio built upon what other people did. Only my own creations need to go in there. I can admire the work of others without feeling the need to waste any of my time trying to re-purpose it.
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-14-2007, 02:41 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
No, it isn't.
How is it not? That seems like a pretty direct correlation to me.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't buy that at all. It sounds a little like, "close your eyes and use the force, Luke."
No, it's not blind luck. It's about approaching the material from a different perspective. I was cutting a movie for a friend of mine, and in one scene, he had shot this elaborate dolly shot, which looked great. But it didn't belong in the movie. So I showed him my cut, and he said, "You didn't put the dolly shot in there." I said, "Yeah, I didn't have anywhere to put it." "It took me, like, 2 hours to get that shot," he responded. I said, "Yeah, these things happen. I can put it back in, but I'll have to recut the entire scene." So I did, and he watched it, and said, "No, the first cut was better. Go with that."
And for every story like that one, there's another where the other way does work better, and you go with that instead. The point is not that a director is incapable of cutting together a scene. It's that there are different ways to go about doing things, and it's better when you're not locked into this myopic point of view.
When I direct, I like to have someone else make the first cut while I sit in the other room watching THE COSBY SHOW. Then I go over that cut with them, steal their best ideas, and recut the movie primarily by myself.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Certain editors move from that job to directing movies. Start Baird is one name that immediately comes to mind.
And he leaves U.S. MARSHALLS and STAR TREK: NEMESIS in his wake.
No, I see your point. But I'll also point out that Baird doesn't cut his own movies, either. Neither does Robert Wise, and he cut freakin' CITIZEN KANE!
Robert Rodriguez is this totally anomolous super filmmaker who can apparently do everything. He doesn't count. But again, I see your point, though I think someone like Steven Soderbergh is more of what I consider to be a great editing director. His movies also support what I was saying before about having multiple viewpoints. He has a regular stable of editors, yet all of his films are cut relatively the same way. It's a great example of director and editor working as a team.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Yes. Because it's a complete waste of time.
Then why is it an exercise which is practiced in film schools around the world? I've cut scenes for TV shows and movies in editing classes, I've also adapted short stories into screenplays in writing classes, and directed scenes from movies in production classes. The value is in having all of the elements in place in order practice whatever the specific craft at hand is without compromise. Fully producing your own material is very educational, but once you mess one thing up (which you inevitably will), it makes it a lot harder to even try to do the other things.
quote: Bobby Henderson
It's not "art," it's not a new idea and it's not even something you would be able to use as a "reel" to get any kind of video production job (due in a large part you're dealing with copyrighted work owned by someone else).
Obviously, people's definition of art varies, but I would consider it to be art. What's to stop you from making it a new idea? And don't quote me on this, but I'm fairly certain that you can use copyrighted material on a reel.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm certainly not going to put artwork into a portfolio built upon what other people did. Only my own creations need to go in there. I can admire the work of others without feeling the need to waste any of my time trying to re-purpose it.
By this rationale, an actor should not be allowed to put a scene from HAMLET on their reel. Wouldn't that be a re-purposing of Shakespeare's work? Should Stuart Baird not be allowed to cite his work on CASINO ROYALE on his resume, since he didn't direct that movie? Better yet, should the guy who cut the trailers for CASINO ROYALE be allowed to put those on his reel?
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-14-2007, 02:49 PM:
Bobby, I found your response mostly interesting and somewhat agreeable until those last 3 paragraphs. I couldn't use something like the Desperado trailer as a reel? Really? What do you think club DJ's do to get gigs? They have mixes full of copyrighted material, even on their public websites! Granted, it's gray area, but for the most part they aren't hassled since they're not directly selling those mixes (they're up as an example of work, to get gigs), and because they're not straight up posting full songs. Same applies to this.
I'm not going to argue how this is in fact an art, since it seems your mind is pretty made up about this. I will however point out there's even a yearly trailer awards show for the most creative and well-made movie trailers (you can see it if you have HDNet). If you'll admit that a well-edited film is a work of art, then I don't see how the same can't apply to a well-edited trailer. It's editing for a different method of delivery and to a different point - to get the plot across and make you want to see the movie in 2 min 30 sec or less.
Judging by your earlier post, I think you've just been made bitter by all the crummy trailers out there.
quote: Mike Schindler
Then why is it an exercise which is practiced in film schools around the world? I've cut scenes for TV shows and movies in editing classes, I've also adapted short stories into screenplays in writing classes, and directed scenes from movies in production classes. The value is in having all of the elements in place in order practice whatever the specific craft at hand is without compromise. Fully producing your own material is very educational, but once you mess one thing up (which you inevitably will), it makes it a lot harder to even try to do the other things.
I've got a friend going to Purdue who's already had plenty of assignments just like this. Guess who he came to for trailer music help.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-14-2007, 02:59 PM:
quote: Mike Schindler
How is it not? That seems like a pretty direct correlation to me.
I already explaned those differences earlier.
quote: Mike Schindler
Then why is it an exercise which is practiced in film schools around the world?
Show me where they're making students do this.
I attended School of Visual Arts in New York. That college has a very good film and video school. They make you do a lot of things in a film editing class, but making movie trailers from pre-existing movies is not one of them. Normally you only get to cut original footage you shot or stock footage as part of editing projects.
quote: Mike Schindler
Obviously, people's definition of art varies, but I would consider it to be art.
You're entitled to your own opinion. But as someone with a four year art degree and many years of experience doing graphics work I feel my own opinion on what can be defined as "art" is a little more qualified.
quote: Mike Schindler
By this rationale, an actor should not be allowed to put a scene from HAMLET on their reel.
Good God, Mike, you're really reaching there. An actor's performance is his own work. That kind of example just isn't comparable or even logical to this movie trailers thing.
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-14-2007, 03:18 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
You're entitled to your own opinion. But as someone with a four year art degree and many years of experience doing graphics work I feel my own opinion on what can be defined as "art" is a little more qualified.
Ha sorry dude, but nobody's opinion on what "art" is can be qualified. I'm happy for your experience and degree, and I'm sure that helps add weight to yourself in the job world, but outside of that it doesn't count for much, including your opinions on what's considered art. Here's an idea - go and add that degree and experience information to your forum signature, so we know to take everything you type here even more seriously, since your opinion counts so much more.
I don't mean to be an ass here, but really? You're going to use the "I'm more qualified" thing to add weight to your side of a debate that's purely based in opinion? There's nothing more subjective than art - someone with all of your experience should know that more than anyone. In a discussion like this it really needs to be kept to a debate where points are made as to why it does or why it doesn't count as art... you're turning it into a pissing contest.
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-14-2007, 03:33 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I already explaned those differences earlier.
Your explanation was that the movie is not your creation. My counterpoint was that a trailer editor is not claiming the movie as his creation any more than a film editor would claim the raw footage as his creation. Finished Movie is to Trailer as Raw Footage is to Movie. This is a very basic concept. Am I making sense to anyone else?
quote: Bobby Henderson
Show me where they're making students do this.
I've heard of this many times. One example off the top of my head is Boston College. My friend's girlfriend had to do this for a class.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Normally you only get to cut original footage you shot or stock footage as part of editing projects.
That sounds pretty lame. In my time at Columbia College Chicago, in addition to cutting student films, I also cut scenes from EARLY EDITION, HIGHLANDER: THE SERIES, LAW & ORDER, FALCON CREST, and this movie called TEMPTATION starring Jeff Fahey and Alison Doody, from the director of MIGHTY MORPHIN' POWER RANGERS.
quote: Bobby Henderson
You're entitled to your own opinion. But as someone with a four year art degree and many years of experience doing graphics work I feel my own opinion on what can be defined as "art" is a little more qualified.
Well, you certainly have the required amount of pretention.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Good God, Mike, you're really reaching there. An actor's performance is his own work. That kind of example just isn't comparable or even logical to this movie trailers thing.
Again, I see it as a direct correlation. An Actor's Performance = An Editor's Cut.
As a side note, I was just discussing this thread with a friend of mine who teaches film at DePaul University, and he said that every year there is a competition held by the Assistant Editor's Union to cut together the best trailers. I don't know if this is true or not. I didn't even know there was an Assitant Editor's Union. But it makes sense.
Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 04-14-2007, 03:34 PM:
You edit together movie trailers from existing movie trailers. That's NOT art, nor is it an art. Take footage of a movie that isn't completed, piece it together, and give an audience a 1:30 min thrill and get them interested in a movie that isn't even done yet....THAT takes some talent. The difference there is, those people aren't looking at everyone else's trailers and using their work as a guide. Come up with something original from material that isn't released yet before you call yourself an artist and pat yourself on the back.
I just have to remember that I'm talking to a guy that thinks he's a qualified projectionist because he can tell when a movie is out of focus. It would almost be worth going to Milwaukee or where ever that theater is being built, to see this guy at work.
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-14-2007, 03:49 PM:
"Troll" according to Urban Dictionary:
quote:
2. troll
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
quote: Frank Dubrois
You edit together movie trailers from existing movie trailers.
Not really. I already explained this. Read and learn things please.
quote: Frank Dubrois
Take footage of a movie that isn't completed, piece it together, and give an audience a 1:30 min thrill and get them interested in a movie that isn't even done yet....THAT takes some talent.
So If I was working with 3 hours of less-edited footage instead of 1 1/2 it's then art? Mmkay.
quote: Frank Dubrois
Come up with something original from material that isn't released yet before you call yourself an artist and pat yourself on the back.
Give me a break. That would require breaking into movie studios and stealing footage. Such realistic arguments you bring to the table! When did I call myself an artist? I was referring to well-cut movie trailers being an art. I've openly admitted many times that mine are far from perfect, but that I'm happy with what I've achieved.
quote: Frank Dubrois
I just have to remember that I'm talking to a guy that thinks he's a qualified projectionist because he can tell when a movie is out of focus. It would almost be worth going to Milwaukee or where ever that theater is being built, to see this guy at work.
WOW. Refer to that troll definition once more. How many times to I have to explain it to you? This is getting sickening. PLEASE READ>>> I believe I would make a good projectionist because I actually CARE about the job. Most in this area do not. I've said 50 million times I know I would need to be trained. You're really the definition of a troll, I can't believe you deal with people on a daily basis. I'm starting to think it's your personal goal to get my threads locked or something. You're the worst of the worst... bringing up old arguments that are long over in completely unrelated threads, using those same old points that were totally based on your bad assumptions... how was I the one that got banned when you're clearly the troll king? Wow.
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-14-2007, 04:17 PM:
![[sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-14-2007, 07:37 PM:
quote: Mark Strube
I couldn't use something like the Desperado trailer as a reel? Really? What do you think club DJ's do to get gigs?
That's opening a different can of worms regarding the lack of originality in lots of rap and hip hip music in that it's largely riding on the coat tails of previously released music (sampling, remixes, etc.).
And yes, I would advise you not to use something like that Desperado trailer as an example of your work to use in getting an editor's job. You'll always have to explain that it was not actually used in the film's marketing campaign. And that will risk getting a negative reaction similar to mine. You would be better off using material they've never seen rather than something familiar. That will also work to allow the person to actually see your editing style, rather than have it masked by some Hollywood movie made by other people.
quote: Mark Strube
I'm not going to argue how this is in fact an art, since it seems your mind is pretty made up about this. I will however point out there's even a yearly trailer awards show for the most creative and well-made movie trailers (you can see it if you have HDNet). If you'll admit that a well-edited film is a work of art, then I don't see how the same can't apply to a well-edited trailer
You're trying imply that I think ALL movie trailers are bad? Wrong.
I'm talking about the differences between a real, legitimate movie trailer actually used in a movie's marketing campaign versus something someone else did years after the fact without any kind of official capacity or practical purpose. The Golden Trailer Awards show you mention hands out awards to real movie trailers that were used in support of a movie release.
I do find some movie trailers to be pretty entertaining. But many of them are forgettable and certainly don't qualify as "art." With that condition existing among real, legit movie trailers, how can I go along with someone calling a home-spun unofficial trailer that doesn't bring anything new to the table "art"?
quote: Mark Strube
Ha sorry dude, but nobody's opinion on what "art" is can be qualified.
That's only going to work in a "Utopian" society where everyone has equal levels of intelligence. We don't live in any such world. Some people will have opinions that are more plausible because they are supported by things like education and experience.
quote: Mark Strube
Here's an idea - go and add that degree and experience information to your forum signature, so we know to take everything you type here even more seriously, since your opinion counts so much more.
Here's a better idea. Be prepared to take criticism when posting something for everyone to see and asking for feedback on it. Don't expect everyone to kiss your ass.
On top of that, you should be glad people like myself have bothered to spend time offering the feedback. You'll learn more from that than people just saying, "yeah, it's great."
I think Brad had it right on the critique of your trailer. There's nothing new happening there. It looks like any other movie trailer I've seen a million times. And that underscores my reaction of "what's the point?" I'm not the only one saying that in this thread either.
quote: Mark Strube
I don't mean to be an ass here, but really? You're going to use the "I'm more qualified" thing to add weight to your side of a debate that's purely based in opinion?
I think I have a better idea than Mike of what qualifies as "art," having actually studied the subject. Some expert art historian or film historian could certainly weigh in on this subject and teach me a thing or two.
quote: Mark Strube
There's nothing more subjective than art - someone with all of your experience should know that more than anyone.
That's the popular defense I hear from no talent hacks in the graphics business trying to justify their presence in that field. They can't do the work to professional standards. So they fall back on that "all art is subjective" crutch.
Someone with my kind of experience also knows when some things fall into the category of "craft" instead of "art." There is lots of "bad art" out there as well as poorly executed dreck that doesn't qualify as any kind of art at all.
I'll also add there's lot of respected art critics out there who are not afraid to judge lots of different works on their levels of merit, innovation and success. They don't pull punches when the work fails, isn't innovative, is parroting style and fashion or just isn't inspired at all.
quote: Mark Strube
In a discussion like this it really needs to be kept to a debate where points are made as to why it does or why it doesn't count as art... you're turning it into a pissing contest.
You're only interpreting it as a "pissing contest" because I am firm in my point of view and also having to endure the circular track in Mike's responses.
If I just wanted to be pissy about it, I could have just kept things brief and used Mike Heenan's popular response:
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-14-2007, 09:20 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I think I have a better idea than Mike of what qualifies as "art," having actually studied the subject.
If we're going to use those ridiculous standards as "qualifications" for what is or is not considered a valid argument, then shouldn't mine have some merit too, seeing as how I have a degree in film?
Also, how are my arguments circular? Here's how I see them going down, correct me if I'm wrong:
Mike: Here's what I think.
Bobby: I disagree with that. Here's why.
Mike: That's true, but it doesn't apply to what I'm saying.
Bobby: Yes it does.
Mike: How?
Bobby: I already told you.
Mike: You already told me your point. But you haven't told me how it applies.
Bobby: Now you're talking in circles.
You say you're firm in your point of view, but when you try to defend it, it becomes clear that you're either not understanding what it is I'm trying to say, or being intentionally vague. It's really frustrating. It's like talking to my uncle about the difference between letterbox and pan & scan.
But I also want to say that I'm not taking this argument personally, and I hope you're not either. The debates that we seem to always have here are valid and fun. And you know they've reached a certain level of legitimacy when Heenan feels the need to chime in.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-14-2007, 10:58 PM:
I swear, I can't believe there are now 3 pages of this claptrap. The guy has a something he enjoys doing just for the fun of it, so why are you guys arguing over whether it's a valid thing or not?
If he gets enjoyment out of it, then it's valid.
Me, I like to make compilation CDs. I'll put together a group of songs by an artist, and then I'll make a complete package for it, booklet and all. Some of my packages look better than what you see in the stores, thankyouverymuch. And I enjoy listening to them. I suppose some music industry dork would tell me I'm butchering up the catalog of the artist by creating my own "albums," but I don't give a crap because I make 'em for ME and that's the only person who needs to enjoy 'em.
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-15-2007, 12:00 AM:
Exactly! As interesting as this is to read, I didn't post this trailer to validate myself as some amazing editor, or ask all of you how worthwhile you think that activity is. I find it interesting that's the first thing many of you jumped to, while only a few people actually bothered to write their thoughts on the trailer edit itself - and very short thoughts at that. (Oh and for the record, I was referring to electronica DJ's, which I am, I cannot stand hip-hop for the most part.)
quote: Bobby Henderson
You would be better off using material they've never seen rather than something familiar. That will also work to allow the person to actually see your editing style, rather than have it masked by some Hollywood movie made by other people.
Are you sure about that? Seems to me if they saw an edit I made from a movie that they're familiar with, then they could REALLY see my editing style, since they could see more of my thought process in arranging cuts and such. If it's from some nebulous student film that nobody knows about, how is the craft I've applied to that going to stand out? If I were to pursue this, I would not be getting into the actual feature length film editing position, I'd be more interested in the advertising portion of that - for which making edits of existing movies is perfect. Sorry.
quote: Bobby Henderson
how can I go along with someone calling a home-spun unofficial trailer that doesn't bring anything new to the table "art"?
Second time now, so listen really carefully. I never called my trailers art, and openly admit to them being far from perfect. I was referring to trailer editing as a whole being an art - in fact I even specified some less than others.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Be prepared to take criticism when posting something for everyone to see and asking for feedback on it. Don't expect everyone to kiss your ass.
It's also not feedback on the trailer - at all. I really am not very interested in explaining WHY I like to do these trailers... your argument, overall, is that since it's not from an "unseen" work, and since it reminds you so much of other action trailers (which I consider an achievement), it's pointless. That affects me how? You're not going to instantly change what I like to do in my spare time, or how good I feel when I've finished a nice edit. How about instead of wasting your time critiquing the reasons I'm doing this in the first place, spend some time on telling me what you would've done differently, what you like to see in trailer edits, how you think a particular edit should've been done. If you would've done nothing at all in the first place, just go on and post that, and be on your merry. Actually add something useful to the conversation instead of just belittling my hobby.
Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 04-15-2007, 01:32 AM:
quote: Mark Strube
I didn't post this trailer to validate myself as some amazing editor
Are you sure?
Also....
"Troll" according to Dictionary.com
1. (in Scandinavian folklore) any of a race of supernatural beings, sometimes conceived as giants and sometimes as dwarfs, inhabiting caves or subterranean dwellings.
2. Slang. a person who lives or sleeps in a park or under a viaduct or bridge, as a bag lady or derelict.
"Troll" Merriam-Webster
Function: noun
Etymology: Norwegian troll & Danish trold, from Old Norse troll giant, demon; probably akin to Middle High German trolle lout
: a dwarf or giant in Scandinavian folklore inhabiting caves or hills
However you wish to define "Troll", your still an ass. Good luck with your "art".
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-15-2007, 01:41 AM:
Good luck with your future thread derailing efforts!
(Either definition works for you. It's kinda funny that you've responded to my pointing out that you're a forum troll... with a completely "troll" response. Thanks for proving my point!)
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-15-2007, 01:42 AM:
quote: Frank Dubrois
However you wish to define "Troll", your still an ass.
And "your" still a lousy speller.
[It's you're, you jackass! And spellcheck won't help you on that one.]
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-15-2007, 01:44 AM:
quote: Mike Schindler
Also, how are my arguments circular?
Because you keep asking questions that have already been answered and even answered repeatedly. I don't feel like repeating myself many times to get you to absorb a point. That doesn't just go for this thread either. You've been needlessly second guessing a bunch of my comments in other threads as well.
quote: Mike Schindler
You say you're firm in your point of view, but when you try to defend it, it becomes clear that you're either not understanding what it is I'm trying to say, or being intentionally vague.
Mike, I have been PERFECTLY CLEAR. I am not going to write a 1000 page dissertation defending my point of view to you when you simply cannot seem to comprehend some very clear points I have already made all the way back in my first post within this thread. I've written enough. If you can't figure it out then that's your problem. I'm done discussing this with you.
quote: Mark Strube
Second time now, so listen really carefully. I never called my trailers art, and openly admit to them being far from perfect. I was referring to trailer editing as a whole being an art - in fact I even specified some less than others.
Mark, Mike Schindler is the one insisting your trailer remakes are "art." I'm not going along with that.
I'm glad you're having fun working on those trailer re-makes. But they don't serve much of any other purpose other than you experimenting with previously filmed footage.
quote: Mark Strube
I really am not very interested in explaining WHY I like to do these trailers... your argument, overall, is that since it's not from an "unseen" work, and since it reminds you so much of other action trailers (which I consider an achievement), it's pointless. That affects me how? You're not going to instantly change what I like to do in my spare time, or how good I feel when I've finished a nice edit.
Don't post it if you're not prepared to hear what people have to say about it. And the broad purpose of you cutting trailers of movies that already had trailers anyway is going to come into question. If you want to keep doing that kind of thing and asking for feedback, then you better get used to the kind of comments I made because I guarantee you will get more of them.
quote: Mark Strube
How about instead of wasting your time critiquing the reasons I'm doing this in the first place, spend some time on telling me what you would've done differently, what you like to see in trailer edits, how you think a particular edit should've been done. If you would've done nothing at all in the first place, just go on and post that, and be on your merry. Actually add something useful to the conversation instead of just belittling my hobby.
The thing I would tell you to do differently is shoot some of your own footage. Videotape and edit your own story rather than wasting your time trying to flatter the ideas of others. Robert Rodriquez and Dimension Films aren't going to give you anything for your work in coming up with a different trailer for Desperado.
Try making something that is actually your own creative vision rather than spending lots of time re-purposing the work of others.
Take a look at some of the stuff Joe Redifer has created. His videos don't have a cost is no object production value to them. But many of them are funny, entertaining and more memorable than a lot of movie trailer shit I see. He's putting his own ideas to work and that's just more interesting.
When I am creating illustrations or graphic designs, the last thing in the world I am ever going to do is re-use artwork from someone else. Screw those guys! I am going to show off my ideas, not theirs! Why the hell should they benefit from my talents and work, especially if I'm not even going to get paid for it?
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-15-2007, 01:55 AM:
That last segment of your reply really accentuates your completely different outlook on this. (Because I can't make money on it from Dimension? That would be cool, but very few personal hobbies involve making money.) But again, you've either missed my point or ignored it. Cutting together my version of a trailer for an existing movie is a completely different activity from shooting one's own short film, and then editing that. Instead of giving me worthwhile feedback on this activity, you insist on imposing your opinion that I shouldn't be doing this in the first place, and that it has no worth or point to it. (I completely disagree with that, but I digress.) So what? It's a hobby right now. If it ever becomes more than that, I'll already have a great knowledge of various editing software, and some stuff I've cut to show that I'm competent in that software. If you're so offended by what I'm doing, just don't visit my threads related to it anymore, instead of annoying the crap out of me saying how it's such a waste of time. What is a "good use of one's time," along with art, is extremely subjective.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-15-2007, 02:10 AM:
Mark, you can do whatever you like with your own free time.
But if you expect others such as myself to watch what you created and ask for feedback you need to be prepared to hear all sorts of responses regardless of whether you feel they are valid or not.
Now, you keep suggesting I never offered criticism on your actual trailer, to which I respond by quoting something I wrote earlier:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I think Brad had it right on the critique of your trailer. There's nothing new happening there. It looks like any other movie trailer I've seen a million times. And that underscores my reaction of "what's the point?" I'm not the only one saying that in this thread either.
You can keep cutting your trailer remakes to your heart's content. That's fine. But I'm also going to hold to my opinion that it is a pointless activity and that your creative efforts would be far better spent elsewhere. You're not going to get anywhere massaging the work of others. You're only going to make progress promoting your own ideas.
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-15-2007, 02:28 AM:
I'll try to simplify this as much as possible. Not all hobbies are very creative, if at all. My cutting of trailers happens to take some creativity, along with knowledge of various software. Now just because it happens to coincide with something that others choose to do for business purposes, or for editing their own movies, that makes it absolutely pointless and a waste of time just to do as a personal hobby? You are really just full of preconceived notions about what's "pointless" and what's not... that's fine, but please don't try to somehow make it seem as though your opinion on the matter is more valid than mine. It's really not since you apparently can't see this from my perspective, and no amount of debating on here is going to convince me otherwise. So, really, you could save us all some trouble and typing... just lay off, and let me have my fun little pointless hobby. Because you know what else is absolutely pointless? Debating this with me.
Now, I'm going to get some sleep. I'm sure I'll wake up to either a locked thread, or 10 trollish responses by Frank about how he's really not a troll, and how he despises labels. Troll Pride!
Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 04-15-2007, 02:41 AM:
quote:
[It's you're, you jackass! And spellcheck won't help you on that one.]
So does this make you a Troll now too? I'm so glad I have someone following me around correcting (or least pointing out) my spelling errors. Why don't you just go ahead and just correct them. It would make you less Troll like according to MARK STRUBE.
quote: Mark Strube was the last to post
Frank about how he's really not a troll, and how he despises labels. Troll Pride!
Call me what you like. YOUR less important to me than what I flushed down the toilet yesterday ![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 04-15-2007, 05:25 AM:
I must interject. I have seen "presentation of films" described as an art form on this very board. If presentation is an art form, then how is cutting your vision of a trailer not an art form also?
If merely presenting footage is an art form, then how is taking that same footage and making it into your style less of an art form?
Is taking a pre-existing font and using it to create an unique sign not art?
I really don't understand the difference, so please explain...
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-15-2007, 10:37 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Because you keep asking questions that have already been answered and even answered repeatedly.
Alright. Let's look at those.
quote: Bobby Henderson
you're farting around with someone else's creative work and doing so without any kind of purpose. It's essentially creative masturbation without actually being creative.
quote: Mike Schindler
How is it not being creative?
quote: Bobby Henderson
Simply put, that movie is not your creation. It's somebody else's idea and finished work.
Now, that is the same response you gave before. But it still doesn't answer my question. The point I was trying to make, which you seem to have missed, is that editors don't create footage. They create cuts. The creation of the footage is irrelevant to the creation of the cut. I'm willing to accept your statement, because it's true. But my question is still unanswered. Let's continue.
quote: Mike Schindler
Was the original trailer cutter or poster designer not being creative?
quote: Bobby Henderson
In light of the average quality of today's movie trailers, no, I can't say that guy is actually being very creative. But creating a new movie trailer can be a creative endeavor. Some trailers have footage that is newly created for just that trailer.
I should have picked up on this response and run with it because it seems to get at the heart of our debate. If there was an answer to my questions that I didn't pick up on, it's here. You don't consider editing to be a creative endeavor. That would've fast-forwarded the debate to the actor's reel analogy, but I missed it, and decided to pursue a more direct route.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Simply put, that movie is not your creation. It's somebody else's idea and finished work.
quote: Mike Schindler
Yes, but the trailer you are creating is a new work. That finished movie is the equivalent of the raw footage you receive as the editor of a movie.
In light of what I now see, I can see how this would look circular. You've already inferred that it doesn't matter, because the editors don't create.
quote: Bobby Henderson
No, it isn't.
Here's a case of misunderstanding. I thought you were referring to my second statement. But you must have been referring to my first. If that's the case, in light of what I now know, it makes sense, because you seem to consider raw footage to be the "work," and editing to be merely an assembly of that work. But either way it doesn't matter because my next question was based on your response being to my second statement.
quote: Mike Schindler
How is it not? That seems like a pretty direct correlation to me.
But if you were actually referring to my first statement, then this question would seem circular, which is why this response now makes sense:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I already explaned those differences earlier.
Then, of course, my next response would make no sense, because at this point, we're talking about two different things. So let me pose a new response to you now.
How is editing not being creative? That makes absolutely no sense. And before you accuse me of being circular, please note that this question hasn't been asked, and I get that "editors don't create raw footage." But this is like saying, "Painters aren't creative, but people who make paint are." And I know you're going to say that that analogy is ridiculous, but that's my point. To say that editors don't create is ridiculous.
And if I am misinterpreting you now, and you weren't trying to say that editing is not creative, then none of my questions were circular, because many of them are still unanswered. And I looked for those answers in your first post, but all I could find was your rant about how much trailers suck.
So I'm missing something, one way or the other. What is it?
And in regards to the other threads which I assume you're referring to. I wasn't the only person to bring up those points, so don't you think that adds some validity to them?
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-15-2007, 11:08 AM:
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-15-2007, 11:37 AM:
Mike, arguing is something that people do. I've been arguing with my best friend for the past 4 years about whether or not KILL BILL is any good. As long as it remains constructive and doesn't deteriorate into trading insults back and forth, then why wouldn't you argue on the internet? That's why God created it.
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-15-2007, 11:38 AM:
That photo just makes me laugh that's all.
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-15-2007, 11:47 AM:
EDIT: I didn't mean to post. Sorry.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-15-2007, 01:00 PM:
quote: Anslem Rayburn
If merely presenting footage is an art form, then how is taking that same footage and making it into your style less of an art form?
Because there isn't any "style" present in the finished product. If Mark didn't put his own graphic at the front of that piece there would no clue as to what sets that sort of thing apart from the real, legitimate trailers. Nothing different is being done with the work, no comment, no satire of the subject matter, nothing. It's just a plain movie trailer using editing techniques I've seen thousands of times already.
Tim's Citizen Kane trailer actually had a comedy angle to it in making fun of the stupid stingers we see all the time. There was at least some point to it being communicated. I thought it was funny. And he even used Trajan in the type to get under my skin. Sure, it didn't require anywhere near the effort that Mark put into his Desperado trailer. But I don't know what the hell Mark is trying to do other than create just another Desperado movie trailer. What's the point in doing that?
quote: Anslem Rayburn
Is taking a pre-existing font and using it to create an unique sign not art?
If all you're doing is taking type and fitting it into a box then, no, it isn't art at all.
Most signs in general look like crap. A great deal of people designing signs don't have the talent and design sense to do an effective job. And that's pretty bad considering many of those works stand visible to the public for many years.
Some of the signs with plain type are effective as on premise advertising for a business. But even if the pre-existing type is handled competently it's still only "craft" and not "art."
Some sign designs transcend the levels of bullshit hackdom and effective craft and achieve "art" status. If the sign uses a variety of materials in a personalized way, uses original custom designed type, uses custom illustrational elements or new icons and brings everything together into an attractive and effective display then it would stand a much better chance of qualifying as a piece of "art" then many of the stark, font murdered displays you see alongside so many of America's roadways. If that sign is the only one of its kind, then it has an even better chance of qualifying as a piece of art.
Certain elements in sign manufacturing can be argued as a form of art, such as making neon. Neon glass must be carefully heated and bent by hand to conform to patterns. It definitely takes a very careful, musician's quality touch to be any good at it. However lots of serious neon tube benders will blow their own glass, make different shapes out of the glass and work it into sculptural works that have nothing to do with signs. Those items are a lot more close to qualifying as "art," especially if the finished project is a one of a kind thing and not something that has been produced repeatedly.
What this comes down to is some people use the word "art" very loosely. I don't. There's a lot of stuff that I do in my own day job that isn't "art" at all. Even if it's well done it still isn't "art" it's just "craft." At least there's a purpose behind it to help a business bring in customers. But that's all it's meant to do.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-15-2007, 01:14 PM:
quote: Mark Strube
Instead of giving me worthwhile feedback on this activity, you insist on imposing your opinion
Mark, feedback is completely based on opinion. And you did, after all, ask to know what people thought. I only asked why, because I fail to see what anyone can get out of this. But that is just me; there is a lot today that I "don't get".
Six years ago, we spent $50,000 remastering intermission clocks and other screen advertising for drive-in theatres. That was very satisfying work and involved a lot of invention and creative problem-solving but, even though I love those films probably more than anyone on the planet, at its heart, it was a commercial venture. There was a direction. While I enjoyed the two years of work it required, and greatly expanded my 35mm production experience in the process, I can't imagine the point in doing any of it just to pass the time.
Obviously, you can do whatever makes you happy, to each his own, but you did ask. FWIW, SVA is a pretty darned prestigious institution, and a degree from there carries a lot of weight. quote: Bobby Henderson
he even used Trajan in the type to get under my skin.
![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
quote: Bobby Henderson
Take a look at some of the stuff Joe Redifer has created... many of them are funny, entertaining and more memorable than a lot
Agreed. Joe is very brilliant -- and ORIGINAL.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-15-2007, 01:22 PM:
Personally I am in the camp of "what harm is he doing / it's a hobby". Plus if he really wanted to get a job cutting trailers down the road some day he COULD use these in his demo reel.
One of my little hobbies is remixing music tracks from stereo into 6 channel audio. It takes a bit of time, but the end result is pretty cool and even on a 2 channel mixdown, it creates an entirely new mix of the song. What is that hurting? I think it's essentially the same thing.
I'm just curious as to how long this will go on.
THREAD NOT CLOSED
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-15-2007, 02:08 PM:
quote: Tim Reed
FWIW, SVA is a pretty darned prestigious institution, and a degree from there carries a lot of weight.
Yes, but to use that degree as the deciding factor on who's right or wrong in a case where it's very clear that there isn't even a right or wrong is just stupid. Bobby definitively stated that editing fake trailers (and apparently in general) is not art. I countered that it was a matter of opinion, but I think it is. Bobby agreed with me that it is a matter of opinion, but then, just like a bad trailer, added a "stinger" to the end of his post by saying that his opinion is more qualified.
When I was in junior high, I umpired T-Ball games. One time, a kid swung and completely missed the ball, but hit the tee so hard that it sent the ball into play. The rule book clearly stated that if the batter did not make contact with the ball, it was automatically ruled a strike. So I did that, and got into a huge argument with the coach. He didn't have much to go on, since I had the rule book in my hand to show him exactly why I made the call. When he realized that there was no way to win the argument with facts, he said, "Just listen to me, kid. I've been playing this game a lot longer than you have." I'll never forget that.
My point is, if Bobby wants to use the wisdom that he has acquired on the subject of art in his time at SVA, as well as his on-the-job experience, I more than welcome it. These debates are supposed to be educational. Darryl just schooled my ass last week in the GRINDHOUSE thread. But to use that experience as the reason why he's right and I'm wrong is beyond ridiculous, and I won't accept it for a second.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-15-2007, 02:42 PM:
quote: Brad Miller
One of my little hobbies is remixing music tracks from stereo into 6 channel audio. It takes a bit of time, but the end result is pretty cool and even on a 2 channel mixdown, it creates an entirely new mix of the song. What is that hurting? I think it's essentially the same thing.
Brad, you're actually doing something different with the material. There's a lot of very tricky interpretation that goes into transforming a 2-channel audio mix into a 6-channel surround mix. I don't think what Mark is doing with his trailers is any different from just another Desperado trailer.
quote: Mike Schindler
My point is, if Bobby wants to use the wisdom that he has acquired on the subject of art in his time at SVA, as well as his on-the-job experience, I more than welcome it. But to use that experience as the reason why he's right and I'm wrong is beyond ridiculous, and I won't accept it for a second.
I did that because all you seem to be doing is challenging everything I have written in knee jerk devil's advocate style (not just in this thread, but others as well). I end up having to repeat the same things over and over to you. And that comes off like you just don't think I know what I am talking about. Because of that, I felt perfectly justified in bringing up my credentials on that very subject. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to art and what kinds of things can be rightly complimented as true works of art. If you want to reject that, fine by me.
If you expect me to come around to your way of thinking on this topic, you're going to have to try a lot harder and come up with some actual statements that support your side of the discussion instead of just telling me I am wrong.
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-15-2007, 02:51 PM:
Brad said quote:
I'm just curious as to how long this will go on.
THREAD NOT CLOSED [evil]
I think it'll go on until any of them gets a bf/gf or a life in general.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-15-2007, 04:14 PM:
quote: Mike Schindler
to use that experience as the reason why he's right and I'm wrong is beyond ridiculous
[yawn] Okay you win. You're right and he's wrong.
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-15-2007, 04:29 PM:
Bobby, I'm sorry if you think I'm out to get you, because that's not the case. I think that perception comes from the fact that we tend to post in the same threads. When we agree on something, I'm not going to post, "Here, here, Bobby! ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
," because that's generally a waste of time. However, I am going to challenge you on stuff I disagree with. Just like you did in this thread and others. But I'm not singling you out. I'm an equal-opportunity debator.
Also, I'm not trying to simply tell you you're wrong, and I'm not optimistic in changing your way of thinking. As we both agree, this is a matter of opinion. I'm trying to figure out the reasons behind your way of thinking, because they go completely against what I believe. That's hard to do when you're not directly answering the questions posed.
Here's what I've gathered from this thread: You do not consider cutting trailers for pre-existing movies to be a worthwhile activity because you're working off of someone else's movie. In order for editing to be worthwhile, it needs to be an original work.
What I'm trying to say is that editing is its own thing. Where the source material comes from has nothing to do with the act of editing itself. From an editor's perspective, the origin of the footage used is irrelevant, and what that footage was used for in the past cannot invalidate the editor's work in the present.
You seem to disagree with this for the reasons stated above. An editor cannot claim authorship of the movie he's cutting a trailer for. That's true. But it's also true that he cannot claim authorship of the footage shot for, say, a student film. What he can claim authorship of, in both cases, is the cut of the footage that he makes.
After stating all this, it seems that you still disagree, and that in actuality, you believe that an editor can only claim authorship of a cut if someone else hasn't cut that footage first.
I disagree with that. It seems that the standard you apply to editors does not apply to actors performing well-known works. Why the double-standard? How is an editor's interpretation of previously released material any different from an actor's?
And what about something like TOUCH OF EVIL? Without really adding or subtracting any footage, Walter Murch, commonly considered to be a god among editors, recut the movie to better suit Orson Welles' original vision. This process has been fairly well-documented, including all of the creative interpretations that Murch had to make of Welles' notes. Do you consider this to be a new creation? Because the motion picture academic community does. And if this is a new creation, then certainly trailer-cutting, whether it be amateur or professional, is as well, because it has all of the elements present in Murch's work, while adding another dimension, time compression.
As far as what is art and what's not, our opinion certainly differs. I believe that art is defined by medium. If you start breaking it down further, bringing in things like content, intent, venue, length, etc., you run into some really sticky territory, and have to start drawing some really vague lines. If CITIZEN KANE is considered to be a work of art, then everything else in that medium, in this case motion pictures, is as well. That includes real trailers, Mark's trailers, commercials, music videos, surveillance videos, wedding movies, etc. Now, there's good art, and there's bad art. But it's all art. Though I would also say that "art" should not be put on a pedestal merely for being "art." As far as I'm concerned, there is no positive or negative connotation attached to that word.
I know that you don't agree with my viewpoint, but I've spent a good long time thinking about it over the years, and that's the conclusion I've come to. I'd also like to say that I reached that conclusion in spite of what I was taught in school, not because of it. What school taught me was how to think, not what to think (although it tried its damnedest to do that to). That's a very important difference, especially when it comes to art. Also, I'm not under the impression that I'm going to change your mind on the subject, and there's no way that anyone could change mine over the course of a 5-page thread on the internet. The subject is way too complex for that.
And to be fair to Mark, since this is his thread, I'd like to elaborate on my critique of his trailer. The trailer itself does not stand out, but that says something about it right there. It's not great, but it's also not at all bad. I was really quite impressed with the editorial skills you exhibited. It seems that you have a good sense timing, which is ultimately one of the most important traits in an editor. If I were to make a movie and needed someone to cut it, I wouldn't hesitate to ask you. It's certainly way better than most of the stuff that comes out of film school editing classes. That shit is usually painful to watch. I haven't watched your other stuff yet, but I will, and get back to you.
quote: Tim Reed
[yawn] Okay you win. You're right and he's wrong.
Tim, my whole point is that there is no right or wrong.
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-15-2007, 04:32 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Brad, you're actually doing something different with the material. There's a lot of very tricky interpretation that goes into transforming a 2-channel audio mix into a 6-channel surround mix. I don't think what Mark is doing with his trailers is any different from just another Desperado trailer.
Hahaha wow it keeps getting worse and worse. I suppose nothing with video editing is tricky... getting those dialogue cuts just right, or making the video mesh perfectly with the audio cues. Or shit - even getting the encoding right. That's half the battle right there if you take a look at many other people's hackjob encodes. Have you not seen the world of fan-made trailers online? For the most part it's a wasteland... people adding different soundtracks to existing trailers or making up lame montages to their favorite Linkin Park track. I wonder what reasons Mr. Bobby would come up with as to why my DJ mixes are just like everyone else's, but that would take even more of our art major's time. Oh, and where's that other Desperado trailer that this is just like? I'd like to know the template I used for this, because apparently I forgot and somehow thought I came up with my own structure for telling the story. Silly me. (The basic structure of the trailer emulating other action trailers doesn't really count as a good point to me... that's what I was going for in the first place, because I love a well-made action trailer.)
quote: Frank Dubrois
Call me what you like. YOUR less important to me than what I flushed down the toilet yesterday
Makes me wonder what you do with your , if I'm even less important, yet you bother writing messages to me.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-15-2007, 04:34 PM:
quote: Mike Schindler
Tim, my whole point is that there is no right or wrong.
So, why are you getting so bent out of shape about it?
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-15-2007, 04:39 PM:
Because Bobby's saying that there is, and guess which one I am. It's not even that, so much as his reasoning, which is, "I've had more formal education." He's basically saying, "I'm not going to bother arguing with you because you're not as smart as I am."
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-15-2007, 04:49 PM:
quote: Mike Schindler
And to be fair to Mark, since this is his thread, I'd like to elaborate on my critique of his trailer. The trailer itself does not stand out, but that says something about it right there. It's not great, but it's also not at all bad. I was really quite impressed with the editorial skills you exhibited. It seems that you have a good sense timing, which is ultimately one of the most important traits in an editor. If I were to make a movie and needed someone to cut it, I wouldn't hesitate to ask you. It's certainly way better than most of the stuff that comes out of film school editing classes. That shit is usually painful to watch. I haven't watched your other stuff yet, but I will, and get back to you.
Cool... thanks! I really wasn't going for anything more than that, and to surpass the official trailer, which is basically a montage set to music. I believe it has one line of dialogue, and then the narrator saying "Desperado" at the end, which I lifted for my trailer. This was my 5th or 6th video edit EVER. This was also the first time I edited using a full movie instead of other trailers or short clips as the source. I understand Bobby saying how I should try to do something "new" with the material, but as far as specifically Desperado goes - this is something very new for that movie, and very new for me. I guess when I become more of an ace editor I'll be making those breakthrough amazingly original trailers that make people go WOW. But, in the meantime... I think that's quite good for such a beginner.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-15-2007, 05:48 PM:
quote: Mark Strube
Hahaha wow it keeps getting worse and worse. I suppose nothing with video editing is tricky... getting those dialogue cuts just right, or making the video mesh perfectly with the......
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-15-2007, 10:45 PM:
If my responses to your crap bore you so much, don't respond... you can ignore my threads just like I'm ignoring your take on my hobby.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-15-2007, 10:47 PM:
Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 04-15-2007, 10:54 PM:
I think mark is looking for some kind of recognition for his "hobby". I think he wants us to be WOW'ed and impressed. Maybe we aren't as easily impressed as his friends are? He seems to get very defensive regarding his hobby..it makes me...
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-15-2007, 11:19 PM:
Then just say that you're not impressed with the trailer and be done with it. I've not tried to make this edit sound amazing or anything, my only real beef with the criticism of the actual trailer is how it's emulating other action trailers and doesn't really do anything new... which is pretty much what I set out to do. That's why I don't see it as a criticism. Beyond that, attacking my reasons for being involved in such a hobby really does nothing for anyone but invoke endless pages of pointless debate. The same crap happened in my original thread that got locked -- I asked for advice on an interview to be a projectionist, I got a little good advice, but was immediately jumped on for thinking my interest in related home technologies might have anything at all to do with an interest in projecting. (Immediately jumping to an assumption that I think I'd be some projectionist gift from the heavens because I notice details, and already know plenty more about this than most ushers going in who will end up getting "promoted" one day. Damn me for actually having an interest!) That also was completely pointless, and helped achieve nothing but more pages of endless debate and animosity.
As for the claim that this trailer impresses my unimpressive friends... I'll link you to the first place I posted my trailer. These people are hardly new to the concept of trailers... that would be one the largest and most popular movie trailer sites online. They seemed to like it, but then again they actually like trailers to begin with, and don't feel a need to let me know that doing it in the first place was somehow pointless. In the larger scheme of things, if this ends up going nowhere, it just might be. I still enjoyed doing it, and enjoyed seeing the result. Plenty of people on that site enjoyed it quite a bit as well. That's far from pointless.
http://www.movie-list.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6739
Frank is for once almost correct, although I'm not exactly desperate for validation from you people. The whole reason I posted this trailer here in the first place was to get to know you guys better, and show you something else that I'm interested in doing that's a bit related to the industry. The other thread seriously derailed and I felt like I got off on the wrong foot here. I can now clearly see you people have no intention of actually being civil, and every single time I post here will end in an attack of some sort. Even when I simply added to the closings/openings thread with some pictures of the Majestic's construction, I get a snide remark about my job and end up having to defend myself again.
Go out and get some sun, I think the booth is making you guys grumpy.
Posted by Chris Dugan (Member # 3893) on 04-15-2007, 11:49 PM:
Dangit it Mike H...you beat me to the pic post.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-16-2007, 12:10 AM:
quote: Mark Strube
The other thread seriously derailed and I felt like I got off on the wrong foot here. I can now clearly see you people have no intention of actually being civil, and every single time I post here will end in an attack of some sort.
Not from all...mostly Frank, who seems to have it in for you, although I canNOT figure out what his problem is. He couldn't even resist trying to bring that other thread's discussion into this thread. If you ignore him, you'll note that everybody else is simply having a friendly debate. Frank's the only unreasonable one in this thread.
Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 04-16-2007, 12:42 AM:
quote: Mark Strube
Then just say that you're not impressed with the trailer
I'm not impressed with the trailer....or you.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I swear, I can't believe there are now 3 pages of this claptrap.
Ok...I can't believe your still adding to it. If it makes you feel better to single me out as an instigator, fine, YOUR opinion is just as meaningless to me as Mark's. I didn't start this thread, and last time I checked, its OK to respond to posted threads and opinions are encouraged whether they be positive or negative.
Like it was mentioned earlier, he put his nuts on the chopping block when he put up his trailer and said "look at this". I have wished Mark well in his job and agreed that if its his hobby, then he should go with it...
quote: Frank Dubrois
but I must say, if its your hobby....then it's your hobby. Have fun with it.
yeah so.....take your accusitory finger and shove it up your....
Posted by Mike Pennell (Member # 1692) on 04-16-2007, 01:00 AM:
My personal opinion, for what it's worth: The battle royale of Mark vs. Frank should be decided by who actually gets an avatar photo up. Since it's very easy to "flame" back and forth anonymously.
By the way, I golf for a hobby, which is very pointless.
Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 04-16-2007, 01:05 AM:
The point of golf is to get the ball into the hole. Now you know what you've been doing wrong!
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-16-2007, 02:14 AM:
quote: Frank Dubrois
If it makes you feel better to single me out as an instigator, fine, YOUR opinion is just as meaningless to me as Mark's.
Your posts really speak for themselves, there's no need to single you out - you've done it for yourself. I speak especially of your smartass post in the openings/closings thread... a perfect example of your attitude problem. That is what really lead me to the whole troll thing. (It seemed to be a new term for you... I assure you it's quite commonly used when referring to troublemakers in forums.)
http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f5/t000929/p39.html
quote: Mike Pennell
The battle royale of Mark vs. Frank should be decided by who actually gets an avatar photo up. Since it's very easy to "flame" back and forth anonymously.
Normally I'd agree with you, and I'd probably have an avatar up by now. However... A. I'm not sure if I like it here all that much yet, and B. Frank doesn't come across as a very stable person, I don't need to make it that much easier for him to hunt me down.
Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 04-16-2007, 12:01 PM:
Hunt you down? Wow...your paranoid. Besides, your name is Mark, you will be working at the Majestic as an usher, and will most likely have a name tag that says...Mark. Am I close?
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-16-2007, 03:05 PM:
See? I'm scared already.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-16-2007, 03:14 PM:
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I was going to add a Zzz but they'd apparently all been used up in this topic.
Mark, if you enjoy it do it. It may get even get you somewhere you want to be in future employment. Though not outstanding, it was certainly easily passable as a real trailer. That's got to be a good thing for you, right?
Now, personally, I prefer trailers of the thirties, forties and fifties with the flip cards etc. but that's just me. If they did it today no-one in the audience could read it anyway. The only reason they show the end of the movie in trailers nowadays is so when they go to see the actual movie they know that's the movie they wanted to see when they saw the trailer last week.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2