Youtube Saturday 5: This time it’s personal!
Posted: April 30, 2011 Filed under: Filmmaking, Getting practical, Indie, Youtube | Tags: amazing, mood, production values, Sci-fi, science fiction, short film, special effects Leave a commentInstead of selecting some videos for you to have a closer look at a single aspect of filmmaking, this time I thought you might like a look at some sci-fi based short films. Enjoy!
This one is quite good for the production values as well as the general setup and mood.
Heavily special effects laden, but with good graphics and acting, it’s quite a good watch.
A very atmospheric and enthralling short about a guy that gets abducted.
This one looks amazing. There’s a lot of amazing talent out there.
Another amazing looking sci-fi short film.
Sex – In films (NSFW)
Posted: April 28, 2011 Filed under: Adaptation, Cinematography, Comic, Directing, Filmmaking, Getting practical, Looking at Hollywood, Producing | Tags: adventurous, American Pie, back alley, bed, Bruno, Californication, controversy, cthulhu, cthulhu crotch, Doc Manhattan, farcical, good sex scenes, guide, Hank Moody, hint, how, Kick Ass, kinkiness, kinky, missionary position, passion, Runkle, seduce, Sex, sponaneity, Watchmen, what, when, where, who Leave a commentSex is a very controversial issue, even more so when on screen. It’s also unusual and often taken in different ways if it’s a bloke writing about it. It’s often deemed evil, too provocative, shameful, dirty and perverted. But here’s my guide of who, what, when, where and how to do good sex scenes in films.
First off, the who. Obviously the extremes should be out. For serious scenes, you’re probably best looking for mid 20’s to 40’s – depending on the situation. That’s not to say that people outside of those groups should be excluded, but in terms of actually showing the act, even if tastefully done, an audience will get uncomfortable outside of those age groups. You don’t want the audience uncomfortable. The American Pie films for example all have 20-somethings doing the business, nobody batters an eye-lid. Now having younger looking 18 year olds doing similar stuff and you’re wondering stuff like ‘is it legal?’ and ‘they look awkward’. A lot of things only hint at sex, but the more adventurous stuff actually portrays it. If you can get away with not having the sex (say for example if something is meant to happen either action, character or plot), then go for it – it’ll be much easier all around. And you should be chopping any unneeded material anyway. Maybe chopping was the wrong word…
Then there’s the what. This can refer to things like what the sexual act is and if there’s anything else used. The sexual act portrays the kinkiness of the characters. This can vary, ranging from missionary position, to ‘trumpet’ playing in Bruno. Mostly on the missionary though. Californication is probably one of the few exceptions here, where kinkiness is not necessarily tied to creepiness. Runkle is both a little perverted and the object of outrageous comedy, yet too pitied to be scary. On the other hand though, Hank Moody is a womaniser whose sole purpose in sex is to satisfy. Mr Cthulhu Crotch does that, and is redeemed because of it. He allows himself to be seduced, rather than seducing other women. As for the objects part, there’s the obvious notion of the American Pie films. Trumpet up the butt – not particular helpful, but definitely a source of comedy. Remember, the kinkiness of the character will be reflected in the act upon which they’re performing, and in the characters general sense of adventurousness.
When? When is sex okay to show? In general, if you’re not making a dedicated porno, you’ll not want too much of it, nor for too long. Don’t forget, the sex is meant to emphasise aspects of the film, not dominate it. You’ll generally want it for less than five minutes in the film (unless there’s more than one love scene), preferably under around three. Only do it when it adds something to the story. I cannot stress that enough.
Where should it be done. Depends on the situation. In Kick Ass for example, the main character does it in the back alley (stop that!) – broad daylight, clothes mostly still on and a place nearby all point to a couple who simply cannot wait to be alone. Most of the time though, it will be in a bed of some sort. Failing that, somewhere in the home. For extra passion, add something you can knock over – pool balls down holes, papers on a desk, things like that. Spontaneity however, have the passion-entralled couple actually breaking stuff when they do the deed.
How would refer to the how it should go. Once again, this would depend on anything from story, characters, background, location, plot, etc… Some of the more memorable ones WILL do something different though. Doc Manhattan from Watchmen for example, splits himself into multiple versions of himself. I need not say more. If it’s loving, obviously do it slowly and lovingly. If it’s passionate, have the characters more animated. If its farcical, have it comedic. How is completely up to you. But please remember to make it memorable. There’s nothing worse than sex with no meaning in films.
Thor
Posted: April 27, 2011 Filed under: Acting, Adaptation, Cinematography, Comic, Location, Looking at Hollywood, Producing, Scriptwriting | Tags: 3D, Adaptation, Asgard, Avengers, blockbuster, Captain America, Civil War, DC, Green Lantern, Iron Man, Joss Whedon, magic and science, Marvel, origins, special effects, The Hulk, Thor, Transformers, verisimilitude, Xmen First Class Leave a commentThe blockbusters for the summer have come around again and Thor is now in cinemas. The Avengers movie is coming ever closer.
Firstly, the special effects are fairly attractive. The city of Asgard is both beautiful and large. The city earns the whole ‘mixture of magic and science’ philosophy that the film suggests. Visual wise, Asgard is awesome, in many ways.
One of the complaints that I had with the film is actually about the 3D element. I’m not sure if it’s just me, but the fighting sequences between the Frost Giants of Jotunheim and the Asgardians, it seemed to blur slightly, meaning you had the Transformers effect – not really knowing what’s going on beyond ‘They’re fighting’, due to the colouration and lack of distinction between characters (although in this case, it was the combination of 3D and colouration).
There is quite a lot of humour in the film, although none of it really breaks that story. In fact, it actually supports the characters, giving humour only when the character would naturally encounter/provoke it. Without going into spoilers, I don’t want to give examples, but lets just say that it doesn’t break verisimilitude. What’s verisimilitude you ask?
Verisimilitude is the ability to believe in the filmic world. Without it, we would just see things as unconnected from us. It allows us to care about the story we’re being told and provides emotional investment for which we hope will pay off. Breaking verisimilitude can happen in two ways. Either breaking the fourth wall – illustrating that the characters are knowingly inside a film, thus making everything that happens superfluous (arguably – breaking the fourth wall is often used in creating humour from which an audience may enjoy the knowing antics of the breakee) or by having some type of plot hole that was very apparent making the film broken by its own logistics. In this way, we separate ourselves from the story and thus the emotional investment in it.
But I re-iterate, Thor does not break verisimilitude with its humour.
The origins story (which is always told, often in different ways – as title credits in The Hulk for example) could have been a film in of itself. I did feel that although most of the details were needed for the main story arc, I felt it was either too long or way too short. But that could be just me.
As for keeping to the main plot of the comic basis – I don’t know. I never read the original comics for Thor. While I do enjoy the ever-so-slightly more casual dabblings with both the Marvel and DC universes (DC’s favourite though), Thor was never really something I encountered (apart from Civil War – which I won’t go into because I wouldn’t want to spoil that one). Needless to say, much like any other adaptation, there’s going to be people complaining that they’ve got things wrong. I mean, if people can complain because the original comic origins of Iron Man were set in Vietnam war (and later in the Gulf war) and the film is set in the Afghanistan war, you’re obviously going to get people complaining about SOMETHING.
If you’re not one of those people, go out, see Thor. You’ll like it. And it’ll get you hyped for the Avenger’s movie, although before that we’ve got Xmen First Class and Captain America. Then on the DC side, we’ve got the Green Lantern film coming. It’s turning out to be a super-hero summer.
Oh, and Joss Whedon is directing The Avenger’s movie. Squeee—!!
Is there any point to making 3D versions of films?
Posted: April 26, 2011 Filed under: Filmmaking, Looking at Hollywood, marketing | Tags: 3-D, 3D, Avatar, Bill Hicks, Plaza, Roger Ebert, The Final Destination, The Green Hornet, Thor, Truro, Walter Murch Leave a commentTomorrow, Paul, my mum, my middle brother and I will be off to see Thor… in 3D. Now apart from the issue that everyone in our party of cinema goers, except for me, does not have stellar eyesight and has to wear glasses or contact lenses in order to watch anything (and in the case of my mum, can’t see a thing without her glasses) – I will ignore what I have been told about how annoying it is to wear 3D glasses over regular glasses.
This post is about whether there really is much point in making 3D versions of films. ‘Cause you know what, there are plenty of people who don’t think there is and I’m one of them.
I’ve seen a few 3D films over the last year or so; of the ones that I remember: Avatar, Up, The Final Destination and The Green Hornet – only The Final Destination has struck me as one that played with 3D in terms of how the direction of the cinematography was led. The other three failed to go beyond “making things look pretty” (especially Avatar).
According to a blog post from earlier this year by Scott Mendelson, there are at least thirty-two films being released in 3D this year. He also examined how much 3D films amp up the cost of going to the cinema – not something the industry should be doing too much of in these uncertain financial times. And with so many films out in 3D this year, just where are the none 3D loving crowd meant to go and watch their 2D flicks? After all, who’s going to have space for a 2D version when cinemas that keep up with major releases are going to have at least one 3D film on at all times.
Paul and mine’s local cinema (Truro Plaza) has two 3D films on this week. It’s not showing any 2D versions of either Rio or Thor. And Rio is a film aimed at kids who shouldn’t be watching films in 3D, because they’re either too young to do so or will probably find it uncomfortable to wear the glasses.
But it’s not just small children or people with health problems who have problems watching 3D… we all do. Earlier this year Walter Murch, a sound editor responsible for such iconic films such as Apocalypse Now, wrote to Roger Ebert about “Why 3D doesn’t work and never will“. It makes for some interesting reading. Basically, 3D tech can work to a certain extent, but it’s more hassle on our eyes and brains than is worth the hassle of actually watching films in 3D.
And so why are Hollywood studios seemingly rolling out the 3D bandwagon left right and centre? It’s probably down to marketing. There’s a bunch of marketing busy bodies lurking about, who keep saying that films need 3D in order to have a USP (unique selling point). Because obviously having a decent story, direction and acting isn’t what makes a film great /sarcasm.
The late, great Bill Hicks has something to say about people in marketing, which is entirely relevant at this point (if you are easily offended, best not to watch the clip):
Now, if there’s no marketing budget involved, then it’s probably safe…
How I write (via My Not So Fictional Life)
Posted: April 26, 2011 Filed under: Filmmaking, Scriptwriting | Tags: creativity, Displaced, Music Leave a commentEmily here. Thought it might be a good idea to reblog a post from my blog that focused on the kind of music I listen to when I write (especially whilst I worked on my graphic novel Displaced), due to Paul’s tips for generating creativity. Keep in mind that if you’re writing a romantic comedy, then you probably shouldn’t be listening to Marilyn Manson. However, the Benny Hill theme will probably help at some point. Also – don’t overlook listening to film scores, they can be really helpful too.