Tuesday, May 12, 2009
New Finalish DVD Slip Cover
As we finalize the details/contents for our self-distributed DVD of Son of a Seahorse, we gave the cover another once-over and spiffed it up a bit.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Son of a Seahorse DVD Cover Design
For many low-budget filmmakers, marketing is a word that leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Marketing is about selling, not about art; about targeting an audience, not engaging them. And then there's those filmmakers and studios that are all about the marketing, all about selling the tickets and not about, you know, making a good film, making something that lasts.
In fact, so much was Tom's dislike of marketing that the first film the two of us made together, Milos, did not have a website, as was the trend. It was Mary, perhaps the more realistically minded of the two of us, who insisted on having a page for The Man Who Loved and Son of a Seahorse.
But now that we're self-distributing our films via Amazon (starting with The Man Who Loved), we can no longer ignore that marketing aspect. DVDs require DVD slip-case covers, and self-distribution requires some degree of self-promotion.
And actually and honestly? Mr. "I Hate Marketing" finds that he kind of enjoys the process of finding & creating images that might (1) communicate what the film is about and (2) persuade someone to purchase it, of deciding on and then arranging different elements, of creating "logo families" and tag-lines. It has absolutely almost nothing to do with filmmaking, but it is a sort of bastard art in its own right. (And even Mr. "I Hate Marketing" can admit that he has some serious love for some of the old posters, especially those that came out of Eastern Europe: so striking, so lovely, so kinetic.)
Anyway, with that preamble out of the way, we thought we'd take you through some of the various forms the marketing (such as it is) for Son of a Seahorse.
To begin with, there was this poster:
Three things here that you'll note: the blue font (Aardvark Bold, which was actually used in the film), this particular shot of David screaming, and the salmon-coloured suit that he's wearing. These three things remain pretty constant through-out the various itinerations that follow, mostly because they're distinctive and, we hope, memorable.
Our second poster is really just the first with the full cast; a miniature version of this was sent to festivals along with the screener. Were we doing this to try and capitalize on the presence of Joe Swanberg in our cast? You bet your ass we were. Did it work? Not in the slightest.
Our next poster concept was a little more daring:
Notice that the three motifs we mentioned before are present: the blue Aardvark, the screaming David (in the form of the line drawing), the salmon-suit. In this case, the suit is suggested by negative space, the colour filling up the poster. The shot of David walking also had a nice "lonely man" motif-- something that we felt reflected well on the film.
I think it's a really neat concept for a poster. Unfortunately, we couldn't quite execute it to our satisfaction. The major problem was the drawing: if you look back at the first two posters, David's facing left. We drew it that way, and then flipped it; flipped, it just doesn't feel "right". At the same time, the head facing inwards (towards the walking David) didn't feel right either. We tried it without the drawing--
-- but it's not striking enough, doesn't communicate enough about the film. When we started working on the DVD cover, we abandoned this concept and went back to our original for the front. We tried the drawn version of that same image, now facing left once more, for the back.
We added as text one of the best lines from the film:
Unfortunately, that line is Adrienne's. Putting it next to the David head makes it look like it's his line. And then it doesn't make any sense: is the angry guy yelling at himself to stop yelling? We decided we had better go for a more traditional back-of-the-box text, in all its ego-stoking glory. Gone went the head.
Also note that instead of a solid orangey-pink-salmon back we added a blue box and separated them with a bar of black/stills. This put a greater deal of stress on the use of blue for the text, making blue and salmon our film's two marketing colours. But that "Jam-Packed With Extras!" blue is a little lost in the bottom box, and so we made one more change:
And, by the way, it is going to be jam-packed with extras. In addition to a mini-commentary like the one we provided on The Man Who Loved, you'll find the complete short film Bernard the Lonely Snail, and three episodes of Ned and Sunshine, the zombie sitcom, including one no longer available online. And, heck, we might even throw in a trailer or two:
(Really, seriously, click on that HQ button; the "standard" edition lags and chops all to hell.)
Unless we get a sudden offer from a distribution company (which, being poor, we'd be more than happy to accept), you can expect Son of a Seahorse to be available this June for fifteen measly dollars. Heck, buy it with The Man Who Loved to qualify for that free super-saver shipping. Or wait until later in the summer, when our long unseen original cut of Milos will be made available for the very first time, also with various fine and sundry supplements.
The marketing of that one, of course, will be a whole 'nother discussion...
In fact, so much was Tom's dislike of marketing that the first film the two of us made together, Milos, did not have a website, as was the trend. It was Mary, perhaps the more realistically minded of the two of us, who insisted on having a page for The Man Who Loved and Son of a Seahorse.
But now that we're self-distributing our films via Amazon (starting with The Man Who Loved), we can no longer ignore that marketing aspect. DVDs require DVD slip-case covers, and self-distribution requires some degree of self-promotion.
And actually and honestly? Mr. "I Hate Marketing" finds that he kind of enjoys the process of finding & creating images that might (1) communicate what the film is about and (2) persuade someone to purchase it, of deciding on and then arranging different elements, of creating "logo families" and tag-lines. It has absolutely almost nothing to do with filmmaking, but it is a sort of bastard art in its own right. (And even Mr. "I Hate Marketing" can admit that he has some serious love for some of the old posters, especially those that came out of Eastern Europe: so striking, so lovely, so kinetic.)
Anyway, with that preamble out of the way, we thought we'd take you through some of the various forms the marketing (such as it is) for Son of a Seahorse.
To begin with, there was this poster:
Three things here that you'll note: the blue font (Aardvark Bold, which was actually used in the film), this particular shot of David screaming, and the salmon-coloured suit that he's wearing. These three things remain pretty constant through-out the various itinerations that follow, mostly because they're distinctive and, we hope, memorable.
Our second poster is really just the first with the full cast; a miniature version of this was sent to festivals along with the screener. Were we doing this to try and capitalize on the presence of Joe Swanberg in our cast? You bet your ass we were. Did it work? Not in the slightest.
Our next poster concept was a little more daring:
Notice that the three motifs we mentioned before are present: the blue Aardvark, the screaming David (in the form of the line drawing), the salmon-suit. In this case, the suit is suggested by negative space, the colour filling up the poster. The shot of David walking also had a nice "lonely man" motif-- something that we felt reflected well on the film.
I think it's a really neat concept for a poster. Unfortunately, we couldn't quite execute it to our satisfaction. The major problem was the drawing: if you look back at the first two posters, David's facing left. We drew it that way, and then flipped it; flipped, it just doesn't feel "right". At the same time, the head facing inwards (towards the walking David) didn't feel right either. We tried it without the drawing--
-- but it's not striking enough, doesn't communicate enough about the film. When we started working on the DVD cover, we abandoned this concept and went back to our original for the front. We tried the drawn version of that same image, now facing left once more, for the back.
We added as text one of the best lines from the film:
Unfortunately, that line is Adrienne's. Putting it next to the David head makes it look like it's his line. And then it doesn't make any sense: is the angry guy yelling at himself to stop yelling? We decided we had better go for a more traditional back-of-the-box text, in all its ego-stoking glory. Gone went the head.
Also note that instead of a solid orangey-pink-salmon back we added a blue box and separated them with a bar of black/stills. This put a greater deal of stress on the use of blue for the text, making blue and salmon our film's two marketing colours. But that "Jam-Packed With Extras!" blue is a little lost in the bottom box, and so we made one more change:
And, by the way, it is going to be jam-packed with extras. In addition to a mini-commentary like the one we provided on The Man Who Loved, you'll find the complete short film Bernard the Lonely Snail, and three episodes of Ned and Sunshine, the zombie sitcom, including one no longer available online. And, heck, we might even throw in a trailer or two:
(Really, seriously, click on that HQ button; the "standard" edition lags and chops all to hell.)
Unless we get a sudden offer from a distribution company (which, being poor, we'd be more than happy to accept), you can expect Son of a Seahorse to be available this June for fifteen measly dollars. Heck, buy it with The Man Who Loved to qualify for that free super-saver shipping. Or wait until later in the summer, when our long unseen original cut of Milos will be made available for the very first time, also with various fine and sundry supplements.
The marketing of that one, of course, will be a whole 'nother discussion...
Monday, April 27, 2009
DVD guarantee
There are two "burnable" DVD formats: DVD-R and DVD+R. DVD-R are compatible with 90 to 95 percent of players, while DVD+R are compatible with about 87.6 percent of players. (The players that can't read -R's can read +R's and vice-versa.)
The copies of our films available through amazon.com are burned onto DVD-R discs. Our own DVD burner burns DVD+R discs; our player, like most newer players, plays both formats just fine.
If, for any reason, your player cannot play the DVD-R disc, we will be happy to replace it with a DVD+R copy. Our e-mail address is on the back of each DVD slip-case.
Son of a Seahorse should be coming out in early June.
The copies of our films available through amazon.com are burned onto DVD-R discs. Our own DVD burner burns DVD+R discs; our player, like most newer players, plays both formats just fine.
If, for any reason, your player cannot play the DVD-R disc, we will be happy to replace it with a DVD+R copy. Our e-mail address is on the back of each DVD slip-case.
Son of a Seahorse should be coming out in early June.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Tom and Mary Russell Interview at The Counter Project
The Dearborn-centered culture and entertainment site "The Counter Project" recently asked us a few questions about our films and our decision to distribute our films ourselves, starting with The Man Who Loved. You can read the entire interview here.
This is the first time we've ever been interviewed, and so as you can imagine we're pretty psyched about it. Go ahead and give it a look!
This is the first time we've ever been interviewed, and so as you can imagine we're pretty psyched about it. Go ahead and give it a look!
Monday, April 6, 2009
New Trailer!
Hey, everybody! It's a new trailer for Son of a Seahorse!
We'll probably be releasing a dvd of SOASH (as all the cool kids call it) sometime before the summer. In the mean-time, you can take a gander at our film from 2007, The Man Who Loved, now available for purchase via amazon.com and CreateSpace.
We'll probably be releasing a dvd of SOASH (as all the cool kids call it) sometime before the summer. In the mean-time, you can take a gander at our film from 2007, The Man Who Loved, now available for purchase via amazon.com and CreateSpace.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Bookmark Turtleneck Films
It's been a while since we posted over at Turtleneck, and as more than one friend has remarked, we have so many blogs that it's hard to keep track of it all.
The New Turtleneck Films makes it a lot easier. Everything posted on our other sites-- for example, Son of a Seahorse and The Man Who Loved-- will be cross-posted here. And there will be new news on both sites (and, by extension, this one) very, very soon as we have some rather exciting things in the works.
You'll also get some movie and game reviews. All in all, we should be posting more frequently. So stay tuned and check back often.
The New Turtleneck Films makes it a lot easier. Everything posted on our other sites-- for example, Son of a Seahorse and The Man Who Loved-- will be cross-posted here. And there will be new news on both sites (and, by extension, this one) very, very soon as we have some rather exciting things in the works.
You'll also get some movie and game reviews. All in all, we should be posting more frequently. So stay tuned and check back often.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Cast Showing
Late Tuesday night, we finished the film. It is exactly 96 minutes and 28 seconds long, and we sent it off on Thursday to a certain film festival with our fingers crossed.
On Friday, we had a cast showing. Present were our leads, David Schonscheck and Adrienne Patterson, David's wife Stephanie (who has a small but memorable role) and the always-entertaining Peter Jurich and Mariya O'Rourke. Mariya had to leave about two-thirds of the way through the film due to some family matters, and while we're not sure if this film, like the last one, is exactly to her taste, she did seem to enjoy herself at least up until that point.
There was a lot of laughter through-out the film. Tom's sides were aching, but in that good way. Our last film had a number of comical moments, and was certainly (we think) entertaining and thought-provoking, but Son of a Seahorse is more of an overt comedy and it showed.
Afterwards, we asked what they thought of it. Everyone still present said that they enjoyed it, that it was good, and that the other actors were good in it. Peter and Stephanie expressed concerns about the pacing of the picture and the opening scene, which now clocks in at over twenty-two minutes.
Peter said that scene moved along really well, that it kept his interest and attention, that it built a certain momentum. He was not advocating cutting the scene or cutting it down but instead actually made a very serious suggestion as to how to make the scene longer. He just felt that the rest of the film doesn't build the same momentum as our opening set piece.
David disagreed with him on that point; he felt that the momentum was fine. Everyone agreed that the film slows down during its last twenty minutes or so, which is really a matter of structural design. Peter mentioned that around that point, he had time to think more deeply about David's character, Nick, and what his motivations may be, which is one reason why we did that.
Adrienne said that while she didn't notice any lagging while watching the film, now that we were talking about it she wasn't so certain. She also expressed some concerns about the final scene.
"Even when we were shooting and rehearsing it," she said, "I didn't know quite how it fit or was going to play."
"If there's something like that in the next one," said Tom, "please, tell us. Don't be afraid to challenge us. We're all making this film together, not just me and Mary, but all of us, and we need your input. We can work together to make it better or figure out what the problem is."
"I did say something at the time," said Adrienne.
Tom didn't remember that; Mary, diplomatic as always, was silent.
Peter, getting tired of all the questions, finally turned it around and asked us what we thought of it.
Said Tom: "Well, I can't really answer that question right now, because I'm still totally in love with this movie. I'm too close to it. After a few months or a year, the love starts to wear off and I can be more objective. But at the moment, I look at it, and I see, wow, this works and this is funny and what about this character moment here and I like the way this does this. So I can't really answer."
Mary: "I'm satisfied with it. I have some issues with some of the sound recording, but you can hear just about everything and there's no spikes. I think it's better than the last one, and the next one will be even better than that. So I'm happy with it."
Another trailer and poster are coming soon, and, of course, we'll be keeping you updated so make sure you check back regularly.
EDIT: P.S. Modesty dictates that we do not direct your attention to this blog's sidebar, especially not the GAMES BY TOM RUSSELL section which features a super-cool action-packed shooter about alien flowers.
On Friday, we had a cast showing. Present were our leads, David Schonscheck and Adrienne Patterson, David's wife Stephanie (who has a small but memorable role) and the always-entertaining Peter Jurich and Mariya O'Rourke. Mariya had to leave about two-thirds of the way through the film due to some family matters, and while we're not sure if this film, like the last one, is exactly to her taste, she did seem to enjoy herself at least up until that point.
There was a lot of laughter through-out the film. Tom's sides were aching, but in that good way. Our last film had a number of comical moments, and was certainly (we think) entertaining and thought-provoking, but Son of a Seahorse is more of an overt comedy and it showed.
Afterwards, we asked what they thought of it. Everyone still present said that they enjoyed it, that it was good, and that the other actors were good in it. Peter and Stephanie expressed concerns about the pacing of the picture and the opening scene, which now clocks in at over twenty-two minutes.
Peter said that scene moved along really well, that it kept his interest and attention, that it built a certain momentum. He was not advocating cutting the scene or cutting it down but instead actually made a very serious suggestion as to how to make the scene longer. He just felt that the rest of the film doesn't build the same momentum as our opening set piece.
David disagreed with him on that point; he felt that the momentum was fine. Everyone agreed that the film slows down during its last twenty minutes or so, which is really a matter of structural design. Peter mentioned that around that point, he had time to think more deeply about David's character, Nick, and what his motivations may be, which is one reason why we did that.
Adrienne said that while she didn't notice any lagging while watching the film, now that we were talking about it she wasn't so certain. She also expressed some concerns about the final scene.
"Even when we were shooting and rehearsing it," she said, "I didn't know quite how it fit or was going to play."
"If there's something like that in the next one," said Tom, "please, tell us. Don't be afraid to challenge us. We're all making this film together, not just me and Mary, but all of us, and we need your input. We can work together to make it better or figure out what the problem is."
"I did say something at the time," said Adrienne.
Tom didn't remember that; Mary, diplomatic as always, was silent.
Peter, getting tired of all the questions, finally turned it around and asked us what we thought of it.
Said Tom: "Well, I can't really answer that question right now, because I'm still totally in love with this movie. I'm too close to it. After a few months or a year, the love starts to wear off and I can be more objective. But at the moment, I look at it, and I see, wow, this works and this is funny and what about this character moment here and I like the way this does this. So I can't really answer."
Mary: "I'm satisfied with it. I have some issues with some of the sound recording, but you can hear just about everything and there's no spikes. I think it's better than the last one, and the next one will be even better than that. So I'm happy with it."
Another trailer and poster are coming soon, and, of course, we'll be keeping you updated so make sure you check back regularly.
EDIT: P.S. Modesty dictates that we do not direct your attention to this blog's sidebar, especially not the GAMES BY TOM RUSSELL section which features a super-cool action-packed shooter about alien flowers.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Swanberg!
Our mysterious super-secret special mystery guest star (of mystery) is no longer so mysterious. Today, we recieved a disc containing what will be one of the most memorable performances in the film-- that of Joe Swanberg, the director of such fine films as LOL, Hannah Takes the Stairs, and Nights and Weekends.
To paraphrase Ben Affleck, Joe Swanberg is a gentleman and a prince.
He set aside some time in an already hectic schedule to commit this terrific, funny, and laudatory performance to video for us. And now that we have that, all the pieces are in place; all that's left to do is place the music and the end credits.
And just in time, too; the deadline for our festival of choice is this Saturday. The plan is to finish the hell out of it tomorrow and get it in the mail; on Friday, we'll have a cast showing.
Expect another trailer and poster sometime in the next week as well.
Huzzah!
To paraphrase Ben Affleck, Joe Swanberg is a gentleman and a prince.
He set aside some time in an already hectic schedule to commit this terrific, funny, and laudatory performance to video for us. And now that we have that, all the pieces are in place; all that's left to do is place the music and the end credits.
And just in time, too; the deadline for our festival of choice is this Saturday. The plan is to finish the hell out of it tomorrow and get it in the mail; on Friday, we'll have a cast showing.
Expect another trailer and poster sometime in the next week as well.
Huzzah!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Fix List
Our mysterious super-secret special mystery guest star (of mystery)-- that's OMSSSMGS(OM) for those of you playing at home-- will be back in the States next month, at which point we are to pester him relentlessly until he sends us his footage-- which, we're confident, will be absolutely golden-- a great way to kick off the film (as his part takes place about five minutes in and is an integral part of the film's now-legendary eighteen-minute opening scene).
To better adapt his performance to the tone and feel of the film, OMSSSMGS(OM) has asked us to send him a copy of the rest of the film, with his spot left blank so he can see where-all it fits in. We are, of course, more than happy to oblige, and after a bit of puttering around, we tonight burned a DVD with said film-in-progress and gave it a look on our telly.
We were pleasantly surprised to discover that the film looks absolutely gorgeous on our television set; we had gotten so used to looking at it on our computer, with its dismal colours and splotchy blacks. Whereas on the TV, it looks much the way (if not better) than it did on the camera. Which is wonderful.
We were not so pleasantly surprised-- indeed, we weren't really surprised-- when we came across a few places where the audio needs a little nip and tuck. When we mix our sound for our movies, we do it right on our computer, right in Adobe Premiere, using our computer speakers to judge when something needs to be raised and something needs to be lowered. Often, we miss little things with our imprecise equipment, and watching a rough cut on TV results in a long list of things to fix-- or, a Fix List.
This Fix List, however, was not actually that bad; there are ten spots to be fiddled with. Four of them are "spikes"-- when the decibel level is so high that an unpleasant distortion is present-- and there are three quiet scenes in which the mix itself is a bit lower than we would like, and so those must go up.
All-in-all, though, everything looks nice and everything is more-or-less audible; there is one small snippet of a scene whereDavid decided to mutter, despite us telling him again and again to be louder, we told David to mutter, making it a "quiet moment" between the two characters in which only they know what is said-- like the bit at the end of Lost in Translation but less "emo"-- but we'll live with it it was intentional.
We would, though, like to get a better mike for our next project-- and one with a longer cord. Maybe even an actual boom operator with a sound mixer.
We'll see what happens when the time comes; we've already started taking a few stabs at the characters (with the help of our able-minded actors) and storyline of the next project, though nothing concrete will come out of it for at least a couple months yet.
To better adapt his performance to the tone and feel of the film, OMSSSMGS(OM) has asked us to send him a copy of the rest of the film, with his spot left blank so he can see where-all it fits in. We are, of course, more than happy to oblige, and after a bit of puttering around, we tonight burned a DVD with said film-in-progress and gave it a look on our telly.
We were pleasantly surprised to discover that the film looks absolutely gorgeous on our television set; we had gotten so used to looking at it on our computer, with its dismal colours and splotchy blacks. Whereas on the TV, it looks much the way (if not better) than it did on the camera. Which is wonderful.
We were not so pleasantly surprised-- indeed, we weren't really surprised-- when we came across a few places where the audio needs a little nip and tuck. When we mix our sound for our movies, we do it right on our computer, right in Adobe Premiere, using our computer speakers to judge when something needs to be raised and something needs to be lowered. Often, we miss little things with our imprecise equipment, and watching a rough cut on TV results in a long list of things to fix-- or, a Fix List.
This Fix List, however, was not actually that bad; there are ten spots to be fiddled with. Four of them are "spikes"-- when the decibel level is so high that an unpleasant distortion is present-- and there are three quiet scenes in which the mix itself is a bit lower than we would like, and so those must go up.
All-in-all, though, everything looks nice and everything is more-or-less audible; there is one small snippet of a scene where
We would, though, like to get a better mike for our next project-- and one with a longer cord. Maybe even an actual boom operator with a sound mixer.
We'll see what happens when the time comes; we've already started taking a few stabs at the characters (with the help of our able-minded actors) and storyline of the next project, though nothing concrete will come out of it for at least a couple months yet.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Trailer! (# 1)
Our first trailer plays up the comedy side of the equation.
It also generally adheres to the peculiar rhythm employed by many of today's trailers-- short, almost modular sequences of ideas, each unit running roughly ten to twenty seconds, punctuated by a moment or two of black video in between. It's a popular format precisely because it is effective-- if the purpose of a trailer is to make people want to see a film, it does that fairly well-- and we decided to employ it for this trailer precisely for that reason. (And also because we wanted our first trailer to be out-and-about fairly quickly.)
Our next trailer for this film will probably be a very different animal indeed, both in terms of style and substance-- not necessarily pushing the comedy aside in favour of dramaturgical sturm und drang, but putting more emphasis on the anger as a problem, where it comes from, et cetera.
Not that-- let's be clear here-- the anger is a "conflict" that must be "resolved" by the end of the third act. That's exactly the sort of bull-puckey we're seeking to avoid. In fact, we're not even sure if the film can be divided into three acts. Five "movements", perhaps-- more like music than McKee.
Anyway-- tell us what you think of the trailer and please feel free to e-mail it, link to it, embed it and otherwise share it on your own websites, your Space that belongs to you and your Book of the Face.
It also generally adheres to the peculiar rhythm employed by many of today's trailers-- short, almost modular sequences of ideas, each unit running roughly ten to twenty seconds, punctuated by a moment or two of black video in between. It's a popular format precisely because it is effective-- if the purpose of a trailer is to make people want to see a film, it does that fairly well-- and we decided to employ it for this trailer precisely for that reason. (And also because we wanted our first trailer to be out-and-about fairly quickly.)
Our next trailer for this film will probably be a very different animal indeed, both in terms of style and substance-- not necessarily pushing the comedy aside in favour of dramaturgical sturm und drang, but putting more emphasis on the anger as a problem, where it comes from, et cetera.
Not that-- let's be clear here-- the anger is a "conflict" that must be "resolved" by the end of the third act. That's exactly the sort of bull-puckey we're seeking to avoid. In fact, we're not even sure if the film can be divided into three acts. Five "movements", perhaps-- more like music than McKee.
Anyway-- tell us what you think of the trailer and please feel free to e-mail it, link to it, embed it and otherwise share it on your own websites, your Space that belongs to you and your Book of the Face.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Oops.
So, we're going through the movie, looking for shots for our first trailer-- and we notice that approximately three minutes from the middle of Sequence E are missing.
Gah.
As near as we can figure, what happened was this: we had two different layers of video. Video-1 contained most of the shots, while Video-2 contained reaction shots. That second track must have been "locked"-- meaning that it could not be changed while other parts were being edited-- when we were shifting the scene one way or the other. So layer one moved and layer two stayed the same; we then must have noticed it and unlocked the track, shifting it back over to where it should have been. In doing so, we then must have accidentally selected the first track as well, which means that that first track then overwrote the shots earlier on that same track.
At least, that's what we've been able to piece together. We're not sure when it happened, and it doesn't sound like the kind of sloppiness we would usually be guilty of.
Either way, we've got to re-edit a complicated portion of a complicated scene-- something we're not particularly happy about. But we'll do it. (We knew things had been going too smoothly.)
We'll probably have those three minutes back in place sometime this week; we should have the first trailer up and ready for mass consumption around that time as well.
Gah.
As near as we can figure, what happened was this: we had two different layers of video. Video-1 contained most of the shots, while Video-2 contained reaction shots. That second track must have been "locked"-- meaning that it could not be changed while other parts were being edited-- when we were shifting the scene one way or the other. So layer one moved and layer two stayed the same; we then must have noticed it and unlocked the track, shifting it back over to where it should have been. In doing so, we then must have accidentally selected the first track as well, which means that that first track then overwrote the shots earlier on that same track.
At least, that's what we've been able to piece together. We're not sure when it happened, and it doesn't sound like the kind of sloppiness we would usually be guilty of.
Either way, we've got to re-edit a complicated portion of a complicated scene-- something we're not particularly happy about. But we'll do it. (We knew things had been going too smoothly.)
We'll probably have those three minutes back in place sometime this week; we should have the first trailer up and ready for mass consumption around that time as well.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Happy Anniversary
On a purely personal note, it was five years ago today that Tom and Mary started dating. It's been a hectic, stressful, and difficult five years-- but it's also been the best fives years of our life, and that's because, you guessed it, we've got each other, we've got love. The next five look to be even better-- hopefully less hectic, less stressful, less difficult, more peaceful, with more love.
Together, we'll keep making movies and keep moving through this life. And we just know, deep down, that some good things are coming our way. So you better stay tuned, because production is only part of a film's journey...
Together, we'll keep making movies and keep moving through this life. And we just know, deep down, that some good things are coming our way. So you better stay tuned, because production is only part of a film's journey...
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Last Day of Shooting*
Production: 95 % complete.
Post-Production: 88 % complete.
Yesterday was our fourteenth and final* shoot, in which we tackled Sequence C-- the interview scene. We shot at an office building roughly .01 miles away from our house (also known as, "across the street"), with the kind permission of Mr. Gary Kuhlman, who is certainly getting a special thank you in our end credits.
Besides David, we worked with two other actors. One was immensely talented, and we'll get to her in just a moment.
The other, though, is The Worst Actor In The World.
That's him in the green shirt. To say he is a ham is an insult to Porcine-Americans everywhere. He has no sense of timing, of character, or of taste. We're not even going to do him the dignity of naming him. I don't know why we agreed to work with him, and now we're stuck with him, and I hope to God he doesn't ruin the entire movie with his gaping comedic black hole of a performance.
And, to top it off, he's lazy. Just look at him!
Yeesh!
Luckily, though, we got to spend most of the shoot working with the Amazing Mariya O'Rourke. For those of you unsure of how to pronounce her first name, the third syllable should be delivered as a loud karate yell, accompanied by a karate chop.
Neat Party Game
Here are some photos of Mariya O'Rourke and David Schonscheck. In order to win this game, you need to figure out which photos are of Mariya and which are of David. BONUS HINT: Mariya is female; David is not.
The thing that's great about Mariya, both as a person and as an actress, is that she has a very palpable force of personality-- it's a strange mix between cheerfulness and ass-kickery. She really brought that friendly toughness to the part of Penelope.
It's a difficult part, too. Many other actresses would have played the character as a bit of a ditz. But Mariya brought intelligence and aplomb aplenty-- which is exactly what we wanted and exactly why we wanted Mariya to play the part.
Extra Bonus Dash of Pretension
If you compare the screenshots from the two parts of the scene-- David and Mariya versus David and The Worst Actor In The World-- you'll note that, in addition to the fact that one scene features two good actors while the other features one good actor and The World's Worst-- the quality of the visual image is different as well. Not that one image is necessarily better than the other-- though the images from the David and Mariya scene, obviously, do not feature The Worst Actor In The World-- but that the colour temperatures are vastly different, lending a different "look" to each scene. This was intentional.
The scene with The Worst Actor In The World finds Nick, David's character, waiting to be called in for his interview. He's anxious about the interview, but also anxious about one of the potential end results of that interview-- i.e., moving up into a full-time job in an office environment. The dreariness of the room is meant to reflect on these anxieties in a subtle way.
The interview itself has a warmer feeling-- her red suit and his orange are more vibrant, there's more colour to the face, the walls are brighter. This is a reflection of her personality, and also on the ultimately confrontational nature of the scene.
Looking at the screenshots provided on this site, you'll note that each scene has a slightly different look. Sequence E, for example, features much brighter colours and far fewer shadows; Sequence F is much darker and grainier. That's not because we couldn't get equipment-- we own all our own lights and they're available to us at all times. It's because we had a very particular look and feel in mind for each scene.
We don't get too "arty" with it-- we don't switch into black-and-white, and we stay away from gross overexposure. But we do put a lot of thought and time into how the film looks.
And so, in this particular case, we thought it'd be nice to share some of that process with you. (You're welcome.)
*-- Well, it's the last regular day of shooting. We have one more tiny shot to pick up with David during the next week, and we're still waiting on some second unit stuff. But we're more-or-less done, mostly, sort of.
Post-Production: 88 % complete.
Yesterday was our fourteenth and final* shoot, in which we tackled Sequence C-- the interview scene. We shot at an office building roughly .01 miles away from our house (also known as, "across the street"), with the kind permission of Mr. Gary Kuhlman, who is certainly getting a special thank you in our end credits.
Besides David, we worked with two other actors. One was immensely talented, and we'll get to her in just a moment.
The other, though, is The Worst Actor In The World.
That's him in the green shirt. To say he is a ham is an insult to Porcine-Americans everywhere. He has no sense of timing, of character, or of taste. We're not even going to do him the dignity of naming him. I don't know why we agreed to work with him, and now we're stuck with him, and I hope to God he doesn't ruin the entire movie with his gaping comedic black hole of a performance.
And, to top it off, he's lazy. Just look at him!
Yeesh!
Luckily, though, we got to spend most of the shoot working with the Amazing Mariya O'Rourke. For those of you unsure of how to pronounce her first name, the third syllable should be delivered as a loud karate yell, accompanied by a karate chop.
Neat Party Game
Here are some photos of Mariya O'Rourke and David Schonscheck. In order to win this game, you need to figure out which photos are of Mariya and which are of David. BONUS HINT: Mariya is female; David is not.
The thing that's great about Mariya, both as a person and as an actress, is that she has a very palpable force of personality-- it's a strange mix between cheerfulness and ass-kickery. She really brought that friendly toughness to the part of Penelope.
It's a difficult part, too. Many other actresses would have played the character as a bit of a ditz. But Mariya brought intelligence and aplomb aplenty-- which is exactly what we wanted and exactly why we wanted Mariya to play the part.
Extra Bonus Dash of Pretension
If you compare the screenshots from the two parts of the scene-- David and Mariya versus David and The Worst Actor In The World-- you'll note that, in addition to the fact that one scene features two good actors while the other features one good actor and The World's Worst-- the quality of the visual image is different as well. Not that one image is necessarily better than the other-- though the images from the David and Mariya scene, obviously, do not feature The Worst Actor In The World-- but that the colour temperatures are vastly different, lending a different "look" to each scene. This was intentional.
The scene with The Worst Actor In The World finds Nick, David's character, waiting to be called in for his interview. He's anxious about the interview, but also anxious about one of the potential end results of that interview-- i.e., moving up into a full-time job in an office environment. The dreariness of the room is meant to reflect on these anxieties in a subtle way.
The interview itself has a warmer feeling-- her red suit and his orange are more vibrant, there's more colour to the face, the walls are brighter. This is a reflection of her personality, and also on the ultimately confrontational nature of the scene.
Looking at the screenshots provided on this site, you'll note that each scene has a slightly different look. Sequence E, for example, features much brighter colours and far fewer shadows; Sequence F is much darker and grainier. That's not because we couldn't get equipment-- we own all our own lights and they're available to us at all times. It's because we had a very particular look and feel in mind for each scene.
We don't get too "arty" with it-- we don't switch into black-and-white, and we stay away from gross overexposure. But we do put a lot of thought and time into how the film looks.
And so, in this particular case, we thought it'd be nice to share some of that process with you. (You're welcome.)
*-- Well, it's the last regular day of shooting. We have one more tiny shot to pick up with David during the next week, and we're still waiting on some second unit stuff. But we're more-or-less done, mostly, sort of.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Lucky Number Thirteen
Production: 90% complete
We got a late start, but we finished pretty quickly. It was pretty relaxed and felt as "ordinary" as a shoot ever does. It was the last scene to be shot between our two leads-- which means that it was also Adrienne's last shoot for this picture.
Next week, David and Mariya shoot a three page scene, and then-- we will be done with the regular shooting; just some second-unit stuff is needed to finish up the film.
This whole experience has been rather strange. It's moved a lot quicker, both in shooting and editing, than our previous films. There was less of a need to rewrite or reshoot, and less of a need to pull a MacGuyver by making a lot of film out of very limited resources. There was far less stress this time around.
Sure, there were some grumpy set days, and some tensions-- but far and away this is the most relaxed and genuinely fun experience we've had in making a film.
It's been a real pleasure to make, and we hope it will be a real pleasure for the audience to experience.
We got a late start, but we finished pretty quickly. It was pretty relaxed and felt as "ordinary" as a shoot ever does. It was the last scene to be shot between our two leads-- which means that it was also Adrienne's last shoot for this picture.
Next week, David and Mariya shoot a three page scene, and then-- we will be done with the regular shooting; just some second-unit stuff is needed to finish up the film.
This whole experience has been rather strange. It's moved a lot quicker, both in shooting and editing, than our previous films. There was less of a need to rewrite or reshoot, and less of a need to pull a MacGuyver by making a lot of film out of very limited resources. There was far less stress this time around.
Sure, there were some grumpy set days, and some tensions-- but far and away this is the most relaxed and genuinely fun experience we've had in making a film.
It's been a real pleasure to make, and we hope it will be a real pleasure for the audience to experience.
SOASH goes international!
Contest! Contest! Contest!
One fact that many reading this site will not be privy to is that our film is actually in more than one language. Here, with subtitles, is a still from such a moment:
In what language is Mr. Schonscheck communicating? I leave it for you to decipher. The first correct guess will get some kind of prize-- what prize, I am not yet sure. But, hey!, it's still a prize, am I right?
You'll notice that we chose a frame in which his mouth is not open-- so as not to tip off any lip-readers in the audience. There is, however, a very vital clue located in one of the screenshots on this site. The very clever among you should pick up on it right away.
So, get cracking! When you think you've got it, post a comment on this entry.
And no, David and Adrienne, you are not eligible. :-|
One fact that many reading this site will not be privy to is that our film is actually in more than one language. Here, with subtitles, is a still from such a moment:
In what language is Mr. Schonscheck communicating? I leave it for you to decipher. The first correct guess will get some kind of prize-- what prize, I am not yet sure. But, hey!, it's still a prize, am I right?
You'll notice that we chose a frame in which his mouth is not open-- so as not to tip off any lip-readers in the audience. There is, however, a very vital clue located in one of the screenshots on this site. The very clever among you should pick up on it right away.
So, get cracking! When you think you've got it, post a comment on this entry.
And no, David and Adrienne, you are not eligible. :-|
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Thank Goodness for Nice People
Looks like we might have an office to shoot Sequence C in. We met with the property owner this morning and he was extremely nice and helpful. Still have to check with our actress when we have a chance to talk to her this Thursday, but we have our fingers crossed and it looks like this is going to be a go.
You can't understand what a relief this is, after running into so many closed doors. Thank goodness for nice people-- and for this nice person in particular, who will get a ginormous thank you in our credits.
You can't understand what a relief this is, after running into so many closed doors. Thank goodness for nice people-- and for this nice person in particular, who will get a ginormous thank you in our credits.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
More pictures; thoughts on E-K inclusive
First up, we've got some new screen shots for you. These first two are from Sequence F:
And now, here's a couple from Saturday's shoot-- the film's final scene.
Well, it's nice to see that David wants to look his best.
We're celebrating a bit, as we've finally caught up on our editing, having spent most of our day slogging away at it. We've still got a lot of audio hiccoughs to clean up in Sequences E and F, but for the most part the editing on those sequences is completed. Which means that we got to watch Sequences E through K as one completed block of film, which runs roughly 37 minutes.
It's a good piece of work. Strong acting, strong writing, flowing seamlessly with an emphasis on a sense of time and place. It bodes well.
We did find, however, that we need to slip one more scene into these proceedings. We're working on that, and should present it to our actors on Thursday. If luck and time are with us, we'll shoot it on Saturday along with Sequence L.
And now, here's a couple from Saturday's shoot-- the film's final scene.
Well, it's nice to see that David wants to look his best.
We're celebrating a bit, as we've finally caught up on our editing, having spent most of our day slogging away at it. We've still got a lot of audio hiccoughs to clean up in Sequences E and F, but for the most part the editing on those sequences is completed. Which means that we got to watch Sequences E through K as one completed block of film, which runs roughly 37 minutes.
It's a good piece of work. Strong acting, strong writing, flowing seamlessly with an emphasis on a sense of time and place. It bodes well.
We did find, however, that we need to slip one more scene into these proceedings. We're working on that, and should present it to our actors on Thursday. If luck and time are with us, we'll shoot it on Saturday along with Sequence L.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
