[Derek]

Originally Posted by gast30

c'mon derek
do you really think that i can't write posts
it has no intrest for me because there is no vagina to win
the simpel directions of energy

and from there you can bring yourself out of the puzzel of the lost humans

"i don't write comprehensible posts cause where da pussy at"

[EVOLghost]

Finally got around to watching it. Intro was hilarious.

[EVOLghost]

Also yer(puke) scene was beautiful.

[gast30]

you failed to score a hot chick derek
see the true'th
forget the foxes on your sweather

[gast30]

emotional freedom techniques
gary craig

i guess the basic start with: "i don't care i don't care"

[truncated]

Now your thread hijacking is genuinely starting to piss me off, gast. It's honestly just rude.

About to watch!

[gast30]

try to stay in the comedy spirit
everthing i do is a crime these days

you are not part of some kind of 'regime' truncated ?

[gast30]

the regime of unhappy with myself
is growing in since ....

good there is internet
i can look it up on wikipedia

[gast30]

no comment from turncated on the 7 deadly cinema's new episode

joke from me
plenty

[Derek]

chabib can you just delete this guy? thanks.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

Nobody's Laughing Episode 2 finally uploaded some time last night. The rendering/uploading process was literally so brutal that it cost me to miss the release date by a long-shot. Better late than never though, eh?

ah, the "rendering" nightmare. final cut or premiere?

just so you know, w/ a student email address (if you still have) you can score avid media composer for $295 and 5 year free upgrades. only thing to render are FX.

anyway just watched a bit, looks very promising. the first scene was hilarious! good to see the "new" camera angles. will watch when i can & write you a thorough review as soon as possible.

 

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Sony Vegas 10 lol. Somehow a bunch of clock-wipes got added in between cuts where there shouldn't be, and then the credits rolled over. At 2 hours a render, that can be quite detrimental.

PLZ critique. The sound turned out a bit wonkier than I expected. Since we only had 1 sound guy, we sorta used a mic stand instead of a boom pole. Hence the prominence of all of the foot-steps. I think the editing could've been smoother... more fades needed (sound-wise).

And the lighting is pretty bad too. I'm getting a whole new kit before shooting anything else though. So I'll have that taken care of.

Also extremely interested in an Opteka Steadyvid Pro.

 

[!@#$%!]

alright man. first will offer general comments later , i'm gonna take notes w/ time code repost ad-hoc.

in terms of production values MUCH better than the first one.

#1 sound may not be perfect but i can totally understand what they say. and the annoying canned laughs are gone!

#2 light is also much better than first. yeah you will need to improve things a bit but this is much superior. non-racist technical note: black people need more foot-candles than whitey!

#3 framing + camera moves also way WAY better. you still tend to go for the "lazy" high angle which you should avoid unless for dramatic purpose-- remember: eye level is neutral, standing observer POV isn't neutral & frames weird (foreheads talking).

i like the introduction of OTS shots. they work great most of the time!

and the handheld "crane" over the empty wine bag that goes up to them is really cool!

#4 editing works WAY better too because you have more variety of shots to work with. but there is a weird switch between CU and OTS w/ lisa+her friend in the park bench like the timing is off. like it switches the opposite way it should. i'll explain more later. also arthur+justin do that a bit-- also some sound sync issues. o well

one quick specific note off the top of my head when they look at the vomit there is no need for a dissolve, just do a straight cut-- i think that was one leftover dissolve there.

CONGRATS MAN. really, quick turnaround time, lots of improvement, it's beginning to shape up!

i'll also have comments for you on the story, later on, but i think i have to go and rewatch the first one cuz i don't exactly remember what was going on.

anyway congrats again. when did you make the previous one, like 2 months ago? this is a lot of fast improvement!

ps- for some reason i hate the recent epidemic of on-screen puke but i really enjoy this one, it had a more transgressive flavor (ha) than the usual 30-rock nonsense. you should send a copy of this thing to john waters.

pps- vegas: users seem to love it, i've never worked with it. the stabilizer: if you do a lot of handheld yes-- better than a tripod. but the tripod will improve your framing kung fu by forcing you to pick the shots carefully (when you see a fork in the road, take it).

[demonrail666]

I'm not so up on the technical stuff but I agree with Symbols, the production values are a big improvement (not saying a film needs to be expensive or even 'professional' to be any good but I think the more 'invisible' style works much better here). Don't get too hung up on it either way, though. You can buy technique when the time comes. Despite the hype, it still costs a lot of money to get anything up to real mainstream standards and beyond the basics, it's great characters and good writing that ultimately makes or breaks any comedy, rather than a familiarity with the 180 degree rule. And if things get to another level (assuming you even want them to) you just get the right people in then. Your style is coherent, which at this stage strikes me as fine. If you're interested in some kind of broader, bigger audience, all it takes is for some guy at a station seeing it, thinking it has the potential to be a success and give you some money and the crew to make it broadcast standard. I'm not saying you're thinking of anything like this level, but judging by the earliest pilot scenes for The Office, you're Tarkovsky next to Ricky Gervais.

But yeah, I'd say just really concentrate on the writing and casting and characters at this stage. With all the kit in the world, without those things, any comedy's dead in the water.

EDIT: Having initially said I agree with el symbols, that reads like a total dismissal of his points. I wasn't trying to undermine technique so much as priorities the areas I think really count at this stage. So more of the old guy, loved the final shot with the balloon, the woman reading the warning card at the beginning was genius, still don't like the main guy but load up with more characters like the old guy and you could be a bit like Seinfeld, where people end up watching it for everyone besides its star. Seriously, you're funnier than that guy, and all you did was deliver a pizza and throw up. You could be George to his Jerry.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

EDIT: Having initially said I agree with el symbols, that reads like a total dismissal of his points. I wasn't trying to undermine technique so much as priorities the areas I think really count at this stage.

i am in a bit of a hurry this morning so i'll just answer quickly

i think we concur for the most part on what the goals are and what's important for this, and we have a similar vision of a desired end result, but we're just approaching it from different points of departure. i think too technique has to be transparent/invisible/out of the way (unless it wants to be visible for a reason) and this show doesn't require vilmos zsigmond or thx sound.

my concern with episode 1 was that i couldn't follow the story "due to technical reasons"-- scenes too dark or muffled audio, for example. there has been a huge improvement on that so now the story comes out much clear and you can watch.

the instances i've pointed out here also interfere with the goal of "transparency"-- when the audio is out of sync you don't hear what the characters say, you hear in your head "oh look, his mouth is moving different".

same thing with shots that aren't eye level. eye level is "invisible." shooting people from above calls attention to the camera angle, so if it the angle has no dramatic purpose it gets on the way.

but there are instances also when simple good technique contributes to the story and that can't be discounted. the over the shoulder shot is a simple basic shot that is not meant to dazzle or astound but simply say "look, these two people are talking", and it's been used well here.

similarly, the low angle on the jerkoff scene puts the plastic dick at the forefront-- that's the right angle for it, of course! that and the closeups of its plastic hole-- sure teh story of "there's this chick jerking off this dude and she points his dick at his face in spite of his warming" has the potentioal for humor but the right shots are what makes this actually hilarious-- the story is told in pictures after all.

i'll get to the writing later though... now i gotta run!

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

You guys are awesome. I'm gonna try and respond to these critiques later tonight.