Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Education

The Future of Student Films 148

Posted by michael from the i-will-not-revise-my-film-to-make-greedo-shoot-first dept.
EL-34 writes "With professional visual effects tools and technology readily available in film schools across the country, students have been able to do more than ever before. At the USC School of Cinema-Television, SCFX teaches the trade, and helps create VFX for various student films. With endowments from Robert Zemeckis, EA, AlienWare, Intel, and Adobe, cinema students are able to achieve feats never before possible in animation, rendering, and compositing. At the Robert Zemeckis Center for Digital Arts, students even have access to HD equipment, a Vicon 3-D Motion Capture System, and a green screen stage."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Future of Student Films More

The Future of Student Films

Comments Filter:

  • iMovie (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Saturday December 04, 2004 @05:03AM (#10995359) Homepage Journal
    Shoot, when I was a film major in my first year of college, I was stunned to find out that seniors were spending 12-15 thousand dollars on their final film projects. Recently, I had the privilege to see some of the recent films of some current film students and I was really quite pleased to see what was possible with even iMovie, a DV camera and an iMac. Beyond that, for about 66% of what we would have spent on our senior projects just a few years ago, you can practically have an entire G5 editing studio.

    • Re:iMovie (Score:2, Interesting)

      by denthijs ( 679358 )
      A bit OT but very illustrational:
      to see some great examples of low budget moviemaking visit http://channel101.com/ [channel101.com]
      Once you've seen SockBaby: http://channel101.com/view.php?media_id=121 [channel101.com] you'll know why they carry the subtitle: The Unavoidable Future of Entertainment
      Enjoy

    • Re:iMovie (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That's great and all, but this whole story is just an ad for USC. The link on the submitter's name even goes to a USC email address! The school is woring itself out by submitting a non-story for the sole purpose of drawing attention to themselves. Unfortunately, the slashdot editors are cooperating, as they always do with advertisement stories.
      • "That's great and all, but this whole story is just an ad for USC. The link on the submitter's name even goes to a USC email address! The school is woring itself out by submitting a non-story for the sole purpose of drawing attention to themselves. Unfortunately, the slashdot editors are cooperating, as they always do with advertisement stories."

        Whoop-de-fucking-doo. Explain to me how the same story would be better if somebody unaffiliated with them (who, by a bizarre coincidence, would be less knowledga
    • I'm just curious. I'll watch anything that's not mainstream Hollywood. These days it seems I mostly watch Asian stuff because "independent cinema" seems kind of sold-out and repetitious and the Europeans don't seem to be doing as much as they used to.

      Another reason I'm asking is that Lawrence Lessig mentioned in his book - The Future of Ideas, that some schools do not release student video due to copyright concerns. I'd like to double check this and also see if there are film schools outside the US that

  • Same ol' same ol'... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ruprechtjones ( 545762 ) <ruprechtjones@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Saturday December 04, 2004 @05:07AM (#10995367) Homepage
    Yeah, this is all great, and the more tools the better for the students. But technology does not make a great film. The story does. This treads a dangerous line where students attempt to solve problems with green screens and special effects, ignoring simple blocking and story-telling.

    Just my opinion, but I saw this with the advent of graphic-design software, where kids open up Photoshop without even thinking about hitting the sketch-book first.

    • Exactly what I was about to come in and post.

      The great thing about people's first movies is that they've got a story to tell. It's not about the gadgets, or the tech, but about learning through working something out. Sure, it's amateurish but it's got heart.

    • Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jpnews ( 647965 ) on Saturday December 04, 2004 @05:27AM (#10995407)
      "But technology does not make a great film. The story does."

      Sure, you've got a point, and so I'm nnot surprised your post was modded "insightful."

      But technology does allow a filmmaker to tell a story which might not have been possible without it. And honestly, one could say that film isn't "necessary" to tell a story- words will do. Film is a technology, and I'm sure that when movies were invented, somebody vocally lamented that storytelling would die. It hasn't.

      New technology, used judiciously, simply expands the boundaries of what's possible.
      • Yes, technology expands the boundaries, but it's the icing on the cake. The concern is that people will just learn about the icing, since it's sexy, and not the fundamental cake.

        No story, great tech = bad movie
        Great story, bad tech = good (if primitive) movie
        • No story, great tech = bad movie
          Great story, bad tech = good (if primitive) movie

          I don't agree, would you have liked it if LOTR were featuring orcs and their likes made out of paper?

          Bad story, great tech = bad movie
          Great story, bad tech = bad movie

          If you got a story to tell but no budget into making it good as a movie I'd suggest writing a book instead. I'd rather read a good book than watching the same storie as a badly made movie.

          Though I guess taste differ among people, so you probably do not
          • There's a difference between bad tech and badly DONE tech.

            Something may not have the latest wizbang effects, but what they have is used well - that's still "bad tech" because it's behind SOTA, but it makes for a good movie.
          • Iloved LOTR when it was just words on paper; even Jackson's fantastic production won't replace the images created in my mind when I read the books.

            Also, a lot of fantastic story telling has been done where the backgrounds were just basically some paint and paper. It's called the theater...
          • Yet you probably like Army of Darkness or Mony Python's Well, anything... Sure the bad tech contributes to the comedy (less so in Army of Darkness), but really it's the story and execution that's key..

            That being said, I agree with the previous poster... You can have lo-tech film with a great story and it'll be fantastic... Ever see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind? Director Michel gondry uses very little tech, most of his effects are done very primitively using things like mirrors and the like... This
            • Michel Gondry is a great example. Also, Scorsese used verrry low-budget special effects in The Last Temptation of Christ, but it's still a great film. A lot of editing tricks there too (e.g. turning five stuntmen into an army of Roman soldiers storming the temple).
            • Doh, that last line should have been:

              The point is tech doesn't *break* the movie... badly executed tech can, but lo-tech/no-tech most def won't.
            • You can have lo-tech film with a great story and it'll be fantastic...

              Sure, I won't disagree with that. There are some emovies that do great without cool effects and blue screens. Many movies would even be worse off with too much mis-used advanced tech.
              Bur that doesn't mean that all movies would do without, LOTR, Matrix and Harry Potter comes to mind as movies that would have sucked without their effects and their tech. Guess why it took so long for LOTR to be made a serious movie?

              What you have to rem
      • yeah because we all know how much the useless drawed out slowmotion scenes in Alexander help in telling the 'story'.

        they should learn what matters in a film.. special effects tend not to be one of those things. it doesn't really matter if your robot is cgi rendered or just a guy in a metal suit.

        and as for technology allowing something.. it allows different settings, under the surface they don't really matter jack. you could easily make the setting just a little bit different and film it without any of th
    • I'm a 4th year film student and I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, Hollywood is and always has been an industry based on money, and technology is often pushed more than aesthetic content. Lets hope a few of the kiddies with access to all this lovely equipment actually use it for something meaningful.

      The bad side of this cinematic tech boom is the fact that more and more people are producing crappy content. I can't count the number of horrid movies I've seen with that make use of generic after effects p
      • number of horrid movies I've seen with that make use of generic after effects plugins and tacky dissolves.

        Heh. Sounds a lot like many horrid amateur websites or Powerpoint presentations that I've seen.

      • Yet it could also be said that no-talents will produce talentless work regardless of the technology at their disposal. Providing them with digital tools merely allows them to produce crap in newer, more spectacular ways. Just because someone went to film school doesn't mean they're any good at it, it just means they could afford it and got passing grades.
      • The bad side of this cinematic tech boom is the fact that more and more people are producing crappy content.

        I agree. There was this idea a while back that access to all these great tools and cheap technology would unlock this vast untapped creativity among the general population. Unfortunately, all it's really done is decrease the signal to noise ratio.

        When I went to film school (NYU graduate), you had to really have a passion for it. It was a lot of money spent on film stock (I spent around $4,000 o
        • It'll be a sad day when and if film finally disappears from film schools.


          As much as I wanted to, I couldn't afford film school myself. That said, when I was visiting friends at SCAD during the SCAD Film Festival about a month ago, the impression I got was that students are taught to cut and work with film, but pretty much any work they actually do is all digital at this point.
    • Minor side nitpick, but I consider sketching and computer graphics different mediums. I've known people who could do wonders with one or the other medium but not both despite thier best efforts.
      I've very little ability to draw by hand(or any other way to be honest), but somtimes my digital 'stick figures' actually resemble somthing kinda like what I intended, my hand drawn messes usually look best wadded up in the trash.
      But then there are some who think painting is art and photography is just artles
      • Well they are different mediums, but that doesn't mean you can't use both. Drawing is really a core of art and design. Drawing and computer graphics have the same relationship that assembler and visual basic have. You can use visual basic to build rather complex and useful programs and have no idea of the low level operations the computer is performing. At the same time learning assembler doesn't have a direct impact on your visual basic programming skill, but indirectly as you learn the fundamental the
        • I don't really see them as parralell to high and low level languages except in available tools sometimes. I've seen fairly basic drawing programs with very few tools, fewer than well supplied oil painter might have in some cases.
          I just see them as different.
          A low level understanding is of value in any endevor, and while a lot of people learn the low level material in learning sketching, sketching itself isn't the low level knowledge.
          To use your programming analogy, just because you learned fundement
      • ps. i forgot to mention, most of the problems people have with drawing is seeing and not in hand control. You've been handwriting for years and years in school. Your hand has great control of a pencil. To learn drawing you need to learn how to see things. Once you can see them, translating it to your hand falls into place. If you've never taken a college level drawing course, i'd advise you to. You'd be amazed at what you can achieve with some proper instruction. Your hand is fine, you need someone t
        • Very true. Until I took a drawing class this semester, I was unable to draw a stick figure. The semester's not over yet, but I'm able to draw the figure, still lives, landscapes, etc and actually have them come out fairly decently. Observational accuracy is defiantly the key. An odd side effect is that I've found my photography has actually improved during the course of the class. Can't wait to see what happens when I've ad Drawing II and 2D design.
        • Someone needs to explain that to my hands then. I can see things fine in my head, it's the translation to hand that is a pain.
          I can translate other things motion wise, but drawing fairs poorly, even when I can see the translation to 2d from 3d clearly. However when I have a decent computer program I can at least get something recognizeable from time to time. Saying the hands can do whatever is in the mind is simply false.

          Mycroft
    • "This treads a dangerous line where students attempt to solve problems with green screens and special effects, ignoring simple blocking and story-telling."

      We're talking about student films here. I don't mean that in a deragatory way, but rather in a "damn it's hard to acquire a set" way. The difference? Well, without some of the foundation costs associated with most decent budget movies, all the good blocking and story telling in the world isn't going to eliminate the drag caused by inadequate sets.

      In o

      • depends (Score:2, Insightful)

        by catbertscousin ( 770186 )
        Well, if your script calls for something you can't acquire, maybe you should just change the script. I had to do that multiple times. Granted, getting the sets/locations one needs is difficult for a student project (unless your dad's a millionaire or you have very good connections) but it doesn't help your film any to blame the drag on inadequate sets. If they were that inadequate, you shouldn't have used them in the first place.

        While special effects programs can give you the backgrounds you may need fo
    • I've taught video (and presently looking for a similar gig as we speak) and the parent is 100% correct. SFX can - in limited circumstances - help a narrative. But I have NEVER seen SFX fix a bad story. Ever. Because a lame ass narrative will always be a lame ass narrative. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it still smells like pork.

      The most important thing to do with a a work in "Motion Pictures", be they film or video, is TO HAVE SOMETHING INTERESTING AND VALUABLE TO SAY. Otherwise, it's pointless eyeca

    • Couldn't agree more...

      As an art student at an Art School I watch the Computer Graphics Tech kids at the Engineering school learn programs in and out but turn out half as good product as the kids at the art school do with half the knowlege of the tools. The difference is technology can be learned on one's own but the essense of an art form, and the finer points are very very hard to aquire by yourself.

      In art school the focus is the creative process, the development of the idea, and building a sense of hist

  • The Age of Independant (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dshaw858 ( 828072 ) on Saturday December 04, 2004 @05:09AM (#10995375) Homepage Journal
    I don't think that this is just student movies, but rather all independant movies. More and more I've been seeing independant films- and they look good, and are actually good movies. A programmer friend of mine in Santa Barbera even had his hobby/independant film play in a theatre. I'm happy that finally you don't need a giant budget to produce a nice film.

    - dshaw

  • Could a bunch of indie SF films come out of this? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by frostman ( 302143 ) * on Saturday December 04, 2004 @05:12AM (#10995383) Homepage Journal
    This looks like a great thing, even if the trailers so far are a bit lame.

    Imagine if a new generation of students trained in digital effects and hungry for exposure meets up with the right young writers...

    Together with the next generation of HD video discs, this could easily lead to a revolution in indie film, with high-quality FX-laden goods coming at you through Netflix and the like.

    On the other hand, that's what everyone said about "normal" indies when Final Cut Pro caught on.

    • I guess they need to find some decent actors as well.

      Based on these trailers, it looks like the FX kids don't hang out with the better part of the acting crowd. Am I surprised?

    • It's all in the percentages. We'll see 100 shit films heavy on special effects/bad acting, but there'll be one in there that is a gem. Some kid already had his idea, and was just waiting for the price to come down so he can fulfill his dream. I think it's worth wading through the chaff to see the pioneers rise through it and become an outstanding director. History repeats itself...

    • I wonder if CG hasn't hurt sci-fi more than they've helped it. Blade Runner, The Terminator, The Empire Strikes Back, Wrath of Khan and 2001 all have some incredible visuals, but what really drives them is conflict, character, atmosphere and plot.

      Today much of the effort focuses on the eye candy, so we have crap like the second two Matrix movies and the Star Wars prequels. There's a lot of flash and dazzle but it's not necessarily good art, and it often is done at the expense of the story, instead of contr

    • On the other hand, that's what everyone said about "normal" indies when Final Cut Pro caught on.

      But it has made a huge difference. There have been some truly excellent low budget straight-to-dvd non-studio movies out in the last few years. Obviously one has to quote El Mariachi, but I'm more thinking of

      • Underworld
      • Dog Soldiers
      • Equilibrium
      • Cypher

      The level of quality exhibited by these movies would have been impossible a few years ago without cheap non-linear video editting, cheap post fx and cheap c

      • Equilibrium and Underworld were both multimillion dollar productions by pro studios. They both had big name stars. They each had a theatrical release, though Underworld's was a lot more widespread than Equilibrium.

        Until the CG tech REALLY drops in price, and the average filmmaker can convince Christian Bale or Kate Beckinsale to be in their little short, the public isn't going to take interest - one or two "big" names (even if they aren't really all that big) really helps the process of getting a distribu

    • Imagine if a new generation of students trained in digital effects and hungry for exposure meets up with the right young writers...

      This would not be an equal partnership. The writers could get the film done without the special effects.

      THere is a great Sci-Fi movie oult now called Primer. Shot for 7000 on FILM, not dv, it shows what that you don't need special effects at all to make a sci-fi film, just ingenuity and good ideas.

  • Unfortunately.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sakusha ( 441986 ) on Saturday December 04, 2004 @05:18AM (#10995390)
    Unfortunately, USC made a huge investment in PC-based Avid workstations, just at the time the whole industry was moving to Apple's Final Cut Pro. But it proves something I've been saying for many years: college will only train you on the LAST generation's tools, which may or may not prepare you for the NEXT generation tools that you'll be working with for the rest of your career. Better to study theory and fundamentals than expect a college to equip you with actual skills, you have to develop those on the job anyway.
    • That's a load of BS. It doesn't matter what equipment you're on, what matters is demonstrating that you know what to do with it. You can learn a new piece of equipment in a couple days. What's more important is that you have a feel for editing that can be used no matter what you're editing on, from FCP down to a linear setup, or even a single deck, a timecode readout, and an edit decision list.
      • I just realized that that was what you said in the first place, I only read the first half of your post and hit reply out of impulse. I'm sorry.
        • Of course, you're both right, but it should be pointed out that despite FCP's inroads (and I'm a huge FCP fan), the majority of features are still cut on an Avid. It's still the industry standard.

          Besides which, if you go to USC film school, you're going for the connections that you'll make. You can hone your craft at any school.
    • Actually, very few people are moving to Final Cut Pro, basically because Avid is a) Incredibly entrenched in the industry and b) a superior product (no, I'm not bringing in flamebait, it's a professional opinion). By and large, every editor I know of loathes FCP and swears by Avid. In television FCP has had minor market penetration, but mostly only in the lower budget productions. I'm a USC film grad myself, and I edit for 'The Amazing Race', and it's Avid all the way here. Same goes for most every othe
      • By and large, every editor I know of loathes FCP and swears by Avid.

        Not my experience in Europe. Both are used, and while FCP has some serious limitations for some projects, many editors like it's interface more than Avid's. I'm not an editor myself, but it seems that many editors (usually completely computer-illiterate) find the FCP interface more intuitive, and tend to just plain like it. Then they get mad when their media files get lost, which seems to happen a lot, or when there are technical problems
      • Its amazing, because Avid is so lame with its tiny font size you can't adjust - baah.

    • Re:Avid vs FCP vs editing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rduke15 ( 721841 ) <rduke15@gTWAINmail.com minus author> on Saturday December 04, 2004 @07:32AM (#10995626)
      the whole industry was moving to Apple's Final Cut Pro

      1. The whole industry is not low-budget independent movies cut on the director's personal Mac.

      Avid is still the major editing equipment, be it in television or for film. What percentage of major hollywood movies are cut on FCP? My guess would be something between 1 and 10%?

      But, more important is

      2. The equipment used is irrelevant. Editing is not the skill of pressing the right buttons. They could learn it on an old Steenbeck: no technology at all, absolutely nothing to learn other than how to tell the story, and how to cut it well. Instead, they loose probably more than half the time learning technical details which change anyway as the tools change, and which they could learn in the relevant user manual when they need it.

      3. Separate from editing, some basic technology lessons would certainly be useful, and not only for editors. But for the technical aspects, they shouldn't be taught Avid OR FCP. They should be taught some very basic computer stuff (I know young filmmakers who don't really know what a hard disk is! or a directory/folder), and basic non-linear editing principles, and an overview of both Avid AND FCP, because in the real world they will be using both for a while, and then maybe something else.

      There are already far too many "editors" who only know pressing the right buttons very quickly, but don't have a clue about how to build a good film out of the material the director brought into the editing room.
      • >Editing is not the skill of pressing the right buttons. They could learn it on an old Steenbeck

        Exactly. I think we're seeing the problems with gadget lust. I frequently encounter stuff like this, which gives me pause about the future:

        person: "This is a great softsynth!"

        Me: "What do you play? What have you written?"

        person: "Nothing. I'm just gonna hit the keys and make make funny sounds."

        Next week its on ebay.

        Or

        person "This next CPU is kickass!"

        me: "What do you code?"

        person: "Nothing really. I'

    • Re:Unfortunately.. (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      depends on the school,I'm a film student getting to work with Final cut HD on g4's and G5's, I am getting hands on experience with professional quality equipment. But i've learned a lot more about making films by actually making them, rather than talking about the theory behind them. That may be unique to my school, but i like they're tendency to hire people who've worked in the field, or are still working in the field to come and teach our classes because they can keep us up to date on what the technology
  • It's all just a bunch of gay cowboys eating pudding!

  • And yet... (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Parallax Blue ( 836836 )
    ...with all these WONDERFUL tools we have at our disposal, somehow EVERY group project ALWAYS has to use a Powerpoint presentation to get their messages across. It's really annoying.

    • Re:And yet... (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by wastingtape ( 576230 )
      Yea. I know what you mean. I took a business speaking class a while back, which typically required oral presentations once about every two weeks. Pretty much everyone used powerpoint for thier visuals aspect with a few exceptions. Quite a few just copy and pasted thier outline from Word into Powerpoint and left the default white background and black text point size 10.

      I decided to be different for my second project and use... the overhead projector! Yea, that dusty thing sitting in the corner. I us
  • A couple of years ago in my high school TV Production class, we used imovie on some old blue-box G3 macs. The results that we got were pretty good, and this is definitely a good thing when technology allows an average person to be able to creatively express themselves in the best way possible.
  • It would be great if they could get their hands on an A.W.E.S.O.M.O [awesomo.net] to write surefire scripts.

    Cross your fingers for the new Scott Baio module, too. It's just as good as the Tony Danza module, but is far cheaper to operate.

  • The CG was good, it just wasn't *that* good, in the first one it was obvious, in the second one, it was a bit better until you noticed you never saw feet, so all the high-tech technology doesn't mean you'll always get a good movie.
    • I'm sorry I don't understand why all these people are posting telling us that technology doesn't make a good movie. A good script doesn't make a good movie. Good actors don't make a good movie. NO one thing makes a good movie: everything to a greater or lesser extent helps. Now I think that actors and scripts are more important than special effects but every little bit helps and complaining that widespread access to this technology is going to somehow dilute the wonderful purity of indie film is complete b
      • Couldn't disagree more with you on this. I am in the film 'industry' (what there is of it, anyway) here in Washington and have worked on many productions for both television and film over the past dozen years or so. There are few 'hard and fast' rules that the industry lives by, but two that do exist are:

        - A great script will nearly always overcome terrible production values
        - The best production values cannot overcome a crappy script

        Sure, sure, everyone can point to 'this movie,' or 'that movie' to dispro
        • I specifically said to a 'greater or lesser extent'. I too can think of several movies/tv series where atrocious acting and special effects have been completely masked by an excellent script. I just resent the implication that widespread access to technology will automatically mean standards are lowered.
          • That makes sense. Personally I think that technology certainly means that more 'crap' gets through, but on the flip side it means that more talented people who never would have had the means to create something great are able to produce something that I'll be able to see. I may have to do a bit more searching to find it because the larger amount of junk, however I think the tradeoff it worth it.

  • Some great films: (Score:4, Informative)

    by physicsphairy ( 720718 ) on Saturday December 04, 2004 @07:07AM (#10995583)
    Doom Raiders [theforce.net] is a sort of Indian Jones/The Mummy parody made by some kids from teh UK. It is truly awesome. They even got the British military to fly a helicopter for them in one of their stunts. Obviously, they had a lot of connections, but it still shows the possibilities of amateur film making.

    Grayson [theforce.net] is another great. It is actually just a trailer (~7 minutes) but if you saw this on TV you would not for the life you be able to distinguish it from a multimillion dollar production. Well, except for the tell-tale signs of an original plot. :p

    Another great is Batman: Deadend [theforce.net]. This is just a short. I believe it was shown firts at last year's ComicCon. Like the previous, there were obviously professionals involved, but it was still just a group of friends who put it together, though they happened to be familiar with production methods. The costumes all incredibe. Don't read this if you don't want me to spoil it, but they have Batman, Alien, and Predator costumes that are not in any way inferior to those you saw in the actual movies (personally, I think the Batman costume is better). The dark cinematography is really good too.

    Now, nothing I linked to disputes that producing a film is a major effort that requires a lot of work and resources; but it does dispute the idea that you need millions of dollars to do so.

    And I figure it's a good opportunity for some of my fellow slashdotters to enjoy some great movies. :)

  • Student films all SUCK... (well mostly) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mustardayonnaise ( 685416 ) on Saturday December 04, 2004 @07:12AM (#10995590)
    I graduated from USC Cinema about 3 years ago, just as all these wonderful toys were being set up. My experience with student filmmaking is this:

    Many of the students there would spend boatloads of money on their thesis projects to put them on 35mm Anamorphic film, get a Dolby Digital mix, put in glitzy special effects, etc... (one I helped out on had a $100K budget - no joke). The problem was that their films ended up looking like beautiful pieces of nothing, because they had spent so much time on production issues that they never had time to really nail down the script. So they were great to look at, always technically proficient, but lacking in story. So to have SCFX is great for people who want a technical training, but I went to USC to understand visual storytelling, and you really don't need much in the way of effects to do that properly.

    As a side note, a classmate of mine (he was a few semesters ahead of me) spent a minimal $11,000 on his thesis film, shot it on 16mm black and white, optical sound, and it won the Palm d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. Go figure.

    • Palme d'Or? (Score:2, Informative)

      by rduke15 ( 721841 )

      a classmate [...] spent a minimal $11,000 [...] and it won the Palm d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival.

      Palme d'or? The exageration is only minimal, I guess? :-)

      Just for fun, here they are all, since 1975 when the Palme d'Or was created (was called the Grand Prix before). None of these was a $11'000 student film. (That's just for silly nitpicking. I completely agree with your basic comment).

      • 1975 Chronique des années de braise de Mohammed Lakdhar-Hamina
      • 1976 Taxi Driver de Martin Scorsese
      • 1977 Padr
    • As a side note, a classmate of mine (he was a few semesters ahead of me) spent a minimal $11,000 on his thesis film, shot it on 16mm black and white, optical sound, and it won the Palm d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival.

      Um, so which film was it?

      2004 - Farneheit 9/11
      2003 - Elephant
      2002 - The Pianist
      2001 - The Son's Room
      2000 - Dancer In The Dark
      1999 - Rosetta
      1998 - Eternity & A Day
      1997 - (tie) Taste Of Cherry and The Eel
      1996 - Secrets & Lies
      1995 - Underground
      1994 - Pulp Fiction
      1993 - (tie) Farewell M

  • Zemeckis Center - (Score:3, Funny)

    by jpellino ( 202698 ) on Saturday December 04, 2004 @07:13AM (#10995592)
    That's the one with the big clock on the front of the building, dangling power lines and huge flaming skid marks on the street next to it... can't miss it.

  • Good storytelling is still the key (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ExileOnHoth ( 53325 ) on Saturday December 04, 2004 @08:17AM (#10995684)
    Putting these incredibly powerful tools in the hands of more and more people is definitely A Good Thing.

    But in the end, Good Storytelling is more important than stellar visuals. People will sit through claymation if the script is great, with high stakes, believable characters, conflict and a sense of humor.

    Lucas????? Are you listening????
  • It makes you wonder if all they're teaching the students is effects and animation. A whole new generation of Jerry Bruckheimers and Jan De Bonts. Technology and special effects are great and all, but a good storyline is what most movies lack these days. Who cares if you can make a great looking movie if it lacks substance? Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within anyone? Oh boy, ground breaking special effects, but the fantastic storyline like Battlefield Earth. I can't wait!

    -W
  • ...Adobe? Please. In the PC world nothing beats Sony Vegas [sonypictures.com] these days. The DVD authoring component is pretty average but Vegas/Windows is arguably the strongest competition to Final Cut/Mac... I just wish they would at least port their network render engine (if not the whole thing) to Linux so I could add my Webserver into the render farm pool...

    I've seen some demo's of Vegas working with some of the under $5k prosumer HD cams and it is amazing.

    This was originally made by Sonic Foundry (of Soundfor

    • Yep, vegas video is an excellent and easy to learn package. Not that I am an expert or anything, but I tried Premiere and found it balky. Vegas is a lot easier to learn, and seems to work well.

    • Vegas is nice, 'cept it don't run on Mac, nor can it matchback to film, and nobody uses it for onlining.

      Sony has issues whenever they try to sell a product that's supposed to work with someone else's workflow- they'd much rather reinvent the wheel (slightly square, with an axle diameter of x nano-furlongs). Yes I know Sony didn't invent Vegas, but they are not developing it in such a way that would help it get into the pro market. Many Vegas users just use it for its audio editing.

      Premiere can at least

  • Does Adobe make a special effects package the removes pretentiousness from independent films?

  • Pedagogy before gear, please (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gobbo ( 567674 ) on Saturday December 04, 2004 @09:31AM (#10995838) Journal
    I teach film at a university. I used to teach at film boot camp. One has pretty good gear. One has scratch-together DIY gear through and through. Guess which one produces better films? [giftsfilms.com]

    It isn't about production values or being able to pull off some nice special effects. Those are all icing: the cake is baked by a good story, and good process. University or expensive film schools just seem to lack that heart, and the process is usually borked.

    The problem, to me, is pedagogy. The indie spirit is collaborative, vision-driven, passionate, and do-it-yourself. Constraints become creative possibilities. At a well-endowed school, the tech is alluring, taking energy away from the fundamentals of telling a good story and getting a good camera angle. Usually, the schedule is dissipating, so that from one week to the next, there are huge gaps in production, which mean gaps in memory and experience, and gaps in the energy. Life there is full of distractions and other claims on your attention.

    The reason film 'boot camp' (and I mean camp [giftsfilms.com], away from the bright lights) is so effective is the continuity of purpose, the ability to truly focus on your work and peers. The pedagogy is what film students need most. The ability to use the latest and greatest is always going to be a race up a sand dune anyway.

    • Looks great except fot the alumni listings, one young woman that is shooting at a ski resort...
      • She's 18 years old and getting paid to use a camera indie-style after a couple of weeks of training. Your point?
        • Hey, cool job for a college kid, but how long has the camp been in business? Did it turn out any pros? Any work at a network? Studio? Any shown at Sundance, Slamdance or even Slumdance? The camp does look like a lot of fun though, wish I'd gone to one like it.
          • how long has the camp been in business?

            10 years (the first few were slim), so it's young, and only has 24 students at a time.

            Did it turn out any pros?

            2. Plenty of pros come out of there -- Vancouver is hollywoodNorth, the school has a great local rep. That said, many of the students are youth and not careerists in the end. Sometimes industry folks take courses there to revive their indie spirit, they have week-long courses available.

            ny shown at Sundance, Slamdance or even Slumdance?

            3. A few sundance

  • speaking of amateur films.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Greenrider ( 451799 ) on Saturday December 04, 2004 @11:10AM (#10996119)
    If you're interested in what can be done on extremely small budgets, check out a movie called Primer.

    http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/primer .h tml
    http://www.primermovie.com/home.html

    Primer is a time-travel sci fi flick that was made for about $4000, shot entirely on super 16, and here's the best part: it won the Grand Jury award for best drama at Sundance this year. From the buzz I hear, it could be this year's Memento.

    Robert Rodriguez shot El Mariachi for $7000 (http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/winter1993/maria chi_budget.php), and it got him a million-dollar production deal with Columbia. He went on to make Desperado, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, From Dusk Till Dawn, and the Spy Kids movies. He wrote a great book called Rebel Without a Crew about the experience of making El Mariachi on a shoestring budget.

    If you don't have $4000 or $7000 to spend on a movie, how about $217? That's what Tarnation (http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/tarnati on.html) was made for. The director put it together from home movies shot on Super 8 and edited it with iMovie.
  • What would be cool is a kiosk in the student union allowing other students (or campus visitors for that matter) to: 1. browse trailers of student films and 2. pop in a blank DVD-R to burn the film for viewing pleasure at home, the dorm, apartment, etc.

  • It really is important to learn how to deal with limitations. Often times technical limitations create better student films. They make you simplify things to a reasonable level. In my experience, and I'm glad my school RIT does this, the less you have to work with the more economical you have to become, which is one of the most valuable skills in filmmaking.


  • Make the coolest low-budget film in the world, but nobody will see it without distribution channels. Yes, the DV revolution has really empowered low-budget film makers. But what I think will be the second stage thruster is this hookup between TiVO and NetFlix. Once fiber to the home starts to get traction, the planets will have aligned such that beginning film makers can send their movie in to NetFlix and then get it on potentially hundreds of thousands of people's tv screens at no additional cost to the v
    • Netflix is a corporation, and so therefore will restrict access to certain materials.

      Once broadband is more establisheda, a better distribution system would be an open source p2p network with trusted peer mechanisms. Peer reviews would act as a filtering mechanism.

      Once the triage occurs via trusted peer evaluation, p2p + broadband distributes.

      The audiovideo entertainment would be free for download, and would be paid for by embedded product placment commercials.

  • If no one else is going to be a harsh critic... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by popo ( 107611 ) on Saturday December 04, 2004 @02:33PM (#10997007) Homepage
    When I saw the /. post on "The Future of Student Films" I got excited...

    I'm a huge believer of DIY on-the-cheap professional looking effects... ...but did anyone *not* think both those trailers were god awful? I mean, Star Wars Fan Films made by people who have never seen the inside of a film classroom look 1000 times more professional. Let's call a spade a spade people.

    It ain't about having access to the tools, its about knowing how to use them. Occasionally talent and talent-education accidentally meet up, but this is just further proof that talent is talent, and most film schools are filled with an enormous lack of it. Bad effects don't help bad filmmaking.

    I'd be embarrassed to put that sh*t online...

  • You're telling Slashdot that Hardware gets cheaper and more accessible over time? *Gasp!*
  • BAD MOVIES.

    Eh, ok, maybe I'm too hard on them.

    But yeah, 99% of student films are crap, regardless of whether or not they have special effects. It's good to learn how to use the tools of the trade, though.

    "Seven Swans" has a great artistic look, compared to the other film linked. Reminds me of the old Riven/Myst cutscenes.
  • When I attended the USC film school (graduated in 2000), it was about a year early to finish anything in HD in a cost effective manner. So we shot in 35mm, at great cost and effort, and I wouldn't have given up that experience for anything. We got terrific price breaks on cameras, film, jib arms, etc. And there's nothing quite like the burning of actual film and the relocation of the 70 pound camera apparatus that causes you to carefully think and pre-plan every single shot and angle. Looks great also.
  • ...meaning that it is neither inherently good or bad, but rather, context-sensitive.

    As the writer/director of two shorts that worked with SCFX (The Gamers and Garageband) I feel that I might lend some insight to the grumblings I sometimes hear about the death and/or salvation of creativity at the hands of digital technology.

    In response to those who bemoan the death of story at the hands of wealthy, spoiled technobrats at the elite film schools of America, I say this: There have been and always will be tho
  • I'm going to take an optimistic shot and say that in 10 years any visual or sound effect whatsoever will be possible and cheap. Independent filmmakers will be able to synthesize entire movies that look as good as anything from a studio. The cost of making movies will drop to the point where the movies themselves will no longer have to make money. They will merely be bait for marketing tie-ins. Studios will shift from making movies to buying the product rights to the work of promising independent directors.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and I'm wearing Milkbone underware." -- Norm, from _Cheers_

Close