![Movies Movies](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/movies_64.png)
![Media Media](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/media_64.png)
![Education Education](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/education_64.png)
The Future of Student Films 148
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."
iMovie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:iMovie (Score:2, Interesting)
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:SockBaby review (Score:1)
Re:iMovie (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:iMovie (Score:2)
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
any download sites for good student films ??? (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:3, Insightful)
No story, great tech = bad movie
Great story, bad tech = good (if primitive) movie
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:1)
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...
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:1)
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
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:2)
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:1)
The point is tech doesn't *break* the movie... badly executed tech can, but lo-tech/no-tech most def won't.
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:1)
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
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:2)
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
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:2, Funny)
Heh. Sounds a lot like many horrid amateur websites or Powerpoint presentations that I've seen.
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:2)
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:2)
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
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:1)
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:2)
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
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:1)
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:2)
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:2)
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
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:2)
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)
While special effects programs can give you the backgrounds you may need fo
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Mod Parent Up) (Score:2)
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
Re:Same ol' same ol'... (Score:1)
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)
- dshaw
Re:The Age of Independant (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, all you need is a crappy video camera that you can't hold still and three people to pretend to be lost in the woods.
Oh yeah, and a crapload of hype....
Re:The Age of Independant (Score:1)
Re:The Age of Independant (Score:1, Offtopic)
And it went, wherever I, did go.
Could a bunch of indie SF films come out of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Oh yeah, and... (Score:2)
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?
Re:Could a bunch of indie SF films come out of thi (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Could a bunch of indie SF films come out of thi (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Could a bunch of indie SF films come out of thi (Score:2)
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
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
Re:Could a bunch of indie SF films come out of thi (Score:2)
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
Re:Could a bunch of indie SF films come out of thi (Score:1)
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)
Re:Unfortunately.. (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately.. (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately.. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Unfortunately.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately.. (Score:2)
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
Re:Unfortunately.. (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately.. (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately.. (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately.. (Score:2)
Re:Avid vs FCP vs editing (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Avid vs FCP vs editing (Score:2)
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)
To quote Eric Cartman (Score:1, Funny)
And yet... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:And yet... (Score:1, Offtopic)
I decided to be different for my second project and use... the overhead projector! Yea, that dusty thing sitting in the corner. I us
iMovie (Score:2)
It's really too bad they're behind the times... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Well (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:1)
Re:Well (Score:1)
- 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
Re:Well (Score:1)
Re:Well (Score:1)
Some great films: (Score:4, Informative)
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. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Student films all SUCK... (well mostly) (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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).
Re:Palme d'Or? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Palme d'Or? (Score:1)
Re:Palme d'Or? (Score:1)
http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/trojan_family/sprin g02/alumninews/alumni_profile_Cannes.html/ [usc.edu]
Yes, I'm also trying to win an ipod. You can too: http://www.freeipods.com/?r=12669514/ [freeipods.com]
Re:Student films all SUCK... (well mostly) (Score:1)
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)
Good storytelling is still the key (Score:3, Insightful)
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????
What's going to happen to story? (Score:2, Insightful)
-W
You Left out the Best Editing Package (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:You Left out the Best Editing Package (Score:2)
Re:You Left out the Best Editing Package (Score:1)
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
Special Effects (Score:2)
Pedagogy before gear, please (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Pedagogy before gear, please (Score:2)
Re:Pedagogy before gear, please (Score:2)
Re:Pedagogy before gear, please (Score:1)
Re:Pedagogy before gear, please (Score:2)
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)
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/prime
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/mari
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/tarnat
Re:speaking of amateur films.... (Score:2)
Re:speaking of amateur films.... (Score:2)
Student film kiosk (Score:2)
DreadPiratePizz (Score:2)
it's all about distribution (Score:2)
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
What about p2p + trusted peer mechanisms? (Score:2)
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)
I'm a huge believer of DIY on-the-cheap professional looking effects...
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...
Thanks for the reminder (Score:2)
The Future Of Student Film: (Score:2)
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.
Ah yes, Film School at USC (Score:1)
Technology is Value-Neutral (Score:1)
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
Ok, here's what my crystal ball says (Score:2)