If you look at the different movies on this site listed by genre, you'll find that only Thrillers and Dramas are generally rated fairly low. Do you think that maybe it's difficult for students, with lower-end digital cameras, to draw an intrigued audience because they don't have film, or do you think it is possible to make a thriller/drama that draws in the viewers into the story as much as a film shot on 35mm?

I personally think it's because there's a bit of comedy in every successful movie on this site. Thrillers and dramatic movies would fail miserably if there is any comedic value in them save the sparce laugh or two through dialogue. I'm getting the gist that any dark, non-comedic movie made by students generally fails at persuading the audience to take the movie seriously. What do you think is not being done right to acheive this?

The Blair Witch Project comes to mind

Filmed by students, on digital cameras. I don't think that film vs. digital is much of a reason for a student film to fail. Another thriller shot on digital is 28 Days Later.

Maybe I'm giving examples that are more horror than thriller/drama though.

Either way, I think student filmmakers biggest problems are not in their use of digital cameras, but in actors, lighting, sound, and storyline.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: titaniumdoughnut,

Yea, 28 days later was a good thriller that was shot with an XL1. I think the reason there aren't many drama's on this site, is that 90 percent of the people here that contribute films are high schoolers. Its kinda hard for teenagers to delve real deep into this kind of area in film. Comedy is the more reasonable choice. I myself, out of all the films I've ever done, have only made 2 drama's. I've always gone predominately comedy.
But I would like to experiment a little and go into the dark side a bit.
Oh, and wasn't SAW shot on digital?

i think its what TD Says...

most students don't know how to make an atmosphere. drama and thriller films are heavily reliant on atmosphere, acting, and storyline. i've seen tons of films that disregard lighting. lighting is a huge part of atmosphere. look at Orson Welles's films Citizen Kane or The Trial. Atmosphere plays a HUGE role, not to mention having top notch acting talent in himself, Anthony Perkins, and Charlton Heston (Touch of Evil.)

I agree with Paul about the whole atmosphere philosophy, but I'd like to take that one step further.

I think a huge reason why high school kids don't do drama is because they don't necessarily know it.

I hate horror films. They're cookie-cutter, stock, unfulfilling, rarely frightening and all too often ridiculously unrealistic. That stuff is soooo easy to write, and perhaps that's why so many kids want to do a film like that. It's convenient.

If you think about it you'll realize that writing a good drama with a solid catch is incredibly difficult. I've been working on it since I was a sophomore in high school and only just now do I feel that I understand people enough to really create some round characters with dreams, aspirations, fears and weaknesses. And these things are the essence of drama.

But now I'm shifting the argument in a direction this thread is not meant to carry it. I'll let someone else talk now.

quote:

Yea, 28 days later was a good thriller that was shot with an XL1.

Holy god! I didn't know that! Well, that settles it; I'm making a thriller with my badass XL1s.

Saw was shot on film. 35mm to be exact.

I was just wandering around dvinfo.net, and there seems to be quite a stir about 35mm adapters for DV cameras. Anyone tried this? they give DV cameras the focal length, DOF, and viewing angle of a real 35mm camera, although I'm blowing chunks just reading the directions (they're complicated, and easy to mess up).

Basically you have to grind your own glass and construct your own lens assembly using macro diopters and an SLR lens. Fun. Not only that, but if you don't want excessive grain from that ground glass, you have to spin it somehow using a motor...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: funkbomb,

quote:

I hate horror films. They're cookie-cutter, stock, unfulfilling, rarely frightening and all too often ridiculously unrealistic.

COME ON!!! The horror genre is one of the best! John Carpenter, George Romero, Lucio Fulci, even Sam Raimi all made sweet horror films! The movies, espiecially the drive in in particular, were practically made by the genre. Although I will agree, there has yet to be a decent horror movie made within the last decade, easy. All the great directors are just too old and have (for the most part) retired. But do not hate the horror film, just because so many hacks take chances with it.

I'll agree that its the good horror flicks give the audience a sense of actual danger--those are the masterpieces.

These 35mm adapters basically use an SLR lens to project the image onto a translucent surface (the ground glass) which the actual camera is focused on. The concept is metaphorical to filming a movie screen.

I think I lack the knowledge to understand these 35mm adapters, and was hoping you could help me shed some light on these things. Are they basically just building a lens?

quote:

Are they basically just building a lens?

In simple terms, yes, but at the same time, no.

It is a "lens" in the sense that it refracts light like a lens does, and generally looks like a lens from the outside (however it is long).

It is NOT a lens in a very large sense: that is, instead of refracting the image right onto the CCD chips as a normal lens would, it projects the image onto a translucent filter (like a projection screen) that the camera focuses directly onto and films.

This is the best tutorial I've found for non-lens interchangable cameras like the GL1 and GL2. It has exact specifications to build one for those models.


What it looks like.


The kind of shots you get.

Wow.

quote:

Although I will agree, there has yet to be a decent horror movie made within the last decade, easy.

Have you seen any horror films made outside of America recently? Haute Tension?

The 35mm adapters are a good concept. Keep in mind you have to obtain 35mm lenses (not expensive at all if you buy used on eBay).

The only Euro films I watch come from Britain, and there hasn't been much from them lately. Wait, UNDEAD came out in Australia a few years ago and is coming to the states this year, but I already bought a copy from the Aussi's and watch it on my all-region dvd player. It's a pretty good movie.

As for that lense...whoa. That's amazing. Do those fit on just any camera? Could one fit on my Sony DCR-VX2100?

Using step-up and step-down adapters, you can make them fit on basically any camera.

The easiest one to make is this one.


Total cost to make is $138, not including the 35mm lens you'll need and shipping on some items that i left out, the right step-down or step-up adapter for your particular camera, and a macro lens (+3 or up to +10) if your camera can't focus on the ground glass projection. If your lens is 52mm though I don't think you'll need one. So maybe $160. Anyway I plan on building mine soon, so I'll let you guys know how that goes and post some test pics.

I think the hardest part of building it is getting the distances from each lens right, but dvinfo.net has a lot of helpful people just waiting to answer your questions and make you coffee.

part of t his problem of attempting to create a drama or thriller movie is that most students attempting such a project have a formula stuck in their head. I'm going to say traditional narrative structure is part of the problem. Its a way of presenting a story that has been drilled into us since first grade. Certain patterns show up upon watching drama, especially in the presentation. I won't stray off into the subject of comedy films but they are easier to dissect.. I recently was privlidged enough to view Wedding CRashers. I cannot explain how odd I thought this movie was...not only in subject matter,story, charcters, and dialogue...but that when viewing I got a sene of deja vue. I hadnt seen a recent "hollywood" comedy in awile but I was suddenly remembered what they were like. They all have the same types of formulas...there's the funny scenes, the romantic scenes, the quirky romantic scenes, and of course the dramatic scenes....all occopanied by music that is just horrid. So many comedies do the same things. How this relates to a drama is that when writing a drama (or viewing a drama film) you'll see certain, I'll call them waves of scenes, happening that don't quite fit. First post by funk bom mentioned comedy being a part...well you'll notice how the comedy scenes in dramas always seem like they were written AS A COMEDY. So for a moment in the film we're in a funny moment. Some might not find a problem with this, but I can't stand it. If the writer was good the comedy would come off as subltle (dramas I've noticed always have the characters laughing at eachother in the supposed 'comedy' scenes) and the audience could laugh without the tone of the actors deciding when they can laugh. so the only advice I can offer is to write naturally and not SHOW comedy or drama, but just let it flow. When writers try too hard its noticeable and awkward. Put only what you feel is necessary in the story, drama is drama...not drama with a drop of comedy here and there.same with comedies, thats why so much suck, they try and throw in the drama for somereason. Anyways...

quote:

same with comedies, thats why so much suck, they try and throw in the drama for somereason.

Whoa. I don't think you can concoct an actual story (be it of the comedic variety, thriller, action, what have you...) which does not utilize drama in some way. Monty Python came about as close as can be to creating movies that were pure humor, but their "stories" were really just excuses to do funny things and not actual stories. Maybe Mel Brooks has done it, too, but I hate the pants off Mel Brooks, and I don't want to talk about it.

Now, I appreciate a comedy which throws in the occasional dramatic moment but never takes itself serisouly. I would agree that too many efforts are made, in comedy, to generate dramatic tension where it isn't necessary, but I think most comedies would be a lot weaker if all the dramatic elements were extracted.

I agree. A good example of this would be during SHAUN OF THE DEAD, a very funny movie, but it just feels really awkward at some times, like when the dad dies or the mom dies. It's funny...then something happens and drama hits it...then it takes a good two or three minutes...and its back on.

Comedies should be strickly funny and Drama's strickly...dramatic.

The first couple Scary Movies have this type of problem. They try to fit a joke in every two seconds which completely eliminates any kind of story. They just become boring to watch since they have no grasp to reality drama.