Since this thread is so far off topic, I'll weigh in. I'm a strong proponent of high production values and spending money to do it right when you can. But at the same time, I see many people sacrificing the the quality of the basics of filmmaking because they are too technology happy (the camera and the computer do not make the man). At the same time, I think some people are lazy in their filmmaking and looking for the easy answer and way to do things and spending an extra day or two (yes DAYs, not hours) doing a good job isn't worth it. I see some people that are too lazy to even level their tripod or measure out the camera-subject distance for shot/reverse shot coverage, yet they'll spend several days on titles, animations, and trying to do bullet time. Yet, with all that said, the story trumps all technical qualities of a film. Story is most important. Some of the most memorable movies have a FEW technical aspects that are lacking yet the story is perfect and great.

Anyway, for the falling angels, what if you put one (or multiple) angels on the ground on a green screen and climb a tree/ladder/roof/balcony to film them. Then key out the green screen and composite the angels over a plate shot of the sky. You could add multiples of the same person (in the same footage) at different positions and sizes to make it look like the sky is full of angels.

If you don't need the angels to move much, you could even do it with a still camera and crop the angels out in photoshop or something (so you don't need a green screen).

Then maybe you could do a close up of one angel actually hitting the ground (i.e. landing) with a trampoline (or even a bunch of empty cardboard boxes).

all the best

"I'm a strong proponent of high production values and spending money to do it right when you can. But at the same time, I see many people sacrificing the the quality of the basics of filmmaking because they are too technology happy"

Joren, everything you mentioned is endemic to Hollywood as well as amateur productions. Nevertheless, we aren't going to be able to make someone who isn't a storyteller first and foremost suddenly become interested in character development, plot, etc.

Seems like most student films focus on making cheesy special effects, but that's never going to change. I'm far more impressed when I see someone effectively pull off a dramatic scene with restraint, or a well-framed shot, concisely edited.

I agree with the previous poster who said that knowing when not to show something is important, above all else.

I recommend ditching the idea of actually showing these "angels." Unless you can literally create photorealistic digital angels, forget showing them and come up with some more subtle way of showing this - shadows, silhouettes, whatever.

Maybe you could make the angels that are descending from the sky not in actual human or biological form when they are in the air. Maybe make it so they are just hazy lights in the air, and when they touch the ground make them be humans. Could possibly work and would require nothing but some lighting effects.

Since we're not rich and can't aford a bunch of things, try this:


Watch teh movie Willow. There is this part where this elf/ghost chick is transparent on teh outlines and is sometimes really big and eally small, any way, I'm moving off topic.
The way they did that was they recorded the chick doing the same thing over and over again in a black room, The black really made her white robes stand out and her blonde hair. Then they treated teh black as a bluescreen and keyed it out, pasting her wherever tehy wanted. It is really neat, and if they could do that back in teh '80s, I'm sure you can pull it off now.
Remember, name of the movie is Willow

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff:

quote:

---

A good director knows when they have put too much work into something

---

yet your recommendation was computer animation? Everything else recommended to him was far less cumbersome to achieve than animating it. I don't think there was any reason to get preachy on him for asking advice. That's what the forum is here for.

---

Actually Computer Graphics makes things so much easier. Dont beleive me? Try to create a movie like Toy Story without Computer Graphics. Or even to make spiderman jumping/swinging from building to building without CG. Try filmming the Fight for Rohan on Return of The King without CG.

What would filmmaking be without CG? (Romantic comedies???) How could you find an easier to create something?

quote:

---

Originally posted by braininabox:
What would filmmaking be without CG? (Romantic comedies???)

---

My favorite romantic comedies were 2001, Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner, Alien(s), Die Hard, Braveheart, the original Star Wars, the James Bond films (Up until the last one), and Jaws.

Nota "This is a very emotional scene, please do not disturb Jar-Jar, for he has to emote quite a bit" Mono

quote:

---

Originally posted by NotaMono:
My favorite romantic comedies were 2001, Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner, Alien(s), Die Hard, Braveheart, the original Star Wars, the James Bond films (Up until the last one), and Jaws.

---

Thats not quite what I was thinking when I said "romantic comedies". I was more thinking on the side of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", "How to Lose A Guy In Ten Days", "Along Came Polly", "Fifty First Dates", etc. I dont see how any of the films you listed have anything to do with "Romantic Comedy"

You ain't the brightest knife in the shed, is ya? The name gives you away.

Nota "Try the square peg" Mono

quote:

---

Actually Computer Graphics makes things so much easier. Dont beleive me? Try to create a movie like Toy Story without Computer Graphics

---

Okay, so lets see you whip out a few seconds of toy story. Let us know how long that takes you, and how long you spend reading manuals to get it to look like something more thatn spheres and boxes. The point is that CG is a whole other art form in itself with a DRASTIC learning curve. IT's not a viable option for the average user of this forum, including myself.

Who here does know CG well enough to pull of something even mildly convincing? Anyone? At an amateur level all it usually serves to do is cheapen the film.

Actually I know quite a bit about CG. I dont do CG for my own projects because I work with someone that knows more than I do. Our motto is "realistic and convincing". We can get some pretty cool SFX and CG sequences. Like explosions, raining, sand storms, crying metal through the tear ducts, morphing, skyscrapers, ships at sea, millions of beetles swarming its prey, etc. We can do some awesome stuff with CG. But then again, you have to decide whether it is worth your time to learn the technique of CG>

This is the weirdest thread.

But, I thought the CG in "How to loose a guy in ten days" was really good. I see what you mean, brain.

Hey Brain, mibd leaving us a link or posting some sample, I would love to check it out. I love watching good CG work. (I'm trying to learn it myself).

I have a CG sequence (from a satellite view) of the earth. As is rotating towards us, we see multiple nuclear explosions dotting the United States. Its ready to be rendered. Im guessing it will take 15 minutes a frame, so weve got a few days before it finishes.

Anyway, I dont know how to put a video file online. I can put pictures, but not videos.

Ill see if I can either get some stills of the described sequence or pull out some more.

Im shooting a music video that should be stocked with CG/SFX. I took this out of proper format to make a clearer mental picture.

Just to make sure that this idea hasnt been distorted by my familiarity with this particular idea. I would appreciate an outsiders view:

How does this sound for a music video (Again, I put it all out of proper format so I could describe it better. You know added details that are superfluous in script format):

The band is playing on a bridge at night, then the shot keeps pulling back as it reveals a large Ney York-style town. The bridge keeps getting smaller in the distance, and skyscrapers and monuments fly by(because the shot is pulling back). The shot pulls back until the top of a skyscraper is in the bottom of the screen, the bass player is standing on top of the building. (We are about 10 feet away from the bass player). The shot goes down the skyscraper very fast and all we really see are the splotches of yellow light going up the screen (windows) It stops at one of the windows and "goes in". We see the band playing in an all white room with various objects in it. Stay in the room for a while, we see various shots of the band/band members. The shot then goes out the window and back down the building. It goes in another window and we see the drummer in a different room by himself, and the walls are sliding closer together, knocking over plants, furniture etc. It goes out the window and goes down the building again where we see the guitar player (not the lead singer) in a different style room with the walls even closer, and getting closer together. It then goes back to the bridge for a while. We go back an all white room where the lead singer (who plays guitar also) where the walls are extremely close together. He is singing while he extends his outstretched arms trying to keep the wall from squezing any closer. We then go to the bass player who is in a different room where the walls are so close that it starts crushing the guitar as he is playing it. Then we go to a different room where the same thing is happening to the drummer. (Maybe the guitar player also) We go to the lead singer who is about to be crushed. Blackout. We see a room with trash/junk all over the floor. One by one the band comes back in and picks up trash and starts playing with it. (Broken/bent guitars, half of a microphone, ghetto-style drum kit, etc.)
Then we go back to the bridge where it is now pouring rain and the band playing using their junky equipment.

Maybe a few other locations with the junky eqiupment.

Finally we see the junky/trashy room and the band walks in one by one and throws their trashy equipment on the floor and walk out together.

THE END


Ill most likely put the final product online, and you can see some of our CG work there. (It might be a while, because the band is in the recording phase for the song)

you know how to do that but you cant figure out how to get a video online?

if you have stuff you want to put up i can help you do that. If you need hosting i use a company that offers 3GB spca and 50GB of transfer for 6 bucks a month. Video on the web is wicked easy. I think we're all curious to see your CG work. You have other stuff right? you mentioned it above.

Brain,
What is the name of the CG/SFX company you work for?

I dont work for any CG/SFX company. I just learned a lot over the years. But I really dont do CG in my productions, because I have a CG/SFX designer. The next time I am with him, I will pull out some stills. He is in charge of filming a conference here, so it may be a week or two. Hes made an awesome model of robot, and made it "walk". All the really awesome stuff is on his massive harddrive, so Ill have to get it from him. Dont worry, I will show it to you.

I look forward to seeing it.