That makes no fucking sense. So you saying that I said that rich pople are instantly good film makers? That makes no fucking sense.
You're a moron.
A person's ability to gain funding is related to the talent of a director/producer (director having the ability to either gain funding or gain the producer who then gains the funding). That's my point fuckwad.
There is an objective measurement of somone's directing talents beyond whether or not his movie gave you a chubbie. It is a REAL job not a fucking fucky feely guess fest. You couldn't even tell a bad commercial director from a good one because you have no idea what the fuck I am talking about.
Who the hell is talking about a Hollywood Blockbuster?
Even Kevin Smith uses a cinematographer and producer since Clerks. Those were people that he had to talk into supporting his work.
Yes, there are different levels of filmmaking. That's why I thought it was shitty that you were talking smack on the guy's low budget steady cam. His steadicam was a good solution for a small project but you declared your frame-stabilizing camera as being better.
If you have a frame-stabilizing camera then it is most likely a consumer level piece of ass. So talking smack on a shaky steadicam as if your image-stabilizing camera is the savior is like a cripple saying that plastic prosthetics are better than wooden ones. You still don't have a leg.
Yes his steadicam was shaky but your camera sucks and a shaky shot is the least of your worries if you're using that for an image. So, throw all of that crap out the window and focus on things more feasible at that level, a script and great talent.
You mean a lazy filmmaker? Ok.
Not that someone couldn't do those things themselves but most people pretend to be an auteur when they are really just social has bins that don't have the ambition or balls to ask anybody with talent for help.
Having a separate cinematographer is not an act of pretension. It's just a name assigned to a friend. These are the same people who cast their cousin because they are too scared to cast and interact with talented people.
Directing is about manipulating variables to bring a project to fruition. How that is done is really determined by the director. If you can't even get the variables in place (or get help from someone who can) then you are just a shitty director before you even hit RECORD.
But not being able to ensure a sense of security or trust into anybody does make you a bad director. Leave the shooting to the cinematographer because that is not what directing is all about.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that you were Lars Von Triorer still shooting away on the dogma 95 aesthetic.
I agree, format does not equate to quality. But obviously you do think that because you want the XL-1, one of the best DV cams on the market. A normal DV isn't good enough, you have to have the XL-1.
The official camera of pretensious college filmmakers everwhere.
If it was really down to ability you would use the necessary analog or digital image to convey your point. But something tells me that that is the best camera that you have and that you will be using it no matter what the story is.
If you are unable to gain the trust of financial backers or great actors... or even the ability to gain the trust of a great producer to obtain these things for you then you are already starting as a bad director.
And all I am saying is that with those things against you, a $14 dollar steady cam shot is the least of your worries.
Back to your question. If you don't have the money to do it "right" then you should be out there conning and killing for every last cent until you can. Or else you never really cared that much about the project and no, you shouldn't try.
In-Camera stabilization?
What the hell are you shooting with, your mom's Hi-8 Camcorder?
Dude, if you're shooting on low end DV don't even begin to talk about the quality of a $14 steady cam shot. Because you are now here near the level to begin using these techniques and expecting a high quality image. At that level focus on story and acting.
If you can't con/direct $5K out of somebody to afford the best equipment, then how do you expect to control anybody on a set?
Helen Keller is known for striving past the limitations of being deaf, blind, and mute. But did you know that she was later known for being a famous member of the American Communist party. Her leftist ideals primarily focused on the awareness of female sexuality.
That's right. Helen Keller grew up to be a communist slut (I mean that word in the sweetest way possible).
It doesn't give away the story. It just defines the plot points.
Yes the major "hero in conflict" point is defined but it does not give away the fallout between Peter and Harry, who Mary Jane hooks up with, and whether or not Aunt May's feeble skull gets crushed like paper-mâché by a mechanical Doc. Oc. claw.
If you act like a total A-Hole you don't need to date geeks. Yeah, that's right. Somebody had to say it.
Not that I live that way, but the skies the limit.
Normal girls date A-Holes so typically making them feel ignorant about politics and science will remind them of their traumatizing father and secure you them digits.
I know some of you ladies are saying, "If you want a stupid girl then go for it moron." (I agree, personally I like smart girls). But godamn if sometimes you don't want to debate every little detail because you and your date are playing an intellectual pissing contest in order to leverage for control in the relationship.
And lets be clear. By A-hole, I do not mean hitting or punching about the face and chest. Maybe a little shaking sometimes when she gets out of hand but nothing more. And you don't verbally debase them in conversation; you just have to point out when they say something really damn stupid.
I thought I had read an article in Wired about this topic. Edward Castronova (an associate professor of economics at California State University at Fullerton) wrote a study about online economics and its possible effects.
The biggest issue of debate was wether or not the ability to get real money off of assets from these games could possibly grant your avatar certain Government protected rights. Silly, I know but what if you made your living off of online brothels and then your character gets kicked from the server? Where is your income now?
Though currently developers/publishers are protected from any recourse it'll be difficult to make sense of it all when these virtual economies become real and a corporation is the regulatory body of a contrived economic structure that effects the real world.
Personally, I think the biggest problem is 13 year old prostitues spamming you for DP or AM.
I wish you would have bullet pointed your steps. I like bullets, they shoot straight to the point.
But after a few reads; i got ya. Way to stick it to the man. I support it.
You're an elitist ass bag. Time and time again creative diversity has shown to perpetuate and drive an industry forward. Letting people home brew their titles is just what this overly corporate and homogenized industry needs to shake off the reigns of crappy sequels (except for Nintendo games) and movie licenses.
The Macintosh was made in a garage and maybe the next best video game RPG/FPS/ whatever game will come from a garage as well. But we'll never know until we try.
Yeah, at first I thought that this Scientist's observations about traction were interesting and then it occurred to me that this moron reinvented the cog.
What a huge scientific step backwards. Using greased squash to roll Easter Island heads down a hill is more intelligent than this stupid bike.
Then there is no disagreement here. No, matter how silly I think it is that somone has fun by whelching off of a strategy guide and going through the motions.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said that.
That makes no fucking sense. So you saying that I said that rich pople are instantly good film makers? That makes no fucking sense.
You're a moron.
A person's ability to gain funding is related to the talent of a director/producer (director having the ability to either gain funding or gain the producer who then gains the funding). That's my point fuckwad.
There is an objective measurement of somone's directing talents beyond whether or not his movie gave you a chubbie. It is a REAL job not a fucking fucky feely guess fest. You couldn't even tell a bad commercial director from a good one because you have no idea what the fuck I am talking about.
Then why the fuck are you responding?
So, what the hell is your point? Because that was mine.
Who the hell is talking about a Hollywood Blockbuster? Even Kevin Smith uses a cinematographer and producer since Clerks. Those were people that he had to talk into supporting his work. Yes, there are different levels of filmmaking. That's why I thought it was shitty that you were talking smack on the guy's low budget steady cam. His steadicam was a good solution for a small project but you declared your frame-stabilizing camera as being better. If you have a frame-stabilizing camera then it is most likely a consumer level piece of ass. So talking smack on a shaky steadicam as if your image-stabilizing camera is the savior is like a cripple saying that plastic prosthetics are better than wooden ones. You still don't have a leg. Yes his steadicam was shaky but your camera sucks and a shaky shot is the least of your worries if you're using that for an image. So, throw all of that crap out the window and focus on things more feasible at that level, a script and great talent.
You mean a lazy filmmaker? Ok. Not that someone couldn't do those things themselves but most people pretend to be an auteur when they are really just social has bins that don't have the ambition or balls to ask anybody with talent for help. Having a separate cinematographer is not an act of pretension. It's just a name assigned to a friend. These are the same people who cast their cousin because they are too scared to cast and interact with talented people. Directing is about manipulating variables to bring a project to fruition. How that is done is really determined by the director. If you can't even get the variables in place (or get help from someone who can) then you are just a shitty director before you even hit RECORD.
But not being able to ensure a sense of security or trust into anybody does make you a bad director. Leave the shooting to the cinematographer because that is not what directing is all about.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that you were Lars Von Triorer still shooting away on the dogma 95 aesthetic.
I agree, format does not equate to quality. But obviously you do think that because you want the XL-1, one of the best DV cams on the market. A normal DV isn't good enough, you have to have the XL-1.
The official camera of pretensious college filmmakers everwhere.
If it was really down to ability you would use the necessary analog or digital image to convey your point. But something tells me that that is the best camera that you have and that you will be using it no matter what the story is.
If you are unable to gain the trust of financial backers or great actors... or even the ability to gain the trust of a great producer to obtain these things for you then you are already starting as a bad director.
And all I am saying is that with those things against you, a $14 dollar steady cam shot is the least of your worries.
Back to your question. If you don't have the money to do it "right" then you should be out there conning and killing for every last cent until you can. Or else you never really cared that much about the project and no, you shouldn't try.
In-Camera stabilization? What the hell are you shooting with, your mom's Hi-8 Camcorder? Dude, if you're shooting on low end DV don't even begin to talk about the quality of a $14 steady cam shot. Because you are now here near the level to begin using these techniques and expecting a high quality image. At that level focus on story and acting. If you can't con/direct $5K out of somebody to afford the best equipment, then how do you expect to control anybody on a set?
So you rag on this guy for chopping off heads and then brag about having your "shop guy" rig something for your XL1?
HA.
You're not even shooting on Super16. Your as hack as the steady cam boy.
Helen Keller is known for striving past the limitations of being deaf, blind, and mute. But did you know that she was later known for being a famous member of the American Communist party. Her leftist ideals primarily focused on the awareness of female sexuality.
That's right. Helen Keller grew up to be a communist slut (I mean that word in the sweetest way possible).
It doesn't give away the story. It just defines the plot points.
Yes the major "hero in conflict" point is defined but it does not give away the fallout between Peter and Harry, who Mary Jane hooks up with, and whether or not Aunt May's feeble skull gets crushed like paper-mâché by a mechanical Doc. Oc. claw.
CRRAAWCHUNKSHHH!!!!!
0 - 1 decent songs? Dude, you're listening to the wrong bands.
I looked it up. They did sell 20. Good guess.
If you act like a total A-Hole you don't need to date geeks. Yeah, that's right. Somebody had to say it. Not that I live that way, but the skies the limit. Normal girls date A-Holes so typically making them feel ignorant about politics and science will remind them of their traumatizing father and secure you them digits. I know some of you ladies are saying, "If you want a stupid girl then go for it moron." (I agree, personally I like smart girls). But godamn if sometimes you don't want to debate every little detail because you and your date are playing an intellectual pissing contest in order to leverage for control in the relationship. And lets be clear. By A-hole, I do not mean hitting or punching about the face and chest. Maybe a little shaking sometimes when she gets out of hand but nothing more. And you don't verbally debase them in conversation; you just have to point out when they say something really damn stupid.
I thought I had read an article in Wired about this topic. Edward Castronova (an associate professor of economics at California State University at Fullerton) wrote a study about online economics and its possible effects.
Wired Article
The biggest issue of debate was wether or not the ability to get real money off of assets from these games could possibly grant your avatar certain Government protected rights. Silly, I know but what if you made your living off of online brothels and then your character gets kicked from the server? Where is your income now?
Though currently developers/publishers are protected from any recourse it'll be difficult to make sense of it all when these virtual economies become real and a corporation is the regulatory body of a contrived economic structure that effects the real world.
Personally, I think the biggest problem is 13 year old prostitues spamming you for DP or AM.
Or they're really really hammered. God, haven't we all been there before? Don't judge me...
I wish you would have bullet pointed your steps. I like bullets, they shoot straight to the point. But after a few reads; i got ya. Way to stick it to the man. I support it.
Ah the machinist. A craftsman of the ages.
He should have just lit the place on fire.
I'm sure that's the most awesome machinist joke ever.
God I wish I could get it.
A naked Samus code? I don't know, I always thought she would kind of have softball thighs. You know, be a bit butchy or something.
And as a counter arguement... STEVE JOBS
You're an elitist ass bag. Time and time again creative diversity has shown to perpetuate and drive an industry forward. Letting people home brew their titles is just what this overly corporate and homogenized industry needs to shake off the reigns of crappy sequels (except for Nintendo games) and movie licenses.
The Macintosh was made in a garage and maybe the next best video game RPG/FPS/ whatever game will come from a garage as well. But we'll never know until we try.
Yeah, at first I thought that this Scientist's observations about traction were interesting and then it occurred to me that this moron reinvented the cog.
What a huge scientific step backwards. Using greased squash to roll Easter Island heads down a hill is more intelligent than this stupid bike.
Actually, there were 41. Guess where the other one was?
Then there is no disagreement here. No, matter how silly I think it is that somone has fun by whelching off of a strategy guide and going through the motions.