PDA

View Full Version : Really cool indie short



realgray
12-01-2009, 01:17 PM
YouTube Filmmaker Dude Gets Nabbed By Sam Raimi's Company
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43232

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dadPWhEhVk&feature=player_embedded

lreyes
12-03-2009, 11:57 PM
wonder what programs he used to do that short

biliousfrog
12-04-2009, 05:04 AM
Spotted that on CGTalk...really not very impressed at all. The concept has been done a million times, the direction is poor and the cg/compositing is very amateurish IMO.

It's obvious that this is another Hollywood cash-in, Blomkamp and Acker did well, therefore unknown directors = hit movie. Got to love the Hollywood formula...Toy Story = good, therefore CG animation = Good film...Oceans Eleven = Hit, therefore remake's = good film, Celebrities = popular, therefore celebrity + CG = amazing film...etc.

OlaHaldor
12-04-2009, 06:48 AM
Some of the shots were cool, imho. I especially like the smoke from those rockets, not necessary the LOOK of the smoke, but the feel and the way it moves and fades away.

But was this ONE guy who did the effects? If so, great job. I'd love to see you guys either replying to this thread or just thinking "this is ****" do a better job. I know I won't do a better job with the skills I have now.... Fair enough, no story, but come on. Make ONE shot that resembles any of those fancy vfx shots in that sequence, and make it a lot better than he did. And then you do a tutorial for those newbies like me to learn from. ;)

IgnusFast
12-04-2009, 09:20 AM
While not perfect, I thought the video was outstanding. Especially the early comp in the fog and the robot feet/ground interaction. The downside was that I was completely distracted the entire time by the music; it's a fantastic theme, but since it was borrowed from a movie I really liked, it removed any punch it might have added to the visuals.

Andyjaggy
12-04-2009, 09:37 AM
Yeah I'm not terribly impressed. The compositing and lighting especially need some serious work.

But hey kudos to him it got him into hollywood where he can now sacrifice any remaining life he had working on movies for 20 hours a day.

Cageman
12-04-2009, 09:53 AM
Well, not perfect VFX, but kudos to him for getting his vision/idea out.

biliousfrog
12-04-2009, 10:28 AM
Apparently a team of 24+ worked on that short, it wasn't just him.

realgray
12-04-2009, 05:43 PM
It was done in Max. Look at the screen shots

http://www.aparato.tv/

bugzilla
12-07-2009, 09:18 AM
Wow, there seems to be a lot of bitterness on this thread. There were some shots that were a bit dodgy, but overall it was well done. I think people are bitter about the fact that Sam Raimi's company picked up these filmmakers. Well, I am sure they were impressed with the work, but I'd also figure that someone knows someone at Raimi's company and tuned him in to the short. Also, Hollywood seems to be looking to places like Spain and South America for new blood right now. You may have seen better short films out there, but those are the facts of the film industry. I personally think it's great that filmmakers can use sites like Youtube as a jumping off point.

faulknermano
12-07-2009, 02:41 PM
Wow, there seems to be a lot of bitterness on this thread.

Be that as it may, I do feel that, referring to this short as an example, it seems that 'indie' is no longer 'indie', but just a scaled-down 'Hollywood'. To me, at least, there's an astounding lack of originality (though not complete absence) in Hollywood to begin with - and when 'indie' filmmakers aspire to the palate of Hollywood - by thinking like Hollywoopd - to where does that lead you?

The short film is technically good, and I wouldn't expect Digital Domain-level quality anyway; it has achieved, I think, what it set out to achieve. But what has it achieved, actually? I don't unequivocally criticise self-indulgence, but I'll have to call it as I see it: the short was indulgent, sure - but that's a neutral statement. But then I can't help but think that the 'invasion theme' has been done over and over again. However, that wouldn't be such a big deal if there was something new in the film to enjoy. I see this everywhere, by the way, and this short is by no means an exception; and that's the problem, I wish it was an exception: take an idea, no matter how oft-used it has been, and make it new. Unfortunately, on almost any level, either CG-wise, design-wise, concept-wise, or story-wise, there is nothing new, or indeed, at least to me, interesting about the film.

bugzilla
12-07-2009, 08:24 PM
The short film is technically good, and I wouldn't expect Digital Domain-level quality anyway; it has achieved, I think, what it set out to achieve. But what has it achieved, actually?

Um, it got them a contract with Sam Raimi's company. That's what it achieved. I'd say mission accomplished.

Look, there is no real plot to this short and the subject (alien robot invasion) has been done to death, but I think everyone is missing the point. This short is about creating a mood and atmosphere as well as to show off the artists technical expertise. I can tell you from experience that long form, story driven films have a much tougher time succeeding on the internet.

After seeing how critical people are of such a technical achievement, I don't feel quite as bad about the thrashing some of my animations have gotten.

faulknermano
12-07-2009, 08:54 PM
Um, it got them a contract with Sam Raimi's company. That's what it achieved. I'd say mission accomplished.

I'm sure they agree with you all the way; I truly have no problem with other people's own aspirations. But as a viewer it did nothing for me: that's all I'm saying.


This short is about creating a mood and atmosphere as well as to show off the artists technical expertise. I can tell you from experience that long form, story driven films have a much tougher time succeeding on the internet.


The point is not lost (speaking for myself); If I was employer looking for a good reel, I'd probably hire the guy, too. But I'm not. I tend to look at things from a different angle: I consider originality, for example. Others don't care.




After seeing how critical people are of such a technical achievement, I don't feel quite as bad about the thrashing some of my animations have gotten.

For perspective's sake, I also work in the TV and film industry (currently on 'sabbatical' ;) ) so I know what's it's like to sling mud and be on the receiving end. Nevertheless, it's not from that point-of-view that I make criticism of a work. I'd like to regard works as a whole, without special regard to its tools (e.g. CG), nor it being instrumental in getting the creator(s) a job. Don't we blast million-dollar movies to bits with 'bad story', 'horrible CG', etc.?

But any rate, you're right in this respect: congratulations to the creators, after all, they are the ones who really profited from the work.

Dexter2999
12-07-2009, 10:52 PM
Sour Grapes abound.

Hypercritical BS!!!

That short, as is, is as good or better than stuff I have seen on broadcast television. The guy got it done for less than $50,000. Hollywood do that? Doubt it. But that is most likely why he got a contract. He has a good eye. He got a good product with limited resources at his disposal. And they can get him to do it without paying him $10 million.

Yes, aspiring to be Hollywood is surely a path to doom. faulknermano, you're in NZ, reckon it's worth a day trip to WETA to warn them off?

surfingmarmot
12-07-2009, 10:52 PM
Look, there is no real plot to this short and the subject (alien robot invasion) has been done to death, but I think everyone is missing the point. This short is about creating a mood and atmosphere as well as to show off the artists technical expertise. I can tell you from experience that long form, story driven films have a much tougher time succeeding on the internet.

Exactly on point. Maybe an example will serve to make the point. Was Julia Roberts really sellable as a beautiful hooker in "Pretty Woman"? Heck, she had to use a body double for nearly every part of her body because she isn't sexy by any stretch of the imagination anywhere--she practically had the body of a teenage boy. But she won the deal because she was "A-list" at the time, she can act well, and they could do everything required to "sell" her in that role. Was is crap? Absolutely. But did it sell--oh yeah--over the top. And that is what counts in the end. It's a business pure and simple. And good for her BTW--making it while she can.

Hollywood cares only about the Benjamins Baby--profit and loss and ROI. If Spanish surnames sell to a growing Latino population in the US and they also come at a discount to US folks, then hire the heck out of them and fix it up in post or wherever and whatever--a lot of people pay to watch junk. Remember The Blair Witch Project? As long as the top and bottom lines get better or at least don't decline given the economic environment, the people who count are happy and they are all that counts because they have the gold.

i am not advocating morality here--just pointing out that that is how it is whether we like it or not or whether we feel we deserve it. "Deserving ain't got nothing to do with it." -- Will Muny, The Unforgiven.

faulknermano
12-08-2009, 01:13 AM
Yes, aspiring to be Hollywood is surely a path to doom. faulknermano, you're in NZ, reckon it's worth a day trip to WETA to warn them off?

Why will I meddle with people's aspirations? Aspiring to Hollywood is a personal choice, just like I aspire to be an independent filmmaker. Will I turn down a Hollywood job offer, for example? If the price is right, I'll take it, of course - if it will serve my purposes for my creative ventures. But is that the point? I criticise the work, while certain individuals here insist that such criticism is actually an editorial about personal intentions of the artist. Call it an outstanding low-budget film on the merit of its CG quality if you want to; I don't have problems with anyone's opinion about that aspect. But as an 'indie film', I'm sorry, but in order to judge a film fairly, you have to judge solely on its merits - (I've seen personal works of more substance that cost less - not that costing less has anything to do with it). Perhaps, due to some people's sensitivity to criticism of someone else's work, someone should reconsider this as a 'reel', as opposed to 'film'.

Interestingly enough I just read this today, by Mr. E. A. Poe, which has, in my own efforts, enlightened me, and encouraged me:



It is to be hoped that common sense, in the time to come, will prefer deciding upon a work of Art, rather by the impression it makes by the effect it produces than by the time it took to impress the effect, or by the amount of "sustained effort" which had been found necessary in effecting the impression.

biliousfrog
12-08-2009, 02:35 AM
Saying that he produced a short equal to something on TV without the costs is irrelevant because the stuff on TV has to be made to a budget...so the budget determines the quality. If you wanted to get really picky you'd start questioning the software costs, fuel costs, hardware costs etc...but if you already have those things and the only thing you need is time, then there's no reason why a decent short couldn't be produced with zero budget. In fact, if you're not constrained by budget, there's less reason to use it as an excuse for quality.

I'm sure that many of us would like to produce a short, and probably have a story in mind, but life gets in the way...so I have a lot of respect for anyone that manages to accomplish something like that. The thing that bugs me, and call it sour grapes if you like, is that there are far better shorts out there, much better ideas, waaay better VFX, much better direction...so why did this guy get picked? Most likely because he's going to be cheap, probably has some connection within the industry and will take most of the flak if his films suck...I'm extremely doubtful that it has anything to do with that short.

biliousfrog
12-08-2009, 03:02 AM
Here's a response on CGTalk from the director about the production and getting 'the deal':

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=6242264#post6242264