Hello AGS friends. My name is LGM. I make movies. I currently have a movie featured on the site "On the Lot."
On the Lot is a new television show on Fox Network that will be filmed in the spring of 2007. It will feature 16 filmmakers who will go on to make a short film each week of the show. As the weeks progress, viewers will vote on which films were the best. And the filmmaker with the least votes is eliminated.
The site features submissions from potential entrants for the show. I have entered a submission. This is where you guys come in. If you feel so compelled, I would appreciate it if you fine people of the AGS world would write a shining review (or bad one, if so inclined) for my entry. *allegedly* The more reviews and high ratings I get, the better my chances of becoming a contestant on the show. But that could be totally false.
This is pretty huge! I think Mods entered aswell, but I don't know if his video is featured on the site.
Anyway, big thanks to anyone who helps me out. To the others... Well, you won't be getting a Christmas card this year that's for sure.
And here's the big shiny link: http://films.thelot.com/films/11132
I'd like to help a brother out but I have to help my brother out.
He's also entered the same competition
LET THE BATTLE COMMENCE!
I WILL DESTROY YOUR BROTHER!!!
It's interesting.
So...I just click on where it says "Report Film" right? That way it will report it straight to Fox as being #1?
I think I shall watch the two movies first to compare, before casting any votes...Eric's brother...or LGM? Eric's brother...or....LGM. Who shall earn my invaluable sympathies?
Or I shall just have a pretzel instead.
Where IS your brother's movie Eric?
QuoteThe more reviews and high ratings I get, the better my chances of becoming a contestant on the show.
Are you sure this is true? I think it's a false pretence. You know my position and all my reviews were bad. Also, the website says not to go about boasting, it could decrease your chances. Still, best of luck to you dude :)
if you read through the whole site you will see that the ratings on the site dont count. there are also submissions which are not showing up on the site for whatever reason. the site is a repository for indi films and not all of those films are actual submissions.
Well, the contract says ratings MAY come into the account. But yea, I'm trying to be modest about this. I guess I morely wanted people to watch it than anything.
Isn't this classed as SPAM? I don't see the diference between this and posting a link to Kings of Chaos.
It could seem like it, but I know three people involved in this On The Lot thing so far. Me, LGM, and another guy. So that makes it very much less spam!!
Even if it were just lgm, it's still an AGSer making something of himself and sharing it with us, and asking us to help him out. I see no difference between this and, for example, Dave Gilbert's post about Wadjet Eye Games' recent nomination, or Kandyman's post about his MySpace. Or my upcoming post about how a small online game production company wants to sell Alpha-X.
lgm, remember me when you make it big time. My dream was always to work in films, but my family sent me to a friggin' seminary instead >:(
However Klytos, the post before this one can be considered spam.
;)
Quote from: m0ds on Thu 22/02/2007 03:57:50
However Klytos, the post before this one can be considered spam.
;)
...And proud of it...
Well it was going well up until the point where you said "sell"
:)
Huh. LGM, I think that you should make a 1920-s gangster movie. Starring... yourself. You have so natural mafioso look that I can't stop thinking about that and imaging you with a fat cigar in your mouth corner :D
Even better, since trailer featured quite boring musical background, team up with Nikolas and have some hardcore orchestral pieces for bg.
As for the trailery thing... well, though I clearly see (successful!) attempt at making it look like "real thing" and professional, like angles and shot composition, the trailery thing, which usually show highlights of the movie, shows... nothing. If that's what should agitate me into seeing the full thing, it failed. No good jokes, no shocking moments, no special effects or anything special at all. Feels somewhat a waste of hard work.
Even if I wanted to, I just can't review few shots of people playing ping pong and weird girl hitting on some freaked-out guy. Nothing happened. There's nothing to crit. I'm sorry.
To make any breakthrough with short movies, either make them extremely funny, shocking or original.
To survive through week thing, I would make either make artsy Tarantino-style movies about same thing. For example, take some people, and make a film of each one's day, introducing their different personalities and viewpoints, and events collide, since people know each other and day is same. That would rock. It's used much, though.
Another (rather cheap) way would be short movies based on funny stories, even longer anecdotes.
And there's always a way to make something interesting by undressing some ugly social problem and making a fiction-documentary around it.
I don't know any other ways to achieve popularity with no/low-budget filmmaking.
Of course, I haven't seen any other competitors work.
And naturally, brother needed some help, not a rant.
Hehe thanks your your suggestion, InCreator.. Some cool things to consider.. But I guess I'm not in it for the popularity. I just want a career I can enjoy doing, not fame.
Anyway, you make some valid points. Thanks for being honest.
As for my on the lot submission... Well. I wasn't trying to WOW anyone. I wanted to include scenes that struck me as well directed. And as for the tongue scene, I regret putting it in over a different car scene which is actually much better as far as direction and acting goes.
Oh well, live and learn. Like I said, I'm not in this for instant fame and money. I do what I enjoy. Though it'd be nice to get noticed, my real goal is to just make movies for a living.
I'm aiming my next project to something more "exciting" and "shocking." It'll be a type of horror movie, with some comedic elements ala Evil Dead II.. At least, that's what I'm aiming for... We'll see if I can actually pull it off. Wish me luck!
LGM, I'm glad you didn't fall for said rhetoric and gave a very good reason for what you do - not fame or shock value, but rather honest and enjoyable film-making. Originality is a good thing, but I disagree about shock value or comedic effect. Do what interests you and hope it appeals to other people. For Lordi's sake, don't ever try to fake it!
Forget Hollywood! Great filmmakers have always been picked off for their originality and style. Jarmusch doesn't use special effects, shock value, etc., and the plots in his movies are rarely mind-blowing novelties. In turn, he often uses an old common setting and instills his own touch into it. For example, what is Down By Law essentially? It's a story of three men escaping from jail and parting ways afterwards. That's it, nothing else really happens. But because of the mood Jarmusch is able to create, it becomes a masterpiece.
It's the same thing with other greats like Almodovar, Lynch, Kaurismäki :), etc. And they use their own ways to such effect that their works start to get definitions or trademarks of their own, such as Lynch's slowcam, Kaurismäki's never-ending apathetic gloominess or Jarmuschian less-words-more-atmosphere comedy. So, I guess I'm saying, be original, but don't be a novelty act. Do your own stuff and if some people like it, that's great. If some people don't, that's great, too.
So anyhow, to the work itself. I think it looks great. There are some parts that are a bit lacking, some even a bit dreary in my view, but it's mostly really good. Good actors are difficult to find, so I'll only comment on the film-making. I'll try to do this as thorougly as possible.
1st scene:
The opening shot is a pretty nice one. An opening angle like this with narration may have become a little standard in the indie domain, but yours works well. Although the narration isn't the best and lacks a certain rhythm (totally understandable with amateur actors), the scene does set the mood quite well. I don't particularly like the flash-to-title, but I guess it shows originality (the flash overlapping the letterbox may be a big-ass problem, though). I would've done a standard indie move and gone with splashing the title right next to the dude in the opening scene. The shot with the car pulling in and the ping pong table in the back are good, but the people-walking shot is my least favorite of the whole video. But for fairness' sake, I don't really know how I would've done it myself. The montage of the games is great and it really fits in. There could've been a little more stability with the lighting, though. The first shots were quite dark and it bothered me that it quickly shifted into kind of home-made lighting with the air hockey.
2nd scene:
Well, the ping pong scene as a whole is marvellous. The stretching shots are a bit drawn-out, and it seems like the actor is over-acting a little. He is pretty funny and that kind of weirdo character suits him, but it becomes a little YouTuby (yes, I coined the word) at parts. Also, the sounds seem muffled, especially when the girl whispers something to the lead actor. The ping pong playing shots are my favorite, especially the feet shots (perfect timing to perfectly fitting music). The shots of the players work well, especially the shot with the red-shirted guy (the other is again overacted a tad). The eye shots are very good, but the girl's eye movement bothers me :D. The body shots seem a little like filling for some reason. I guess I wouldn't have gone to as close of a zoom in as you did. The scene ends awesomely, too.
3rd scene:
Personally, I would've cut this scene from the film :(. When I first saw this on YouTube, the whole scene was just disturbing. First I thought the girl was retarded, but I soon started listening to the narration :D. But that's a null point, since the disturbing feeling that I got was actually not from an actress trying to play retarded (as I thought when I first saw it). The whole scene just felt very infantile for me. Here's this girl with a genetic condition and she's being rejected by a very weirded-out character. The desperation itself is already a bit off-putting. The reaction from the lead actor was disgust and felt a bit violent, which totally makes him look like a jerk. The narration also struck me. "People still tease me about Slow Jane. And I wonder sometimes where she is, but even if I knew, I wouldn't be able to do anything about it." The actor is presumably an adult - why would he be concerned about people teasing him and what the hell would he want to do about 'it'? If there isn't some kind of premise for the scene where the girl has completely embarrassed the guy at the dance, this scene has no point. That said, the camera cuts here were handled very well.
Now I don't want to be a bleeding heart about the whole thing, and I don't think I'm being one. I understand it's a comedic scene, but why exactly is it supposed to be funny? I'm just saying that the audience's reactions to it might be very negative, and it may stain the rest of your film. From that small 5-min clip, it already felt like it was jarring the whole atmosphere established in the ping pong and the opening scenes. If it is at all possible, I'd consider cutting the whole scene.
Misc:
The music was great and it fit really well. Nice job on securing someone to do an original score for you. The ping pong scene (especially the feet shots) were greatly enhanced by the music. One thing that struck me with the filming was the jittering of the camera. Don't you have camera stands or is this just stylistic? It adds a certain roughness, but when you have some scenes completely still and others slightly jittering, it doesn't do well. For example, in the opening shot the camera seems to jitter a bit too much.
I'd also love to go to film school and get to do some real projects. It's always been fantasy for me, until recently when I realized that it might not be as absurd as I thought. In Finland, there's basically only one school that teaches film-directing, which has three branches around the country. Each branch takes only 3 pupils per year, so it's basically impossible to get in. The entrance examinations are pretty crazy as well. After preliminary cv's, portfolios, earlier work, written concepts and entrance exercises have been submitted, there are some 3-4 stages of eliminations to go through, if you are invited to join them. Each stage eliminates half of the entrees, so that only 3 are left (24->12->6->3). It basically takes like 6 months from your schedule. Also, a policy of their's is that they won't take in very young people. People usually get in when they're around 23-24 years old. A friend of mine got within the 12 best entrees, but in one of the interviews they bluntly said that he was too young to be taken in (he was 19 at the time).
So, my dream would be to go abroad to study film-directing, perhaps to the UK, Canada, Australia or the US. But at least for colleges in the US, I'd have to conjur up immense amounts of money to get in. It'd take me 10-15 years to come up with the cash :D.
Thank you Ildu for your extensive post :) It's great hearing brutal honesty for once.
Please, allow me to retort:
Okay, I TOTALLY get what you are saying with Sloe Jane. And you may be right. But here is why I leave it in: it ISN'T funny. It's embarrassing. It was my final ploy to drive in the fact that the narrator cannot simply handle interactions with people. To give her an oversized tongue was Phil's doing. And in the story it's just a passing comment. But I wanted to flesh it out because I thought it would be quite fitting for film. I think, in the entirety of the whole film, it fits just fine and I wouldn't dream of removing it, but I completely understand what you are saying. Never saw it that way, but now I do. We'll see how it rolls with others.
If you purchase the DVD Phil covers that scene and others quite nicely. I suggest you have a listen. :)
As for the shakiness... Yea.. I had no dolly or steadicam equipment. Just my sturdy hand and a tripod. I've always been concerned that the film felt too stiff because of all the still shots. But nothing I can do about it now. Overall I think it's not too noticeable.. But again, thank you for your honesty. These are things I am forever toiling with.
Quote from: [lgm] on Fri 23/02/2007 19:55:23Thank you Ildu for your extensive post :) It's great hearing brutal honesty for once.
Well, I was hesitant at first, but after seeing you respond to InC's comments, I felt you'd be able to handleÃ, it :D.
Quote from: [lgm] on Fri 23/02/2007 19:55:23Okay, I TOTALLY get what you are saying with Sloe Jane. And you may be right. But here is why I leave it in: it ISN'T funny. It's embarrassing. It was my final ploy to drive in the fact that the narrator cannot simply handle interactions with people. To give her an oversized tongue was Phil's doing. And in the story it's just a passing comment. But I wanted to flesh it out because I thought it would be quite fitting for film. I think, in the entirety of the whole film, it fits just fine and I wouldn't dream of removing it, but I completely understand what you are saying. Never saw it that way, but now I do. We'll see how it rolls with others.
Yeah, of course I haven't seen the full film (yet) so I don't really know the premise to that scene. I'm looking forward to seeing how it fits in with the other scenes.
Quote from: [lgm] on Fri 23/02/2007 19:55:23As for the shakiness... Yea.. I had no dolly or steadicam equipment. Just my sturdy hand and a tripod. I've always been concerned that the film felt too stiff because of all the still shots. But nothing I can do about it now. Overall I think it's not too noticeable.. But again, thank you for your honesty. These are things I am forever toiling with.
As I mentioned, the jittering can be a positive thing, but it needs some consistency with the other scenes. In the opening shot, it does feel like it's done on purpose, but it also makes me note and reference it for upcoming shots :). I don't think it's really a problem at this stage. But there were some clear mistakes (albeit only one or two) that should not have made it through. For example, in my favorite shot, the shoeless ping pong footwork scene, the camera shifts a bit in the end of the shot. I'm probably nitpicking, but that's how I usually am :D.
And yes, I'm definately gonna buy the DVD.
Yea the shakiness bugs me. And you aren't nitpicking, that jerk of the camera was a flub but I couldn't afford to give up that shot.
http://filmmaking.stormforcepictures.com/
Partway down the page, you'll find a how-to section that tells you how to make a camera dolly and a steadicam setup. I can't vouch for the dolly, but I've built the steadicam for my own stuff and it's fairly easy and inexpensive.
Now, remember me when you become famous!!!
I've made that steadicam, actaully. But the camera I used was too heavy to be supported by it. Course now there's a bit about putting a block of wood for the heavier cames, so thanks. There are some other links on that site I'll be checking out, too. I'll certainly remember you ;)
QuoteOriginality is a good thing, but I disagree about shock value or comedic effect.
I think it isn't a must, but it's easiest way to make an interesting film. Only movies without any recognizable drama and which aren't documentaries neither I could think of, are art films. Like video art. Don't know if there's better word for it... Have you visited an art museum or exhibition and seen those artists who make extremely weird movies, and offer them as art? I have seen alot of those. And if film has usually content that has absolutely no point. Like a movie of man eating cereal. For two hours! That's it, just eating. Credits, fin. Or ice skating, while entirely nude (the one I saw last time, lol/eck!). I somewhat don't think that this kind of film was what lgm went for. And besides art, I can't think of a reason to make film which simply isn't interesting. Doesn't offer a story, situation or problem. I can't say that this was the case with lgm, I'm just explaining my point. But it doesn't have to be that complex. Your own example...
QuoteFor example, what is Down By Law essentially? It's a story of three men escaping from jail and parting ways afterwards.
Men escaping jail! Criminals having a party after commiting another crime! A crime that has been one of the hardest one to pull in the world!
The theme itself sounds interesting already, doesn't it? So, who cares how interesting the movie actually was? I, as most of normal people, will never be in jail, never commit a crime to be sent into one, and never escape. So, it's interesting for me to watch this. Even though it's acted.
But also just for example, I can buy a pingpong table and play in my cellar. Seeing others doing this doesn't add much to my life and doesn't spend the time valuably while watching this. So, seeing this in a trailer leaves me cold. Of course, I haven't seen other scenes from film, and I'm sure that they could be much more interesting. Hm. I'm having this urge to actually see the whole thing after all this talk over a 5-minute clip. Buy DVD? Where? How?
Shakiness...
...was most annoying in starting scenes, like near car and when people prepared for game. Not much elsewhere.
Shakiness is good when used in right places. Have you seen "The Shield" (2002) TV-Series? It's full of shaking! Everywhere. But then again, it's used with action, and I can't imagine a scene of police rushing criminal hideout with steady and nice camera.
Yea Inc... You probably should watch the whole thing. The DVD should be out by next month. It all depends on when I get the color corrected version back.