Actually I thought the cop thriller would be less money to shoot cause aside from the police station looking building, the rest of takes place in houses, cabins, parks, places like that, so I thought those kind of places would be more accessible, unless I am wrong?

But people I have worked with before, so far do not want to do that one and keep encouraging me to do the Santa Claus one I mentioned before, but I thought that one would be more difficult to do than the cop one.

Having seen Saskatoon recently on TV programme, it's a rather pretty place, although i suppose there may be a dark underbelly side of town somewhere. Perhaps there's a Blue Velvet side to it, but on the surface it's not NY or LA.

Maybe the Santa Claus script is a better story? Perhaps you understand its world better than dealing with cops and dark characters.

Oh actually I felt I understood the cop world better at least in terms of plot. The Santa one, I feel I do not have near as much of a grasp on, but they want me to do it cause they said it's the best one I have access to so far. I wouldn't say the Santa one is a better story, just very different. But the Santa Claus one I find to be more challenging and intimidating cause it requires more lavish sets and production design, and would rather just do a script I can shoot at more real locations.

A.s for whether Saskatoon has a dark underbelly to it or not, well I wasn't planning on setting the script in Saskatoon though.

We’re just pointing out things that didn’t work and why they didn’t work. It’s your job to understand the mistakes, what lead to them, and how not to repeat them in your next project.

The plot is only how you tell the story, it's not the story. If that's all you know it probably has unconvincing characters within an unconvincing world. Do you know real criminals or inside the world of real police?

Saskatoon has to look and feel like the place where this story could happen, even if it's supposed to be another city.

Well I watch a lot of crime thrillers and read them so I feel I would do better in the genre that I like and watch more compared to the Santa one which I hardly ever watching anything, if that means anything?

I thought for the cop thriller, I would set it in a nameless city that is not identified, like some movies like Seven do, and thought that would be best.

The only project I’ve ever seen from you that was decent was an interview with musicians. We repeatedly keep telling you not to try to make feature films. Stick to simple small scale projects like interviews or maybe vlog or youtube channel until you achieve some level of professional success.

Watching crime thrillers isn't the same as knowing the real people, you're second or third generation from the originals.

Saskatoon looks nothing like the unnamed city in Seven, although I understand it was based on NYC, where the writer lived for a while.

Oh yeah, I'm not saying Saskatoon has to look like the city in Seven does it? It's not a rule that a nameless city in a crime thriller, has to look like that one, does it? I was just using Seven as an example of how it's set in a nameless city, and thought I would do the same. I've interviewed police officers and attorneys for it, if that helps.

What police and attorneys say in interviews can be very different to what happens in real life, together with the office politics and egos that come with the job.

Sure, but I probably should still go by what they gave me in the interviews, and listen to that though, shouldn't I?

You can listen to it, but you'll need more depth if you're making a serious film.

I've met a number of terrorists and police, but I would need to do a lot more research if I was going to make something that was going to be original and capture attention.

I’m sorry you cant just fling “Ive met a number of terrorists” out there without giving us more detail. Its downright cruel.

Oh I just said I researched by interviewing police and lawyers. How is that cruel?

I’m pretty sure these interviews wouldn’t be that helpful. You think if he interviewed wine makers or sommeliers it would have improved his time movie. It doesn’t hurt to have a general understanding but how many thrillers get deeply involved in the inner workings of the criminal legal system. Ryan has trouble writing plausible plots, premises, characters, dialogue...

That was for Brian.

That was for Brian.
It’s alright. I mean were all on the same page. Basically Ryan doesn’t write believable characters but I think it goes beyond a lack of knowledge. I can see him turning a sensible thing such as research on it’s head and hamstring himself with a bunch of rules that in the end impede him.

I can already hear him saying “I was told...”

Oh well I just do the best I can and write the best story I can, and try to do the best job.

Ha! I know exactly what Brian's talking about and spent quite a while with somebody who later on I discovered had a considerable 'history', in probably a similar location. I suspect an interview would have taught me nothing useful whatsoever.

Talking to people does not tell you how they think. Doing interviews can be interesting and totally distanced from reality. I knew someone very well for many years and discovered after maybe 10 years that what they actually did in their job was very different from the face they presented to the public, family and friends. I was totally shocked when they showed me some of the things they'd done. First thing you learn with actors, is that they can switch on their 'interview personality' instantly. Police officers are the same - they're very unlikely to immortalise the nitty gritty on camera.

What I don't understand is that Ryan seems to understand the restriction his budget puts onto projects, but still tries to do them - by getting the characters to talk uncharacteristically to tell the story in words - just like people don't talk in real life.

I thought I knew how prisoners were in jail - I'd seen the TV dramas, until I had to go into a jail for a job and found out my public view was nothing like reality. It scared the hell out of me!

That was for Brian.

If you've shot TV programmer over the years you will have met players on both sides of the conflict here. I even was a DP on a short drama directed by a convicted IRA man, on a personal basis I found him friendly and we got on. However, there are others who you won't want to meet in a dark alley.

cool,thanks

What if Ryan hired real criminals and policemen? All he would need to do is yell “ACTION” and they would do whatever came natural. Then he could concentrate on getting the needed compression.

Well in terms of how the people I interviewed think, I am not using them in a movie, I am using fictional characters, so do the characters have to be that much like them therefore?

In fiction characters are usually based on a mix of people you know in reality, they just don't pop out of thin air.

Oh okay, I'd say it's a mix of some of real people's characteristics, mixed with fictional characteristics. But if I base the characters completely on people I know, they would be boring and uninteresting, so I have add fictional elements as well.

Why are you basing characters around people who are boring and uninteresting? It's not a great starting point.

No I was saying if I were to use ALL characteristics of real people it would be boring an interesting. For example, since my script has vigilante characters in, I don't know any real life ones personally. So I have to fictionalize that aspect of the characters and cannot base it on anyone I know personally.

There must be something about the originals that would allow them to become vigilantes in certain circumstances.

Yes there is one person I know who is very angry for similar reasons to my villain and I did base the villains characteristics based on him. But I couldn't base the vigilante aspects on him of course though.

I wasn't asking about him.

Ryan - surely you have imagination? I can think of a few of my real friends and loads of facebook friends who could easily become vigilantes, and I think I could find almost any type of person, even extreme ones who with a little imagination could be used as real baddies quite easily.

Every time I have to conjure characters I always use people I know slightly or well. It's much easier to have a good start on characterisation.

Well I could see a couple of people I know becoming vigilantes but they would do very different things than my villains would do so some parts still have to be fictionalized I figure.

But I think you also have to be careful with using people you know because, I don't want to copy other personality traits that are not as original, and not from my own imagination either, do I?

Usually writers use composites, rather than direct lifts of people they know, They combine a number of people into one character. The story is going to be what defines the characters, it's what they do that reveals their character.

They noticed that many of the Nazis were very ordinary people, nothing that shouted out monster when you saw them.

Oh okay. I've based three of the main characters off of actors I worked with before cause I saw them playing them. Even if they are not interested now, I still based three off of them as an example. But the script has quite a few characters in and I cannot associate enough people for those characters, or at least I don't think I could.

I have a question about the short film I posted before. Before it was said on here that I shouldn't have broken the 180 degree rule, which I broke at 2:49 into the clip:

YouTube

However, I watched the movie Parasite and that movie broke the 180 degree the same way. It cut back and forth between two OTS shots of two characters. One of the shots was on the other side of the line than the other, yet it kept cutting back and forth between the two, breaking the two constantly.

I do not have access to the clip as I am not allowed to upload it to youtube but it's the scene where the fake art therapist is having a conversation with the boy's Mother, at the dinner table about the boy's traumatic incident. Why did they break the 180 degree rule there, in which it was okay?

The problem with that cut is the stick being held up in the closer shot while in the wider shot it's down, The lighting doesn't match either, the woman is more or less facing the right direction.

Oh okay, so it's not that I am breaking the 180 degree rule, that's the problem, but the stick and lighting continuity?

The problem with that cut is the stick being held up in the closer shot while in the wider shot it's down, The lighting doesn't match either, the woman is more or less facing the right direction.
I've mentioned this before and have seen this in other scenes of his movie.
There are a number things that don’t feel right about that scene. It’s probably do to a cramped location but I don’t like the framing or shot selection. The lighting/exposure is off between the two angles, makes it feel like it’s not the same scene. ....
It looks like he is setting up lights on one side then when he changes the camera to the opposite angle (in this case her) he's not moving the lights or lighting in her direction.

What's funny there are all these glaring defects and all Ryan can think about is the 180 rule. Hilarious!

Oh the reason I was thinking of the rule, is because it's my job to decide whether to break it in the storyboards, where as I leave the lighting up to the DP. But I can definitely try to keep a closer eye on the lighting from now on.

Based on your questions, despite obsessing over the 180 rule, you don’t understand it.

Yeah, as others pointed out, there are numerous other issues, but I am not seeing a line cross/180 rule broken.

IN the wider shot screen direction for both characters is same as tighter shot, hence no line cross. If line was crossed he would be looking at least a little left and she right. AS it is they are still both facing the same way between the two shots.

Oh okay, it's just the 180 degree rule was brought up, not only on here, but with other viewers as well. But if it's not a problem, then it's not..

As for the cane continuity, to me this seems odd cause you actually see him lower the cane, before it cuts to the shot in front of him where he has it lowered. He lowers it in the previous shot, so I thought it matched unless I am missing something?

For the lighting, so far in my experience, when I am going to switch camera angles, the DP always wants to change the lighting in between shots. If I were to shoot with multiple cameras, do you think that would cause the DP not to change lighting cause he can only light a scene once therefore, and all the shots will then match, lighting wise?

The DP may wish to change the lighting, but they also need to be aware of maintaining lighting continuity. This is also a good reason to start filming with the wider shots, rather than the closer ones.

If they can't keep the lighting continuity.get another DP, it's a key part of the job.

If the man lowers the cane, it won't be up at chest level in the next shot. I not sure how this could be something that could be missed.

Regarding the girl's eye line, she wasn't looking directly at him in the previous shot, It would work better if she either looked directly at him before the cut or just after the cut, which would depend on the dramatics of the scene. This doesn't affect the 180 rule that you don't seem to understand, since it's a two shot and you're remaining on the same side of the line in the spacial relationship between the two characters. That is he stays on the left and she on the right in both shots.

Ryan - you MUST remember why rules get created. They are a response to problems. They fix things that people totally unaware of process, notice - often subconciously. Your continuity needs your attention. DPs and lighting people in general are very aware of shadows. Very often they are the only thing that gives clues. The light provides illumination, the shadows provide direction. If you break the 180 rule for effect, then it can work fine, we know that. However, if the lighting changes so that the subliminal direction and height also changes in the wrong way, this adds to the confusion.

I fail to understand your thinking. Surely you grasp these very basic concepts? You must accept that to make rules work, you need a good understanding of it's purpose. Knowing a rule and following it ignoring consequences is how wars get lost - documented in history. Stop your habit of using prior rule breaking to bolster your accidental, not planned versions. Just because it was done in one movie doesn't mean you have the ability to do the same.

Oh okay thanks. Yes I don't want to do it accidentally. It's just that for my current project that I am storyboarding, there are times where I am tempted to break it, to show different perspectives of things, but want to know when it works and when it doesn't, so I know that I am not going to far with it.

I wouldn't try doing that, since you don't seem be comfortable about the 180 rule in the first place.

This has been much discussed in another thread, including when breaking is dramatically effective and that doesn't mean just showing a new perspective.

Getting the basics right would be a good start.

Okay thanks, but that is why I ask questions about it and want to learn more about it. I see other movies break it and wonder when it can work and when it cannot since there are shots where I want to, but not sure if it's acceptable or not.

The movie High and Low does it to show new perspectives, and recently saw it broken in Parasite, so that makes me want to learn more about it...

Sorry, given what you seem to have been missing in the simple scene we've just been discussing, you still can't do the basics. You're trying to run before you can even walk.

Note that quite a few of the crossing the line shots in major feature films are mistakes or trying to solve another problem, but the only way out is to cross the line. For example, they have to shorten s scene.

Ryan - perhaps it would be best to try and go out and shoot a few things where you do, and don't cross the line - then review what you shot. Simple things - shoot some traffic footage, or kids playing in the park, or skateboarders on a proper site, or dancers - or anything really where people move. Then see which jump on you, and which work. Don;t even think about 180 degrees just direction of travel and where they're facing. The snag here is we all instinctively know when a shot works, or doesn't. We can even predict before we shoot with some certainty, but you seem to lack something here.

Oh okay, well I have shot a lot of the things over the years and I go out and shoot a lot. When it comes to the 180 degree rule, I almost never got confused when it's broken, so I don't care if it's broken. I feel that the camera should be placed in the best spot for emotional perspective at that time, regardless if it's crossing the line or not, cause whenever I see it in movies, I am never confused.

The only time it's confusing is on CU shots of subjects, cause then they look like they are looking in the same direction. But if it's an OTS shot or a master shot, crossing the line, I never get confused, so I figured why would other people, if I can follow along? Is that the wrong way of looking at the 180 degree rule?